It sounds like you're lobbying for the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie house.
Ah, that old argument. I'm lobbying that people be treated as adults, instead of as children who constantly need to be looked after by Big Brother so that they do not go astray.
Do you think that if the hate speech propagated by the radio personalities in Rwanda had been halted there would still have been a massacre of 800,000 people? [If we don't censor speech, bad things will happen.]
But what if neo-Nazis use the postal service to spread their message of hate and discuss their vile ideology? We need the government to read everyone's mail now so that no pro-Nazi mail is ever sent! But what if they use email? Oh noes, we need the government to read all of that too. What if they get together in their houses and discuss their vile ideology? OMG, we need to the government to install video cameras in every house to make sure that does not happen! But what if they go into the wilderness to discuss their vile ideology? We need to install sub-dermal implants in all citizens so that the government can make sure that people don't say pro-Nazi things in the wilderness. But what if they use sign language in the wilderness? We need the government to install ocular implants in all citizens to make sure that that does not happen! What if they communicate using more code by tapping each other's stomachs while looking away! Oh noes, now were really doomed because I can't think of a way that the government can prevent that! I guess it's time that the government just placed everyone in solitary confinement to prevent that. It's the only way!
No. In other words speech should be free until it incites violence against others. Perhaps that is a difficult concept to grasp as so many here have failed to understand that.
Good job. You've just outlawed verbal support for the colonials that wanted to rebel against the British Crown (ever heard of the American revolution?) including the founding fathers. You've just outlawed every other revolutionary movement (including anti-colonial, anti-imperial, and pro-democratic movements) as well. You've outlawed verbal support for communism, which depends on the proles rising up and violently beating the crap out of "the rich." You've also outlawed verbal support for socialism, which is dependent upon involuntary taxation, which is possible only when violence can be used to coerce people to pay their taxes (e.g. if you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your house, and take you to jail; if you resist, they'll beat the crap out of you). Just the other day, there was a Slashdot thread where people were seriously discussing violently overthrowing the American government; I guess Slashdot can be banned now as well, and all those people can go strait to jail. We can go on, and on.
Would you defend my right to try to convince people that you should be dragged into the street and shot?
I'd give you a microphone so that the whole world can be exposed to your "extraordinary" logic.
First they defined hate speech as "posting death threats online," and I did not speak up because I didn't post death threats online. Then, they defined hate speech as "racist material" and I did not speak up because I wasn't a racist. Then, they defined hate speech as "Islamophobia," and I did not speak up because I wasn't against Islam. Then, they defined hate speech as "anti-Christian material," and even though I really hated Christians, I did not speak out because I knew the consequences. Finally, they defined hate speech as "not swearing complete and utter loyalty to the current ruling class," and there was nothing that could be done as the entire apparatus of speech and thought suppression was already well established.
Censorship is not a liberal vs. conservative thing. It's a authoritarian vs. libertarian (or classical liberal) thing. It's also a big government vs. small government thing (not that you, as an alleged "conservative" would know anything about that).
Every government does that, and it's unlikely that any petition will end that.
For at least one government, however, it is actually illegal to censor websites due to their constitution. If you have any proof of them doing so, you can sue them.
This may not be a popular view with the yanks, but not all censorship or eavesdropping is inherently bad. The problem is making sure there are controls in place, so that that power can't be abused. The other problem is trust.
Great, another "enlightened" "nuanced" individual. We can argue about eavesdropping as eavesdropping can be framed as a method of information aggregation which does not suppress information dissemination. Censorship, on the other hand, purposely suppresses the dissemination of information. You're right about one thing, it is a matter of trust, and if you, as an adult (I assume), are willing to let bureaucrats and politicians, each with their own personal bias and agenda, control what you see, hear, or read, you are being quite "trustworthy."
"Amnesty International has a new online campaign against governments which censor websites
So, are they also going after all those "enlightened" governments that censor "hate speech" and neo-Nazi crap, or are they selectively enforcing their policy?
Yours is perhaps the best post of the entire thread. Very nicely done. I don't have any mod points, but you are going on my friends list.
I partly disagree with you on the paragraph containing: "As appose to some teachers I had in Canada that did not even bother to explain the lesson to the students, and expected us to read the text book/hand out without the help of a teacher."
