That's entirely possible yes. But it's not the most rapid way to get computing into the hands of third world children, and that was the point of the project. So people who say it's not sad that OLPC failed because netbooks will take over are missing that point.
I'm assuming? I'm assuming? That was the target "market" of the OLPC. The fact that ASUS and other netbook manufacturers said "that's not lucrative" is entirely my point.
The push towards lower power in the west is extending battery life.
Wrong again. The push towards lower power consumption in laptops is to provide greater performance. This is one of the biggest complaints of consumers.. battery technology is getting better and better.. CPU and display power consumption is getting lower and lower.. yet a laptop still only gets 3 hours of use before a recharge is required. Why? Because laptop manufacturers feel the need to provide comparable performance to desktops.
On February 12, 1982 Vinod Khosla, Andy Bechtolsheim, and Scott McNealy, all Stanford graduate students, founded Sun Microsystems.
Len Bosack and Sandy Lerner, a married couple that worked in computer operations staff at Stanford University, later joined by Richard Troiano, founded cisco Systems in 1984.
Neither Graduate students, nor "computer operations staff" are not academics.
Those are all desirable qualities in any laptop computer - why would anyone not want them?
What part of this is hard for you to understand? Cause it seems to be pretty obvious to everyone else.
Sunlight readable screen. Westerners don't use laptops in sunlight. For the few that do, they expect to pay a premium.
Rugged. Panasonic sells the "Toughbook" which has as much uptake as Volvo does outside Europe. Why? Cause to make something tough you, pretty much, have to make it ugly. And, again, you don't really need it in the western work, so you expect to pay a premium.
Low power. Saving power and being green is a luxury that westerners are paying lip service to at the moment. The requirements to fill that need are a long long long way away from the requirements of a child living in a third world country that has no power infrastructure.
I'd also like to add that one of the greatest features of the OLPC was the ad-hoc mesh network. There is exactly zero desire for this in the US as 1. infrastructure already exists 2. people don't like working together because it inevitably means that freeloaders get on, and Americans have an irrational hatred of freeloaders 3. there are entrenched interests who will actively try to prevent it for their own benefit.
Sorry, I was obviously assuming that my audience was already aware of how NN fucked up. He assumed Microsoft, Intel and all the politicians wouldn't play dirty. Then he whined about how dirty they were playing. They just ignored him, so he had a little hissy fit, then started making concessions. Game over. All of which could have been avoided if he had shown a little restraint and gotten buy-in from the big players.
No. Laptops that work well in full sunlight and are rugged and low power are not being built by anyone, and won't be. All these requirements require compromises that won't sell well in the first world.. and that's always the target audience. This is why trickle down economics doesn't work.
Was a time when I would happily defend Nicholas Negroponte.. that time has passed. His ego and incompetence had a lot to do with the failure of this project.. but that's to be expected.. he's an academic.
Congratulations, you crushed a competitor and, at the same time, destroyed hope for millions of needy people.
Even if you disagree that third world governments buying these laptops would have done anything, at least it might have gotten them interested in greater investment in education.. it might have gotten them thinking that more of the first world actually gives a shit.
Because so many other nations do. Even India has a great space program. Why wouldn't the US?
Why does the US have a civilian space program?
Because militarization of space at this point in time is impractical and expensive, so international treaties require the separation of peaceful space exploration from military conquest in a transparent fashion.
Why does the US have a civilian space program?
Because space is the future of human kind. Earth was the cradle of humanity but one cannot stay in the cradle forever.
The point being, the GP is apparently trying to argue that economic decisions should be strictly about money, which is not what the free market is (entirely) about.
That's exactly the opposite of what I was arguing.
Slashdot is full of dickheads like you who can't even follow a simple argument.
Let be break it down into baby step for you because obviously you're incapable of thinking for yourself:
1. The theory of "economic rational" is that whenever an agent is presented the option to make more money than to make less money, they should choose to make more money. Even if there is other mitigating circumstances, they should make this decision, as the price as determined by the market will have taken these circumstances into account, and if it hasn't then they should haggle for a higher price. [NOTE: THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT] 2. To prove a theory is difficult, if not completely impossible in the social sciences. 3. To disprove a theory is easy, all you need to do is find a single example for which the theory does not account. 4. Some people are not happy with single examples, claiming that the theory need not be "perfect", so you often have to find more than one example. For some people it takes a lot of examples before they'll even think about a strongly believed theory. 5. I presented a few examples where people make decisions against their better interests as determined by economic rational theory. I alluded to others. 6. I tried to pick examples that people could relate to. 7. I tried to head off at the pass arguments that my examples were invalid because of differences of opinion. I, personally, find taking shit from customers to be demeaning, some other people do not. I, personally, find taking one's clothes off for money demeaning, some other people do not. I tried to make the argument that it is easy for you to imagine a situation that you would agree with that captures the basic essence of these decisions I described. 8. Another poster suggested that I was creating a straw man that was easy to knock down. Notably, that when you have a choice between two activities result in $X and $Y expected return and $X > $Y that you should always choose $X or you are not being economically rational. This person at least understood my argument (I think, but this Slashdot) so he's one up on you, but in any case, he's wrong, because that's what economically rational decision making is, by definition. 9. You retards managed to find the keyboard and slap out a reply that is retarded and emotional.
