Innovation In Recreational Scuba Diving?

[Diver0001]

I have trouble believing it. Maybe because of the way I learn.

I can read (or do e-learning) with a high level of discipline and get full comprehension of the material being presented very quickly in most cases. (just don't ask me about math. Huge IQ took advanced math throughout my undergrad studies, needs a calculator to add)

Back to the point. When I integrate new knowledge in my "constellation" I need to be able to hang it up on concepts I already understand. If it clicks like lego (which it seldom does) then I can just read it once, remember it and that's it.

But when there are contrasts, nuances or mixed messages between what I *thought* I knew and what I'm being told then I have a strong need to challenge that. Usually I do that by assertively stating how I *think* it works (which won't surprise people who know me on scubaboard) and to narrow down to the core *facts* as my partner in debate corrects or challenges back.

No software that I know of is capable of this so e-learning often comes across to me as somewhat dissatisfying. Kind of like masturbation as compared to making love.

R..

 

[Akimbo]

You clearly have no experience with well-made online education courses.

Sounds like you haven't seen any of the really good E-books. What you describe is little more than reader-initiated hyperlinks and static tests. The AI (Artificial Intelligence) comes in when “all interaction replaces testing” and the program makes decisions on how and what information is presented based on the interaction.

Like I mentioned, the amount of content required to make it work (feed the hyperlinks today and be available for an AI program to choose in the future) is tremendous. The content is just creeping in the right direction today and the AI programming is barely in its infancy.

 

[RJP]

I don't want to derail the thread on a big tangent. I'm just thinking that it may be useful to consider why some items with potential did not transform recreational diving as yet. DPVs, underwater com. units & rebreathers are such items.

As I may have mentioned...

:d

They solve problems that most divers don't have, or at least don't have sufficiently to warrant the cost/time/hassle involved.

None of these things - or anything yet mentioned in this thread - have "transformed" diving because none of these things TRANSFORM diving.

The essence of "what diving is" and/or the higher-order benefit of "what diving does" remains unchanged post introduction of DPV's, Comms, Rebreathers, etc.

Before introduction:

What diving is: "A way to see things underwater..."

After introduction:

"See things underwater... while covering more distance."
"See things underwater... while talking to your buddy."
"See things underwater... while staying longer."

I'm going to start a new thread to further analyze diving innovations. I think it might be interesting to move the discussion/debate away from whether any particular thing "IS or IS NOT innovative" and instead look at WHAT TYPE OF INNOVATION any particular introduction represents.

---------- Post added November 28th, 2014 at 05:06 PM ----------

1.) Scuba tanks are a necessity...

Everyone knows that!

 

[tridacna]

RDP is bad enough. Imaging calculating dive profiles on an HP-12C in RPN.

Yikes!

I resemble that remark. I was way faster on my 10C than anyone else using algebraic on a TI POS.

 

[Storker]

I was way faster on my 10C than anyone else using algebraic on a TI POS.

I bought a 15C the first year in college, but it was stolen from my cubicle some six-seven years later. That was a couple of decades ago, and I still miss it.

Fortunately, I've found a pretty good emulator for the Android OS.


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug

 

[underwaterbuddy]

I bought a 15C the first year in college, but it was stolen from my cubicle some six-seven years later. That was a couple of decades ago, and I still miss it.

Fortunately, I've found a pretty good emulator for the Android OS.


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug

Does it really work better than a "normal" calculator app?

 

[Storker]

Yup. It's RPN, which works a lot better than algebraic




It's more similar to a 10C than a 15C, though. It doesn't have matrix ops, numerical integration and numeric equation solving, but if I need that I can fire up my PC

 

[tridacna]

I bought a 15C the first year in college, but it was stolen from my cubicle some six-seven years later. That was a couple of decades ago, and I still miss it.

Fortunately, I've found a pretty good emulator for the Android OS.


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug

I still have my 10C. Perfect working condition. I bought it for $80 in 1981 and still have the box and receipt. Now in a plastic box. I've been told that it's a rarity. Who woulda thunk?

They were considered to be so advanced that we weren't allowed to use them in Engineering finals at college.

 

[RJP]

I'm going to start a new thread to further analyze diving innovations. I think it might be interesting to move the discussion/debate away from whether any particular thing "IS or IS NOT innovative" and instead look at WHAT TYPE OF INNOVATION any particular introduction represents.

This thread ended up becoming fodder for an article I just posted regarding innovation. (All Innovations Are Not Created Equal ? AQUIS Strategic Marketing)

Based on the information in that article, I've attempted to re-set the conversation about innovation in a new ScubaBoard thread, found here...

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...ovations-have-caused-growth-scuba-diving.html

Best to continue the conversation there, vs continuing this thread.

Ray

 

[drmwc]

I can read (or do e-learning) with a high level of discipline and get full comprehension of the material being presented very quickly in most cases. (just don't ask me about math. Huge IQ took advanced math throughout my undergrad studies, needs a calculator to add)

This is slightly off topic, but there's now a new thread for on-topic discussions. Alexander Grothendieck died recently. He completely revolutionised algebraic geometry, making it more fundamental and abstract. However, the number 57 is known as the Grothendieck prime.

In a mathematical conversation, someone suggested to Grothendieck that they should consider a particular prime number. “You mean an actual number?” Grothendieck asked. The other person replied, yes, an actual prime number. Grothendieck suggested, “All right, take 57.”

http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf. David Mumford, a Fields medal winner, suggests that this was a genuine error. In summary, there are three types of people in this world: Those who are good at pure maths; and those who are not.