Difference between revisions of "Alan Kay Turing Award Lecture (2004)"

Revision as of 06:16, 12 December 2017

Good Afternoon, and welcome to the Association for Computing Machinery's Turing Award Lecture.

The Turing Award is ACM's most prestigious technical award.

If you look at past Turing laureates, it'll read like a Who's Who of computer science.

The Turing award is given out annually to an individual who has contributed, has given contributions of lasting and major technical importance to the field.

And, the Turing Laureate is invited to give a talk on whatever topic they'd like at any ACM conference during the year.

We are privileged to have this year's laureate choose OOPSLA as their venue.

So, without further ado I'd like to introduce Dr. Alan Kay. He's a senior fellow at Hewlett Packard. <subtitle id="0:1:1">He's president of Viewpoints Research Institute.

The Turing award was given to him for pioneering many of the ideas at the root of contemporary object-oriented programming languages, for leading the team that developed Smalltalk, and for fundamental contributions to personal computing.

Let's give a warm OOPSLA welcome

⊕(time: 0:1:47)

Of course, one of the funny things about the larger citation was, it could be also said for coming up and helping to come up with many of the ideas that eventually led to C++ and Java.

It reminded me of Tony Hoare's in his Turing lecture, which was quite a bit about ALGOL. He pointed out that ALGOL is a great improvement, especially on its successors.

About a year ago, I got asked by SIGCSE to come and give a talk here, which happened yesterday, about early experiences in computing, primarily for high school, and to some extent for first year college.

And, I wasn't of course expecting to get this award.

And I had spent a fair amount of time trying to think about the high school and college situation.

Since I had no real experience doing a first course.

And, I certainly didn't like what I found when I went out and read books and the AP stuff and so forth.

But I figured nobody wants to hear anybody complain even if they're telling the truth for an hour.

So what I decided to do was to see if I were going to teach a first course in high school or college what would it be like.

That was the talk I gave yesterday.

And, I wound up thinking that, perhaps, a slightly different version of this would make a reasonable Turing Lecture.

⊕(time: 0:3:53)

Here it is. First I want to start off with a Don quote.

He has lots of them, but this is my favorite one of his.

"Beware of bugys in the above code; I've only proved it correct, not tried it.

This is the perfect antidote to what you might call the academization of the field, which, quite a bit of which, has been an attempt to use classical mathematics to deal with a new mathematics that requires a new math to help describe it.

So what we have is a new field.

I believe a simple statement about our field is that math wins: Basically every time you can do something reasonably mathematical what we're trying to do, we make great advances.

But, it's rare that old math wins.

Because, we have a new way of dealing with things. Our theorems are not short, and they're not about infinite things, which is what classical math is generally about.

The equivalent of our theorems and proofs are very very long things about finite structures.

So we have a different way of doing about, and hence Don's quote, which i think is absolutely perfect.

⊕(time: 0:5:19)

Because our field is the way it is, everything we do is done within a community and nobody has benefited more from their community than I have over the years, and for the stuff I'm going to talk about and show tonight.

A lot of people contributed, especially over the last few weeks, putting together some of these examples.

These are some of the people. Some of them you notice have gray hair.

This guy, I know is here, Dan Ingalls,

who is the actual creator of Smalltalk./subtitle> <subtitle id="0:6:2">I just wrote the math part, and Dan was the guy who actually made it work.

So, we should give him a round of applause.

⊕(time: 0:6:20)

I guess the first thing to think about here is we have these terms: Computer science and software engineering.

I happen to be around when both of these terms were made up

</subtitle>

Al Perlis made up the term computer science absolutely not implying that we had one but as something to actually aspire to.

And, I think he immediately regretted even in the first few years afterwards,because what happened was what some people have sometimes called physics envy.

Basically everybody who dabbles in the sciences wants to be a physicist, because they deal with the absolute foundations of the universe.

They do it with serious math and serious experiments.

Physics envy, science envy is often found when fields wind up having science in their name.

So, library science, social science, computer science.

Interestingly physics, chemistry, and biology don't have science in their name.

I think there can be a science of computing, similar to science of bridge building, and in fact, Simon pointed out in his book called the sciences of the artificialthat you can have a science about artifacts like a science of bridge building.

Build a bridge by any means whatsoever stress it in various ways analyze it come up with a theory of build bridge building build some more bridges and so forth.

In many ways physics has found itself becoming a science of the artificial, because a lot of physics is actually all about the science of building accelerators and detectors,

and trying to figure out just exactly what it is that those needle swings actually mean.

Software engineering actually was a term that came about for a conference like in '68 and garmisch Germany.

Again the people who went to that conference, except for a few, did not think there was anything remotely like a software engineering at that time.

In fact the slide shows kind of a from the depths to something that we might call engineering today of the difference between a pyramid made out of bricks with no architecture.

Just a garbage dump with a nice limestone cover made by slaves: Sounds like something that happens a few miles south of here.

Actually, I can just imagine some veronik architect at some conference, announcing their new pyramid.

On the other side of the scale, we have one of my favorite artifacts: the Empire State Building, which is well documented and I urge every single one of you who has aspirations to be an engineer to read the three or four excellent recent books about the Empire State Building.

One of them is the actual log by the foreman.

Basically, the Empire State Building was constructed from start to finish, that is,

from tearing down the buildings that were there to occupancy in less than 11 months by less than 3,000 people.

The flooring itself went up at the rate of almost two stories a day.

And, the steel was still warm about a hundred degrees warm from the steel mills in Pittsburgh, where it came from.

This is one of the greatest organized projects.

The Starrett brothers who did the Empire State Building knew they were making a statement, because the Depression had just happened.

Everything was set up to do this thing. They had already done a couple of skyscrapers and they had a feeling this might be the last skyscraper for a while.

So they decided to make it an expression of what it meant to be able to make a skyscraper.

It's just the greatest thing.

But, I think if we look at our own field, we cannot find any instance of 3,000 people being put together to something incredible in less than 11 months and have it work.

Whatever it is that we've got in engineering, it might be closer to Egyptian or Babylonian engineering.

Now, somewhere in the middle, things with arches appearing, an actual architecture appeared.

Interesting thing that happened some years before the Gothic cathedrals was the Pantheon in Rome, which has this clear span the dome clear span of fourteen stories.

Made out of the best reinforced concrete ever known but two thousand years ago, that was amazing.

her been in there it looks like it was made yesterday.

I think the best practice that we have right now in our field as far as engineering is a little bit like a Gothic cathedral.

Sometimes our projects take a hundred years but we can aspire to build rather large structures by the standards of the Middle Ages out of much much less material than the Egyptians needed.

So, little progress is being made but I think that whenever we say computer science or software engineering, especially whenever we think we're teaching it, the worst thing we could ever do is to pretend to the students that we know what it is.

Because the students are going to be the only ones that are going to save us.

So, we should teach the students what I was taught when I was in graduate school in the sixties: that is it isn't done yet it's not even close to be done. You have to understand what the actual scope of computing is going to be and you have to help us invent it.

In fact, in those years in the ARPA community, the PhDs were given out for actual advances in the state of the art, as opposed for as opposed to commentaries and small additions to the state of the art.

So it's a very different time back then but it's a lot simpler.

⊕(time: 0:13:35)

I could give a whole talk, maybe not terribly successfully, about motivations.

In the end, everything we do is being subject to other people's interface.

I feel particularly in education, but I thought I'd show a much simpler model than we use, but it's only a two-dimensional model.

And just have us all ponder it for a bit. So, one dimension is in the reasoning and change area is the incredible disparity between the percentage of human beings who are basically instrumental reasoner's,

those who are basically interested in ideas. This has been studied in a variety of different ways.It seems like the normal us,

normal human beings are basically instrumental reasoners.

Isn't an instrumental reasoner as a person who judges any new tool or idea by how well that tular idea contributes to his or her current goal.

so, most of us are very goal-oriented. We're working on things and somebody comes up with something new, and our ability to accept it or reject it, if we're instrumental reasoners, depends on whether we can see it contributing to our current goal.

The other 5% are primarily motivated by ideas. So, when a new idea comes along that appeals to them, they will transform themselves and their goals in the presence of the idea.

Needless to say, the 5% are much easier to teach, particular if you're trying to teach them things that were inventions, rather than things that are built into human beings.

If you're trying to teach something really weird like science, it is not an easy thing because you're dealing with a set of very practical and pragmatic kinds of people.

Now, the other dimension here is between basically about reward:

Inner-motivated vs. outer-motivated.

About 85 percent of us are motivated by things outside of ourselves. About 15 percent are motivated by things inside ourselves.

That's kind of interesting.

What we have here, if we look at this, is we have a kind of an interesting category of people who are intraverted and interested in ideas

I'll leave it for you to figure out who those people are.

An interesting category number two is people who are outer-motivated and interested in ideas.

The people who are inner-motivated and not interested in ideas tend to be dangerous and caused a lot of trouble.

A lot of corporate executives are up in there.

Basically, our field is a field that's the next great 500 year idea after the printing press and so we should all be properly concerned with something quite different,

that is we have to be concerned with how the entire bulk of humanity is going to respond and deal with the things that we do

So it's extremely interesting to consider the 80% here. <subtitle id="0:17:20">That our outer-motivated and basically practical.

And a fair amount is known about this 80 percent.

In the past, I've used the term voting.

⊕(time: 0:17:35)

You know, this group does not go to the polls to vote on the things they believe in.

It takes them a long time to change what they believe in.

But the way they do it is kind of interesting.

It's a kind of a consensus that is gradual.

It's a seeping kind of consensus and it has many of the same characteristics as a model of a forest fire.

I have a little particle system here.

And the percentage of trees - the percentage of clearing here - is just 50/50.

If I say okay, let's see if we can spread the fire throughout the forest here with a 50%.

I didn't initialize that let's try again.

Here's 50%.

So surprising that it doesn't try.

Let's try go up to 60%. Let's say you can think of the 60% as people who are almost ready to agree.

People are essentially there so 10% more it spreads better.

Try another one. Each time the placement is random so you got a slightly different behavior.

Yeah, so that's about what you get. Babe

Rings itself out. If we go up to like 66 percent or so 67, 66.

Yeah. In these contagion models, you can think of this as spreading meames, if you will.

Roughly two-thirds of this 80% has to pretty much be there before you can get them to agree and do something: because they just won't do it unless everybody else is doing it.

This model works really great for even weird things like wearing baseball caps backwards and girls showing their belly buttons.

If you trace the girls showing their belly buttons over the years,you'll see how gradual this change was, until suddenly it was okay.

The thing is, if it's okay now, it was always okay. So, what's the problem.

Well, the problem was that this group generally didn't think it was okay.

It wasn't okay until about two-thirds of them thought it was okay. And then, all of a sudden it became okay.

So you're trying to reform education, or you're trying to get a group of people to understand real object-oriented programming, or any other new kind of thing that comes along, you get this incredible disparity, which in computing, there are many many instances.

Roughly 30-year lags from when an idea was really proved out to when it gets generally accepted.

But nobody knows whether this thirty years actually means anything or not.

But it's interesting to look at the case of UNIX and all of its different adventures over the years and finally being accepted.

Even though it has a basically late '60s architecture, which is better than the architecture of some of the operating systems that are around.

But still, it's a fairly old architecture and so I'm desperately trying to hold on to life until at least 2007 or 2008.

Because some quite a bit of the work at PARC peaked 30 years ago, and I'm curious to see whether those ideas will actually be accepted.

⊕(time: 0:22:05)

However, if you look at an extreme case, Doug Engelbart, who had some of the best ideas ever.

</subtitle>

I think he was on a different plane. His ideas are now getting closer and closer to being 40 years old.

in their articulate expression, and most people still don't understand what it was that he was trying to do.

⊕(time: 0:22:29)

I think an ancillary problem is that our field and people in general take great delight in complexity.

It seems like, you go to schools, it is remarkable how much work they make the poor kids do, when if they taught the math better and differently, the kids would have to do much less work.

But in fact, I think people the light in complexity and think that putting immense amounts of hard work in even if there's an easier way actually.

There's something morally good about it.

I think, for our field, one of the hardest things is the delight of complexity, because of the many levels of structure in computing and the difficulty of going from one level to another.

Pretty much everyone who gets interested in computing and a successfulabout it is a person who has mastered staggering amounts of complexity.

Now, I believe that most of those complexity is absolutely unnecessary, and I believe it can be proved that it's unnecessary.

⊕(time: 0:23:53)

What we really want is to find the joy of simplicity.

A lot of this talk is almost a living cliché, in the sense that very little of what I'm going to say here is stuff that you don't already know.

But, when I started thinking about what should I say at this talk, simplicity just kept on coming back.

All the projects I've been involved in that have been successful have been successful because the people who worked in them put quite a bit of effort into keeping things to be simple.

⊕(time: 0:24:35)

And, this community of ARPA and then Xerox PARC was outstanding at being simple.

This is a very, very confident group of people. <subtitle id="0:24:50">But surprisingly, I won't use the word modest because I don't think anybody would recognize that word applied to these people, but I would say we are very, very respectful of these grand ideas they are trying to do.

Butler Lampson here was always pounding for simplicity.

Chuck Thacker, we did the Alto in just three months, was a master of simplicity.

Dan Ingalls was master of simplicity.

So were Metcalfe and Boggs.

Metcalfe tells a great, great stories about how he didn't actually -- how many things he'd actually didn't understand.

It was incredibly important that he, of those things else, he never would have been able to invent the Ethernet.

Starkweather, who did the laser printer -- first laser printer was a page a second, 500 pixels to the inch, faster than most laser printers today, was about three-quarters made with parts from Edmunds hobby catalog,

because they were cheap so he could get many of them and try them out, and so forth.

This is, this particular way of looking at things, which was basically Hayward basically the this, group said we're just nowhere near as smart as IBM claims to be.

They're always announcing some new complicated network architecture that we can't see how to make it work.

So, we'll just stick to our old full duplex ideas and retransmission, and put a few other things in there.

It may not work as well as what IBM claims it's going to do, but it's probably going to work.

Funny thing is that the network's we use today are those terribly designed, unbelievably inefficient stochastic networks that are far from perfect.

But what's great is that they eventually get that packet through perfectly.

You just have to be willing to wait.

⊕(time: 0:27:14)

The other thing that this group was really good at was what I call a different kind of simplicity.

It's hard to claim that Maxwell's equations here is simple, because there are all that work you have to do to understand vectors and curl and divergence and gradient.

But the thing about it is once you've done that work it shrinks down to something that's just a simple eyeful.

the Constitution of the United States is one of my favorite systems design.

Think of it: Millions and millions of mutually incompatible parts running without completely breaking for more than 200 years. Pretty Amazing.

You can hold it in your hand. The reason you can hold it in your hand is they were wise not to put any laws in it.

It was not a law-based thing. It's not a case-based thing. It was a principle-based thing. It was a kernel.

These are the kinds of things that appeal to me greatly over the years.

I think trying to give beginners at computing a taste for the power of the particular kind of simplicity that works so well is what we should do

⊕(time: 0:28:35)

Now, the other thing I've noticed in talking with younger people and teaching a course, upper division course UCLA once a year, is that

it's not so much that the juniors and seniors don't know that much: they actually don't know that much for being close to graduating from college, but the thing that is the stressing about them is that the things that they do know, they know very badly,

as they know them in ways that are almost counterproductive for their thinking.

So I think in a first course at anything, you have a real chance to not just teach the one subject, but in the first, you can actually touch on a lot of subjects.

For instance, I think math and science should always be taught together in the beginning.

They came about that way one is a language and one is a process.

I think systems and computing should be taught together. I think the four of them should be taught together.

there is arts. We should teach you art and engineering, and why not throw in a little bit about how these unusual ways of looking at the world have affected civilization.

