Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica)
Ars technica is reporting on an odd plan for how to distribute the One Laptop Per Child's XO-3 touchscreen tablet: "'We'll take tablets and drop them out of helicopters into villages that have no electricity and school, then go [back] a year later and see if the kids can read,' [OLPC founder Nicholas] Negroponte told The Register. He reportedly cited Professor Sugata Mitra's Hole in the Wall experiment as the basis for his belief that dropping the tablets will encourage self-directed literacy.
[...]
Among the major challenges that the OLPC project was never able to fully overcome during its laptop days were supporting the hardware in the field and providing teachers with the proper training and educational material. In light of the cost and difficulty of tackling those issues, its not hard to see why the eccentric stealth drop approach looks appealing to Negroponte."
(Log in to post comments)
Whose permission should be asked? Posted Nov 3, 2011 20:11 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] The interview isn't clear about whether or not the targeted tribes will be willingly participating in this experiment. [from the article] In the first year well go in and meet with tribal elders and aid organizations, people not involved with education, but then we let the kids learn, Negroponte told The Register. Then we'll take tablets and drop them out of helicopters into villages that have no electricity and school, then go aback a year later and see if the kids can read. Does he mean that they'll be doing the drops with the approval of the tribal elders and aid organisations? (If that's the case, why is it necessary to drop them from helicopters?) Or is the last sentence a second stage where another set of tribes will have this imposed on them?
Back to the future Posted Nov 4, 2011 3:37 UTC (Fri) by emkamau (guest, #76779) [Link]
Why not just land the choppers? Afraid the savages will eat them?
emk
Back to the future Posted Nov 8, 2011 16:18 UTC (Tue) by jg (subscriber, #17537) [Link]
There may not be a large enough opening in a jungle for the helicopter to even land...
Some places are *really*, *really* remote, such as the upper Amazon basin in Peru. It takes 3-4 weeks on foot to reach some of these locations, and there is unbroken rain-forest canopy.
The more interesting question is where the power is coming from; if the XO-3 can get low enough power consumption, then human power as originally envisioned becomes feasible. If not, then you have another hard problem to solve (such as solar panels on the top of the canopy, and getting the power down the trees).
Back to the future Posted Nov 8, 2011 16:57 UTC (Tue) by emkamau (guest, #76779) [Link]
My comment was both disgusted and sarcastic. I doubt that any place they would be sending computers would be too remote to land a chopper. As you point out, these are places where they would need a power supply plus also evaluate progress with the project. That means its a place they can actually get into.
This is just a stunt.
emk
Back to the future Posted Nov 9, 2011 3:30 UTC (Wed) by jg (subscriber, #17537) [Link]
Knowing Nicholas, it probably is somewhat a stunt: but it's based on a very interesting project: The Hole in the Wall experiment in India.
But I know for a fact (having had the conversation with Oscar Becerra, who is in charge of the OLPC project for the MOE of Peru myself personally) that some of the schools that the MOE in Peru wants most to serve are really that inaccessible, and that there is no prayer of getting a helicopter to the ground. They are 3 weeks walk from the nearest supply point. The teachers walk for a month to get to the schools that are there (such as they are), teach for a month, and walk for a month to get home again: the kids get one month out of three of instruction.
When I understood this, my jaw hit the floor. I had had no idea there were still places on the planet this remote. There are... Crazy as it sounds, the experiment is probably worth a try (and Nicholas is a showman).
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 3, 2011 20:49 UTC (Thu) by n5678 (guest, #80973) [Link]
the sods ?
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 3, 2011 21:04 UTC (Thu) by bracher (subscriber, #4039) [Link]
presumably a reference to The Gods Must Be Crazy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/), in which a coke bottle tossed out of a plane is found by villagers and sets off a chain of unforeseen events.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 15:07 UTC (Fri) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]
And, particularly ironically in this case, the message of the movie is that disruptive technology, without proper understanding, is very harmful to the well-being of the (idealized) tribal people.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 3, 2011 22:21 UTC (Thu) by mordae (subscriber, #54701) [Link]
I believe that this can actually work better then organized top-down education. I've read about the referred hole-in-the-wall experiment long time ago and it shifted my view on child education a lot.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 9:44 UTC (Fri) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
better *than :-P
But +1 on the bottom-up education. Montessori schools operate on a modified version of that principle.
