In your first post you didn't bring up anything like robots taking over the world. You asked if people without mad tech skillz should be allowed to use computers that are designed to be single button solutions. I say "yes". I also asked what possible damage can be caused by one of these devices. Cars, I understand. Planes, sure, that's a no-brainer. The iPad? What the hell?
Otherwise, yes, this is nothing but a slippery slope argument. The more people who have access to technology, the more people will study it. It doesn't matter that a single device is closed, as there will be crome and android and linux and many other devices out there that are open. People can still tinker. People can still learn the fundamentals. Come on, tell me what someone can do with a tablet that is dangerous in any way.
Scott you're crazy even if there were less people going into IT and CS today as a ratio there are probably more people alive today then any other time that are technologically adapt. The more people access and are able to use technology the more of a fraction of people realize they are adapt with it and end up studying it. Computer technology will and already has reached the level of complexity as a field of Science has, no Scientist understands or knows every aspect of biology, you shouldn't expect someone working with computers to understand every aspect.
If you want to make crazy robot invasion arguments you might as well mention that Apple saved us in Independence day.
Also, I did lose two people REALLY close to me in car accidents and I still feel that way :-p
(and I hate Apple with a passion). Your argument just doesn't make sense.
How dare people be able to use technology easily and quickly in order to achieve other, greater goals rather than toil, obsess, and become experts in fields that do not interest them or benefit their profession. Seriously, Scott, you are making an argument akin to the luddites. Instead of bemoaning technology as a whole, you are bemoaning easy to utilize technology. As technology allows the masses to easily accomplish menial or lesser tasks, it frees them up to pursue other, more complicated/rewarding/enriching/challenging tasks. You are making the argument that access to greater information will make it less likely that people will understand the technology they are utilizing? Really? As the masses have more access to technology, they actually learn more about said technology. When the technology is difficult to utilize, people are less likely to take the initial leap to utilize it and utilization is the first component to understanding. Think of it this way, if all cars were incredibly difficult to drive, fewer people would have the time, money, and resources to invest in learning to operate vehicles and/or take precious time, money, and resources away from pursuing other activities. This would make people more reliant on a few experts providing transportation rather than promote the use of vehicles which inevitably leads to more knowledge of the vehicles.
But seriously, I don't think you guys are really thinking about all of the consequences.
And I think that because we disagree with your point of view, you think we're not considering everything, or are in some way lacking, when in reality, we just disagree with you.
es, an easy to drive car grants the power of transportation to many who would otherwise have a very difficult time moving around. That is good. However, it also causes many many problems. Is the trade-off acceptable? You might say yes, but if someone close to you was killed by a car, would you change your mind?
When I was eighteen, Sean, I guy I grew up with from the age of six was killed instantly in car accident, when his family's van collided with another vehicle. I still think it's an acceptable trade off at this point in time, however, I also support the improvement of safety features in cars, and better road rules that are not designed half for safety, and half for making money, and I recognize that this might change if anything drastic occurs in the industry - I can't tell the future after all, and it's foolish to think you're smart enough to not have to hedge your bets against change.
An easy to use computer allows people who are not technologically inclined access to vast amounts of information. But in the long run, will it result in a society dependent on advanced technology that extremely few people understand?
Probably not, to be honest. It will allow access for greater numbers of people to information they could have never had before, But what occurs at that point is really up in the air, as it's so far in the future that I'm not foolish enough to try and predict.
People going to school for computer science and IT is decreasing year after year after year. Even people who do go, so few of them actually know anything from anything. Even those who are good are mostly only capable of high level programming, creating applications and such.
So, there is a correlation. Do you have any evidence of it actually being a causal relationship, or are you making a lazy argument?
At least if something is open source, that's a chance someone can figure it out. But if the Apple philosophy dominates, even nerds might not be able to stop the out of control robots from killing everybody.
Let's be honest, here - you'd probably be among the first to either die or end up in the camps.
If my dark vision of the future is true, should we cease making closed appliances for the sake of the future?
Calm down there, Stephanie Meyer, no need to write so melodramatically. How about we try and figure out what the intermediate steps are before we start leaping to the endgame?
Edit - Also, Scott, have you considered that it's attitudes like yours on this issue that might just be driving people away from the industry? After all, you might not be saying "ALL TECH MUST BE HARD TO USE SO THAT PEOPLE MUST WORK AND LEARN TO BE ABLE TO USE IT WELL" but it sure as hell seems like it, and that seems like just the sort of attitude that would drive people away, rather than bringing all but a small few in.
