[LINK] $100 laptop could sell to public
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Sat Jan 20 10:35:34 AEDT 2007
Stephen Loosley wrote:
> At 09:00 AM 19/01/2007, Tom writes:
>> I am still not sure a $100 laptop for each child is the way
> Neither am I but people are working hard to do exactly that.
> And I do think it's fat-white-west to diss these efforts to give
> remote schools free, clockwork and quite desirable laptops.
> The only people who could possibly attack anyone working
> to help others in this way would be people actually trying to
> send free pipes-to-Pakistan. They want both, why not help?
The politician's syllogism: "We must do something -- this is something
-- we must do this".
Nobody is denying the need to help, we're debating the value of this
> And, why would one crap on efforts to help kids in any way?
> Uninformed cynicism might seem almost 'evil' to some folk.
> Basically, if you don't like it, either help or get out of the way
> is the over-whelming response one is hearing on other lists.
Sequitur please? In what way do I have to accept an instruction from
someone, somewhere, that I need to shut my mouth because I have some
responsibility to "get with the program"? In what way is discussion or
debate of the merits of the idea somehow wrong or unacceptable.
I have said before - but it is wasted breath in front of a zealot - that
if an idea is a good idea, then it can stand scrutiny. If it's not a
good idea, then debate is the right thing to do. But if the idea -
whether it's fibre to the home or OLPC - cannot stand discussion, then
it's the idea which is at fault, not the discussion. "Help <our way> or
get out of the way" is not debate, and let me be one against a hundred,
I will still say "the idea needs debate".
> Maybe it is the wrong way to help (?) but people who would
> not be helping in any way are rushing to do just that. Laying
> off the uninformed 'rich-white-sophisticate' seems sensible.
I wish to be informed, but there are many points in the OLPC debate
about which information is hard to come by. Let me give one example: to
accept that OLPC is a good way to spend money on third-world education,
I have to accept many premises all at once:
1. Computers are a better way to spend money than teachers and books
2. The relevant governments place a high value on a particular kind of
education which is best facilitated by computers
3. The OLPC is the best or most feasible way to deliver the computers
4. The computers themselves will provide long-term value without "doing
what computers do" and falling out of step with the information and
software they need to access five years from now
Now: (2) is ridiculous, with many governments visibly and loudly
anti-education; while (3) and (4) are still debatable.
As for (1): it is supported by much more advocacy than evidence. "So
many educated people have computers" is evidence that education allows
you to buy things, including computers; it doesn't offer evidence that
computers support the education. "Look at all the laptops students
carry" is evidence that there's a status race among schools, students
and parents. And even educational software itself is subject to regular
revolutions which suggests to someone who's watched this stuff for a
couple of decades that we're still surveying the territory even in the west.
The OLPC is driven by fine sentiments and laudable enthusiasm. Sentiment
and enthusiasm are good for petrol in the tank, but they're lousy
map-readers. So what is the sin in asking these questions? That I offend
someone's enthusiasms? I think I can live with myself...
> Cheers, linkers
> Stephen Loosley
> Victoria, Australia
More information about the Link