| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Playing with the OLPCPlaying with the OLPCPosted Dec 15, 2006 2:29 UTC (Fri) by jeff@uclinux.org (guest, #8024)Parent article: Playing with the OLPC
"The BTest-1 release notes make it clear that the process of putting together the software is just beginning; the focus, until now, has been on getting the hardware working. So many of the provided "activities" are present only in a preliminary form, and others are not there at all yet. It is not, according to the release notes, time to test the device on children (though your editor's children disagree rather strongly). Certainly the adults are starting to have fun with the system"
People have previously said that this is not an arrogant boondoggle because the software has been engineered by teaching professionals. This article talks about how it will "...put millions of Linux-based laptops into the hands of children worldwide."
Meanwhile, http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006/12/bread-bread-... is daily reality. For $0.50 per child we can solve this problem? And this laptop costs how much? Yes, it's a distribution problem... but first give them food and the ability to read and write and THEN we can talk about giving them a Laptop. How many do you think would love to be given one of these... so they can sell it for food? Books are $2.00 in the third world? And this laptop costs how much?
I applaud the goals. Time to ask the educators. Ask the NGOs that work in those countries. Ask the children... that live in those countries, not yours. Flame away (or better still convince me otherwise) but it seems obvious to me that this is tragically misguided. In the mean time, I have a bunch of old machines that can run Linux that I can donate, and I bet you do too, instead of sending it back to China for landfill.
(Log in to post comments)
Playing with the OLPC Posted Dec 15, 2006 3:31 UTC (Fri) by ebiederm (subscriber, #35028) [Link] So it is equal to the cost of 4 books a year for 12 years. I seem to remember having more text books per year than that. Which is just to say that the OLPC is not as completely bogus on the face of it from a cost perspective as you are implying.
The other thing to consider is that you can't solve just half the problem. You have to fix the structure of society if you want to keep people from starving. Education and communication technology is one of the most powerful steps I know towards empowering people, and empowered people at least have a chance of fixing things.
Playing with the OLPC Posted Dec 15, 2006 9:21 UTC (Fri) by Lockjaw (guest, #4611) [Link] From the OLPC Wiki:
It should be mentioned that a common criticism of the project is to say, "What poor people need is food and shelter, not laptops." This comment, however, is ignorant of conditions in improvished nations around the world. While it is true there are many people in the world who definitely need food and shelter, there are multitudes of people who live in rural or sub-urban areas and have plenty to eat and reasonable accommodations. What these people don't have is a decent shot at a good education.
either/or Posted Dec 15, 2006 9:54 UTC (Fri) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link] >In the mean time, I have a bunch of old machines that can run Nice thought, but no cigar. Those "old machines" you have are built for first-world conditions: they're not going to tolerate an unreliable electricity supply, or the regular wear-and-tear of any equipment that spends much time with schoolchildren, without ready access to a well-equipped repair shop if anything should go wrong. In short, your suggestion is exactly the typical misguided one of a first-worlder who thinks they know what's good for those poor third-world folk. I'm on the side of the OLPC project on this one: don't patronize them, but give them the tools, and let them make the choices for themselves.
either/or Posted Dec 15, 2006 20:38 UTC (Fri) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] Not to talk about how much less efficient their battery is, how muchheavier, how much they lack wireless capability and even if they have that, how much more electricity these old machines would take. Also, where one would suddenly get 5 million old laptops into which one can put the same software (HW drivers) etc to ease maintenance and maintainability? Each one of these old machines would need to be "hand crafted". I bet cost of refurbishing would be more much expensive; laptop spareparts are non-standard and cost a lot. A new battery would be an absolute must for an old laptop (+ the power supply with a crank :)). <sarcastic> Oh, yes, (richer part of) 3rd world should buy what we don't anymore want and be thankful for it... </sarcastic>
Playing with the OLPC Posted Dec 18, 2006 15:20 UTC (Mon) by emj (guest, #14307) [Link] Actually usefull books are alot more than $2, sure you can get a pirated Lord of the ring for that.The question though is where can you find the books that can't be printed in millions of copies in Panama.
Playing with the OLPC Posted Dec 21, 2006 15:13 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] bread, bread, bread..., is still this give-a-man-a-fish, and he's fed for one day. Teach him how to fish, and he's fed for the rest of his live. It's actually much worse: If you just pump in food into poor countries, they'll be poorer and poorer, because poor contries have economies that base on food, and you kill their economy. So apart from countries with civil wars, it is not in the interest of the people there if you give them some bread. Really, it isn't. Don't spend your Xmas gift on that. It doesn't help, it just helps the organizations who organize this thing. Furthermore, the actual situation in most countries of the world is far better than the typical US citizen imagines. People might need to cook their water before they can savely drink it, and they also need to cook their food before they can savely eat it (i.e. no salads and such like), but the vast majority of people have about enough to eat. There are a few countries, where people are not fed well enough. Funny enough, the US is the worst offender with children not fed as they need it, IIRC, 40% of the US children are overweighted, and therefore suffer physical harm from what they eat. 90% of the world has better (more healthy) food for their children than the US. A bit less than enough is far more healthy than too much.
|
|
||||||||||||