Let's face it, it doesn't matter one blind bit for Fred End User which platform the phone runs. What matters is what can be done with it.
Apple made exceptionally good use of its understanding of design to create a phone that was easy to use in many aspects (but not all). RIM understood early on that business people need calendar, email and contacts on the go and focused on that, Google is betting on people still not understanding how they pay for "free" with their privacy to push their own platform Android (cleverly using the "open" cvoncept to drag the technical people along). Nokia has, well, a toolkit but no focus, no killer app.
Personally, I see the move towards Microsoft as beyond exceptionally bad - Nokia has sold its soul to a partner who is only interested in using it. Instead, Nokia should first develop a focus, and then gather the tools to do it. This could still be Symbian - if that really went Open Source and an effort was made to make it provably secure it could still support a recovery, provided some people start to think outside the box AND ARE ALLOWED TO PROGRESS (I know what management saturation looks like - it means you have a lot of high earners who spend their day playing politics, whereas the creative people get so bored they walk, making the company even more boring and prone to die).
But hey, if they want to commit commercial suicide by crawling in bed with MS, so be it. It's a shame - I liked Nokia.
If your wife goes back to Windows, you must make sure she accepts that she has to solve her own problems. Trivial things like things refusing to work, random crashes, updated ad infinitum (which typically happen when you're working), the need to defrag, the need to slow down the box with anti-virus (and the worry that a zero-day will still get her) - I mean, she should know you care but that it really is her problem.
Apart from that, re-cycle the Mac with either bootcamp or parallels. The latter has the advantage that there's less transition. As for SW, make sure you use Kaspersky for anti virus, and Acronis Home Image for backup - that allows at least a bare metal restore when Windows does what it does best (fail)..
"hopeful this will prompt government to wonder if the rules as they are currently implemented actually make sense."
One party in the Belgian government sees nothing wrong with letting the government fall if they don't get to waste the money that others make. In other words, most of the time the Belgians don't even HAVE a government, so I doubt it.
I suspect that SABAM management may find it difficult to get into their offices one day as all access routes may get blocked by either lorries or just their load. I cannot see truckers take it that SABAM is trying to blackmail them - driving a lorry isn't that profitable to start with. I cannot see this solve itself any other way..
Just imagine that by some sponsorship, sorry, quirk of the legal system linking to copyrighted material would become illegal. How exactly would those marketing droids then propose to support product reviews and forums? Or establish that golden "guerilla marketing" wave that sometimes sells products?
This is insanity, from whatever angle you look at it. DHS involved in copyright? Copyright holders now deprived of marketing capital? Hello? What exactly have these people been smoking?
The UK Government started defining Open Standards when the Government Secure internet was created, roughly mid 1996, which is where also the whole eGIF concept was first defined (it was done by the same people). That was during Tory reign.
However, probably the only thing we *can* agree on was that it was not an explicit policy decision. In those days, a couple of clued up people were doing the best with the budget they had, and this is where Open Source simply provided the best bang for buck - for those able to do things themselves. The politicians were simply leaving those clued up people alone, and those were smart enough to keep things happening under the radar.
When New Labour walked in, it DID become a policy matter. That's also why one of the highest ranking Microsoft people in the UK is actually ex Cabinet Office..
There is a substantially large bump under the carpet re. government IT. I bet a lot of people are fighting to keep Wikileaks from lifting up that specific carpet..
The problem is all about training people on how to use the new software. Using OO Writer instead of Word for example
Applause for choosing the worst possible example. You don't really believe that yourself, do you? I have been writing documents for well over 30 years, using text editors, BRIEF, WordPerfect and practically every version of Word. These days I prefer to use OpenOffice for 3 reasons:
- it just works. It's slow to start, but it keeps working.
- it can handle corruption. I use OOo as a recovery tool when I get sent docs written by people using especially the latest version of Word. The "X" in.docx must stand for "scrameble at will", because the longer the docs get, the higher the probability that it'll crash, which is IMHO a result of cut & paste residue, a known Word problem
- its interface has remained stable, which is why I am looking with dismay at reports that some idiots are planning to copy the ribbon.
The MS Office ribbon has IMHO cost more productivity than all the other UI changes over the last decade put together
As for Open Standards in general, I was there when the first ones were established, and I also know why they were creatively "forgotten/adjusted" a few years later. Those who advocate Open Standards are right - it will save money.
Put bluntly, Open Standards were abandoned so consultancies could turn a profit recycling proprietary code. It's as simple as that.
