U.S. schools may join inexpensive-laptop project (ZDNet) [LWN.net]

U.S. schools may join inexpensive-laptop project (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 28, 2007 9:18 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Absolutely. They can make a huge impact, IMO.

The poor in urban cities are suffering from a great deal of problems. Absentee fathers causing mothers to spend all their time a work mean that children effectively grow up with no parental guidance or role models, for example. Then those same children get older, reach reproductive age before reaching mental maturity to deal with it and then it repeats. Each time it repeats, it gets worse.

So you end up with communities that are continual crisis, can't take care of themselves, can't take care of the infrastructure, can't take care of the kids, etc etc.

It all depends on the true intentions.

For example a large reason (not the only reason, mind you. A lot of it is actually people caring) why we have the welfare we have in the USA isn't because of any real want to help people. It's as a result of the race riots of the sixties. Effectively it's a pay-off, make people not want to 'fight the system' because it's the 'system' that writes their checks. So it's not so much designed to help people people, it's more designed to keep poor people quiet.

So as a result instead of designing a system to help people, it's has a secondary effect of actually making it worse. Now you have essentially 3 or 4th generation people who their parents and grandparents were effectively living off the state and they grow up in a similar situation. It's very de-humanizing, it makes you think that you can't do it on your own.. that you always are going to depend on people above you to survive. Causes a lot of resentment.

Like those 'housing projects'. They weren't nessicarially designed to realy help people. A lot of it was a real desire to take the poor people, stick them in one place to control them and then invest in areas of towns that would otherwise be unprofitable. That is obviously why projects tend to be built next to places were you have some river, or interstate, or other large feature segregating them off into their own areas.

Of course then, if that land the projects turns out to be desirable. Then you kick them all out and turn it into condos.

So a lot of these things are kinda like poison pills. Or maybe like a badl drywall patch for a hole in the wall; not realy designed to help, just designed to patch over a problem. To make it look like less of a problem.

But that isn't to say that stuff can't help people. Government welfare _can_ provide a way for mothers to spend more time with their children, improving their lives and benifiting sociaty overal. Grants and loans provide a way for people to spend time attending school and improving themselves.

Private philantrophy has always had a huge effect on education. Funding new departments in schools of higher learning for example. Quite a bit of other stuff like paying people's hospital bills, creating drug clinics, battered women shelters, and all sorts of other things. Religious insitutions provide homeless shelters, provide counseling and guidance. Luthern services in my area provide services like psychiatric counselling for people that otherwise would never be able to afford it.

All sorts of stuff like that. That can have a huge benificial effect on somebody's quality of life.

I figure it all depends.. Is this thing realy designed to help people out, help people to improve themselves, to give them tools and abilities to improve their own lives? Or is it just going to be a temporary fix and make them more dependant on you?

The real trick is that you can't realy help anybody else out if they can't help themselves. It's just not going to happen. You can give them everything, but unless they take advantage of it in a positive way it can just make things worse.

If there is no way for a person to improve their own situation in life, then I suppose it's pretty pointless to do anything other then to try to give them some comfort to try to counter a part their misery until they die, I guess.

Each situation is different I suppose.

I don't know. It's all depressing.

poverty's children

Posted Apr 28, 2007 20:32 UTC (Sat) by HalfMoon (guest, #3211) [Link]

Some of us get tired of hearing that right wing blame the poor for being poor meme, you know? Remember that by and large "urban poor" means "dark skinned people", and that many/most of those "absentee fathers" are warehoused in jails for taking some of the few jobs available in those areas (drug related) ... warehoused at rates disproportionately higher than those for light skinned people doing the same things, who can afford lawyers and lobbyists.

A more honest way to look at a lot of those issues is to acknowledge that there are powerful interests (and not just in the U.S.) ... often racist ones ... which effectively oppose core "American Myths" such as equal opportunity, justice for all, and a truly educated (i.e. capable of critical thought) citizenry. Those interests have opposed and/or undermined most programs trying to make this nation live up to those ideals, and even destroyed communities which were too successful at achieving those goals by themselves. Remember that every dollar a poor person gets is a dollar a rich one doesn't get...

So, "drag", I find many of your comments suspect, since they pretend that those interests do not exist. It's as if you were maybe relying on what passes for education and journalism lately.

That said, there certainly are a lot of schools that would benefit from a different, less-costly, more-democratic, and yes, less Microsoft-centric way to access things like the Internet. OLPC should be a big help there.

But don't forget other aspects of the problem. Those computers won't be as useful as they should be unless they have Internet access at reasonable cost and speed ... even from poor homes. And unless there's social reform which re-empowers even poor people (reversing trends that the Bushites have massively, if not criminally, accelerated), they'll just be additional ways to shift money away from real social needs into corporate hands.

