Oolite Bulletins

I teach Master Level Computing to specialist Military staff who are going into "Simulation" posts within the UK Military (at last count there was only about 30 of these "roles" when you think how many simulations there are within the UK Military).

One of my very first lectures is "Fundamentals of Computing Hardware". I strip down a couple of PCs in front of them into their basic components and hand them around - very few of the students have ever been inside a PC, those who have usually done nothing more than add more memory.

We discuss motherboard layout, socket interconnects, interfaces, speeds and throughputs - while they handle the cpu, memory, graphic cards and mobo.

Questions like: "Ah, so when I bought that <name of latest whizzy Nvidia chipset> to fit into my Pentium 4 <insert name of latest First-Person-Shooter> didn't run any faster because the CPU can't process the data fast enough?" - I like those penny dropping moments.

However, some anecdotes:

One student when asked to "Open Windows Explorer and browse to the Apps directory on the shared P: drive" had a fit because we were using technobabble to make him look stupid (this student would be taking over a multi-million pound simulation system four weeks after this meltdown).

When explaining to a classroom full of students how to move the character around in the MODs desktop Part Task Trainer of choice, VBS2 at the point where I said "...and to make the character look up and down you need to move the mouse up and down..." I watched one of the Majors pick his optical mouse off the mat into the air and put it down again, he repeated this action again when the character on-screen did not change. I now say "slide the mouse forward and backwards" at this point - put it also says to me that this student believes an optical mouse to be magic and has no understanding of how the device actually works. A quick poll of my reasonably computer literate friends indicated the following: 1/3rd new exactly how an optical mouse works, 1/3rd didn't but thought about it and came up with a reasonable and accurate conclusion, 1/3rd didn't care and wouldn't even consider finding out how (and didn't want to know the explanation when offered).

Another student admitted that he had written his BSc dissertation by using the Caps Lock each time he needed a capital letter - his computer hadn't had the word "Shift" on his shift-keys, only a '↑'...

[We do almost no programming at all now - it's just too traumatic for the students - although I did show them "Scratch" and that did get a few of them coming back for more after the lesson.

DaddyHoggy wrote:

One student when asked to "Open Windows Explorer and browse to the Apps directory on the shared P: drive" had a fit because we were using technobabble to make him look stupid (this student would be taking over a multi-million pound simulation system four weeks after this meltdown).

To be fair, I can’t guarantee I could manage that. :-p No meltdown likely, though.

Hmm. I get what he's saying, but there's a difference between not ever having built a car (or computer) and not being able to drive (or use a computer). I don't know how many buses or CPUthings or whatever are in my laptop; I don't know *how* the mouse knows how to move the little arrow on the screen, but dammit I have reinstalled software and rebuilt disks and am as happy in the Finder as I am on the command line and have never had a non-hardware problem I couldn't fix (and the only hardware problem I had had to send the laptop away for was a cracked screen).

Equally, I've never tried to build an engine but I can change an oil filter and a wheel and clean spark plugs and troubleshoot to the extent that I know it's the O2 sensor (but fixing *that* was beyond me... I just went and bought a replacement). I'm also a bloody good driver.

What I'm saying is that there's a difference between engineering competence and technical competence and user competence. Of course knowing that when you push your left foot down it separates the drive plates will probably help you manage your fuel efficiency, but you don't have to be able to replace the clutch. It's enough to know that the clutch is slipping and you should go to a mechanic. I know what RAM is and I know how much I need but I don't actually have to be able to change it. (I do, because I'm a control freak. But that's a different story.)

I believe that there is also a something specific to computers at work here. Because they are so incredibly powerful machines that they boarder on magic they somehow make people behave dumber than those people usually are.