Umm, actually, they DID have a clue until the previous administration got in. They did all sorts of Open Source based work, quite simply to be cost effective yet safe.
However, about the first public appearance the New Labour leader Tony Blair made as freshly anointed Prime Minister was to attend the launch of Windows 2000 at the Microsoft UK offices, thus lending it government approval. At that point, the consultancies moved in and installed as much proprietary rubbish as they could get away with. IMHO, what happened over those years must have at least tripled the cost of government IT in the UK, so I'm glad to see that the current administration is trying to knock some sense into it at last, because it's a screaming mess.
Hurray - some positive news at last. Unless it's a ploy to get more free lunches out of Microsoft..
the whole thing is submitted to ECMA and ISO for standardization
What, like OOXML? Do you reckon they would have to buy votes again or is the ISO process now sufficiently damaged to just push it through? I'm not even talking about ECMA, that's just rubber stamp based marketing.
I can only see this deal as downhill. There seems to be little upside for Nokia here. They get to ride a downhill track alongside Microsoft which has yet to succeed in any other market under Ballmer, using a platform which has barely left alpha ( the point at which MS seems to start selling platforms these days if the problems are anything to go by) and with no innovation other than different coloured "me-too" ripoffs.
On the other side is Nokia who could have been smart by opening up their hardware a la HTC and simply go back to core business, making hardware. That is what they ARE good at.
But hey, this is what you get if you put an ex MS droid at the top.
If I was a shareholder I'd drop the shares as fast as I could flog them. Better a slightly depressed price than no money whatsoever. I bet the price will bump shortly because a lot of smarter people start shortening the stock, the only possible reason MS stock is still hanging on..
Nope, I don't buy this as anything good. Nor will I buy anything of that club - not a chance.
Maybe stop marketing gimmicks? There are two direct problems with what they do here:
1 - it gives others the impression that hack contests are the way to assure security. This is the same as corporate execs relying on audit to assure the security of an IT platform instead of making sure they have solid fundamentals in place so that no retro-fitting is required.
2 - it takes away the focus from the fact that they do indeed do the preparing work as well. They could make more work of the whole process instead of just focusing on the result with this stunt. It propagates an approach that is, frankly, not the best thing to promote if you want people to think about security.
Anyone using one of those so-called "free" service providers should take those events as a lesson.
I know I'm repeating myself here, but you ought to not only read the Terms of Service, you should also try to understand what they mean, and keep in mind the contract maxim: the first part giveth, then the later parts taketh away including your shirt.
If you not only read the words in chapter 11 of the Google Terms of Service, you will see that they can get away with that the moment the mag would take a Google service, or offer one *to* Google.
11.1 appears innocent when you look at the restrictions: "11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services."
Notice, however, that you have already agreed to use of your material in an altered format - now guess the fun you could have with that if you still attribute the original source. But the fun starts in the next paragraph, which negates the restriction in the last paragraph of 11.1 by it's abundant use of about the vaguest terms possible:
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
It's worth checking the T&Cs or (ToS) of any site you publish on. You may find some ugly clauses. There is no such thing as a free lunch..
1 - you will have some time left, because the migration must logically happen from the backbones inwards, and may stall at the gate (your front end router) where you will NAT to IPv4 for quite some time to come.
2 - however, if behind the gate/firewall you already have a large network (as an ISP, or the aforementioned club with a class B block) you bite the bullet best sooner than later because it's a lot of work (and here too you'd migrate from WAN backbones inwards).
3 - a lot of operating systems and hardware has already been supporting IPv6 so it's not causing a full scale tech refresh. However, there will also be parts that may need isolation because they cannot migrate. Depending on how critical the machinery is, this is probably the last chance to buy some IPv4 spares at a sensible price. That $20 network card will be worth a lot more money in the future..
4 - security will be a challenge. IPv6 has facilities such as extensible headers that could be used as covert channels. You will need to take a decision what features are useful and which are a risk, and hope firewall manufacturers catch up with this asap..
5 - it will be a headache remembering your public IP address:-)
6 - As Japan didn't have many IPv4 addresses to start with, they moved to IPv6 quite a while ago. I suspect Japanese network engineers will be very much wanted for a while as they alone really have credible experience in IPv6 deployment.. That game starts more or less now, because I do agree with the original article premise: IPv6 is now a CTO level issue.
This is pure marketing. If they want to prove to me it's secure, ask for a public code review and reward those who find clear problems, and compile from that reworked code.
