coHege, a decade in industry, and back to school again.I stit( seek out scientific projects with some aestheticcomponent that enables me to perform through mycreations.

I have long since lost track of my laser; the lastI knew it was in a friend's storage room somewhere inLas Vegas. However, I always think about my time withit as intense and joyous. I am still discovering new waysit enlightened my life.

Timothy Bickmore received a PhD in Media Artsand Sciences from MIT. He is currently AssistantProfessor at Northeastern University, specializing inthe development and study of computational artifactsdesigned to build and maintain long-term, social·emotional relationships with people.

146 Tlmolhr Bi<:kmofO

LEGO PARTICLES

Justin Marble (1982)

The favorite objects of my childhood fell into twoclasses: those I took apart (and destroyed in the pro­cess) and those with which I built. In the first class, theobjects I took apart, there were old radios, televisionsets, record players, typewriters, electric motors, bat­teries, and clocks. I was given these objects when theywere broken, and somehow, it never even occurred tome to try to fix them. I knew what functioning equip­ment looked like. I wanted to see what made thesethings work and I hoped to learn by seeing what theylooked like inside. My goal was to find simplicity withinapparent complexity. I could not really understand howa TV worked by taking it apart, because its electroniccircuitry was not visible, but some things do stand out ifyou take apart enough TVs. The TV is a complex systembuilt from systems of lesser complexity. These systemsin turn contain other systems. At the lowest level thereare components that cannot be broken apart-atomiccomponents. Thus did I get an understanding of systemdesign principles.

In the course of reducing electronic equipment tocomponents, I made a fascinating discovery: the mostgeneraL way of describing electronic equipment wasalso the simplest. A single TV or radio viewed by itselfis a very complex instrument, but each contains onlyabout ten different types of components, and these are

common to almost every electronic device. By steppingback and looking at the most general case, the rules

become much simpler.The objects I used for building were LEGDs, a min­

iature cowboy and Indian set, and all the electronicsparts I got from tearing apart radios and TVs. TheseI vested with special powers and combined them withthe LEGOs to provide technological support for self­contained societies of my imagination. I built worldsthat included housing, transportation, defense, com­munication, and power generation. I built my societiesusing the system/subsystem hierarchical principles Ilearned from taking things apart. At the lowest levelthere were atomic objects-LEGDs and electronic parts.When I used LEGOs to build, I constrained their uses.I could be creative only if constrained. Different col­ored LEGOs had different functions. Red was for war­making machines, yellow for domestic appliances, greyfor airplanes, white for general purposes, blue for fuelcontainers, and clear LEGDs for engines. Electroniccomponents had special functions: batteries were powersources, vacu'um tubes were radio transmitters, andcapacitors with single leads were bombs. I combinedthese atomic components into small systems that hadwell defined functions. I had a way of coupling engineswith gas tanks that was the same no matter where theywere used. My ships all contained three major subsys­tems-the engines, the bridge, and the defense. Thesesubsystems contained other subsystems-single gunsystems, ship control systems, and power systems.

In everything I built, I needed to work within astructured framework of my own creation. When I re­ceived a LEGD fire station kit that told you what piecesto use for what purposes, I found it almost useless. Idid not want to build the fire station design as envis­aged by the LEGD designers, but many of the parts inthe kit were so specialized that they were useless for

anything else.

148 Justin Malble

I I did not identify with any of the characters inmy creations, so I could not act out situations withthem. Once the mechanisms had been built and ev­erything was in place, there was nothing to do but de­stroy them-which I did with relish. My destructionsand constructions impressed me with two ideas. Thefirst had to do with the power of hierarchical structure,building systems out of subsystems that in turn con­tain subsystems. It is a tool I now use to control thecomplexity of large programs. The second, fundamentalto scientific thinking, was how to use induction to makea few simple rules that could explain a multitude of in­stances. My experiments did not help me with grade

'l'~'

school math. I got Cs and Os in math until junior highschool. The radios and TVs did lead me to a hobby inelectronics and from there to an interest in computers,which brought me here to M1T. As I was in my childhoodconstructions, I'm still primarily interested in systemstheory. I am still creating complex systems (software}out of atomic functional components within the con­straints of good system design. I still have trouble withsimple math, but J do have a natural aptitude for ab­stract algebra and physics. I am still taking thingsapart, recently starting on my mind.

Justin Marble received an 58 from MIT in 1982; hecurrently is a software engineer in the greater Bostonarea.