I think the other thing that is so critical and so absent in most of our undergraduate computer science curricula is the failure to think what we're doing as a kind of literacy.

Literacy is something that comes up about when you have first ideas that are worthwhile talking about.

You have a way of writing down those ideas and discussing them that gives literature.

Literacy is the ability to deal with both the spoken and the written forms of these ideas.

When we teach an English class our first English class in college, we're not aiming class at people who are going to become professional writers.

When they graduate four years later, we actually think of the impact of the printing press and the new rhetorics and new ways of arguing that came with a printing press as something that is larger than becoming a professional reader or writer.

I think the same thing is true of computing.

Fifty years from now, this will not be controversial. Right now, it's thought of as even in mighty Stanford with its great endowment as basically vocational training in Java and it's primarily thought of as teaching kids programming.

It's absolutely important to learn how to program but computer science and software engineering are not the same as programming any more than building Chartres Cathedral is the same as Brick Layering.

You have to understand one the other but they're very different.

I think this is absolutely critical, because the picture on this little slide here is Konrad Lorenz out swimming in the pond with his ducks following.

Remember of Lorentz found that whatever moved near a duckling during one little critical period of a few hours was taken thereafter by that duckling to be its mother.

And, it would follow even into adulthood that that person.

Lorenz found that they would follow him, even more happily if he jumped into the water. So, there he is.

I think whenever we're introducing somebody to something, we have to realize that we are going to be a Konrad.

If we're successful, we're going to be a kind of Konrad Lorenz, and we should take great care to what we're going to imprint them on.

We don't want to imprint them on, for God's sakes, the data structures and algorithms.

That was a great idea in the 50s and you had to understand it. And, it's still useful today for optimization and other things.

But, it is not the center of the field for a long time.

What's worse about it is it doesn't scale.

Those very little systems aspect in way the data structures and algorithms are taught.

I believe that we have to do is to give the students a real taste of what the whole deal is.

They have to start thinking in systems ways thinking in math and alkaway scientific ways as we go along.

This is a tall order, obviously./subtitle>

⊕(time: 0:33:32)

<subtitle id="0:33:32">Now, we could all remember our Conrad Lorentz, and mine happened after I'd been a programmer for five years.

A journeyman programmer putting myself through school, went to graduate school, and was given Ivan Sutherland's thesis by Dave Evans.

Dave said: "read it, then come back and talk with me about it."

It was big thick thing but I saw that his thesis advisor was a guy by the name of Claude E. Shannon.

I'd heard of Shannon. I thought: "Well, boy, if Shannon signed this thing maybe I should read it."

I discovered that it was the most amazing thing that I had ever heard of.

Being done with a computer up to that point, and just show you a little bit of the idea of it.

This, which is about the size of this auditorium, had only one guy on it from 3 o'clock the morning.

You know, as he just sketched in something there, then told those edges to become mutually perpendicular, and Sketchpad figured out how to do that for him.

First system to have a clipping window. You are actually drawing on this huge virtual sheet of paper.

Danny draw quickly point to these two guys and say, "okay become parallel". It figures out how to do that now.

He's saying be collinear to lay yourself over these lines.

Of course, this display on this machine only plotted points.

About half the capacity of this machine, I'm about here over to here.

It was just to put these little dots up on the screen and pretend it was a line drawing display.

Now, he's got a hole in the flange, okay.

And, he wants to make a rivet.

Got some more ink. Notice that the two-handed user interface, as all user interfaces should be.

That other hand is for point.

He center of the cross piece there to get the center of the arc and again, let's do the mutually perpendicular trick,

that drags the center guy, which drags the arc guys we got a nice little symmetric rivet.

And, he could tell it to be in some ratio.

The two sides of the vertical part of the rivet. Here, he's just showing it us that will do another solution.

And, now he's going to go back to the original form and show us one other interesting thing,

which is he can make instances of this guy.

They get an instance of the rivet. here I can move it around. See, the success of sketchpad led to a desire for a better looking displays, actually.

Those twinkling is they discovered right away that you got seasick unless they randomly plotted the dots.

something is being done in there. They are actually sorting half the memory of the machine to keep the dot display random.

it wouldn't swim around much more than it it is here.

He's got four instances now, and he says, whoops, I forgot about the cross piece. So, it goes to the master,

which we would call a class makes the cross pieces transparent.

And, we see the instances all feel that.

Now, he's going to take this thing that he just made, and make it into a master.

So, the new construction is a master. Now, he can get some instances of this flange here.

So the range of Sketchpad was surprising.

by the end of 1962, he could not only do stuff like this, but he decided, okay, I need letters and numbers.

so letters and numbers were actually made out of the Sketchpad stuff directly by drawing them in.

So, the captions on all of his drawings and his thesis were made by the system as well.

And then, he realized, oh yeah, I can actually do a bridge.

Because the bridge actually acts a little bit like a very stiff set of springs.

I can tell Sketchpad to try and keep these guys constant when something is trying to force them to move and I can measure the disparity,

the strain on each one of these guys and I actually can show those labels on all of these guys, and, Iget a simulation of a bridge without Sketchpad ever having heard about a bridge.

He realized, oh, I can do that with EMF also.

I can make circuits, and the constraints will actually drive all of these simulations.

In my career I think what I've been doing for the last forty years is trying to get the next version of Sketchpad out,

because if you think about what this thing is. This is kind of what we want.

We want something, in which anything that we are interested in, especially dynamic things that were interested in, we can simply draw them in there,

put in the relationships that we understand piece by piece, and have the system synthesize all this into a dynamic simulation of astounding range.

It's just beautiful. If they're, I don't know whether our field has Newton. Yeah, I knew then. <subtitle id="0:40:5"> I think it would have to be Ivan Sutherland, because the field was before I even came on the scene, and after it was fantastic.

I went to ask Ivan how could you possibly, in one year, in machine code, on this big but rather slow machine with no graphics display on it, have done the first graphics system, the first object-oriented software system, and the first dynamic problem-solving system.

Ivan looked at me and said: "Well, I didn't know it was hard."

so the period, by the way this thesis is available from MIT - you should get it and read it.

My favorite line from it is, he says that his hope that future work will far surpass this effort.

So, that was my first day in graduate school.

⊕(time: 0:41:14)

And second day, I found out about that I was actually in the middle of the ARPA community, which I had no realization about.

Licklider was not the funder in 1966: it was Bob Taylor and they were just starting to talk about doing what Licklider called the Intergalactic Network.

The reason he called it that is he didn't want people to design a small network.

Those original theory was wherever electricity plug on the face of the earth, there should be can plug into this into.

Like intergalactic network that the thing had the scale at least up to 500 million to a billion users.

So, people were starting to think about that. In a couple of days later I got a tape and some documents about a language called Simula from Norway by Dahl here and Nygaard.

It's very hard to understand.

After a lot of work, and looking at the listings, we realize, well, this is a programming language that is dealing with the same kind of structures as Sketchpad.

By the way, I should mention that, you know, the name, the term object predates object-oriented programming.

Object, in the early 60s, was a general term that was used to describe compound data structures, especially if they had pointers in them.

There was none paraphernalia of what we think about as object native programming today. Object was just a general term.

You'll find it in lots of old papers.

And, the realization that you could write procedures for dealing with at Sketchpad was doing was very liberating,

because even though it was ugly compared to what Sketchpad gets bad was just unbelievably elegant.

But, nobody knew how to scale that's Oliver.

In fact, that problem has not been solved today yet.

But, by going to the less elegant way of being able to write code against these structures, we all got excited about the possibilities of being able to do in a system like Simula the kinds of graphic and interaction manipulation.

My background coming into this was in molecular biology and mathematics.

And, particularly Sketchpad just hit me right here as one of these kernels.

The thing I suddenly realized was that if you were sufficiently abstract if you ignored what these systems were trying to do,

if you just thought of them as being cheap versions of all these little computers on the ARPANET,

you could solve the same scaling problem in software.

Then, you could actually subsume everything in computing with just one kind of idea, which is essentially a little software computer:

Not a procedure, not a data structure, but a whole computer.

A lot of the development of OOP was software engineering after that.

Interesting things to me in the development of who the Elven of practical as it wound up in spark was very similar to what happened in Lisp earlier, which is, boy, we've got this incredibly elegant wonderful thing.

Too bad it runs so slow but what if we could make it run faster in a way that doesn't get in the users way, then we would have something really, really nice.

Some of the best actually I just talked Guy Steele, who is one of the people who helped make Lisp into something really special to use as well as to contemplate.

So, the image here was wow it's all about messages.

The reasons about messages are not about objects so much is that the messages are the abstractions.

We spend time in our field worrying about what the objects are.

⊕(time: 0:45:53)

I need to move along a bazillion prejudices.

I love parallelism because I learned how to program plug boards before programming a computer.

The beauty about those things was you could make a kind of a machine that was highly parallel.

I loved hardware like the B5000.

All of our today that we use came out of the hardware of that machine never

saw fit to learn anything about software make our lives much simpler.

I love Lisp.

Everybody should understand it the giass was programming language ever done. it could hardly do anything but it did it beautifully.

It's an interesting challenge to take something of this level of beauty and try to scale it.

You combine these two together, you got the original Logo that's how Logo came about:

an attempt to take Lisp and have something prettier especially for kids.

I love APL. All of these all of these systems I think can be done in a different way.

But basically the love of these things is because these guys got to some special kernel.

I love what Engelbart did. A lot of spreadsheets. I loved HyperCard.

Suppose you could amalgamate all these wonderful things into a simple system that regular people can use.

⊕(time: 0:47:32)

Now, let's talk about the why of what we're doing.

Why do people do things? Well, Frank Oppenheimer in the Exploratorium made 500 exhibits to teach just one idea:

The world is not as it seems.

They asked him why, and he said: "well, every child is different. we have 2,000 children in here, bumping against 500 different exhibits.

"There's a good chance that a child will find the exhibit that speaks to them clearly.

"About this first important idea about science."

So he said 500 of them. I think if you're going to teach a course in this, you need 20 to 30 projects or so for each area to give the children the choice.

(Am I interrupting your conversation?) <subtitle id="0:48:38">I won't tell you what quadrant they're in.

⊕(time: 0:48:59)

I think the another important idea is scratch programming, because so much of computing education today is learning the library.

I don't think beginners should ever be shown the library. if the programming language can't do interesting things without the library, then what is it?

I think it should be like a Model T. Model T has about 350 parts, and you could take it apart over a weekend and put it back together.

But, it was a completely real automobile.

A lot of what we're going to look at here in the next few minutes are sort of first-order ideas that might say some important things.

⊕(time: 0:49:41)

Now, a good thing is that many people have written about the fun, the beauty, the romance, what's important and about looking ahead in computing.

There's not just one book out there, and there's less than 1% of books about computing are worthwhile reading.

But, it's not one book. There are dozens of them, and there's plenty of ideas for how to do this stuff.

⊕(time: 0:50:17)

The user interface had better not be like Microsoft's caricature of the stuff that was done at PARC, which is I always have the feeling when I'm using Windows that I'm dealing with a somewhat dangerous nuclear reactor control panel,

and that I haven't had enough training on it.

Whereas what I want is something like pencil and paper where although there are things I can learn about pencil and paper, what is most important about them is what I can do without knowing much.

I can find out the pencil and paper is fun.

⊕(time: 0:50:56)

I want an environment that deals with a set of ideas in a way that gets me to lose myself in the ideas.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi here, was one of our advisors, had this nice model about this balance between our abilities and the challenges.

He said, well, if the challenges are higher than our abilities then we start getting anxious, especially if we're climbing up a rock face, we're giving a talk in front of an audience.

But, if our abilities are greater than the challenge, we start getting bored.

So, these are the two main states that humans are in: either anxious or bored.

Hard to get to is this flow state where everything is just working.

We like to widen this flow state for beginners.

For example, one of the things we could do to deal with areas that where the challenge is greater than our abilities is to increase the safety.

So, having undo in an environment is nice.

most programming environments don't have much of an undo.

On the other hand, because we get bored so easily, we want something to help us to pay attention.

A better and a good user interface basically deals with these things.

it provides more safety than most computer people think an ordinary person needs.

It provides more ways of attracting their attention than most of us think people need.

⊕(time: 0:52:50)

Alan is drawing a car, explain the viewer and some tiles.

I just want to show you, give you, a little bit of a flavor about how children start, and then show you where I think things are actually going to go.

So, the work we do with children, we want them to have an experience that is basically thinking about ideas making pictures of them.

For example, take something that most kids would like to do for one reason or another which is to learn how to drive their parents car.

We get them to design a car and most kids, boys and girls, put on big off-road tires like this, because part of the deal is feeling powerless, and wanting to feel empowered

this is something that video game manufacturers really understand.

Why are those games so violent?

So, we have a little graphic object here, and to do things to it, we can open it up and see a viewer of it.

People in the back can't see very well. So I'm looking at a property here called the heading of the thing, and I'm going to count up the number starts at zero.

As I count it up, you can see the little car turning.

I've got a behavioral property here: "forward."

I've got another one called "turn by".

If I just drag out the lines of script here and turn on the clock, then I've got my little car going.

There are many different kinds of things I can do with it. For the kids they want to learn a little bit about driving the car.

So, the first experiment is what happens if I click this number.

It says "turn by". Now, "turn by zero".

It goes straight. "Turn by negative". I'll call this guy car.

Keep it straight here. That's a little bit like kissing your sister, because real cars use wheels.

So I want to make a wheel here. Just draw one.

It's got the same user interface as the other one.

This is a system, which is only one kind of object.

It's exactly the opposite of the systems that you're used to that have zillions and zillions of classes and subclasses and so forth.

We can talk a little bit about it, about this in the question and answer, if you would like.

And, so here's this wheel it's got a heading also.

If I pick up the name of that heading and just drag it over to the script here.

So it says "car turned by wheel's heading."

Now, I can just turn the car around.

Now, what's important for ten-year olds is that they learn what a variable is for the rest of their life from this one shot.

That's good, and actually I believe this would be good for high school and college kids, too, because there's quite a bit of evidence that they they don't ever learn much about what a variable actually is, or does ways of thinking about it.

So there are many different kinds of things here that can be done.

⊕(time: 0:56:50)

Open a viewer on the scriptor and rotate them.

So, having one kind of object. That's kind of weird.

I mean, here's a photograph which we can see has the same kind of feel here.

The script is one of these guys. What if I open up its viewer.

I got one called scriptor here, and I see y'all look really the same kind of thing.

So what if I make a script on the script here, and get.

I think about the implications of this means that wherever I go out, for instance, what if I go over here.

⊕(time: 0:57:32)

Open a viewer on the pane in viewer and rotate them.

Well, the viewers got one of those things and so does this category.

⊕(time: 0:57:41)

Open a viewer on the world, and show different panes.

And, this whole outside thing that I'm giving the talk in terms of is also one of these things.

so I look at its viewer, the viewer of the world, and well, it's got the same kinds of things here.

We looked at the various traits here. This is like what Nathanael Schärli was talking about earlier.

This notion of side-ways composition also goes back to PARC.

Back then in the 70s, it was called aspects but that word means something somewhat different now.

We, various things you can see. Oh, the thing is a collection.

It's got stuff about its colors and borders, and other kinds of things here.

And what, here's one that says 'as object'. Now, an inheritance system the Object would be way up at the end of the inheritance system.

But in a side-ways composition object system, it's going to be one of the traits. We're looking at it's a view of the object as an object.

We tried to think about what would be an interesting way of showing this idea of meta.

Here's one where I'm, what I'm going to do is suppress all the costumes on all the objects.

⊕(time: 0:59:2)

Choose world useBluePrintCanvas: to change the look.