Come on, tell me what someone can do with a tablet that is dangerous in any way.
They can be a danger to themselves.
Why is it that my generation and the prior generation are so good with computers, but newer generations are not? It's because of PC gaming. Almost every keynote speaker at PAX so far has talked about how they played games on their Atari/Commodore/Apple/etc. resulted in an interest in programming and learning to program. That was the previous generation.
My generation also had some Apple 2, but we mostly had MS-DOS games. In the era of Windows 3.1, most people just used that to do whatever. But if you wanted to play games, you had to exit to DOS. If I had been born later, when games just installed with setup.exe on Windows 95 directly, I probably wouldn't know shit for shit about computers.
Also, consider I was using the Internet in relatively early days. I learned how to dial-in to the local library to check the card catalog. I learned how to telnet into a server to play a MUD. I knew how to burn CDs for Linux distros because I had learned how to burn pirated video games. I learned how to write some HTML because I was using Geocities instead of Facebook.
Your grandpa using a tablet isn't going to hurt himself anymore than he would with a web browser. Possibly getting involved with shady Facebook apps and maybe standard web identity theft type stuff. He also might waste a bunch of money he otherwise did not need to spend because of Apple's business model.
However, the next generation of kids using nothing but iPad-like devices. That is something I worry about.
Also, I love how people still think I am making a statement and not just asking a question. I'm not saying "Tech should be hard". I'm saying "Would it be better if tech were hard?"
As technology allows the masses to easily accomplish menial or lesser tasks, it frees them up to pursue other, more complicated/rewarding/enriching/challenging tasks.
The problem is most of them just stay at the level of the easy, menial tasks. They don't pursue anything higher because they can just sit at the level of the easy shit.
The major problem here is that learning for the masses is going down the tubes. I think Scott is just trying to promote learning, but he's going about it the wrong way. Instead of making everything harder, we just need to make it easier to learn.
Your grandpa using a tablet isn't going to hurt himself anymore than he would with a web browser. Possibly getting involved with shady Facebook apps and maybe standard web identity theft type stuff. He also might waste a bunch of money he otherwise did not need to spend because of Apple's business model.
Except, of course, that he can't use a normal web browser, because of the problems I stated earlier. So he'll get a few mild problems with the almost infinite knowledge and access the internet brings. So this has nothing to do with the ease of technology, only problems inherent with ALL internet technology.
They can be a danger to themselves.
You can be a danger to yourself with a fork.
Come on, bring on how my grandfather can be a danger to OTHER PEOPLE, in the same way that you talked about him being given control of a car or an aircraft.
You can't. There is no danger.
And you know, I was going to throw in a post saying something like "Prediction: now Scott has been totally pwned by all the responses on this topic, I bet he takes the line of I-was-only-asking-questions-no-need-to-get-riled-up." But you beat me to it. You question is dumb, elitist, illogical, luditist, and a whole list of other things besides.
And your question stinks of the Fox News "question" where adding a question mark to the end of a headline means they can say "Well, we're not saying Obama is a rapist, we're just asking Is Obama a Rapist?"
Why is it that my generation and the prior generation are so good with computers, but newer generations are not?
Please cite credible sources that illustrate this claimed phenomena.
My generation also had some Apple 2, but we mostly had MS-DOS games. In the era of Windows 3.1, most people just used that to do whatever. But if you wanted to play games, you had to exit to DOS. If I had been born later, when games just installed with setup.exe on Windows 95 directly, I probably wouldn't know shit for shit about computers.
Also, consider I was using the Internet in relatively early days. I learned how to dial-in to the local library to check the card catalog. I learned how to telnet into a server to play a MUD. I knew how to burn CDs for Linux distros because I had learned how to burn pirated video games. I learned how to write some HTML because I was using Geocities instead of Facebook.
Your grandpa using a tablet isn't going to hurt himself anymore than he would with a web browser. Possibly getting involved with shady Facebook apps and maybe standard web identity theft type stuff. He also might waste a bunch of money he otherwise did not need to spend because of Apple's business model.
However, the next generation of kids using nothing but iPad-like devices. That is something I worry about.
Wow, you are really making the "we had to walk 15 miles in the snow every day and we were better for it argument"? DOS and dialup are relatively obsolete with reason. Just because something was harder to accomplish "in the good old days" doesn't mean that the information you gleaned from it is any more or less useful than the information people are learning today when they use more up-to-date/relevant technology. Just because something is more difficult doesn't necessarily mean it has less value. Computer users today still face challenges (the most basic being security and alacrity) which pushes them to utilize Linux and less "mainstream" technology to overcome those challenges.