LEGO Particles 149

LEGO METRICS

Sandie Eltringham (1990)

Ever since I can remember. it has been an unwrit­ten family tradition for me to receive a set of LEGDs forChristmas. My sister also received LEGOs, but she tiredof the traditional blocks in primary colors and insteadcollected space LEGOs. I didn't understand their ap­peal because you could make only one object with eachkit, with,only minor possible variations. My box of 811­purpose LEGOs had pieces of many colors; the spaceLEGD pieces were all gray and blue and made for spe­cific purposes. My sister happily made her spaceshipsRnd moon vehicles and then would play for hours, driv·iog her men around and completing different missions.I would help her build, and I enjoyed the challenge ofseeing who could find the pieces first. But I did notenjoy playing with the finished product.

Our sets were even packaged differently. My tradi­tional LEGD boxes had pretty pictures of simple struc­tures. Space LEGDs came in boxes with pictures of thecompleted model in front of a lunar background. AndSpace LEGD models had decals. which imply perma­nence. Once they are applied, the piece they cover canbe used in only one position. My sister's boxes includedstep-by-step instructions for completing a model. Eventhen, I thought that this defeated the purpose of a toy.As I saw it, space LEGOs didn't enable my sister to putanything of herself into her creations.

J played with my first set ofLEGDs on the shag car­pet of my playroom with sunshine streaming throughthe high windows. Part of the challenge was taking apicture, in two dimensions, and with limited clues, ex­panding it to three dimensions. I began looking at theshadows cast by the walls of a structure to decide ifI was duplicating it correctly. For a while, until I gotthe hang of three dimensions, I would build only thefront of buildings. But since there were doors in the pic­ture and there was obviously something behind them, Ipushed myself to master three dimensions. Eventually,I learned to build the houses on the front of that firstLEGD box and even modify them to some extent. But itwasn't until I expanded my set with new LEGD kits thatmy imagination was liberated.

The people in my first LEGD set were heads withjointed arms. The user built the rest of the body. Thiscreated a person who was out of scale and not very life­like, which made it hard to pretend it could be human.I could never play with my people as my sister did, be­cause her space people could fit easily inside her shipsand she could play with them as if they were just smalldolls. I think my frustration with my LEGD people wasat the heart of the analytical attitude I developed towardbuilding. Unlike my sister, I did not immerse myself infantasy. I stayed on the outside. Later, I would get a kitthat included several smaller LEGD people who couldfit through any LEGD door, but it was too late. Insteadof playing with these people inside their houses, I usedthem solely as a resource to gauge correct dimensionsfor furniture and Automobiles. [ did not build for theenjoyment of the little people, but instead for the satis­faction of creating a perfect miniature that even I couldbe happy in.

As my collection ofLEGDs grew, I no longer lumpedall my pieces together in the same box. I began to sortmy LEGDs by color and shape. I used multiple boxes

LEGO Metric:s 151

and each one contained a different kind of piece. If Igrouped pieces, it was easier to find pieces and to esti­mate if I had enough pieces to finish a job. After playingwith my LEGOs, I would carefuHy take everything apartand sort aJ! the pieces so that I could find what I neededthe next time I wanted to play. When I was ready toplay, I needed to have everything ready for assembly.My sister found this difficult to understand as she wasquite happy to throw her finished products into the boxthey came in. When I was faced with my sister's half­made toys, rather than undoing them, I would give upand go find something else to do. I derived comfort fromorder in my life. Controlling something, if only my toys,made me feel safer and more secure.

, To this day, LEGOs sit on the top shelf of mycloset. This past summer I took them down. It had beena while since I felt the smooth sides with tiny LEGOswritten across the bumps and heard the loud snap oftwo pieces correctly put together. The LEGOs seemedgarishly bright. But after a while I carefully separatedwhat I had made and sorted each piece by color andshape and put them away again.

Sandie Eltrinqham graduated with an S8 in ChemicalEngineering from MIT in 1994 and went on to receiveher MBA. She is currently working in strategicplanning and new product development at a Bostonarea biotechnology company.

152 &ndhl E1lrinQhllID

LEGO PEOPLE

Alan Uu (990)

I began playinq with blocks at four or five, but I gotbored. I could build only so manl castles or towers. ButLEGOs opened my world. I had LEGO space sets, medi­eval sets, and advanced builder sets. The LEGO peopleI put in my world had distinct personalities, realisticjobs, and normal lives. The normal lives of my LEGOpeople demanded realism and performance from myconstructions. I was in total control, and I learned thebasics of design and construction.