What is needed is one IT classroom par school, not one laptop per child. Posted Nov 3, 2011 22:23 UTC (Thu) by Alterego (subscriber, #55989) [Link]
See how difficult it is to learn reading with teachers, schools, litterate parents and books.
Negroponte should have at least watched gapinder:
no correlation between literacy and computer(for 15-24 yo) :
but litteracy is strongly correlated with school achievment :
The sadest thing is that Negorponte got fame and money for doing such a stupid action, and that will lack localy carefuly crafted useful projects.
What is needed is one IT classroom par school, not one laptop per child. Posted Nov 3, 2011 22:30 UTC (Thu) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]
I didn't read your links... but I'm guessing the studies sited did not use the Sugar learning environment... and didn't test the type of kids and environments at which the OLPC is targeted. Nice try though.
Another point to mention is that just having one IT classroom par(sic) school doesn't necessarily help either depending on your goals. The whole purpose of the RaspberryPi is to fill a perceived hole where the schools are teaching computers and Microsoft Office... but not programming and logic... leading to entering Computer Science college freshmen having almost no programming experience.
I do have to wonder how a school is going to have an IT classroom when there isn't necessarily a physical school building, electricity, etc.
What is needed is one IT classroom par school, not one laptop per child. Posted Nov 3, 2011 22:43 UTC (Thu) by Alterego (subscriber, #55989) [Link]
This problem is very deep and difficult, much more than just power and bandwith eg. 3Mb/s for whole Niger one or two years ago, (three mega bits it is not a typo; i provided the link to CIA factbook one or two years ago in an lwn article about olpc, and answering to misinformed people saying wrong things.)
This will be a total failure for sure.
Would you do that to your children ?
What is needed is one IT classroom par school, not one laptop per child. Posted Nov 3, 2011 23:16 UTC (Thu) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]
WHAT will surely fail?
Would I do WHAT to my children?
If some children have no access to formal education at all... I don't think dropping in an electronic learning environment (not a tablet or laptop really) could do anything negative (with regards to education) while having the possibility to do some positive.
What is needed is one IT classroom par school, not one laptop per child. Posted Nov 5, 2011 21:25 UTC (Sat) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Agreed. I learned my mother tongue on my own. I learned IT on my own. Think people underestimate what you can learn if you're interested. Teachers are not something magical. I've given various trainings, if people are not interested, a teacher is not going to change that.
What is needed is one IT classroom par school, not one laptop per child. Posted Nov 6, 2011 12:37 UTC (Sun) by Alterego (subscriber, #55989) [Link]
Sorry to disagree with you.
- You did not learnt your mother tongue on your own, it was teached my your parents, and it is hardwired in your brain to learn langage.
I agree that later when you are *mastering* reading, you can learn on your own with their (witings) help, book are only an intermediate between the knowledgeable one and the learning one, they are a transmission tool, they does not suppress the teacher.
What is needed is one IT classroom par school, not one laptop per child. Posted Nov 4, 2011 15:05 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
Well, I think you should compare literacy rate (%) against computers per 100 people, not absolute number of computers (because rate is proportional to population too).
I think there's a correlation but only in sense that until you have got to have near 100 % literacy before computers take off, but I am not going to argue if either one is a cause or effect. The factors are probably related by other, more fundamental properties. (Adding computers does not cause people to become literate, having literacy does not cause people to have computers.)
What is needed is one IT classroom par school, not one laptop per child. Posted Nov 4, 2011 21:06 UTC (Fri) by Alterego (subscriber, #55989) [Link]
You are right, %computer per people is a much better x-axis.
As one can choose the axis on the graph (i guess you find it) one can draw the said graph , litteracy vs computer per 100 people. http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;...
For me there is no corelation between both: africa has very low literacy rate compared to asian countries with the same computer % (and 50 years ago asia was poorer than africa, with a
It seems that country which managed to get 5 computer per 100 people have a very high litteracy rate (more than 90%), no need to get one laptop per child in countries where half the population is under 25 yo... but one IT room per school would be a good start ;-)
Negroponte need to learn : Chimpanzees know better? Posted Nov 3, 2011 22:35 UTC (Thu) by Alterego (subscriber, #55989) [Link]
Please someone show to this crazy guy this very instructive video :
"Chimpanzees know better?" http://www.gapminder.org/videos/google-zeitgeist/google-z...
