As much as "computers are our most powerful tool", we have many arguably more powerful faculties built-in.
Most kids, or at least many kids, will neither enjoy nor benefit from coding, and only a tiny fraction will become proficient enough to not have to rely on others for critical, or even marginally important, systems.
The fact that we can all read and write doesn't mean that we can all entertain ourselves and others with our own novels!
We should rather be teaching more generalised skills, like logical thinking and clear expression of ideas. These can be taught with a bit of programming, but needn't and shouldn't be limited to it! And they are certainly important skills to have. I'd call them the two most important things programming teaches the layman.
A 19 year old aiming a DOS attack at a couple of websites is as much an act of war as if someone stood outside the airport or outside the stock exchange shouting that he really didn't like these institutions and maybe harrassing passers-by a bit.
Methinks Yoni Shemesh exaggerates. It's one thing for the NYT to publish that quote, but Slashdot submitters should know better than to take it seriously.
Your language seems pretty Democrat-biased to me, but I suppose that's par for the course around here. (Which isn't necessarily a judgement. I don't like the Republican party either).
The way I see it, you can sum-up the difference succinctly: Republicans place the personal over the social, while Democrats do the opposite. Most things follow from there. (Corporations, in this view, are indeed an extension of the individual). (The Republican emphasis on religion and "family values" is an enigma to me, I don't know where it comes from, and it seems perverse in terms of my model. It breaks a lot of things. Libertarians are what I think Republicans should be).
Thus, (in general) Republicans emphasise the individual's responsibility in getting an education and making money, while Democrats emphasise society's/the government's responsibility to support individuals in this.
Democrats insist that society must support itself through taxes on individuals, whereas Republicans insist that society leaves individuals (and corporations) alone, allowing them to support themselves.
Republicans demand that health and safety matters are left up to (presumably intelligent, responsible) individuals to take care of, while Democrats demand that society (/governement) protects individuals both from risks, whether posed by others (eg gun-control) and by themselves (eg environmental or food regulation).
Republicans tend to be less concerned by social inequality, including racism, sexism, etc, whereas Democrats tend to be quite concerned by these, but less concerned about telling people how to think/speak/behave/raise kids (in terms of protecting the rights and freedoms of society (racism or sexism is more a social issue than an individual one).
And so on...
As I mentioned above, the way I see it, Republicans should be in favour of Gay Marriage and stuff like that. I can't say why they aren't, and perhaps my simplification is a little too simple. I see it more as an anomaly than as a theory-breaking flaw.
[If I were American, I would very happily vote for Gary Johnson.]
I wish these Luddites would realize that we don't need to stop where we are.
If we were wiped out, we would stop where we are, and something "fitter" would replace us. Right or wrong, "not stopping where we are" is not at all the same as being replaced.
Are you kidding? As an African (living in (South) Africa), I can't see how using Ubuntu helps Africans. I'm very proud of Mark Shuttleworth, and until recently I used Ubuntu for many years (I switched to openSuse last week). And unless you think Africa needs more 'exposure', I don't think that's useful.
From the bottom of TFA: "If Cox is found to have practiced engineering without a license, Ritter said, the likely action would be a letter telling him not to do it again."
There is a distro aimesd specifically at toddlers called Qimo. I haven't tried it myself, but it looks pretty cute, and if I were in a position to give a computer to a toddler, it's what I would go with.
Qimo for Kids is a Linux distro specifically aimed at that age-group. I haven't tried it myself, but it looks cute enough. (I think it must have been featured on/. a few months ago, or how would I know about it?)
Whoa! Sorry about that folks! It was my first slashdot message and apparently I haven't yet figured out how to format it properly (in terms of line breaks).
I'm 21, and no one in my family is a programmer or anything similar, so I discovered programming through school. I'm not by any means qualified, although I do plan to be, so I'm coming from a totally 'lay' perspective.
So, firstly, I learnt in Java, and despite the complete stupidity of the syllabus I was taught I absolutely fell in love with programming and have subsequently read more, improved, fixed the mistakes I was given and dabbled in Python and peeked at some others. My point here (though it isn't readily apparent) is that I think Java is a great language to start with, because it's relatively intuitive and predictable once you understand the basic structures, and there aren't tricky little words and symbols that make sense if you're advanced but not if you're 16, and it's clear, and especially because it has great documentation, that makes it easy to explore on your own.
