^--Indeed. Read "Mindstorms" by Seymour Papert for a cogent critique of everything that is wrong with computer education as it stood in the 1970s and still stands today, and a vision of how it can be (and in some places is)

But really, all this bitching and whinging has bugger all to do with the project at hand. Blah blah blah the world suxxors, things were better in my day, get off my lawn.

Now. Can we get back to some intelligent, constructive discussion, please?

Now. Can we get back to some intelligent, constructive discussion, please?

Click to expand...

You should be able to do a ZX81 for $12, and solar handheld calculators for about $2.

II2II, porter, in a minor way paws:

Chill. It is not that important. For those of you who think it's stupid, it won't sell if it's stupid, and it'll die out. For those of you who think it's brilliant, it'll sell well if it is, and help people out.

Either it helps people or it dies out. There's no third option. Sure, someone could buy it then find out it's useless, but this would be fairly minor since 1. It's $12, not a huge investment even for subsistence farmers, and 2. They'll spread the word of it being useless and keep the total harm down close to zero.

Personally, I think that it's a great idea, but for kids in developed countries (note: I am NOT saying it should be barred to people in developing countries.) A modern, cheap Apple II would get lots of parents to buy them for their kids, and the kids would grow up not just learning about computers, but also having at least a basic understanding of how to program the computers (pardon the pun.) Kids now are growing up with the computers being just a glorified cell phone or game system, with none of the experience of actual creation that programming, even in BASIC, brings.

EDIT: Augh, somehow missed the "Not an Apple II" thing. Wish it was.

On the subject of constructive discussion, I'd suggest that anyone who is interested should have a look at the real project website and make up their minds from there, ignoring all the inaccurate, lazy reporting in the previously linked media.

The system is on the market now, being sold into homes as a game/BASIC system, much like the C64 and other home computers of the 80s. The MIT team merely want to extend the education options available for it.

Kids are treating computers like cell phones and game systems. That has nothing to do with the computers themselves. Rather it has to do with society's attitudes towards computers.

After all, anyone can stick a simple programming language like Logo, SmallTalk, BASIC, or Python on their machine. All of these have free variants that are downloadable off of the Internet.

I think the stimulating part about computers in the olden days were that a lot of them did not have much software. The software that did exist was expensive and, in some cases, could be developed by an ambitious individual. There was a lot of talk about programming in the popular computer press, even going as far as programming books for kids. Some of those books were collections of games, others showed you how to program games. I even remember one piece of children's fiction that had a lead character solve problems by programming in Pascal, with the source code to those programs in the back.

If you think that a $12 computer is going to recreate that "golden age" of technophilia, I would assert that your idea is naive. Some of the problems out there don't call for technological solutions. They call for social solutions. Alas, creating social solutions is much harder.

I learned to program in the 80's because my 1st machine (A timex 2068) was orphaned a year after I got it and had few apps.

Kids in the 90's could be creative even with games because there were map editors out to design your own levels (quake, etc). Others did hacking, programming, artowrk, music etc.

My issues with computers in school are not in the machines, but with the software and how the machines are used. If you ever programmed you know that given a task there are a number of ways of doing it. Schools seems to teach the one "good" way to do something, and all others are inferior. When a kid comes up with a novel way of doing something and a student tells him it is the wrong way you kill creativity. I also don't like the memorization followed by multiple choice tests, they just get kids to memorize and puke the answer up on command when they see it.

If you ever programmed you know that given a task there are a number of ways of doing it. Schools seems to teach the one "good" way to do something, and all others are inferior. When a kid comes up with a novel way of doing something and a student tells him it is the wrong way you kill creativity. I also don't like the memorization followed by multiple choice tests, they just get kids to memorize and puke the answer up on command when they see it.

Click to expand...

Teachers are in of a bit of a fickle here. The current pedagogical fad is based a lot on constructivism. Constructivism is one means of coming up with novel ways of doing something, because the student is expected to construct their own knowledge. Usually they are given the tools to figure something out, then any rational solution is considered valid. There are other ways of going about it, but constructivism seems to be the main way to use the different skills that students have. (There are teachers who will teach the content then assess solutions based on their validity rather than what they are taught, but the general outcome is that most students are working things out the same way because their understanding is based upon the instruction.)