Hans Rosling, Professor of International Health at Karolinska Institutet, uses UN databases to shed light on perceived and real differences in the way we live around the world
Won't they have to drop more than just tablets? Posted Nov 4, 2011 3:56 UTC (Fri) by afalko (subscriber, #37028) [Link]
"We'll take tablets and drop them out of helicopters into villages that have no electricity..."
How will the tablets work without electricity? Am I missing something?
Won't they have to drop more than just tablets? Posted Nov 4, 2011 4:13 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
They have pull-string generators. So children are going not only to get education but also exercise at the same time!
Won't they have to drop more than just tablets? Posted Nov 4, 2011 14:27 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
You missed the solar panels.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 5:53 UTC (Fri) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]
As those artifacts would most probably just be traded for food, wouldn't it be wiser to just drop food in the first place?
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 7:06 UTC (Fri) by aristedes (guest, #35729) [Link]
I assume they will not be giving these machines to people in the midst of famine, but rather places where they have food and water, but education is lacking.
Unless you assume that only people in the USA (or wherever you live) are the only people sophisticated enough to take a computer and use it for what it is intended. I find this experiment interesting: give people tools, but not the support or training to use them. And then come back and see what they have been able to achieve. Certainly not as good as a comprehensive education program with qualified teachers, but possibly better than nothing at all. It will be interested to see the results.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 8:29 UTC (Fri) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]
> I find this experiment interesting
I find this experiment demeaning, but hey, whatever. Some other things to try to drop into isolated villages:
1) CD players
And see what happens! Just don't pretend it's in any way humanitarian.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 9:26 UTC (Fri) by bricef (guest, #80336) [Link]
You'll need a control group, and different quantities of each. Vault-Tec will have some experience in setting these kind of experiments up...
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 9:33 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Don't forget a towel. It's is about the most massively useful thing, you know.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist...)
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 10:00 UTC (Fri) by tpo (subscriber, #25713) [Link]
I hear that purchasing an hour of helicopter flight around here costs ~ $500/h. I would think it's similar elsewhere.
The idea of dropping stuff out of helicopters is cool in a Rambo romantic way, however is it also an efficient and effective investment of the limited available money?
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 5, 2011 21:23 UTC (Sat) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Pretty sure they've thought of it.
This is the end, my friend. Posted Nov 4, 2011 13:25 UTC (Fri) by csigler (subscriber, #1224) [Link]
This will likely be the last stop on the OLPC odyssey, and what a long, strange trip it's been. I'm sorry that the dual touch-screen design proved wildly impractical. I'm sorry that OLPC-1's $100 price target was a pipe dream. They've had wonderful dreams and goals all along, and have delivered far more devices having a far greater impact than seems feasible in retrospect, but OLPC's days are numbered.
I say it's the last stop (no doubt a controversial assertion because there are so many well meaning OLPC advocates) because these third generation devices are to be dropped from helicopters. First off, this is an insane plan. Anyone using common sense must admit this to themselves. Unless these devices are placed in someone's hands by another human being, there is no personal relationship in the giving and receiving of the device. It's been shown how well the proud owners of these devices care for them, but it must also be recognized that this pride of ownership depends in large part on the gift of the device, the human, one-to-one transaction that puts a valuable piece of technology in those hands in the first place. Dropping them from a helicopter is just the opposite. It's 100% impersonal. The Hole-in-the-Wall terminal continued to work, I believe, because it was well secured and hardened. Some of these OLPC-3 devices will end up being used as mechanical tools, not electronic reading primers.
Secondly, the only logical reason to drop an electronic computing device from a helicopter is because governmental or tribal leadership is intentionally being bypassed. Otherwise, they would "go through channels." Most likely this is because the leadership is hostile to the project's involvement with their populace. Even if they were neutral, being either unwilling or unable to purchase the devices, they would almost certainly accept them and distribute them to the populace themselves. So, you tell me, if governmental or tribal leadership is opposed to OLPC's aims, how many of these devices will survive their raids to confiscate them, even for a short while?
