I taught myself Apple Basic on my Apple IIe when I was 7, and at the time I thought PRINT "Hello, " + $name was the coolest thing in the world, because it was like I was telling the computer what to do! How fun! Somebody I could finally boss around myself!;)
I'd say start with a simpler programming language, like Basic or Pascal, and see how they like it; then build up to C. Don't underestimate kids, but also, start out with something closer to what they already know (since the older and more rudimentary languages are much more like English than C/C++). But it also depends on how they learn, too. I liked Basic because it seemed like a variation of English, and I was good at English/writing/reading. Perhaps if your kids are more math-oriented, they'd like something more symbolic, like C or Java.
This is not a criticism of the protests in Seattle; I happen to believe firmly in the ideals of labor standards, environmental protections, and the rights of individuals over big corporations. However, even though I only live 2 hours north of Seattle and have seen & heard & read tons of coverage on this WTO ruckus, I have not encountered one specific and clearly-stated example of how the WTO has violated human rights in another country (just a few vague references to that French guy who smashed a McDonald's with his tractor). So I'm writing this as a question to/. people who might know or can point me in the right direction: what crimes has the WTO committed? I'm curious.
THANK YOU for posting that response. As an active Christian, AND a person who has vented some frustration by playing games like DOOM; I find both the concept of "The War in Heaven" and Jon Katz's commentary on it to be distasteful. The Christians who condemn technology for all of society's ills are a vocal (and I think obnoxiously ignorant) MINORITY among Christians. I agree: violent movies, TV shows, and games do not somehow mysteriously brainwash people into becoming mindless homicidal psychos. Most people I know can distinguish between the imaginary, harmless "violence" of "shooting" something in a game, and the pretty-much-agreed-upon-as-unacceptable genuine violence of taking a gun to your school/place of work/post office and actually firing on human beings. However, the juxtaposition with the invented violence of games and some kind of "morality" disturbs me. Why would I want to play a game that imposes on my personal vision of spirituality and how it works? I don't know what to be more offended about: that "good" angels are BLONDE (hello, racist!), or that people like Katz assume I'm going to think this is an awesome game because I pray and read the Bible and go to church.
Of course, Galileo was arrested not because of his ideas, which weren't entirely new, but because of the way he presented them: he was inflamatory and insulting to the Church, as a way to shake up the foundations of contemporary thoughts and force people to react and acknowledge them.
Actually, it wasn't even the entire Church to whom he was being insulting (I know, I studied Galileo & wrote a paper on this issue for a class studying the history of science). He was attacking certain other scientists who had connections with people in the church! He even had support from certain Church officials at points. He just (purposely) stepped on the wrong toes, and got in trouble for it.
...IF we let it. And while I think this article raises some intriguing issues, I think it overlooks some important things as well:
Firstly: "There are hordes of serious-minded people who insist that computing is driving us towards a Cyberclysm, when humanity becomes overwhelmed as it tries and fails to cope with the number, complexity, speed and nature of the things we make."
Humanity? How are we defining that here? I'd like to bring up the point that there are countries who don't have Y2K problems because they don't even have computer chips in use anywhere. Maybe I'm more aware of this than others because I live in a fairly rural area, but technology hasn't infiltrated the entire sum of human experience on the planet (yet).
Secondly: "Technology has a mind, life and direction all of its own. It's inherently uncontrollable, even if anybody was up to trying."
Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding what this is trying to say, but it strikes me as ridiculous! "Inherently uncontrollable"? I have to disagree! While the products of technology can be unreliable (as can everything else in the physical world), technology itself isn't some weird anthropomorphic force with a will and mind of its own. I think an attitude like that contributes simply reduces trust in technological developments. Technology is simply a tool of human kind; it is only as good, bad, or unpredictable as we make it. What? We didn't realize that the atom bomb could cause such massive and unsuspected destruction when we first developed them? Oops-- chalk that up to a failure by human beings to fully study the repercussions of such technology. Let's not project human traits onto things that don't deserve it.
Thirdly: "Perhaps the idea that there are people who keep up with all this stuff is in itself a technological myth."
Of course it is! Who COULD? A human being can't even visit all of the exhibits in the Smithsonian Museum, much less absorb even just the useful information available through the Net. This is a notion I've never bought into anyway.
