🚀 go-pugleaf

A tad bit more on the subject. I've enjoyed the postings, and I especially 
like those which present the concept of understanding what is being done.

I made mention of an invitation I was given to speak on a panel for BARRET 
(something like Bay Area Regional Educational Technology or something).  
I was going to play Devil's Advocate in favor of "programming as computer 
literacy" or "programming as Latin" (quote from a friend's wife).  Since
I have not heard from those guys, let me instead present here one instance 
which causes me concern.

During the release of the film, "Wargames," I happen to read two different 
campus newspaper reviews of the film.  The first was from UCSC, and the 
second from Stanford (I give these names to be truthful, not to slander 
these institutions).  Both made mention of the techniques used by Matt 
Broderick's character to break into different computer systems.  What's 
interesting were the observations of the two reviewers and myself: the 
system cracker used a simple sequential search of all possible telephone 
prefixes: the reviewer from UCSC said just that: sequential search (we 
both saw that), but it surprised me that the Stanford reviewer did not 
see this, and ascribed the generation of phone numbers as technological 
magic (could not understand how it was done).  Frankly, I would fear for 
some who could not see this (are students getting a good education for 
the money paid at SU?).  What kinds of people are being turned out in 
(liberal arts) educational institutions who might be unable to see something 
I saw, and I know lots of little kids could see, but their parents, and 
others can't.  This worries me.

Basically, I am against `apparent' technological "magic."  Literacy is a
requirement for free people, and I hope computers would be minimally
used as agents of evil (oversimplification, but enough).

--eugene miya 					NASA Ames Research Center