Finally, dropping them from helicopters most likely means there is no customer for these units. No customer means no payment. At best, OLPC will receive grants for devices given to others who are in need of them. Even a non-profit needs customers. Money is needed to produce more devices and design new generations of OLPCs. Without customers, such as the governments which have purchased units in the past, the future looks grim.
I'll be interested in the history of the emergence of netbook computing written 15 or 20 years down the line. Will it be recognized that the conception and design of the OLPC spurred a whole new type of portable computing, which itself begat touchpad computing? Or were these devices already in the pipeline, with OLPC wisely using the coming trend to meet an educational need they recognized?
Clemmitt
This is the end, my friend. Posted Nov 5, 2011 21:21 UTC (Sat) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link] Finally, dropping them from helicopters most likely means there is no customer for these units. No customer means no payment.What a strange argumentation. I don't get it.. at all. You mean whenever help is a provided, e.g. by means of dropping food, you assume that it is bad because they're not a consumer or something? There are difficulties to overcome. Not 100% of the devices will serve a useful purpose. This applies to pretty much everything.
This is the end, my friend. Posted Nov 6, 2011 1:41 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] No, the olpc project should not get any credit for netbooks: Asus should. The eeepc was far more revolutionary than the olpc in my view. The $100 laptop was just a trivial generalization of the sub-$1000 desktop of the late 90s, and a goal that the olpc project failed to meet.
Sorry, but no. Posted Nov 6, 2011 9:11 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] No, the olpc project should not get any credit for netbooks: Asus should. Both OLPC and ASUS were integral to the success of netbooks. First ASUS netbook was basically "OLPC for mere mortals" so it's hard to say that netbooks have nothing to do with OLPC, but later models switched to Windows, dropped still more OLPC ideas and that is what made them mainstream. The eeepc was far more revolutionary than the olpc in my view. Wow. Name one capability which Eee PC 701 which was neither in XO-1 nor in normal laptop. Eee PC was quite obviously made by using some revolutionary ideas from XO-1 and keeping other, so how can it be "more revolutionary"? Just because it was sold in regular shops? Is it such a revolutionary idea? The $100 laptop was just a trivial generalization of the sub-$1000 desktop of the late 90s, and a goal that the olpc project failed to meet. Actually they met all the technical goals they shoot for. Political goals (sales measured in millions, etc)... not so much. Some (not all) ideas from XO-1 were reused in Classmate PC and, later, in Eee PC. To say that XO-1 is "just a trivial generalization" but Eee PC is "far more revolutionary" is to say that facts don't matter.
Real artists ship Posted Nov 6, 2011 22:43 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] The Eee PC was the first usable computer to feature: solid state disks, desktop (or rather, laptop) Linux, below 2kg, for about $250. While the OLPC XO-1 was a toy which did not meet its goals: neither sub-$100 laptop nor a boon for third world education. (And by the way, mass production for under $100 was a technical goal.) Other technical goals not met by the OLPC project: the weird touchscreen, dual e-ink displays, the bloody crank, mesh communications, hordes of third-world open source developers after magically viewing source code. Not to speak about self-sustaining education materials or other organizational goals.Of course, being sold in shops was a major market shift and part of the real revolution. Believe me, I was in the market for a similar thing for a few years, but there was nothing similar. Asus said: "computers for regular people don't have to be so expensive". Meanwhile, Negroponte said "kids should get a bizarre education with a computer and no training". I think there is a big difference. By the way, the Eee PC 2G shipped before the XO-1 (either in "Give 1 Get 1" programs or to developing nations). Did the 2G use some of the ideas of XO-1? I doubt it; the ideas were floating all around and everyone was having them, just that Asus was the first to deliver. As Jobs said, real artists ship.
