...an informed (*cough* but we *are* talking about +4 here) opinion about it.
We are talking about Slashdot, right? This is the home of the "5, insightful" uninformed opinion. I do agree that higher thresholds reduce the amount of crap. However, plenty of informed, well-written posts are missed by moderators and get culled just the same.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that readers should be just as skeptical of the comments at +5 as they are of those at -1. To do otherwise promotes groupthink in favour of individual skepticism and thought.
Your attempt to distinguish between the OLPC and "how MS would react to it" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of these systems and how they will manufactured and distributed. I severely doubt that the founding members of OLPC (AMD, Brightstar, Google, News Corporation, and Red Hat) would approve of the laptops running "Microsoft Windows XP Lite Developing World Edition".
I do not deny that corporations have alterior motives. Obviously, the companies involved recieve the benefit of some free press and good public relations. However, any corporate involvement is strictly at the discretion of the organizers, whose credentials lend credence to their altrusim. It is evident that I have more faith in the gentlemen at the MIT Media Lab than you do; that's fine. The problem is that your initial post does them and OLPC a disservice by presenting uninformed fears as legitimate concerns.
Anyone who has been following the project likely scoffed at your comment and moved on. I had the unfortunate delusion that I might be able to inform you. Hopefully I've at least informed some others.
This is the third time I'm apologizing now for being a bit harsh with language, I'm sorry. Regardless of whether you accept it or not, this is my last post (finally). You can either educate yourself, or continue to support an uninformed position; I'm through caring.
Wow, give you an inch and you take a mile. I thought by admitting some culpability, you might be able to do the same. Apparently not.
As you point out, Microsoft isn't really bound by anyone. For the most part, they do whatever they damn well please. While the points you raise validate your initial position, you fail to consider the significant differences between the examples you mention, and One Laptop Per Child. Namely, OLPC has repeatedly made it clear that open source is the only viable solution for them. You choose to ignore this fact either because you don't believe it, or because it doesn't support your position.
However right you may be about Microsoft, is it really so hard to consider that you might be wrong about OLPC? Rather than react with pessimism and fear, why not express some optimism that this may well be the project that succeeds specifically because it is open source?
I'm sure you are right that Microsoft will react in some manner to the OLPC project. I wouldn't be surprised if they provided something like a BASIC interpreter. They may even start their own project, there is a world of possibilities. To claim that your suggestion is as valid as any other is incredulous however, because the facts make it specifically less likely.
I thought it was clear. In response to your assertion that Microsoft will steal the show at the last minute, I contend the following:
This assertion spreads fear, uncertainty and doubt.
This assertion is paranoid because it is not supported by the facts.
This assertion is baseless because it contradicts stated goals of One Laptop Per Child, as mentioned in the article and link provided in my first response.
I withdraw my contention that your post is offtopic by virtue of the fact that Microsoft was mentioned in the article just as briefly as Apple.
As I stated before, I'm not making these "accusations" to be insolent. I'm trying to point out that a post like yours, while impassioned and charismatic, is damaging to the discussion. It is damaging because it uses misinformation to falsely characterize a situation; not so much unlike Microsoft itself occasionally. However unintentionally, you have mislead others by suggesting a happenstance which isn't supported by the facts. However poorly, I have attempted to present a more accurate characterization of the situation.
I never intended any disrespect, despite the occasional harsh word.
I never said that you disputed anything, what made you imagine that I did? I simply stated that your assertions regarding Microsoft are totally baseless considering the conditions by which Apple's offer was rejected.
If you have a response to that, I welcome it; otherwise I'm afraid this will have to be my last message on the subject.
I've lurked on slashdot for years. I eventually created an account which I used sporadically. I hadn't used it in years, so I figured I might as well make a new one, just to respond to you.
I've read many a rant on this site, both good and bad. But yours is so off-base, that I actually got off my lazy ass to respond. As mentioned in the article and by others in the comments, the Apple offer was rejected specifically because it was not open source.
An open architecture is elemental to the One Laptop Per Child project. Central to their strategy is the capacity for the machines to allow people to help themselves. From a cnet article:
He said a goal of the project is to make the low-cost PC idea a grassroots movement that will spread in popularity, like the Linux operating system or the Wikipedia free online encyclopedia. "This is open-source education. It's a big issue."
They want the software to be accessible to the people so they can modify it to suit their needs. The gentleman heading up the initiative is none other than the co-founder of the MIT Media Lab, Nicholas Negroponte; a guy who might know something about free and open software.
Worse yet, is that you were moderated to "5, Insightful" when I started writting this. Your paranoid FUD is totally offtopic for a discussion about One Laptop Per Child and Apple.
