The big reason that Republicans should oppose this is that it creates more government bureaucracy
WTF?! So being blatantly unconstitutional and infringing upon civil rightsisn't the "big reason" that Republicans should oppose it?! Damn, they (and the Democrats; I'm not trying to be partisan here) ought to get their fucking priorities straight!
Don't get me wrong; I think avoiding bureaucracy is a great idea too. But it's the small reason to oppose the bill, not the "big" one.
The pro XO people don't seem to be able to agree on what the XO is for. Half say it is so that the kids can learn to code, and half say that it is not.
And you're surprised by that? Half the advocates of any issue can't explain why they support it, and half the opposition of any issue can't explain why they're against it. Why is this? Because half the people are idiots anyway!
This is human nature. Why would you expect the OLPC issue to be any different?
PS: the other reason people seem to disagree is that the XO is about teaching kids to code and teaching them other things and teaching them to think logically and critically in general (which learning to code is really good at) and producing people who aren't subjugated by the Western (i.e., Microsoft-based) hegemony (although people actually connected to the OLPC project might not advertise that last bit). Because of that, they might answer the question "is the XO [only] so kids can learn to code" differently in different contexts (such as whether the "only" is present in the question or not).
They're kids, for crying out loud! Learning is what they do! So why the fuck do all you idiots assume they're magically incapable of learning English along with everything else?!
It may well turn out that what's been holding back the Third World is nothing more than the means to organize itself and thereby release its creative potential.
It also may well turn out that what's been holding them back is the act of giving them food itself! What motivation do they have to improve themselves when they're on the dole?
Frankly, I can't see these laptops being particularly useful in third-world countries at all. Now, developing countries, on the other hand - South America, North Africa, the Middle East, parts of Asia, I can see an extremely cheap computer being useful, because people there have the luxury of time that the third world does not have.
A note on terminology: the "developing countries" you mention are the "third world!" NATO and allies are the "first world," the Soviet Union and allies are (or rather, were) the "second world," and non-aligned countries are the "third world." Sometimes, impoverished, undeveloped-and-not-currently-developing countries (which you're calling the "third world") are called the "fourth world."
OK so the thing runs Linux, well so does my cell phone and fat lot of good that would do for learning programming.
The problem with the phone is not that it's a phone, but that the service provider purposefully locks it down and restricts access to developer tools. The XO most emphatically does not have this problem! In fact, it's the opposite: everything about it was explicitly designed to be easy to develop for (even by the children themselves), and that is why it is useful.
But they missed and the price is not far short of the price of a conventional machine but with a huge number of compromises.
On the contrary, what you call "compromises," I call "necessary features." The XO is less powerful? That's a good thing -- it means better battery life. The XO doesn't have a hard drive? That's a good thing -- it means better reliability and better battery life. The XO has a "weird" screen? That's a good thing -- it means it's readable in conditions where a "normal" screen is not, and, yes, better battery life.
It doesn't matter if you could make a "conventional" laptop for the same price (e.g. the EEE or whatever). It doesn't even matter if you could make a Core 2 Quad, SLI, 20" TFT screen laptop for the same price! It would still be fucking useless for the intended purpose because it would neither have the battery life to get anything done, nor even stand up to the expected environmental conditions in the first place!
He can produce enough food to pay off his loans...
No, he can't, because of exactly the other thing you just said: "the USA produces enough food by itself to feed the world!" And not only that, but it's subsidized too. In fact, part of the reason those subsistence farmers can't get the loans to do what you suggest now without our "help" is that food prices are so low (because of American subsidies) that they wouldn't ever be able to pay the loans back!
With food aid I've seen unfortunate consequences: Local farmers are driven out of business*, women continue to have babies, and you end up with a population explosion of people who still can't take care of themselves. IE the food aid makes the problem *worse*. In at least one case very much worse - the food aid allowed a warlord to continue his campaign against the farmers who's farms he'd been burning.
Yep, food aid and subsidies have exactly the same effect: helping out American farmers at the expense of foreigners.
It's a hard point to argue if you had only two options, food, or a laptop, the food seems a better choice.
No it's not [a hard point to argue], and no it isn't [a better choice]. Uneducated people aren't good for anything whether they're starving or not. I say it's better to educate the ones you can, and let the rest starve, because otherwise you're just going to have to support hordes of starving, uneducated people forever.
Where's the profit in giving things to people who need them, as opposed to educating them to be self-sufficient and hence more likely to buy things later?
Somebody needs to pay for all that rice. But here's a hint: it's not the rice farmers, and it's not the agencies managing the distribution. Instead, they're all getting paid. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out who's getting the shaft.
A good suit of chain mail can be gotten for between $250 (for butted mail) and $700 (for riveted mail from some makers) or you can go for the suit of plate mail for something in the neighborhood of $1400.
Why is plate mail more expensive? I would have figured it'd take less labor to make (compared to chain mail) nowadays, and thus be cheaper.
I don't know about you, but if I were getting a commercially-encoded version of the movie and paying for the "privilage," I'd want it to be good enough to play on the computer (e.g. using Front Row) as well as the iPod (which, by the way, might be an iPod Touch or something with a bigger screen).
