[Closed] How young is too young for an iPod Touch?

Ours were 11 (and no internet). Although they had access to one prior to this on occasion. To be honest, I think the DS is a better toy for their age. Doesn't the new one have a camera.

Oh and forget meccano, it falls apart because they were too cheap to use nyloc nuts. Get Knex instead - far more fun. And Lego isn't what it used to be either. The number of distinct parts has grown so fast, it's more like painted nonglued Airfix these days 🙄 .

STWs in revealing Luddite tendencies shocker

I think TV obviously has an effect on babies - our one hasn't watched much just because a)she doesn't sit still for long enough and b)we can't be bothered to buy a proper tv and she just attacks laptops (we watch our TV on iPlayer on the laptop). When she does watch TV at other people's houses it is clearly very odd for her. Whereas you see other babies who are habituated to TV can sit in front of fast moving images just staring at them.

Not sure what that means and if it is a good or a bad thing but I am 100% sure it has some kind of effect.

By the way, all the luddites may like to consider that young kids these days get "computer time" at nursery school as part of the national curriculum.

You said "Plenty of scientific research to back up the claims" so I'd like some citations.

Why, do you collect them? Are you actually going to go away and read the original papers, and in turn follow their citations?

Listen, I have no axe to grind, I just try and do the best for my kids. I read the book and found it compelling. I even gave you a link to it on Amazon where you can "look inside"

I don't think that a lot of screen time will turn your kids into drooling vegetables, but it might move them from above average to average, or from average to slightly dim. It's not middle-class angst it's a real phenomenon to which I have given you a pointer. I'm not going to go through the whole bloody thing chapter by chapter.

IT geeks will inherit the earth

I read the book and found it compelling.

I seem to remember the health visitor and the free NHS literature for new parents making the same recommendations regarding [i]ideal[/i] screen time for infants..

I don't think that a lot of screen time will turn your kids into drooling vegetables, but it might move them from above average to average, or from average to slightly dim. It's not middle-class angst it's a real phenomenon to which I have given you a pointer. I'm not going to go through the whole bloody thing chapter by chapter.

Again I will say, its about filtering content, not about the technology of delivery. That book is content, it can be read as a paper book, on a kindle a PC an ipad etc. Your thinking seems to place a higher value on its content if its printed on paper than the other possible media, yet the words are just the same.

It's all a question of balance, there's nothing wrong with a gadget if it will be played with, child or adult. A gadget bought for the sake of buying a gadget or because their or your friends have one that ends up sitting unused is just a crap choice of present, not the gadget's fault, in the same way that other tat that aunties, uncles, etc.buy at christmas often go unplayed with. If someone thinks they'll get an ipod touch for their child it could be a great present or an expensive shelf filler. With some careful thought they should hopefully have an idea which. I know my 4 yo would get loads out of an mp3 player, but wouldn't dream of getting her a netbook or ipod touch or a handheld games console thingy as she simply wouldn't be interested. Though a light sabre, you should have seen her face light up the first time she fired up one of those.

Are you actually going to go away and read the original papers, and in turn follow their citations?

Yes I was actually.

I even gave you a link to it on Amazon where you can "look inside"

Yeah and on Amazon I can see that other books he has written are:

The Spoilt Generation: Why Restoring Authority Will Make Our Children and Society Happier
Alcohol Nation: How to Protect Our Children from Today's Drinking Culture
Ease Your Fear of Flying: Exercises and soothing sounds to help you relax in the air (audio)
Fall Asleep Without Counting Sheep

He also has [url= http://www.aricsigman.com/ ]his own website[/url] and has appeared on radio and telly to discuss [i]"scientific basis of faith; the biology of hypnosis; and on the effects of too much choice, and .. the hidden detrimental effects of moderate dieting"
[/i]

Which all puts him firmly into my less-than-credible pop-psychologist pile, which is why I wanted to see if his opinion had any actual research behind it (preferably performed by people other than him!)

Books are considered great for kids, most would agree, but any kid sitting around reading all the time isn't getting balance in the same way a kid spending all their time on computer games isn't. You also get good books and crap books for kids. Balance.

Oh and forget meccano, it falls apart because they were too cheap to use nyloc nuts. Get Knex instead - far more fun.

I think you'll find it was because nyloc nuts weren't available at the turn of the last century.

We've got Knex, and Lego - but we want to build things like this:

[img] [/img]

That book is content, it can be read as a paper book, on a kindle a PC an ipad etc. Your thinking seems to place a higher value on its content if its printed on paper than the other possible media, yet the words are just the same.

^ This.

Furthermore the "gadgets" can offer things beyond normal books.

Our daughter loves "Touchy Books" on the iPhone which are books for kids where the pictures move or are interactive (e.g. loading up Red Riding Hood's basket with food before she goes to the forest; wobbling Hans Christian Andersen's brave tin soldier around on the shelf)

I can't see why these are worse than interactive paper books with textures, pop-ups, lift-up flaps, slidey bits etc (which she also loves).

I suspect [i]you[/i] want to build things like that, I would imagine your kids would prefer to be playing CoD on their gaming rigs 😉

I think you'll find it was because nyloc nuts weren't available at the turn of the last century.

I agree but they were at the turn of this century.

For people wanting 'proper' academic stuff about TV and kids, there have been various studies plus reviews of literature on TV and kids done by academics funded by the American Association of Pediatrics.

eg: a review
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;107/2/423

a study suggesting that kids who watch tv early have reduced attention spans later in life (by the time they're 7).

List of their recommendations (this is where the no TV for kids under 2 recommendation comes from):

Limit children’s total media time (with entertainment
media) to no more than 1 to 2 hours of
quality programming per day.
2. Remove television sets from children’s bedrooms.
3. Discourage television viewing for children
younger than 2 years, and encourage more interactive
activities that will promote proper brain
development, such as talking, playing, singing,
and reading together.
4. Monitor the shows children and adolescents are
viewing. Most programs should be informational,
educational, and nonviolent.
5. View television programs along with children,
and discuss the content. Two recent surveys involving
a total of nearly 1500 parents found that
less than half of parents reported always watching
television with their children.5,47
6. Use controversial programming as a stepping-off
point to initiate discussions about family values,
violence, sex and sexuality, and drugs.
7. Use the videocassette recorder wisely to show or
record high-quality, educational programming for
children.
8. Support efforts to establish comprehensive mediaeducation
programs in schools.
9. Encourage alternative entertainment for children,
including reading, athletics, hobbies, and creative
play.

MSP

Again I will say, its about filtering content, not about the technology of delivery

But you would be dead wrong.

Actually the point made in the book is not about content. It is about delivery. It is the very act of being sat in front of a screen, the 2D nature of what is being seen and the way that screen based images are cut together so jump from one image to another without the infant being able to grasp the context.

Read the book.

Actually the more famous pre-cursor to this book (which I've not read but apparently made similar points - purely about TV) is [url= http://www.amazon.com/Plug-Drug-Television-Computers-Family/dp/0142001082 ]The Plug-In Drug[/url] which was written about 25 years ago.

Thanks joe.

The "no tv for younger than 2" seems like a fairly arbitrary rule to me with little actual backing (I'll see if that review paper offers some), but the rest of that advice seems pretty sensible.

Actually the point made in the book is not about content. It is about delivery. It is the very act of being sat in front of a screen, the 2D nature of what is being seen and the way that screen based images are cut together so jump from one image to another without the infant being able to grasp the context.

Read the book.

??? So a book on a Kindle is bad for kids because it is 2D and they have to turn pages, but a paper book is fine because....?

I would imagine your kids would prefer to be playing CoD on their gaming rigs

What's CoD?

You have a point.

But not a very good one.

I expect that my kids would also prefer eating chocolate and marshmallows at every meal and never going to school too...

... so it's a good job they've got two responsible adults looking after them and encouraging them to do things that will help them develop into happy, healthy, intelligent and thoughtful adults themselves.

jesus? seriously? do your kids learn anything from their mistakes; do you eliminate every risk in their lives? And if it's you that can't avoid it, try being more careful. pfft

Graham, did you come here for the full half hour?

??? So a book on a Kindle is bad for kids because it is 2D and they have to turn pages, but a paper book is fine because...

Yeah but can a Kindle do this.? No. You see the crazy guy was right.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8760558/Cycle-of-compulsive-consumerism-leaves-British-family-life-in-crisis-Unicef-study-finds.html ]unicef study[/url]

I was already feeling a bit crappy this morning.. nicotine withdrawal.. knee injury.. bit of a cold and some general over-tiredness are all contributing to me not feeling totally satisfied with my parenting ability today..

this thread hasn't helped..