It's cooler than that. Hawking radiation is literally the creation of matter from space. Virtual particles form on the event horizon of a black hole in pairs. One of them goes into the black hole, the other one doesn't.
I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless. Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.
Hehe.. why do you think women get paid more to be strippers than to be waitresses? There already is a market for lost self-respect. People choose not to participate in it.
1. earn minimum wage at McDonalds 2. earn less than minimum wage selling drugs
Which do you choose? Selling drugs of course. Why? Cause you've got respect for yourself and refuse to work a demeaning job.
Before you object, whether or not you agree that working at McDonalds is demeaning is irrelevant. Many, many, many women have been given the choice:
1. work as a stripper 2. work as a waitress
and decided that working as a waitress is less demeaning than working as a stripper. You may disagree with that, also but that's also irrelevant. The facts are that you can make a lot more money working as a stripper than as a waitress, and yet so many people choose not to.
It's a shame he didn't explain how much identification was required to request this information and how well that identification was checked. I imagine ex-spouses and employers would love a list of where you've traveled and who paid for the ticket.
It's like these things all get written by some geriatric lawyer who's thinking "Those damn whippersnappers aren't doing anything important on that intarthingy anyway".
umm.. they're written by lobbyists for the music industry.. an industry of which "geriatric" is a gross understatement. They've failed to keep up with technology and now they're sinking fast. If they could get the Internet banned outright, they would.
Slashdot Mirror
That's entirely possible yes. But it's not the most rapid way to get computing into the hands of third world children, and that was the point of the project. So people who say it's not sad that OLPC failed because netbooks will take over are missing that point.
I'm assuming? I'm assuming? That was the target "market" of the OLPC. The fact that ASUS and other netbook manufacturers said "that's not lucrative" is entirely my point.
The push towards lower power in the west is extending battery life.
Wrong again. The push towards lower power consumption in laptops is to provide greater performance. This is one of the biggest complaints of consumers.. battery technology is getting better and better.. CPU and display power consumption is getting lower and lower.. yet a laptop still only gets 3 hours of use before a recharge is required. Why? Because laptop manufacturers feel the need to provide comparable performance to desktops.
Being naive about the low down tactics of business and politics has everything to do with him being an academic.
What's your fucking problem?
On February 12, 1982 Vinod Khosla, Andy Bechtolsheim, and Scott McNealy, all Stanford graduate students, founded Sun Microsystems.
Len Bosack and Sandy Lerner, a married couple that worked in computer operations staff at Stanford University, later joined by Richard Troiano, founded cisco Systems in 1984.
Neither Graduate students, nor "computer operations staff" are not academics.
Get a clue.
Those are all desirable qualities in any laptop computer - why would anyone not want them?
What part of this is hard for you to understand? Cause it seems to be pretty obvious to everyone else.
Sunlight readable screen. Westerners don't use laptops in sunlight. For the few that do, they expect to pay a premium.
Rugged. Panasonic sells the "Toughbook" which has as much uptake as Volvo does outside Europe. Why? Cause to make something tough you, pretty much, have to make it ugly. And, again, you don't really need it in the western work, so you expect to pay a premium.
Low power. Saving power and being green is a luxury that westerners are paying lip service to at the moment. The requirements to fill that need are a long long long way away from the requirements of a child living in a third world country that has no power infrastructure.
I'd also like to add that one of the greatest features of the OLPC was the ad-hoc mesh network. There is exactly zero desire for this in the US as 1. infrastructure already exists 2. people don't like working together because it inevitably means that freeloaders get on, and Americans have an irrational hatred of freeloaders 3. there are entrenched interests who will actively try to prevent it for their own benefit.
Sorry, I was obviously assuming that my audience was already aware of how NN fucked up. He assumed Microsoft, Intel and all the politicians wouldn't play dirty. Then he whined about how dirty they were playing. They just ignored him, so he had a little hissy fit, then started making concessions. Game over. All of which could have been avoided if he had shown a little restraint and gotten buy-in from the big players.
Is the equivalent challenge for America in 2017 going back to the moon? Not really. At all.
Going back there permanently is just as hard as going there for an hour and then coming back.
