first mention of twins

ill try keep this nice.

i think the whole hype about Rpi being the big bad educational tool was nothing more than a pr stunt to get it selling quick, and that is just what happened. i also remember hearing somthing about this being developed by employees of broadcom, when it was first released the soc data sheet required a nondisclosure agreement, so right out of the gate there were problems calling it open source.

i'm sorry if i dont get the idea about teaching computer science with an embeded linux board. don't comp sci cources use full-blown computers already? and if you really want to learn about how computers work, it is much better to start with an 8051 or 8088 and assembly.

but now it seems the more i read, the more i can't suggest the pi for any use other than a media center.

anyways thats my two bits on the the pi.

sheldon bailey wrote:

 

but now it seems the more i read, the more i can't suggest the pi for any use other than a media center.

Professionals who are aware of the relevant  FCC regulations shouldn't be suggesting the Pi for use in any residential application in FCC jurisdiction anyway, since the device does not have FCC certification for residential use.  That would be a Class B certification, and it doesn't have one at the present date.

I doubt that anyone would deny that media centres constitute an overwhelmingly residential or domestic use of a digital device.  It's probably as close to being a poster child for residential use as one could find anywhere.

Morgaine, i agree with its unsuitability because of sub par hardware and or design. however in a properly shielded and fire proof box it would be a wonderfull media center.

From what I hear, Pi does indeed make an exceedingly good media centre.  It's just unfortunate that most of the media centre consumers live in nations that have strong residential equipment certification laws, and Class B (residential) certification is one bullet point that the Pi doesn't offer.

sheldon bailey wrote:

 

Morgaine, i agree with its unsuitability because of sub par hardware and or design. however in a properly shielded and fire proof box it would be a wonderfull media center.

Get a Roku, you will spend less money and time.

-J

Professionals who are aware of the relevant  FCC regulations ...

for the record, I have tried to locate the first professional to credit for raising

the issue of Class B testing.  Does anyone have any earlier reference than

https://twitter.com/abishurp/status/188635726030708736

@Raspberry_Pi Did y'all also do the class B testing (do y'all still plan on doing it?) or are you quitting while you're ahead here?

7:33 AM - 7 Apr 12

I think that we're veering a bit off-topic - although it's understandable because as engineers and technicians we're more used to weighing up definables than discussing ethics.

The Foundation have been quite clever, they've told the story about what prompted their formation countless times and then they just let us assume that their liberal use of the word "education" and their charitable status meant that the selling of this low cost computer would be part of some kind of bigger picture. Some of us thought that maybe this was part of a coordinated effort to e.g.

1) convince the weary U.K. taxpayer that teaching proper computer engineering was a good thing.

2) Lobby government, educational establishments and the industries that the education system feeds in order to gain cooperation, fashion a plan and eventually a curriculum.

3) Form partnerships with establishments, individuals and companies in order to provide solutions for that curriculum - a bare computer is nothing without software, supplementary learning materials, peripherals, ongoing support, etc.

4) Keep charming the non-geek public. It's gonna cost a lot of money, after all. One of the main problems that requires addressing is the lack of specific expertise within the teaching profession. Fixing this would cost rather more than $25 a pop.

However, anyone who cares to start at the beginning of the RPi blog (http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/date/2011/page/5) and watch any one of the innumerable video presentations may notice that since at least 2011 (the blog begins at around the time of the creation of the alpha boards) pretty much all of the Foundation's efforts have concentrated on selling a board with a big graphics chip to as many people as possible. There are occasional references to "an educational release" and a "programming prize fund", but this is all about selling a product. That's fine - some Pi have ended up in the hands of students and teachers who have unilaterally done amazing things, but most people who want to bring a consumer product to market don't create a charitable foundation in order to do get that product "out there".

What a pitch - Alan Sugar would be proud.

That's quite insightful, Jonathan.

I suspect that clever sleight of hand won't carry much weight with the FCC though.

jamodio wrote:

 

Get a Roku, you will spend less money and time.

 

-J

the roku is nice, but I always have old desktop pc hardware thrown at me, been using one as a media centre for a few years now.

even if the Rpi makes it way to the super poor areas, it would probably be traded for a meal or two. what good is an internet connected device if there is no internet?

while the Internet can be a good tool to help learn for people who actually use it responsibly, it is also a great distraction, and it lends to the "cut and paste" type of problem solving, that has no educational value whatsoever.

jamodio wrote:

 

Get a Roku, you will spend less money and time.