With practice, I could achieve realism with in­creasing complexity. I added doors, hallways, secondand third floors, and backyards to my buildings. I addedfurniture. I even built a police station for my LEGD peo­ple. The next stage was cars that I built from roundLEGD pieces as well as wheels and axles in my collec­tion. I reveled in increasing detail. Ifmy LEGO world wasnot realistic it seemed of less value.

When I received a Space Set I built a moon col­ony with a base, rockets, land rovers. As some objectsseemed too simple for my increasingly refined taste, Idismantled them for their parts and built more complexstructures. Most satisfying to me was that each mem­ber of the space colony had a personal identity. I hadmen and women who had marriages and children.

The space base was built next to a medieval world,with a king, queen, prince, two guards, horses, swords,

and flags. I set up the scene suggested by the manu­facturer: the royal family enjoying ajoust. But I twistedtime and culture: I dismantled the horses and gave theking a car. As in the space colony, I gave each charac­ter personality. The king was a fool and at the end ofeach scenario I built, his empire feU apart. The queendisliked her silly husband so much that she spent moretime with the prince than with her husband. The princewas a smart aleck who liked to play practical jokes onthe dimwitted guards. I applied what little knowledge Ihad of King Arthur and medieval times to the goings-onin the medieval world.

To achieve other levels of fine detail, I declaredwar between the medieval and space worlds. The much­despised king always lost, but he lost in several differ­ent ways. Before each battle, I built a new weapon orvehicle for the king to use. But he was simple-mindedand his schemes never went as planned. The spacemen,in contrast, were always well organized and true heroesin battle; the king and his guards fought on pride alone.I felt some sympathy for the heavily outnumbered king,but I had him lose on his own mistakes. As I built theking's new armory, I always embedded some flaw, someweakness. The king never worked around his weak­ness; the spacemen always exploited it. And I gave thespacemen another advantage. When the king had a se­cret weapon, it was somehow leaked to the spacemen.In my mind, the characters were fighting in ways thatexpressed their personality. The dimwitted king, the el­egant and clever spacemen.

After a few years, at about nine, I progressed tothe advanced builders' sets. Now I was working withgears and steering mechanisms, rods and axles. I couldapply what I learned to working on real automobiles. Ibegan to dismantle the LEGD vehicles in order to cre­ate my own. I used the cars, gears, steering equipment,and shock-absorbing springs in the cars of my design.I don't know if I was playing any more. It felt like seri-

154 AIIII'l Llu

ous designing. I became fluent with ideas of motion andmechanics. J became an engineer who wants to createand manufacture things. In my mind, the materials ofmy work have changed but very little else from the daysI was building in LEGO.

Alan Liu graduated from MIT in 1994 with an S8 inMechanical Engineering.

<.'

LEGO People 155

LEGO LAWS

Andrew Chu (1992)

I met my first LEGO set in Hong Kong when I was inthird or fourth grade and living with my grandparents,uncle. aunt, and cousins. The set came in a big box,and had three or four hundred pieces, maybe more. Thepieces came in assorted colors, their shapes quite stan+dard: 2 x 1,2 x 2, 3 x 2 and 4 x 2. Most of them wererectangular bricks and had the same number of con­nectors on top and bottom. Some of the bricks had onlyone TOW of connectors on top, the other TOW replaced bya slanted face that when you looked at it sideways. al­most had a triangular profile. All ofthe LEGOs had a softtexture, almost rubbery, certainly not the brittle feel ofso many of my plastic toys.

I began by building houses, castles, and helicop­ters, pretty standard stuff, and then, with one of myschoolmates, I developed a favorite LEGD game: we eachbuilt structures and then smashed them against eachother to see which one would break up first. Usually weplayed to what we referred to as ~total disintegration."

It did not take long to determine the rule for whena LEGD structure, a "ship," was dead. For a ship to con­tinue in battle it had to be able to stay on a straightcourse, with its belly in the water, when it was released.It took us longer to arrive at rules for proper construc­tion of the ships. We both began with ships that lookedlike 0. cross between tanks and aircraft carriers, with abit of spaceship thrown in. These were designs surelyinfluenced by the aesthetics of Japanese robot cartoons.