No. Laptops that work well in full sunlight and are rugged and low power are not being built by anyone, and won't be. All these requirements require compromises that won't sell well in the first world.. and that's always the target audience. This is why trickle down economics doesn't work.
Yeah, cause it's rude to expect an academic to not understand the realities of business.
Was a time when I would happily defend Nicholas Negroponte.. that time has passed. His ego and incompetence had a lot to do with the failure of this project.. but that's to be expected.. he's an academic.
Congratulations, you crushed a competitor and, at the same time, destroyed hope for millions of needy people.
Even if you disagree that third world governments buying these laptops would have done anything, at least it might have gotten them interested in greater investment in education.. it might have gotten them thinking that more of the first world actually gives a shit.
Why does the US have a civilian space program?
Because so many other nations do. Even India has a great space program. Why wouldn't the US?
Why does the US have a civilian space program?
Because militarization of space at this point in time is impractical and expensive, so international treaties require the separation of peaceful space exploration from military conquest in a transparent fashion.
Why does the US have a civilian space program?
Because space is the future of human kind. Earth was the cradle of humanity but one cannot stay in the cradle forever.
Dude, he's no actor. Actors can remember their lines. Politicians just read the teleprompter.
The economically rational human is a myth. [..] No, it isn't. It's just that people value things other than just money.
You're an idiot.
Yes, that was my argument, thank you very much for repeating it.
The point being, the GP is apparently trying to argue that economic decisions should be strictly about money, which is not what the free market is (entirely) about.
That's exactly the opposite of what I was arguing.
Slashdot is full of dickheads like you who can't even follow a simple argument.
Let be break it down into baby step for you because obviously you're incapable of thinking for yourself:
1. The theory of "economic rational" is that whenever an agent is presented the option to make more money than to make less money, they should choose to make more money. Even if there is other mitigating circumstances, they should make this decision, as the price as determined by the market will have taken these circumstances into account, and if it hasn't then they should haggle for a higher price. [NOTE: THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT]
2. To prove a theory is difficult, if not completely impossible in the social sciences.
3. To disprove a theory is easy, all you need to do is find a single example for which the theory does not account.
4. Some people are not happy with single examples, claiming that the theory need not be "perfect", so you often have to find more than one example. For some people it takes a lot of examples before they'll even think about a strongly believed theory.
5. I presented a few examples where people make decisions against their better interests as determined by economic rational theory. I alluded to others.
6. I tried to pick examples that people could relate to.
7. I tried to head off at the pass arguments that my examples were invalid because of differences of opinion. I, personally, find taking shit from customers to be demeaning, some other people do not. I, personally, find taking one's clothes off for money demeaning, some other people do not. I tried to make the argument that it is easy for you to imagine a situation that you would agree with that captures the basic essence of these decisions I described.
8. Another poster suggested that I was creating a straw man that was easy to knock down. Notably, that when you have a choice between two activities result in $X and $Y expected return and $X > $Y that you should always choose $X or you are not being economically rational. This person at least understood my argument (I think, but this Slashdot) so he's one up on you, but in any case, he's wrong, because that's what economically rational decision making is, by definition.
9. You retards managed to find the keyboard and slap out a reply that is retarded and emotional.
It's cooler than that. Hawking radiation is literally the creation of matter from space. Virtual particles form on the event horizon of a black hole in pairs. One of them goes into the black hole, the other one doesn't.
I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless. Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.
It's in Freakonomics. (clearly you didn't read it)
Then those people are not presented with that opportunity. Thanks for finding something else irrelevant. You can always rely on Slashdot.
Hehe.. why do you think women get paid more to be strippers than to be waitresses? There already is a market for lost self-respect. People choose not to participate in it.
You have the choice:
1. earn minimum wage at McDonalds
2. earn less than minimum wage selling drugs
Which do you choose? Selling drugs of course. Why? Cause you've got respect for yourself and refuse to work a demeaning job.
Before you object, whether or not you agree that working at McDonalds is demeaning is irrelevant. Many, many, many women have been given the choice:
1. work as a stripper
2. work as a waitress
and decided that working as a waitress is less demeaning than working as a stripper. You may disagree with that, also but that's also irrelevant. The facts are that you can make a lot more money working as a stripper than as a waitress, and yet so many people choose not to.
The economically rational human is a myth.
It's a shame he didn't explain how much identification was required to request this information and how well that identification was checked. I imagine ex-spouses and employers would love a list of where you've traveled and who paid for the ticket.
It's like these things all get written by some geriatric lawyer who's thinking "Those damn whippersnappers aren't doing anything important on that intarthingy anyway".
umm.. they're written by lobbyists for the music industry.. an industry of which "geriatric" is a gross understatement. They've failed to keep up with technology and now they're sinking fast. If they could get the Internet banned outright, they would.