 

-J

the roku is nice, but I always have old desktop pc hardware thrown at me, been using one as a media centre for a few years now.

even if the Rpi makes it way to the super poor areas, it would probably be traded for a meal or two. what good is an internet connected device if there is no internet?

while the Internet can be a good tool to help learn for people who actually use it responsibly, it is also a great distraction, and it lends to the "cut and paste" type of problem solving, that has no educational value whatsoever.

sheldon bailey wrote:

 

while the Internet can be a good tool to help learn for people who actually use it responsibly, it is also a great distraction, and it lends to the "cut and paste" type of problem solving, that has no educational value whatsoever.

I also find that increasingly the signal to noise ratio of the internet's cut&paste solution communities is so bad that they're just reinforcing the problems, so overall a negative value.

Sometimes its not the cut and paste that the problem, the lack of checking the facts is often as bad.

Even if I'm sure of the answer, I tend to check, lest someone find it wasn't right ....

Mark

Mark Beckett wrote:

 

Sometimes its not the cut and paste that the problem, the lack of checking the facts is often as bad.

 

Even if I'm sure of the answer, I tend to check, lest someone find it wasn't right ....

 

 

Mark

An awful lot of people have copy - pasted the word "education" when referring to this little computer when the link is tenuous at best. Since at least the time of the alpha boards it has been marketed as a hobbyist / hacker item and the capability of the (not very relevant to education) Videocore GPU was initially a large part of the pitch - here's a faily typical presentation from Maker Faire NY 2011:

http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/179

I'm struggling to find a justification for the use of the word "educational" at all - sure, it's cheap enough to be accessible to students and teachers, but does that justify the Foundation's charitable status? There's certainly very little concrete information from the Foundation themselves regarding how they intend to fulfil the (rather vague) aims set out on their Charity Commission page:

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/search-for-a-charity/?txt=raspberry+pi+foundation

"THE OBJECT OF THE CHARITY IS TO FURTHER THE ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN, PARTICULARLY IN THE FIELD OF COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SCIENCE AND RELATED SUBJECTS"

That's the "why", so where's the "how"? Will the end justify the means? Will manufacturers who haven't taken the option of exploiting charitable status feel that there is an element of unfair competition? Will other charities fear negative publicity?

Johnathon

We have a similar issue with 'charities' here in NZ.

Recently it was discovered that at least one large private hospital has that staus, but there are no rules about how much money is supposed to returned to the community, or the like.

It was not well received by the public when it was pointed out some of these 'charities' contribute very little compared to their profit.

There was a suggestion that some business'es should set up as a 'charity' and remove the need to pay taxes, etc.

I see the odd clip that show Eben at primary schools, etc.

I guess this constitutes education, but yes if you wanted to further the original stated aim, then more material would be good.

Regardless of the pros and cons, it has certainly set a benchmark for small computers, and probably introduced some that would otherwise not be involved.

On a slightly off topic, I was sent his link, and was wondering what is at 3.23 in the first video at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/tech/innovation/big-plans-tiny-creations-index-awards

mark

Mark Beckett wrote:

 

I see the odd clip that show Eben at primary schools, etc.  I guess this constitutes education, but yes if you wanted to further the original stated aim, then more material would be good.

There's a fine line between promoting IT education and self-serving promotion of a single board in schools.

If Microsoft were engaged in high-profile Windows promotion in schools under the excuse of "education", I suspect that a lot of people would be concerned about their underlying motivation.

RPF seems to have a free pass because of their charity status.  That's quite reasonable I think, since in exchange for the free pass, the profits of the not-for-profit Foundation are expected to fund educational targets --- a worthwhile exchange.  The existence of Raspberry Pi (Trading) complicates the picture somewhat, but there is no reason to believe that the for-profit company will siphon off profits that should be spent on RP Foundation's self-declared educational goals.  For-profit companies have the goal of making profit, but hopefully the Foundation's trustees will ensure that only an absolute minimum of Pi profits will flow into non-educational pockets.  As you suggest though, a lot more spending on educational staff and educational materials is needed.  Without that, the "educational" part of Pi seems destined to be more of an excuse than a reality.

I'd also suggest that "Pi exclusivity" for education be de-emphasized by RPF, because IT education does not begin and end with Pi.  To gain the ethical high ground, the emphasis should be more neutral across the many low-cost platforms that can accomplish the educational goals, and the Pi offered as just one enabler.  What's more, special mention should be given by RPF to open platforms (especially OSHW) that can educate more fully than their semi-closed one.  Taking such a neutral position would greatly increase their ethical standing as a not-for-profit foundation, in my view.