[dundee] OLPC Videos...niiiiiiiiiice!

[Rick]

On 20/01/2008, Andrew Clayton <andrew at digital-domain.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:18:43 +0000, Gary Short wrote:
>
> > Okay, now you're talking. I never considered that point. At the end
> > of the day I never critisised the OLPC as a technology, just that
> > there was a better way to achieve that goal. I didn't consider the
> > fact that Negroponte wouldn't have gotten funding for more teachers.
> > Though, I believe if he had tried he would have. Who would argue that
> > laptops are better than teachers? I guess we'll never know.
>
> I don't know where this teachers thing keeps coming from. Of all the
> OLPC stuff I've seen and read, I've never heard anything about teacher
> shortages or such.
>
> I believe the teacher also gets a laptop so they aren't being left out
> in that way.

I think you're misunderstanding the conversation here.  The point
wasn't about a lack of teachers regarding the OLPC project (though
from the wording I can see how you might think that).  The point was
in response to Gary's original point and opinion that (and I'll
paraphrase) "The millions spent on OLPC would have been better spent
on more teachers/schools etc...".  The impetus behind this is that
yes, developing nations could use more schools and teachers (but then
couldn't we also?)

My point was based on a belief that the OLPC project has unlocked
investment which would not have otherwise been available.  And that
Negroponte, with his MIT and technology background can make a good
case for investment at delivering a $100 laptop, yet would fare less
well raising money for more schools.

I also believe that by approaching developing nations with a cheap
laptop and educational story, you are encouraging further investment
in schooling and education which might not have otherwise occurred...
Though there is a risk that you are diverting resources away from
where they are really needed.

> There is a lot of FUD about the OLPC laptop, seemingly from Microsoft
> and Bill Gates specifically. After seeing his latest rant on the topic,
> it's clear he doesn't get it.

This may well be true, and the conflict of interest caused by Intel
being on their board (until recently) certainly hasn't helped.  But I
don't see any FUD here, more just a valid point suggesting that the
money might be better spent in more traditional ways.

--
Rick Moynihan
rick.moynihan at gmail.com
http://sourcesmouth.co.uk/blog/