Re: [OS:N:] Re: OLPC

On Sun, January 13, 2008 5:16 pm, Damiano Verzulli wrote:
> M. Fioretti ha scritto:
>> [...]
>> the whole idea that using computers in basic education is overrated,
>> and it is badly implemented most of times anyway, just because it's
>> trendy.
>
> I really _DON'T_ think that MIT went for the OLPC project only because
> it's "trendy"!

I said "the whole idea", not OLPC.

> MIT does not deal with "water distribution",
> "agriculture and food creation" and so on.

but governments do. It's their responsibility, not MIT's, to check if
any computer in basic school is a priority for them and a priority they
can afford. Again, I have no real problem with OLPC, is the basic, genera=
l
idea that leaves me perplexed.

> So they thought they could be very smart in building a "culture enabler=
"
> tool and that's why OLPC, as a project, started.

Noting against the wish to create new things. Going straight for such
a colossal and expensive project instead of a pilot ran with normal PCs
in 1, 100, 1000 selected schools... seems unnecessary.

> Does it increase the "pollution" risk in central africa or in south
> america?

For me, the fact that it increases pollution is bad not so much per se, b=
ut
because I have problems to see the "related benefit" in the first place.

> Do you have alternatives?

Not really, because, _again_ I doubt if it's just a solution looking for
a problem. If the general, underlying problem/need exists, then it's wort=
h
to look for alternatives.

This goal, for example:

> OLPC can be used (with _zero_ marginal costs)...as a tool to distribute
> texts (books, papers, articles)

is a great one which I approve, but any e-book device, even custom made,
would have been much simpler to do, use and likely quite cheaper also.

> Last, but not least, I wish the OLPC project as much distribution as
> possibile, even where it's _not_ needed.... as I'm sure that in a very
> short of time, if children will not have OLPC, they will "magically"
> receive another tool... with different software... with different
> hardware... with different "environmental impact"... promoted by
> companies much different than "MIT" and, ultimately, with a much higher
> "freedom" risk.

This sounds like "since I MUST hurt myself in some way before the day end=
s,
if I get drunk as soon as I can, I won't be able to buy drugs, which woul=
d
be much worst for my health and wallet". If the original problem/need as
envisioned by MIT (=3Dgrade school kids must have computers) exists and m=
ust
be dealt with on that scale from the start, then there is no doubt that
OLPC is the best solution, but only "if". That's where I am confused.

> I'm really sure that OLPC is _NOT_ a "computer in education" project. I
> see it as a "an education tool" project. A much more "broader" field...

I agree, and I also agree that, in this context, usage by kids who have
never seen any computer or game console before may be much more meaningfu=
l
than in the first world - but in this case I still have the original
question: was it really needed to make such a fanfare, instead of a pilot=
,
however complex?

Marco

--=20
Help *everybody* love Free Standards and Software:
http://digifreedom.net


_______________________________________________
Subscription and Archive: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-so=
urce-now-list/
-
For K12OS technical help join K12OSN:
<https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn>