That is assuming that the child is aware of that need and that their parents are willing to buy yet another computer for the kid (and of course, that the parents can afford it -- not necessarily the case, certainly not in the neighborhood where I grew up). You are also assuming that nobody would buy an iPad if they did not already have a Mac in the home -- as far as I know, you need a Mac to write code for the iPad -- and that is a bizarre assumption, considering the reality of the market.
Here is the situation I see: a kid gets an iPad, and there are no Macs in their house. The kid gets curious about writing code for the iPad, and all he sees is that the device itself has no programming facilities, that he is not allowed to write code for it using his parents' computer, and his parents will not buy a Mac for him (I would not blame the parents here -- an iPad is not exactly cheap, and buying yet another computer when their child already has an iPad would seem like an undue expense to most working class parents). How is that not stifling his curiosity? How is that not discouraging?
How will this lead to better protection for our privacy? I must have missed something. Especially since the basis of all of this is to "glean" mobile search information.
Perhaps you missed that bit about a kid only being given an iPad, and not have access to a desktop? Considering that you need access to another, more programmer-friendly computer to do anything related to programming the iPad?
I will ask you again, as plainly as possible: what happens when a kid is given only an iPad, or a similar device, as a computer? What does that kid do when they get curious?
First of all, I never said it is killing tinkering or sterilizing minds; I only said it discourages tinkering and exploration. It is more difficult to tinker with an iPad, and there are fewer ways to tinker with it. The iPad development model involves getting Apple's permission in order to write code for the device. One needs to already have access to another, less restricted computer to write programs for the iPad.
Perhaps we are seeing two different scenarios here. What I see as a risky situation is a parent buying an iPad for their child, as the child's sole computer. I do not think that scenario is terribly far fetched, if the parents are just looking for a computer that allows their kid to do assignments from school. In that situation, what does a curious kid do? Hit a brick wall.
Gee, way to put words in my mouth. Did I mention BASIC? Did I mention what programming language I was using? No, so do not make unfounded and baseless assumptions that you think justify your point, but only demonstrate that you know nothing and completely missed the point of what I said.
For now. I think Sony taught us that with proprietary systems, that can always change. Will Apple only allow books from certain vendors to be imported? Maybe. They already censored sex-related apps from the apps store; perhaps they will also prevent the importing of sex-themed books or magazines on the iPad.
It would be foolish to trust Apple, as long as they retain such strict control over these devices.
It is getting a lot harder to jailbreak these systems. Look at the PS3: three years of effort, and we still do not know what geohot did or how to do it ourselves. Things are just not as nice for young geeks as they used to be...
The fact that there were closed systems in the 80s does not justify the closed nature of the iPad. A lot of kids learn about computers by tinkering with them; the iPad discourages this. I never published a successful piece of software as a kid, yet I still learned more about programming by tinkering than is taught in most introductory CS courses.
When I was 13, I was poking around the source code of libc and gcc; it would be years before I learned how that code worked or was designed, yet I still learned a lot just by reading through it and seeing what would happen if I modified it. Can a kid tinker with the iPhone SDK to see how it works? Can a kid try to modify parts of the standard library on the iPad to see what happens? No.
From where I sit, that means a kid who is given an iPad is given only a very narrow space to learn in.
Success is not measured in terms of popularity when you are discussing a child's ability to explore their device. None of the programs I wrote as a kid were popular -- most were never even published, and those that were never went anywhere. By tinkering, by trying things out, by exploring, I learned a lot. Curiosity drove me, not dreams of making it big. Curiosity drove me to explore the source code of my compiler and standard library, although it would be many years before I learned how most of the code I was looking at worked, I was still learning. I learned the ins and outs of my computer by poking at it.
I could not have learned all that by using an iPad: The iPad discourages learning by tinkering.
Nevermind that Apple retains as much control over the iPad as Sony did over the PS3. Hackers got screwed with the PS3, and that served as a warning about these traps. The iPad is a trap. Apple has already started censoring the apps store, and designs its devices to prevent the installation of anything that does not come from the apps store.