Some skills are transferable but if you are teaching graphic design it's silly to teach anything other then what industry uses.
That makes zero sense. What you're really saying is "if you're teaching Photoshop then it's silly to teach anything other than what the industry uses," because kids would learn actual graphic design equally well -- or better! -- by not being able to rely on rote memorization of commands.
Why else would he be so angry at Intel for producing the Classmate PC? Surely there is a large enough market for low-end, affordable laptops...
He's mad about the Classmate PC because making a "low-end, affordable laptop" is most emphatically not the point. The point is to make a tool for learning, which places the emphasis on the software and the collaboration that the system (as a combination of hardware and software) allows.
In other words, he's mad because the Classmate PC is merely an attempt to indoctrinate a new set of kids into the Intel/Microsoft closed-source and commercial hegemony, while his goal is to give the kids a tool they can modify themselves as they see fit.
The "Bill of Rights" is the name given to the Amendments to The Constitution. If another Amendment is passed, it too will be placed on the Bill of Rights.
That's not true. The Bill of Rights consists of Amendments 1 through 10, which all happened to be written at the same time shortly after the main body of the Constitution because people complained (rightly!) that unless the Constitution enumerated some of the most important rights, that the government would find it too easy to infringe upon them. The rest of the Amendments, which came later, are not considered to be part of the Bill of Rights whether they enumerate rights (e.g. the 14th Amendment, due process etc.) or not (e.g. the 17th Amendment, direct election of senators).
So, I think this would fall under reserved to the States. Your words, not mine.
That would be a good point, except that you mentioned the Constitution first.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is this: when evaluating a government action, we as citizens should assume that it's unconstitutional first, and then evaluate it to see if it's otherwise. You appeared to be arguing for the backwards perspective instead, that we should assume that anything the government does is okay until somebody proves otherwise. That's a really fucking bad perspective to argue for, because it encourages tyranny.
The rule of thumb, in order to encourage a free society, should be this: individuals have the presumption of innocence; governments have the presumption of guilt.
Hey. Fuck you. You're the prime example of the idiotic reasoning that causes this problem in the first place!
Here's a newsflash: the Constitution does not enumerate all freedoms. It merely reiterates a select few of them!
Noticing that something isn't specifically prohibited by the Constitution doesn't mean the Federal government can do it; it just means it's not one of the particular examples Jefferson et. al. chose to give. On the contrary, the Federal government can do only those things which it is specifically allowed to do, because everything else -- everything else -- was reserved to the States or to the People!
You're welcome. And since you seem interested, I'll explain further: I live in Atlanta (in the city proper now, but I used to live in the suburbs where the situation was also exactly the same). I can get cable Internet with (only) Comcast, which has a local monopoly, or I can get DSL with AT&T, which is the same AT&T that the FCC broke up in the 70's (I think) for abusing its monopoly, and which the current FCC has allowed to re-form. And even then, I'd have to get a landline (which I don't have and don't want) in order to switch to DSL. So, DSL is a non-option, and since satellite and dial-up don't count as broadband, they're non-options too.
Slashdot Mirror
Third option: violent opposition. Sure, since that would likely get you killed in retaliation it's not a good option, but technically it still counts.
WTF?! So being blatantly unconstitutional and infringing upon civil rights isn't the "big reason" that Republicans should oppose it?! Damn, they (and the Democrats; I'm not trying to be partisan here) ought to get their fucking priorities straight!
Don't get me wrong; I think avoiding bureaucracy is a great idea too. But it's the small reason to oppose the bill, not the "big" one.
And you're surprised by that? Half the advocates of any issue can't explain why they support it, and half the opposition of any issue can't explain why they're against it. Why is this? Because half the people are idiots anyway!
This is human nature. Why would you expect the OLPC issue to be any different?
PS: the other reason people seem to disagree is that the XO is about teaching kids to code and teaching them other things and teaching them to think logically and critically in general (which learning to code is really good at) and producing people who aren't subjugated by the Western (i.e., Microsoft-based) hegemony (although people actually connected to the OLPC project might not advertise that last bit). Because of that, they might answer the question "is the XO [only] so kids can learn to code" differently in different contexts (such as whether the "only" is present in the question or not).
That wasn't a joke.
They're kids, for crying out loud! Learning is what they do! So why the fuck do all you idiots assume they're magically incapable of learning English along with everything else?!
It also may well turn out that what's been holding them back is the act of giving them food itself! What motivation do they have to improve themselves when they're on the dole?
He hits the problem with the Classmate PC squarely on the head. I wish more Slashdot readers understood this!
A note on terminology: the "developing countries" you mention are the "third world!" NATO and allies are the "first world," the Soviet Union and allies are (or rather, were) the "second world," and non-aligned countries are the "third world." Sometimes, impoverished, undeveloped-and-not-currently-developing countries (which you're calling the "third world") are called the "fourth world."