However, far more important then the language, is the love of the process. In my limited experience, when it comes to programming, it seems that love and aptitude go together - those who love problem solving and tinkering are good at it. And for me, there's not much that compares to the joy of creating a problem and solving it elegantly (by my own standards).
So, (long story short) when I had the opportunity to tell a couple 16 year olds 'what programming is', I started by giving a problem: how would you draw a square using very simple commands? (one of them had played with Logo many years ago, as had I). When one came up with the simple answer, he was in ecstasy and rapture! And since then, I've corresponded with him, giving him little tidbits and hints that I've gleaned in my self-teaching and practice since school, to supplement his silly syllabus, and he's loving it and doing well. I've also realised that my simple example problem is easily extenable. Seeing as there are only two commands repeated four times, you could introduce the concept of looping - but guide him to the idea before you teach him the implementation in any language. Then what if you want to be able to draw any shape? That leads to variables, and so on. But essentially what I'm saying is guide him to the principles first, then show him how to implement them, and let him make his own problems (I mean bugs, not a project he can do) along the way.
Start him off with text applications, using command line and text editor, because that's actually more fun! (I started with a horrible little IDE and unnecessary boilerplates). Such problems as a half-pyramid of asterisks is wildly invigorating the first time you do it. And file IO and interactivity, and pretty GUIs are the kinds of things that keep it fun and interesting. (And if he can make a simple game - hangman, for example - that's perfect).
Game modding and kernel hacking and writing in machine code may be fun for experts and geniuses, but for an average boy of 16 (or even 21) that is daunting and something just to be skimmed and envied - the prospect excites me, but I wouldn't want to start there.
Also, as I said, I picked it up at about 16 in school, almost by accident (I wasn't very good at accounting, and that was pretty much the only other option my little school was able to offer), and that served me fine. There are things I had to relearn and unlearn, but that's just made me better at it. So encourage him to take it up at school, and let the professionals do most of the work, while you can help him and guide him from the side. No shame in that!
That said, if he doesn't have the natural love of it that you and I do, there's not really any point in encouraging him (same way there's no point encouraging me to take up professional golf). It's something that people either fall in love with at first sight, or just don't really care for, and if he isn't in love with it, he won't get the pleasure you do from it.
Just my long and meandering 2 cents worth. I hope it helps, and I think it will.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as "computers are our most powerful tool", we have many arguably more powerful faculties built-in.
Most kids, or at least many kids, will neither enjoy nor benefit from coding, and only a tiny fraction will become proficient enough to not have to rely on others for critical, or even marginally important, systems.
The fact that we can all read and write doesn't mean that we can all entertain ourselves and others with our own novels!
We should rather be teaching more generalised skills, like logical thinking and clear expression of ideas. These can be taught with a bit of programming, but needn't and shouldn't be limited to it! And they are certainly important skills to have. I'd call them the two most important things programming teaches the layman.
A 19 year old aiming a DOS attack at a couple of websites is as much an act of war as if someone stood outside the airport or outside the stock exchange shouting that he really didn't like these institutions and maybe harrassing passers-by a bit.
Methinks Yoni Shemesh exaggerates. It's one thing for the NYT to publish that quote, but Slashdot submitters should know better than to take it seriously.
Your language seems pretty Democrat-biased to me, but I suppose that's par for the course around here. (Which isn't necessarily a judgement. I don't like the Republican party either).
The way I see it, you can sum-up the difference succinctly: Republicans place the personal over the social, while Democrats do the opposite. Most things follow from there. (Corporations, in this view, are indeed an extension of the individual). (The Republican emphasis on religion and "family values" is an enigma to me, I don't know where it comes from, and it seems perverse in terms of my model. It breaks a lot of things. Libertarians are what I think Republicans should be).
Thus, (in general) Republicans emphasise the individual's responsibility in getting an education and making money, while Democrats emphasise society's/the government's responsibility to support individuals in this.
Democrats insist that society must support itself through taxes on individuals, whereas Republicans insist that society leaves individuals (and corporations) alone, allowing them to support themselves.
Republicans demand that health and safety matters are left up to (presumably intelligent, responsible) individuals to take care of, while Democrats demand that society (/governement) protects individuals both from risks, whether posed by others (eg gun-control) and by themselves (eg environmental or food regulation). Republicans tend to be less concerned by social inequality, including racism, sexism, etc, whereas Democrats tend to be quite concerned by these, but less concerned about telling people how to think/speak/behave/raise kids (in terms of protecting the rights and freedoms of society (racism or sexism is more a social issue than an individual one).