You really sound like and old man, Scott. I am not saying that to insult you, I am just pointing out a fact.
What Scott is ineloquently attempting to express (and which many of you are overlooking) is the simple fact that there is a direct trade-off between usability/simplicity and knowledge/skill on a fundamental level. With all technology, the further we distance ourselves from a basic understanding of the tools and technology we use, the more at risk we are for long-term catastrophic failure
I make no judgement as to where the line should be. It's different for everything. But the fact remains that too many people run into a lot of serious trouble because they're using computers and Internet technology without understanding even the most basic fundamental of what's going on.
I personally make a point of understanding to some degree anything I use on a regular basis. I know how my car works. I know how my computer works. I know how my glasses and allergy medicines work. I know how pants are made, and how dishwashers work. To too many people, these things are magic.
I'm not saying we should remove or prevent simplicity. What we need to do is foster a better overall understanding of the principles behind everything we use in our daily lives.
Take the vast majorit of computer problem. Identity theft, scamming, phishing, viruses, worms: all of these exist solely because the majority of Internet users are entirely blind to what they're doing. They're one of the tradeoffs of easy access.
Take the vast majority of car accidents. They're one of the tradeoffs of easy access to drivers' licenses and a lack of retesting.
Take the morons fighting against vaccines. They're one of the tradeoffs of a society that is generally ignorant of even the most basic concepts of modern medicine.
Scott is not saying literally that the iPad is going to destroy the world, or that we should make all computers impossible for idiots to use. He's simply saying that there is a long-term trend toward the majority of the things we humans interact with on a daily basis being indistinguishable from magic for the majority of the population. That's fine, until there's a problem. It puts the wizards in complete control of the entire society.
We're on the verge of an increasing slope of technology the likes of which mankind has never seen. The change of the next ten years will rival the changes of the past hundred. The generation before me had to be engineers to use computers. The generation after me had instant messaging out-of-the-box. We'll soon reach the point at which abstraction is effectively reality for most people. Abstractions of abstractions. Do we, as a society, want to accept that we will eventually lose the thread back to the reality within which technology functions? How do we foster a maintenance of at least the knowledge that the link to the bottom exists? We've never had to address these concerns on this scale before, and it will only get more important to make a choice as time goes on.
I only learned as much as I did as early as I did because I was forced to in order to play games. Had I not learned how to make a dos boot disk and use highmen (let alone load my mouse driver from a clean boot and set up a sound card on an ISA port), I wouldn't have been able to play games at all. Doom forced me to learn how computers worked in a way that nothing else could have.
Instead of making everything harder, we just need to make it easier to learn.
This is true. A computer with Linux already installed is no more difficult to use than one with Windows or Mac. You click the browser icon, and it's the same Firefox you get on anything. The difference is that on Linux the terminal is there, waiting for you if you want to learn. The same can be said for the Apple 2. You can just play Oregon Trail all day, but the BASIC interpreter is there when you want it. The iPad is problematic in that it does not have the "hard mode" at all. If Street Fighter only had easy mode, how could you improve your skills, even if you wanted to?
But on the same token, even with hard mode present, why would you ever use it? People need motivation and incentive to take a path that is not of least resistance. I learned crazy DOS crap not because I wanted to, but because I had to in order to make games work. People only learn just enough to get done what they want to do, and no more. They are later bitten when presented with a situation they never learned to deal with.
So even if something like the iPad has a terminal available, there needs to be some incentive for people to actually use it if they are going to ever learn anything. Doing something like allowing people to write, pirate, and side-load apps will go a very very long way towards advancing computer literacy.
Likewise, I would like to point out a hypocrisy. You are accusing me of being elitist. Of saying that only the technological elite should have computers, and nobody else. And you're defending Apple, of all people, as being the opposite. But is Apple not the very epitome of that elitism that you are accusing me of?
Apple will decide what apps you may have, and what apps you may not have. Apple will have complete control over your computing experience. Steve Jobs will decide how things will be. You have no say, no control. Jobs way or the highway. With an open device, yes things may require the user to learn something, and it may be more difficult or take more time. But at least it is possible to do as you please. There isn't some Steve Jobs deciding what you will and will not do. The user has the power to decide what they will do with their computers
By taking the easy road you put vast amounts of power not in those who have knowledge, but in those specific few who created that one device you are using. Even worse than being dependent on the pool of people who have knowledge, which you can learn yourself, you make yourself dependent on one specific company who keeps secret knowledge.