Here's the hitch though: teachers are forced to teach to the curriculum, which rarely leaves time for the students to figure things out. The government then monitors how well teachers and schools are teaching to the curriculum through standardized testing (e.g. EQAO in Ontario). Some jurisdictions even use financial incentives and disincentives to force teachers to teach to the curriculum (e.g. No Child Left Behind in the U.S.). Of course I shouldn't blame just the government for that. Some teachers agree with this approach whole-heartedly, and some parents demand it for their child. After all, it is easier to guage knowledge than understanding.

Flipping back to software: there are a few constructivist tools out there (some may say constructionist here, but I'm not clear on the boundary). Some will be familiar to the Mac world through their creators, like Alan Kay's association with Squeak (a SmallTalk environment) and Bill Atkinson's association with HyperCard (HyperStudio is a variant on the theme, and still very much alive). Others stray away from programming, but still take on the same philosophy. These include products like Geometer's Sketchpad and Fathom.

But here's the hitch. When I've seen GSP and Fathom in use, students were always given explicit instructions on how to use it. So rather than using a constructivist approach, you are simply offering a variant on direct instruction. Part of the reason is time and those bloody curriculum expectations. Part of the reason is that students rarely know how to use this software and don't want to figure it out. But part of the reason is because the teacher's approach is all wrong too. By having all of the students use the software at the same time and for the same problems, you are basically reducing the software to an instructional tool rather than a learning tool.

As I've said before, most of the teacher's I've met simply don't understand computers. Ah well.

If you think that a $12 computer is going to recreate that "golden age" of technophilia, I would assert that your idea is naive.

Click to expand...

I don't think any such thing. Of course the circumstances are not the same, nor do I believe in recreating anything. I think this is interesting, and the street will find its own use for things, as always, and no doubt already is. The 21st century Bombay street, that is, not the 1970s upper-middle class Western suburban cul-de-sac. The well-meaning MIT team may or may not have some impact.

Some of the problems out there don't call for technological solutions.

Click to expand...

And yet, some do. Let the end user decide.

Kids are treating computers like cell phones and game systems. / anyone can stick a simple programming language / downloadable off of the Internet.

Click to expand...

It's all very Western centric, really, isn't it.

Put it this way: I spent some time in a basti (settlement) of several hundred people in the center of Dehli.

Clean water, food, electricity, TVs, most families had at least one job-holder, and the kids were at school. But we're talking a family of eight in an eight by ten room, with another one or two built on top, a maze of two foot laneways in between.

Computers? There were four crappy old 486/P1 machines in the after-school drop-in center, and two of them were broken. Internet? Not since their last IT sponsor lost interest.

This is the market these $10 computers are going into - and no-one is shoving them down anyone's throat - people are buying them themselves.

IMHO we could all do with a break from pontificating about what the "third" world needs, and respect their intelligence enough to let them work it out for themselves.

If you're talking about India, well, they have the brain power to figure out the solutions themselves. It's not as though designing a decent computer is rocket science after all. A modern microcontroller offer more speed as well as internal flash memory and RAM. The I/O pins are a much more flexible data bus (for analog or digital) than a typical microprocessor. They also use a heck of a lot less power. If you do a bit of shopping, you can also find microcontrollers with internal RF communications modules. A network protocol like ZigBee is supposed to support several thousand nodes without external infrastructure. Everything is there, and (from what I've heard) the people in India and other developing nations can be bloody creative at using tools that we shun as primitive.

So why are we talking about a $12 computer designed in the west? Why not talk about what they're doing?

Constructivism

Click to expand...

Hmm.
Our high school bought a bunch of BBCs and manuals, stuck them in a room and let us access them on breaks and after school. For at least a year, nothing much else was done with them, apart from purchasing a few more, and making a LAN with them.

We ended up with a room full of students throwing manuals back and forth at each other, calling out "Hey what's the xxx to do yyy?" and someone else calling the answer back over their shoulder in between madly trying to finish and save their port of Spacewar before the 15 minute recess was up. It was a hothouse of creativity in which we all learnt from the ground up, because we wanted to, and no-one got in out way.