And, I think this will help you see that everything is sort of abstractly the same here

Ok, basically I just turned off the costume mechanism.

Now, I have this interesting problem of getting back.

But, that's why I left my mouse here. so, this is the guy who did it. I'm going to click the little caret here, which I know is there to make it false

Then, we're going to hit the exclamation point to turn everything back on again.

You see, I'm talking about them, basically, meta is safe if you can allow fence after fence after fence after fence.

Now, there are many many examples, if I had longer talk I'd show you, but I wanted to show you the last set of ideas here.

If we could just go to the video 2, please, in the back.

Ok.

So, return to Sketchpad here, and if we look at a more future-oriented environment, we see that we now have the ability of doing much more complicated ways of thinking of environments so

⊕(time: 1:00:17)

Alan switched to a Croquet Image.

Here, I am in a 3D environment that we built called Croquet.

By the way, the if you are interested, the kids stuff that's found on the website:

squeakland.org, and this Croquet environment, this is all free software. Croquet environment is found on opencroquet.org.

So again, this is a completely constructible environment here.

But what we did was to do a kind of an interesting analogy to webpages.

So, each 3D world here is like a web page, and these portals are like a hyperlink to them.

I'm just going to pop Alice to enter this guy here.

I'm just going to do a 360.

this is a Mars environment.

All of these environments are buildable.

I'm just going to show one last thing so I can end on time.

I kind of like bridges as an analogy here.

So, we have a bridge structure and I want to show you what the kids scripting environment looks like for doing bridge.

So the first thing we want to look at is the little script for Mass's.

basically what we have here is F = ma.

Acceleration is the force divided by the mass.

The velocity is increasing by the acceleration. And,

the location of all the little elements on here is going to increase by the velocity.

I'm going to turn on the the force here to work.

Say, okay, let's do do that.

So this bridge structures is feeling gravity.

And, you can see it coming into equilibrium.

I could have made it stiffer but let's look at the springs.

The springs are fairly stiff:

K gets 1400 here, so what I'm going to, what I'm going to do here is to make it 400.

Tell it to go ahead that's going to let it sag quite a bit more.

Then, we all remember the Tacoma Narrows Bridge film.

So, of course, we have to have some wind.

Basically, what I'm going to do here is turn on a variable gusting wind that's completely described by this script here.

Okay, now it's going to do some Tacoma Narrows stuff.

I need sound. I noticed the sound wasn't working. Thank you.

Let's take a look at our bridge, and you know it's funny when you look at a model of steel, if you remember that Tacoma Narrows Bridge movie.

It was really like the bridge was made out of fabric of some kind.

This has this kind of same aspect and that gave us an interesting idea here.

I think a good way to end this talk is just to say that if we can't get kids interested in the romance, why this is unbelievably beautiful new art form, then,

we're not living up to what our duty is of enjoying the stuff ourselves.

We have to reach deeply inside of ourselves to remember what it was that first got us interested in this wonderful new thing.

Remember that it hasn't even started yet,and it's our duty to help the children as young as possible. Try and do a better job of it than we have.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Alan for a fantastic talk, and we have a token of our affection here.

As well that concludes our Turing Award lecture and you're welcome now to go get dinner, and then, afterwards at 8 o'clock, we'll be beginning the last thing on this evenings agenda: the tenth anniversary reunion.

Difference between revisions of "Alan Kay Turing Award Lecture (2004)"