It is this lack of technological knowledge which prevents people from even understanding this is happening, as they are incapable of even comprehending that it is possible to do more with their computing devices.
What Scott is in-eloquently attempting to express (and which many of you are overlooking) is the simple fact that there is a direct trade-off between usability/simplicity and knowledge/skill on a fundamental level. With all technology, the further we distance ourselves from a basic understanding of the tools and technology we use, the more at risk we are for long-term catastrophic failure.
While I agree with the overall points that a basic education/understanding of the technology we utilize on a daily basis is helpful in preventing people from being harmed by misusing the technology, I do not agree with the premise that easier access to technology makes people less adept and knowledgeable about using that technology. Think about that premise for a moment. The easier computers are to utilize, the more people utilize them. This makes the information about the technology more widely discussed and allows more people to learn the technology via utilization. Viruses, theft, etc. are widely known problems and as more people encounter them, more information, warning, and products are available to help safeguard them. When a person encounters a problem with their computer that person learns how to overcome and avoid that problem and, often, other people are informed of the problem and are able to take certain measures in order to safeguard themselves. Scott and, to a lesser extent, Rym seem to advocate having as much working knowledge of computers as they, themselves do. What they seem to miss is that people are willing to take the risk of being less informed because they cannot or will not spend as much of their lives, money, and education devoted to learning about computers. If the vast majority of people that utilized computers were to pursue technology to even close to the level of understanding that Rym and Scott have, our society would collapse because there would not be enough people in other fields in order to provide the goods and services that allow us to survive.
Let me reiterate: Basic education in technology beginning at an early age = awesome. Expecting the masses to essentially become experts in technology = ridiculous.
EDIT: People that want the "hard mode" would likely seek out something other than an iPad.
This is true. A computer with Linux already installed is no more difficult to use than one with Windows or Mac.
But Windows and Mac are already too hard for my grandfather.
This is the point I think you are missing: giving freedom to people who previously had no way to access the internet is a good thing. It isn't a bad thing. Once someone makes a tablet that runs linux and you can access the terminal, but is as easy to use as an iPad, he can use that instead. I mean, I'd probably turn that function off when I give it to him, in case he gets in and does damage. But I'm sure someone will make a tablet that runs linux.
But someone has to go there first. The first people to fly, who didn't build their own planes, were elite western male adventurous types with too much money. The first people to drive cars were the same. And the first mobile phones were yuppie toys. Now anyone can fly, drive, and own a mobile phone. But without the rich elite going first you don't get the later tech. Same with laptops and tablets.
Rym seem to advocate having as much working knowledge of computers as they, themselves do.
Not even close. But I expect them to be able to do the equivalent of drive a car. If computers were cars, the average user call's Ford because they don't know how to open the door, and then proceeds to put sugar in the gas tank and push the car to its destination, all the while complaining about how slow that is.
The real problem isn't that computers are easy. They should be easy. The iPad is fine. Scott's overreacting on that point.
The problem is that our society is driven more and more by technology. Your ability to effectively use computers matters more to your success than your skill at whatever it is you're trying to do with said computers in many areas, and I personally believe this will only get worse.
A secretary is useless in a modern company unless he can effectively use his computer, regardless of all his other skills combined. A computer-ignorant secretary with ten years of experience is made obsolete by a teenager who can use Word, Excel, Outlook, and Python.
When a person encounters a problem with their computer that person learns how to overcome and avoid that problem and, often, other people are informed of the problem and are able to take certain measures in order to safeguard themselves.
In my professional opinion, they don't. They never read what's on the screen, and continually raise the same issues over and over again with support desks. They treat the computer differently from the way they treat every other part of their lives, and shy from even the most basic troubleshooting. At least when their car fails, they'll open the hood and look, even if they don't understand. With computers, they see smoke coming out of the hood and refuse to even consider that it might mean something. They see that their speed is zero, but still ask whether or not they're moving.
We need to demystify computers. If we did, they'd be at the level of cars, and everything would generally work out. Right now, they're still wizard machines maintained by wizards.