Our ships were loaded with such features as gun towers,wings, bridges, and gadgets that looked like stabilizers.We quickly learned necessary lessons in structural in­tegrity: things that stick out tend to falloff, and the morethings interlock, the stronger the structure. We alsolearned that when things collide, the smaller the pointof impact, the greater the damage. The basic shapes ofour ships were reminiscent of the front of an old styletrain engine, the ram sticking out of the bottom.

Once we determined the proper attack shape forour ships, we worked on stabilizing them. We performedexperiments and determined that ships became lessstable as they got taller. So, we kept the height of ourships to a minimum. We found sqteare-bottomed shipsto be aesthetically unappealing, so our compromise wasa triangular wedge, something in the style of a Concordjet. The rear of our ships had to be wide enough to keepthem from flipping over when they were hit from theside. Our ships evolved to something close to the shapeof the Imperial Empire battle cruisers of Star Wars, andwe pretty much left it at that.

With construction issues out of the way, we turnedour attention to battle strategies. Experimentation wasrequired. We learned that the harder we pushed thebigger the bang, so launching from the floor was best.We discovered that we could get the ships to go faster ona smooth surface than on a rough one, so we used theFormica dining table. However, the size of the table lim­ited our launch distance, so back to the floor we went.

Five years later, I took physics in high school.There, the teacher introduced Newton's Laws of Me­chanics and the concept of the center of gravity. Thisis the point in or near a body at which the gravitationalpotential energy of the body is equal to that of a sin.gle particle of the same mass located at that point andthrough which the resultant of the gravitational forceson the component particles of the body acts. It affectsthe stability ofa physical body. I realized that I had beenexperimenting with the center of gravity long before I

LEGO Law. 157

knew such a thing existed. The extra width 1 added tothe rear of my LEGD ship made it difficult for the centerof gravity to "fall outside" of the ship when it was hit.And by keeping the ship low, I learned to lower the cen­ter of gravity and enhance the ship's stability.

I had a similar experience of revisiting an oldfriend when the teacher got to Newton's Laws of Motion.The famous equation F = MA explained why. our LEGDships went faster when pushed harder. One of its de­rived forms explained why a higher speed was achievedwith a longer launch distance. Learning about Newtonconfirmed other LEGD discoveries about friction, sur­faces, and surface areas. The LEGD ships turned outto be a personal laboratory that introduced me to theworld of mechanical systems.

About three years ago, as a teenager, I receiveda LEGD set for my birthday. It was a space systemwith 278 interlocking pieces. It came with directionsfor assembling a space base, complete with commandcenter, radar, shuttle craft, and landing vehicle (dunebuggy). It included exotic pieces such as mechanicalarms with interlocking joints and claws. laser cannons,nubbly tires, steering wheels, little astronauts wi~h hel­mets and space suits, and rocket engines with fins andlights. If as a child I had been given a set of nubbly tiresinstead of regular blocks, I might not have ever estab­lished the relationship between amount of friction andthe number of blocks that come into contact with thefloor. I wonder if the new and improved approximationsof the real world represented in the space base keepchildren closer to what already is rather than encourag­ing them to use their imagination. Besides, the piecesfrom the new set look kind of brittle. I do not think theywill hold up too well under heavy smashing.

Andrew Chu works as a computer network capacityplanner for a Boston-based financial servicescompany. He lives in Mendon with his wife and twochildren.

158 Andrew Chu

rLEGO PLANNING

Scott Brave (1996)

My love for model buildinq started when I was aboutfive years old. I did my building with Lego bricks andwhat excited me most was following-·the instructions.I loved watching how many small and simple steps re­sulted in a single beautiful and complicated piece. Ifound it thrilling that I could take the instructions­simple pieces of paper-and figure out what they weretelling me to do. This feeling was similar to the one I gotwhen my sister and I created treasure hunts for eachother. We made clues that led around the house butalways ended with Il treasure map. Following the mapwas my favorite part. It didn't bother me that my sister,three and a half years younger, often messed up themap. I enjoyed the challenge of deducing, from the in­formation on the map, (and what I knew or her), whereshe wanted me to go. Finding that place was a thrill.

At eleven my interest in models encouraged myparents to buy me a kit to build a 4-wheel drive, 3D-mile­per-hour, remote-controlled racing car. Building this carforced me to go beyond one-step-at-a-time instructionsand taught me to think analytically. I taught myself notto be constrained by or even to trust what the instruc­tions said to do at any given point. Rather, I learnedto use the instructions and the building materials asclues to determine my overall path to the finished car:my treasure.