I will avoid the iPad like a plague, and advise everyone I know to do the same.
Doctorow's point was well put: if parents buy this for their kids, their kids will be conditioned not to tinker. I am sure millions will be sold...but those who would otherwise have tinkered will be deprived of an opportunity to do so. Maybe you do not care about such things, but some of us do.
PDF is not a simple data format; it contains a weird programming language for rendering documents. This hacker is using that language to execute malicious code, which theoretically works in any PDF reader.
So, you pretty much make things up as you go along, right? Who was freely benefiting from Sony's work? We paid the price they asked for the PS3, which is exactly how our capitalist system works. Now we see that Sony wants even more money than they asked for upfront, and will disable the features we paid for to try and extort the money from us.
Yes, it is so socialist to call out Sony on their anti-customer tactics.
I would not expect that anymore, nor would I have expected it when the PS3 first came out. The days of Linux only being used by highly experienced and informed people are long gone; there are droves of novices using Linux, and I would not expect most of them to be completely informed about the practices of Sony and Apple.
"You think 40-50 year olds with a job wouldn't had bought them otherwise?"
Yes, if the movie is too cheap for them to have seen in the theaters. Let's see some proof that they would have purchased the movie -- that is the claim these companies are making, right? Prove that these companies are suffering. I have trouble believing that they could operate at a loss year after year and not go out of business.
"If the only way to keep a business model working is to "open up the floodgates to massive litigation" then we should take a close look at why our society keeps those businesses afloat."
It probably has something to do with the fact that those businesses have tremendous lobbying power and wield greater influence over the government than the citizens themselves. It is time for people to wake up and start electing politicians that work for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the corporations.
"despite this Sony got nothing but flack from technical users from the PS3 since launch."
Perhaps because there were not honest about what the "OtherOS" option actually was? The initial hope that the technical users had was that we could get full access to the system, and then we all found out the terrible truth: no, we have to go through a hyperviser, and Sony gets to decide which features of the PS3 we really deserve to use. They got flack for not delivering what we really wanted, and giving us a half assed proprietary system instead. Had they just locked it down entirely, we would never have cared at all -- it would just be another proprietary gaming console, and we would have gone on using other systems.
"Instead of encouraging shipping Linux support on a major console like the delicate flower it was, technical people from all over stomped on that flower, spit on it, and then set fire to the remains."
No, we tried to push our systems to the limit, just like we do with every other computer. Why should we abide by what Sony says we are allowed to do with our PS3s? I bought my PS3, I want to push it to the limit, and I do not care for Sony and their anti-customer tactics (and until they change their attitude, they will not see a dime of my money).
"Thanks assholes, you killed a feature I liked"
No, Sony killed that feature, and the blame belongs with Sony. Lesson learned, once and for all: do not trust proprietary computing, it is a trap and should be avoided, always. Do not blame the users, blame the company and its contempt for the users.
The problem is that these companies are not up front about the way that they wield control over their systems. Apple does not come out and say, "The app store has all the apps we think are appropriate for your iPhone, and none of the apps that we do not like." There is an element of deceit involved here, and that is where the problem lies.
The difference here is that the PS3 is not just losing features between generations anymore; now, Sony is deliberately removing features from PS3s that were sold with those features enabled. I cannot personally recall Microsoft going that far, although I could be wrong here.
Hm, I bet the reason is green, has numbers printed on it, and features pictures of dead presidents and statesmen. Honestly, what good reason is there for Sony to do this, except to try and muscle more money out of PS3 owners?
Would you be happy to find out that your local mechanic cannot fix your car, because the computers that control it are programmed to only accept inputs from the dealer? Proprietary computing is a bad thing for the general public, in every situation.
Slashdot Mirror
That is assuming that the child is aware of that need and that their parents are willing to buy yet another computer for the kid (and of course, that the parents can afford it -- not necessarily the case, certainly not in the neighborhood where I grew up). You are also assuming that nobody would buy an iPad if they did not already have a Mac in the home -- as far as I know, you need a Mac to write code for the iPad -- and that is a bizarre assumption, considering the reality of the market.