In my professional opinion, they don't. They never read what's on the screen, and continually raise the same issues over and over again with support desks. They treat the computer differently from the way they treat every other part of their lives, and shy from even the most basic troubleshooting. At least when their car fails, they'll open the hood andlook, even if they don't understand. With computers, they see smoke coming out of the hood and refuse to even consider that it might mean something. They see that their speed is zero, but still ask whether or not they're moving.
We need to demystify computers. If we did, they'd be at the level of cars, and everything would generally work out. Right now, they're still wizard machines maintained by wizards.
I have an issue with this argument, is this a generational issue? As an IT help desk, I have MUCH more trouble with the older users then I have with the younger ones. Your argument seems to be refuted by this fact alone.
Your right, the older generation that is not computer literate does have issues much in the way you described but don't you think people had those issues with cars when they became cheap enough for the masses to use? The younger generation that grew up with cars their entire life didn't have nearly the same issues. The same goes with computers. The people who are comfortable with computers (grew up with them) know where to look for answers while the people that did not grow up with computers are using their DVD players as cup holders. Obviously there will always be stupid people or people who can't get it or are not interested but I don't hear younger people saying "I can't understand computers" as much as I hear older people say that.
It's true, you won't find a teenager using the optical disk tray as a cup holder. The reason is that they know how to do the few things they do, with no problem. They iTunes. They Facebook. They IM. They Twitter. Maybe they play some games. They read some web sites. They know how to do a few things, and they can do them no problem. The thing is, they never expand their knowledge. They also get caught when presented with anything outside of their comfort zone. My cousins are a great example. They're my age and younger, and they know how to do all these things with their computers, never asking for help. Yet, they are constantly virussed, spammed, and phished to all hell because they don't actually know anything.
Here's a question. Do you consider someone literate if they can read, but not write? How important is it that you think people know how to write?
Do you consider someone computer literate if they can use software, but not create software? How important is it that you think people know how to program?
The world was a sad and fucked up place where only few people held the power of reading, writing, and printing. In the world we live in now, C is becoming a far more important and powerful language than English or Chinese. Even if the world knows how to "read", if the power of writing is limited to only a few, it will be a huge step backwards for our society. Apple's philosophy is read-only, and taken down the, yes, slippery slope, that is where it leads.
The world was a sad and fucked up place where only few people held the power of reading, writing, and printing. In the world we live in now, C is becoming a far more important and powerful language than English or Chinese. Even if the world knows how to "read", if the power of writing is limited to only a few, it will be a huge step backwards for our society. Apple's philosophy is read-only, and taken down the, yes, slippery slope, that is where it leads.
I'm not going to take Scott's tack and villify the iPad or appliance-computing as the problem: they're a symptom at best, and appliances have a place in our society.
Most people own a toaster, but have no idea what nichrome wire is, let alone electrical resistance or thermodynamics. It's a simple, purpose-built appliance. The iPad is the same thing in many ways: the toaster equivalent of a computer.
The only real problem is that general-purpose computing is far more important to the world than most people realize. They underestimate how drastically a working knowledge of computing can change their personal lives for the better, let alone change everything. The automobile revolution has nothing on the computer revolution. Toasters don't change the world, but computers give you unimaginable power if used properly, the likes of which there are few other ways to achieve.
I'm saying "Would it be better if tech were hard?"
No, because if you want to get involved in the hardcore tech, you can play with linux or any number of other open source projects. I don't wanna have to understand metacity in order to use my program. I have a degree in Information Science, computers are my weapon of choice, not my end all be all. In the real world, the value is on the information a system can deliver, not what it's actually made of.
Computers, like guns or cars, are just tools. There are people who obsess over designing them and understanding how they work and the vast majority of people just use them.
Scott is not saying literally that the iPad is going to destroy the world, or that we should make all computers impossible for idiots to use. He's simply saying that there is a long-term trend toward the majority of the things we humans interact with on a daily basis being indistinguishable from magic for the majority of the population. That's fine, until there's a problem. It puts the wizards in complete control of the entire society.
You're implying that this is an entirely new thing, but it's not. Society has been this way for many years. When Tesla came up with alternating current, no one had a fucking clue how it worked, but they knew it worked and worked well. Same the steam engine and the internal combustion engine. Human society as we know it today has always existed on the backs of a few brilliant people.
Cadillac revolutionized the car by creating the control interface that we still use to this day. Before that, cars all had unique control schemes. I'm pretty sure no one on this forum could drive a Ford Model-T without heavy instruction. The brake, throttle, clutch on the floor, gearstick in the center and steering wheel seems obvious today, but it was pretty much the first setup that was designed for a person with 2 legs and 2 hands. In computing I think we're still living pre-Cadillac, nothing is standardized yet because no one has hit upon what makes obvious sense. Will it be the iPad's simplicity, I don't know. We'll see.