Revision as of 06:16, 12 December 2017

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Tool box

Tools

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 |autoresize=true
 }}
 <slideview/>
-<subtitle id="0:0:5">association for computing Machinery's  touring award lecture</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:1">Good Afternoon, and welcome to the Association for Computing Machinery's Turing Award Lecture.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:8"> the Turing award  is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:11"> ACMs most prestigious technical</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:14"> award  if you look at past Turing laureates</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:17">  it'll read like a who's who of computer</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:20">  science the Turing award is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:23"> given out  annually to an individual</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:26"> who has  contributed</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:29"> has given</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:32"> contributions of  lasting and major technical importance</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:35">  to the field and the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:8">The Turing Award is ACM's most prestigious technical award.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:38"> Turing laureate is  invited to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:14">If you look at past Turing laureates, it'll read like a Who's Who of computer science.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:41"> give a talk on whatever</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:20">The Turing award is given out annually to an individual who has contributed, has given contributions of lasting and major technical importance to the field.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:44"> topic  they'd like at any</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:38">And, the Turing Laureate is invited to give a talk on whatever topic they'd like at any ACM conference during the year.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:47"> ACM conference during  the year and we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:50">We are privileged to have this year's laureate choose OOPSLA as their venue.</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0::0:55">So, without further ado I'd like to introduce Dr. Alan Kay. He's a senior fellow at Hewlett Packard.
-<subtitle id="0:0:50"> are privileged to have  this year's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:1">He's president of Viewpoints Research Institute.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:53"> laureate choose oops law as  their venue</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:7">The Turing award was given to him for pioneering many of the ideas at the root of contemporary object-oriented programming languages, for leading the team that developed Smalltalk, and for fundamental contributions to personal computing.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:56"> so without further ado I'd  like to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:22">Let's give a warm OOPSLA welcome</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:0:59"> introduce dr. Alan Kay the he's  a senior</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:2"> fellow at Hewlett Packard he's  president</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:5"> of viewpoints Research  Institute and the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:8"> Turing award was given  to him for pioneering</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:11"> many of the ideas  at the root of contemporary</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:14">  object-oriented programming languages  for leading</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:17"> the team that developed  small talk and four</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:20"> fundamental compute  contributions to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:23"> personal computing  let's give a warm welcome</subtitle>
 <note for="0:1:47">
 <slide for="0:1:47" name="TitleSlide.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:1:47">of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:47">Of course, one of the funny things about the larger citation was, it could be also said for coming up and helping to come up with many of the ideas that eventually led to C++ and Java.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:50"> course one of the funny things</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:5">It reminded me of Tony Hoare's in his Turing lecture, which was quite a bit about ALGOL. He pointed out that ALGOL is a great improvement, especially on its successors.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:53"> about  the larger citation was it also</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:29">About a year ago, I got asked by SIGCSE to come and give a talk here, which happened yesterday, about early  experiences in computing, primarily for high school, and to some extent for first year college.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:56"> said for  coming up and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:49"> And, I wasn't of course expecting to get this award.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:1:59"> helping to come up with  many of the ideas that eventually led to  C++</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:54">And I had spent a fair amount of time trying to think about the high school and college situation.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:2"> and Java</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:2">Since I had no real experience doing a first course.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:5"> and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:8">And, I certainly didn't like what I found when I went out and read books and the AP stuff and so forth.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:8"> the reminded me of Tony  whores in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:19">But I figured nobody wants to hear anybody complain even if they're telling the truth for an hour.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:11"> his Turing lecture</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:27">So what I decided to do was to see if I were going to teach a first course in high school or college what would it be like.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:14"> which was  quite a bit of which was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:35">That was the talk I gave yesterday.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:17"> about Al Gore  he pointed out that algo is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:39">And, I wound up thinking that, perhaps, a slightly different version of this would make a reasonable Turing Lecture.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:20"> a great  improvement especially on its successors</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:29">o about a year</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:32"> ago I got asked by Sigma  C to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:35"> come and give a talk here which  happened yesterday</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:38"> about early  experiences</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:41"> in computing</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:44"> primarily for  high school and to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:47"> some extent for first  year college</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:50"> and I wasn't of course  expecting</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:53"> to get this award and I</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:56"> was  had spent a fair amount of time trying</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:2:59">to think about the high school and  college</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:2"> situation since I had no</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:5"> real  experience doing a first course</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:8"> and I  certainly didn't like what</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:11"> I found when  I went out and read</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:14"> books and the AP</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:17">  stuff and so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:20"> forth but I figured nobody</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:23">  wants to hear anybody complain even</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:26"> if  they're telling the truth for an hour so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:29">  what I decided to do was to see if I  were going to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:32"> teach a first course in  high school</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:35"> or college what would it be  like and that was the talk I gave</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:38">  yesterday and I</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:41"> wound up thinking that</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:44">  perhaps a slightly different version</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:47"> of  this would make a reasonable</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:50"> Turing  lecture so</subtitle>
 <note for="0:3:53">
 <slide for="0:3:53" name="Don Quote.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:3:53"> here it is and first I want</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:52">Here it is. First I want to start off with a Don quote.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:56">  to start off with a Don quote  he</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:3:59"> has lots of them but this is my  favorite one of his beware</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:2">the above code  I've only proved it correct</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:5"> not tried it</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:8">his is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:11"> the perfect antidote to what  what you might call the academy's</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:14"> ation  of the field which quite</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:17"> a bit of which  has been an attempt to use classical</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:20">  mathematics to deal</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:23"> with a new  mathematics that requires a new math</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:26"> to  help describe it so what</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:29">new field  I believe</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:32"> math simple</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:35"> statement about  our field is that math wins</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:38"> basically  every time you can do something</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:41">reasonably mathematical what we're  trying to do we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:57">He has lots of them, but this is my favorite one of his.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:44"> make great advances but  it's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:0">"Beware of bugys in the above code; I've only proved it correct, not tried it.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:47"> rare that old math wins</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:8">This is the perfect antidote to what you might call the academization of the field, which, quite a bit of which, has been an attempt to use classical mathematics to deal with a new mathematics that requires a new math to help describe it. </subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:50"> because we  have a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:29">So what we have is a new field.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:53"> new way of dealing with things  our</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:31">I believe a simple statement about our field is that math wins: Basically every time you can do something reasonably mathematical what we're trying to do, we make great advances.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:56"> theorems are not short and they're</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:44">But, it's rare that old math wins.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:4:59">  not about infinite things</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:49">Because, we have a new way of dealing with things. Our theorems are not short, and they're not about infinite things, which is what classical math is generally about.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:2"> which is what  classical math is generally about the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:4">The equivalent of our theorems and proofs are very very long things about finite structures.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:5">  equivalent of our theorems and proofs  are</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:12">So we have a different way of doing about, and hence Don's quote, which i think is absolutely perfect.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:8"> very very long things about finite</subtitle>
+<note for="0:5:19">
+<slide for="0:5:19" name="colleagues.png"/>
-<subtitle id="0:5:11">  structures and so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:14">different way of doing about and hence  Dawn's quote</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:17"> which i think is absolutely</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:20">  perfect and because our</subtitle>
-<note for="0:5:23">
-<slide for="0:5:23" name="colleagues.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:5:23"> field is the way  it is everything</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:19"> Because our field is the way it is, everything we do is done within a community and nobody has benefited more from their community than I have over the years, and for the stuff I'm going to talk about and show tonight.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:26"> we do is done within a  community and nobody</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:29"> has benefited more  from their community than I</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:32"> have over  the years and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:41">A lot of people contributed, especially over the last few weeks, putting together some of these examples.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:35"> for the stuff I'm</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:47">These are some of the people. Some of them you notice have gray hair.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:38"> going to  talk about and show tonight a lot of  people contributed</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:53">This guy, I know is here, Dan Ingalls, </subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:41"> especially over the  last few weeks putting</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:56">who is the actual creator of Smalltalk./subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:44"> together some of  these examples</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:2">I just wrote the math part, and Dan was the guy who actually made it work.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:47"> and these are some of the  people</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:8">So, we should give him a round of applause.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:50"> some of them you notice have gray  hair</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:53">  this guy I know is here Dan angles and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:56">  who's the the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:5:59"> actual creator of small</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:2">  talk I just wrote the math part and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:5"> Dan  was the guy who actually made it work so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:8">  we should give him a round of applause</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:17">so</subtitle>
 <note for="0:6:20">
@@ Line 249: / Line 95: @@
 <slide for="0:11:29" name="Three Architectures1.png"/>
 </note>
+<subtitle id="0:6:20">I guess the first thing to think about here is we have these terms: Computer science and software engineering.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:20"> I guess the first thing to think  about here is we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:26">I happen to be around when both of these terms were made up</subtitle></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:23"> have these terms  computer science and software  engineering</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:26"> I happen to be around</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:29">both of these terms were made up al  Perlas made up the term</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:32"> computer science  absolutely</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:35"> not implying that we had one  but</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:38"> as something</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:41"> to actually aspire to  and he I</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:44"> think he immediately regretted  it even</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:47"> in the first few years  afterwards because what happened</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:50"> was  what some people have sometimes</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:53"> called  physics Envy basically everybody</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:56"> who  dabbles in the sciences wants</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:6:59"> to be a  physicist because</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:2"> they deal with the  absolute foundations</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:5"> of the universe and  they do it with serious</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:8"> math and serious  and experiments so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:11"> physics Envy is  science Envy</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:14"> is often found when fields  wind</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:17"> up having science in their name</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:20"> so  library science</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:23"> social science</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:26"> computer  science</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:29"> interesting physics chemistry  and biology don't</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:32"> have science in their  name</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:35">so I</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:38"> think there can be a science of  computing</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:41"> similar to science of bridge  building</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:44"> and in fact Simon</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:47"> pointed out  in his book called</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:50"> the science of  Sciences of the artificial</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:53"> that you</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:56"> can  have a science about artifacts like</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:7:59"> a  science of bridge building build a</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:2">  bridge by any means whatsoever stress</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:5"> it  in various ways analyze it come up with</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:8">a theory of build bridge building build  some more bridges</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:11"> and so forth and in  many ways physics has</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:14"> found itself  becoming a science</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:17"> of the artificial  because a lot of physics</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:20"> is actually all  about the science of</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:23"> building  accelerators and detectors and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:26"> trying to  figure out just exactly what</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:29"> it is that  those needle swings actually</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:32"> mean  software</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:35"> engineering actually was a term  that came about for</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:38"> a conference like</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:41"> in  68 and garmisch Germany</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:44"> and again the  people who went to that conference  except for</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:47"> a few did not think there was  anything remotely like a</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:50"> software  engineering at that time and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:53"> in fact the  slide shows kind</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:56"> of a from</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:8:59"> the depths to  something that we</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:2"> might call engineering  today of the difference</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:5"> between a  pyramid made out of bricks with</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:8"> no  architecture just a garbage dump with</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:11"> a  nice limestone cover</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:14"> made by slaves  sounds like something</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:17"> that happens a few  miles south of here actually</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:26">I can just I can just imagine some</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:29">  veronik architect</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:32"> at some conference  announcing their</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:35"> new pyramid</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:38"></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:41"></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:44"></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:47"> on the  other side of the scale we have one of  my</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:50"> favorite artifacts the Empire State</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:53">  Building which is well documented and I  urge every</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:56"> single one of you who has  aspirations to be an engineer</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:9:59"> to read  the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:2"> three or four excellent recent books  about</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:5"> the Empire State Building one of  them is the actual log</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:8"> by the foreman a  basically</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:11"> the Empire State Building was  constructed</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:14"> from start to finish that is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:17">  from carrying down the buildings that  were there</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:20"> to occupancy in less than 11  months</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:23"> by less than 3,000 people</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:26">  the flooring itself went</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:29"> up at the rate  of almost two stories a day and the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:32">  steel was still warm about a hundred</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:35">  degrees warm from the steel mills in  Pittsburgh</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:38"> where it came from this is  one of the greatest organized</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:41"> projects  and the Starrett brothers who did the  Empire State</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:44"> Building knew they were  making a statement because</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:47"> the  Depression had just happened everything</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:50">was set up to do this thing they had  already done a couple</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:53"> of skyscrapers and  they had a feeling this might be the  last skyscraper</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:56"> for a while and so they  decided to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:10:59"> to make it an expression of</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:2">what it meant to be able to make a  skyscraper so it's just the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:30">Al Perlis made up the term computer science absolutely not implying that we had one but as something to actually aspire to.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:5"> greatest  thing but I think if we look at</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:44">And, I think he immediately regretted even in the first few years afterwards,because what happened was what some people have sometimes called physics envy.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:8"> our own  field we cannot find any instance of  3,000</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:56">Basically everybody who dabbles in the sciences wants to be a  physicist, because they deal with the absolute foundations of the universe.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:11"> people being put together to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:4">They do it with serious math and serious experiments.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:14">something incredible in less than 11  months and have it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:11">Physics envy, science envy is often found when fields wind up having science in their name.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:17"> work so whatever it  is that we've got</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:20">So, library science, social science, computer science.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:20"> in engineering it  might be closer to Egyptian</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:29">Interestingly physics, chemistry, and biology don't have science in their name.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:23"> or  Babylonian engineering</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:35">I think there can be a science of computing, similar to science of bridge building, and in fact, Simon pointed out in his book called the sciences of the artificialthat you can have a science about artifacts like a science of bridge building.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:26"> now somewhere</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:2">Build a bridge by any means whatsoever stress it in various ways analyze it come up with a theory of build bridge building build some more bridges and so forth.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:29"> in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:12">In many ways physics has found itself becoming a science of the artificial, because a lot of physics is actually all about the science of building accelerators and detectors,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:32">  the middle things with archers</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:26">and trying to figure out just exactly what it is that those needle swings actually mean.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:35">appearing an actual architecture  appeared</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:32">Software engineering actually was a term that came about for a conference like in '68 and garmisch Germany.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:38"> interesting thing that  happened some</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:44">Again the people who went to that conference, except for a few, did not think there was anything remotely like a software engineering at that time.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:41"> years before the Gothic  cathedrals was the Pantheon</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:53">In fact the slide shows kind of a from the depths to something that we might call engineering today of the difference between a pyramid made out of bricks with no architecture.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:44"> in Rome  which has this clear span</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:8">Just a garbage dump with a nice limestone cover made by slaves: Sounds like something that happens a few miles south of here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:47"> the dome clear  span of fourteen</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:26">Actually, I can just imagine some veronik architect at some conference, announcing their new pyramid.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:50"> stories made out of the  best reinforced</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:47">On the other side of the scale, we have one of my favorite artifacts: the Empire State Building, which is well documented and I urge every single one of you who has aspirations to be an engineer to read the three or four excellent recent books about the Empire State Building.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:53">ever known  but two thousand</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:5">One of them is the actual log by the foreman.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:56"> years ago that was  amazing be</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:11">Basically, the Empire State Building was constructed from start to finish, that is,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:11:59"> her been in there it looks  like it was made yesterday so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:17">from tearing down the buildings that were there to occupancy in less than 11 months by less than 3,000 people.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:2"> I think  the best practice that we have right</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:26">The flooring itself went up at the rate of almost two stories a day.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:5"> now  in our field as</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:32">And, the steel was still warm about a hundred degrees warm from the steel mills in Pittsburgh, where it came from.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:8"> far as engineering is a  little bit like a Gothic cathedral</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:38">This is one of the greatest organized projects.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:11">  sometimes our projects take a hundred</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:44">The Starrett brothers who did the Empire State Building knew they were making a statement, because the Depression had just happened.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:14">  years but we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:50">Everything was set up to do this thing. They had already done a couple of skyscrapers and they had a feeling this might be the last skyscraper for a while.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:17"> can aspire to build rather</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:58">So they decided to make it an expression of what it meant to be able to make a skyscraper.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:20">  large structures by the standards</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:3">It's just the greatest thing.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:23"> of the  Middle Ages out of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:6">But, I think if we look at our own field, we cannot find any instance of 3,000 people being put together to something incredible in less than 11 months and have it work.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:26"> much much less  material than the Egyptians</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:17">Whatever it is that we've got in engineering, it might be closer to Egyptian or Babylonian engineering.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:29"> needed so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:26">Now, somewhere in the middle, things with arches appearing, an actual architecture appeared.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:32">  little progress is being made but I</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:38">Interesting thing that happened some years before the Gothic cathedrals was the Pantheon in Rome, which has this clear span the dome clear span of fourteen stories.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:35">  think that whenever we say computer</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:50">Made out of the best reinforced concrete ever known but two thousand years ago, that was amazing.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:38">  science or software engineering the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:59"> her been in there it looks like it was made yesterday.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:41">specially whenever we think we're  teaching it the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:2">I think the best practice that we have right now in our field as far as engineering is a little bit like a Gothic cathedral.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:44"> worst thing we could  ever do is to pretend to the students</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:11">Sometimes our projects take a hundred years but we can aspire to build rather large structures by the standards of the Middle Ages out of much much less material than the Egyptians needed.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:47">  that we know what it is because the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:32">So, little progress is being made but I think that whenever we say computer science or software engineering, especially whenever we think we're teaching it, the worst thing we could ever do is to pretend to the students that we know what it is.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:50">  students are</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:48">Because the students are going to be the only ones that are going to save us.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:53"> going to be the only ones  that are going to save us</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:56">So, we should teach the students what I was taught when I was in graduate school in the sixties: that is it isn't done yet it's not even close to be done. You have to understand what the actual scope of computing is going to be and you have to help us invent it.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:56"> so we should  teach the students</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:14">In fact, in those years in the ARPA community, the PhDs were given out for actual advances in the state of the art, as opposed for as opposed to commentaries and small additions to the state of the art.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:12:59"> what I was taught  when I was in graduate school in the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:30">So it's a very different time back then but it's a lot simpler.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:2">sixties and that is it isn't done yet  it's not</subtitle>
+<note for="0:13:35">
+<slide for="0:13:35" name="Motivations.png"/>
-<subtitle id="0:13:5"> even close to done you have to  understand</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:8"> what the actual scope of  computing is going</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:11"> to be and you have to  help us invent it  and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:14"> in fact in those years</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:17"> in the ARPA  community the PhDs were given out for</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:20">actual advances in the state of the art  as</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:23"> opposed for as opposed to  commentaries</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:26"> and small additions to the  state</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:29"> of the art so it's a very  different time back then but it's a lot  simpler</subtitle>