Sorry for sounding like a dick about all this, but you've really gotta chill out. Evil isn't all around you; There are rays of hope for humanity. I for one think that One Laptop Per Child is amongst them. If you seek to open your mind and educate yourself rather than randomly react in fear, I hope you'll reach the same conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
We are talking about Slashdot, right? This is the home of the "5, insightful" uninformed opinion. I do agree that higher thresholds reduce the amount of crap. However, plenty of informed, well-written posts are missed by moderators and get culled just the same.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that readers should be just as skeptical of the comments at +5 as they are of those at -1. To do otherwise promotes groupthink in favour of individual skepticism and thought.
Your attempt to distinguish between the OLPC and "how MS would react to it" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of these systems and how they will manufactured and distributed. I severely doubt that the founding members of OLPC (AMD, Brightstar, Google, News Corporation, and Red Hat) would approve of the laptops running "Microsoft Windows XP Lite Developing World Edition".
I do not deny that corporations have alterior motives. Obviously, the companies involved recieve the benefit of some free press and good public relations. However, any corporate involvement is strictly at the discretion of the organizers, whose credentials lend credence to their altrusim. It is evident that I have more faith in the gentlemen at the MIT Media Lab than you do; that's fine. The problem is that your initial post does them and OLPC a disservice by presenting uninformed fears as legitimate concerns.
Anyone who has been following the project likely scoffed at your comment and moved on. I had the unfortunate delusion that I might be able to inform you. Hopefully I've at least informed some others.
This is the third time I'm apologizing now for being a bit harsh with language, I'm sorry. Regardless of whether you accept it or not, this is my last post (finally). You can either educate yourself, or continue to support an uninformed position; I'm through caring.
Wow, give you an inch and you take a mile. I thought by admitting some culpability, you might be able to do the same. Apparently not.
As you point out, Microsoft isn't really bound by anyone. For the most part, they do whatever they damn well please. While the points you raise validate your initial position, you fail to consider the significant differences between the examples you mention, and One Laptop Per Child. Namely, OLPC has repeatedly made it clear that open source is the only viable solution for them. You choose to ignore this fact either because you don't believe it, or because it doesn't support your position.
However right you may be about Microsoft, is it really so hard to consider that you might be wrong about OLPC? Rather than react with pessimism and fear, why not express some optimism that this may well be the project that succeeds specifically because it is open source?
I'm sure you are right that Microsoft will react in some manner to the OLPC project. I wouldn't be surprised if they provided something like a BASIC interpreter. They may even start their own project, there is a world of possibilities. To claim that your suggestion is as valid as any other is incredulous however, because the facts make it specifically less likely.
I thought it was clear. In response to your assertion that Microsoft will steal the show at the last minute, I contend the following:
I withdraw my contention that your post is offtopic by virtue of the fact that Microsoft was mentioned in the article just as briefly as Apple.
As I stated before, I'm not making these "accusations" to be insolent. I'm trying to point out that a post like yours, while impassioned and charismatic, is damaging to the discussion. It is damaging because it uses misinformation to falsely characterize a situation; not so much unlike Microsoft itself occasionally. However unintentionally, you have mislead others by suggesting a happenstance which isn't supported by the facts. However poorly, I have attempted to present a more accurate characterization of the situation.
I never intended any disrespect, despite the occasional harsh word.
I never said that you disputed anything, what made you imagine that I did? I simply stated that your assertions regarding Microsoft are totally baseless considering the conditions by which Apple's offer was rejected.
If you have a response to that, I welcome it; otherwise I'm afraid this will have to be my last message on the subject.
I've lurked on slashdot for years. I eventually created an account which I used sporadically. I hadn't used it in years, so I figured I might as well make a new one, just to respond to you.
I've read many a rant on this site, both good and bad. But yours is so off-base, that I actually got off my lazy ass to respond. As mentioned in the article and by others in the comments, the Apple offer was rejected specifically because it was not open source.
An open architecture is elemental to the One Laptop Per Child project. Central to their strategy is the capacity for the machines to allow people to help themselves. From a cnet article:
They want the software to be accessible to the people so they can modify it to suit their needs. The gentleman heading up the initiative is none other than the co-founder of the MIT Media Lab, Nicholas Negroponte; a guy who might know something about free and open software.Worse yet, is that you were moderated to "5, Insightful" when I started writting this. Your paranoid FUD is totally offtopic for a discussion about One Laptop Per Child and Apple.
Sorry for sounding like a dick about all this, but you've really gotta chill out. Evil isn't all around you; There are rays of hope for humanity. I for one think that One Laptop Per Child is amongst them. If you seek to open your mind and educate yourself rather than randomly react in fear, I hope you'll reach the same conclusion.