What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also.
EDIT: Scott's Atari/MS-DOS games is a prime example. I too played these too, and while it sparked an interest in computing, I never really cared that much. It's neat, but I'm far more enthused by engineering than computer science.
You guys would have a point if the iPad were the only option or the standard to which all computer companies strive to meet. It simply isn't. While my perspective is somewhat ignorant on this matter, I can't help but think your views are more than a bit skewed and your predictions are overblown.
It's like complaining that a school calculator can't do calculus. It's just not made for that. Just because A can do B it doesn't imply that B should be able to do A. The iPad is for the kiddies, soon you'll have your grownup toy.
For example: How much do you know about book printing?
I know how a laser printer works. In the post apocalyptic world, I can print books if I can acquire the necessary materials. I also know how to bind a book using the plastic thing and the clamp at the library.I can also repair the bindings of books that are bound with glue, or un-bind them with a microwave.
Comments
Otherwise, yes, this is nothing but a slippery slope argument. The more people who have access to technology, the more people will study it. It doesn't matter that a single device is closed, as there will be crome and android and linux and many other devices out there that are open. People can still tinker. People can still learn the fundamentals.
Come on, tell me what someone can do with a tablet that is dangerous in any way.
If you want to make crazy robot invasion arguments you might as well mention that Apple saved us in Independence day.
Also, I did lose two people REALLY close to me in car accidents and I still feel that way :-p
(and I hate Apple with a passion). Your argument just doesn't make sense.
You are making the argument that access to greater information will make it less likely that people will understand the technology they are utilizing? Really? As the masses have more access to technology, they actually learn more about said technology. When the technology is difficult to utilize, people are less likely to take the initial leap to utilize it and utilization is the first component to understanding.
Think of it this way, if all cars were incredibly difficult to drive, fewer people would have the time, money, and resources to invest in learning to operate vehicles and/or take precious time, money, and resources away from pursuing other activities. This would make people more reliant on a few experts providing transportation rather than promote the use of vehicles which inevitably leads to more knowledge of the vehicles.
Edit -
Also, Scott, have you considered that it's attitudes like yours on this issue that might just be driving people away from the industry? After all, you might not be saying "ALL TECH MUST BE HARD TO USE SO THAT PEOPLE MUST WORK AND LEARN TO BE ABLE TO USE IT WELL" but it sure as hell seems like it, and that seems like just the sort of attitude that would drive people away, rather than bringing all but a small few in.
Why is it that my generation and the prior generation are so good with computers, but newer generations are not? It's because of PC gaming. Almost every keynote speaker at PAX so far has talked about how they played games on their Atari/Commodore/Apple/etc. resulted in an interest in programming and learning to program. That was the previous generation.
My generation also had some Apple 2, but we mostly had MS-DOS games. In the era of Windows 3.1, most people just used that to do whatever. But if you wanted to play games, you had to exit to DOS. If I had been born later, when games just installed with setup.exe on Windows 95 directly, I probably wouldn't know shit for shit about computers.
Also, consider I was using the Internet in relatively early days. I learned how to dial-in to the local library to check the card catalog. I learned how to telnet into a server to play a MUD. I knew how to burn CDs for Linux distros because I had learned how to burn pirated video games. I learned how to write some HTML because I was using Geocities instead of Facebook.
Your grandpa using a tablet isn't going to hurt himself anymore than he would with a web browser. Possibly getting involved with shady Facebook apps and maybe standard web identity theft type stuff. He also might waste a bunch of money he otherwise did not need to spend because of Apple's business model.
However, the next generation of kids using nothing but iPad-like devices. That is something I worry about.
The major problem here is that learning for the masses is going down the tubes. I think Scott is just trying to promote learning, but he's going about it the wrong way. Instead of making everything harder, we just need to make it easier to learn.
Come on, bring on how my grandfather can be a danger to OTHER PEOPLE, in the same way that you talked about him being given control of a car or an aircraft.
You can't. There is no danger.
And you know, I was going to throw in a post saying something like "Prediction: now Scott has been totally pwned by all the responses on this topic, I bet he takes the line of I-was-only-asking-questions-no-need-to-get-riled-up." But you beat me to it. You question is dumb, elitist, illogical, luditist, and a whole list of other things besides.
