4 Tools for Teaching Kids to Code. In a recent PC Pro article, Professor Steven Furber, developer of the ARM microprocessor, laments the sharp decline in interest in computer science classes in the UK.
And although the U.S. hasn't seen that same drop in enrollment, a recent survey of some 14,000 U.S. high school teachers by the Computer Science Teachers Association found that only 65% of respondents taught in a school that offered some sort of introductory computer science course. As our world becomes more tech-oriented, educators are faced with not just teaching children how to use computers, but how to build and program them as well. ReadWriteWeb's Back to School Coverage: "We need to get students interested in computer science and that has to be done at an early age before they decide (incorrectly) that they can't do computer science or that it is dull and boring," says Alfred Thompson, Microsoft's K-12 Computer Science Academic Relations Manager. 1. 2.
In July, Google announced the launch of the Android App Inventor. Why Great Innovators Spend Less Than Good Ones - Scott Anthony. By Scott Anthony | 12:25 PM November 3, 2009 A story last week about the Obama administration committing more than $3 billion to smart grid initiatives caught my eye.
It wasn’t really an unusual story. It seems like every day features a slew of stories where leaders commit billions to new geographies, technologies, or acquisitions to demonstrate how serious they are about innovation and growth. Here’s the thing — these kinds of commitments paradoxically can make it harder for organizations to achieve their aim. In other words, the very act of making a serious financial commitment to solve a problem can make it harder to solve the problem.
Why can large commitments hamstring innovation? First, they lead people to chase the known rather than the unknown. Big commitments also lead people to frame problems in technological terms. Finally, large investments lead innovators to shut off “emergent signals.” So what should leaders do? Signing checks is easier than spending time.
Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule. July 2009 One reason programmers dislike meetings so much is that they're on a different type of schedule from other people.
Meetings cost them more. There are two types of schedule, which I'll call the manager's schedule and the maker's schedule. The manager's schedule is for bosses. It's embodied in the traditional appointment book, with each day cut into one hour intervals. When you use time that way, it's merely a practical problem to meet with someone. Most powerful people are on the manager's schedule. When you're operating on the maker's schedule, meetings are a disaster. For someone on the maker's schedule, having a meeting is like throwing an exception.
I find one meeting can sometimes affect a whole day. Each type of schedule works fine by itself. Our case is an unusual one. I wouldn't be surprised if there start to be more companies like us. How do we manage to advise so many startups on the maker's schedule? Those of us on the maker's schedule are willing to compromise.