The model car brought me to analytical thinkingin many ways. To begin with, it was complicated. LEGD

instructions gave me a picture of what I was going tobuild and made it fairly obvious what to do next. Withthe racing car, the instruction manual was only the be­ginning. It couldn't, for example, sort out the confu­sion of sifting through the car's very similar looking,unlabeled pieces, trying to figure out which piece touse. I learned to disambiguate the selection of piecesbefore I even began looking for them. Preemptivedisambiguation.

In general, to build the racing car, I needed tothink beyond what I was told. I needed to work withmany different kinds of information in order to makea decision about next steps. I learned to analyze eachstep before I took it. I learned to plan ahead. And withthe racing car, it was important that every decision becorrect. Even a small mistake could keep the car fromworking. And if the car couldn't work, a lot of moneywould have been wasted. Additionally, LEGO brickscould be taken apart. With the car, building involvedgluing parts and threading screws. Decisions were irre­versible. LEGO bricks allowed me to figure out the cor­rect thing by experimentation; with the car r had to dothe experiments in my mind. After a week or so of workon the car, I would not even begin to decide on a nextstep until I had looked ahead a few pages in the manualto see how the next piece would be integrated into thedesign as a whole.

In this way, any thoughts I might have, for ex­ample, about step 5b were highly considered, becausewhile there, I had looked ahead not only to steps 5c,d, and e, but to step 6 as well. Sometimes I followeda particular building piece through to its place in thefinished car. If I was unsure whether the building piecein my hand was the one intended, I would investigateall parts of its type. I would scan the manual for draw­ings that looked like my piece and count the number oftimes it appeared. Then, r would compare my piece tothe number still available in the kit to make sure there

160 Scott Br",ve

were at least as many as the design called for. On sev­eral occasions, this method saved me from using thewrong piece. If I remembered using the piece before, Iwould look back to the illustration of that step in thereference manual picture to see if the piece was repre­sented similarly.

These techniques reflect a way of thinking, a sys­tematic planner's way of thinking. The manuals thatcome with models are written as "assembly instruc­tions." They encourage a narrowing of perspective. Theassembly of the model is laid out in self-contained stepsthat seem doable in isolation. But success is more likelyif one sees the process in broader aoalytic terms.

When I approach any problem today, mathemati­cal, practical, or even social, I remember my experiencebuilding the racing car. In my mind, there are alwaysinstructions, real or implied, that can guide me in solv­ing a problem. But my best solutions will come if I thinkwith and then beyond the directions.

Scott Brave, an active inventor, received his MSin 1998 from the MIT Media Lab and his PhD fromStanford in 2003 in human-computer interaction.He is Cofounder and Chief Technology Officer atBaynote, Inc.

LEGO Planning t61

LEGO REPLICAS

Dana Spiegel (996)

What did I spend most of my time doing as a child? Itook some things apart and I put others things together.So, I would often take apart my GI Joe action figures,removing screws, mixing and matching appendages. OrI would take apart a partially functioning radio to seeif I could figure out why it wasn't working. But then,I would sit in front of the fireplace for hours, buildinglarge LEGO structures, trying to bring to life a modelin my head. These structures were most often replicasof everyday objects. I remember struggling to build aguitar body from small plastic LEGO pieces. I remem­ber another time when I tried to build a telephone withworking buttons. I explored the world by trying to re­build it with my LEGOs. To do this, I had to disassemblethat object in its real world form, peeling it apart, layerby layer, if only in my mind. From the time I was eight,I taught myself about the world through disassemblyand assembly.

I brought LEGOs into my mind; in effect, I cre­ated virtual LEGOs. This childhood practice taught mea great deal: I can now easily look at a structure andrecreate it using only a minimal amount of informationfrom schematic diagrams. Looking at a sample productmeans more to me than diagrams or design specifica­tions. I extend this way of thinking to conceptual prob­lems. I can solve a calculus problem by inspection, byfiguring out how it is formed by its constituent parts.

I

As a computer programmer, I do best with asegmented approach. I break down any problem intosmaller chunks, seeing how it is put together as thoughit were made from basic building blocks. Disassembly.Then I assemble those blocks in code. As it was when Ibuilt with LEGOs, the process is easier iff can play withsome working version, however rough, of the final prod­uct. I recognize my LEGO thinking style when I find thederivative of a complex mathematical equation or buildline by careful line of code.

