Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:37:19 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.%StopSpammers%net>
|
Viewed:
|
3469 times
|
| |
|
|
Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> Steve Baker wrote:
>
> > ANYONE can have NQC for zero cost!
>
> But it won't necessarily get perceived that way...
So - let's write a two paragraph eMail to all FLL participants that says
"By the way, NQC is a tool for writing RCX software - it's utterly free
and available by clicking this link on the Lego web site to get to the
NQC homepage. Some people find NQC better for their more advanced
students - let your kids choose it if they prefer."
Done - no more misperceptions.
> ...it would be perceived that NQC is a tool for advanced users, and that
> it may offer advantages that the regular LEGO tools don't.
I agree - it does. And 'advanced users' should be just as able to
stretch their minds and technical abilities. There isn't a rule that
says that the stupid kids have to be allowed a chance whilst the smart
kids have to build with one hand tied behind their backs.
> Available for zero financial cost
> doesn't necessarily mean equally available to everyone.
Yes it does!
It's available to everyone. The only limitation is whether they have
the interest and ability to use it - and if they don't, that's their
problem...just as failing to understand how a worm gear can only be
driven one way is a problem or failure to realise the importance of
torque versus speed in a gearbox is a problem.
> People who
> don't use it may not use it because they don't have the technical
> skills, and may not even have the wherewithall to realize that their
> lack of technical skills is _why_ they can't use it...
It's called EDUCATION - you might try it sometime. FLL's mission is
to help educate children - and if you simply shut off things because
some child might have to learn something then you might as well not
bother with the competition in the first place. If all children have
to posess all of the needed skills at the outset then the entire
competition is pointless.
> ...they just
> perceive NQC as an advanced tool that could potentially offer them some
> advantage if they understood how to use it (and they may perceive their
> lack of not understanding how to use it as a result of LEGO themselves
> not distributing the product).
Oh - that is *SO* bogus. "If Lego don't sell it - then it must be too
difficult".
Even if that were true, the premise that because something is a little
tricky, it should be BANNED is a stupid one. How about this position:
We must immediately ban the use of differential gearboxes because
most of the kids I work with don't understand them. They give an
unfair advantage to those who do. Yes, admittedly those Lego parts
ARE available to everyone for $0 because they come in the standard
kit of parts - but those without the skills to use them are at a
terrible disadvantage.
Of course you and I know that the concept of a diffential gearbox isn't
really all that difficult - but it's the PERCEPTION of difficulty that
is the problem - right?
In fact, let's make FLL just award points for the most nicely decorated
robot and forget all this complicated technical stuff. That way, all
kids have an equal chance of winning.
Honestly - that is your position in a nutshell!
> I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying how it can be perceived.
Isn't changing incorrect perceptions an important part of education?
> Maybe it is bloody unfair, but hey... so's life. Some 300,000 people
> drowned just over two months ago after one of the worst natural
> disasters in recent history. Really, this is nothing.
That was something that the world couldn't change - this is. If we abandon
the small battles because we can't win the war - then loss is inevitable.
Let's start by solving some of the easier problems and leave tsunami-prevention
until we have those god-like powers.
---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkEmail: <sjbaker@link.com>
HomePage : http://www.sjbaker.org
Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net
http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS d-- s:+ a+ C++++$ UL+++$ P--- L++++$ E--- W+++ N o+ K? w--- !O M-
V-- PS++ PE- Y-- PGP-- t+ 5 X R+++ tv b++ DI++ D G+ e++ h--(-) r+++ y++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| (...) But it won't necessarily get perceived that way... it would be perceived that NQC is a tool for advanced users, and that it may offer advantages that the regular LEGO tools don't. Available for zero financial cost doesn't necessarily mean (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
114 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
