Jukka Larja (roskakori2006@gmail.com) on 10/9/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>AM (myname4rwt@jee.male) on 10/9/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>
>> By the way, do you admit a possibility
>> that your understanding can be wrong
>> here as well? Or not?
>
>I've admitted that I can be wrong about anything and even implied that I consider
>anyone who doesn't to be a fool. Would be foolish of me to declare perfect understanding after that.
>
>> One one talks about "the most common
>> Atom bin by number of chips shipped
>> to date" the question "how do you
>> know this?" is quite appropriate.
>> Don't you agree?
>
>That's not the issue. Issue is that when Ungo said he never said he had any hard
>numbers from Intel, you responded with "Really?", like he was lying. That sort of
>responsis aren't rare in your other responsis either.

Read:
>Do I have exact sales figures? No, and I never claimed to, nor did I invent any.

It's just amazing how quickly one can go from claiming which Atom bin sold most chips to denying it.

>Great. You dragged me in again.
>
>> Until these issues are resolved,
>> I'll refrain from further
>> discussion except for a small
>> part:
>>
>> "By the way, how should someone
>> without good understanding be
>> able to compile collection of
>> good sources?
>>...
>> I think it's very sad if all a
>> professor can do is compile a
>> collection of source material,
>> since he's suppose to be an
>> expert on at least some part
>> of the course."
>>
>> This alone shows that you
>> apparently have very little
>> idea of what I'm saying (or
>> just playing a fool).
>> There's a huge gap in
>> educational value between
>> various sources; something
>> relevant can be compiled by
>> just about anyone, even
>> students, while the art of
>> making a good reading list is
>> to provide complete, in-depth
>> coverage of state of the art
>> in given field with minimum
>> amount of reading.
>>
>> It can only be accomplished
>> if one is a real expert, PhD
>> or professorship is a poor
>> help. I think I made it clear
>> that this is the best thing a
>> professor can do *if* capable
>> of doing so. If you miss such
>> key parts, I suggest you
>> should pay more attention to
>> your own understanding rather
>> than rant about how others
>> tend to misunderstand.
>
>What I don't understand, is relevancy of this to whether or not there should be
>lectures or excercises. I said that I think there should be good sources no matter
>what other methods of teaching are used.

You constantly fail to see the big picture and do relatively simple reasoning on your own. Think: compared to good sources written by the best minds, what a lecture by a local professor can possibly add to that? Does he have a better and deeper understanding of the subject than people who did original research or designed a real product? Is he in position to answer questions to which the sources contain no answers?

Don't get me wrong: there *are* people who dedicated themselves to education, and yet their expertise is hardly questioned by anyone (e.g. Don Knuth comes to mind), but such people are few and far between.

>When it comes to expertise, the professors are supposed to be among the greatest
>experts in the world, on their own field of study. Not all (or most) are, of course,
>but that's the idea anyway. So they should be able to bring something special to the table.

"Supposed", yes. *That's* the problem.

>-JLarja

Besides, since you switched from discussing the topic to education, I would like to focus your attention on the following (from my last post before teaching):

If you come to conclusion that someone misunderstands something, then why not start with clarifications, considering that you preach how easy it is to misunderstand? ... Short clarification is something like asking "Do I underst. correctly that ... ?" before joining a thread to say that one of the arguing parties doesn't get anything.
...
Actually, many things you write make me seriously wonder what your real purpose is. You say how easy it's to misunderstand, yet you write in a very-easy-to-misinterpret style; you accuse me of "adding" something to your statements, yet when I bold out what you said (below), you are full of surprize etc. It just doesn't look like you're trying to resolve a misunderstanding or arrive at a meaningful answer to a question that bothers you.
...
Re. those, I'm still trying to figure the meaning you put in. OoOE is nothing special in that it takes extra space, and transistors occupying that space need some power to work; so what do you get if you ask these 3 questions about something else? If you honestly believe that your "big 3" is a meaningful mental exercise re. OoOE or a design feature in general, may I ask to what conclusions does it lead you? Is it supposed to show that the heavier the core, the lower it will clock, b/c any extra feature that consumes power will result in lower clock if power budget is to be kept the same? What exactly is it intended to show? ... Please, do some explanation here in case I fail to see the great academic significance of this exercise.
...
Well, I thought you were a fanboy of theory, so how about we come to some conclusion how his speaking from theoretical standpoint (acc. to you) is connected with real theory?
...
>So, unless you are willing to change your attitude, let's just stop. There's nothing
>I can say that you can't take the wrong way.

Well, you said that I tend to constantly interpret things as I want. You surely meant that my interpretation was wrong, correct? Hence the request to be fact-based.