The fabled free market is still vapourware

Posted Apr 28, 2007 10:25 UTC (Sat) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

> Absent a free market in an object, price quotes are meaningless.

There's nothing wrong with estimating how much the price might eventually be when a sale actually takes place!

Price estimates and quotes are made all the time. Are prices quoted for goods which are only sold to a single customer or by a monopoly supplier, meaningless because the market isn't "free"? Are prices quoted for agricultural goods in Europe and the USA meaningless, just because the markets are "distorted" by subsidies and quotas? Are prices for bespoke artworks or buildings, in which there is arguably no market at all, meaningless?

> The more interesting question is whether a philanthropic organization,
> regardless of the sincerity of their intentions, can make any positive
> impact on the lives of the less fortunate they wish to help.

The unequivocal answer to your question is yes. Some attempts at philanthropy have failed dismally, but others are spectacularly successful. But a public school is not an example of philanthropy, it's an example of social engineering by government. There are failures in all fields of endeavour, and successes -- IMO I had a very good education, entirely in public schools :-)

The regulated free market is still better than price dictates

Posted Apr 28, 2007 17:30 UTC (Sat) by jimmybgood (guest, #26142) [Link]

"There's nothing wrong with estimating how much the price might eventually be when a sale actually takes place!"

Not if it's estimated by a disinterested third party, an appraiser. The original $100 price was a pipe dream. Continuing to negotiate sales at this price, while they must have known it was unrealistic, was deceptive.

Philanthropic assistance that aims to assist largely locally conceived and driven efforts has a fair chance of succeeding. For example, making available rice seed that has greater insect resistance, yield and protein content to a farmer who is going to grow rice anyway. Philanthropic assistance that is largely conceived and imposed from above or outside of the local community fails consistently and miserably.

Typically, the first schools created in American frontier settlements were built with local efforts before and in lieu of creating government bureaucracies and taxing authorities. They may have had to recruit teachers from England or back east, but when they came, they tended to settle and become part of the community. The school I referred to is run like an outpost by staff who wouldn't dream of living in the area to specifications dictated by bureaucrats even further removed from the community.

Paul Theroux began his career working for the Peace Corps in Africa. Thirty years later he returned to chronicle the success of the various aid efforts in the meantime. His conclusion is that *at best* they have had no effect. More commonly, the indigenous people have lost their ability to subsist by their own efforts and wait in fractured, dysfunctional communities for assistance to arrive.

I believe the folks behind the OLPC project have the best of intentions. But they committed hubris when they convinced themselves that they could conceive and impose a solution. They should have worked on developing the power management, networking and display technologies that make such a laptop possible and left applying the technology to people close to the problems.

The goal of the Peace Corps

Posted Apr 28, 2007 23:16 UTC (Sat) by szoth (subscriber, #14825) [Link]

"Paul Theroux began his career working for the Peace Corps in Africa. Thirty years later he returned to chronicle the success of the various aid efforts in the meantime. His conclusion is that *at best* they have had no effect."

You seem to assume that the Peace Corps is a philanthropic organization. The Peace Corps is a part of the US government. Its principle aim is to advance the foreign policy goals of the US. Stated broadly, the foreign policy goals of the US are succeeding wildly in Africa. I have insufficient knowlege to say to what degree the activities of the Peace Corps have contributed to that success.

U.S. schools may join inexpensive-laptop project (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 30, 2007 11:25 UTC (Mon) by tuna (guest, #44480) [Link]

"Did housing projects ever really help the American inner-city poor? I recently delivered some fitness magazines to an urban high school. While their security wasn't as tight, it was a far scarier place than the parish jail I spent a night in some time ago. This school is probably similar to some of the schools that are considering purchasing OLPC laptops.

I don't know how beneficial these laptops might be, but I am convinced that the world would be better off if this school that I visited were to be bulldozed tomorrow. "

Where would the students go for education then?

U.S. schools may join inexpensive-laptop project (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 30, 2007 13:45 UTC (Mon) by AAP (guest, #721) [Link]

What makes you think they get an education NOW? In the worst of the urban schools, many students are more concerned about surviving one day at a time, in an environment that closely resembles prisons, than they are about getting an education that they perceive to be useless anyway.

U.S. schools may join inexpensive-laptop project (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 30, 2007 16:15 UTC (Mon) by tuna (guest, #44480) [Link]

I would assume that those who perceive the education to be absolutely useless do not go anyway, so it would be a real shame for those who do want the education the school provides to be denied that.

Of course, the real solution to the problem (in the USA) is to take the funds that are currently being used for the occupation of Iraq and use them for education and social projects. But that is another story altogether....

Windows? Really?