I always assumed that it was simple ignorance and policy vacuum that created that situation, but now I wonder. It was a very conservative school, with a couple of very radical (and sneaky) teachers - one of whom set up the Beeb lab ...

there are a few constructivist tools out there / like Alan Kay's association with Squeak (a SmallTalk environment) and Bill Atkinson's association with HyperCard (HyperStudio is a variant on the theme, and still very much alive).

Click to expand...

Seymour Papert:

constructivism -> LOGO -> SmallTalk -> Squeak

->"Mindstorms" (book)

->Lego Mindstorms

->OLPC

But here's the hitch. When I've seen GSP and Fathom in use, students were always given explicit instructions on how to use it. So rather than using a constructivist approach, you are simply offering a variant on direct instruction.

Click to expand...

Adopting the tool, but completely failing to grasp the idea.

As I've said before, most of the teacher's I've met simply don't understand computers. Ah well.

Click to expand...

Most of the teachers I've met don't understand learning. They may understand teaching, but that's not the same thing at all.

I would think 486/P1 machines would be of more use then some nintendo clone, and already exist.

India itself is part 21st century and part 12th century depending on where you go, same with China.

So why are we talking about a $12 computer designed in the west?

Click to expand...

We're.Not.

{grinds teeth}

have a look at the real project website / ignoring all the inaccurate, lazy reporting

Click to expand...

By the way II2II, I agree with you about the potential for µc-based systems. I've discussed this with my OLPC chums, and tossed around names like "One Micro Per Child" and the "$5 laptop". I could well see someone tossing together a system with an AVR or PIC, and junked cellphone displays and keyboards.

In fact, Contiki potentially would be a good starting point, as it has been ported to quite a few micros, as well as 8 bit compys.

The problem being that it's hard to get into developing for these systems without a working "real" computer. A $10 computer with its own dev system onboard (even BASIC) has some real potential.

Sorry, missed the follow up articles.

Most of the teachers I've met don't understand learning. They may understand teaching, but that's not the same thing at all.

Click to expand...

I'm going to hold my tongue to avoid commenting on many of the teachers that I've met, but I think it's fairly safe to say that noone really understands learning. All that I know is how we do it feels wrong. We like to say that we are there to help the child, but more often than not we are really just covering the curriculum.

I would think 486/P1 machines would be of more use then some nintendo clone, and already exist.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if a 486/P1 will be appropriate for them, but the design philosophy of a computer is more adaptable to their needs.

Anyway, now to read that article that I missed.

I would think 486/P1 machines would be of more use then some nintendo clone, and already exist.

Click to expand...

Yes I'm a bigger fan of shipping existing 386 upwards machines rather than having them in the landfill and mass producing something else that isn't really needed.

Most probably the problem is less opportunity for various palms to be greased along the way.

Yes I'm a bigger fan of shipping existing 386 upwards machines rather than having them in the landfill and mass producing something else that isn't really needed.

Click to expand...

The question is though: is that what they really need?

I've heard horror stories relating to traditional computers in tropical climates. These range from over-heating (ask our friends in the southern US for a mild example of that), to various critters and molds growing in them. Clearly this isn't going to be the case in every under developed part of the world, but it could be.

I did read about half of that wiki Bunsen pointed to. It sounds like they are trying to develop a new computer, albeit on principles developed by local markets (the so-called NES clones). There may be a good reason for this. One being compatability between systems, in the case that they aren't true NES clones. After all, it sounds like the purpose of the project is content.

Content appears to be one of the objectives, as well as developing means of transmitting that content (writable media and communications systems). They claim that one of the reasons for this is that the profit motive may sell the systems, but they have failed to fully develop the market. Perhaps for good reason: it's probably hard to sell accessories or higher cost systems (my speculation). As such they are suggesting some sort of commercial/non-profit hybrid.