Here is the situation I see: a kid gets an iPad, and there are no Macs in their house. The kid gets curious about writing code for the iPad, and all he sees is that the device itself has no programming facilities, that he is not allowed to write code for it using his parents' computer, and his parents will not buy a Mac for him (I would not blame the parents here -- an iPad is not exactly cheap, and buying yet another computer when their child already has an iPad would seem like an undue expense to most working class parents). How is that not stifling his curiosity? How is that not discouraging?
How will this lead to better protection for our privacy? I must have missed something. Especially since the basis of all of this is to "glean" mobile search information.
Perhaps you missed that bit about a kid only being given an iPad, and not have access to a desktop? Considering that you need access to another, more programmer-friendly computer to do anything related to programming the iPad?
I will ask you again, as plainly as possible: what happens when a kid is given only an iPad, or a similar device, as a computer? What does that kid do when they get curious?
First of all, I never said it is killing tinkering or sterilizing minds; I only said it discourages tinkering and exploration. It is more difficult to tinker with an iPad, and there are fewer ways to tinker with it. The iPad development model involves getting Apple's permission in order to write code for the device. One needs to already have access to another, less restricted computer to write programs for the iPad.
Perhaps we are seeing two different scenarios here. What I see as a risky situation is a parent buying an iPad for their child, as the child's sole computer. I do not think that scenario is terribly far fetched, if the parents are just looking for a computer that allows their kid to do assignments from school. In that situation, what does a curious kid do? Hit a brick wall.
Gee, way to put words in my mouth. Did I mention BASIC? Did I mention what programming language I was using? No, so do not make unfounded and baseless assumptions that you think justify your point, but only demonstrate that you know nothing and completely missed the point of what I said.
For now. I think Sony taught us that with proprietary systems, that can always change. Will Apple only allow books from certain vendors to be imported? Maybe. They already censored sex-related apps from the apps store; perhaps they will also prevent the importing of sex-themed books or magazines on the iPad.
It would be foolish to trust Apple, as long as they retain such strict control over these devices.
It is getting a lot harder to jailbreak these systems. Look at the PS3: three years of effort, and we still do not know what geohot did or how to do it ourselves. Things are just not as nice for young geeks as they used to be...
The fact that there were closed systems in the 80s does not justify the closed nature of the iPad. A lot of kids learn about computers by tinkering with them; the iPad discourages this. I never published a successful piece of software as a kid, yet I still learned more about programming by tinkering than is taught in most introductory CS courses.
When I was 13, I was poking around the source code of libc and gcc; it would be years before I learned how that code worked or was designed, yet I still learned a lot just by reading through it and seeing what would happen if I modified it. Can a kid tinker with the iPhone SDK to see how it works? Can a kid try to modify parts of the standard library on the iPad to see what happens? No.
From where I sit, that means a kid who is given an iPad is given only a very narrow space to learn in.
Success is not measured in terms of popularity when you are discussing a child's ability to explore their device. None of the programs I wrote as a kid were popular -- most were never even published, and those that were never went anywhere. By tinkering, by trying things out, by exploring, I learned a lot. Curiosity drove me, not dreams of making it big. Curiosity drove me to explore the source code of my compiler and standard library, although it would be many years before I learned how most of the code I was looking at worked, I was still learning. I learned the ins and outs of my computer by poking at it.
I could not have learned all that by using an iPad: The iPad discourages learning by tinkering.
Nevermind that Apple retains as much control over the iPad as Sony did over the PS3. Hackers got screwed with the PS3, and that served as a warning about these traps. The iPad is a trap. Apple has already started censoring the apps store, and designs its devices to prevent the installation of anything that does not come from the apps store.
I will avoid the iPad like a plague, and advise everyone I know to do the same.
"They will sell millions."