Posted Apr 28, 2007 9:09 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

That's what you get when you discuss things three times removed from the original. Nicholas said that "a version of Windows can run on the machines as well". ZDNet immediately turned the word around and said that "machines, which run Linux, also will be configured to run Windows as well". And now it looks like you respond to the sentence you conjured that "OLPC will run Windows".

While it certainly what ZDNet had in mind when it wrote this piece it'll be very good to go to the source and find what exactly happened. If you'll do it you'll find that the only change OLPC project did at the Microsoft's request is SD slot (with SDIO support and "boot from SD" support). That's all. The rest are Microsoft's development and PR stunts.

And of course SD was added because it was easy to do (they already had custom chip in package and it was just slightly extended to also support SDIO) and because it'll good for a lot things besides Windows...

Windows? Really?

Posted Apr 28, 2007 13:38 UTC (Sat) by TxtEdMacs (subscriber, #5983) [Link]

A couple of items:

1. Do you have a link to the original quotes? Would be nice to cite.

2. I was tempted to take part of your comment and post it on /., where it is now interpreted as free/open software world has been betrayed and perhaps fatally so by MS machinations. [With your permission, I might have. However, I lacked other independent data I could cite. In essence, it would have been beyond simple "fair use" of your words.]

I tend to doubt that a rational voice now will have impact. Facile falsehoods have been spread far and wide, so it is hard to be heard above the ambient noise. Hence, do what you think would be most effective. That includes retaining your own sanity.

Windows? Really?

Posted Apr 29, 2007 7:59 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I've cited them from the article. It was all there. You just need to read carefully. Note: Nicholas said "a version of Windows can run on the machines as well" - he does not even knows which one! And he certainly does not care. Here is the latest article on the subject.

I can not find the article where it was explained that Microsoft lobbied for SD - but it's not a big deal: it was decided long ago and SD certainly is good for a lot of things besides running Windows.

Note: right now choice is not "XO with Sugar" vs "XO with Windows". It's "XO with Sugar, support and infrastructure" vs "XO with Windows, no help from OLPC and support from Microsoft" (I don't know what kind of support is included in $3 package). I think Quanta is 100 times more interested in Windows then OLPC - and it's easy to see why...

Windows? Really?

Posted Apr 29, 2007 14:52 UTC (Sun) by TxtEdMacs (subscriber, #5983) [Link]

Guilty!

Seriously, you are correct, however, I have a low tolerance for B.S. What else does ZDNet push?

When I read, it is when I am taking a break from writing so if I become convinced early on that the article is trash I cut my loses by exiting. Shame I would have hoped the quotes could have been free of the ZD... trash. Why send innocent minds to such a warped site?

Why price hike.

Posted Apr 29, 2007 8:19 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

BTW if you are searching for a reason for latest hike in price you should look here, not here. OLPC guys had a lot trouble with Gecko @ 128Mb (remember - that's real 128Mb, there are no swap). Looks like they finally gave up and decided to use 256Mb. Yes, there are efforts underway to make Gecko less hungry and in 2-3 years we'll probabky have something suitable for 128Mb device, but OPLC need working XO's by the end of year...

Why price hike.

Posted Apr 29, 2007 21:06 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]

Except that the difference between a 128MB SODIMM and a 256MB SODIMM is about $15 and not $75. $75 over the 128MB price will get you 1GB at the local computer store.

Why price hike.

Posted Apr 29, 2007 21:34 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

How the hell you've subtracted $148 (previous estimate) from $175 (today's estimate) and got $75 ?

There more ram (256MB vs 128MB), more flash (1024MB vs 512MB) and faster CPU (433 MHz vs 366 Mhz) - all this for $27 price hike. I'm not 100% sure it's good tradeoff - but it's certainly not "128MB more RAM for $75" as you are trying to imply...

$100 a pop is a goal - and I'm not sure it's very realistical one (if you'll recall how USD is doing today), $175 is reality...

Why price hike.

Posted Apr 30, 2007 8:29 UTC (Mon) by dufkaf (subscriber, #10358) [Link]

There is also lower power consumption feature of newer hardware which may play biggest role in the decision, check
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Hardware_specification for 'Beta Test 3 Systems'. I guess they simply took advantage of hardware getting better faster then their development. They may even have those newer parts for same price. Or anyone found that specifically those upgraded hw specs was the cause of higher price?

Why price hike.

Posted Apr 30, 2007 18:26 UTC (Mon) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link]

> $100 a pop is a goal - and I'm not sure it's very realistical one (if you'll recall how USD is doing today), $175 is reality...

Yeah, $175 is still, like 100 Euros, right? Same price as originally projected back when the dollar was worth something...

(Okay, seriously, US$175 is only about 128 euros today. Parent raises a good point.)