And so on...
As I mentioned above, the way I see it, Republicans should be in favour of Gay Marriage and stuff like that. I can't say why they aren't, and perhaps my simplification is a little too simple. I see it more as an anomaly than as a theory-breaking flaw.
[If I were American, I would very happily vote for Gary Johnson.]
I wish these Luddites would realize that we don't need to stop where we are.
If we were wiped out, we would stop where we are, and something "fitter" would replace us. Right or wrong, "not stopping where we are" is not at all the same as being replaced.
Are you kidding? As an African (living in (South) Africa), I can't see how using Ubuntu helps Africans. I'm very proud of Mark Shuttleworth, and until recently I used Ubuntu for many years (I switched to openSuse last week). And unless you think Africa needs more 'exposure', I don't think that's useful.
From the bottom of TFA: "If Cox is found to have practiced engineering without a license, Ritter said, the likely action would be a letter telling him not to do it again."
There is a distro aimesd specifically at toddlers called Qimo. I haven't tried it myself, but it looks pretty cute, and if I were in a position to give a computer to a toddler, it's what I would go with.
Qimo for Kids is a Linux distro specifically aimed at that age-group. I haven't tried it myself, but it looks cute enough. (I think it must have been featured on /. a few months ago, or how would I know about it?)
Whoa! Sorry about that folks! It was my first slashdot message and apparently I haven't yet figured out how to format it properly (in terms of line breaks).
I'm 21, and no one in my family is a programmer or anything similar, so I discovered programming through school. I'm not by any means qualified, although I do plan to be, so I'm coming from a totally 'lay' perspective. So, firstly, I learnt in Java, and despite the complete stupidity of the syllabus I was taught I absolutely fell in love with programming and have subsequently read more, improved, fixed the mistakes I was given and dabbled in Python and peeked at some others. My point here (though it isn't readily apparent) is that I think Java is a great language to start with, because it's relatively intuitive and predictable once you understand the basic structures, and there aren't tricky little words and symbols that make sense if you're advanced but not if you're 16, and it's clear, and especially because it has great documentation, that makes it easy to explore on your own. However, far more important then the language, is the love of the process. In my limited experience, when it comes to programming, it seems that love and aptitude go together - those who love problem solving and tinkering are good at it. And for me, there's not much that compares to the joy of creating a problem and solving it elegantly (by my own standards). So, (long story short) when I had the opportunity to tell a couple 16 year olds 'what programming is', I started by giving a problem: how would you draw a square using very simple commands? (one of them had played with Logo many years ago, as had I). When one came up with the simple answer, he was in ecstasy and rapture! And since then, I've corresponded with him, giving him little tidbits and hints that I've gleaned in my self-teaching and practice since school, to supplement his silly syllabus, and he's loving it and doing well. I've also realised that my simple example problem is easily extenable. Seeing as there are only two commands repeated four times, you could introduce the concept of looping - but guide him to the idea before you teach him the implementation in any language. Then what if you want to be able to draw any shape? That leads to variables, and so on. But essentially what I'm saying is guide him to the principles first, then show him how to implement them, and let him make his own problems (I mean bugs, not a project he can do) along the way. Start him off with text applications, using command line and text editor, because that's actually more fun! (I started with a horrible little IDE and unnecessary boilerplates). Such problems as a half-pyramid of asterisks is wildly invigorating the first time you do it. And file IO and interactivity, and pretty GUIs are the kinds of things that keep it fun and interesting. (And if he can make a simple game - hangman, for example - that's perfect). Game modding and kernel hacking and writing in machine code may be fun for experts and geniuses, but for an average boy of 16 (or even 21) that is daunting and something just to be skimmed and envied - the prospect excites me, but I wouldn't want to start there. Also, as I said, I picked it up at about 16 in school, almost by accident (I wasn't very good at accounting, and that was pretty much the only other option my little school was able to offer), and that served me fine. There are things I had to relearn and unlearn, but that's just made me better at it. So encourage him to take it up at school, and let the professionals do most of the work, while you can help him and guide him from the side. No shame in that! That said, if he doesn't have the natural love of it that you and I do, there's not really any point in encouraging him (same way there's no point encouraging me to take up professional golf). It's something that people either fall in love with at first sight, or just don't really care for, and if he isn't in love with it, he won't get the pleasure you do from it. Just my long and meandering 2 cents worth. I hope it helps, and I think it will.