Hmmm.. that AAP paper is focussed on older kids and adolescents watching "unsuitable" stuff on TV (drugs, smoking, sex etc). I'm not sure those are such an issue in CBeebies or Peppa Pig. 😀

Also it does say "discourage" not "ban completely". And it does acknowledge that [i]"there are potential benefits from viewing some television shows, such as the promotion of positive aspects of social behavior (eg, sharing, manners, and cooperation)"[/i] which are certainly things promoted by children's TV.

We certainly actively look for other things for her to do - outside and in. She isn't just plonked in front of the telly all day.

Balance, as I think someone else said. 🙂

??? So a book on a Kindle is bad for kids because it is 2D and they have to turn pages, but a paper book is fine because....?

To be fair, on the kindle, you press a button, the screen changes to something different, whereas with a paper book you turn a physical page, and can see that there is something on the other side. The kindle uses an analogy of a paper book, yes, but it is not the same thing. The paper book pages teach kids all sorts of things about physical objects being behind each other, the physical properties of paper pages etc. whereas the kindle 'page turning' relies on your implicit understanding of these properties of physical books on which their analogy is based. I don't know if it's better or not, but it is obviously different once you stop thinking about it from a completely adult point of view.

I found this book a really brilliant and interesting read about kids minds and stuff. Everyone who is in the slightest interested in how on earth their kids see the world should have a read. It is popular science in that it is readable by your average person, but it is written by a proper academic (she's a professor at Berkeley), so the science it is talking about is represented correctly:

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Baby-Childrens-Minds-Meaning/dp/0374231966

The "no tv for younger than 2" seems like a fairly arbitrary rule to me with little actual backing

Except for the other thing I linked, saying that kids who watch more tv aged 1 (and also age 3), have significantly higher risk of being diagnosed with attentional problems (ADHD etc.) at age 7. I'm pretty sure there are other similar things, that was just the one I remembered.

To sum up.

They're your kids raise them how you choose.

drac

will do 🙂

Well done Graham, you've persuaded me with your ability to nitpick and over-analyse a few selected words that the entire book I read must have been complete crap.

Obviously the fact that Dr Sigman has written some other books means that he can't really have been concentrating when he wrote this one, and the fact that he is...

"a Fellow of the Society of Biology, an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society, a recipient of the Chartered Scientist award from the Science Council and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine. He recently addressed the European Parliament Working Group on the Quality of Childhood in the European Union in Brussels, on the impact of electronic media. Dr Sigman addressed this year's Headmasters’ & Headmistresses’ Conference: Meeting the Challenges." (admittedly from his own website : proably lies)

... just shows how easily people can be taken in.

Thanks for bringing "balance" back into my life.

Except for the other thing I linked,

Sorry joe hadn't read that one. It is certainly pretty damning, though it is fairly clear that this could be indicative rather than causal. And they didn't consider the type of TV being watched, which goes to MSP's point about filtering:

[i]"..we had no data on the content of the television being viewed. Some research indicates that educational television (eg, Sesame Street) may in fact promote attention and reading among school-aged children.."[/i]

Well done Graham, you've persuaded me with your ability to nitpick and over-analyse a few selected words that the entire book I read must have been complete crap.

Sorry about that, I blame my excessive TV watching and ADH.. oooh look a shiny..

Obviously the fact that Dr Sigman has written some other books means that he can't really have been concentrating when he wrote this one

My point was rather that his other books sound like a broadside of self-help pop-psychology pulp.

My point was rather that his other books sound like a broadside of self-help pop-psychology pulp.

But then of course, you are judging them entirely by their covers?

my 5 yr old daughter got an iPod Touch last christmas (bought off here in fact), she absolutely loves it, she has loads of games, talking books, music etc on it. Doesn't detract in any way from the usual 5 yr olds toys. Before she got it she was always on mine and the wife's iPhones, a bit like our 22 month old daughter does now.

my 5 yr old daughter got an iPod Touch last christmas (bought off here in fact), she absolutely loves it, she has loads of games, talking books, music etc on it. Doesn't detract in any way from the usual 5 yr olds toys. Before she got it she was always on mine and the wife's iPhones, a bit like our 22 month old daughter does now.

my 5 yr old daughter got some heroin last christmas (bought off here in fact), she absolutely loves it, she has loads of mind altering experiences etc on it. Doesn't detract in any way from the usual 5 yr olds toys. Before she got it she was always on mine and the wife's heroin, a bit like our 22 month old daughter does now.

