One Laptop Per Child and Intel Join Forces

dan the person writes "A Wired piece informs us that Intel and the OLPC project have put their bickering behind them. They have joined forces to ensure 'the maximum number of laptops will reach children'. '"What happened in the past has happened," said Will Swope of Intel. "But going forward, this allows the two organisations to go do a better job and have better impact for what we are both very eager to do which is help kids around the world." "Intel joins the OLPC board as a world leader in technology, helping reach the world's children. Collaboration with Intel means that the maximum number of laptops will reach children," said Nicholas Negroponte, founder of One Laptop per Child. The new agreement means that Intel will sit alongside companies such as Google and Red Hat as partners in the OLPC scheme.'"

Comments

Does that mean US parents can buy them now?

[bADlOGIN]

Before the US becomes a 3rd world country due to competition from
India and China who can get the OLPC Laptop in special deals to
make their next generation of children more competitive?

Waits to be flamed

[jshriverWVU]

The OLPC concept is good, but seriously I think we have more pressuring issues to deal with. I'm not against the advancement of technology and what the OLPC has done has been good for what it was designed for.

But at the same time I feel like it's a waste of money compared to better causes, like I dont know, FEEDING or MEDICINE for kids. Granted I grew up poor, and I wish I had a laptop when I was in high school and younger would have been able to kick start my career even earlier. But even then if it came to me having a free laptop, or seeing the kid down the street who eats government peanut butter on bread (no jelly) every day and no medical insurance. I'd gladly give it up to feed him/her for a while.

From a small thinking perspective this project is great, from the big picture it's just diverting funds that could have been better used. For those about to flame me, Yes we should go to Mars! But we should we get things straight down here first.

Re:Waits to be flamed

[suv4x4]

But at the same time I feel like it's a waste of money compared to better causes, like I dont know, FEEDING or MEDICINE for kids. Granted I grew up poor, and I wish I had a laptop when I was in high school and younger would have been able to kick start my career even earlier.

You know, growing up in this world isn't about being comfy, having everything given to you, or everything being absolutely fair. Those are concepts that don't exist.

"No pain no gain".

Truth is if developed countries just keep sending trucks of food and medicine in Africa (say), they'll just be more and more dependent on it, and "adapt" to it, versus seek to be standalone. I'm not saying OLPC will suddenly change all of that. But consider which is better:

growing old in your mom's basement and mom giving you food and medicine every day, mommy's great big boy

or

educating yourself and looking for a job, even at the cost of it being very hard for you at times

The chain has to break at some point. People will die, and some will survive. Those who survive will no longer need food and medicine be fed to them, and will possibly have some form of self-sustaining economics developed. It's cruel, but it's how we came to be in the first place.

Re:Waits to be flamed

[Warbothong]

You're exactly right, so get the hell hell off Slashdot and sell your computer to get some bread to give to these countries. And whilst you're at it, dismantle your house, since I'm sure the plumbing system would come in handy for an irrigation system and there are countless other things you could do. Everybody should give up any modern technology they have until everyone in the world has it. Otherwise how else will the world advance? Surely nothing to do with new technological advances helping those less fortunate people in the world, because banging stuff together in huts has much more potential than mass production in modern robot-filled factories with the output being flown by aeroplane to those that need it.

Or maybe you could stop flaming the efforts of people to make a difference in countries that could do with a boost. Yes there are many people out there who would be incredibly offended if their governments gave them a computer instead of some food, but guess what? They're not the governments who the OLPC project is targetting! They are targetting countries whith decent infrastructure, but where education could be given a boost. So instead of spending masses and masses of money on textbooks which are single-purpose, become obsolete, can be damaged, etc. how about making a laptop which can replace all of them, whilst costing about the same amount as one? Plus the fact that all of the collaboration and networking stuff in the laptops means that they let kids learn in places where there are no schools and are no teachers, since the current system of sit down, shut up and listen to the teacher doesn't really work without one.

As for the actual news story, so what? Intel screw the OLPC project by making a computer in the complete opposite way (instead of inventing new technologies to overcome limitations, they just rip any useful functionality out of an ordinary laptop until it costs $200), then use their financial might to sell it below cost, to the exact countries that the OLPC guys have negotiated with, where it is pretty much useless anyway (for the software it runs it is WAY underpowered, it is not sealed so it can't even run underwater and would clog in a desert (you wouldn't be scoffing if you only had 2 seasons, rainy and dry), it can only be charged from an electrical outlet (yeah, plenty of those is remote villages...), its Wifi can't mesh, meaning it needs an access point just for 2 of them sitting side by side to be able to talk, the battery only lasts 2 hours, the screen is unreadable in bright sunlight (ie. outside), the list goes on). They then join the OLPC board, but do nothing to halt this product they have made. So where is the news? Come back when the Classmate piece of crap has been scrapped, THEN at least Intel will at least be close to breaking even, since the fact they did it at all gives them -1000 points.

The capitalist idea of 'choice' does not apply in this situation. To someone with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In an area like this it is way way way better to stick to one open, changable design and improve any shortcomings over time, than it is to allow multiple efforts to compete over resources until neither of them have enough left to survive. For Intel that is the point, since they have a solid base to win a war of attrition. The fact that they are waging it completely without just cause against a charity which didn't ask for it makes me sick, and I would have no problem at all taking a dump in the mouth of whatever Intel suit came up with this sordid plan. That is, unless they're into that kind of stuff, in which case I'd settle for tattooing "DON'T TRUST ANYTHING I SAY" to their forehead.

Re:I have a bad feeling about this

[Alistar]

Heck, we basically live in a sci-fi world looking through the eyes of a 1930s person.

They would have never have thought you could get a computer into the size of a watch.

Secondly, there is more to computer and technology group than coders.
I don't know what your background is specifically, but something that electronic engineers learn in their very first year of classes is a little thing called the transistor and boolean algebra. Thats kind of pretty much where our modern electronics stem from at the moment.

I can build you an AND gate an OR gate, a NAND gate out of 3 cent transistors. If I plug enough of those transistors together in logical patterns I can basically make the equivalent of a processor (it would huge and weak compared to today) but its a start. Size would take a step back till the miniturization could be redone I suppose, but its not quite the apocalyptic scenario you make it out to be.

Re:OT: housing in Sumatra

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

I know it's off-topic (sorry), but (s)he asked, so here goes....

For starters, you're talking about houses that are built on the assumption of a centralized water supply system, which doesn't currently exist to any meaningful degree. The same can also be said for the new schools and nurseries. In addition to assuming water will be supplied, the builders assume an availability and usage rate of water that while reasonable in North America or Europe for instance (and we use LOTS of water, btw) is simply unrealistic and prohibitively expensive to run -- it becomes a burden. It's like driving a SUV when you can only afford gas for a moped.

It's not a simple issue, but to provide some context even a family that manages freshwater sparingly (saltwater for bathing, etc) will spend about 30% of their household income on water. Aside from the potential losses in the house itself (from e.g. higher flow rates than would otherwise be used), the very nature of centralized systems (which are typically leaky and lossy even in modern North American and European cities) raises the expense for a user, even before factoring in excessively leaky pipes and the repercussions from a lack of metering.

If you're interested/curious about other aspects, let me know and we can talk more about it in a more appropriate forum.