Re: [OS:N:] Re: OLPC

["M. Fioretti" <mfioretti nexaima net>]

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, general
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, but
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 worth
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 ends,
if I get drunk as soon as I can, I won't be able to buy drugs, which would
be much worst for my health and wallet". If the original problem/need as
envisioned by MIT (=grade school kids must have computers) exists and must
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 meaningful
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

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