Ignorance is bliss? Posted Nov 7, 2011 0:34 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The Eee PC was the first usable computer to feature: solid state disks, desktop (or rather, laptop) Linux, below 2kg, for about $250. Have you actually looked you your link? It quite explicitly says: The Eee series is one response to the XO-1 notebook from the One Laptop per Child initiative. At the Intel Developer Forum 2007, Asus demonstrated the Classmate PC and the Eee PC, and listed specifications for four models of the Eee PC. ASUS quite explicitly created Classmate PC for Intel as response to XO-1 (when Intel was kicked out of OLPC) and it decided to sell "civil" version on the side. [the heavy delirium about hordes of third-world open source developers being unmet "technical goal" skipped]Asus said: "computers for regular people don't have to be so expensive". More like ASUS said "we have this cheap educational laptop - why not give it an interesting name and sell in stores". Good idea, but hardly a thing worth worshiping. Meanwhile, Negroponte said "kids should get a bizarre education with a computer and no training". Well, sure. Yet his educational ideas failed but technical approach revolutionized world. I think there is a big difference. About as much as difference between Xerox Alto and Mac: first was revolutionary development which spawned the whole "GUI revolution", second one was just one of copy-cats with delusion of grandeur. I doubt it; the ideas were floating all around and everyone was having them, just that Asus was the first to deliver. Actually ideas were not "floating around" but were concentrated on laptop.org website instead. ASUS only needed to reimplement them. As Jobs said, real artists ship. Jobs was master of deception and while I admire his ability to call white black and convince audience that he's right... white is still white, sorry. Real artists rarely ship - because this is different skillset. But it does not mean that salesperson which grabbed the work of artist and run with it can be called "real artist". Don't get me wrong: Jobs was an artist and he did ship - but this was rare exception, not rule.
Ignorance is bliss? Posted Nov 7, 2011 4:38 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] ASUS quite explicitly created Classmate PC for Intel as response to XO-1 (when Intel was kicked out of OLPC) and it decided to sell "civil" version on the side.I read the link, I was alive at the time and remember the story. Intel created the Classmate PC as a response to OLPC. Meanwhile (probably not as a consequence as the wikipedia article seems to imply) Asus came up with a product that had decent specs and their own operating system. Even if the Eee PC was inspired in the Classmate PC which was inspired on the OLPC, and something more than a wikipedia article should be required to prove it, it was Asus who thought it might make a viable computing platform and started the category of netbooks. My personal opinion is that it was a case of concurrent rather than causal development: Asus did not come out with the Classmate PC and afterwards decided to build a "civil" version, the dates don't match. [the heavy delirium about hordes of third-world open source developers being unmet "technical goal" skipped]OK, but you conveniently oversee the other failed technical goals: dual e-ink displays, the bloody crank, mesh communications, the failed touchscreen concept and the $100 price point. So no, they did not meet all their technical goals.
Now we are in the "ignore the facts if they don't support my theory" territory... Posted Nov 7, 2011 9:26 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I read the link, I was alive at the time and remember the story.Selective memory? OLPC creation: 2005. Classmate PC demonstration: 2006. Eee PC demo: 2007. Meanwhile (probably not as a consequence as the wikipedia article seems to imply) Asus came up with a product that had decent specs and their own operating system. Oh yeah. First ASUS was given the Classmate PC sample and then, year later, it "independently" created Eee PC with identical specs. LCD, CPU, all the hardware is the same - the only difference is the case (less rugged but more stylish) and amount of memory (256MB/2GB vs 512MB/4GB). Sorry, but I can not call soldering of bigger chips "huge innovation". Asus did not come out with the Classmate PC and afterwards decided to build a "civil" version, the dates don't match. You mean: year is not enough to build clone? Come on: ASUS engineers are pretty good.
Rather in the "no facts so my opinion is as valid as yours" Posted Nov 7, 2011 9:41 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Bending the facts a little now, are we? According to the last Wikipedia link, Asus demonstrated the Classmate PC and the Eee PC at the same time:At the Intel Developer Forum 2007, Asus demonstrated the Classmate PC and the Eee PCWhat you link here is not a demonstration but an announcement. But OK: it was a joint development between OLPC, Intel and Asus, and the cookie should be divided in three portions. You think that OLPC and Classmate PC (education-oriented machines) were precursors to the Eee PC, fine. In my view innovation is not just thinking about something but making it happen; if it was the former then the cookie should be mine too because I dreamed about such a machine in 2005. All happy now?
orders of magnitude aren't trivial Posted Nov 6, 2011 15:21 UTC (Sun) by quanstro (guest, #77996) [Link]
in computer science, it's usually a bad idea to call orders of magnitude
trivial. orders of magnitude are were mere quantitative change intersects qualitative change.
