seclorum

This is a subject that is very dear to me, so I will try not to rant about it.

There are a couple of things "wrong" with the way we teach kids computers today.

Our educators are in the hands of the masters of consumers. When a new technology comes out, we all abandon the current stuff, and engage in the upgrade cycle. Repeat until generations have no clue any more about what the old ways were.

This is an absolute falsehood pushed upon society by those who wish to control the consumer base. It is consumption destroying education, plain and simple.

The point is this: Every C64 that was ever produced - heck, every 8-bit computer, ever - STILL WORKS, or can be MADE TO WORK in the area of computer education.

It is absolutely arbitrary that computers get old. Every machine that was ever made, is still just as useful as it ever was - the difference is, the user walked away (because they are consumers not users).

I have a large collection of 'antique' computers in my midst: C64, Atari, Oric, Atmos, Telestrat, MSX, heck .. even a BeBox and an SGI O2. All are still working, all are still quite capable of engaging a young mind in the exercise of exploration and discovery that makes a good developer.

And, my 3 year old and 6 year old kids LOVE THEM. They absolutely LOVE the old sprites, the old simple ways. The 6-year old takes immense joy out of typing:

    10 PING
    20 WAIT 15
    30 EXPLODE
    40 WAIT 50
    50 GOTO 10

.. into an old Oric Atmos thats been set up exclusively for him to be able to do that .. in fact the very first writing he was able to do was in typing in a BASIC PROGRAM!!

The 3 year old absolutely loves that he can turn the machine off and on, and off and on, and off and on .. and it will still work. Can't do that with Daddy's workstation!

So the point is, parents: disconnect your kids from the consumer trap. Give them old computers to learn computing on. Everything they will ever learn, WILL STILL BE VALUABLE TODAY when they 'grow up and get a bigger computer' - the reason is, because computers still work, fundamentally, the same way.

I predict my 6 year old will be hacking in assembly by the time he is 10 - just like his Dad did. And thats what made me the developer I am today.

(BTW: yes, I also have rPi's, Beagleboards, and so on.. when they're ready, they'll be available to the kids to hack on. But if the kids can't do their own low-level programming by the time they get the rPi dusted off, I will be very surprised..)

EDIT: Another thing that is 'wrong' with computers today, imho, is the decoupling of development from use. Again, our computers have been turned into consumption platforms - the moment that Microsoft removed the developer tools from being part of the base OS image, computers started to lose a lot of value. Any OS that doesn't ship with a way of building apps for it, inherently included by design, isn't an Operating System - its a Consumer Capture System.

Do everything you can to get development tools back into the OS, people. It is more important than the desire to reduce the effect of having 'too many smart developers out there'..

>Can a very minimal gcc be written which would be capable of bootstrapping the entire gcc compiler?

Yes. In fact, this is how gcc is built - in stages. First stage: build a compiler that can build the compiler. Recompile the compiler with the newly built compiler. Do it again. Repeat until completion. ;)

Take the new iPhone 5C. Turn it over. Look at the position of the Apple logo, and the "iPhone" brand.

Put the case on it. Turn it over, look at the position of the Apple logo, and the "iPhone" brand.

Hint: It looks like crap.

That sort of detail wouldn't have escaped Steve Jobs.

I was impressed by his lack of interest in Harry Potter, as I consider it a pox on modern culture, but saddened by his lack of interest in music. To each, their own .. but I hope he discovers something frivolous and trivial, whether its music or trashy fiction, at some point in his life to enjoy. Genius without frivolity is often a fast road to torture and anguish, a fact that wouldn't be true if it weren't for the fact of the existence of both music, and trashy fiction, in perpetuity ..

Every time I see these Venus pictures, I think about all the dull, lifeless, empty places on Earth that a spacecraft could land in, and lead us to conclude that there's nothing of any interest there.

Of course, I trust the scientists, but its sure fun to think we landed in some Venutian-preserved national park, where no Venutian dare go, for fear of incurring a trespassing ticket or two..

Read the article. The Archeological record is there for your interest.

You didn't post any evidence, but lots of theory, whereas there is plenty of evidence that the human species does indeed manage to survive .. in spite of ones best efforts.

A good sign that its being managed.

Actually, its a view supported by evidence, whereas your view is supported by .. superstition, scientifically described but nevertheless: still superstition.

We managed to survive. We'll continue to manage to survive: if we manage.

Welcome to logical positivism. :P

We've already demonstrated that we can bend physical laws to our needs, or have you missed that point in your rush to cast away any faith in the human species' ability to manage its resources? Because: managing our resources is what makes the difference, entirely, between extinction and survival, and we've been doing precisely that for 200,000 years so far.

Remind me, with science: When were we humans last wiped out, again?

.. okay, fine: then you go and see how we've managed our resources in .. oh, lets just take - The Whole of Europe - and compare.

Just because some humans 'are stupid' doesn't mean all humans are. There is a lot of evidence that we, who choose to manage, will outlive those who choose to be stupid. 200,000 years of it, in fact.

(Stupidity might be contagious; the point is though: so is intelligence.)

> Past performance doesn't guarantee future returns.

You might want to consult the factual record of tens of thousands of years of farmers on that particular point of view. ;) You are right that it doesn't guarantee anything, except to those who carefully apply scientific principles to their management of resources, folks otherwise known as 'farmers'.

>he standard of living should also be considered. Given that we can support 9 billion people, will each of them be as well off compared to if we were instead supporting half that?

For at least the last 200 years, the standard of living of hundreds of millions of people has been raised, again and again, over and over. So I'd say, if we can manage it, this trend will continue. I think thats the point of the article: there are no environmental reasons, at all, why we couldn't manage to sustain life on Earth, indefinitely.

(There are only psychological reasons. A fact proven, nearly, by a lot of the responses in this thread ..)