I view bad teachers as another challenge to be overcome; a truly good student will persevere no matter the quality of the teacher. Furthermore, it is important that students learn to learn by themselves, instead of having information constantly spoon-fed to them. That being said, this society construct binds us all together and all those stupid people walking around who could have been a bit smarter if they had had better teachers are not a positive thing, and do have a negative impact (through all the social programs I have to fund from them, and through their performance, which is below their peak).
P.S. If you don't mind me asking, how long have you been living in Canada, and what do you think of the concept of multiculturalism, which is very popular in Canada?
I recommend this book, for your "actual history" fix.
Quite humorous. Let us examine perhaps the first historical assertion made by Mr. Chomsky: "The fall of Granada in 1492, ending eight centuries of Moorish sovereignty, allowed the Spanish Inquisition to extend its barbaric sway." What Mr. Chomsky forgets to mention is that the Moors were Muslim soldiers who had conquered and ruled most of Spain by force (link: "In 711 AD, the Moors invaded Visigoth Christian Spain. Under their leader, a Berber general named Tariq ibn-Ziyad, they brought most of Spain under Islamic rule in an eight-year campaign."). Their defeat ("loss of sovereignty") was a victory for the forces of anti-colonialism, and if Mr. Chomsky was truly anti-colonial instead of anti-Western, he would have hailed the reconquest of Grenada with exuberance.
Thanks the the American public "education" "system," the typical, illiterate American would be completely unaware of Mr. Chomsky's lies of omission or his peculiar framing of the situation, and due to their gullibility would accept his dubious statements at face value. On the other hand, had Americans been taught actual history (instead of the politically motivated drivel exemplified by Mr. Chomsky's work), as well as some critical thinking skills, as I orignially suggested, they would have been capable of thinking for themselves and most would have rejected Mr. Chomsky's peculiar interpretation of the events. Of course, as things stand at the moment, the typical, illiterate American cannot locate Europe on a map, let alone Spain; to expect the typical American to have any knowledge of the history of Spain, or of the Islamic Conquests of every civilization except for China (though they did try during the Tang dynasty) and some parts of Northern Europe would extremely unreasonable.
P.S. The rest of the "book" you linked to is fully of such historical distoritions, lies by omission, pseudo-philosophy, peculiar unsubstantiated assertions, and name dropping, all without any semblance of historical context whatsoever. I truly hope you did not "learn" "history" from it.
P.P.S. Ever hears of Battle of Tours, arguably the most important event in history? No? I wonder why. What about the Siege of Vienna. Still no? I really wonder why...
I also blame a lack of competitive spirit--it gets beaten out of us so nobody can be made to feel bad, the same reason my school no longer does anything to honor academic excellence like it does for sports.
Here's my idea: at the end of every year, hold a public assembly where the bottom 25% of students are called up in front of the entire school and laughed at. Let's call it a "social experiment."
If "The Right" wanted to shift public opinion to their side through the manipulation of the educational curriculum, they could simply mandate the teaching of basic economics (and perhaps some actual history that teaches more than just "white people oppressed everyone").
In some respects, our cultural trend towards political correctness has really come back to bit us.
Who would have guessed that suppressing freedom of expression and thought so that "no one would ever get offended" would have any negative side-effects?
Makes sense. After all, science plays no prominent role in hip-hop "culture," sports "culture," or Hollywood "culture." When you have a whole generation which idolizes only members of those three groups, what else should one expect?
The Great Firewall of China is about the Chinese government oppressing people within China. The "Great Firewall of the USA" is about some private companies only letting people from within the US (or with US IPs) download their product. This is no different than those bloody contests that only Americans can enter. Americans seem to have problems differentiating between walls designed to keep people out e.g. your house's walls, and walls designed to restrict the freedom of people within e.g. prison walls, the Berlin wall. If I hear one more illiterate American comparing a wall around the US-Mexican border (designed to keep people out) to the Berlin Wall (designed to keep people in, like a prison wall), I have no idea what I shall do.
The only way this story would be newsworthy would be if pirates saw the movie, were unhappy with what they saw, and decided to improve it by reshuffling the scenes around (sort of a Pirate's cut).