-<note for="0:13:32">
-<slide for="0:13:32" name="Motivations.png"/>
 </note>
+<subtitle id="0:13:35">I could give a whole talk, maybe not terribly successfully, about motivations.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:32"> so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:44">In the end, everything we do is being subject to other people's interface.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:35"> I could</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:38"> give a whole talk  maybe not terribly</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:41"> successfully about  motivations in</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:44"> the end everything we do  is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:47"> being subject to other people's</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:50">interface  I feel particularly</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:53"> in education but I  thought I'd show</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:56"> a much simpler model</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:13:59">than we use but it's only a  two-dimensional model and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:2"> just have us  all ponder</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:5"> it for a bit so one dimension</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:8">  is in the reasoning and change area</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:11"> is  the incredible</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:14"> disparity between the  percentage</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:17"> of human beings who are  basically instrumental reasoner's</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:20"> and  those who are basically interested</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:23"> in  ideas so this has been studied</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:26"> in a  variety of different ways and it seems  like</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:29"> the the normal us</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:32"> normal human  beings are basically instrumental reason</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:35">isn't an instrumental reason er as a  person who judges</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:38"> any new tool or idea  by</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:41"> how well that tular idea contributes  to his</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:44"> or her current goal</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:47">so most of we're very goal-oriented  we're working</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:50"> on things somebody comes  up with something new and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:53"> our ability</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:56"> to  accept it or reject it if we're  instrumental</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:14:59"> reasoner's depends on  whether we can see it contributing to  our current</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:2"> goal so the other 5% are  primarily</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:5"> motivated by ideas so when a  new idea</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:8"> comes along that appeals to  them they will transform</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:11"> themselves and  their goals in the presence</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:14"> of that idea  needless to say the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:17"> 5% are much easier  to teach</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:20"> particular if you're trying to  teach</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:23"> them things that were inventions  rather than things</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:26"> that are built into  human beings so if you're trying to  teach</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:29"> something really weird like  science it is not an</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:32"> easy thing because  you're dealing with a</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:35"> set of very  practical</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:38"> and pragmatic kinds of people  so now</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:41"> the other dimension here is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:47">between basically about reward</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:50">I feel particularly in education, but I thought I'd show a much simpler model than we use, but it's only a two-dimensional model.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:50"> inner  motivated versus outer motivated</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:2">And just have us all ponder it for a bit. So, one dimension is in the reasoning and change area is the incredible disparity between the percentage of human beings who are basically instrumental reasoner's,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:53"> about  85 percent of us are motivated</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:20">those who are basically interested in ideas. This has been studied in a variety of different ways.It seems like the normal us,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:56"> by things  outside of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:32">normal human beings are basically instrumental reasoners.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:15:59"> ourselves about 15 percent  motivated by things</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:35">Isn't an instrumental reasoner as a person who judges any new tool or idea  by how well that tular idea contributes to his or her current goal.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:2"> inside ourselves and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:47">so, most of us are very goal-oriented. We're working on things and somebody comes up with something new, and our ability to accept it or reject it, if we're instrumental reasoners, depends on whether we can see it contributing to our current goal.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:5">  so that's kind of interesting and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:3">The other 5% are primarily motivated by ideas. So, when a new idea comes along that appeals to them, they will transform themselves and their goals in the presence of the idea.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:8"> what  we have</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:16">Needless to say, the 5% are much easier to teach, particular if you're trying to teach them things that were inventions, rather than things that are built into  human beings.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:11"> here if we look at this is we  have a kind of an interesting category</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:27">If you're trying to teach something really weird like science, it is not an easy thing because you're dealing with a set of very practical and pragmatic kinds of people.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:14">  of people who are in term ohta vated and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:40">Now, the other dimension here is between basically about reward:</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:17">  interested in ideas I'll leave it for  you to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:50">Inner-motivated vs. outer-motivated.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:20"> figure out who those people are  an interesting</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:53">About 85 percent of us are motivated by things outside of ourselves. About 15 percent are motivated by things inside ourselves.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:23"> category number two is  people who are out are</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:5">That's kind of interesting.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:26"> motivated and  interested in ideas the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:8">What we have here, if we look at this, is we have a kind of an interesting category of people who are intraverted and interested in ideas</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:29"> people who are  in are motivated and not interested</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:19">I'll leave it for you to figure out who those people are.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:32"> in  ideas tend to be dangerous and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:21">An interesting category number two is people who are outer-motivated and interested in ideas.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:35"> caused a  lot of trouble a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:29">The people who are inner-motivated and not interested in ideas tend to be dangerous and caused a lot of trouble.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:38"> lot</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:38">A lot of corporate executives are up in there.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:41"> of corporate  executives</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:47">Basically, our field is a field that's the next great 500 year idea after the printing press and so we should all be properly concerned with something quite different,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:44"> up in there</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:2">that is we have to be concerned with how the entire bulk of humanity is going to respond and deal with the things that we do</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:47"> but basically</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:14">So it's extremely interesting to consider the 80% here.
-<subtitle id="0:16:50"> our  field is a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:20">That our outer-motivated and basically practical.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:53"> field that's the next great  500</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:25">And a fair amount is known about this 80 percent.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:56"> year idea after the printing press  and so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:29">In the past, I've used the term voting.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:16:59"> we should all be properly  concerned with something quite</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:2"> different  that</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:5"> is we have to be concerned with how  the entire</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:8"> bulk of humanity is going</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:11"> to  respond and deal with the things that we</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:14">  do so it's extremely interesting to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:17">  consider the 80% here</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:20"> that our outer  moat evaded and basically</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:23"> practical and  a fair</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:26"> amount is known about this 80  percent</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:29"> in the past I've used the term  voting</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:32"> but</subtitle>
 <note for="0:17:35">
-<slide for="0:17:35" name="forestFire.png"/>
+<slide for="0:17:35" name="Motivations2.png"/>
 </note>
+<subtitle id="0:17:35">You know, this group does not go to the polls to vote on the things they believe in.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:35"> you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:42">It takes them a long time to change what they believe in.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:38"> know this group does not  go to the polls to vote on</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:41"> the things  they believe in it takes</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:44"> them a long  time to change what they believe in but  the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:47"> way they do it is kind of  interesting and it's</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:50"> a kind of a  consensus</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:53"> that is gradual</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:56"> it's a seeping  kind of consensus</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:17:59"> and it has many of the  same characteristics</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:2"> as a model of a  forest fire</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:5"> so I have a little particle</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:8">  system here and the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:11"> percentage of</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:14">  trees - the percentage of clearing</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:17"> here  is just 50/50 so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:20"> if I say okay let's see  if if we can spread the fire</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:23"> throughout  the forest here with a 50%</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:26"></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:29"> so I didn't  initialize that</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:32"> let's try again  so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:35"> here's 50%</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:38"> so surprising that he  doesn't try</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:44">let's try go</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:47"> up to 50 60 % let's say</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:50"> you  can think of the 60% as</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:53"> people who are  almost ready to agree people</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:18:56"> are  essentially there</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:2">so 10% more</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:5"> it spreads better</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:8"></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:11"> try  another one</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:14"> each time the placement</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:17">random so you got a slightly different  behavior</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:26">yeah so that's about what you get</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:29"> babe</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:32">  rings itself out so if we go up to like</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:35">  66 percent or so 67 66</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:44">yeah</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:47"> so in these contagion models</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:50"> you  can think of this as spreading means if  you will</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:53"> roughly two-thirds of</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:56"> this 80%  has to pretty</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:19:59"> much be there before you  can get them</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:47">But the way they do it is kind of interesting.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:2"> to agree and do something  because they just won't</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:50">It's a kind of a consensus that is gradual.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:5"> do it unless  everybody else is doing it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:56">It's a seeping kind of consensus and it has many of the same characteristics as a model of a forest fire.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:8"> and this  model works really great</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:5">I have a little particle system here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:11"> for even weird  things like wearing baseball</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:11">And the percentage of trees - the percentage of clearing here - is just 50/50.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:14"> caps  backwards and girls</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:20">If I say okay, let's see if we can spread the fire throughout the forest here with a 50%.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:17"> showing their belly  buttons</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:29">I didn't initialize that let's try again.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:20"> if you trace the girls showing  their belly buttons</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:35">Here's 50%.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:23"> over the years  you'll see how gradual</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:38">So surprising that it doesn't try.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:26"> this change was  until suddenly it was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:44">Let's try go up to 60%. Let's say you can think of the 60% as people who are almost ready to agree.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:29"> okay and the thing  is if it's okay now</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:56">People are essentially there so 10% more it spreads better.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:32"> was always okay so  what's the problem well</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:11">Try another one. Each time the placement is random so you got a slightly different behavior.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:35"> the problem was  that this group generally</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:26">Yeah, so that's about what you get. Babe</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:38"> didn't think  it was okay it wasn't okay until about  two-thirds</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:32">Rings itself out. If we go up to like 66 percent or so 67, 66.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:41"> of them thought it was okay  and then all of a sudden it became okay  so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:44">Yeah. In these contagion models, you can think of this as spreading meames, if you will.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:44"> you're trying to reform education</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:53">Roughly two-thirds of this 80% has to pretty much be there before you can get them to agree and do something: because they just won't do it unless everybody else is doing it.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:47"> or  you're trying to get a group of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:8">This model works really great for even weird things like wearing baseball caps backwards and girls showing their belly buttons.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:50">to understand real object-oriented  programming or</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:20">If you trace the girls showing their belly buttons over the years,you'll see how gradual this change was, until suddenly it was okay.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:53"> any other new kind of  thing that comes along</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:29">The thing is, if it's okay now, it was always okay. So, what's the problem.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:56"> you get this  incredible disparity</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:35">Well, the problem was that this group generally didn't think it was okay.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:20:59"> which in computing  there</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:36"> It wasn't okay until about two-thirds of them thought it was okay. And then, all of a sudden it became okay.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:2"> are many many instances of roughly</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:44">So you're trying to reform education, or you're trying to get a group of people to understand real object-oriented programming, or any other new kind of thing that comes along, you get this incredible disparity, which in computing, there are many many instances.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:5">  30-year lags from when</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:5">Roughly 30-year lags from when an idea was really proved out to when it gets generally accepted.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:8"> an idea was  really proved out to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:12">But nobody knows whether this thirty years actually means anything or not.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:11"> when it gets  generally accepted but nobody knows</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:17">But it's interesting to look at the case of UNIX and all of its different adventures over the years and finally being accepted. </subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:14">whether this thirty years actually means  anything or</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:28">Even though it has a basically late '60s architecture, which is better than the architecture of some of the operating systems that are around.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:17"> not but it's it's  interesting to look at the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:41">But still, it's a fairly old architecture and so I'm desperately trying to hold on to life until at least 2007 or 2008.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:20"> case of UNIX  and all</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:53">Because some quite a bit of the work at PARC peaked 30 years ago, and I'm curious to see whether those ideas will actually be accepted.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:23"> of its different adventures</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:26"> over  the years and finally</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:29"> being accepted  even though it has</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:32"> a basically late 60s  architecture</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:35"> which is better than the  architecture of some of</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:38"> the operating  systems that are around</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:41">  but still it's a fairly old architecture</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:44">  and so I'm desperately</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:47"> trying to hold on  to life until</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:50"> at least 2007 or</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:53"> eight  because some quite a bit of</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:56"> the work at  Parc peaked 30 years ago</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:21:59">and I'm curious to see whether those  ideas will</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:2"> actually be accepted</subtitle>
 <note for="0:22:05">
 <slide for="0:22:05" name="NLS New.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:22:5"> however  if you look at an extreme case</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:5">However, if you look at an extreme case, Doug Engelbart, who had some of the best ideas ever.</subtitle></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:8"> Doug  Engelbart who had some of the best</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:11"> ideas  ever I think he was on a different plane</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:10">I think he was on a different plane. His ideas are now getting closer and closer to being 40 years old.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:14">  his ideas are now</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:17"> getting closer and  closer to being 40</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:20"> years old in their  articulate</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:23"> expression and most people  still don't understand what</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:26"> it was that  he was trying to do I</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:20">in their  articulate expression, and most people still don't understand what it was that he was trying to do.</subtitle>
 <note for="0:22:29">
 <slide for="0:22:29" name="JOY.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:22:29"> think an ancillary</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:29">I think an ancillary problem is that our field and people in general take great delight in complexity.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:32">  problem is that</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:35"> our field and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:38">people in general take great delight in  complexity</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:41"> seems</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:44"> like you go to schools</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:47">  is remarkable</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:50"> how much work they make  the poor kids do</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:53"> when if they taught the  math</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:56"> better and differently the kids  would have to do</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:22:59"> much less work but in  fact I</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:2"> think people the light in  complexity</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:5"> and think that putting  immense</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:8"> amounts of hard work in even if  there's an easier</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:11"> way is actually  there's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:41">It seems like, you go to schools, it is remarkable how much work they make the poor kids do, when if they taught the math better and differently, the kids would have to do much less work.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:14"> something morally good about it  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:01">But in fact, I think people the light in complexity and think that putting immense amounts of hard work in even if there's an easier way actually.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:17"> so I think for our field</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:13">There's something morally good about it.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:20"> one of the  hardest things is the delight and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:17">I think, for our field, one of the hardest things is the delight of complexity, because of the many levels of structure in computing and the difficulty of going from one level to another.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:23">  complexity because of the many levels of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:33">Pretty much everyone who gets interested in computing and a successfulabout it is a person who has mastered staggering amounts of complexity.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:26">  structure in computing and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:44">Now, I believe that most of those complexity is absolutely unnecessary, and I believe it can be proved that it's unnecessary.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:29"> the  difficulty of going from one level</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:32"> to  another pretty much everyone</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:35"> who gets  interested in computing and a successful</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:38">  Abbot is a person who has mastered  staggering</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:41"> amounts of complexity now</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:44">believe that most of those complexity is  absolutely</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:47"> unnecessary and I believe it  can be proved that</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:50"> it's unnecessary  so</subtitle>
 <note for="0:23:53">
 <slide for="0:23:53" name="JOY2.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:23:53"> what we really want is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:53">What we really want is to find the joy of simplicity.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:56"> to find the  joy of simplicity a lot of</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:23:59"> this talk is  almost a living cliche</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:2"> in the sense that</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:5">  very little of what I'm going to say  here</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:8"> is stuff that you don't already  know</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:11"> but when I started thinking about  what should</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:14"> I say at this talk  simplicity just kept on coming back</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:17"> the  all the projects</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:20"> I've been involved in  that have been successful have been</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:23">  successful because the people who worked</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:26">  in them put quite</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:7">A lot of this talk is almost a living cliché, in the sense that very little of what I'm going to say here is stuff that you don't already know.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:29"> a bit of effort into  keeping things to be</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:11">But, when I started thinking about what should I say at this talk, simplicity just kept on coming back.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:32"> simple and this  community of ARPA</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:17">All the projects I've been involved in that have been successful have been successful because the people who worked in them put quite a bit of effort into keeping things to be simple.</subtitle>
 <note for="0:24:35">
 <slide for="0:24:35" name="PARC Inventions1.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:24:35"> and then Xerox PARC  was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:35">And, this community of ARPA and then Xerox PARC was outstanding at being simple.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:38"> outstanding at being</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:41"> simple and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:44"> this  is a very very confident</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:44">This is a very, very confident group of people.
-<subtitle id="0:24:47"> group of people</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:50">But surprisingly, I won't use the word modest because I don't think anybody would recognize that word applied to these people, but I would say we are very, very respectful of these grand ideas they are trying to do.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:50">  but surprisingly I</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:8">Butler Lampson here was always pounding for simplicity.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:53"> won't use the word  modest because I don't think</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:14">Chuck Thacker, we did the Alto in just three months, was a master of simplicity.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:56"> anybody  would recognize that word applied</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:21">Dan Ingalls was master of simplicity.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:24:59"> to  these people but I would say we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:26">So were Metcalfe and Boggs.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:2"> very  very respectful of these grand</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:29">Metcalfe tells a great, great stories about how he didn't actually -- how many things he'd actually didn't understand.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:5"> ideas  they are trying to do Butler</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:38">It was incredibly important that he, of those things else, he never would have been able to invent the Ethernet.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:8"> Lampson  here was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:47">Starkweather, who did the laser printer -- first laser printer was a page a second, 500 pixels to the inch, faster than most laser printers today, was about three-quarters made with parts from Edmunds hobby catalog,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:11"> always pounding for simplicity</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:8">because they were cheap so he could get many of them and try them out, and so forth.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:14">  Chuck Thacker we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:14">This is, this particular way of looking at things, which was basically Hayward basically the this, group said we're just nowhere near as smart as IBM claims to be.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:17"> did the alto and just  three months was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:30">They're always announcing some new complicated network architecture that we can't see how to make it work.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:20"> a master of simplicity  dan angles master</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:38">So, we'll just stick to our old full duplex ideas and retransmission, and put a few other things in there.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:23"> of simplicity so and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:47">It may not work as well as what IBM claims it's going to do, but it's probably going to work.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:26">  Metcalf and Boggs</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:53">Funny thing is that the network's we use today are those terribly designed, unbelievably inefficient stochastic networks that are far from perfect.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:29"> that calf tells a  great great</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:4">But what's great is that they eventually get that packet through perfectly.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:32"> stories about how he didn't  actually</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:11">You just have to be willing to wait.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:35"> how many things he'd actually  didn't understand and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:38"> it was incredibly  important that he</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:41">of those things else he never would have  been able to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:44"> invent the ethernet very</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:47">Starkweather who did the laser printer  first</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:50"> laser printer was a page a second  500</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:53"> pixels to the inch faster</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:56"> than most  laser printers today</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:25:59"> was about  three-quarters made with</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:2">got from Edmunds  typic hobby</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:5"> catalog because</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:8"> they were  cheap so he could get many</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:11"> of them and  try them out and so forth</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:14"> so this</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:17"> this  particular</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:20"> way of looking at things  which was basically</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:23"> Hayward basically  the this</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:26"> group said we're just nowhere  near as smart as IBM</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:29"> claims to be  they're always</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:32"> announcing some new  complicated network architecture</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:35"> that we  can't see how to make it work and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:38"> so  we'll just stick to our old full</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:41"> duplex  ideas and retransmission and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:44"> put a few  other things in there and it</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:47"> may not  work as well as what IBM claims it's  going to do</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:50"> but it's probably gonna work  and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:53"> funny thing is the network's we use  today are those</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:56"> terribly designed</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:26:59">  unbelievably inefficient stochastic</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:2">  networks that are</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:5"> far from perfect but  what's great is that they</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:8"> eventually get  that packet through perfectly you</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:11"> just  have to be willing to wait so</subtitle>
