I believe it's true that Americans give more of their income to charity than other countries do, but much of that stays within the USA. In terms of foreign aid, the USA is quite far down the list.
I consider this a good thing. As William Easterly of NYU and others have shown, there has been no correlation between economic growth and foreign aid for poor countries. Africa has received well over $500 billion in foreign aid over the past decades, and it is in many measures just as poor as it was in the 1970s.
And I believe people have a better idea of how effectively their charity money will be spent the closer it is to home, so it is a good thing more of it stays in the US. One is more likely to be familiar with the staff, more likely to be able to see results for one's self, etc.
The Economist is right on. I am dumbfounded by the amount of simplistic and condescending reasoning used to support OLPC. I lived in West Africa for 1 1/2 years. I learned that Africans don't want our technology dumbed-down, even if you dress it up as "charity" (How dare they!). They want real computers, so they can innovate the same way we do.
If we were serious about helping Africans, we would be looking far past manufacturing crappy computers to sell to their governments. Of course the fact that we aren't is no great loss to Africans. We may not get it, but the Indians and Chinese do.
Though many people have been citing this as 'the ultimate successful advertising campaign'
Who has called this the ultimate successful advertising campaign? Was it this before the terror scare, or did the reaction of Boston law enforcement make it so?
It's funny, I was thinking how this was one of the worst advertising campaigns (what were they thinking?! Can they go any lower?! etc.).
So I guess that probably would make it the ultimate successful advertising campaign in the bizzaro world manipulative up-is-down logic of advertising.
I'm impressed with EA for gambling on this move. Seems like they are trying to rework the traditional sequences of synergy in their favor. They probably realize it's a race to the bottom having to bid ever more money against an ever greater number of competitors to start or renew sports and movie licensing. Focusing on inhouse content is cheaper, and with hits successful enough to be flipped into other media (this is where the gambling comes in - will Spore succeed to the point of Hollywood scripts being commissioned for its movie?), the payoff is potentially massive.
Does the introduction of these formats mean less discs per release? Meaning, my biggest disappointment with DVD was that for any kind of bonuses or extras (nevermind box sets and TV series) a release had to be on 2 discs or more. I, like I would suspect 95% of the public, do not care about the lasers, etc. I just want the convenience of having everything on one disc. So for these two formats, does their larger capacity mean the end of multi-disc releases? Or does the presumed improvement in quality take up a proportional amount of space?
"This is far better than what was available to the average person just a little bit ago."
Uhm, public libraries have been around for over 200 years. With my county-wide lending network, I can order pretty much any movie (selection that blows away NF and Blockbuster combined), including the foreign films I prefer. And I'm only paying my tax dollars to support the library - which I (and if you live in a developed country, you) are paying anyway. So yes, I will "protest" NF because contrary to the false choice you present, there is an alternative.
PS - These libraries also lend out bound manuscripts. They have shelves and shelves of them. I forget what they call them, but the amazing thing - they're free too! Now that truly deserves a yay!
FWIW: I saw cast of the Simpsons do a live script-reading of an episode as part of the Just for Laughs Festival in Montreal a few years ago. Afterwards there was a Q&A session with Groening, during which someone asked how much longer the show would be on. He (paraphrased) said that the show is making a ton of money for him and his team and a ton of money for Fox, and that until one of those two things changes, the show is unlikely to end.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider this a good thing. As William Easterly of NYU and others have shown, there has been no correlation between economic growth and foreign aid for poor countries. Africa has received well over $500 billion in foreign aid over the past decades, and it is in many measures just as poor as it was in the 1970s. And I believe people have a better idea of how effectively their charity money will be spent the closer it is to home, so it is a good thing more of it stays in the US. One is more likely to be familiar with the staff, more likely to be able to see results for one's self, etc.
The Economist is right on. I am dumbfounded by the amount of simplistic and condescending reasoning used to support OLPC. I lived in West Africa for 1 1/2 years. I learned that Africans don't want our technology dumbed-down, even if you dress it up as "charity" (How dare they!). They want real computers, so they can innovate the same way we do.
If we were serious about helping Africans, we would be looking far past manufacturing crappy computers to sell to their governments. Of course the fact that we aren't is no great loss to Africans. We may not get it, but the Indians and Chinese do.
It's funny, I was thinking how this was one of the worst advertising campaigns (what were they thinking?! Can they go any lower?! etc.).
So I guess that probably would make it the ultimate successful advertising campaign in the bizzaro world manipulative up-is-down logic of advertising.
more like the whole world.
I'm impressed with EA for gambling on this move. Seems like they are trying to rework the traditional sequences of synergy in their favor. They probably realize it's a race to the bottom having to bid ever more money against an ever greater number of competitors to start or renew sports and movie licensing. Focusing on inhouse content is cheaper, and with hits successful enough to be flipped into other media (this is where the gambling comes in - will Spore succeed to the point of Hollywood scripts being commissioned for its movie?), the payoff is potentially massive.
Does the introduction of these formats mean less discs per release? Meaning, my biggest disappointment with DVD was that for any kind of bonuses or extras (nevermind box sets and TV series) a release had to be on 2 discs or more. I, like I would suspect 95% of the public, do not care about the lasers, etc. I just want the convenience of having everything on one disc. So for these two formats, does their larger capacity mean the end of multi-disc releases? Or does the presumed improvement in quality take up a proportional amount of space?
Am I the only one who thought Sony lost a bet?
"This is far better than what was available to the average person just a little bit ago."
Uhm, public libraries have been around for over 200 years. With my county-wide lending network, I can order pretty much any movie (selection that blows away NF and Blockbuster combined), including the foreign films I prefer. And I'm only paying my tax dollars to support the library - which I (and if you live in a developed country, you) are paying anyway. So yes, I will "protest" NF because contrary to the false choice you present, there is an alternative.
PS - These libraries also lend out bound manuscripts. They have shelves and shelves of them. I forget what they call them, but the amazing thing - they're free too! Now that truly deserves a yay!
FWIW: I saw cast of the Simpsons do a live script-reading of an episode as part of the Just for Laughs Festival in Montreal a few years ago. Afterwards there was a Q&A session with Groening, during which someone asked how much longer the show would be on. He (paraphrased) said that the show is making a ton of money for him and his team and a ton of money for Fox, and that until one of those two things changes, the show is unlikely to end.