Slashdot Mirror
OLPC Announces Buy-2-Get-1 XO Laptop Sale
theodp writes "Starting November 12, The One Laptop Per Child Project will sell its affordable XO laptop to Americans for a brief period of time, but there's a slight catch: U.S. buyers must purchase two computers — one for their own child and one for a child in the developing world — for a total cost of $399. 'Staff members of the laptop project were concerned that American children might try the pared-down machines and find them lacking compared to their Apple, Hewlett-Packard or Dell laptops. Then, in this era of immediate global communications, they might post their criticisms on Web sites and blogs read around the world, damaging the reputation of the XO Laptop, the project staff worried. So the laptop project sponsored focus-group research with American children, ages 7 to 11, at the end of August. The results were reassuringly positive.'"
I thought this was the $100 laptop?
If so, how is it buying two costs $399?
Or are they Canadian dollars?
Is your next kid going to be named '95'?
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Yes. Specifically, they need to know how to use computers. Most of the teachers don't really know how, and worse, most of them are certain that they do. The best way to teach them is to give them a simple one that isn't (readily) capable of playing flashy video games, music, and movies, but can be programmed.
This has to be done before they're thrown the high school "Computer 101" class where they're put through every circle of MS Office Hell. With very few exceptions, you can't start teaching someone to code in college; either they've already been doing it, or they'll never know how. The kids who took the Office classes in high school and think it made them computer savvy don't normally last past the first year in CS.
Look at it this way. You're buying one for your kid. And also for some strangers kid. Its a selfless act.
.. this would be an astoundingly peaceful action. What modern child wouldn't want to communicate with another kid around the world using their new laptops?
IMO, Americans could do with far more such selflessness these days.
What would be really great in my opinion is if the two laptops were somehow registered such that the kids can get to know each other
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
"Buy a Laptop for a Child, Get Another Laptop Free"
We're getting a $100 laptop for free when we pay $399 for two?!
Luckily both weren't for free, or we would have to pay $799!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Or the rest of the world for that matter. Are we not good enough to buy those? I can see the teen from a third world country who worked and saved his money for years to get one of those, only to be told "Sorry, you can't buy it! You need to be given it, and your government has chosen not to give one to you!"
Why do children need to code anyway? And why do they need to use a computer? Isn't it better to teach them to think, and other basics such as reading, writing, and maths?
www.itjerk.com
Despite your first comment, you really do miss the point.
You are not buying a $399 laptop. You are buying a $188 laptop and donating $211 to a charitable cause.
I am not kidding. Look, I happen to know that learning calculus as a ninth grader is no big deal. I taught myself Calculus, because it wasn't even offered by my school. It was not typical then for kids in the ninth grade to be ready for Calculus then, any more it is now. More importantly, it is not a particularly impressive or important accomplishment to learn calculus in the ninth grade. Any sufficiently motivated parent can transform a moderately talented child into a "prodigy" capable of doing all kinds of mathematical parlor tricks above his age level. I've seen it happen, and by in large these "prodigies" don't grow into a population of adults that contribute more to society than others of their general talent level.
It is not so important that kids learn things early so much as they learn them well.
The Achilles' heel of ed reform in math is that it often addresses the wrong question. The most important question is not how much math kids can do, so much as the amount of math they understand. It's one thing to be able to perform in an integration bee, it's another thing to be able to think in terms of applied math. In my state, kids in middle school are way ahead of where most high schoolers were in my day in being able to translate everyday problems into mathematical terms. Of course, your state may be different than mine. Remember: ed reform is state based. The Republican educational reform model is broken: it demands "tough standards" but it's quasi "states rights" ideology means those standards cannot have any Federally mandated (or apparently even recommended) content. Thus "education reform" might mean teaching creationism in Kansas or keeping maps of the Soviet Union in place in Colorado (so far as I know).
With respect to 486s -- I'd rather have kids with 486s, the Logo language, and a good teacher than the latest quad core processor, electronic flash cards and an apathetic teacher. Of course this is a false dichotomy, but the point I'm making is that of all the factors involved, the quality of the curriculum and its implementation far outweigh the level of tech.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why should you consider an OLPC over an Eee PC? Because the OLPC program is about giving kids an education and technology that will enable them to build a 1st world future for their 3rd world country. The machine itself has a very accessible user interface: it is highly simplified, and not does not expect the newcomer to be literate in any particular language. (The latter is important because there are many dialects out there, and because children may not be literate when they are initially given these machines.) It also makes learning IT accessible, since it involves two excellent programming tools for the learner: Squeak (via eToys, a.k.a. Squeak), and Python. In many ways, it is about teaching them "how to fish" rather than giving them the fish. If you think about this in dollars and cents, you are missing out on something great. If you think that they should be given food or the ability to grow it, you're missing out on something too. Not everyone is able to contribute to the welfare of others in the same way. Negroponte and his band of loyal academics, geeks, and so forth decided that their ability to contribute is through IT. After all, that's where their skills and aspirations lay. The food first angle also misses the point that the peoples of many nations don't want to be stuck in a subsistence or donor recipient situation. The want an education so that they can grow beyond the handouts of the 1st world. (Of course other peoples and other nations have other aspirations.) To some, the OLPC may step beyond the bounds. The OLPC is not perfect, and it isn't only about price. It's initial introductory mantra of the "$100 laptop" was mostly about making it accessible by making it inexpensive. And even though it is $400, I hope to snag one through this deal. I have seen the computer, and it is rugged and useful. As an educator, I also see that it may have more utility than the standard "made for the office" desktop/laptop PC. Perhaps I would also use it to contribute back to the project if I did get one.