A "pass" from a hacking contest only shows that at a specific point in time, a specific set of people with specific skills were either unable to break a specific version of the software or unwilling to tell the organisers what they found so they could exploit that later for much more profit.
Any occurrence of the word "specific" indicates a variable that will invalidate the result of that contest - pass or fail.
Thanks, I haven't spent as much time with FB's T&Cs as I have with Google, so I guess I ought to do that too:).
You do know you are giving Google in principle the same type of permission, don't you? The moment you plant something in Picasa or any other Google service, you give them (I quote from the Google TOS point 11.1) a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
Now you'd think I left out the qualifier which appears to limit this right, but if you examine clause 11.2 you will see a formulation that is so vague it covers practically anything anyway - rendering the supposed qualifier limits moot anyway.
Basic contract process still applies: the first bit giveth, the later parts taketh away..
Practically every default (non-removable) App is focused on using Google. If I have to choose between Google and Apple I prefer Apple, because they presently don't resell my details of their analysis of me to others. This may change, but it's a matter of "who I trust less with my information".
To me, Android is not open enough to call it open, it's a myth similar to the "do not evil" mantra, so pardon me for being critical, but no thanks. I don't even search on Google anymore: I prefer DuckDuckGo..
Sony removing the Linux boot feature via an "upgrade" was like selling a car with allow wheels and breaking into your garage to replacing the wheels with steel rimmed ones - it lead to a ban on Sony kit in many places because it's in principle a breach of trust and results in a device that does not match the description it was sold as.
Since it's now possible to break the box without, could I have that option back?
I started with the Psion Organiser II, more or less the world's first PDA. Amazingly, some of the stuff I wrote is still out there:-).
Personally, I think a device like that would be the best for teaching kids how to code, for a number of reasons:
1 - it is portable. You can play with it wherever you are, and playing is what is needed. 2 - it is always on. Resume wherever you left off (this is better nowadays - the Org II was singletasking, so you had to save code before you could do something else) 3 - it is a simple programming environment. OPL (Organiser Programming Language) evolved to add graphics, but at its most basic (pardon the pun) it was a sort of BASIC with touches of Pascal (procedures, subroutines, typed variable declaration) which made a distinction between source code and "translated" code to run. 4 - you could access the built-in flat file databases. It had a simple database mechanism that you could also reach with your programs, so you could mess around with the built-in database function. As a matter of fact, I miss this simple database mechanism in "modern" operating systems and PDAs, TapForms on iPhone is about the closest I got to it.. 5 - it had growth stages. Once you got familiar with the device, you could progress to machine code, bit by bit. You could call certain functions, mess around with buffers - lots of stuff to play with once you knew the first principles. And crash recovery was a matter of removing the battery (which also taught you the importance of saving your work on the memory packs). 6 - it had expansion devices. I learned about barcodes because you could plug in a reader to the Organiser. There was a printer, a mag swipe reader - all this stuff taught me about the technologies we still use.
I agree that "modern" computers are too complex for beginners. I built an Apple II, sorry, ][:-). I got my first PC because I was given one that was broken (so I learned about MFM drives), but I really got into programming (for a while) with the Organiser because I could change the way it worked to suit me, and it was always around. No need to boot, no great battery dependence (one 9V battery lasted for weeks), and it forced me to memorise structures because a 2 line 16 character display is a rather small window (the later 4 line 20 character display was luxury:-).
If there was a way to bring OPL to a platform like Android or the iPhone I think it would do a great deal to get kids going.
By the way, keeping structures in my head turned out to be a good exercise: it made the film "Inception" easy to follow:-).
1 - that's a small percentage in comparison to the amount of cameras. You would get the same effect by shooting every 10th person that passes. If you ignore that sort of collateral damage like CCTV ignores privacy you can conclude that on a statistical basis that you're doing a good job and your solution is working.
2 - CCTV is NEVER sold to the public on the basis that it help SOLVE crime. It is always sold as something that will PREVENT crime, which is a total lie (independently proven by various research groups).
Slashdot Mirror
Let's face it, it doesn't matter one blind bit for Fred End User which platform the phone runs. What matters is what can be done with it.
Apple made exceptionally good use of its understanding of design to create a phone that was easy to use in many aspects (but not all). RIM understood early on that business people need calendar, email and contacts on the go and focused on that, Google is betting on people still not understanding how they pay for "free" with their privacy to push their own platform Android (cleverly using the "open" cvoncept to drag the technical people along). Nokia has, well, a toolkit but no focus, no killer app.
