Classmate PC swallows OLPC: won't somebody please think of the children?!
By Thomas Ricker 
posted January 10th 2007 10:41PM
posted January 10th 2007 10:41PM
posted January 10th 2007 10:41PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
is this thing really pink? if it is, im moving to a third world country. thats awesome!
I'm really sorry to have to say this but how come that all the kids in the third world countries are getting laptop computers, like free of charge, and I (or anybody I know) don't even have laptops. Ok, so you might say that they are only for 'educational purposes', bet we don't even have that. I'm not saying that the kids in the third world countries should be any mode disadvantaged than us, but I really don't think that it should exceed the first world countries.
If your going to give them a laptop, consider passing one this way.
Or how about giving them clean water and other basic necessities for fighting disease and hunger -- far more pressing issues to most third-world children (and people) than be able to access WiFi at the local overpriced coffee shop.
This whole OLPC campaign is one of the stupidest things in recent memory. Shows how clueless a lot of industrialized countries are. Not that technology companies can't make a difference:
1. cheap, renewable power generators
2. portable, easy-to-use, water purification
3. medical support for treading diseases we thought were beaten (but aren't)
Laptop computer? Signficantly further down the list....
Consider this:
Giving children laptops promotes literacy, allows access to information on agriculture and sustainable development, and is a step towards putting citizens on an equal intellectual footing with the larger companies using them for cheap labour.
It should by no means be a replacement for grassroots literacy courses, water supplies and medical attention, but it's by no means a stupid investment - just a push in a new direction.
I also would like to add that we can only give what we have. I could give some expertise on, say Linux or AIX, but couldn't provide much in the way of water purification. The OLPC people probably are giving that which they are capable of giving. The water purification people have to do their own charity.
Robert, I understand what you and ruzkin are saying -- I just disagree. You gotta walk before you can run.
Having spent a little time in a few third-world countries, I recall meeting some little kids selling trinkets on the side of the road. When my group asked them why they weren't in school, it wasn't because they were unable to download a streaming Internet video, or weren't able to access current events via a web browser; it was because their families couldn't afford PENCILS and PAPER. People in this position would barter away their OLPC for food.
I agree with Greg; an equal amount of money spent on good old-fashioned BOOKS would probably do more to promote literacy. Plus, books can be shared and exchanged with others, are less likely to be hoarded/misappropriated by corrupt government officials, and at least you can burn them for heat (seriously) when you are finished with them.
I'm not sure I still buy the OLPC concept. Not to be too cynical, but I'm thinking most won't end up in the hands of poor kids in the third world.
Besides, if we were worried about literacy, it might help to send books instead of laptops. If we were worried about communications, why doesn't someone invest in some sort of semi-portable computer/phone/TV in a box? -- something small enough to ship easily to a remote village yet big enough to for an entire village to use to get news, information and medical advice.
As it is, I just see a bunch of kids getting their laptops stolen.
Erik_the_red's priorities go well with Dean Kamen's stirling engine project -- IIRC, it filters water and generates about 300 watts.
Erik: I agree with you on the books thing. The most problematic things about the OLPC program is that the stuff will be handled by governments. Governments in general are more concerned with control than prosperity, and those in the areas targeted by the program are the worst of the lot.
I'd be more than happy to buy one once they hit the consumer market, especially as they require you to buy one for yourself and one for a child in the developing World. I've just been looking up the OLPC on Wikipedia and had to laugh at this Bill Gates quote, “If you are going to go have people share the computer, get a broadband connection and have somebody there who can help support the user, geez, get a decent computer where you can actually read the text and you're not sitting there cranking the thing while you're trying to type.” That doesn't sound at all like typing on a £99 15" budget brand monitor through an underpowered £299 Windows PC does it? ;)
1. The line about how we shouldn't give kids laptops before they have food sounds great until you think about our own poor: why build inner-city playgrounds when they don't have enough to eat? why put computers in their schools when they don't have health care? (And yes, I do think American kids would benefit from the OLPC, but I recognize their whole plan is oriented towards mud huts, not tenements.)
And the answer is, there are immediate needs and there are long-term needs. There are aid organizations already attempting to provide food, clean water and health care. It would be foolish and contrary to their expertise for a bunch of MIT nerds to start yet another organization to do what the guys who've been doing it for 30 years are doing. Education is a long-term need, and the American experience with the GI Bill should tell any doubters that spending a bunch of money on education will have long-term benefit.
2. It seems unlikely to me that people will be able to barter their OLPC laptops if every kid has one, meaning most families will have what, 4 or 5 in the house. Of course, I guess they could use eBay to sell their "spares" to rich Americans.