Back to why our rejects won't help: most computers outside of the 8 and 16-bit era don't actually use televisions as displays. One of the reasons for the popularity of these $10-$15 computers is because they work with TVs. Oddly enough, that probably parallels the early adoption of personal computers in developed nations. Even donating a monitor may not help. The target market used in this example only uses the TV for a couple of hours per day, because they are run off of car batteries. (Wow, car batteries have that much juice!) These 8-bit computers probably don't do much to lower the battery life, but a full computer and monitor will. Particularly since my recollection of CRT monitors is that they do use more power than CRT TVs. Then you have a power hungry computer on top of that. Of course not all markets are power constrained like that, but not all markets are like North America with cheap and plentiful electricity.

So no, discards probably won't work.

I never said discards from the US, there are plenty of machines in India that could be reused.

And believe me, they are, until they crumble into dust.

Here's the first piece of reasonably accurate reporting I've managed to track down. Judging by the comment thread below it though, people are still failing to grasp that they are not designing a new computer, but looking to use an existing one.

So if kids use computers at an early age will they
(a) all become Nobel prize winners /

( B) become spoonfed dummies /

Click to expand...

Neither. Nor is the rest of the world outside the US, EU, Japan and Australia

(a) New Jersey

( B) Somalia

© waiting helplessly for the US to save them

(d) really all that interested in what we think

I don't think anybody in the US has a clue what a 3rd world nation needs for education / Did somebody have a marketing meeting on what markets were left to exploit / some 3rd world kids dying from hunger and have no electricity!

Click to expand...

a country with no jobs. / teach them how to grow food and sanitize water / If you want a job / you need to be an advanced user. Just knowing how to use a mouse and windows / does not help you to get a job

Click to expand...

It's your own ignorance and arrogance that's on display here, and repeatedly

As Lomas told the Herald, “If you just know how to type, that can be the difference between earning $1 an hour instead of $1 a day.”

Click to expand...

Team:1. Jesse Austin-Breneman: ACCA, Cusco, Peru

2. Miguel Chaves dos Santos: Engenheiros Sem Fronteiras – Brasil, Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo.

3. Rev. George Fuachie: Kintampo North District, Ghana.

4. Derek Lomas: University of California, San Diego.

5. William McIver, Jr.: National Research Council of Canada and Faculty of Computer Science, University of New Brunswick.

6. Anuj Nanavati: NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, California.

Click to expand...

Yes, just another bunch of ignorant, greedy American capitalists looking to grease their palms :

Uh, since when did Canada get on the list of developing nations? }

And since when was NRC relevant? Or the University of New Brunswick?

Team:1. Jesse Austin-Breneman: ACCA, Cusco, Peru

2. Miguel Chaves dos Santos: Engenheiros Sem Fronteiras – Brasil, Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo.

3. Rev. George Fuachie: Kintampo North District, Ghana.

4. Derek Lomas: University of California, San Diego.

5. William McIver, Jr.: National Research Council of Canada and Faculty of Computer Science, University of New Brunswick.

6. Anuj Nanavati: NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, California.

Click to expand...

Yes, just another bunch of ignorant, greedy American capitalists looking to grease their palms :

Click to expand...

Well 5 out of 6 are American at least.

Uh, since when did Canada get on the list of developing nations?

Click to expand...

Looking around me, it seems an honest mistake.

Well 5 out of 6 are American at least.

Click to expand...

In the sense that they are from the Americas, yes ...

II2II; I'm not calling Canada a developing nation. I'm just pointing out that the people involved are for the most part not from the United States, nor does it seem like any of them are motivated by profit, which the more cynical amongst us have suggested. And that given their respective origins and professional associations, the idea that they are exploitative profiteers who would have "no idea" what the developing world might need or want is pretty silly.

I originally bolded the last participant's name as well, but then I thought I was also being silly.

Even though I speak no Portuguese, it's pretty clear that Engenheiros Sem Fronteiras translates as Engineers Without Borders, who, like Médicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), are a volunteer, non-profit program that sends professionals where they are most needed.

UPDATE: The MIT design team referred to in this post is basing its design not on the Apple II, but on the Nintendo Entertainment System, which used the same processor chip. We regret our error, which was originally reported by The Boston Herald article to whcih our post was linked. Thanks to David Zeiler at The Baltimore Sun for the clarification.