But then of course, you are judging them entirely by their covers?

Imagine that eh?

[img] [/img]

my 5 yr old daughter got some heroin last christmas (bought off here in fact), she absolutely loves it,

Holy crap! Are you [i]really[/i] saying that loddrik might as well have given heroin to his daughter?

That really is an infeasibly high horse you're riding.

Are you recommending "Being Jordan" to me as a good read?

Are you recommending "Being Jordan" to me as a good read?

No dear boy. I'm suggesting that, contrary to the trite saying, one [u]can[/u] look at the cover (and author) and judge a book.

rightplacerighttime stop being such a tightarse and buy your kids an ipad already jeez what's the matter with you

Our youngest spent her first year of talking sounding like peppa pig before a scottish accent developed. Now 4, she goes around trying to sound like Captain Jack Sparrow and declaring ''why is the rum always gone?''

If you go back and edit big chunks into your posts I might miss something important 😉

Are you really saying that loddrik might as well have given heroin to his daughter? That really is an infeasibly high horse you're riding.

Do I really have to spell out everything I say in words of one syllable?

Do you really think I might be saying that an ipod is directly equivalent to heroin?

I'm suggesting that, contrary to the trite saying, one can look at the cover (and author) and judge a book.

And you think this applies to authors that you have never heard of before?

Let's face it, we're all trying to do our best by our kids and that's what counts. It's not fair for me to judge another parent on their decisions and choices in the same way it's not fair for another parent to be judgemental about our parental decisions. No one's perfect and there's always going to be things you'd like to have done differently, in the same way our parents probably think. Unless there's abuse or neglect parents are probably doing just fine.

Do you really think I might be saying that an ipod is directly equivalent to heroin?

That's exactly what it sounded like. Yes.
I'm sure your point was far subtler tho - perhaps I'm over-analysing. 🙄

bazookajoe,

It's not about judging individual parents, but when experts make rigorous studies of childhood development, doesn't it make sense to try and spread their findings around?

I know I have the best intentions for my kids, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing how I might do better by them.

righplacerighttime - you might want to read what Ben Goldacre has to say about Dr Sigman's work:
http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/

Let's face it, we're all trying to do our best by our kids and that's what counts.

Well said.

Discussions about parenting always get a bit het up on STW (and IRL) because no one likes to be told they are doing it wrong and get accused of being a bad parent just for letting their daughter watch a bit of TV or have a small rock of H. 🙂

That's exactly what it sounded like. Yes.
I'm sure your point was far subtler tho - perhaps I'm over-analysing.

OK then, for the terminally literal.

The point I was making was one I'd made earlier, which is that just because kids appear to be enjoying something, it doesn't mean that it is doing them good.

Foolishly I rather assumed that everyone here would realise that heroin ISN'T generally regarded as a good thing for small children.

austin,

I've seen it before.

Foolishly I rather assumed that everyone here would realise that heroin ISN'T generally regarded as a good thing for small children.

bit too moreish

Who did you get the heroin off? Do you have a link to the thread?

Coincidently interesting article in todays Times. Don't get them into shiny techno possessions..

Better to let them use yours and concentrate on childhood..afterall they hit school and 'want' what others have and your in a vicious cycle. Condition them early that they aren't your mini-consumer of your wallet contents at will.

Coincidently interesting article in todays Times. Don't get them into shiny techno possessions..

Better to let them use yours and concentrate on childhood..afterall they hit school and 'want' what others have and your in a vicious cycle. Condition them early that they aren't your mini-consumer of your wallet contents at will.

To offer some sensible scientific debate back to the thread:

".. we tested theories emphasizing the causal role of television content (e.g., social learning, information processing) as contrasted with those theories positing effects of television as a medium, irrespective of content...

...[b]Viewing educational programs as preschoolers was associated with higher grades, reading more books, placing more value on achievement, greater creativity, and less aggression[/b]....

...The medium of television is not homogeneous or monolithic, and content viewed is more important than raw amount. [b]The medium is not the message: The message is.[/b]"

[url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11326591 ]Source: Anderson DR, Huston AC, Schmitt KL, Linebarger DL, Wright JC. [i]Early Childhood Television Viewing and Adolescent Behavior.[/i] Boston, MA: Blackwell; 2001[/url]

i.e. watching telly isn't bad. Watching bad telly is bad. Watching good telly is actually good.

