[kevbin]

What's the distinction between productive work and play? between a toy and a tool? Even if you think the distinction isn't purely subjective, you have to consider that every tool starts out as a toy, that a lot of tools are way more fun to play with than (what gets marketed as) toys, that playing can be extremely productive and that being productive can be really entertaining.

[gloob]

you have to consider that every tool starts out as a toy

Band saw. Pesticide. Tractor. Hunting rifle. Jackhammer.

By any meaningful definition of "toy" and "starts out", not every tool starts out as a toy. Alternatively, if you are using definitions of "toy" and "starts out" that are ridiculously overbroad: at a high enough level of abstraction, everything looks exactly the same as everything else. A worldview that is useful is preferable to one that is elegant.

[kevbin]

I don't know the histories of the items you mention, but I imagine at some point in time somebody was screwing around (i.e., playing) with a predecessor technology when they "should" have been doing "productive work". I remember the days when microprocessors and personal computers were derided as toys. UNIX and Linux were once "toy" operating systems. RC planes and flight sims were the toys of hyper-nerdy outcasts in my high school; but nobody laughs at a predator drone strike.

Pesticides might not be toys, but I bet the chemists and biologists who develop them have spent a good deal of time screwing around with the underlying constituents. I recently rented a rotary hammer to perform a particular task, but spent a good amount of time afterward playing with it to see what I could jackhammer into oblivion. At what point did it stop being a tool and become a toy? I learned a good deal about the operation of the hammer and improved my technique, does that mean I wasn't playing but was getting educated? Maybe our preconceptions about work, play, and education aren't really clear or useful?

What's the useful distinction between "toy" and "tool"? Is there a bright line between toolness and toyness? Or a continuum that depends on attitude, context, and use? I'd argue the latter is a more useful and meaningful perspective for those of us who do not directly depend on our "tools" for day-to-day survival. I'd guess that most hunters are not subsistence hunters and employ their hunting rifles recreationally, during leisure time, doesn't this make them more "toy-like" than "tool-like"? Recreational ornamental horticulturalists produce nothing of "value" (in the narrow sense of receiving remuneration); does this make their use of pesticides toy-like? Is a Schrebergarten a toy garden in the same way a Tonka is a toy truck? If you eat vegetables from the Schrebergarten or use the Tonka to dolly a load, are they still toys?

The original commenter distinguished between toys (e.g., iPad) and non-toys (e.g., Blackberry). I don't see that as a useful distinction: one man's tool is another man's toy (even tractors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhKfTFdtmCk). The President claims a distinction between information as distraction, diversion, or entertainment vs. empowerment. I don't see that clear line: one man's marathon Tecmo Super Bowl session is another's all nighter studying B.F. Skinner. Who is to say which is a distraction which is a better use of that time? Were people who watched hundreds of hours of Buffy the Vampire Slayer distracted, diverted or empowered? If they got tenure from it does that change the answer?