Intel - stopping poor children from getting computers

[halbhh]

.... I simply have no idea what you are trying to say by those two sentences. They contradict each other. Let me show you my line of thought.
Sentence#1 I don't suggest no modern style of aid.

That one is easy, you don't suggest any modern style of aid. Ok got it.
Sentence#2

It's often very beneficial!

Here is where I have some trouble. Are you saying that you don't suggest any modern style of aid because it's beneficial, or in spite of it being very beneficial? Now you see my quandary, Why would anyone not suggest a style of aid that they thought was beneficial? The logic simply doesn't follow.

Perhaps the double negative was confusing. To eliminate the double negative, the sentence translates accurately as: I suggest a modern style of aid [is beneficial].

 

[chunkymonster]

Avoiding the whole food vs. laptop discussion, I think this dude hits it spot on:

Link

That article is misleading and displays a fundemental lack of understanding of the OLPC project. It takes Dr. Negroponte's quote and his intent completely out of context leading the reader into thinking that he and the OLPC is something it is not.

Given the article was written almost immediately after this thread got started, I would not be surprised if you (bixplus) were Ed Stroligo.

 

[chunkymonster]

Avoiding the whole food vs. laptop discussion, I think this dude hits it spot on:

Link

That article is misleading and displays a fundemental lack of understanding of the OLPC project. It takes Dr. Negroponte's quote and his intent completely out of context leading the reader into thinking that he and the OLPC is something it is not.

Given the article was written almost immediately after this thread got started, I would not be surprised if you (bixplus) were Ed Stroligo.

 

[Zorg]

The good old double negative. You don't suggest no modern style, therefore you do suggest some modern style. Now I understand, you might want to avoid the double negative in the future it makes things very hard to understand.

 

[bixplus]

That article is misleading and displays a fundemental lack of understanding of the OLPC project. It takes Dr. Negroponte's quote and his intent completely out of context leading the reader into thinking that he and the OLPC is something it is not.

Oh, how so?

Given the article was written almost immediately after this thread got started, I would not be surprised if you (bixplus) were Ed Stroligo.

Hmmm, maybe, maybe not. So?

 

[halbhh]

Very Short Summary:

In short, Intel threatens to destroy Negroponte's OLPC (one laptop per child) initiative by cherry-picking just a few select richest potential markets for it, thus destroying the OLPC's economy of scale (number of units) it needs to lower it's price.

One simple solution: Get Intel to also participate in OLPC as an equal partner, supplying 50% of the cpu chips, equal to AMD. This might allow the OLPC to survive and accomplish it's goal of getting the laptops to *very poor* children in *very poor* countries.

[edit: yeah, I know that he approached Intel once, but it could be different on a 2nd try. and yeah, ego could get in the way. I'm just talking about one solution that's worth a shot imo.]

 

[fidgewinkle]

Very Short Summary:

In short, Intel threatens to destroy Negroponte's OLPC (one laptop per child) initiative by cherry-picking just a few select richest potential markets for it, thus destroying the OLPC's economy of scale (number of units) it needs to lower it's price.

One simple solution: Get Intel to also participate in OLPC as an equal partner, supplying 50% of the cpu chips, equal to AMD. This might allow the OLPC to survive and accomplish it's goal of getting the laptops to *very poor* children in *very poor* countries.

Intel won't settle for half when they have 80% of CPUs and probably 98+% of the notebook market.

 

[fidgewinkle]

multiple post

 

[fidgewinkle]

multiple post

 

[fidgewinkle]

multiple post

 

[fidgewinkle]

multiple post

 

[fidgewinkle]

Deleted

 

[Twisted_Sister]

Intel won't settle for half when they have 80% of CPUs and probably 98+% of the notebook market.

Intel won't settle for half when they have 80% of CPUs and probably 98+% of the notebook market.

Intel won't settle for half when they have 80% of CPUs and probably 98+% of the notebook market.

Intel won't settle for half when they have 80% of CPUs and probably 98+% of the notebook market.

Are you sure??? j/k... these forums are messed up :lol:

 

[fidgewinkle]

multiple post

 

[halbhh]

wow, was that a fiver?