The problem with the phone is not that it's a phone, but that the service provider purposefully locks it down and restricts access to developer tools. The XO most emphatically does not have this problem! In fact, it's the opposite: everything about it was explicitly designed to be easy to develop for (even by the children themselves), and that is why it is useful.
On the contrary, what you call "compromises," I call "necessary features." The XO is less powerful? That's a good thing -- it means better battery life. The XO doesn't have a hard drive? That's a good thing -- it means better reliability and better battery life. The XO has a "weird" screen? That's a good thing -- it means it's readable in conditions where a "normal" screen is not, and, yes, better battery life.
It doesn't matter if you could make a "conventional" laptop for the same price (e.g. the EEE or whatever). It doesn't even matter if you could make a Core 2 Quad, SLI, 20" TFT screen laptop for the same price! It would still be fucking useless for the intended purpose because it would neither have the battery life to get anything done, nor even stand up to the expected environmental conditions in the first place!
No, he can't, because of exactly the other thing you just said: "the USA produces enough food by itself to feed the world!" And not only that, but it's subsidized too. In fact, part of the reason those subsistence farmers can't get the loans to do what you suggest now without our "help" is that food prices are so low (because of American subsidies) that they wouldn't ever be able to pay the loans back!
Yep, food aid and subsidies have exactly the same effect: helping out American farmers at the expense of foreigners.
No it's not [a hard point to argue], and no it isn't [a better choice]. Uneducated people aren't good for anything whether they're starving or not. I say it's better to educate the ones you can, and let the rest starve, because otherwise you're just going to have to support hordes of starving, uneducated people forever.
Somebody needs to pay for all that rice. But here's a hint: it's not the rice farmers, and it's not the agencies managing the distribution. Instead, they're all getting paid. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out who's getting the shaft.
"Grok" is geek jargon for "thoroughly understand." It comes from Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein.
And speaking of "damn ignorant [people]," by the way, you could have found that out via a quick search. ; )
Why is plate mail more expensive? I would have figured it'd take less labor to make (compared to chain mail) nowadays, and thus be cheaper.
I don't know about you, but if I were getting a commercially-encoded version of the movie and paying for the "privilage," I'd want it to be good enough to play on the computer (e.g. using Front Row) as well as the iPod (which, by the way, might be an iPod Touch or something with a bigger screen).
That makes zero sense. What you're really saying is "if you're teaching Photoshop then it's silly to teach anything other than what the industry uses," because kids would learn actual graphic design equally well -- or better! -- by not being able to rely on rote memorization of commands.
What, does the ClassmatePC suddenly run Mac OS now?
He's mad about the Classmate PC because making a "low-end, affordable laptop" is most emphatically not the point. The point is to make a tool for learning, which places the emphasis on the software and the collaboration that the system (as a combination of hardware and software) allows.
In other words, he's mad because the Classmate PC is merely an attempt to indoctrinate a new set of kids into the Intel/Microsoft closed-source and commercial hegemony, while his goal is to give the kids a tool they can modify themselves as they see fit.
Whoops, I stand corrected. s/Jefferson/Madison/
That's not true. The Bill of Rights consists of Amendments 1 through 10, which all happened to be written at the same time shortly after the main body of the Constitution because people complained (rightly!) that unless the Constitution enumerated some of the most important rights, that the government would find it too easy to infringe upon them. The rest of the Amendments, which came later, are not considered to be part of the Bill of Rights whether they enumerate rights (e.g. the 14th Amendment, due process etc.) or not (e.g. the 17th Amendment, direct election of senators).
That would be a good point, except that you mentioned the Constitution first.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is this: when evaluating a government action, we as citizens should assume that it's unconstitutional first, and then evaluate it to see if it's otherwise. You appeared to be arguing for the backwards perspective instead, that we should assume that anything the government does is okay until somebody proves otherwise. That's a really fucking bad perspective to argue for, because it encourages tyranny.
The rule of thumb, in order to encourage a free society, should be this: individuals have the presumption of innocence; governments have the presumption of guilt.
Hey. Fuck you. You're the prime example of the idiotic reasoning that causes this problem in the first place!
Here's a newsflash: the Constitution does not enumerate all freedoms. It merely reiterates a select few of them!
Noticing that something isn't specifically prohibited by the Constitution doesn't mean the Federal government can do it; it just means it's not one of the particular examples Jefferson et. al. chose to give. On the contrary, the Federal government can do only those things which it is specifically allowed to do, because everything else -- everything else -- was reserved to the States or to the People!
You're welcome. And since you seem interested, I'll explain further: I live in Atlanta (in the city proper now, but I used to live in the suburbs where the situation was also exactly the same). I can get cable Internet with (only) Comcast, which has a local monopoly, or I can get DSL with AT&T, which is the same AT&T that the FCC broke up in the 70's (I think) for abusing its monopoly, and which the current FCC has allowed to re-form. And even then, I'd have to get a landline (which I don't have and don't want) in order to switch to DSL. So, DSL is a non-option, and since satellite and dial-up don't count as broadband, they're non-options too.
No, this fucker's superiors need to be investigated. This fucker should now be presumed guilty and immediately punished!