Jukka Larja (roskakori2006@gmail.com) on 10/10/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>AM (myname4rwt@jee.male) on 10/10/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>
>>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.
>
>I have re-read that thread and as far as I can see, Ungo never claimed to have
>exact sales figures. Why do you think he did?

Compare 2 sentences:

Ungo: "But if you're looking for the most common Atom bin by number of chips shipped to date, that would be the N270 (2.5W @ 1.60GHz), the backbone of the netbook revolution."

and "I don't have any figures (and haven't seen any), but I think the most common Atom bin by number of chips shipped to date would be the N270".

>> 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?
>
>I think I have already explained this quite well. It helps student get a grip and
>do some studying during longer period of time.

Don't you find it's actually much easier to grasp things at your own pace rather than one set by the lecturer? To me it's a no-brainer that educational value of a lecture can at best approach one provided by good sources (error-free, good coverage of the subject, all students are able to grasp things at their own pace, concentrating on hard parts as long as it takes to understand them etc.). This, in short, is why I really don't understand why you're such a big believer in lectures.

It is also less than clear to me
>that there are some good sources easily available, but we can just agree to disagree
>about that. I don't think it's more than a minor point.

Do you really think that good lecturers are more available than good sources?

>> 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?
>
>A professor is supposed to do research himself. I'm not saying this is very relevant
>on basic courses, but it should at least motivate students more than just giving
>them a book to read. Whether that research is world class or not certainly factors in on more advanced courses.

I think "professor" is usually used to refer to a course instructor rather than someone doing research. Even if he does some research, I don't see why he would do a better job retelling students what he learned from published papers himself than the authors in their manuscript. Or why professor retelling a chapter from the book is better than reading the same chapter at a time when one is best prepared for studies rather than one set by course schedule.

>> 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.
>
>In engineering you are probably right. Large part (perhaps even most part) of research
>is done by or with private companies and independent research by a university is rare.

Not necessarily engineering, even in Finland, I think, major body of leading-edge basic research (one which has scientific significance) is done by institutions like VTT rather than universities. No?

>>> 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.
>
>I think that for most fields, it isn't. And as far as basic courses go, good teaching
>skills are probably more important than top of the world expertise on subject matter.

Well, if by basic courses you mean introductory courses with relatively simple subject matter, then of course it doesn't take to be a real expert to explain something. Something which students can read from a book anyway (or already know it from school or their own experience).

>> 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):
>
>Why are you doing this? You already "won", I "gave up".

Because I would like to understand a few things.

>> 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;
>
>I'm writing in foreign language about very abstract things. If we can change language
>to Finnish, I promise to do a lot better job. That may not be the only problem, but certainly a big one.

It's not about language, to me it looks like you are being unclear on purpose.

>> 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.
>
>You quoted me out of context. You took part of my text talking about the example
>I had set up and presented it as something I generally think is true. I was all
>surprised because I cannot fathom how you still at that point managed to miss the context of the example.

No need to misrepresent. I quoted the context to avoid any additional discussion, but it appears you'd go a long way just for the sake of arguing rather than doing actual clarification.

>So I gave up. It doesn't matter whether I'm doing über bad job at writing or you
>reading. Were obviously not getting anywhere.

Then why not try a different approach? Point out what you think I'm missing from Jouni's or your own posts, and be clear about it.

>> 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?
>
>There's no free lunch and everything affects everything. Although my point was actually to opposite direction.

Of course there's no free lunch. How does it contradict something of what I said to Jouni or to you? Remember, the discussion concerned quite specific aspects: clock rate, pipeline length, if-ex distance and perhaps a few other things I don't recall right now.

>> ... Please, do some explanation
>> here in case I fail to see the
>> great academic significance of
>> this exercise.
>
>I don't know whether you intent to insult here or what, but I don't like you twisting
>and exaggerating what I wrote. I'm quite sure I never said there was _great_ academic significance.

No twisting; you said you think you're a good teacher; you mentioned 1st-year students, so I understand there must be some educational value in your exercise.

>I might have accidentally implied academic significance, although that depends
>on what exactly academic means (for example, is something that may have significance
>on a basic university course considered academic just because it happens in university
>setting?). I'm pretty sure you can find a quotation to prove that.

I use "academic" as a synonim of educational. Does it look better now?

>> 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?
>
>Hmm? I think Jouni (and others) made good points, even if there wasn't practical examples to demonstrate them.
>
>By the way. I think you got that fanboy of theory thing I said wrong. It seems
>that most of the time you use the title I don't quite understand what you want.

To undersand what are you grounds to state that someone "didn't get any of the discussion".

>> 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.
>
>It's not black and white. Interpreting your way is only wrong from the point of
>view that you may interpret differently than what the writer _thought_. If you just
>take the text and forget the thought behind it, there aren't wrong interpretations anymore, just different ones.

OK. Then doesn't it apply to anyone else, including you? Funny question, but if you agree it does, why bring it up?

>-JLarja