I can't quite make out the keyboards, but they look vaguely like the common English (American?) keyboard. This is reasonable for a prototype built at MIT, but not appropriate for most of the intended recipients... So what's the plan for including appropriate keyboards? Special keyboards for each locale, that only work there? Some scheme for a general-purpose keyboard that can be easily be used by children who speak/read/write Macedonian or Greek or Arabic or Cantonese or Mongolian or...?
Macedonian (from FYRM) is written using the Cyrillic alphabet. Greek is written using the Greek alphabet, but I don't think this project is necessarily target at the Greeks. Cantonese or Mongolian cannot be efficiently placed on a keyboard, and most input methods use a Roman alphabet keyboard. The Roman alphabet is used throughout Central and South America, all of Sub-Sahara Africa (with the exception of Ethiopia and Sudan if you want to include them), Turkey, India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia. That pretty much leaves the countries which use the Cyrillic alphabet and the Arabic script. The Cyrillic countries can use the Roman alphabet -- it's a little painful, but it's done commonly. That pretty much leaves the Arabic countries. Of course, this is ignoring accents and such used in languages using the Latin alphabet e.g. Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Vietnamese, but these can be omitted without too many problems; a solution such as dead keys could be implemented to rectify this if needed. In conclusion, a Roman alphabet keyboard should do fine for all countries with the exception of the Arabic script ones.
P.S. Here is a map with all the countries which use the Roman alphabet.
I did not "initiate" the whole matter. You were having a discussion with someone else, and I commented from the sidelines
Fair enough. Due to your conversational style and your use of the word "still" I mistakenly assumed you were the same chap I was conversing with before. I am man enough to admit when I am mistaken, so you have my apology on this matter.
I commented from the sidelines, that you are an ass. And I said that because you really are an ass.
There you go again. No respect for civil discourse, and yet, while my posts are almost instantaneously modded down into obscurity, yours are modded up to +5 for the whole world to appreciate and marvel at. Surely even you must admit that this is hardly fair, and points to an abuse of the moderation system. Surely even you must admit that I have never used any epithets or pejoratives and that I have conducted myself in a manner far more respectful than my opponents. Furthermore, even you must admit that while I have brought several important points to the discussion e.g. price discrimination, predatory pricing, and have supported my arguments with links, you have brought nothing to this discussion but hatred and bile. And yet, here we are; you at +5, and me at -1. Even you must admit that something seems amiss.
People in the "west" can also get one, but it will cost extra: $300.
Incorrect. Under the proposal, people in the west can still get one for $100/unit; however, they would be forced to buy them in groups of 3, and then forced to give up two units per group to charity.
Idea propably is that if they were sold at same rice, then they would just be sold to the geeks in the west, and not to the people it's really meant for.
If the computers were sold at the same price, why would they be more inclined to sell them outside of the "developing world"? They should have enough supply to meet all demand, especially as many people on this site claim that there is not much demand outside the "developing world" for a $100 computer, due to it being an inferior product (their claim, not mine).
If they ask the geeks for extra money, they would then have more money to spend on the laptops meant for the developing countries.
Incorrect. Reread the proposal and my posts.
But since their purpose is not to sell cheap gadgets to geeks, I fail to see why they should sell them here for $100.
I already covered this in great detail. Please reread my posts.
Are you pissed because there might be cases of someone who got it for $100 selling it for $200?
I'm not "pissed." I merely pointed out a well known problem with price discrimination.
And just because you had a crappy life when you were younger, you somehow feel that you are entitled to this particular gadget.
Entitlement culture is the West's gift to the world. I assure you that I have no feeling of entitlement whatsoever. I encourage you to reread my posts. The only reason why I even mentioned that I spent a huge chunk of my life living in piss-poor conditions relative the West was because some chap decided to launch a personal attack on me, and I felt the need to point out that he had selected the wrong method to go about it due to my personal history.
They would then have to be shipped back to rich countries and sold there at a profit. I don't think that it's worth it in the end.
To you, living in opulence, it would probably not be worth it. To others, however, it might very well be worth it. Never having been in the situation we are discussing, you are incapable of comprehending the lengths to which people are willing to go for what you would consider "little profit."
you still want cheap consumer goods at the expense of people still in a third world hellhole?
