OLPC: A Lost Cause

The author says its a lost cause, then talks about fixing it. So... Which is it? A project that has hit a speed bump or a project that is borked beyond saving?

The product, in the hands of the intended end users has been receiving raves from educators and others. That does not sound like a lost cause to me. But in the world as we know it today does the end user even matter?

I think this guy is really matt hartley- sounds the same, uses the same weird "reasoning", and has the same disregard for basic research. Mr. Negroponte's "back and forth conflict with Intel" was justifiable outrage over Intel trying to backstab OLPC, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/technology/05laptop.html

Whatever Mr. Negroponte's flaws, he got the OLPC off the ground, and inspired all those naysaying predatory "innovative" (take a break here to die laughing) billionaires to develop their own low-cost low-power notebook PCs, and then act like they thought of it themselves. My scorn is bottomless.

There are a variety of conflicting statements in this article, which puts the author on the short list for this year's Elmers.

What's even more interesting is that there's no forum to reply to this opinion piece's, um, "shortcomings."

Negroponte may not be the best executive, but since when does a project like this, as this article implies, have to "show a profit?" And why is it that the benefits of this program, according to the author, have to be measured in dollars-and-cents instead of the true benefit of allowing everyone a shot at what we all have, digitally speaking?

I have asked myself the very same questions Icafiero.

Why does the project have to be "run like Microsoft"?

Since when does a non-profit organization care if something makes money?

Why do the OLPC's have to have XP on them all of a sudden?

Sounds like someone has some dirt on someone else, if you know what I mean.

Scott