Click to expand...

http://cultofmac.com/mit-designers-resurrecting-apple-ii-for-india/2474

I had a feeling that reporter knew sweet FA about computers.

Click to expand...

I did notice that this evening. Shame, as it would have been really cool had they actually based it off the Apple II. Ah well, still cool enough.

Click to expand...

Maybe this thread needs to be moved and the title changed.

UPDATE: The MIT design team referred to in this post is basing its design not on the Apple II, but on the Nintendo Entertainment System, which used the same processor chip. We regret our error, which was originally reported by The Boston Herald article to whcih our post was linked. Thanks to David Zeiler at The Baltimore Sun for the clarification.

Click to expand...

http://cultofmac.com/mit-designers-resurrecting-apple-ii-for-india/2474

I had a feeling that reporter knew sweet FA about computers.

Click to expand...

I did notice that this evening. Shame, as it would have been really cool had they actually based it off the Apple II. Ah well, still cool enough.

Click to expand...

Maybe this thread needs to be moved and the title changed.

Click to expand...

Title updated and post-edit commentary regarding the change.

In this sort of case, I think it's fair to bundle in a Canadian with Americans. Our countries may be different, but there are sufficient similarities and enough wannabe Americans for the perceived motives to be the same. I'm also concerned about the Reverend in the mix, since they are often viewed as a colonialist or westernizing influence.

This is ridiculous. Someone wants to do something good in the world, and we all want to bag their motives or claim that we know better.

Motivations and, frequently, perceived motivations are very. One of my old roommates would always shop at big box stores and would always make purchases on credit or debit cards. He had a perception that small business owners and paying with cash was a sure way to get ripped off or robbed. The fact that all of the big box stores are either American or Americanized lead to his belief that they conducted honest transactions, while the largely immigrant operated stores that line the streets of this city led him to believe that they are fly-by-nights that are only interested in ill gained money. In other parts of the world, there may be backlashes towards Americanized or Westernized projects. Perhaps because they view it has having a negative impact on their culture, or simply because they believe that they best way to support their own kind is by dealing with their own kind.

As I've mentioned before, there is a social element to technology. How we react to it is often as important as what it does. It is impractical to catalog what the social reaction to something will be because it is often the cumulative impact of individual choices, and sometimes conflicting choices. For example, I have often heard people deriding Chinese manufactured goods yet buy them anyway because they are lower cost. They may deride them because of safety or quality, even though most of the stuff I've seen holds up remarkably well. They may deride them because they are taking American jobs, but few are willing to pay the higher price for those better paying American jobs. Some people are quite adamant though and will stick by their value judgments as best as we can.

See how we question the motives of someone else (real or perceived). Chinese jobs vs. American jobs (or Canadian or Australian). Profiting at the cost of quality and security. Hum. How do you think that notion affects how other people see us?

Here's the first piece of reasonably accurate reporting I've managed to track down. Judging by the comment thread below it though, people are still failing to grasp that they are not designing a new computer, but looking to use an existing one.

So if kids use computers at an early age will they
(a) all become Nobel prize winners /

( B) become spoonfed dummies /

Click to expand...

Neither. Nor is the rest of the world outside the US, EU, Japan and Australia

(a) New Jersey

( B) Somalia

© waiting helplessly for the US to save them

(d) really all that interested in what we think

I don't think anybody in the US has a clue what a 3rd world nation needs for education / Did somebody have a marketing meeting on what markets were left to exploit / some 3rd world kids dying from hunger and have no electricity!

Click to expand...

a country with no jobs. / teach them how to grow food and sanitize water / If you want a job / you need to be an advanced user. Just knowing how to use a mouse and windows / does not help you to get a job

Click to expand...

It's your own ignorance and arrogance that's on display here, and repeatedly

As Lomas told the Herald, “If you just know how to type, that can be the difference between earning $1 an hour instead of $1 a day.”

Click to expand...

Team:1. Jesse Austin-Breneman: ACCA, Cusco, Peru

2. Miguel Chaves dos Santos: Engenheiros Sem Fronteiras – Brasil, Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo.

3. Rev. George Fuachie: Kintampo North District, Ghana.

4. Derek Lomas: University of California, San Diego.

5. William McIver, Jr.: National Research Council of Canada and Faculty of Computer Science, University of New Brunswick.