How is it at their expense? I'm not asking that they pay for it in any way. I am merely asking that the same product be sold at the same price. These folks at MIT claim to have designed a laptop which they can and will sell for $100 (I assume they are not selling it bellow the cost of production as that would represent a failure to achieve their goals and may even be illegal depending on the country; see Predatory pricing). This is not a rhetorical question. I would be quite pleased if you could answer how anything I requested thus far is "at the expense of people still in a third world hellhole."
As for the shipping and the cost of business providing a sufficient barrier to arbitrage, we shall see. You have your hypothesis, and I have mine; however, had I not presented you with mine, you would have almost certainly never come up with yours. You, in your opulence, claim that the profit would not be a sufficient motivator; we shall see my friend, we shall see.
Anything I say on the matter of your avarice, arrogance and lack of empathy is going to seem redundant.
Spare me your Judeo-Christian inspired emotional self-righteous belligerence. As for my avarice, and whatever other pejoratives and epithets you may feel the need to lavishly bestow upon me, it is sometimes those who have been deprived of food the longest who gorge themselves the most. Being a child of privilege, I would not expect you to be able to understand.
Having had sufficient material wealth for the entire course of your existence, you instead desire emotional satisfaction, which you seem to believe you will attain through your self-righteous antagonism of those you deem your moral inferiors, although, who, due to the bonds of your opulence, you shall never be capable of comprehending.
P.S. Don't forget to answer my question.
P.P.S. I fully expect this post to be modded down to oblivion by your cohort and fellow travelers just as all my others have been thus far.
How can a topical, point by point rebuttal of a post currently modded +4, Insightful be modded down all the way to -1, Offtopic? The hypocrisy of the average Slashdot moderator is astounding. Come on, mod this down as well, prove me right! May you all rot in meta-moderation hell (or purgatory, as the case may be).
The several billion people from around the world who manage to avoid being asses in spite of their socioeconomic background might take exception to that statement.
Hehe. That comment of mine was actually a jab at sociologists and the deterministic view they take.:)
Personally though, I'm against the practice of judging an entire person's worth as a human based on one comment on one subject, so I'm staying out of that bit.
Nice to meet you. People of your caliber seem rather rare nowadays (though I'm not sure if I should be making that assessment based only on one comment of yours on one subject).
Cheers.
I love how I got modded as Flamebait repeatedly for making a coherent argument and responding to provocation, whereas you, who initiated the whole matter get modded up as Insightful for calling me an ass.
And no, having a tough life is not an excuse for being an asshole.
The whole field of sociology disagrees with you on that one. If I am an ass, I am so because of my socio-economic background, and that is hardly my fault.
You are just pissed because people in third-world countris can have this laptop for 100 bucks, whereas you have to pay $300.
I'm pissed because I have read enough economic books to know about price discrimination and the problems that come with it e.g. how certain steps like preventing arbitrage have to be taken if you want to be a successful price discriminator.
Don't like the price? Then don't buy it and stop your whining.
Or I can not buy it and continue to express my opinion while being repeatedly modded down by slashbots.
They intend to sell them in "developing" countries, or distribute them through some sort of method, no? If they are not sold in "developed" countries, or are sold in developed countries at an inflated, discriminatory price, the incentive is created for people in the "developing" countries to sell their laptops to people in the "developed" countries. Basic economics. Unless that was the intent of the project, it would be advisable that the laptops are sold at a similar price everywhere to discourage arbitrage. And yes, I did "RTFA," to the extend that the "A" can be referred to as such.
Tell you what. Why don't you move to Africa with no money or resources, try to find work or an education, with little food, little to no medical care, the constant threat of violence, an unstable government, while relying on the kindness of strangers to even have a stab at making a decent life for yourself?
I was born and spent over 45% of my life in an underdeveloped shithole of a country where if you wanted food you had to stand in a line for hours on end, and if you said the wrong thing about the government "bad things" would happen to you and your family. Quit the condescending knee-jerk emotional arguments when you don't even know the first thing about me or my life. Address my points (price discrimination, how do they plan to prevent arbitrage?) or go wank your self-righteous self at the expense of others somewhere else.
And if they do intend to engage in price discrimination, I hope they have found a way to prevent arbitrage, or else people may make businesses out of buying them at $100 and selling them at ~$200 in the countries where the negative price discrimination policy is in effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops. s/more code/Morse code
It sounds like you're lobbying for the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie house.