Or, in summary: "what MSP said".

You may also consider:

"...time-use diaries of television viewing were collected over 3 years (from ages 2-5 and 4-7 years, respectively), and tests of reading, math, receptive vocabulary, and school readiness were administered annually...

[b]...Viewing child-audience informative programs between ages 2 and 3 predicted high subsequent performance on all four measures of academic skills...[/b]

...The results affirm the conclusion that the relations of television viewed to early academic skills depend primarily on the content of the programs viewed."

[url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11700636 ]
Source: Wright JC, Huston AC, Murphy KC, St Peters M, Piñon M, Scantlin R, Kotler J. The relations of early television viewing to school readiness and vocabulary of children from low-income families: the early window project. Child Dev. 2001 Sep-Oct;72(5):1347-66.[/url]

Or, in summary: "what MSP said". Again.

Graham,

You've found[b] an[/b] article that appears to support your point of view - well done.

I'm not going to go and find [b]one[/b] that supports mine. It would be pointless because I don't claim to have sufficient background information and a knowledge of [b]all[/b] (or for the terminally literate again, lets make that "[b]much of[/b]") the available literature. But I know a man who does!

Read the book.

The good thing about books like the one by Dr Sigman, is that it takes a whole load of scientific work and puts it into a context that a layperson can follow (although he does of course give lots of references).

To me this is more useful than batting back and forth selective quotes and individual references, which frankly I don't have the time or more importantly the inclination to do.

Like I said, I read the book and found it compelling. You prefer not to read the book but to argue that it must be wrong.

I think you are pretty shortsighted in your approach, but there you go.

BTW - it is completely obvious even from the selected quote you have used in your second excerpt, that the paper is comparing different [b]content[/b], not making a comparison between viewing and not viewing

I know you are pretty anxious to show us how clever you are, but do try to read this stuff before you bung it up.

Hey rightplacerighttime, I wasn't having a go at you or the studies you were linking to or their findings, sorry if it came across that way. i'll probably read through it all again later when i'm on a computer and not my phone.

There are parents who let their kids sit in front of a telly from the moment they get in from school to the moment they go to bed and wonder why they don't sleep right or for younger ones why they're bouncing around like nutters before bedtime. Most would agree that's far from ideal. A little bit of telly though likely won't prove catastrophic, again for me it's a question of balance and as parents we are the ones who are the ones to ensure a balance.

And then there's the teenage hormones that turn them into zombies when all we can do is support them through it and realise it's natural and all of them go through it.

rightplacerighttime - so do you disagree with Dr Goldacre assertion that Dr Sigman is guilty of cherry picking evidence to back up his rather dubious claims?

my wife didn't have a TV until she was 14, (imo) as a result she's the worst TV addict ever!

rightplacerighttime - so do you disagree with Dr Goldacre assertion that Dr Sigman is guilty of cherry picking evidence to back up his rather dubious claims?

Yes.

I think I might start a blog called "Bad Bad Science"

Where did you get he idea that Dr Sigman had made any "dubious" claims BTW?

ok - I'm interested. Why do you disagree?

Because Goldacre says that Sigman is claiming things he isn't claiming, then tries to shoot down the claims (that he didn't make) - typical Straw Man stuff.

Watch the clip again.

Where did you get he idea that Dr Sigman had made any "dubious" claims BTW?

I guess from reading Ben Goldacre's column and from my following up some of the stuff on Mindhacks. Also, my general common sense when faced with a claim that Facebook causes cancer: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/02February/Pages/Facebookhealthstudy.aspx

I'm not specifically talking about the clip - Dr Sigman's work has been critiqued elsewhere - see nhs link above (which Ben Goldacre was involved in writing I believe). It does seem obvious than Sigman has cherry picked the data.

The good thing about books like the one by Dr Sigman, is that it [b]eliminates years of the scientific debate[/b] and puts it into [b]an opinion[/b] that a layperson can follow (although he does of course give lots of [b]one-sided[/b] references).

FTFY.

So your main problem is simply that Messrs Anderson, Huston, Schmitt, Linebarger, Wright, Murphy, St Peters, Piñon, Scantlin, and Kotler haven't written you a similarly one-sided book called [i]"Good Kids Television Is Actually Quite Educational And A Useful Developmental Aid"[/i]

Thing is, even if they had the fame-hungry popular style of Dr Sigman, such a book wouldn't sell. People love extremes and black-and-white. The truth is usually far greyer.