 <note for="0:27:14">
 <slide for="0:27:14" name="Some Prejudices.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:27:14"> the other  thing that this group</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:14">The other thing that this group was really good at was what I call a different kind of simplicity.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:17"> was really good at  was what I call</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:20"> a different kind of  simplicity</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:23"> so it's it's hard to claim  that Maxwell's</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:26"> equations here is simple  because</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:29"> they're all that work you have  to do</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:32"> to understand vectors and curl</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:35"> and  divergence and gradient but</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:38">hing about it is once you've done that  work it shrinks</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:41"> down to something that's  just a simple eyeful</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:44"> the Constitution</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:47">the United States is one of my favorite  systems design</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:50"> think of it millions</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:53"> and  millions of mutually incompatible parts</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:56">  running without completely breaking for  more</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:27:59"> than 200 years pretty amazing</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:2">can hold it in your hand the reason you  can hold it in your</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:5"> hand is there a wise  not to put any laws in it</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:8"> so it was not  a law based thing it's not a case</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:11"> based  thing it was a principle based thing  was a kernel</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:23">It's hard to claim that Maxwell's equations here is simple, because there are all that work you have to do to understand vectors and curl and divergence and gradient.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:14"> so these</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:38">But the thing about it is once you've done that work it shrinks down to something that's just a simple eyeful.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:17"> are the kinds of  things that appeal to me greatly</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:44">the Constitution of the United States is one of my favorite systems design.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:20"> over  the years and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:50">Think of it: Millions and millions of mutually incompatible parts running without completely breaking for more than 200 years. Pretty Amazing.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:23"> I think trying to give  beginners</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:2">You can hold it in your hand. The reason you can hold it in your hand is they were wise not to put any laws in it.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:26"> at computing a taste for</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:8">It was not a law-based thing. It's not a case-based thing. It was a principle-based thing. It was a kernel.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:29"> the  power of the particular kind of  simplicity</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:14">These are the kinds of things that appeal to me greatly over the years.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:32"> that works so well is what we  should do</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:23">I think trying to give beginners at computing a taste for the power of the particular kind of simplicity that works so well is what we should do</subtitle>
 <note for="0:28:35">
 <slide for="0:28:35" name="Four Areas.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:28:35"> now the other thing I've  noticed in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:35">Now, the other thing I've noticed in talking with younger people and teaching a course, upper division course UCLA once a year, is that</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:38"> talking with younger people</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:41">  and teaching a course upper</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:44"> division  course UCLA once a year and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:47"> that is that  the it's not so much that the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:50"> juniors  and seniors don't</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:53"> know that much they  actually don't know</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:56"> that much for being  close</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:28:59"> to graduating from college but the  thing that is the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:2"> stressing about them  is that the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:5"> things that they do know  they know very badly as</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:8"> they know them  in ways that are almost</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:11">  counterproductive for their thinking</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:14"> and  so I think in a first course</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:17"> at anything  you have a real chance</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:20"> to not just teach</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:23">  the one subject but in the first</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:26">you can actually touch on a lot of  subjects so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:29"> for instance I think math  and science should always be</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:32"> taught  together in the beginning they</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:35"> came  about that way one is a language</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:38"> one is  a process I think</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:41"> systems and computing  should be taught together</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:44"> I think the  four of them should be taught together</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:47">  there arts we should teach you art</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:50"> and  engineering and why</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:53"> not throw in a  little bit about how these unusual</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:56"> ways  of looking at the world have affected</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:29:59">  civilization I think the other</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:2"> thing  that is so critical and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:5"> so absent in  most of our undergraduate computer</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:8">  science curricula is the failure to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:11">  think what we're doing as</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:14"> a kind of  literacy literacy</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:17"> is something that  comes up about when</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:20"> you have first ideas  that are worthwhile talking about you</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:23">  have a way of writing down those ideas  and discussing</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:26"> them that gives  literature and literacy is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:29"> the ability  to deal with both the spoken</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:32"> and the  written forms of these</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:35"> ideas so when we  teach an English class our first</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:38"> English  class in college we're not aiming</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:41">class at people who are going to become  professional writers</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:44"> when they graduate  four years later</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:47"> we actually think of  the impact</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:50"> of the printing press and the  new</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:53"> rhetorics and new ways of arguing  that came with a printing</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:56"> press as  something that is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:30:59"> larger than</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:2"> becoming a  professional reader or writer I</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:5"> think  the same thing is true of computing</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:8">  fifty years from now this will not be</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:11">  controversial so right now it's thought</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:14">  of as even in mighty Stanford with</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:17"> its  great endowment as basically vocational  training</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:20"> in Java and it's primarily  thought</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:23"> of as teaching kids programming</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:47">it's not so much that the juniors and seniors don't know that much: they actually don't know that much for being close to graduating from college, but the thing that is the stressing about them is that the things that they do know, they know very badly,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:26">  and it's absolutely important</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:8">as they know them in ways that are almost counterproductive for their thinking.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:29"> to learn  how to program but</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:14">So I think in a first course at anything, you have a real chance to not just teach the one subject, but in the first, you can actually touch on a lot of subjects.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:32"> computer science and  software engineering</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:29">For instance, I think math and science should always be taught together in the beginning.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:35"> are not the same as  programming any</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:35">They came about that way one is a language and one is a process.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:38"> more than building  Chartres Cathedral is the same as Brick  Lane</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:41">I think systems and computing should be taught together. I think the four of them should be taught together.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:41"> you have to understand one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:47">there is arts. We should teach you art and engineering, and why not throw in a little bit about how these unusual ways of looking at the world have affected civilization.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:44">the other but they're very different I  think this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:59">I think the other thing that is so critical and so absent in most of our undergraduate computer science curricula is the failure to think what we're doing as a kind of literacy.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:47"> is absolutely critical  because the picture on this little</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:17">Literacy is something that comes up about when you have first ideas that are worthwhile talking about.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:50"> slide  here is Konrad Lorenz</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:23">You have a way of writing down those ideas and discussing them that gives literature.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:53"> out swimming in  the pond with his ducks following</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:27">Literacy is the ability to deal with both the spoken and the written forms of these ideas.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:56">  remember of Lorentz</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:35">When we teach an English class our first English class in college, we're not aiming class at people who are going to become professional writers.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:31:59"> found that whatever  moved</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:44">When they graduate four years later, we actually think of the impact of the printing press and the new rhetorics and new ways of arguing that came with a printing press as something that is larger than becoming a professional reader or writer.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:2"> near a duckling during one little  critical period</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:5">I think the same thing is true of computing.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:5"> of a few hours was taken  thereafter</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:8">Fifty years from now, this will not be controversial. Right now, it's thought of as even in mighty Stanford with its great endowment as basically vocational training in Java and it's primarily thought of as teaching kids programming.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:8"> by that duckling to be its  mother and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:26">It's absolutely important to learn how to program but computer science and software engineering are not the same as programming any more than building Chartres Cathedral is the same as Brick Layering.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:11"> it would follow even into  adulthood that that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:41">You have to understand one the other but they're very different.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:14"> person and rents</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:45">I think this is absolutely critical, because the picture on this little slide here is Konrad Lorenz out swimming in the pond with his ducks following.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:17">found that they would follow him even  more happily if he jumped</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:56">Remember of Lorentz found that whatever moved near a duckling during one little critical period of a few hours was taken thereafter by that duckling to be its mother.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:20"> into the water  so there he is so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:11">And, it would follow even into adulthood that that person.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:23"> I think whenever we're  introducing somebody to something we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:17">Lorenz found that they would follow him, even more happily if he jumped into the water. So, there he is.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:26">  have to realize that we are going to be  a con</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:23">I think whenever we're introducing somebody to something, we have to realize that we are going to be a Konrad.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:29"> if we're successful we're going to  be a kind of Konrad Lorenz and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:29">If we're successful, we're going to be a kind of Konrad Lorenz, and we should take great care to what we're going to imprint them on.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:32"> we should  take great care to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:35">We don't want to imprint them on, for God's sakes, the data structures and algorithms.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:35"> what we're going to  imprint them on but we don't want to  imprint</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:42">That was a great idea in the 50s and you had to understand it. And, it's still useful today for optimization and other things.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:38"> them on for God's sakes  his data structures and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:52">But, it is not the center of the field for a long time.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:41"> algorithms that  was a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:59">What's worse about it is it doesn't scale.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:44"> great idea in the 50s and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:2">Those very little systems aspect in way the data structures and algorithms are taught.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:47"> you had  to understand it and it's still useful</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:8">I believe that we have to do is to give the students a real taste of what the whole deal is.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:50">  today for optimization and other</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:20">They have to start thinking in systems ways thinking in math and alkaway scientific ways as we go along.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:53">of things but it is not the center of  the field</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:25">This is a tall order, obviously./subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:32:56"> for a long time  and what's</subtitle>
+<note for="0:33:32">
+<slide for="0:33:32" name="Sketchpad1.png"/>
-<subtitle id="0:32:59"> worse about it it doesn't  scale those</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:2"> very little systems aspect  in way</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:5"> the data structures and  algorithms are taught and so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:8"> I believe  that we have to do</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:11"> is give the students  a real taste what</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:14"> the whole deal is and  so they have to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:17"> start thinking in  systems ways thinking</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:20"> in math and  alkaway scientific ways as</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:23"> we go along  this is a tall order</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:26"> obviously now we  could all remember</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:29"> our Conrad Lorentz  and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:32"> mine</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:35"> happened after I'd been a  programmer for five years</subtitle>
-<note for="0:33:38">
-<slide for="0:33:38" name="Sketchpad1.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:33:38"> a journeyman  programmer putting myself through</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:32">Now, we could all remember our Conrad Lorentz, and mine happened after I'd been a programmer for five years.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:41"> school  went to graduate school and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:44"> was given  Ivan</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:47"> Sutherlands thesis by Dave Evans  and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:50"> Dave said read it</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:53"> then come back and  talk with me about it</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:56">  and it was big thick</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:33:59"> thing and but I saw  that his thesis</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:2"> advisor was a guy by the  name of Claude e Shannon</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:5"> and I'd heard  of Shannon I thought well</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:8"> boy if Shannon  signed this thing maybe I should read it</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:11">  and I discovered that it</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:14"> was the most  amazing thing that I</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:17"> had ever heard of  being done with a computer</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:20"> up to that  point and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:23"> just show</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:26"> you a little bit of  the idea</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:29"> of it so this this</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:32">which is about the size of this  auditorium</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:35"> had only one guy on it from 3  o'clock</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:38">the morning you know as he just sketched  in something</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:41"> there then told those edges  to become usually</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:44"> perpendicular and  sketchpad figured out how to do that for  him</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:47"> first system to have a clipping</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:50">window  are you actually drawing on this huge</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:53">  virtual sheet of paper Danny</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:56"> draw  quickly point to these two</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:34:59"> guys and say  okay become parallel figures</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:2"> out how to  do that now</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:5"> he's saying be collinear</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:8"> to  lay yourself over</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:11"> these lines and of  course</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:14"> this display on this machine only  plotted points</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:17"> about half the capacity  of this machine</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:20"> I'm about here over to  the air it</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:23"> was just to put these little  dots up on the screen and pretend</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:26"> it was  a line drawing display</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:29"> now he's got a  hole in the flange</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:32"> okay</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:35"> and he wants to  make a rivet</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:38"> got some</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:41"> more ink  notice that the two-handed user  interface</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:44"> as all user interfaces should  be</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:47"> put</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:50"> that other hand is for point</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:53">he center of the cross piece there to  get the center</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:56"> of the arc and again  let's</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:35:59"> do the mutually perpendicular  trick</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:2"> that drags the center guys which  drags the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:5"> art guys we got a nice little  symmetric rivet</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:8"> and he could tell it to  be</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:11"> in some ratio the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:14"> two sides of the  vertical part</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:17"> of the rivet here he's  just showing it us that will do another  solution</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:20"> and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:23"> now he's going to go</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:26"> back  to the original form and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:29"> show us one  other interesting thing</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:32"> which</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:35"> is he can  make instances of this guy</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:41">they gets</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:44"> a instance of the rivet here I  can move it around</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:47"></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:50"> and see the success  of sketchpad</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:53"> led to a desire for a  better looking displays</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:56"> actually</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:36:59"> those  twinkling is they</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:2"> discovered right away  that you got seasick unless</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:5"> they  randomly plotted the dots so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:8">mething's being done in there they're  actually sorting half</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:11"> the memory of the  machine to keep the dot display random</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:14">  so it wouldn't swim around much more  than</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:17"> it it is here</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:20"> he's</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:23"> got four  instances now and he says whoops I</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:26">  forgot about the cross piece so it goes  to the master</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:29"> which we would call a  class makes</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:32"> the cross pieces transparent  and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:35"> we see the instances all feel that</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:41">so now he</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:47">'s going to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:50"> take this thing that  he just made and make</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:53"> it into a master  so the new construction</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:56"> is a master and  now he can get some instances of this</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:37:59">  flange here so the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:2"> the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:5"> range of  sketchpad was surprising so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:8"> by the end  of 1962 he</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:11"> could not only do stuff like  this but</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:14"> he decided okay I need</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:17"> letters  and numbers so he</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:20"> letters and numbers  were actually made out of the sketchpad</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:23">  stuff directly by drawing them in so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:26">f the captions on all of his drawings  and his thesis</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:38">A journeyman programmer putting myself through school, went to graduate school, and was given Ivan Sutherland's thesis by Dave Evans.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:29"> were made by the system  as well and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:50">Dave said: "read it, then come back and talk with me about it."</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:32"> then he realized oh yeah I  can actually do a bridge</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:56">It was big thick thing but I saw that his thesis advisor was a guy by the name of Claude E. Shannon.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:35"> because the  bridge actually acts a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:5">I'd heard of Shannon. I thought: "Well, boy, if Shannon signed this thing maybe I should read it."</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:38"> little bit like a  very stiff set of Springs and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:11">I discovered that it was the most amazing thing that I had ever heard of.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:41"> I can tell  sketchpad</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:16">Being done with a computer up to that point, and just show you a little bit of the idea of it.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:44"> to try and keep these</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:29">This, which is about the size of this auditorium, had only one guy on it from 3 o'clock the morning.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:47"> guys  constant when something is trying to  force</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:41">You know, as he just sketched in something there, then told those edges to become mutually perpendicular, and Sketchpad figured out how to do that for him.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:50"> them to move and I can measure the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:47">First system to have a clipping window. You are actually drawing on this huge virtual sheet of paper.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:53">  disparity the strain</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:56"> Danny draw quickly point to these two guys and say, "okay become parallel". It figures out how to do that now.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:56"> on each one of  these guys and I actually can show</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:5">He's saying be collinear to lay yourself over these lines.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:38:59">those labels on all of these guys and I  get a simulation</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:11">Of course, this display on this machine only plotted points.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:2"> of a bridge without  sketchpad</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:17">About half the capacity of this machine, I'm about here over to here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:5"> ever having heard about a  bridge and he realized</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:23">It was just to put these little dots up on the screen and pretend it was a line drawing display.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:8"> oh I can do that  with EMF also I can make</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:29">Now, he's got a  hole in the flange, okay.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:11"> circuits and  the constraints will</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:35">And, he wants to make a rivet.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:14"> actually drive all  of these simulations so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:38">Got some more ink. Notice that the two-handed user interface, as all user interfaces should be.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:17"> in my career I  think</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:47">That other hand is for point.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:20"> what I've been doing for the last  forty years is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:53">He center of the cross piece there to get the center of the arc and again, let's do the mutually perpendicular trick,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:23"> trying to get the next  version of sketch pad</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:2">that drags the center guy, which drags the arc guys we got a nice little symmetric rivet.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:26"> out because if you  think about what this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:8">And, he could tell it to be in some ratio.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:29"> thing is this is  kind of what we want we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:14">The two sides of the vertical part of the rivet. Here, he's just showing it us that will do another solution.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:32"> want something  in which anything that we are</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:20">And, now he's going to go back to the original form and show us one other interesting thing,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:35"> interested  in especially</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:32">which is he can make instances of this guy.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:38"> dynamic things that were  interested in we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:41">They get an instance of the rivet. here I can move it around. See, the success of sketchpad led to a desire for a better looking displays, actually.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:41"> can simply draw them in  there</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:59">Those twinkling is they discovered right away that you got seasick unless they randomly plotted the dots.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:44"> put in the relationships that we  understand</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:8">something is being done in there. They are actually sorting half the memory of the machine to keep the dot display random.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:47"> piece by piece and have the  system synthesize all</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:14">it wouldn't swim around much more than it it is here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:50"> this into a  dynamic simulation of astounding</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:20">He's got four instances now, and he says, whoops, I forgot about the cross piece. So, it goes to the master,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:53"> range  so it's just beautiful</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:29">which we would call a class makes the cross pieces transparent.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:56"> if they're I  don't know whether our field</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:35">And, we see the instances all feel that.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:39:59">Newton  yeah I</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:41">Now, he's going to take this thing that he just made, and make it into a master.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:2"> knew then</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:56">So, the new construction is a master. Now, he can get some instances of this flange here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:5"> I think it would have  to be ivan sutherland</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:2">So the range of Sketchpad was surprising.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:8"> because the where</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:8"> by the end of 1962, he could not only do stuff like this, but he decided, okay, I need letters and numbers.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:11">the field was before I even came on the  scene and after it was fantastic</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:20">so letters and numbers were actually made out of the Sketchpad stuff directly by drawing them in.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:14"> so I  want to ask Ivan</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:26">So, the captions on all of his drawings and his thesis were made by the system as well.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:17"> how could you possibly  in one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:32">And then, he realized, oh yeah, I can actually do a bridge.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:20"> year in machine code</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:35">Because the bridge actually acts a little bit like a very stiff set of springs.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:23"> on this big</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:41">I can tell Sketchpad to try and keep these guys constant when something is trying to force them to move and I can measure the disparity,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:26">  but rather slow machine with</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:56">the strain on each one of these guys and I actually can show those labels on all of these guys, and, Iget a simulation of a bridge without Sketchpad ever having heard about a bridge.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:29"> no graphics  display on it have done</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:5">He realized, oh, I can do that with EMF also.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:32"> the first  graphics system the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:11">I can make circuits, and the constraints will actually drive all of these simulations.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:35"> first  object-oriented software system and the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:17">In my career I think what I've been doing for the last forty years is trying to get the next version of Sketchpad out,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:38">  first dynamic problem-solving system</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:26">because if you think about what this thing is. This is kind of what we want.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:41"> and  I even looked at me said well</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:32">We want something, in which anything that we are interested in, especially dynamic things that were interested in, we can simply draw them in there,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:44"> I didn't  know it was hard</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:44">put in the relationships that we understand piece by piece, and have the system synthesize all this into a dynamic simulation of astounding range.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:47"> so the period by</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:56">It's just beautiful. If they're, I don't know whether our field has Newton. Yeah, I knew then.