Not an order of magnitude Posted Nov 6, 2011 22:48 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Agreed. But the OLPC did not make that order-of-magnitude change, not even the promise: they just rode the wave. OLPC promised a $100 laptop when laptops could be had for about $600, and then failed to deliver. They were not a game changer in any sense of the word, but just used the round figure (100) to get attention.Now, the raspberry pi board...
Not an order of magnitude Posted Nov 6, 2011 23:57 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
before the OLPC nobody was interested in making low-capability, cheap laptops. everyone was focusing on the side of moors law that said that you could get more for the same amount of money, so everyone was keeping prices of low-end devices about the same, they just got more capable over time.
the OLPC was the first project to really use the flip side of the law that said that for the same capability the price drops.
no, they didn't quite get to their $100 target, but part of that is that they had to increase the specs of the machine in order to run current software, and a larger part is that they never got the real quantities they were aiming for (which would have driven prices down), that said, they did get things to <$200 per machine, which was unheard of at the time they started
Asus and others realized from the OLPC project that there was a market here, and created devices in the $400 range.
the raspberry pi is another stab in this direction, it is skipping quite a few things that the OPLC included: keyboard, monitor, power supply, case, networking (wireless at that), once you add in all those things I don't think it is any cheaper. It's advantage is that in 1st world countries, many of these things will be available to be borrowed.
Not an order of magnitude Posted Nov 7, 2011 4:05 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I bought my Eee PC 701 2G for $250 on Easter 2008. And that is counting with retailer and manufacturer profit. Meanwhile, the XO-1 never got below $400 retail, and the theoretical $200 gave you a machine with worse specs than the 2G. That was probably because the 2G used standard parts, but that is the whole idea of netbooks: use yesterday's parts to sell wicked machines.
Not an order of magnitude Posted Nov 7, 2011 4:37 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the OLPC got down to $200 each in quantity purchases. the $400 price purcased 2 macines, one that you got and one donated elsewhere (and yes, those donated machines really were delivered)
there are a lot of devices that are not available to the general public in small quantities, that doesn't mean they don't exist
Either, or, please... Posted Nov 7, 2011 0:42 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Now, the raspberry pi board... Does not exist. Because you can not buy it in stores. Please be consistent: either OLPC created netbook concept or raspberry pi does not exist yet. Please choose: either the first tradesmen gets credit or artist gets credit, you can not have it one way in one case and another way in other case. I doubt Raspberry Pi Foundation will actually achieve more then OLPC did.
Either, or, please... Posted Nov 7, 2011 0:48 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the raspberry pi team has only slipped their shipping target a month, it's far too soon to call them a failure.
OLPC had a far larger impact than the number of shipped laptops alone. It is fair to call it a failure in terms of the number of laptops shipped, but only compared to the incredibly insane numbers that were being talked about initially.
raspberry pi is not aiming nearly as high, and if they 'only' ship the 10K devices that they expect to have available starting in a month or so, I think they will be a success.
in both cases, the ideas being introduced are what will matter far more in the long run than any particular hardware.
I'm not saying raspberry pi is a failure... Posted Nov 7, 2011 0:57 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] the raspberry pi team has only slipped their shipping target a month, it's far too soon to call them a failure. I'm not saying that they are failure. I'm saying they will not achieve more then OLPC. But since man_ls's definition of "success" is strictly "you can buy something in store" raspberry pi does not exist yet and probably never will. in both cases, the ideas being introduced are what will matter far more in the long run than any particular hardware. Sure, but to be consistent man_ls should attach ideas from raspberry pi to ASUS, Acer, HTC or anyone else who'll first manage to sell them in stores.
It can still happen Posted Nov 7, 2011 4:14 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] The raspberry pi can at least happen because it is in the future. The project can achieve their goals because they are not a pipe dream: "promote the study of computer science and related topics, especially at school level, and to put the fun back into learning computing." If they don't ship, and another manufacturer comes out with a $40 real thingie which computes, then the latter should get the credit for their work. Just as the BeagleBoard has its own merits, although someone should have told them to drop the RS-232 and put an Ethernet connection in there.