Finally: However, this article also doesn't allow for something humans are extremely adept at: adaptation! We've created a new environment for ourselves with technology; so what? We are an intelligent, changeable species. We have the ability to survive in changing conditions. The technology we are creating is part of our evolution. Yes, there are forces we've unleashed that are beyond our immediate control. But there are better solutions than running around in circles waving arms over our heads and screaming. The people who will out-survive their own technology will be the ones who face it calmly, rationally, and using those big lumps of grey matter nature gave us. "That leaves most of us holding the bag, confronted with two noxious choices"; yes, we have those two choices, but we also have OTHERS in ADDITION to that!!
Slashdot Mirror
I taught myself Apple Basic on my Apple IIe when I was 7, and at the time I thought PRINT "Hello, " + $name was the coolest thing in the world, because it was like I was telling the computer what to do! How fun! Somebody I could finally boss around myself! ;)
I'd say start with a simpler programming language, like Basic or Pascal, and see how they like it; then build up to C. Don't underestimate kids, but also, start out with something closer to what they already know (since the older and more rudimentary languages are much more like English than C/C++). But it also depends on how they learn, too. I liked Basic because it seemed like a variation of English, and I was good at English/writing/reading. Perhaps if your kids are more math-oriented, they'd like something more symbolic, like C or Java.
-ARJ
Thanks,
ARJ
THANK YOU for posting that response. As an active Christian, AND a person who has vented some frustration by playing games like DOOM; I find both the concept of "The War in Heaven" and Jon Katz's commentary on it to be distasteful. The Christians who condemn technology for all of society's ills are a vocal (and I think obnoxiously ignorant) MINORITY among Christians. I agree: violent movies, TV shows, and games do not somehow mysteriously brainwash people into becoming mindless homicidal psychos. Most people I know can distinguish between the imaginary, harmless "violence" of "shooting" something in a game, and the pretty-much-agreed-upon-as-unacceptable genuine violence of taking a gun to your school/place of work/post office and actually firing on human beings. However, the juxtaposition with the invented violence of games and some kind of "morality" disturbs me. Why would I want to play a game that imposes on my personal vision of spirituality and how it works? I don't know what to be more offended about: that "good" angels are BLONDE (hello, racist!), or that people like Katz assume I'm going to think this is an awesome game because I pray and read the Bible and go to church.
Actually, it wasn't even the entire Church to whom he was being insulting (I know, I studied Galileo & wrote a paper on this issue for a class studying the history of science). He was attacking certain other scientists who had connections with people in the church! He even had support from certain Church officials at points. He just (purposely) stepped on the wrong toes, and got in trouble for it.
-ARJ
Firstly: "There are hordes of serious-minded people who insist that computing is driving us towards a Cyberclysm, when humanity becomes overwhelmed as it tries and fails to cope with the number, complexity, speed and nature of the things we make."
Humanity? How are we defining that here? I'd like to bring up the point that there are countries who don't have Y2K problems because they don't even have computer chips in use anywhere. Maybe I'm more aware of this than others because I live in a fairly rural area, but technology hasn't infiltrated the entire sum of human experience on the planet (yet).
Secondly: "Technology has a mind, life and direction all of its own. It's inherently uncontrollable, even if anybody was up to trying."
Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding what this is trying to say, but it strikes me as ridiculous! "Inherently uncontrollable"? I have to disagree! While the products of technology can be unreliable (as can everything else in the physical world), technology itself isn't some weird anthropomorphic force with a will and mind of its own. I think an attitude like that contributes simply reduces trust in technological developments. Technology is simply a tool of human kind; it is only as good, bad, or unpredictable as we make it. What? We didn't realize that the atom bomb could cause such massive and unsuspected destruction when we first developed them? Oops-- chalk that up to a failure by human beings to fully study the repercussions of such technology. Let's not project human traits onto things that don't deserve it.
Thirdly: "Perhaps the idea that there are people who keep up with all this stuff is in itself a technological myth."
Of course it is! Who COULD? A human being can't even visit all of the exhibits in the Smithsonian Museum, much less absorb even just the useful information available through the Net. This is a notion I've never bought into anyway.
Finally: However, this article also doesn't allow for something humans are extremely adept at: adaptation! We've created a new environment for ourselves with technology; so what? We are an intelligent, changeable species. We have the ability to survive in changing conditions. The technology we are creating is part of our evolution. Yes, there are forces we've unleashed that are beyond our immediate control. But there are better solutions than running around in circles waving arms over our heads and screaming. The people who will out-survive their own technology will be the ones who face it calmly, rationally, and using those big lumps of grey matter nature gave us. "That leaves most of us holding the bag, confronted with two noxious choices"; yes, we have those two choices, but we also have OTHERS in ADDITION to that!!
-ARJ