[dundee] OLPC Videos...niiiiiiiiiice!

[Gary Short]

Arron M Finnon wrote:
> Look guys i'm going to get in the middle.  This has blown up out of
> proportion and i think i'm not going to be the only one here hoping
> people stand back for a moment.

No need to worry Arron, just a few guys tossing a few ideas around. No 
harm being done here. :-)

> In Lee defence he didn't call you a troll Gary, that i believe was Kris
> in his post.  

Yes it was Kris, but Lee referred to the "trolling" that was going on, 
so I took that to mean he agreed with Kris.

> However you implied that Lee was paranoid in yours, and
> should take off his tin foil hat, in the end, by your definition Gary,
> you posted something that would be fair to say would cause controversy
> and get a reaction.

I did use the term tin foil hat but, as I explained, I used the term as 
a colourful way of describing dogma, I didn't say anyone was paranoid. 
Is dogma too strong a word? Well maybe, but I posted the idea that that 
the answer to education in the developing world was more teachers not 
laptops; and Lee and Kris basically came back with "Microsoft sucks". 
Which, if you hold that idea is fine, but it has nothing at all to do 
with the topic I was posting on. Now maybe that's not dogma, but if its 
not, what is it? Anyway, forget all that, I believe in attacking a bad 
arguement, not attacking the person making it.

> I actually think that you two would get on.  

Of course we would. We are both grown ups, just because we have 
different opinions doesn't mean we're going to hate each other. :-)

> However Gary you going to have to understand that there is going to be a
> level of M$ bashing, and it's not like people on this list have not
> worked with, or used M$ and are entitled to call their products whatever
> they like.  I'm pretty sure that Ballmer and Gates won't really mind.

I've got two points here. Firstly, why do I have to accept there is 
going to be a level of MS bashing? I help run a .Net user group in 
Dundee, there's a few Linux guys turn up to it ('cos at the end of the 
day we're all techies right?) but I wouldn't expect them to have to put 
up with a level of linux bashing, I mean the thought wouldn't enter our 
heads to start slagging off their choice of tools, why is it different 
in your group? Secondly, even if I accept that there is going to be a 
level of MS bashing, what does MS have to do with the point I was 
making? I mean, I didn't post that the OLPC was a load of rubbish and 
that it should run an MS OS and software. I made no comment on the 
technology at all; what I said was the concept was wrong if what you 
wanted was a sustainable program for developing world education. Now, if 
you think OLPC is the best way to go, then I'd expect you to come back 
with arguements as to why that is, but almost the first reply that came 
back was "Microsoft sucks!", which just struck me as well, odd really.

> So i am not going to get involved in this flame anymore than this, i
> also encourage people to do the same, this is not what we signed up for
> and we are a friendly community.  This doesn't help anyone.

I agree, which is why I've continually tried to steer the conversation 
back to laptops vs teachers and away from "my God is bigger than your 
God" type OS religious wars.

> So if your still prepaired to discuss your points Gary (i'll understand
> if you don't).  I would ask pound for pound what else could be done with
> the money in these countries bearing in mind it's going to be a hell of
> a lot less than a $100 dollars per head?

Of course I'm still prepared to discuss my points, that's what we are 
all here for right? Okay, what would I do? First, let's get the 
ecconomics right. Its not $100 per head. Okay that's the price of the 
end unit, but the development of the concept and the product is a 
muliti-million pound endevour. You can't tell me that for those millions 
you couldn't put real teachers in front of the kids in these villages. 
That's where the real value lies if you want a sustainable education 
program.

Secondly, why is it okay for us in the developed world to require more 
teachers and reduced class sizes when we feel our education system is 
not all it should be, but the kids in the developing world don't deserve 
the same? We demand more teachers for our kids, but not for them. Why is 
that? If laptops are the best solution for education, why are we not 
rolling them out to all pupils in the UK? The answer is because 
educationalist know that the best way to educate kids is with teachers 
and for the millions that the development of the OLPC scheme has cost, 
you could provide a hell of a lot of teachers.

> 
> Yours hoping that neither Lee or Gary is too peeved with me.

Not at all, friendly debate never hurt anyone ;-)

-- 
Gary
http://www.garyshort.org