Ah, that old argument. I'm lobbying that people be treated as adults, instead of as children who constantly need to be looked after by Big Brother so that they do not go astray.
Do you think that if the hate speech propagated by the radio personalities in Rwanda had been halted there would still have been a massacre of 800,000 people? [If we don't censor speech, bad things will happen.]
But what if neo-Nazis use the postal service to spread their message of hate and discuss their vile ideology? We need the government to read everyone's mail now so that no pro-Nazi mail is ever sent! But what if they use email? Oh noes, we need the government to read all of that too. What if they get together in their houses and discuss their vile ideology? OMG, we need to the government to install video cameras in every house to make sure that does not happen! But what if they go into the wilderness to discuss their vile ideology? We need to install sub-dermal implants in all citizens so that the government can make sure that people don't say pro-Nazi things in the wilderness. But what if they use sign language in the wilderness? We need the government to install ocular implants in all citizens to make sure that that does not happen! What if they communicate using more code by tapping each other's stomachs while looking away! Oh noes, now were really doomed because I can't think of a way that the government can prevent that! I guess it's time that the government just placed everyone in solitary confinement to prevent that. It's the only way!
No. In other words speech should be free until it incites violence against others. Perhaps that is a difficult concept to grasp as so many here have failed to understand that.
Good job. You've just outlawed verbal support for the colonials that wanted to rebel against the British Crown (ever heard of the American revolution?) including the founding fathers. You've just outlawed every other revolutionary movement (including anti-colonial, anti-imperial, and pro-democratic movements) as well. You've outlawed verbal support for communism, which depends on the proles rising up and violently beating the crap out of "the rich." You've also outlawed verbal support for socialism, which is dependent upon involuntary taxation, which is possible only when violence can be used to coerce people to pay their taxes (e.g. if you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your house, and take you to jail; if you resist, they'll beat the crap out of you). Just the other day, there was a Slashdot thread where people were seriously discussing violently overthrowing the American government; I guess Slashdot can be banned now as well, and all those people can go strait to jail. We can go on, and on.
Would you defend my right to try to convince people that you should be dragged into the street and shot?
I'd give you a microphone so that the whole world can be exposed to your "extraordinary" logic.
First they defined hate speech as "posting death threats online," and I did not speak up because I didn't post death threats online. Then, they defined hate speech as "racist material" and I did not speak up because I wasn't a racist. Then, they defined hate speech as "Islamophobia," and I did not speak up because I wasn't against Islam. Then, they defined hate speech as "anti-Christian material," and even though I really hated Christians, I did not speak out because I knew the consequences. Finally, they defined hate speech as "not swearing complete and utter loyalty to the current ruling class," and there was nothing that could be done as the entire apparatus of speech and thought suppression was already well established.
Censorship is not a liberal vs. conservative thing. It's a authoritarian vs. libertarian (or classical liberal) thing. It's also a big government vs. small government thing (not that you, as an alleged "conservative" would know anything about that).
Every government does that, and it's unlikely that any petition will end that.
For at least one government, however, it is actually illegal to censor websites due to their constitution. If you have any proof of them doing so, you can sue them.
This may not be a popular view with the yanks, but not all censorship or eavesdropping is inherently bad. The problem is making sure there are controls in place, so that that power can't be abused. The other problem is trust.
Great, another "enlightened" "nuanced" individual. We can argue about eavesdropping as eavesdropping can be framed as a method of information aggregation which does not suppress information dissemination. Censorship, on the other hand, purposely suppresses the dissemination of information. You're right about one thing, it is a matter of trust, and if you, as an adult (I assume), are willing to let bureaucrats and politicians, each with their own personal bias and agenda, control what you see, hear, or read, you are being quite "trustworthy."
"Amnesty International has a new online campaign against governments which censor websites
So, are they also going after all those "enlightened" governments that censor "hate speech" and neo-Nazi crap, or are they selectively enforcing their policy?
Yours is perhaps the best post of the entire thread. Very nicely done. I don't have any mod points, but you are going on my friends list.
I partly disagree with you on the paragraph containing: "As appose to some teachers I had in Canada that did not even bother to explain the lesson to the students, and expected us to read the text book/hand out without the help of a teacher."