Sorry, but we live in different worlds Posted Nov 7, 2011 9:33 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The raspberry pi can at least happen because it is in the future. Not in your world. You've outlines you position pretty cleanly: only retail counts. Raspberry pi does not target retail thus it'll never happen in your world. Raspberry pi may happen in my world, but never in yours. If they don't ship, and another manufacturer comes out with a $40 real thingie which computes, then the latter should get the credit for their work. Got that. If that's indeed your position then it's pointless to continue discussion with you. Thank god for comment filtering. Happy trolling.
Different worlds indeed Posted Nov 7, 2011 9:57 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Thanks for defining my position so clearly; unluckily it is a bit more complicated than you portrait. You are also mischaracterizing the Raspberry Pi's intentions.First, the raspberry pi is targeting general availability, not just selected education deployments. "The minimum order quantity will be one unit" counts as "retail" to me. So, even if only retail counted, it should not be discounted. Second, goal achievement should be measured according to what those goals were. The OLPC set out to change education worldwide, and failed. Asus put out a new retail product, and they not only sold tens of millions but created a new retail category; thus they succeeded. Last but not least, sorry that you will not be reading my comments, but I am not sure I will be missing your answers. It is sad that we are often so close-minded to dissonant opinions.
Different worlds indeed Posted Nov 7, 2011 16:03 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] The OLPC set out to change education worldwide, and failed. Asus put out a new retail product, and they not only sold tens of millions but created a new retail category; thus they succeeded. I think that with less shouting and more listening there might be more agreement on display than either of you realise. Asus certainly deserve the bulk of the credit for the retail netbook segment, but it was arguably an act of opportunism on their part: establishing a brand reputation for retail products while shipping low-end parts (small screen, recently-introduced CPU line) that other laptop producers probably weren't interested in. But had the OLPC project not stimulated or articulated demand for such machines, small form factor laptops might have remained a premium item, like the Palm Foleo or the current craze for ultrabooks (although the latter will probably also have 17" screens and the usual nonsense over time, if not already). As for the Raspberry Pi, the project wisely avoids many of the areas that you keep criticising about the XO-1. There's no screen being shipped (a significant innovation in the XO-1 that probably won't be adopted by many other products for reasons that deserve further investigation), and the more radical networking aspects of the XO-1 are replaced by more pedestrian options, but the project has still fallen into the trap of relying on highly proprietary essential chipsets - even more so, one might argue - and this may cause a lot of problems in future. Note also that the Raspberry Pi is not exactly blazing a trail: there's a glut of embedded solutions at around that price point, which is why the project seems to be able to hitch a ride with a vendor for the solution being offered. Some of the buzz around the project seems like nostalgia for the days of the BBC Micro. Although I was a huge fan of the BBC and Acorn computers in general, let us hope that the mistakes of that era - a proprietary standard from a single vendor - are not also reproduced alongside the benefits of the endeavour.
Different worlds indeed Posted Nov 7, 2011 16:39 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Thanks for the insightful comment. I did not know that the raspberry pi was so closed; let us hope that it is at least completely hackable with free software. Binary blobs would be very disappointing.
Different worlds indeed Posted Nov 7, 2011 17:17 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] Well, it's the accelerated graphics on the Broadcom chipset that's the primary issue, I think. One could argue that the close relationships between the initiative-takers and Broadcom, possibly a result of a fair number of Cambridge-based, ex-Acorn people (hence the BBC Micro vibe) being pulled into positions in Broadcom subsidiaries, may have led to a degree of complacency about such issues, but time will tell. (There was a remark that a port of the proprietary RISC OS to the Raspberry Pi would probably work out because one of the people involved also works at Broadcom.)
It can still happen Posted Nov 7, 2011 9:46 UTC (Mon) by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978) [Link]
Drop the RS-232? That would not be good for kernel development (or system development, occasionally.) In any case, the Beagleboard XM *does* have an ethernet port.
It can still happen Posted Nov 7, 2011 9:54 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Nice! The BeagleBone at 69 looks even more attractive.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 13:27 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Right on: It is my experience also that getting hardware is much, much easier than getting motivated people who know what to do with it, and that generating "content" (here educational software and materials) is a very large undertaking. The best educational software/contents around are Google and Wikipedia.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 13:34 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
http://www.khanacademy.org/ also deserves a mention. It's much more limited than wikipedia obviously, but on the flipside, it's much more directly geared towards learning.
in particular, the math-part (sign up and try a handful of exersizes if you haven't already) are amazing.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 14:06 UTC (Fri) by bobsol (subscriber, #54641) [Link]
OLPC was never interesting to me as support for children. What children all over the world need is food, a safe place to sleep, face time with caring adults and play with other children. Technology is way down on my list.