Personally, I see the move towards Microsoft as beyond exceptionally bad - Nokia has sold its soul to a partner who is only interested in using it. Instead, Nokia should first develop a focus, and then gather the tools to do it. This could still be Symbian - if that really went Open Source and an effort was made to make it provably secure it could still support a recovery, provided some people start to think outside the box AND ARE ALLOWED TO PROGRESS (I know what management saturation looks like - it means you have a lot of high earners who spend their day playing politics, whereas the creative people get so bored they walk, making the company even more boring and prone to die).
But hey, if they want to commit commercial suicide by crawling in bed with MS, so be it. It's a shame - I liked Nokia.
If your wife goes back to Windows, you must make sure she accepts that she has to solve her own problems. Trivial things like things refusing to work, random crashes, updated ad infinitum (which typically happen when you're working), the need to defrag, the need to slow down the box with anti-virus (and the worry that a zero-day will still get her) - I mean, she should know you care but that it really is her problem.
Apart from that, re-cycle the Mac with either bootcamp or parallels. The latter has the advantage that there's less transition. As for SW, make sure you use Kaspersky for anti virus, and Acronis Home Image for backup - that allows at least a bare metal restore when Windows does what it does best (fail)..
Good luck!
"hopeful this will prompt government to wonder if the rules as they are currently implemented actually make sense."
One party in the Belgian government sees nothing wrong with letting the government fall if they don't get to waste the money that others make. In other words, most of the time the Belgians don't even HAVE a government, so I doubt it.
I suspect that SABAM management may find it difficult to get into their offices one day as all access routes may get blocked by either lorries or just their load. I cannot see truckers take it that SABAM is trying to blackmail them - driving a lorry isn't that profitable to start with. I cannot see this solve itself any other way..
Thank you. That was my feeling as well, but I like the way you voiced it :-)
What is the world coming to? MS on the right side of a legal debate? Or is it more about avoiding to reap what they sowed? I'm all confused here :-).
OK, I can see this. However, this seems to suggest that the US is failing its basic democratic principles - or you are a minority..
If I recall correctly, there was a funny find in the UK regarding nuclear power.
They found that the best place to store nuclear waste was right underneath the house of parliament :-). You couldn't make it up ..
Just imagine that by some sponsorship, sorry, quirk of the legal system linking to copyrighted material would become illegal. How exactly would those marketing droids then propose to support product reviews and forums? Or establish that golden "guerilla marketing" wave that sometimes sells products?
This is insanity, from whatever angle you look at it. DHS involved in copyright? Copyright holders now deprived of marketing capital? Hello? What exactly have these people been smoking?
Oh yes - see chapter 11 of the Google Terms of Service. 11.1 seems OK, but take the time to dissect what 11.2 actually says..
The UK Government started defining Open Standards when the Government Secure internet was created, roughly mid 1996, which is where also the whole eGIF concept was first defined (it was done by the same people). That was during Tory reign.
However, probably the only thing we *can* agree on was that it was not an explicit policy decision. In those days, a couple of clued up people were doing the best with the budget they had, and this is where Open Source simply provided the best bang for buck - for those able to do things themselves. The politicians were simply leaving those clued up people alone, and those were smart enough to keep things happening under the radar.
When New Labour walked in, it DID become a policy matter. That's also why one of the highest ranking Microsoft people in the UK is actually ex Cabinet Office..
There is a substantially large bump under the carpet re. government IT. I bet a lot of people are fighting to keep Wikileaks from lifting up that specific carpet..
How do I know? Ah, that would be telling..
The problem is all about training people on how to use the new software. Using OO Writer instead of Word for example
Applause for choosing the worst possible example. You don't really believe that yourself, do you? I have been writing documents for well over 30 years, using text editors, BRIEF, WordPerfect and practically every version of Word. These days I prefer to use OpenOffice for 3 reasons:
- it just works. It's slow to start, but it keeps working.
- it can handle corruption. I use OOo as a recovery tool when I get sent docs written by people using especially the latest version of Word. The "X" in .docx must stand for "scrameble at will", because the longer the docs get, the higher the probability that it'll crash, which is IMHO a result of cut & paste residue, a known Word problem
- its interface has remained stable, which is why I am looking with dismay at reports that some idiots are planning to copy the ribbon.
The MS Office ribbon has IMHO cost more productivity than all the other UI changes over the last decade put together
As for Open Standards in general, I was there when the first ones were established, and I also know why they were creatively "forgotten/adjusted" a few years later. Those who advocate Open Standards are right - it will save money.