Dana Spiegel, who received an 58 in Psychologyfrom MIT in 1999 and an 5M in 200 I, is ExecutiveDirector of NYC Wireless, a nonprofit corporation thathelps create free public hot-spots in New York City,and Founder of sociableDESIGN, a company thatspecializes in the applications of social software.

LEGO Replicas 163

LEGO CATEGORIES

Joseph "Jelish" Kaye (1998)

For eight years of my childhood. LEGDs were as mucha part army childhood as my dog Jake, climbable trees,and a great bunch of packing crates that my sister andI used to make rooms and endless passageways. Butthe LEGDs meant the most to me. And they are with metoday, in how I think and work.

LEGD was always my domain: my sister was neverinto it. My parents never played with my LEGOs with me.I didn't want them to. They wouldn't have understood.

My best friend up the street, Matthew, had Play·mobil structures-which I always thought of as in·herently inferior to LEGO. Playmobil was a series ofpreconstructed, snap-together castles and the like. Weoccasionally talked about putting his Playmobil togetherwith my LEGOs, but we never did-the scale would beaU wrong, the Playmobil were people twice as big asthe LEGO people. Incompatible systems. I'd occasion­aUy play with Brio, another Scandinavian product: awooden railway setup. But while it was tastefully madeof wood, play was strictly limited by track. There wasn'ttoo much to create.

To me the difference between Playmobil andLEGDs is stark: you play with Playmobil; you createwith LEGDs. I never spent much time zooming myships around the room or enacting stories or warswith my creations. I was always building somethingbeuer, bigger, cooler. One of my greatest designs was

one I completed at around age seven: a giant glacto­destToyer-mothership-esque thing. The best part of thedesign was its modularity. [t had a superstructure at itscenter, with a whole lot of launching bays and the like,which were based on spaceships I had already buill.I didn't need to smash up all the things I had alreadybuilt to make the galacto-destroyer.

I remember so much about LEGDs. Like biting thepieces to get them apart. I still use my teeth to stripwires and open packages, and it brings me back to thefeeling of working with LEGD. I remember the feel ofstepping on LEGDs in the dark, which has to be oneof the most painful experiences al'lK0ne has ever had.I think about the color schemes themselves. Most ofmine were blue and transparent yellow space combina­tions, but when LEGD came out with black bricks andorange transparent parts a few years later it was as­toundingly cool. (Moving along with LEGD styles was myfirst connection to the idea of culture in flux.)

Every so often, I would reorganize my collection.My most successful organizing system was old cutlerydrawers with moveable partitions. I remember anguish­ing over whether I should organize by color, size, or thenumber of holes in various orientations. At one point, Ifigured out what seemed to the right way, the way thatLEGDs were meant to be organized. My solution calledfor different axes for color, length, width, height, andTechnics-holes. This was my first foray into thinking inmore than three dimensions. I realized then that thiswas a big idea. This challenge of considering LEGO cat·egories, organization, and storage made it easier for meat a later date to approach programming multidimen­sional arrays. I remember that when I first met them Iconsciously used the thought pattern that had workedin LEGO organizing.

I stopped playing with LEGDs when I was eight.I'm not sure why. My family moved from Paris to Singa­pore, where I was spending more time outside, in the

LEGO CQtegorlel 165

r-

Dr ]~ [j<."

,f~ i'

What We Sort

I~ )1' r

n~1

III nn~

J I

fu 'J

I,,, ~'

_ _1.

Joseph "loUsh" Kaye received an S8 in Brain andCognitive Sciences from MIT in 1999 and an 8M inMedia Arts and Sciences from the MIT Media Lab in2001. He is currently a doctoral student at CornellUniversity, where he studies information science, withan emphasis on experience-focused computing.

sun, and in the pool. When we moved again, this timeto Tokyo, J spent more time exploring computers. J

couldn't say if I worked with them or played with them.Those categories mnde no sense to me. Even now I findthat the kids who have the best technical knowledgeabout a system are the ones who have been given timenot just to read the manuals but try all the options.

I donated my LEGD collection to my local elemen­tary school's LEGD/Logo project. The project had onlythe official parts of the LEGO/Logo kits, and some of thepieces [ had accumulated were a lot more interesting towork with. I feel now, and felt at the time, that it was afitting end for such a collection.

166 )oaeph "lolilh" Kaye