Take for instance the examples (from the article or from any other source, they're abundant) where "the computer is not working" or "the internet is not working" boils down to a plug not being plugged in. The users to whom this happens appear as totally dumbfounded and mystified. What I'm asking myself is: how many of them would be as dumbfounded and mystified if it were another electrical appliance not working? And I'm quite certain that a great majority of them would be perfectly able to correctly fix their "not working" TV set, microwave oven, radio, clothes iron, or coffee machine by simply plugging it in.

What is it about the computer that makes it (and people's reactions to it) so different?

Commander McLane wrote:

What is it about the computer that makes it (and people's reactions to it) so different?

I think partly it's the generally (to the layperson) mysterious nature of a computer. Partly this is due to it being an omnimachine: a TV does one thing; a kettle does one thing; but a computer does a whole raft of different things depending on what software is being run. Partly, too, it's due to the multiplicity of different ways in which things can be accomplished. Even something as basic as cut-and-paste can be performed by a variety of keystrokes, menu selections and right- (or control-) clicks. I often find myself as the tech support member for my family (!), and - especially for the wrinklier members - this variety of methods often seems confusing. I have tried to introduced them to the Cheat Sheet
http://xkcd.com/627/
but no luck so far ...

It's also not helped by, amongst other things, shoddy code. There is a (slightly) famous haiku, a piece of techy humour, that goes

Yesterday it worked,
today it does not;
Windows is like that.

When software performance can seem obscure and arbitrary, even to IT insiders (see also the xkcd flowchart, above), it's hardly surprising that people assume any problem will require something approaching a voodoo ceremony to fix.

I have a piece of software on my home machine. The first time I launch it, it locks up and I have to force quit. The second time I launch it, it locks and I have to force quit. But the third time, it works fine. Always. I just accept this (partly because it only takes a couple of seconds to launch, and lock up). Something is screwy, clearly - but what it is, and how to fix it, I have no clue, beyond just accepting that the first two attempts will fail but that it'll work on number three. I know, on an intellectual level, that this isn't ceremonial magic, but I have to say it does sort of feel like ceremonial magic ...

Disembodied wrote:

I have a piece of software on my home machine. The first time I launch it, it locks up and I have to force quit. The second time I launch it, it locks and I have to force quit. But the third time, it works fine. Always.

<sniggers>

Disembodied wrote:

I have a piece of software on my home machine. The first time I launch it, it locks up and I have to force quit. The second time I launch it, it locks and I have to force quit. But the third time, it works fine. Always.

This happens a lot on my Android smartphone too.

i wonder how many of the people here looking down on the average computer user have driver licenses, but can't even replace a timing belt.

Disembodied wrote:

Partly, too, it's due to the multiplicity of different ways in which things can be accomplished.

Moreover, I think it is due to the multiplicity of reasons a fault can have. Even if your technologically adept neighbor shows you how to fix a situation on your PC, the next time it seems to fail in the same way the fault might be something entirely different.

I'm quite happy with the car analogy myself, but I know how cars work and it's still a hobby for my old car. I was lucky enough that my Dad taught me all the basics.

Homebrew supercharger anyone?



My wife's Passat engine is a total mystery however. I cannot work on it at all. I can't even change a light bulb. It might as well be running on magic and fairydust.

Cheers,

Drew.

I used to do all my own car repairs, but as cars have become more complicated, the tools required to do many of the repairs are prohibitively expensive - I still do the stuff I was taught to do - check tyre pressures, fluids, oil etc. I can change a light bulb on my Astra, but only because I have very long fingers...

Interestingly enough, my wife's 2000 Micra is at Nissan today, because our normal garage's generic diagnostic computer doesn't recognise the error the computer is throwing up - so even the "experts" can be stumped by tech.

Don't start me on cars!
I recently had to re-build the front of the engine (timing cover off plus a fair bit) to get my trusty 33 year-old Capri running prior to my impending house move. Easy compared to changing the side-light bulb on the Mondeo (which I got my local garage to do ).

I do most of my travelling on Shanks's pony ... I did once repair the sole of my boot with a gas stove and a butter knife, though.