Alternative to AVR Butterfly?

On Jun 26, 4:23 pm, mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:

> > will probably have dropped out.
>
> Cheerful fellow!  Was he correct?

Likely so. I dropped out - to work fulltime writing DOS/Windows
encryption and security software. Then I moved to the other side of
the world to design toys and multimedia appliances. Then I got into
"other devices for a Fortune 100 employer". Then I went back to school
on the aforementioned employer's dime :)

> For some real fun - try taking a C programming class (filled with
> freshmen) while you're a senior.

For some REAL FUN, try taking an introductory Java class when you've
been a professional programmer for >10 years but you can't get credit
for your old computer science courses because they were Pascal-based.

> happy to get 20 out of 50.

Yeah, I don't understand how it's possible to get these marks. Simply
by smelling the pages of the textbook, it's possible to absorb more
than this information. Standards are through the floor these days.

In article <1182883547.968783.103990@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,  mrdarrett@gmail.com writes:
> 
> How is science/engineering education doing over in Europe?  In
> particular, in Great Britain, France and Germany?
> 

Others will have to answer about France and Germany.

In the UK, there's a bit of a downturn in the numbers doing science and
engineering in higher education which is not good and needs to be
addressed, but my perception is that it's more a drift away towards other
subjects (ie: the "science is hard!" mindset) than an active anti-science
bias.

In contrast, I've developed the perception that in the US, there is more
of an active anti-science bias developing in some quarters, including, as
larwe points out, the current administration, which seems to be a path
that is actively self-defeating in the longer term.

Once again, to be fair, I must point out that these are just perceptions
of mine and not based on direct experience of the US education system.

> 
> Here are some stats on the graduation rates on UC Davis.
> http://facts.ucdavis.edu/summary_of_degrees_conferred.lasso
> 

Thanks for the link. That's an interesting and informative breakdown.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world

Simon Clubley wrote:
> 
> In contrast, I've developed the perception that in the US, there is more
> of an active anti-science bias developing in some quarters, including, as
> larwe points out, the current administration, which seems to be a path
> that is actively self-defeating in the longer term.
> 
> Once again, to be fair, I must point out that these are just perceptions
> of mine and not based on direct experience of the US education system.
> 

Notwithstanding larwe's silly sneer against the current administration
(which I despise as much as anyone else), the decline of education in
the US is real, and not limited to science and math, and not at all
recent.  It has to do with

1) the declaration (from the '60's and continuing now) by the education
community that standards are counterproductive, and even evil (yes, I
have personal experience with educators' opinions).

2) the rise of narrow financial perspective in American management.

3) the decline of compensation and status for those who do more
difficult things, giving rise to the justifiable perception that there's
no point in bettering yourself.

John Perry

On Jun 27, 10:45 am, "John E. Perry" <j...@no.spam> wrote:

> Notwithstanding larwe's silly sneer against the current administration

So if you agree with it, why dub it "silly" - unless you are casting
yourself as sily?

On Jun 27, 6:14 am, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
(Simon Clubley) wrote:
> In article <1182883547.968783.103...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,  mrdarr...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > How is science/engineering education doing over in Europe?  In
> > particular, in Great Britain, France and Germany?
>
> Others will have to answer about France and Germany.
>
> In the UK, there's a bit of a downturn in the numbers doing science and
> engineering in higher education which is not good and needs to be
> addressed, but my perception is that it's more a drift away towards other
> subjects (ie: the "science is hard!" mindset) than an active anti-science
> bias.
>
> In contrast, I've developed the perception that in the US, there is more
> of an active anti-science bias developing in some quarters, including, as
> larwe points out, the current administration, which seems to be a path
> that is actively self-defeating in the longer term.
>
> Once again, to be fair, I must point out that these are just perceptions
> of mine and not based on direct experience of the US education system.


<rant>
Personally, I blame the media (MTV, the Hollywood gossip channels,
etc.)  It's rare that I watch TV anymore for fun - if I do, it's to
watch the Military Channel (history of WWII, battle strategy, weapons
development history, etc.)

Let's face it... when one says "American", are you more likely to
think Paris Hilton or Richard Feynman?

Then again, media is out there to make a buck, no matter the social
cost.
</rant>


> > Here are some stats on the graduation rates on UC Davis.
> >http://facts.ucdavis.edu/summary_of_degrees_conferred.lasso
>
> Thanks for the link. That's an interesting and informative breakdown.
>
> Simon.


It's just one University here, not necessarily one of the best ones.
I just was able to find the stats quickly, cuz I went there...

Michael

larwe wrote:
> On Jun 27, 10:45 am, "John E. Perry" <j...@no.spam> wrote:
> 
>> Notwithstanding larwe's silly sneer against the current administration
> 
> So if you agree with it, why dub it "silly" - unless you are casting
> yourself as sily?
> 

The sneer about anti-science is what I was referring to.  This
administration is not substantially more or less anti-science and
technology than any of the preceding ones.

There's plenty to despise in Bush's mess without inventing more.

jp

On Jun 27, 3:59 pm, "John E. Perry" <j...@no.spam> wrote:

> The sneer about anti-science is what I was referring to.  This
> administration is not substantially more or less anti-science and
> technology than any of the preceding ones.

I wasn't comparing it to any previous administration, was I?

Politicians are inherently anti-science because they must cater to
large minorities[?] that are anti-science. Stem cell research is the
most obvious contemporary example.

On Jun 27, 1:23 pm, larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 3:59 pm, "John E. Perry" <j...@no.spam> wrote:
>
> > The sneer about anti-science is what I was referring to.  This
> > administration is not substantially more or less anti-science and
> > technology than any of the preceding ones.
>
> I wasn't comparing it to any previous administration, was I?
>
> Politicians are inherently anti-science because they must cater to
> large minorities[?] that are anti-science. Stem cell research is the
> most obvious contemporary example.


As much as I dislike the current administration's foreign policy
decisions, I admire the current administration courageously standing
firm against using tax dollars to fund embryonic stem-cell research.

>From what I understand, most stem-cell-related medical breakthroughs
are from adult stem cells anyway, not from embryonic stem cells.

There's no need to kill innocent embryoes for research.

(Amazing how far this thread has wandered from alternatives to the AVR
Butterfly, eh?)

Michael

On Jun 27, 4:29 pm, mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:

> decisions, I admire the current administration courageously standing
> firm against using tax dollars to fund embryonic stem-cell research.

To paraphrase that: you admire the current administration bravely
buying votes from fundamentalist Christians by exporting scientific
breakthroughs to other countries.

(I'm a libertarian and an atheist, in case you hadn't guessed).

On Jun 27, 1:38 pm, larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 4:29 pm, mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > decisions, I admire the current administration courageously standing
> > firm against using tax dollars to fund embryonic stem-cell research.
>
> To paraphrase that: you admire the current administration bravely
> buying votes from fundamentalist Christians by exporting scientific
> breakthroughs to other countries.
>
> (I'm a libertarian and an atheist, in case you hadn't guessed).


I had a feeling you might be.

So, tell me... what "scientific breakthroughs" have other countries
accomplished which could not have been accomplished here (because of
the, um, fundamentalist Christians, not because of environmental
regulations, wage pressures, etc.)?

Michael

"You see, then, that it is by his actions that a person is put right
with God, and not by his faith alone."  James 2:24