Put bluntly, Open Standards were abandoned so consultancies could turn a profit recycling proprietary code. It's as simple as that.
Umm, actually, they DID have a clue until the previous administration got in. They did all sorts of Open Source based work, quite simply to be cost effective yet safe.
However, about the first public appearance the New Labour leader Tony Blair made as freshly anointed Prime Minister was to attend the launch of Windows 2000 at the Microsoft UK offices, thus lending it government approval. At that point, the consultancies moved in and installed as much proprietary rubbish as they could get away with. IMHO, what happened over those years must have at least tripled the cost of government IT in the UK, so I'm glad to see that the current administration is trying to knock some sense into it at last, because it's a screaming mess.
Hurray - some positive news at last. Unless it's a ploy to get more free lunches out of Microsoft..
the whole thing is submitted to ECMA and ISO for standardization
What, like OOXML? Do you reckon they would have to buy votes again or is the ISO process now sufficiently damaged to just push it through? I'm not even talking about ECMA, that's just rubber stamp based marketing.
I can only see this deal as downhill. There seems to be little upside for Nokia here. They get to ride a downhill track alongside Microsoft which has yet to succeed in any other market under Ballmer, using a platform which has barely left alpha ( the point at which MS seems to start selling platforms these days if the problems are anything to go by) and with no innovation other than different coloured "me-too" ripoffs.
On the other side is Nokia who could have been smart by opening up their hardware a la HTC and simply go back to core business, making hardware. That is what they ARE good at.
But hey, this is what you get if you put an ex MS droid at the top.
If I was a shareholder I'd drop the shares as fast as I could flog them. Better a slightly depressed price than no money whatsoever. I bet the price will bump shortly because a lot of smarter people start shortening the stock, the only possible reason MS stock is still hanging on..
Nope, I don't buy this as anything good. Nor will I buy anything of that club - not a chance.
Maybe stop marketing gimmicks? There are two direct problems with what they do here:
1 - it gives others the impression that hack contests are the way to assure security. This is the same as corporate execs relying on audit to assure the security of an IT platform instead of making sure they have solid fundamentals in place so that no retro-fitting is required.
2 - it takes away the focus from the fact that they do indeed do the preparing work as well. They could make more work of the whole process instead of just focusing on the result with this stunt. It propagates an approach that is, frankly, not the best thing to promote if you want people to think about security.
Anyone using one of those so-called "free" service providers should take those events as a lesson.
I know I'm repeating myself here, but you ought to not only read the Terms of Service, you should also try to understand what they mean, and keep in mind the contract maxim: the first part giveth, then the later parts taketh away including your shirt.
If you not only read the words in chapter 11 of the Google Terms of Service, you will see that they can get away with that the moment the mag would take a Google service, or offer one *to* Google.
11.1 appears innocent when you look at the restrictions:
"11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services."
Notice, however, that you have already agreed to use of your material in an altered format - now guess the fun you could have with that if you still attribute the original source. But the fun starts in the next paragraph, which negates the restriction in the last paragraph of 11.1 by it's abundant use of about the vaguest terms possible:
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
It's worth checking the T&Cs or (ToS) of any site you publish on. You may find some ugly clauses. There is no such thing as a free lunch..
A couple of interesting conclusions:
1 - you will have some time left, because the migration must logically happen from the backbones inwards, and may stall at the gate (your front end router) where you will NAT to IPv4 for quite some time to come.
2 - however, if behind the gate/firewall you already have a large network (as an ISP, or the aforementioned club with a class B block) you bite the bullet best sooner than later because it's a lot of work (and here too you'd migrate from WAN backbones inwards).
3 - a lot of operating systems and hardware has already been supporting IPv6 so it's not causing a full scale tech refresh. However, there will also be parts that may need isolation because they cannot migrate. Depending on how critical the machinery is, this is probably the last chance to buy some IPv4 spares at a sensible price. That $20 network card will be worth a lot more money in the future..
4 - security will be a challenge. IPv6 has facilities such as extensible headers that could be used as covert channels. You will need to take a decision what features are useful and which are a risk, and hope firewall manufacturers catch up with this asap..
5 - it will be a headache remembering your public IP address :-)
6 - As Japan didn't have many IPv4 addresses to start with, they moved to IPv6 quite a while ago. I suspect Japanese network engineers will be very much wanted for a while as they alone really have credible experience in IPv6 deployment.. That game starts more or less now, because I do agree with the original article premise: IPv6 is now a CTO level issue.