What was interesting about OLPC was the innovation in low cost technology. Likely we owe netbooks to OLPC. At this point, the commercial market has caught up. I doubt the the XO-3 will look shiny next to a Kindle Fire.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 19:43 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
You are wrong.
I've been to poor countries and education is THE BEST way to help them. That's the best way to create prosperity.
Besides, you can't help poor countries by giving them food (that's about the worst possible thing you could do, in fact) and providing security is not really feasible either.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 5, 2011 9:32 UTC (Sat) by blujay (guest, #39961) [Link]
That begs the question, what is prosperity?
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 5, 2011 23:53 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Prosperity is the state of flourishing.
That is a prosperous society is one that individuals have the ability to garner wealth. The higher level of prosperity the easier the ability for people to garner wealth.
Wealth is defined by goods/services that make a person's life better by filling needs and desires. It is impossible to put a overall number of wealth or quantify wealth because it is a extremely subjective.
A example:
Say I have a tuna sandwich and you have a glass of milk. I don't really want to have a sandwich because I am not hungry, but I am thirsty. You have all the milk you need, but would actually prefer a sandwich. So we exchange it. We perform a voluntary transaction by exchanging goods. As a result we are wealthier. In this transaction no wealth was stolen, but exchanged. So we are both better off with our needs and desires better met. And, in a small way, the net wealth of society is increased. Even after the food is consumed we are still better off because that we preferred to consume it to satisfy our appetites.
People often confuse wealth with money. It's a very easy mistake to make since on a individual level it is almost always true that having more money can make you more wealthy. But this is not ipso facto true that a society with more money is wealthier then a society with less money. Money exists to facilitate trade. It allows people to easily gauge the relative costs of different goods and is the key to the ability to do accurate accounting of profits and losses.
Confusion between wealth and money is just about one of the two most common economic fallacy there is. It's source of all sorts of really bad thinking and mistakes by individuals and governments. Even the majority of economists are not aware of the fundamental mistakes they can make with associating wealth with money. Very destructive.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 28, 2011 23:02 UTC (Mon) by vomlehn (subscriber, #45588) [Link]
"Been to poor countries?" I've *lived* in poor countries. Oh, and I've also spoken enough of their language to have serious conversations and listened to them tell me what their lives are like. Education is irrelevant without food, just like food is irrelevant without water and water is irrelevant without air.
Piaget sort of falls apart at the higher level of the needs levels, but the bottom ones are spot on. When you have food and water and shelter and physical safety, *then* you get benefit from education. And the benefit at *that* point is huge.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 18:06 UTC (Fri) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
If an American helicopter drops something on your village, the safest bet is to assume it is a bomb.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 4, 2011 22:05 UTC (Fri) by csigler (subscriber, #1224) [Link]
As an American, please allow me to correct you.
You're thinking of a UAV, a.k.a. drone.
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 5, 2011 13:25 UTC (Sat) by Pawlerson (guest, #74136) [Link]
Just don't use Damn Vulnerable Linux for this operation. Something like Unbreakable Linux would be better.
SFnal observation Posted Nov 10, 2011 12:35 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link]
Vernor Vinge was way ahead of the game yet again.
Much the same idea is a major part of the plot in "A Fire Upon the Deep" (published 1992).
The sods must be crazy: OLPC to drop tablets from helicopters to isolated villages (ars technica) Posted Nov 28, 2011 23:16 UTC (Mon) by vomlehn (subscriber, #45588) [Link]
Bless Mr. Negroponte's heart, but if he is serious, this is silly. Technology requires a context. If I give you a pencil, and you don't know what writing is, you are not going to know how to write in a year. I'm all in favor of OLPC but he is commiting the same mistake we engineers are prone to: forgetting that technology is made by people, for people, and has no relevance outside that. (When technology gets relevance outside of people, the discussion will get a lot hairier)
|
|||||||||||||