I view bad teachers as another challenge to be overcome; a truly good student will persevere no matter the quality of the teacher. Furthermore, it is important that students learn to learn by themselves, instead of having information constantly spoon-fed to them. That being said, this society construct binds us all together and all those stupid people walking around who could have been a bit smarter if they had had better teachers are not a positive thing, and do have a negative impact (through all the social programs I have to fund from them, and through their performance, which is below their peak).
P.S. If you don't mind me asking, how long have you been living in Canada, and what do you think of the concept of multiculturalism, which is very popular in Canada?
I recommend this book, for your "actual history" fix.
Quite humorous. Let us examine perhaps the first historical assertion made by Mr. Chomsky: "The fall of Granada in 1492, ending eight centuries of Moorish sovereignty, allowed the Spanish Inquisition to extend its barbaric sway."
What Mr. Chomsky forgets to mention is that the Moors were Muslim soldiers who had conquered and ruled most of Spain by force (link: "In 711 AD, the Moors invaded Visigoth Christian Spain. Under their leader, a Berber general named Tariq ibn-Ziyad, they brought most of Spain under Islamic rule in an eight-year campaign."). Their defeat ("loss of sovereignty") was a victory for the forces of anti-colonialism, and if Mr. Chomsky was truly anti-colonial instead of anti-Western, he would have hailed the reconquest of Grenada with exuberance.
Thanks the the American public "education" "system," the typical, illiterate American would be completely unaware of Mr. Chomsky's lies of omission or his peculiar framing of the situation, and due to their gullibility would accept his dubious statements at face value. On the other hand, had Americans been taught actual history (instead of the politically motivated drivel exemplified by Mr. Chomsky's work), as well as some critical thinking skills, as I orignially suggested, they would have been capable of thinking for themselves and most would have rejected Mr. Chomsky's peculiar interpretation of the events. Of course, as things stand at the moment, the typical, illiterate American cannot locate Europe on a map, let alone Spain; to expect the typical American to have any knowledge of the history of Spain, or of the Islamic Conquests of every civilization except for China (though they did try during the Tang dynasty) and some parts of Northern Europe would extremely unreasonable.
P.S. The rest of the "book" you linked to is fully of such historical distoritions, lies by omission, pseudo-philosophy, peculiar unsubstantiated assertions, and name dropping, all without any semblance of historical context whatsoever. I truly hope you did not "learn" "history" from it.
P.P.S. Ever hears of Battle of Tours, arguably the most important event in history? No? I wonder why. What about the Siege of Vienna. Still no? I really wonder why...
I also blame a lack of competitive spirit--it gets beaten out of us so nobody can be made to feel bad, the same reason my school no longer does anything to honor academic excellence like it does for sports.
Here's my idea: at the end of every year, hold a public assembly where the bottom 25% of students are called up in front of the entire school and laughed at. Let's call it a "social experiment."
If "The Right" wanted to shift public opinion to their side through the manipulation of the educational curriculum, they could simply mandate the teaching of basic economics (and perhaps some actual history that teaches more than just "white people oppressed everyone").
In some respects, our cultural trend towards political correctness has really come back to bit us.
Who would have guessed that suppressing freedom of expression and thought so that "no one would ever get offended" would have any negative side-effects?
Makes sense. After all, science plays no prominent role in hip-hop "culture," sports "culture," or Hollywood "culture." When you have a whole generation which idolizes only members of those three groups, what else should one expect?
The Great Firewall of China is about the Chinese government oppressing people within China. The "Great Firewall of the USA" is about some private companies only letting people from within the US (or with US IPs) download their product. This is no different than those bloody contests that only Americans can enter. Americans seem to have problems differentiating between walls designed to keep people out e.g. your house's walls, and walls designed to restrict the freedom of people within e.g. prison walls, the Berlin wall. If I hear one more illiterate American comparing a wall around the US-Mexican border (designed to keep people out) to the Berlin Wall (designed to keep people in, like a prison wall), I have no idea what I shall do.
The only way this story would be newsworthy would be if pirates saw the movie, were unhappy with what they saw, and decided to improve it by reshuffling the scenes around (sort of a Pirate's cut).
I can't quite make out the keyboards, but they look vaguely like the common English (American?) keyboard. This is reasonable for a prototype built at MIT, but not appropriate for most of the intended recipients ... So what's the plan for including appropriate keyboards? Special keyboards for each locale, that only work there? Some scheme for a general-purpose keyboard that can be easily be used by children who speak/read/write Macedonian or Greek or Arabic or Cantonese or Mongolian or ...?