6. Anuj Nanavati: NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, California.

Click to expand...

Yes, just another bunch of ignorant, greedy American capitalists looking to grease their palms :

Click to expand...

And still you fail to understand. People in developing countries need basic survival skills before they need to learn to use technology. What good does it do when everyone knows how to use a computer when nobody is growing food? Computer skills are of little use to people who are starving and dying of dysentery. We should be building up the agro base of these countries before doing anything else so they can be self sufficient.

People seem to think it's easy going into a poor country that has nothing and turning into a new high tech state. It took hundreds of years for Western nations to reach that point of societal evolution, so what makes you think you can force it to happen overnight just by bringing in technology from outside? If anything, forcing technology on countries that are not ready for it is detrimental because now they suddenly have to build an energy infrastructure that they didn't need before to support it and they have to import fuel to sustain it, but where is the money coming from when they can't even feed themselves? They need self sufficiency first, then they need a strong export base to get hard cash rolling in, and THEN you can worry about teaching them more advanced skills. Teaching them about technology when they don't even have enough viable farms or clean water to sustain their population is putting the cart before the horse.

You say that typing skills alone can make a big difference, but how many jobs do you really think there are in those countries? When you have millions of starving people, 1,000 better paying jobs is a drop in the bucket, and what good does the extra money do for the people when there is nothing in the shops to buy? There is no difference at all between $1 hour and a $1 a day if you are still starving.

You're an idiot

People seem to think it's easy going into a poor country that has nothing and turning into a new high tech state. It took hundreds of years for Western nations to reach that point of societal evolution, so what makes you think you can force it to happen overnight just by bringing in technology from outside? If anything, forcing technology on countries that are not ready for it is detrimental because now they suddenly have to build an energy infrastructure that they didn't need before to support it and they have to import fuel to sustain it, but where is the money coming from when they can't even feed themselves? They need self sufficiency first, then they need a strong export base to get hard cash rolling in, and THEN you can worry about teaching them more advanced skills. Teaching them about technology when they don't even have enough viable farms or clean water to sustain their population is putting the cart before the horse.

Click to expand...

There are a few problems with your assumptions.

1. Developing nations are at various stages of development. Some of these nations may have a reliable food supply, effective public health system, and ample resources to supply their own economy. What they lack are the skilled labor to maintain all of that.

2. Computers can teach more than computer skills. People are seriously considering using computers as glorified books because they cost less. The notion of ebooks in the west is notoriously expensive because we treat them as novelty items rather than as tools, and as a means of controlling distribution rather than freeing distribution. Different design decisions would reduce the cost.

3. The energy infrastructure may already be there. Yes, it is true that our computers are gluttonous energy hogs. But that is a design decision that values performance over efficiency. There are entire computers that use about 10 W of power (including display), and you can probably drive that energy use even lower. That means that a computer could probably use less energy than the televisions that already populate these nations.

4. There is no such thing as self-sufficiency and long term stability. Large systems have smaller statistical fluctuations. In order to be a member of that larger system, you have to have a diverse enough economy to be a full participant. Take food. You can become self-sufficient by growing enough food to feed the population, but that does nothing to buffer yourself from a localized drought. You can develop better methods of preserving food, but that will not buffer you from a long term drought or intensive agriculture that has depleted the land.

5. Modern computers are communications tools. Why do you think that people who live in abject poverty have access to a radio, a TV, a cell phone, or even internet cafes? There are a multitude of reasons, but one reason is to have a communications tool. Cell phones are important for setting up business deals. Television and radio is important for getting timely news from the outside world. (Prior to the invention of the telegraph, news would often take days or weeks to jump from industrialized nations like France to Britain.

6. The lack of economic or technological development frequently has nothing to do with being prepared for it. Many nations had strong economies and solid education systems before they deteriorated due to war. Many of the people who suffer from the lack of education and economic development aren't even the barbarians that perpetrated the war, but stuck in the turbulence of war. They need tools to help them fight back without bloodshed.