-<subtitle id="0:40:50">way this thesis is available from MIT  should</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:5"> I think it would have to be Ivan Sutherland, because the field was before I even came on the scene, and after it was fantastic.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:53"> get it and read it my favorite  line</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:14">I went to ask Ivan how could you possibly, in one year, in machine code, on this big but rather slow machine with no graphics display on it, have done the first graphics system, the first object-oriented software system, and the first dynamic problem-solving system.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:56"> from it is he says that his hope  that future work will far surpass this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:41">Ivan looked at me and said: "Well, I didn't know it was hard."</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:40:59">  effort</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:47">so the period, by the way this thesis is available from MIT - you should get it and read it.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:5">so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:56">My favorite line from it is, he says that his hope that future work will far surpass this effort.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:8"> that was my first day</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:5">So, that was my first day in graduate school.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:11"> in graduate  school</subtitle>
 <note for="0:41:14>
 <slide for="0:41:14" name="ARPAnet.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:41:14"> and second day I found out about</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:14">And second day, I found out about that I was actually in the middle of the ARPA community, which I had no realization about.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:17">hat I was actually in the middle of the  ARPA community which I had no</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:20">  realization about and look</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:23"> lighter was</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:26">  not the funder in 1966 it</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:29"> was Bob Taylor  and they</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:32"> were just starting to talk  about doing what Licklider called the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:35">  intergalactic Network and the reason he  called it</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:38"> that is he didn't want people  to design a small network</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:41"> those original  theory was wherever</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:44">electricity plug on the face of the  earth there should be</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:47">can plug into this into like  intergalactic</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:50"> network that the thing had</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:53">  the scale at least up to 500 million</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:56"> to  a billion users so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:41:59"> people were starting  to think about that</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:2"> in a couple of days  later I got</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:5"> a tape and some</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:8"> documents  about a language called Simula from  Norway</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:11"> by Dahl</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:14"> here and Nygaard and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:17"> it's  very hard to understand and after a lot  of</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:20"> work and looking at the listings we  realize well this is a programming</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:23">  language that is dealing with the same  kind</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:26"> of structures as sketchpad by</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:29"> the  way I should mention the you know the  name the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:32"> term object predates</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:35">  object-oriented programming object</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:38"> in  the early 60s was a general term</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:41">was used to describe compound data  structures especially</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:44"> if they had  pointers in them there was none</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:47">paraphernalia of what we think about as  object native</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:50"> programming today object  was just a general</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:53"> term you'll find it  lots of old papers</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:56"> and the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:42:59"> realization  that you could write procedures</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:2"> for  dealing with</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:5">at sketchpad was doing was very  liberating because</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:8"> even though it was  ugly compared</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:11"> to what sketch patters  gets bad was just unbelievably elegant</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:14">but nobody knew how to scale that's  Oliver</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:17">  in fact that problem has not been solved</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:20">  today yet but by</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:23"> going to the less  elegant</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:26"> way of being able to write code</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:29">  against these structures we</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:32"> all got  excited about the possibilities of being  able to do</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:35"> in a system like Simula the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:38">kinds of graphic and interaction  manipulation and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:41"> my background coming  into this was</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:44"> in molecular biology and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:47">  mathematics and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:50"> particularly sketchpad  just hit me</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:53"> right here as one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:23">Licklider was not the funder in 1966: it was Bob Taylor and they were just starting to talk about doing what Licklider called the Intergalactic Network.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:56"> of these  kernels and the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:35">The reason he called it that is he didn't want people to design a small network.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:43:59"> thing I suddenly  realized was that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:41">Those original theory was wherever electricity plug on the face of the earth, there should be can plug into this into.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:2"> if you were  sufficiently</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:50">Like intergalactic network that the thing had the scale at least up to 500 million to a billion users.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:5"> abstract if you ignored  what</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:59">So, people were starting to think about that. In a couple of days later I got a tape and some documents about a language called Simula from Norway by Dahl here and Nygaard.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:8"> these systems were trying to do</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:17">It's very hard to understand.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:11"> if  you just thought of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:18">After a lot of work, and looking at the listings, we realize, well, this is a programming language that is dealing with the same kind of structures as Sketchpad.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:14"> them as being cheap</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:29">By the way, I should mention that, you know, the name, the term object predates object-oriented programming.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:17">versions of all these little computers  on the ARPANET</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:36">Object, in the early 60s, was a general term that was used to describe compound data structures, especially if they had pointers in them.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:20"> you could</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:47">There was none paraphernalia of what we think about as object native programming today. Object was just a general term.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:23"> solve the same  scaling problem in software</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:52">You'll find it in lots of old papers.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:26"> then you  could actually subsume</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:59">And, the realization that you could write procedures for dealing with at Sketchpad was doing was very liberating,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:29"> everything in  computing with just one kind of idea  which</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:8">because even though it was ugly compared to what Sketchpad gets bad was just unbelievably elegant.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:32"> is essentially a little software  computer</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:14">But, nobody knew how to scale that's  Oliver.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:35"> not a procedure not a data</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:17">In fact, that problem has not been solved today yet.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:38">  structure but a whole computer a lot of  the development</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:23">But, by going to the less elegant way of being able to write code against these structures, we all got excited about the possibilities of being able to do in a system like Simula the kinds of graphic and interaction manipulation.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:41"> of OOP was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:41">My background coming into this was in molecular biology and mathematics.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:44"> software  engineering after that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:50">And, particularly Sketchpad just hit me right here as one of these kernels.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:47">interesting things to me in the  development of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:59">The thing I suddenly realized was that if you were sufficiently abstract if you ignored what these systems were trying to do,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:50"> who the Elven of  practical as it wound up in spark</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:11">if you just thought of them as being cheap versions of all these little computers on the ARPANET,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:53"> was  very similar to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:20">you could solve the same scaling problem in software.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:56"> what happened in Lisp  earlier which is boy</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:26">Then, you could actually subsume everything in computing with just one kind of idea, which is essentially a little software computer:</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:44:59"> we've got this  incredibly elegant wonderful</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:35">Not a procedure, not a data structure, but a whole computer.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:2"> thing too  bad it runs so slow</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:41">A lot of the development of OOP was software engineering after that.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:5"> but what if we could  make it run</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:47">Interesting things to me in the development of who the Elven of practical as it wound up in spark was very similar to what happened in Lisp earlier, which is, boy, we've got this incredibly elegant wonderful thing.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:8"> faster in a way that doesn't  get in the users</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:2">Too bad it runs so slow but what if we could make it run faster in a way that doesn't get in the users way, then we would have something really, really nice.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:11"> way then we would have  something really really nice and some</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:14">Some of the best actually I just talked Guy Steele, who is one of the people who helped make Lisp into something really special to use as well as to contemplate.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:14">the best actually I just talked the guy  Steele</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:26">So, the image here was wow it's all about messages.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:17"> who is one of the people who</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:32">The reasons about messages are not about objects so much is that the messages are the abstractions.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:20">helped make Lisp into something really  special</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:38">We spend time in our field worrying about what the objects are.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:23"> to use as well as to contemplate</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:26">  and so the image here was</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:29"> WOW it's all  about mess  the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:32"> reasons about messages are not about  objects</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:35"> so much is that the messages are  the abstractions</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:38"> we spend</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:41">time in our field worrying about what  the objects are</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:44"></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:47"> so</subtitle>
 <note for="0:45:53">
 <slide for="0:45:53" name="Prejudices.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:45:53">I need to move along a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:53">I need to move along a bazillion prejudices.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:56"> bazillion  prejudices  I</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:59">I love parallelism because I learned how to program plug boards before programming a computer.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:45:59"> love parallelism because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:8">The beauty about those things was you could make a kind of a machine that was highly parallel.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:2"> I learned how to program plug  boards before</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:14">I loved hardware like the B5000.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:5"> programming a computer and  the beauty</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:20">All of our today that we use came out of the hardware of that machine never</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:8"> about those things was you  could make a kind</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:26">saw fit to learn anything about software make our lives much simpler.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:11"> of a machine it was  highly parallel</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:32">I love Lisp.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:14"> I loved</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:35">Everybody should understand it the giass was programming language ever done. it could hardly do anything but it did it beautifully.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:17"> hardware like  the B 5000 all of our</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:50">It's an interesting challenge to take something of this level of beauty and try to scale it.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:20">today that we use came out of the  hardware of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:54">You combine these two together, you got the original Logo that's how Logo came about:</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:23"> that machine never</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:59">an attempt to take Lisp and have something prettier especially for kids.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:26"> saw fit  to learn anything about</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:5">I love APL. All of these all of these systems I think can be done in a different way.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:29"> software make  our</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:14">But basically the love of these things is because these guys got to some special kernel.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:32"> lives much simpler  I love</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:18">I love what Engelbart did. A lot of spreadsheets. I loved HyperCard.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:35"> Lisp everybody should understand</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:23">Suppose you could amalgamate all these wonderful things into a simple system that regular people can use.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:38">  it the giass was</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:41">programming language ever done it could  hardly do anything but</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:44"> it did it  beautifully</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:47"> so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:50"> it's an interesting  challenge to take something of this  level</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:53"> of beauty and try to scale it you  combine these</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:56"> two together you got the  original logo that's how logo came</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:46:59"> about  attempt to take Lisp and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:2"> have something  prettier especially for kids</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:5">  I love APL all</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:8"> of these all of these  systems I think can be done in</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:11"> a  different way but basically</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:14"> the love of  these things is because these guys</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:17"> got  to some special kernel I love what  Engelbart</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:20"> did a lot of spreadsheets I  loved HyperCard</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:23"> suppose you could  amalgamate</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:26"> all these wonderful things  into</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:29"> a simple system that regular people  can</subtitle>
 <note for="0:47:32">
 <slide for="0:47:32" name="Exploratorium.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:47:32"> use and now let's talk about the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:32">Now, let's talk about the why of what we're doing.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:35"> the  why of</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:38"> what we're doing why do people</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:41"> do  things well Frank Oppenheimer in the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:44">  Exploratorium</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:47"> made 500 exhibits to teach  just one idea the world</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:50"> is not as it  seems they asked him</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:53"> why and he said  well every child is different we</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:56"> have  2,000 children in here bumping against  500</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:47:59"> different exhibits there's a good  chance that a child</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:2"> will find the  exhibit that speaks</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:5"> to them  clearly about this first important</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:8">about science  so he</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:11"> said 500 of them and I think if  you're going to teach a course in this</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:14">  you need</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:17"> you need</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:20"> 20 to 30 projects or</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:23">  so for each area to give the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:26"> children  the choice</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:29"></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:32"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:41">Why do people do things? Well, Frank Oppenheimer in the Exploratorium made 500 exhibits to teach just one idea:</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:35"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:49">The world is not as it seems.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:38"> I</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:52">They asked him why, and he said: "well, every child is different. we have 2,000 children in here, bumping against 500 different exhibits.</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:52">"There's a good chance that a child will find the exhibit that speaks to them clearly.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:41"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:8">"About this first important idea about science."</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:44"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:11">So he said 500 of them. I think if you're going to teach a course in this, you need 20 to 30 projects or so for each area to give the children the choice.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:47"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:20">(Am I interrupting your conversation?)
-<subtitle id="0:48:50"> won't</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:38">I won't tell you what quadrant they're in.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:53"> tell you what  quadrant they're in</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:48:56"> so</subtitle>
 <note for="0:48:59">
 <slide for="0:48:59" name="Model T Scratch.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:48:59"> I think the  another important</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:59">I think the another important idea is scratch programming, because so much of computing education today is learning the library.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:2"> idea is scratch  programming because</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:5"> so much of computing  education</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:8"> today is learning the library  and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:11"> I don't think beginners should ever  be shown the library</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:14"> the programming  language can't do interesting</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:17"> things  without the library then what is it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:11">I don't think beginners should ever be shown the library. if the programming language can't do interesting things without the library, then what is it?</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:20"> so I  think</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:20">I think it should be like a Model T. Model T has about 350 parts, and you could take it apart over a weekend and put it back together.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:23"> it should be like a Model T Model  T has</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:32">But, it was a completely real automobile.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:26"> about 350 parts and you could</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:35">A lot of what we're going to look at here in the next few minutes are sort of first-order ideas that might say some important things.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:29"> take  it apart over a weekend and put it back  together</subtitle>
+<note for="0:49:41">
+<slide for="0:49:41" name="influences.png"/>
-<subtitle id="0:49:32"> but it was a completely real  automobile</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:35"> so a lot of what we're gonna</subtitle>
-<note for="0:49:38">
-<slide for="0:49:38" name="influences.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:49:38">  look at here in the next few minutes are</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:41">Now, a good thing is that many people have written about the fun, the beauty, the romance, what's important and about looking ahead in computing.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:41">  sort of first-order ideas that might</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:59">There's not just one book out there, and there's less than 1% of books about computing are worthwhile reading.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:44"> say  some important things now a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:8">But, it's not one book. There are dozens of them, and there's plenty of ideas for how to do this stuff.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:47"> good thing  is that many people have</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:50"> written about  the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:53"> fun the beauty the romance what's  important</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:56"> and about looking ahead in  computing</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:49:59"> there's not just one book out  there</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:2"> and there's less than 1% of</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:5">books about computing or worthwhile  reading</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:8"> but it's not one book there are  dozens</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:11"> of them and so there's plenty of  ideas</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:14"> for how to do this stuff</subtitle>
 <note for="0:50:17">
 <slide for="0:50:17" name="ControlvLearning C.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:50:17">  the user interface had better not be</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:17">The user interface had better not be like Microsoft's caricature of the stuff that was done at PARC, which is I always have the feeling when I'm using Windows that I'm dealing with a somewhat dangerous nuclear reactor control panel,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:20">  like Microsoft's</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:23"> caricature of the stuff</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:26">  that was done at Parc which is I always</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:38">and that I haven't had enough training on it.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:29">have the feeling when I'm using Windows  that I'm</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:41">Whereas what I want is something like pencil and paper where although there are things I can learn about pencil and paper, what is most important about them is what I can do without knowing much.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:32"> dealing with a somewhat  dangerous nuclear</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:53">I can find out the pencil and paper is fun.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:35"> reactor control panel</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:38">  and that I haven't had enough training</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:41">  on it whereas what I want is something  like</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:44"> pencil and paper where although  there are things I can learn</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:47"> about  pencil and paper what I what is most  important</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:50"> about them is what I can do  without knowing much so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:53"> I can find out  the pencil and paper is fun</subtitle>
 <note for="0:50:56">
 <slide for="0:52:05" name="FLOW.png"/>
@@ Line 2,060: / Line 731: @@
 <slide for="0:52:35" name="FLOW5.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:50:56"> and I want  an environment that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:56">I want an environment that deals with a set of ideas in a way that gets me to lose myself in the ideas.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:50:59"> deals with a</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:2"> set of  ideas in</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:5"> a way that</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:8"> gets me to lose  myself in</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:11"> the ideas so my chick sandy hi</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:14">  here was one of our advisors had this  nice</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:17"> model about this</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:20"> balance between  our</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:23"> abilities and the challenges and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:26"> he  said well if the challenges are higher</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:29">  than our abilities then we start getting  anxious</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:32"> especially</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:35"> if we're climbing up  a rock face</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:38"> we're giving a talk in front  of an audience</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:41">  but if our abilities are greater</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:44"> than  the challenge we start getting bored</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:47"> so  these are the two main states that  humans</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:50"> are in either anxious or bored</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:53">hard-to-get-to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:56"> is this flow state where  everything</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:51:59"> is just working and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:2"> we like  to widen this flow State for a beginners</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:5">  so for example</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:8"> one of the things we  could do to deal</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:11"> with areas that where  the challenge is greater than</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:11">Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi here, was one of our advisors, had this nice model about this balance between our abilities and the challenges.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:14"> our  abilities is to increase the safety</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:24">He said, well, if the challenges are higher than our abilities then we start getting anxious, especially if we're climbing up a rock face, we're giving a talk in front of an audience.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:17">  so having undo an environment</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:41">But, if our abilities are greater than the challenge, we start getting bored.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:20">nice  most</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:47">So, these are the two main states that humans are in: either anxious or bored.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:23"> programming environments don't have  much of an undo</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:53">Hard to get to is this flow state where everything is just working.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:26"> and on the other hand  what because we get bored</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:2">We like to widen this flow state for beginners.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:29"> so easily we  want something to help us pay attention</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:5">For example, one of the things we could do to deal with areas that where the challenge is greater than our abilities is to increase the safety.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:32">  better and a good user interface</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:17">So, having undo in an environment is nice. </subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:35">basically deals with these things it  provides more safety</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:23">most programming environments don't have much of an undo.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:38"> than most computer  people think an</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:26">On the other hand, because we get bored so easily, we want something to help us to pay attention.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:41"> ordinary person needs  and it provides more ways of attracting</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:32">A better and a good user interface basically deals with these things.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:44">  their attention than most of us</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:38">it provides more safety than most computer people think an ordinary person needs.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:47"> think  people need</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:41">It provides more ways of attracting their attention than most of us think people need.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:50"> so I just</subtitle>
