-
Hello MLAers! We've re-enabled auto-approval for accounts. If you are still waiting on account approval, please check this thread for more information.
Designers on quest to build $12 computer (based on NES)
- Thread starter QuadSix50
- Start date
I'm hoping it is a II clone myself. The pool of ready made software that would be unleashed is huge. Imagine stock control and accounting software for a small shopkeeper who is doing everything by hand now. Let alone all of the industrial (and yes agricultural) control apps that were made possible by the II and it's available slots.
I very much doubt it would be a 1:1 clone; more likely a small, low-power recreation that integrates some of the old (and perhaps some new) peripherals.
And I want one!
I very much doubt it would be a 1:1 clone; more likely a small, low-power recreation that integrates some of the old (and perhaps some new) peripherals.
And I want one!
Food prices are going up because fuel prices are going up. Industrial agriculture is highly fuel dependent. Fertilizer is made from natural gas. And fuel price has pushed up the price (thus demand, thus supply) of biofuels, which are either made from food or grown on soil which could be growing food.
IMHO the biofuel boom has had a far smaller impact on food pricing than the moral panic suggests, and far smaller than the direct impact of fuel cost.
IMHO the biofuel boom has had a far smaller impact on food pricing than the moral panic suggests, and far smaller than the direct impact of fuel cost.
http://cultofmac.com/mit-designers-resurrecting-apple-ii-for-india/2474
I had a feeling that reporter knew sweet FA about computers.
And finally: the actual project website
http://design4dev.wetpaint.com/page/TV+Computer?t=anon
What amuses me the most is that indigenous "third" world entrepreneurship, by understanding the market and supplying what people actually want, might end up achieving what the OLPC foundation set out to do, from the $10 bottom up.
http://design4dev.wetpaint.com/page/TV+Computer?t=anon
What amuses me the most is that indigenous "third" world entrepreneurship, by understanding the market and supplying what people actually want, might end up achieving what the OLPC foundation set out to do, from the $10 bottom up.
I still want one! Place your orders by PM, folks, I'll be back in India some time in the next 12 to 18 months.
Having basic computer skills means nothing. If you want a job working with a computer you need to be an advanced user. Just knowing how to use a mouse and windows or a basic office package does not help you to get a job anymore because it is assumed everyone knows those things. If you want a job, you need to know a lot more.
So if kids use computers at an early age will they
(a) all become Nobel prize winners at extreme cleverness and solving the worlds problems in peace and harmony
( B) become spoonfed dummies with poor social skills who are incapable of critical or original thinking and have no idea on what research actually is.
Computers in schools is just anther big sink for tax payers money and another way of dumbing down kids while pretending to be doing them some kind of favour.
Times change, and the skills that people need to survive change with those time.
Consider some of the skills currently taught in school: we spend an inordinate amount of time teaching them how to read, how to do mathematics problems, understanding world history, and so forth. We spend next to no time teaching them skills like how to hunt or fish or grow food. Kids these days truly have no understanding of what it means to survive. They are helpless if there isn't a grocery store on the next block.
Yes, I'm being somewhat sarcastic here. But I do run into a lot of back-to-the-basics arguments, because it is proven to work. Really, that's why the majority of people dropped out of school before grade 6 a century ago and out of school before graduating high school less than half a century ago. They like to say that traditional methods promote understanding. Really. Knowing long division has as much bearing on understanding the concept of division as using a calculator or a computer. (Ever see a kid who knows long division, but doesn't even understand the idea that you are dividing something into equal parts?) Then the reall BS starts flying, things like they would be helpless without calculators or computers. Really. Well if the world went to hell in a handbasket and calculators and computers ceased being ubiquitous you would probably find that your grocery store would have gone the way of the do-do bird too. At that point, basic survival skills (the stuff not taught in school) will probably be more important than the academic stuff.
I do agree that our use of computers in schools is both inadequate and misdirected, but that has more to do with teachers who think that computers are word processors than with computers themselves.
Consider some of the skills currently taught in school: we spend an inordinate amount of time teaching them how to read, how to do mathematics problems, understanding world history, and so forth. We spend next to no time teaching them skills like how to hunt or fish or grow food. Kids these days truly have no understanding of what it means to survive. They are helpless if there isn't a grocery store on the next block.
Yes, I'm being somewhat sarcastic here. But I do run into a lot of back-to-the-basics arguments, because it is proven to work. Really, that's why the majority of people dropped out of school before grade 6 a century ago and out of school before graduating high school less than half a century ago. They like to say that traditional methods promote understanding. Really. Knowing long division has as much bearing on understanding the concept of division as using a calculator or a computer. (Ever see a kid who knows long division, but doesn't even understand the idea that you are dividing something into equal parts?) Then the reall BS starts flying, things like they would be helpless without calculators or computers. Really. Well if the world went to hell in a handbasket and calculators and computers ceased being ubiquitous you would probably find that your grocery store would have gone the way of the do-do bird too. At that point, basic survival skills (the stuff not taught in school) will probably be more important than the academic stuff.