Macedonian (from FYRM) is written using the Cyrillic alphabet. Greek is written using the Greek alphabet, but I don't think this project is necessarily target at the Greeks. Cantonese or Mongolian cannot be efficiently placed on a keyboard, and most input methods use a Roman alphabet keyboard. The Roman alphabet is used throughout Central and South America, all of Sub-Sahara Africa (with the exception of Ethiopia and Sudan if you want to include them), Turkey, India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia. That pretty much leaves the countries which use the Cyrillic alphabet and the Arabic script. The Cyrillic countries can use the Roman alphabet -- it's a little painful, but it's done commonly. That pretty much leaves the Arabic countries. Of course, this is ignoring accents and such used in languages using the Latin alphabet e.g. Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Vietnamese, but these can be omitted without too many problems; a solution such as dead keys could be implemented to rectify this if needed. In conclusion, a Roman alphabet keyboard should do fine for all countries with the exception of the Arabic script ones.
P.S. Here is a map with all the countries which use the Roman alphabet.
I did not "initiate" the whole matter. You were having a discussion with someone else, and I commented from the sidelines
Fair enough. Due to your conversational style and your use of the word "still" I mistakenly assumed you were the same chap I was conversing with before. I am man enough to admit when I am mistaken, so you have my apology on this matter.
I commented from the sidelines, that you are an ass. And I said that because you really are an ass.
There you go again. No respect for civil discourse, and yet, while my posts are almost instantaneously modded down into obscurity, yours are modded up to +5 for the whole world to appreciate and marvel at. Surely even you must admit that this is hardly fair, and points to an abuse of the moderation system. Surely even you must admit that I have never used any epithets or pejoratives and that I have conducted myself in a manner far more respectful than my opponents. Furthermore, even you must admit that while I have brought several important points to the discussion e.g. price discrimination, predatory pricing, and have supported my arguments with links, you have brought nothing to this discussion but hatred and bile. And yet, here we are; you at +5, and me at -1. Even you must admit that something seems amiss.
People in the "west" can also get one, but it will cost extra: $300.
Incorrect. Under the proposal, people in the west can still get one for $100/unit; however, they would be forced to buy them in groups of 3, and then forced to give up two units per group to charity.
Idea propably is that if they were sold at same rice, then they would just be sold to the geeks in the west, and not to the people it's really meant for.
If the computers were sold at the same price, why would they be more inclined to sell them outside of the "developing world"? They should have enough supply to meet all demand, especially as many people on this site claim that there is not much demand outside the "developing world" for a $100 computer, due to it being an inferior product (their claim, not mine).
If they ask the geeks for extra money, they would then have more money to spend on the laptops meant for the developing countries.
Incorrect. Reread the proposal and my posts.
But since their purpose is not to sell cheap gadgets to geeks, I fail to see why they should sell them here for $100.
I already covered this in great detail. Please reread my posts.
Are you pissed because there might be cases of someone who got it for $100 selling it for $200?
I'm not "pissed." I merely pointed out a well known problem with price discrimination.
And just because you had a crappy life when you were younger, you somehow feel that you are entitled to this particular gadget.
Entitlement culture is the West's gift to the world. I assure you that I have no feeling of entitlement whatsoever. I encourage you to reread my posts. The only reason why I even mentioned that I spent a huge chunk of my life living in piss-poor conditions relative the West was because some chap decided to launch a personal attack on me, and I felt the need to point out that he had selected the wrong method to go about it due to my personal history.
They would then have to be shipped back to rich countries and sold there at a profit. I don't think that it's worth it in the end.
To you, living in opulence, it would probably not be worth it. To others, however, it might very well be worth it. Never having been in the situation we are discussing, you are incapable of comprehending the lengths to which people are willing to go for what you would consider "little profit."
You came out of a third-world hellhole
Second-world hellhole actually.
you still want cheap consumer goods at the expense of people still in a third world hellhole?
How is it at their expense? I'm not asking that they pay for it in any way. I am merely asking that the same product be sold at the same price. These folks at MIT claim to have designed a laptop which they can and will sell for $100 (I assume they are not selling it bellow the cost of production as that would represent a failure to achieve their goals and may even be illegal depending on the country; see Predatory pricing). This is not a rhetorical question. I would be quite pleased if you could answer how anything I requested thus far is "at the expense of people still in a third world hellhole."
