The $100 laptop closer to reality

[mailinglist at endosquid.com (Brendan)]

On Thursday 29 September 2005 12:33 pm, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
> For that matter, they didn't have textbook cartels either back then.
> I don't believe that there's something special per se about pulpware
> (or ragware, for connoiseurs) vs. bits.  Both have their advantages
> and disadvantages in context.  It's a lot easier to read a book on the
> toilet, but it's a lot easier to search on a computer.  For archival
> purposes there are good and bad points both ways.

I don't know why, but your quoting is all messed.
True about the toilet, although if you are searching for something on the 
toilet, that may be an issue.

> In a general sense, I don't believe that early use of technology is
> either good or bad per se -- again, there are advantages and
> disadvantages, and it's what you make of it.  Photography has long
> been taught by requiring students to use completely manual cameras
> such as the Pentax K1000 (which has a very simple meter built in; I'm
> not even sure if it has aperture priority or if you have to transfer
> the shutter speed by hand).  As an amateur photographer who usually

Has both aperture and shutter priority. I own the same one I learned on at 14.

> highlights completely blow out.  Furthermore, digital photography is
> much cheaper per frame (factor in consumables such as disk space and
> flash batteries, and depreciation such as shutter lifetime, and it's
> maybe 5 cents/shot, about 1/10 that of film).  This combination makes
> for a potent learning tool -- it's well established that quick and

Yes, true, but it's really not an accurate analogy.
I agree 100% about the digital photography though. I am in the same boat.

Typing in a word processor over a typewriter: Yep.
Google vs. Library: usually, yep.
We could go on and on, but that is such a far cry from *replacing* books with 
tech. As a companion, it's hard to beat it.

> The point of this isn't to simply glorify technology; it is simply a
> tool, and has to be used appropriately to achieve a desired end.  I
> don't think it's appropriate to say "Galileo used books, so they're
> the right solution for children to learn from" either -- there simply

But I didn't say that. I said to remember that we were not dead in the water 
without tech. 

Tech is a tool for now. Using it as a tool is fine. Expecting it to take over 
from flesh-and-blood teachers and books is just foolhardy. That's all.