In november 2005, when it was first announced by Carlo Negroponte and Kofi Annan, it was hoped that it would cost around $100. Currently it is going to cost $188. That's an increase of +88%.
Quanta, the maker, is Taiwan-based. The local currency is the New Taiwan Dollar (NT$, TWD).
The initial $100 was at that time 3'358 NT$, and is currently 6'214 NT$, which is a ~ +85% increase.
Some may argue that the, because the NT$ isn't a strong currency, the $ may had repercussion that pulled it down allong. Given the fact that there's a lot of international collaboration going on behing the OLPC project, it won't be too far fetched to compare to other international currency for reference.
In Euro, the initial $100 corresponded in 2005 to 85.50 , and the current price of $188 is 136.25, which is only ~ +60% increase.
In Swiss francs (CHF), the price jumped from 131.10 SFrs to 223.70 SFrs, which is only ~ +70%.
In Japanese Yen (JPY), the price jumped from 11'844 Y to 21'619 Y, which is only ~ +82%.
So depending of who we take as a reference point, results do vary, BUT indeed we see that part of the prise increase may come from the dollar itself loosing its value.
What would be most interesting is to see potential buyers :
Brazil (BRL) : 221.00 to 345.28 thus ~ +56% (only)
(The only country from the OLPC's list whose currency history I managed to find... )
Or country that might be targeted (although not currently interested) :
India (INR) : 4'563 Rs to 7'588 Rs thus ~ +66% (only)
Thailand (THB) : 4'110 B to 6'048 B thus ~ +47% (only)
We definitely see a trend there : the price of the OLPC hasn't risen as much in developing countries as it had in the USA.
Thanks to Wikipedia and Google for the DATA.
Not that I am not an economist. Also I only calculated currency. Factoring the Purchasing power, or the duration of work given salaries in those countries, would be interesting too.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It's true here too, for example the 1 Euro coins from Belgium, Germany and France are amazingly similar...
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
If the "third world kid getting a laptop" thing isn't an "advantage" in your mind, then you either have low hopes for the educational value of these laptops, or you're the love child of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
My state is Massachusetts. I did not bring it up, because it automatically brings up a lot of extraneous political issues.
It is not correct to say that ed reform is unambiguously working in Massachusetts. In some areas, such as social sciences, the results are not satisfactory. Ed reform has a number of negative impacts on the quality of education, including, I believe, unhealthy amounts of homework. There are now serious and challenging curricular requirement in Kindergarten, and Kindergarten students are being assigned homework. The state is beginning to talk about curricular requirements in preschool and even as a condition of licensing family day care providers. Many schools are cutting out arts education and sports in order to maximize their performance scores.
These, in my opinion, aren't positive developments.
However in math, the program is the most successful component of the reforms. First, we were early in on the ed reform process, our reforms starting in 1993, seven years ahead of most of the country. Also, when tests are introduced, schools teach to the tests. I've looked at some of the questions in the test MA requires to graduate high school, and their is considerable emphasis on mathematical thinking, which I think is a very good thing to teach. Thought is required to set up the solution of the problem, which is as mechanically challenging as any reasonable person could wish.
The vast majority of adults in the general population would most frequently fail at either the conceptual or mechanical aspects of the problems. More likely both. Provided that the students retain the abilities needed to pass the test, requiring all students to have them is clearly an advance in general mathematical education. It seems likely to me that a program balanced between mathematical thinking and mathematical mechanics will result in higher retention than programs which are exclusively based on being able to perform a collection of algorithms when prompted.
Many of the mechanical skills of arithmetic are introduced at about the same pace as they were in the 60s, or maybe a bit faster. Geometry is more integrated into the curriculum earlier, going back to foundations introduced at the K and 1 level, and really in earnest by the fifth grade. Also, much greater emphasis is put on word problems. Converting word problems into solution plans is taught in parallel with reading, right from Kindergarten (most kids are reading when they enter first grade). Considerable conceptual content is covered all along the way laying the foundations for algebra. This content becomes recognizably algebraic by the fifth grade, although still within the context of a general "math" subject.
There is training on skills that my generation was supposed to pick up on its own. For example, children in my kids' elementary school are drilled in estimating correct answers, as well as producing them algorithmically. Finally these math skills are consciously put to use in the science and technology curriculum, through projects like rocketry or bridge design and testing.
Overall, I don't care if the kids don't see a lick of calculus until they are college, so long as they can find a use for the mechanics of calculus by the time they get out of college. That said, most students would, in my opinion, be well prepared for a strong introductory course by the time they are juniors in high school, not that that is so important. What matters most in mathematics is the strength of the foundation, not the height of the edifice.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This differs from the greenback how? Cash isn't money, it has no intrinsic value - confidence in the cash is the money. All paper currency is "money stamps".
> she really did think altruism was evil
That would be my read as well, but after declaring it evil I doubt she would do anything to prevent you from doing something she though wrongheaded, stupid or even evil so long as you weren't using force (taxes) to do it.
And that is really Freedom Zero. The Right to be Wrong. Person A must be free to think/argue that person B is 'Wrong' but the second they try to enforce that choice on person B they become more wrong. Even though it doesn't fit perfectly I'll use this topic for an example.
If you believe OLPC is 'altrustic' (and believe that to be a bad thing) it is perfecly acceptable to argue the project should not be supported on those grounds in the public arena. Convince enough current supporters to abandon it and it dies, again that is perfectly ok. To even attempt to convince Congress to stomp on it crosses the line to wicked. Of course it is equally wicked to solicit Congress for any assistance on such a project, too bad THAT part is ignored every day Congress is in session.
Democrat delenda est