And your question stinks of the Fox News "question" where adding a question mark to the end of a headline means they can say "Well, we're not saying Obama is a rapist, we're just asking Is Obama a Rapist?"
You really sound like and old man, Scott. I am not saying that to insult you, I am just pointing out a fact.
I make no judgement as to where the line should be. It's different for everything. But the fact remains that too many people run into a lot of serious trouble because they're using computers and Internet technology without understanding even the most basic fundamental of what's going on.
I personally make a point of understanding to some degree anything I use on a regular basis. I know how my car works. I know how my computer works. I know how my glasses and allergy medicines work. I know how pants are made, and how dishwashers work. To too many people, these things are magic.
I'm not saying we should remove or prevent simplicity. What we need to do is foster a better overall understanding of the principles behind everything we use in our daily lives.
Take the vast majorit of computer problem. Identity theft, scamming, phishing, viruses, worms: all of these exist solely because the majority of Internet users are entirely blind to what they're doing. They're one of the tradeoffs of easy access.
Take the vast majority of car accidents. They're one of the tradeoffs of easy access to drivers' licenses and a lack of retesting.
Take the morons fighting against vaccines. They're one of the tradeoffs of a society that is generally ignorant of even the most basic concepts of modern medicine.
Scott is not saying literally that the iPad is going to destroy the world, or that we should make all computers impossible for idiots to use. He's simply saying that there is a long-term trend toward the majority of the things we humans interact with on a daily basis being indistinguishable from magic for the majority of the population. That's fine, until there's a problem. It puts the wizards in complete control of the entire society.
We're on the verge of an increasing slope of technology the likes of which mankind has never seen. The change of the next ten years will rival the changes of the past hundred. The generation before me had to be engineers to use computers. The generation after me had instant messaging out-of-the-box. We'll soon reach the point at which abstraction is effectively reality for most people. Abstractions of abstractions. Do we, as a society, want to accept that we will eventually lose the thread back to the reality within which technology functions? How do we foster a maintenance of at least the knowledge that the link to the bottom exists? We've never had to address these concerns on this scale before, and it will only get more important to make a choice as time goes on.
I only learned as much as I did as early as I did because I was forced to in order to play games. Had I not learned how to make a dos boot disk and use highmen (let alone load my mouse driver from a clean boot and set up a sound card on an ISA port), I wouldn't have been able to play games at all. Doom forced me to learn how computers worked in a way that nothing else could have.
But on the same token, even with hard mode present, why would you ever use it? People need motivation and incentive to take a path that is not of least resistance. I learned crazy DOS crap not because I wanted to, but because I had to in order to make games work. People only learn just enough to get done what they want to do, and no more. They are later bitten when presented with a situation they never learned to deal with.
So even if something like the iPad has a terminal available, there needs to be some incentive for people to actually use it if they are going to ever learn anything. Doing something like allowing people to write, pirate, and side-load apps will go a very very long way towards advancing computer literacy.
Likewise, I would like to point out a hypocrisy. You are accusing me of being elitist. Of saying that only the technological elite should have computers, and nobody else. And you're defending Apple, of all people, as being the opposite. But is Apple not the very epitome of that elitism that you are accusing me of?
Apple will decide what apps you may have, and what apps you may not have. Apple will have complete control over your computing experience. Steve Jobs will decide how things will be. You have no say, no control. Jobs way or the highway. With an open device, yes things may require the user to learn something, and it may be more difficult or take more time. But at least it is possible to do as you please. There isn't some Steve Jobs deciding what you will and will not do. The user has the power to decide what they will do with their computers
By taking the easy road you put vast amounts of power not in those who have knowledge, but in those specific few who created that one device you are using. Even worse than being dependent on the pool of people who have knowledge, which you can learn yourself, you make yourself dependent on one specific company who keeps secret knowledge.
It is this lack of technological knowledge which prevents people from even understanding this is happening, as they are incapable of even comprehending that it is possible to do more with their computing devices.
Scott and, to a lesser extent, Rym seem to advocate having as much working knowledge of computers as they, themselves do. What they seem to miss is that people are willing to take the risk of being less informed because they cannot or will not spend as much of their lives, money, and education devoted to learning about computers. If the vast majority of people that utilized computers were to pursue technology to even close to the level of understanding that Rym and Scott have, our society would collapse because there would not be enough people in other fields in order to provide the goods and services that allow us to survive.
Let me reiterate: Basic education in technology beginning at an early age = awesome. Expecting the masses to essentially become experts in technology = ridiculous.