I do agree that our use of computers in schools is both inadequate and misdirected, but that has more to do with teachers who think that computers are word processors than with computers themselves.
^--Indeed. Read "Mindstorms" by Seymour Papert for a cogent critique of everything that is wrong with computer education as it stood in the 1970s and still stands today, and a vision of how it can be (and in some places is)
But really, all this bitching and whinging has bugger all to do with the project at hand. Blah blah blah the world suxxors, things were better in my day, get off my lawn.
Now. Can we get back to some intelligent, constructive discussion, please?
But really, all this bitching and whinging has bugger all to do with the project at hand. Blah blah blah the world suxxors, things were better in my day, get off my lawn.
Now. Can we get back to some intelligent, constructive discussion, please?
II2II, porter, in a minor way paws:
Chill. It is not that important. For those of you who think it's stupid, it won't sell if it's stupid, and it'll die out. For those of you who think it's brilliant, it'll sell well if it is, and help people out.
Either it helps people or it dies out. There's no third option. Sure, someone could buy it then find out it's useless, but this would be fairly minor since 1. It's $12, not a huge investment even for subsistence farmers, and 2. They'll spread the word of it being useless and keep the total harm down close to zero.
Personally, I think that it's a great idea, but for kids in developed countries (note: I am NOT saying it should be barred to people in developing countries.) A modern, cheap Apple II would get lots of parents to buy them for their kids, and the kids would grow up not just learning about computers, but also having at least a basic understanding of how to program the computers (pardon the pun.) Kids now are growing up with the computers being just a glorified cell phone or game system, with none of the experience of actual creation that programming, even in BASIC, brings.
EDIT: Augh, somehow missed the "Not an Apple II" thing. Wish it was.
Chill. It is not that important. For those of you who think it's stupid, it won't sell if it's stupid, and it'll die out. For those of you who think it's brilliant, it'll sell well if it is, and help people out.
Either it helps people or it dies out. There's no third option. Sure, someone could buy it then find out it's useless, but this would be fairly minor since 1. It's $12, not a huge investment even for subsistence farmers, and 2. They'll spread the word of it being useless and keep the total harm down close to zero.
Personally, I think that it's a great idea, but for kids in developed countries (note: I am NOT saying it should be barred to people in developing countries.) A modern, cheap Apple II would get lots of parents to buy them for their kids, and the kids would grow up not just learning about computers, but also having at least a basic understanding of how to program the computers (pardon the pun.) Kids now are growing up with the computers being just a glorified cell phone or game system, with none of the experience of actual creation that programming, even in BASIC, brings.
EDIT: Augh, somehow missed the "Not an Apple II" thing. Wish it was.
On the subject of constructive discussion, I'd suggest that anyone who is interested should have a look at the real project website and make up their minds from there, ignoring all the inaccurate, lazy reporting in the previously linked media.
The system is on the market now, being sold into homes as a game/BASIC system, much like the C64 and other home computers of the 80s. The MIT team merely want to extend the education options available for it.
The system is on the market now, being sold into homes as a game/BASIC system, much like the C64 and other home computers of the 80s. The MIT team merely want to extend the education options available for it.
Kids are treating computers like cell phones and game systems. That has nothing to do with the computers themselves. Rather it has to do with society's attitudes towards computers.
After all, anyone can stick a simple programming language like Logo, SmallTalk, BASIC, or Python on their machine. All of these have free variants that are downloadable off of the Internet.
I think the stimulating part about computers in the olden days were that a lot of them did not have much software. The software that did exist was expensive and, in some cases, could be developed by an ambitious individual. There was a lot of talk about programming in the popular computer press, even going as far as programming books for kids. Some of those books were collections of games, others showed you how to program games. I even remember one piece of children's fiction that had a lead character solve problems by programming in Pascal, with the source code to those programs in the back.
If you think that a $12 computer is going to recreate that "golden age" of technophilia, I would assert that your idea is naive. Some of the problems out there don't call for technological solutions. They call for social solutions. Alas, creating social solutions is much harder.
After all, anyone can stick a simple programming language like Logo, SmallTalk, BASIC, or Python on their machine. All of these have free variants that are downloadable off of the Internet.
I think the stimulating part about computers in the olden days were that a lot of them did not have much software. The software that did exist was expensive and, in some cases, could be developed by an ambitious individual. There was a lot of talk about programming in the popular computer press, even going as far as programming books for kids. Some of those books were collections of games, others showed you how to program games. I even remember one piece of children's fiction that had a lead character solve problems by programming in Pascal, with the source code to those programs in the back.
If you think that a $12 computer is going to recreate that "golden age" of technophilia, I would assert that your idea is naive. Some of the problems out there don't call for technological solutions. They call for social solutions. Alas, creating social solutions is much harder.
I learned to program in the 80's because my 1st machine (A timex 2068) was orphaned a year after I got it and had few apps.