+<note for="0:52:50">
-<subtitle id="0:52:53"> want to show you a</subtitle>
-<note for="0:52:56">
 Alan is drawing a car, explain the viewer and some tiles.
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:52:56">  give you a little bit of a flavor about</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:50">I just want to show you, give you, a little bit of a flavor about how children start, and then show you where I think things are actually going to go.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:52:59">  how children start</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:2"> and then show you  where I think things are</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:5"> actually going  to go so the work</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:8"> we do with children we</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:11">want</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:14"> them to have an experience that is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:17">  basically thinking</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:20"> about ideas making  pictures of</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:23"> them so for example take</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:26">  something that most kids would like to  do for</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:29"> one reason or another which is to</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:32">learn</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:35"> how to drive their parents car</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:38"> we  get them to design a car and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:41"> most kids</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:44">  boys and girls put on big off-road</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:47"> tires  like this because</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:50"> part of the deal is  feeling powerless and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:53"> wanting to feel  empowered this is something that video</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:56">  game manufacturers really understand</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:53:59"> why  are those games so violent</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:5">and so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:8"> we have a little graphic object  here and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:11"> do things</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:14"> to it we can open it  up and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:17"> see</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:20"> a viewer of it I</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:23">people in the back can't see very well  so I'm looking</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:26"> at a property here called  the heading of the thing and I'm gonna  count</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:29"> up the number starts at zero and  as</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:32"> I count it up you can see the little  car turning I've</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:35"> got a behavioral  property here forward</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:38"> I've got a</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:41"> another  one called turn by and so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:44"> if I just drag  out the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:47"> lines</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:50"> of script here and turn on  the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:53"> clock</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:56"> then I've got my little car  going there</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:54:59"> are many different kinds of  things</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:2"> I can do with it  for the kids they want to learn a little</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:5">  bit about</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:8"> driving the car so the first  experiment is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:11"> what happens if I click  this number it says turn by</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:14"> now turn by  zero</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:17"> it goes straight turn by negative</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:20">  I'll call this guy car keep</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:23"> it straight  here that's a little bit like</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:8">So, the work we do with children, we want them to have an experience that is basically thinking about ideas making pictures of them.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:26"> kissing  your sister so because real</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:23">For example, take something that most kids would like to do for one reason or another which is to learn how to drive their parents car.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:29"> cars use  wheels so I want to make a wheel here</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:38">We get them to design a car and most kids, boys and girls, put on big off-road tires like this, because part of the deal is feeling powerless, and wanting to feel empowered</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:35">just draw</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:56">this is something that video game manufacturers really understand.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:38"> one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:59">Why are those games so violent?</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:41"> it's got the same user</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:8">So, we have a little graphic object here, and to do things to it, we can open it up and see a viewer of it.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:44">  interface as the other one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:23">People in the back can't see very well. So I'm looking at a property here called the heading of the thing, and I'm going to count up the number starts at zero.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:47">is a system which is only one kind of  object</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:32">As I count it up, you can see the little car turning. </subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:50"> so it's exactly the opposite</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:35">I've got a behavioral property here: "forward."</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:53"> of  the systems that you're used to that  have zillions</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:38">I've got another one called "turn by".</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:56"> and zillions of classes  and subclasses and and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:44">If I just drag out the lines of script here and turn on the clock, then I've got my little car going.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:55:59"> so forth and we  can talk a little</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:59">There are many different kinds of things I can do with it. For the kids they want to learn a little bit about driving the car.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:2"> bit about it about  this in the question and answer system  if you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:11">So, the first experiment is what happens if I click this number.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:5"> would like and so here's this  wheel it's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:14">It says "turn by". Now, "turn by zero".</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:8"> got a heading also and if</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:17">It goes straight. "Turn by negative". I'll call this guy car.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:11">pick up the name of that heading and  just drag it over to the script</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:23">Keep it straight here. That's a little bit like kissing your sister, because real cars use wheels.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:14"> here so  it says car turned</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:35"> So I want to make a wheel here. Just draw one.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:17"> by wheels heading now  I can just turn</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:41">It's got the same user interface as the other one.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:20"> the car around now  what's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:47">This is a system, which is only one kind of object.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:23"> important for ten-year olds that  they is that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:50">It's exactly the opposite of the systems that you're used to that have zillions and zillions of classes and subclasses and so forth.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:26"> they learn what a variable  is for the rest of their life from this  one shot</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:59">We can talk a little bit about it, about this in the question and answer, if you would like.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:29"> that's good and actually I  believe this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:5">And, so here's this wheel it's got a heading also.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:32"> would be good for high  school and college kids too because  there's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:11">If I pick up the name of that heading and just drag it over to the script here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:35"> quite a bit of evidence that  they they don't ever learn</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:14">So it says "car turned by wheel's heading."</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:38"> much about  what a variable actually</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:17">Now, I can just turn the car around.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:41"> is or does ways  of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:23">Now, what's important for ten-year olds is that they learn what a variable is for the rest of their life from this one shot.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:44"> thinking about it so there are many  different kinds of things here that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:29">That's good, and actually I believe this would be good for high school and college kids, too, because there's quite a bit of evidence that they they don't ever learn much about what a variable actually is, or does ways of thinking about it.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:47"> can  be done so having</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:47">So there are many different kinds of things here that can be done.</subtitle>
 <note for="0:56:50">
 Open a viewer on the scriptor and rotate them.
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:56:50"> one kind of object  that's kind of weird I</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:50">So, having one kind of object. That's kind of weird.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:53"> mean here's a a</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:56">  photograph which we can see has</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:56:59"> the same  kind of feel here the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:2"> script is one of  these guys what if I open up its viewer</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:5">got</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:8"> one called scripture here and I see</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:11">y'all look really the same kind of thing  so what</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:14"> if I make a script on the script  here</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:53">I mean, here's a photograph which we can see has the same kind of feel here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:17"> and get</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:57:2">The script is one of these guys. What if I open up its viewer.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:23">so I think about the implications of  this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:57:5">I got one called scriptor here, and I see y'all look really the same kind of thing.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:26"> means that wherever I go out</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:57:14">So what if I make a script on the script here, and get.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:29"> for  instance what if I go over here well</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:57:23">I think about the implications of this means that wherever I go out, for instance, what if I go over here.</subtitle>
@@ Line 2,330: / Line 839: @@
 Open a viewer on the pane in viewer and rotate them.
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:57:32"> the  viewers got one of those things and so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:57:32">Well, the viewers got one of those things and so does this category.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:35">  does this category so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:38"> and</subtitle>
 <note for="0:57:41">
 Open a viewer on the world, and show different panes.
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:57:41"> this whole  outside</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:57:41">And, this whole outside thing that I'm giving the talk in terms of is also one of these things.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:44"> thing that I'm giving</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:57:53">so I look at its viewer, the viewer of the world, and well, it's got the same kinds of things here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:47"> the talk  in terms of is also</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:58:2">We looked at the various traits here. This is like what Nathanael Schärli was talking about earlier.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:50"> one of these things  so I look at its viewer the viewer of  the world</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:58:8">This notion of side-ways composition also goes back to PARC.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:53"> and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:58:11">Back then in the 70s, it was called aspects but that word means something somewhat different now.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:56"> well it's got the same  kinds</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:58:17">We, various things you can see. Oh, the thing is a collection.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:57:59"> of things here we looked at the  various traits</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:58:23">It's got stuff about its colors and borders, and other kinds of things here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:2"> here this is like what  Nathaniel Charlie was talking about</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:58:32">And what, here's one that says 'as object'. Now, an inheritance system the Object would be way up at the end of the inheritance system.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:5">  earlier this notion of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:58:41">But in a side-ways composition object system, it's going to be one of the traits. We're looking at it's a view of the object as an object. </subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:8"> sideways  composition also goes back to park</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:58:47">We tried to think about what would be an interesting way of showing this idea of meta.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:11"> back  back then in the 70s was called aspects</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:58:56">Here's one where I'm, what I'm going to do is suppress all the costumes on all the objects.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:14">  but that word means something somewhat  different</subtitle>
+<note for="0:59:2">
-<subtitle id="0:58:17"> now so we</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:20">various things you can see oh the thing  is a collection</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:23"> it's got stuff about</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:26"> its  colors and borders and other</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:29"> kinds of  things here and what</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:32"> here's one that  says as object now an</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:35"> inheritance system  the object would be way up at</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:38"> the end of  the inheritance system but in a sideways  composition</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:41"> object system it's going to  be</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:44"> one of the traits we're looking at  it's a view of the object</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:47"> as an object  and we tried to think</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:50"> about what would  be an interesting way of showing</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:53"> this  idea of meta so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:56"> here's one where I'm  what I'm going to do is suppress all</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:58:59">the costumes on all the objects and I  think this will help you</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:2"> see that  everything is sort of abstractly the  same</subtitle>
-<note for="0:59:5">
 Choose world useBluePrintCanvas: to change the look.
 </note>
-<subtitle id="0:59:5"> here ok so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:59:2">And, I think this will help you see that everything is sort of abstractly the same here</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:8"> basically I just turned  off the costume mechanism</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:59:8">Ok, basically I just turned off the costume mechanism.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:11"> now I have  this interesting problem of getting back</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:59:11">Now, I have this interesting problem of getting back.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:17">but that's why I left</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:59:17">But, that's why I left my mouse here. so, this is the guy who did it. I'm going to click the little caret here, which I know is there to make it false</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:59:25">Then, we're going to hit the exclamation point to turn everything back on again.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:20"> my mouse here so  this is the guy who did it I'm gonna  click the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:59:32">You see, I'm talking about them, basically, meta is safe if you can allow fence after fence after fence after fence.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:23"> little carrot here which I  know is there</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:59:41">Now, there are many many examples, if I had longer talk I'd show you, but I wanted to show you the last set of ideas here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:26"> to make it false and then  we're gonna hit the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:59:52">If we could just go to the video 2, please, in the back.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:29"> exclamation point to  turn everything back on again</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:59:56">Ok.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:32"> you see  I'm talking about them basically</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:59:59">So, return to Sketchpad here, and if we look at a more future-oriented environment, we see that we now have the ability of doing much more complicated ways of thinking of environments so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:35"> meta is  safe if you</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:38"> can allow fence after fence  after fence after fence</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:41"> now there are  many many</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:44"> examples which have had</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:47">longer talk I'd show you but I wanted to  show you the last</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:50"> set of ideas here so  if</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:53"> we could just go to the video to  please in the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:56"> back ok</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="0:59:59"> so return to  sketch pad here</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:2"> and if we look at a more</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:5">  future oriented environment</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:8"> we see that  we now have the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:11"> ability of doing much  more complicated</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:14"> ways of thinking of  environments so</subtitle>
 <note for="1:00:17">
@@ Line 2,449: / Line 893: @@
 <slide for="1:01:20" name="Croquet bridge2.png"/>
 </note>
-<subtitle id="1:0:17"> here I am in a 3d</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:0:17">Here, I am in a 3D environment that we built called Croquet.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:20">environment that we built called croquet  by</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:23"> the way the if your interests and the  kids stuff that's found on the website</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:26">  squeak LAN org and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:29"> this croquet  environment</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:32"> this is all free software  croquet environment</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:35"> is found on open  croquet org</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:38"> and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:41"> so again this is a  completely</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:44"> constructible environment  here but</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:47"> what we did was</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:50"> to do a</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:53"> kind of  an interesting analogy to webpages</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:56">  so each 3d</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:0:59"> world here is like a web page  and these portals are like a hyper</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:2"> link  to them</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:5"> so I'm just going to pop Alice  to enter this</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:8"> guy here</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:11"> I'm just going to  do a 360</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:14">this</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:17"> is a Mars environment all</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:20"> of these  environments are buildable</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:23"></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:26"> I'm just  going to show</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:35">one last thing so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:38"> I can end on time I</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:41">  kind of like bridges as an analogy here</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:44">  so we</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:47"> have a bridge structure</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:50"> and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:53"> I want  to show you what the kids scripting</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:56">  environment looks like for doing</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:1:59">bridge so the first thing we want to  look at is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:2"> the little script for Masse's  basically</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:5"> what we have here is F equals  MA</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:8"> acceleration is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:11"> the force divided by  the mass the velocity is</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:14"> increasing by  the acceleration and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:17"> the location</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:20"> of all  the little elements on here</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:23"> is going to  increase by the velocity and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:26"> I'm going  to turn on the the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:29"> force here</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:32"> to work</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:38">and say okay let's do do that</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:41"> so this  bridge structures</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:44"> feeling gravity</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:47"> and  you can see it coming into equilibrium</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:50">  could have made it stiffer</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:53"> but let's  look at the springs the</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:56"> springs are  fairly stiff</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:2:59"> K gets - 1400</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:2"> here and so</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:5">what I'm going to what I'm going to do  here is to make</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:8"> it - 400 tell</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:11"> it to go  ahead that's going to let</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:14"> it sag quite a  bit more then</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:17"> we all remember the Tacoma  Narrows Bridge film</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:20"> so of course we have  to have</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:23"> some wind and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:26"> basically what I'm  going to do here</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:29"> is turn on a variable</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:32">  gusting wind that's completely described  by</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:35"> this script here and</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:38"></subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:41"> okay so now it's  going to do</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:44"> some Tacoma Narrows stuff</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:0:23">By the way, the if you are interested, the kids stuff that's found on the website:</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:53">I need sound I noticed the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:0:26">squeakland.org, and this Croquet environment, this is all free software. Croquet environment is found on opencroquet.org.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:56"> sound wasn't  working thank</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:0:41">So again, this is a completely constructible environment here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:3:59"> you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:0:47">But what we did was to do a kind of an interesting analogy to webpages.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:4:2"> let's take a look at  our</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:0:56">So, each 3D world here is like a web page, and these portals are like a hyperlink to them.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:4:5"> bridge</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:1:5">I'm just going to pop Alice to enter this guy here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:4:14">and you know it's funny when you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:1:11">I'm just going to do a 360.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:4:17"> look at  a model of steel if</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:1:14">this is a Mars environment.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:4:20"> you remember that  Tacoma Narrows Bridge movie</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:1:20">All of these environments are buildable.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:4:23"> it was  really like the bridge was made out of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:1:26">I'm just going to show one last thing so I can end on time.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:4:26">  fabric of some kind and this has this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:1:41">I kind of like bridges as an analogy here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:4:29">kind of same aspect and that gave us an  interesting idea here</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:1:44">So, we have a bridge structure and I want to show you what the kids scripting environment looks like for doing bridge.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:4:59">so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:2">So the first thing we want to look at is the little script for Mass's.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:2"> I think a good way to end this talk  is just to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:5">basically what we have here is F = ma.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:5"> say that if</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:8">Acceleration is the force divided by the mass.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:8"> we can't get kids  interested in the romance why</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:14">The velocity is increasing by the acceleration. And,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:11"> this is  unbelievably beautiful new</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:17">the location of all the little elements on here is going to increase by the velocity.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:14"> art form then</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:26">I'm going to turn on the the force here to work.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:17">  we're not living up</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:38">Say, okay, let's do do that.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:20"> to what our duty is  of enjoying the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:41">So this bridge structures is feeling gravity.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:23"> stuff ourselves we have  to reach deeply inside of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:47">And, you can see it coming into equilibrium.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:26"> ourselves to  remember what it was that first got</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:50">I could have made it stiffer but let's look at the springs.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:29"> us  interested in this wonderful new thing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:56">The springs are fairly stiff:</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:32">  remember that it hasn't</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:2:59">K gets 1400 here, so what I'm going to, what I'm going to do here is to make it 400.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:35"> even started yet  and it's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:3:11">Tell it to go ahead that's going to let it sag quite a bit more.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:38"> our duty to help the children  as young as</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:3:17">Then, we all remember the Tacoma Narrows Bridge film.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:41"> possible try and do a better  job of it than we have</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:3:20">So, of course, we have to have some wind.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:5:44"> thank you very  much</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:3:26">Basically, what I'm going to do here is turn on a variable gusting wind that's completely described by this script here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:26">Thank You Alan</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:3:41">Okay, now it's going to do some Tacoma Narrows stuff.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:29"> for a fantastic talk and  we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:3:53">I need sound. I noticed the sound wasn't working. Thank you.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:32"> have a token of our affection here</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:4:2">Let's take a look at our bridge, and you know it's funny when you look at a model of steel, if you remember that Tacoma Narrows Bridge movie.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:35"> as  well that concludes</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:4:23">It was really like the bridge was made out of fabric of some kind.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:38"> our Turing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:4:29">This has this kind of same aspect and that gave us an interesting idea here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:41"> Award  lecture and you're welcome now</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:5:2"> I think a good way to end this talk is just to say that if we can't get kids interested in the romance, why this is unbelievably beautiful new art form, then,</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:44"> to go</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:5:17">we're not living up to what our duty is of enjoying the stuff ourselves.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:47"> get  dinner and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:5:23">We have to reach deeply inside of ourselves to remember what it was that first got us interested in this wonderful new thing.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:50"> then afterwards at 8 o'clock  we'll</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:5:32">Remember that it hasn't even started yet,and it's our duty to help the children as young as possible. Try and do a better job of it than we have.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:53"> be beginning the last</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:5:44">Thank you very much.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:56"> thing on  this evenings agenda</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:6:26">Thank you, Alan for a fantastic talk, and we have a token of our affection here.</subtitle>
-<subtitle id="1:6:59"> the tenth  anniversary reunion</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="1:6:35">As well that concludes our Turing Award lecture and you're welcome now to go get dinner, and then, afterwards at 8 o'clock, we'll be beginning the last thing on  this evenings agenda: the tenth  anniversary reunion.</subtitle>