Doctorow's point was well put: if parents buy this for their kids, their kids will be conditioned not to tinker. I am sure millions will be sold...but those who would otherwise have tinkered will be deprived of an opportunity to do so. Maybe you do not care about such things, but some of us do.
Yes, rtfa with comments.
PDF is not a simple data format; it contains a weird programming language for rendering documents. This hacker is using that language to execute malicious code, which theoretically works in any PDF reader.
So, you pretty much make things up as you go along, right? Who was freely benefiting from Sony's work? We paid the price they asked for the PS3, which is exactly how our capitalist system works. Now we see that Sony wants even more money than they asked for upfront, and will disable the features we paid for to try and extort the money from us.
Yes, it is so socialist to call out Sony on their anti-customer tactics.
I would not expect that anymore, nor would I have expected it when the PS3 first came out. The days of Linux only being used by highly experienced and informed people are long gone; there are droves of novices using Linux, and I would not expect most of them to be completely informed about the practices of Sony and Apple.
"You think 40-50 year olds with a job wouldn't had bought them otherwise?"
Yes, if the movie is too cheap for them to have seen in the theaters. Let's see some proof that they would have purchased the movie -- that is the claim these companies are making, right? Prove that these companies are suffering. I have trouble believing that they could operate at a loss year after year and not go out of business.
"If the only way to keep a business model working is to "open up the floodgates to massive litigation" then we should take a close look at why our society keeps those businesses afloat."
It probably has something to do with the fact that those businesses have tremendous lobbying power and wield greater influence over the government than the citizens themselves. It is time for people to wake up and start electing politicians that work for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the corporations.
"Widespread piracy is causing problems."
Prove it. You may find this difficult to do, since movie studios routinely lie about operating at a loss:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
"despite this Sony got nothing but flack from technical users from the PS3 since launch."
Perhaps because there were not honest about what the "OtherOS" option actually was? The initial hope that the technical users had was that we could get full access to the system, and then we all found out the terrible truth: no, we have to go through a hyperviser, and Sony gets to decide which features of the PS3 we really deserve to use. They got flack for not delivering what we really wanted, and giving us a half assed proprietary system instead. Had they just locked it down entirely, we would never have cared at all -- it would just be another proprietary gaming console, and we would have gone on using other systems. "Instead of encouraging shipping Linux support on a major console like the delicate flower it was, technical people from all over stomped on that flower, spit on it, and then set fire to the remains."
No, we tried to push our systems to the limit, just like we do with every other computer. Why should we abide by what Sony says we are allowed to do with our PS3s? I bought my PS3, I want to push it to the limit, and I do not care for Sony and their anti-customer tactics (and until they change their attitude, they will not see a dime of my money).
"Thanks assholes, you killed a feature I liked"
No, Sony killed that feature, and the blame belongs with Sony. Lesson learned, once and for all: do not trust proprietary computing, it is a trap and should be avoided, always. Do not blame the users, blame the company and its contempt for the users.
"Something's obviously changed their mind."
Probably a desire for a few more of these: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/United_States_one_dollar_bill,_obverse.jpg
"Linux geeks have never, in the history of the universe, made anything popular."
Except for...Apache? You know, that really popular web server that serves up a large fraction of the world's web sites...
The problem is that these companies are not up front about the way that they wield control over their systems. Apple does not come out and say, "The app store has all the apps we think are appropriate for your iPhone, and none of the apps that we do not like." There is an element of deceit involved here, and that is where the problem lies.
The difference here is that the PS3 is not just losing features between generations anymore; now, Sony is deliberately removing features from PS3s that were sold with those features enabled. I cannot personally recall Microsoft going that far, although I could be wrong here.
"they must have a good reason"
Hm, I bet the reason is green, has numbers printed on it, and features pictures of dead presidents and statesmen. Honestly, what good reason is there for Sony to do this, except to try and muscle more money out of PS3 owners?
Would you be happy to find out that your local mechanic cannot fix your car, because the computers that control it are programmed to only accept inputs from the dealer? Proprietary computing is a bad thing for the general public, in every situation.