Kids in the 90's could be creative even with games because there were map editors out to design your own levels (quake, etc). Others did hacking, programming, artowrk, music etc.
My issues with computers in school are not in the machines, but with the software and how the machines are used. If you ever programmed you know that given a task there are a number of ways of doing it. Schools seems to teach the one "good" way to do something, and all others are inferior. When a kid comes up with a novel way of doing something and a student tells him it is the wrong way you kill creativity. I also don't like the memorization followed by multiple choice tests, they just get kids to memorize and puke the answer up on command when they see it.
Kids in the 90's could be creative even with games because there were map editors out to design your own levels (quake, etc). Others did hacking, programming, artowrk, music etc.
My issues with computers in school are not in the machines, but with the software and how the machines are used. If you ever programmed you know that given a task there are a number of ways of doing it. Schools seems to teach the one "good" way to do something, and all others are inferior. When a kid comes up with a novel way of doing something and a student tells him it is the wrong way you kill creativity. I also don't like the memorization followed by multiple choice tests, they just get kids to memorize and puke the answer up on command when they see it.
Teachers are in of a bit of a fickle here. The current pedagogical fad is based a lot on constructivism. Constructivism is one means of coming up with novel ways of doing something, because the student is expected to construct their own knowledge. Usually they are given the tools to figure something out, then any rational solution is considered valid. There are other ways of going about it, but constructivism seems to be the main way to use the different skills that students have. (There are teachers who will teach the content then assess solutions based on their validity rather than what they are taught, but the general outcome is that most students are working things out the same way because their understanding is based upon the instruction.)
Here's the hitch though: teachers are forced to teach to the curriculum, which rarely leaves time for the students to figure things out. The government then monitors how well teachers and schools are teaching to the curriculum through standardized testing (e.g. EQAO in Ontario). Some jurisdictions even use financial incentives and disincentives to force teachers to teach to the curriculum (e.g. No Child Left Behind in the U.S.). Of course I shouldn't blame just the government for that. Some teachers agree with this approach whole-heartedly, and some parents demand it for their child. After all, it is easier to guage knowledge than understanding.
Flipping back to software: there are a few constructivist tools out there (some may say constructionist here, but I'm not clear on the boundary). Some will be familiar to the Mac world through their creators, like Alan Kay's association with Squeak (a SmallTalk environment) and Bill Atkinson's association with HyperCard (HyperStudio is a variant on the theme, and still very much alive). Others stray away from programming, but still take on the same philosophy. These include products like Geometer's Sketchpad and Fathom.
But here's the hitch. When I've seen GSP and Fathom in use, students were always given explicit instructions on how to use it. So rather than using a constructivist approach, you are simply offering a variant on direct instruction. Part of the reason is time and those bloody curriculum expectations. Part of the reason is that students rarely know how to use this software and don't want to figure it out. But part of the reason is because the teacher's approach is all wrong too. By having all of the students use the software at the same time and for the same problems, you are basically reducing the software to an instructional tool rather than a learning tool.
As I've said before, most of the teacher's I've met simply don't understand computers. Ah well.
I don't think any such thing. Of course the circumstances are not the same, nor do I believe in recreating anything. I think this is interesting, and the street will find its own use for things, as always, and no doubt already is. The 21st century Bombay street, that is, not the 1970s upper-middle class Western suburban cul-de-sac. The well-meaning MIT team may or may not have some impact.
And yet, some do. Let the end user decide.
It's all very Western centric, really, isn't it.
Put it this way: I spent some time in a basti (settlement) of several hundred people in the center of Dehli.
Clean water, food, electricity, TVs, most families had at least one job-holder, and the kids were at school. But we're talking a family of eight in an eight by ten room, with another one or two built on top, a maze of two foot laneways in between.
Computers? There were four crappy old 486/P1 machines in the after-school drop-in center, and two of them were broken. Internet? Not since their last IT sponsor lost interest.
This is the market these $10 computers are going into - and no-one is shoving them down anyone's throat - people are buying them themselves.
IMHO we could all do with a break from pontificating about what the "third" world needs, and respect their intelligence enough to let them work it out for themselves.
If you're talking about India, well, they have the brain power to figure out the solutions themselves. It's not as though designing a decent computer is rocket science after all. A modern microcontroller offer more speed as well as internal flash memory and RAM. The I/O pins are a much more flexible data bus (for analog or digital) than a typical microprocessor. They also use a heck of a lot less power. If you do a bit of shopping, you can also find microcontrollers with internal RF communications modules. A network protocol like ZigBee is supposed to support several thousand nodes without external infrastructure. Everything is there, and (from what I've heard) the people in India and other developing nations can be bloody creative at using tools that we shun as primitive.
So why are we talking about a $12 computer designed in the west? Why not talk about what they're doing?
So why are we talking about a $12 computer designed in the west? Why not talk about what they're doing?
Similar threads