I think you are pretty shortsighted in your approach, but there you go.

Yes, how short-sighted of me to attempt to look for evidence and examine contradictory points, rather than simply accepting as gospel the points made by one man in a £7 self help book.

Perhaps I should also read [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0948096268 ][i]"Television Is Good for Your Kids"[/i] by Maire Messenger Davies[/url]?

BTW - it is completely obvious even from the selected quote you have used in your second excerpt, that the paper is comparing different content, not making a comparison between viewing and not viewing

I know you are pretty anxious to show us how clever you are, but do try to read this stuff before you bung it up.

Yes - hence why it backs up MSP's point: it is about balance and filtering - not the medium. Do try to read my argument before attempting to dismiss it.

my general common sense when faced with a claim that Facebook causes cancer:

Ah yes. I believe that might have been an article in the Daily Hate? That wouldn't automatically lead me to believe it was something that Dr Sigman said (or in fact that anyone said).

It does seem obvious than Sigman has cherry picked the data.

Not to me.

RPRT, your starting to have an almost religious zeal for Sigmans book, while ignoring anything that seems to disagree with its claims.

Yes - hence why it backs up MSP's point: it is about balance and filtering - not the medium. Do try to read my argument before attempting to dismiss it.

No it doesn't.

You haven't understood what you have quoted and why it does not counter the views put forward by Sigman.

The paper you quote seems to be saying that some programmes are better than others. It does not ask the question of whether any TV is better than no TV.

But the conclusion you draw is that the best thing for kids is "good quality" TV.

RPRT, your starting to have an almost religious zeal for Sigmans book, while ignoring anything that seems to disagree with its claims.

Not at all.

I just haven't seen anything here to persuade me that he is wrong.

However, I note your attempt to discredit me by branding me as "religious"

LOL

You haven't understood what you have quoted

Yes, yes I have.

and why it does not counter the views put forward by Sigman

I'm not [i]trying[/i] to counter Dr Sigman's views. As you point out, I haven't read his book so I don't know all his views.

I'm trying to support MSP's point that content, rather than medium, is the important thing.

This handily offers a counterpoint to the fairly solid anti-TV paper which joe cited (and which Dr Sigman cites in his references) because that study did not consider the content of the TV watched.

But the conclusion you draw is that the best thing for kids is "good quality" TV.

Nope. I think the "best thing" for kids is parents that love and care for them.

I'm not trying to counter Dr Sigman's views. As you point out, I haven't read his book so I don't know all his views.

I'm trying to support MSP's point that content, rather than medium, is the important thing.

Then you [b]are[/b] trying to counter Sigman's views, because his view is that medium, rather than content, is the important thing.

I did point this out some time ago.

Then you are trying to counter Sigman's views, because his view is that medium rather than content is the important thing.

Rightio - I am apparently contending that particular point of his/yours.

I did point this out some time ago.

I don't read everything you say. I have a very short attention span and it is too busy thinking up something clever to say to read your posts properly. 😛

Then you are trying to counter Sigman's views, because his view is that medium, rather than content, is the important thing.

So you would let your child view violent pornography in a book, rather than educational material on a computer or television?

Yes, but only while they were high on heroin.

I don't read everything you say. I have a very short attention span and it is too busy thinking up something clever to say to read your posts properly.

Then can I have the last several hours of my life back please?

I thought you took this seriously. You were keen for me to give you some citations of papers you could go and read a minute ago.

🙄 At least kids that watch TV can understand a joke.

FWIW I've spent most of the day on PubMed looking at the research base for this stuff.

FWIW I've spent most of the day on PubMed looking at the research base for this stuff.

I look forward to your grovelling apology later on when you've had time to read some of it then.

I find the major problem with iDevices and children is that it's purely consumption - at least with a Spectrum and having to type in code from magazines you learned a bit of syntax checking and maybe messed it about a bit and learned something.

Eldest brassneck jr. (5) is getting an empty laptop and a CD of Gentoo - get Angry Birds running on that and you'll have earned the right to play it 🙂

As always, it's all things in moderation.. I wouldn't buy him a iPod Touch now, but I've no objection to him using my toys every now and then.

No.2 especially likes [url= http://www.buildyourwildself.com/ ]Build Your Wild Self[/url] though not much fussed about other computery stuff. It's New York Zoos and Aquariums so must be educaitonal.