> > For one, it helps the child not to be afraid of technology (which is a > > HUGE boon). > > No it doesn't. How do I know? *I* wasn't scared of technology, > and I didn't see a computer until 11th grade, and use one until 12th > grade (way back in 1980).
I never said it was pre-requisite for the child not to be afraid of technology. Only that it helps. > > For another, depending upon /what/ the child has experience with, it can > > really help out with logic and problem solving. Heck, it can even help > > teach creativity. > > So do coloring books, crayons, toy soldiers, books, etc. Basically, > almost everything except TV. Actually, there's somethings on TV I'd disagree and say they did help in this area ;-) I didn't exclude these things, all I said was that it helped. > Humph. Yet again, that's just not true. Did Kernigan, Ritchie, > Ken Thompson, Bill Joy, RMS, Steve Wozniak, Gary Kildall, shoot, > *anyone* from the MIT AI Lab, the TMRC, Stanford AI Lab, Linux, > Alan Cox, Donald Becker, or even the people who designed and program- > med that PDP-11 or your Atari get exposed to computers at an early > age? No. > > Thus, early exposure to computer technology is *not* necessary for > someone to go on later and become a programmer. > > In fact, it's quite possible that you'd have become an accomplished > programmer anyway. Man, you're twisting my words. Calm down, take a few deep breaths, and go back and re-read my message. I never said that any of it was a requisite, only that it could be helpful. -- Sam Hart University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alternative <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> end
