Some thoughts on newbie computer kids.

 

I was recently asked a question abut how and why for a script.  It seemed like a good example to attempt to address.

Computers DO NOT think.  I know all you new kids who are trying to be computer geeks, nerds and hackers may think that computers think.  They don't.  You must do the thinking for them.

Too often newbie kids just throw things at a script assuming the computer can figure out what they want.  It can't.  A computer can only do a few very primitive things. Her is the total range of capabilities thata computer can perform by component name:

1. adder
2. rotate/shift/test/jump
3. bus/register multiplxer
4. load from memory
5. store to memory
6. input (most input/output is actually load/store with interrupt)
7. output

You must tell the computer what to do with all of these components.  You must understand how a script causes a computer to perform these tasks.  TO make things easier programming languages are all designed around common elements.  Learning how these elements effect the execution of the program is the key to writing a program (script).

Here is a take at the question:

Why can't I get the largest value from this list with this code?
    
       list=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1
       for each x in list
            largest = x
       next
       print x

Can you see the problem?

The computer is doing exactly what it was asked to do.  It has no idea of largest, smallest or anything.  We must tell it how to do that.

In programming and scripting we must have a good basic knowledge of how a computer works.  We must also know arithmetic, basic math and logic.  If you do not know or are not clear about any of these things then you must take the time to remedy this to be more than a tech who replaces parts by trial an error. Knowing how to navigate a GUI is not a sign of computer knowledge.  You are doing what the GUI designers made simple by writing millions of lines of code to create a GUI.

On the mystery of the numbers that point south.

Inmarsat is a company that provides telephone and data services over an older set of satellites.  I am very familiar with Inmarsat because I established the first Internet link from Antarctica to New York over the southern Inmarsat Satellite.  The one we are looking at for this data.

The technique used by the engineers very basic and is not a trick and does not really need much calculation.  A signal can be measured coming from a moving object.  If the frequency it is transmitting is shifted higher then the object is moving towards the receiver.  If the frequency is lower than that transmitted then the object is moving away from the receiver.  The amount of frequency shift tells us how fast the transmitter is moving away from or to the receiver.

The satellite receiver has a very accurate frequency lock.  It tracks how far off the transmitter is so it can lock to the transmitter and track the signal. The message is transferred to the earth station along with the frequency adjustment data.  This data can easily tell us how fast and how far the transmitter is moving in relation to the receiver.  By calculating these numbers over the repeated contacts with the plane we are able to determine the track of the plane with extremely good accuracy.

What the engineers and data cannot accurately tell us is the exact place the plane went down.  We only know where the plane was on its last transmission.  The plane went down somewhere in the next 30 minutes.  At 400K that would be quite a distance.

What to do! What to think!

 

Analysis

Periodically I run into issues with forums and social webs.  I find that knowing what to do and how to approach these sticky issues is critical to Internet survival

I find that communicating can be difficult especially when nuanced. On the ‘net’ we have no body language or facial expressions to clarify nuanced communiqués. (Maybe video blogs and forums can help).

The human mind and history are designed around verbal and written communication.  With verbal communication over audio media we have the support of inflection and personality in the communication.  In person we have all of the audio enhancements along with visuals; especially facial.  We know from new science that facial expressions are used to disambiguate verbal communication. None of this is available in a web forum or a text based blog or social chat room.

Texting has led to the use of small anagrams and mnemonics that help the texters to clarify and simplify the communication.  This usage is very sub-culture specific and has not become well enough generalized for dense use on classic forums.

In forums and blogs I see that many members can only see a very narrow range of interpretation of a subtly nuanced statement or post.  This can happen easily because of language and culture differences.  That is easy to understand and is one level of challenge to effective communication.  The other thing that seems to color the interpretation is the mood or attitude of the reader.

In a book or a novel a skilled author takes time to set the readers mood and expectations to a state that allows the author to “paint” the picture that they want the reader to see.  Web authors are seldom skilled writers although many blog authors are extremely skilled journalists.  Forum members are also restricted by the shortness of the response and the lack of discipline of the subject matter – this is a common issue because of the public nature of the Internet'.

I could go on with a more lengthy and in-depth analysis but I won’t. I think you can see where I am pointing his.

What to do?

In reaction to the above I am trying to understand how best to write posts in public forums.  I have read through pages of rules and suggestions but they do not do any more than place restrictions and cause posters to become frustrated causing most to just ignore these rules.

It seems that setting a state of mind that can address an audience of highly anonymous readers would be helpful.  Once we have our approach we should be able to write posts that create the least amount of confusion and yet can be other than dry and boring technical drivel.

How to write an interesting -- both to myself and the reader – forum post that is technical, addresses the personality and post of the original post (OP) and does not require extensive decoding because of the non-technical components.

What to think?

I am currently working out how to think when posting.  It seems to me that my state of mind needs to be set so that it factors inmost of what I know about how people react to statements that are terse and without any good social and personal clues.  This is very hard since humor does not translate well across cultural boundaries yet humor is one of the best tone-setters I know of.

Some questions:

1. How to indicate a light attitude?
2. How to show disdain at the purpose of the OP?
3. How to respond to personal attacks?
4. How to aggressively technically disagree with a post?
5. …. more….