As for the shipping and the cost of business providing a sufficient barrier to arbitrage, we shall see. You have your hypothesis, and I have mine; however, had I not presented you with mine, you would have almost certainly never come up with yours. You, in your opulence, claim that the profit would not be a sufficient motivator; we shall see my friend, we shall see.
Anything I say on the matter of your avarice, arrogance and lack of empathy is going to seem redundant.
Spare me your Judeo-Christian inspired emotional self-righteous belligerence. As for my avarice, and whatever other pejoratives and epithets you may feel the need to lavishly bestow upon me, it is sometimes those who have been deprived of food the longest who gorge themselves the most. Being a child of privilege, I would not expect you to be able to understand.
Having had sufficient material wealth for the entire course of your existence, you instead desire emotional satisfaction, which you seem to believe you will attain through your self-righteous antagonism of those you deem your moral inferiors, although, who, due to the bonds of your opulence, you shall never be capable of comprehending.
P.S. Don't forget to answer my question.
P.P.S. I fully expect this post to be modded down to oblivion by your cohort and fellow travelers just as all my others have been thus far.
How can a topical, point by point rebuttal of a post currently modded +4, Insightful be modded down all the way to -1, Offtopic? The hypocrisy of the average Slashdot moderator is astounding. Come on, mod this down as well, prove me right! May you all rot in meta-moderation hell (or purgatory, as the case may be).
The several billion people from around the world who manage to avoid being asses in spite of their socioeconomic background might take exception to that statement. :)
Hehe. That comment of mine was actually a jab at sociologists and the deterministic view they take.
Personally though, I'm against the practice of judging an entire person's worth as a human based on one comment on one subject, so I'm staying out of that bit.
Nice to meet you. People of your caliber seem rather rare nowadays (though I'm not sure if I should be making that assessment based only on one comment of yours on one subject).
Cheers.
I love how I got modded as Flamebait repeatedly for making a coherent argument and responding to provocation, whereas you, who initiated the whole matter get modded up as Insightful for calling me an ass.
And no, having a tough life is not an excuse for being an asshole.
The whole field of sociology disagrees with you on that one. If I am an ass, I am so because of my socio-economic background, and that is hardly my fault.
You are just pissed because people in third-world countris can have this laptop for 100 bucks, whereas you have to pay $300.
I'm pissed because I have read enough economic books to know about price discrimination and the problems that come with it e.g. how certain steps like preventing arbitrage have to be taken if you want to be a successful price discriminator.
Don't like the price? Then don't buy it and stop your whining.
Or I can not buy it and continue to express my opinion while being repeatedly modded down by slashbots.
They intend to sell them in "developing" countries, or distribute them through some sort of method, no? If they are not sold in "developed" countries, or are sold in developed countries at an inflated, discriminatory price, the incentive is created for people in the "developing" countries to sell their laptops to people in the "developed" countries. Basic economics. Unless that was the intent of the project, it would be advisable that the laptops are sold at a similar price everywhere to discourage arbitrage. And yes, I did "RTFA," to the extend that the "A" can be referred to as such.
Tell you what. Why don't you move to Africa with no money or resources, try to find work or an education, with little food, little to no medical care, the constant threat of violence, an unstable government, while relying on the kindness of strangers to even have a stab at making a decent life for yourself?
I was born and spent over 45% of my life in an underdeveloped shithole of a country where if you wanted food you had to stand in a line for hours on end, and if you said the wrong thing about the government "bad things" would happen to you and your family. Quit the condescending knee-jerk emotional arguments when you don't even know the first thing about me or my life. Address my points (price discrimination, how do they plan to prevent arbitrage?) or go wank your self-righteous self at the expense of others somewhere else.
And if they do intend to engage in price discrimination, I hope they have found a way to prevent arbitrage, or else people may make businesses out of buying them at $100 and selling them at ~$200 in the countries where the negative price discrimination policy is in effect.
You can see the photo album, and you can pledge to buy one at triple price... in order to donate 2 of them to children.
Can I just one buy one at the regular price without being discriminated against (see price discrimination). Forced charity is no charity at all.