That surprised me too. On the second page, he explains his problem with Python. BASIC has lines that each do one thing, and you have conditional and unconditional jumps to line numbers, no fancy-schmancy control structures. Brin feels that BASIC is much closer to how the microprocessor interprets instructions. Python compiles to a bytecode that is equally analogous to a processor's instruction set, also with conditional and unconditional jumps to numbered locations in the code, which can be disassembled and studied; see http://docs.python.org/lib/module-dis.html. One could pick nits and say that BASIC's variables are closer to processor registers than Python's stack, but feh. Bytecodes running on the Python VM or the Java VM would be EXACTLY as pedagogically valuable as BASIC, except that BASIC statements are much more human-readable where Python bytecodes. So what we need is an alternative Python front end that looks like BASIC, which I'll call PYSIC. The PYSIC language has the readability of BASIC (including line numbers and conditional/unconditional GOTOs) and compiles to Python bytecodes. PYSIC runs inside a Python session so you can use everything normally available in Python. It should be possible to mix-and-match bits of PYSIC and standard Python. What I think would REALLY fulfill Brin's agenda, beyond PYSIC, would be to get Python and PYSIC running on embedded platforms, especially toys, where kids can write programs and make things happen. That's what sucked me into the whole electronics and computers thing when I was a kid.

Some anonymous coward on AppleMatters has subsequently asked them to post a parts list:

Wonderful pioneering effort! Kudos! We've all been wondering how this "Man Who Fell To Earth" artifact could be opened! Hope you will post a basic greenboard component list: battery size and any part numbers or markings especially, processor and memory next of course. Thanks a million (well $99 actually) for your sacrifice to the iPod community!