EDIT: People that want the "hard mode" would likely seek out something other than an iPad.
This is the point I think you are missing: giving freedom to people who previously had no way to access the internet is a good thing. It isn't a bad thing. Once someone makes a tablet that runs linux and you can access the terminal, but is as easy to use as an iPad, he can use that instead. I mean, I'd probably turn that function off when I give it to him, in case he gets in and does damage. But I'm sure someone will make a tablet that runs linux.
But someone has to go there first. The first people to fly, who didn't build their own planes, were elite western male adventurous types with too much money. The first people to drive cars were the same. And the first mobile phones were yuppie toys. Now anyone can fly, drive, and own a mobile phone. But without the rich elite going first you don't get the later tech. Same with laptops and tablets.
The real problem isn't that computers are easy. They should be easy. The iPad is fine. Scott's overreacting on that point.
The problem is that our society is driven more and more by technology. Your ability to effectively use computers matters more to your success than your skill at whatever it is you're trying to do with said computers in many areas, and I personally believe this will only get worse.
A secretary is useless in a modern company unless he can effectively use his computer, regardless of all his other skills combined. A computer-ignorant secretary with ten years of experience is made obsolete by a teenager who can use Word, Excel, Outlook, and Python. In my professional opinion, they don't. They never read what's on the screen, and continually raise the same issues over and over again with support desks. They treat the computer differently from the way they treat every other part of their lives, and shy from even the most basic troubleshooting. At least when their car fails, they'll open the hood and look, even if they don't understand. With computers, they see smoke coming out of the hood and refuse to even consider that it might mean something. They see that their speed is zero, but still ask whether or not they're moving.
We need to demystify computers. If we did, they'd be at the level of cars, and everything would generally work out. Right now, they're still wizard machines maintained by wizards.
Your right, the older generation that is not computer literate does have issues much in the way you described but don't you think people had those issues with cars when they became cheap enough for the masses to use? The younger generation that grew up with cars their entire life didn't have nearly the same issues. The same goes with computers. The people who are comfortable with computers (grew up with them) know where to look for answers while the people that did not grow up with computers are using their DVD players as cup holders. Obviously there will always be stupid people or people who can't get it or are not interested but I don't hear younger people saying "I can't understand computers" as much as I hear older people say that.
Here's a question. Do you consider someone literate if they can read, but not write? How important is it that you think people know how to write?
Do you consider someone computer literate if they can use software, but not create software? How important is it that you think people know how to program?
The world was a sad and fucked up place where only few people held the power of reading, writing, and printing. In the world we live in now, C is becoming a far more important and powerful language than English or Chinese. Even if the world knows how to "read", if the power of writing is limited to only a few, it will be a huge step backwards for our society. Apple's philosophy is read-only, and taken down the, yes, slippery slope, that is where it leads.
Most people own a toaster, but have no idea what nichrome wire is, let alone electrical resistance or thermodynamics. It's a simple, purpose-built appliance. The iPad is the same thing in many ways: the toaster equivalent of a computer.
The only real problem is that general-purpose computing is far more important to the world than most people realize. They underestimate how drastically a working knowledge of computing can change their personal lives for the better, let alone change everything. The automobile revolution has nothing on the computer revolution. Toasters don't change the world, but computers give you unimaginable power if used properly, the likes of which there are few other ways to achieve.
Computers, like guns or cars, are just tools. There are people who obsess over designing them and understanding how they work and the vast majority of people just use them. You're implying that this is an entirely new thing, but it's not. Society has been this way for many years. When Tesla came up with alternating current, no one had a fucking clue how it worked, but they knew it worked and worked well. Same the steam engine and the internal combustion engine. Human society as we know it today has always existed on the backs of a few brilliant people.
Cadillac revolutionized the car by creating the control interface that we still use to this day. Before that, cars all had unique control schemes. I'm pretty sure no one on this forum could drive a Ford Model-T without heavy instruction. The brake, throttle, clutch on the floor, gearstick in the center and steering wheel seems obvious today, but it was pretty much the first setup that was designed for a person with 2 legs and 2 hands. In computing I think we're still living pre-Cadillac, nothing is standardized yet because no one has hit upon what makes obvious sense. Will it be the iPad's simplicity, I don't know. We'll see. Welcome to normal people.
While my perspective is somewhat ignorant on this matter, I can't help but think your views are more than a bit skewed and your predictions are overblown.