This is pure marketing. If they want to prove to me it's secure, ask for a public code review and reward those who find clear problems, and compile from that reworked code.
A "pass" from a hacking contest only shows that at a specific point in time, a specific set of people with specific skills were either unable to break a specific version of the software or unwilling to tell the organisers what they found so they could exploit that later for much more profit.
Any occurrence of the word "specific" indicates a variable that will invalidate the result of that contest - pass or fail.
But hey, it looks good in the press, I guess..
Thanks, I haven't spent as much time with FB's T&Cs as I have with Google, so I guess I ought to do that too :).
You do know you are giving Google in principle the same type of permission, don't you? The moment you plant something in Picasa or any other Google service, you give them (I quote from the Google TOS point 11.1) a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
Now you'd think I left out the qualifier which appears to limit this right, but if you examine clause 11.2 you will see a formulation that is so vague it covers practically anything anyway - rendering the supposed qualifier limits moot anyway.
Basic contract process still applies: the first bit giveth, the later parts taketh away..
That would not serve Assange's ego - why would any sane individual bother with him if they had the data already?
Practically every default (non-removable) App is focused on using Google. If I have to choose between Google and Apple I prefer Apple, because they presently don't resell my details of their analysis of me to others. This may change, but it's a matter of "who I trust less with my information".
To me, Android is not open enough to call it open, it's a myth similar to the "do not evil" mantra, so pardon me for being critical, but no thanks. I don't even search on Google anymore: I prefer DuckDuckGo ..
Sony removing the Linux boot feature via an "upgrade" was like selling a car with allow wheels and breaking into your garage to replacing the wheels with steel rimmed ones - it lead to a ban on Sony kit in many places because it's in principle a breach of trust and results in a device that does not match the description it was sold as.
Since it's now possible to break the box without, could I have that option back?
I started with the Psion Organiser II, more or less the world's first PDA. Amazingly, some of the stuff I wrote is still out there :-).
Personally, I think a device like that would be the best for teaching kids how to code, for a number of reasons:
1 - it is portable. You can play with it wherever you are, and playing is what is needed.
2 - it is always on. Resume wherever you left off (this is better nowadays - the Org II was singletasking, so you had to save code before you could do something else)
3 - it is a simple programming environment. OPL (Organiser Programming Language) evolved to add graphics, but at its most basic (pardon the pun) it was a sort of BASIC with touches of Pascal (procedures, subroutines, typed variable declaration) which made a distinction between source code and "translated" code to run.
4 - you could access the built-in flat file databases. It had a simple database mechanism that you could also reach with your programs, so you could mess around with the built-in database function. As a matter of fact, I miss this simple database mechanism in "modern" operating systems and PDAs, TapForms on iPhone is about the closest I got to it..
5 - it had growth stages. Once you got familiar with the device, you could progress to machine code, bit by bit. You could call certain functions, mess around with buffers - lots of stuff to play with once you knew the first principles. And crash recovery was a matter of removing the battery (which also taught you the importance of saving your work on the memory packs).
6 - it had expansion devices. I learned about barcodes because you could plug in a reader to the Organiser. There was a printer, a mag swipe reader - all this stuff taught me about the technologies we still use.
I agree that "modern" computers are too complex for beginners. I built an Apple II, sorry, ][ :-). I got my first PC because I was given one that was broken (so I learned about MFM drives), but I really got into programming (for a while) with the Organiser because I could change the way it worked to suit me, and it was always around. No need to boot, no great battery dependence (one 9V battery lasted for weeks), and it forced me to memorise structures because a 2 line 16 character display is a rather small window (the later 4 line 20 character display was luxury :-).
If there was a way to bring OPL to a platform like Android or the iPhone I think it would do a great deal to get kids going.
By the way, keeping structures in my head turned out to be a good exercise: it made the film "Inception" easy to follow :-).
1 - that's a small percentage in comparison to the amount of cameras. You would get the same effect by shooting every 10th person that passes. If you ignore that sort of collateral damage like CCTV ignores privacy you can conclude that on a statistical basis that you're doing a good job and your solution is working.
2 - CCTV is NEVER sold to the public on the basis that it help SOLVE crime. It is always sold as something that will PREVENT crime, which is a total lie (independently proven by various research groups).
Just say no..
and everyone on slashdot wrote thoughtful, well-reasoned commentary
You're confusing facts and fiction..