 

[fidgewinkle]

Multiple post

 

[fidgewinkle]

Deleted

 

[fidgewinkle]

multiple post

 

[aevm]

Very Short Summary:

In short, Intel threatens to destroy Negroponte's OLPC (one laptop per child) initiative by cherry-picking just a few select richest potential markets for it, thus destroying the OLPC's economy of scale (number of units) it needs to lower it's price.

One simple solution: Get Intel to also participate in OLPC as an equal partner, supplying 50% of the cpu chips, equal to AMD. This might allow the OLPC to survive and accomplish it's goal of getting the laptops to *very poor* children in *very poor* countries.

Intel won't settle for half when they have 80% of CPUs and probably 98+% of the notebook market.

How do you guys ban trolls in this forum? Just curious...

 

[Zorg]

Very Short Summary:

In short, Intel threatens to destroy Negroponte's OLPC (one laptop per child) initiative by cherry-picking just a few select richest potential markets for it, thus destroying the OLPC's economy of scale (number of units) it needs to lower it's price.

One simple solution: Get Intel to also participate in OLPC as an equal partner, supplying 50% of the cpu chips, equal to AMD. This might allow the OLPC to survive and accomplish it's goal of getting the laptops to *very poor* children in *very poor* countries.

Intel won't settle for half when they have 80% of CPUs and probably 98+% of the notebook market.

How do you guys ban trolls in this forum? Just curious...

Are you referring to fidgewinkle? Consider that he might not realize that the forumz are running at the speed of molasses in January. So he clicks and clicks and then they all catch up. Really what needs to happen is that Toms needs to get some additional servers to handle the traffic. It's getting so irritating that I'm sure they will start to loose posters, and you know they don't want that.

Edit: Make that slower than molasses in liquid nitrogen.

 

[Zorg]

Given the article was written almost immediately after this thread got started, I would not be surprised if you (bixplus) were Ed Stroligo.

Hmmm, maybe, maybe not. So?
bixplus you sly dog, you tricked me. I still liked the article. I believe Negroponte doesn't have the most altruistic of motives. Now I certainly could be wrong, it's only my opinion, but something doesn't smell right.

 

[1Tanker]

wow, was that a fiver?

Well....that should be all the proof needed, for your thread on Toms needing a server upgrade. 😛 😛

 

[fidgewinkle]

Very Short Summary:

In short, Intel threatens to destroy Negroponte's OLPC (one laptop per child) initiative by cherry-picking just a few select richest potential markets for it, thus destroying the OLPC's economy of scale (number of units) it needs to lower it's price.

One simple solution: Get Intel to also participate in OLPC as an equal partner, supplying 50% of the cpu chips, equal to AMD. This might allow the OLPC to survive and accomplish it's goal of getting the laptops to *very poor* children in *very poor* countries.

Intel won't settle for half when they have 80% of CPUs and probably 98+% of the notebook market.

How do you guys ban trolls in this forum? Just curious...

Are you referring to fidgewinkle? Consider that he might not realize that the forumz are running at the speed of molasses in January. So he clicks and clicks and then they all catch up. Really what needs to happen is that Toms needs to get some additional servers to handle the traffic. It's getting so irritating that I'm sure they will start to loose posters, and you know they don't want that.

Edit: Make that slower than molasses in liquid nitrogen.

Sorry about that. I only hit it once, and I didn't ever get feedback that the post had been made. I did leave the tab open for quite a while, and when I came back, it still hadn't gone through. I opened a new tab to look at whether it had gone through and found the mess. Obviously, being patient when it goes whacky is worse than being impatient.

 

[Zorg]

Sorry about that. I only hit it once, and I didn't ever get feedback that the post had been made. I did leave the tab open for quite a while, and when I came back, it still hadn't gone through. I opened a new tab to look at whether it had gone through and found the mess. Obviously, being patient when it goes whacky is worse than being impatient.

It's not too late we can rebuild him. Er... uh, what I meant to say is just go back and delete the additional posts, problem solved.

 

[flasher702]

A brutal choice, and not one we should present to them. One of the criticisms of the old style of food aid before recent times was that it only created dependency, without a way out of poverty.

This is the main counter-argument to all the "but they need food, medicine, and jobs first" argument. And it's also the primary reason the OLPC is better than the Classmate: dependency. The Classmate is designed to create dependency and brand recognition. The OLPC is designed to create independence.

Also, this isn't a "food or laptop? CHOOSE WISELY!" proposition. The OLPC project can be deployed along side and compliment other relief programs.