Thread
Designers on quest to build $12 computer (based on NES)
Now THIS really piqued my interest (found this thanks to Slashdot):
http://news.bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view/2008_08_04_Designers_on_quest_to_build__12_computer/
To quote the highlight of the article....
http://news.bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view/2008_08_04_Designers_on_quest_to_build__12_computer/
To quote the highlight of the article....
EDIT: I changed the title of the thread as it's already been determined that it's going to be based on the NES, not the Apple II.
I don't think anybody in the US has a clue what a 3rd world nation needs for education considering what a mess the school systems in the US are like. There is a reason that McDonalds cash registers are nothing but pictures of food on the keys!
Did somebody have a marketing meeting on what markets were left to exploit with computers? Lets see the rich don't need computers because their acountants do their finances, and everything comes to them instead of them having to look anything up. The middle class is broke and already have atleast 1 computer per person, the geeks went retro and filled the basement up with machines, lets sell to some 3rd world kids dying from hunger and have no electricity!
Computers are a tool, they are not the answer to anything.
Did somebody have a marketing meeting on what markets were left to exploit with computers? Lets see the rich don't need computers because their acountants do their finances, and everything comes to them instead of them having to look anything up. The middle class is broke and already have atleast 1 computer per person, the geeks went retro and filled the basement up with machines, lets sell to some 3rd world kids dying from hunger and have no electricity!
Computers are a tool, they are not the answer to anything.
What about the kids from the 3rd world who have electricity and aren't dying from hunger?
It's not like the world is cleanly divided into two, and everyone's either overfed or living on mud in a refugee camp. There are plenty of places in the world where cheap computers will help kids gain skills that'll enable them to go further than they could without.
Education means nothing when you live in a country with no jobs. What would these kids do with computer skills? Having basic computer skills doesn't even mean much in western societies anymore. Better to teach them how to grow food and sanitize water first. Those are skills they can actually put to use.
Perhaps one of the problems with the $12 computer is that it is being designed as a computer.
I seem to recall that one of the stated reasons behind the XO-1 (the "$100 laptop") was to create an ebook reader. The idea being that a $100 ebook reader was still cheaper than acquiring books for each student, keeping those books up to date, dealing with theft (the XO-1 has anti-theft mechanisms that books cannot have), and to facilitate local curriculum development. Alas, the whole project went haywire and they ended up with a $200 laptop.
Is that actually the best thing for the developing world? A lot of people have argued that it would be cheaper to build libraries, rather than equip each kid with books or a computer. The XO-1's anti-theft mechanisms only work if potential thieves know about them (since they are largely social backed with a bit of technology), and if the theft is motivated by monetary gain.
Of course, even with the expanded mission to give them fully functional computers, the skill isn't necessarily to teach them computer skills. One of the ideas behind the XO is that it serves as a communications mechanism, so that they can learn how to grow food and sanitize water, or better ways of doing it. Some kids may want to pursue a career in science or engineering, in which case a computer can be an invaluable tool. Particularly if you don't have any other means to explore science and technology. Or are you saying that these kids don't deserve the same opportunities that were afforded us simply because we had the advantage of being born in developed nations.
But at the end of the day, it is what does the developing nation's government or regional education bodies want. While a lot of the XO's are donated, most of them are being bought within the countries themself. Governments want to develop their own economies, because they know that a technological society can do the basic stuff like secure food supplies (better agricultural techniques, better food transportation and storage). We aren't the ones deciding that they need that, they are.
That being said, will a $12 computer inspired by the Apple II be useful. Well, it will probably suck as an ereader. The technology will be so old that it will be practically impossible to correlate with modern computers. As for a general education tool: maybe if it was an Apple II clone and they could license the old Apple II software, it would be useful. But that depends upon Apple licensing out IP, and digging up the corpses of old companies to license out IP. I just don't think that will happen, so it will face the same software development issues as the XO. Only it will be a worse product than the XO, because at least the XO was delivering relatively modern technology rather than 25 year old technology.
I seem to recall that one of the stated reasons behind the XO-1 (the "$100 laptop") was to create an ebook reader. The idea being that a $100 ebook reader was still cheaper than acquiring books for each student, keeping those books up to date, dealing with theft (the XO-1 has anti-theft mechanisms that books cannot have), and to facilitate local curriculum development. Alas, the whole project went haywire and they ended up with a $200 laptop.
Is that actually the best thing for the developing world? A lot of people have argued that it would be cheaper to build libraries, rather than equip each kid with books or a computer. The XO-1's anti-theft mechanisms only work if potential thieves know about them (since they are largely social backed with a bit of technology), and if the theft is motivated by monetary gain.
Of course, even with the expanded mission to give them fully functional computers, the skill isn't necessarily to teach them computer skills. One of the ideas behind the XO is that it serves as a communications mechanism, so that they can learn how to grow food and sanitize water, or better ways of doing it. Some kids may want to pursue a career in science or engineering, in which case a computer can be an invaluable tool. Particularly if you don't have any other means to explore science and technology. Or are you saying that these kids don't deserve the same opportunities that were afforded us simply because we had the advantage of being born in developed nations.
But at the end of the day, it is what does the developing nation's government or regional education bodies want. While a lot of the XO's are donated, most of them are being bought within the countries themself. Governments want to develop their own economies, because they know that a technological society can do the basic stuff like secure food supplies (better agricultural techniques, better food transportation and storage). We aren't the ones deciding that they need that, they are.
That being said, will a $12 computer inspired by the Apple II be useful. Well, it will probably suck as an ereader. The technology will be so old that it will be practically impossible to correlate with modern computers. As for a general education tool: maybe if it was an Apple II clone and they could license the old Apple II software, it would be useful. But that depends upon Apple licensing out IP, and digging up the corpses of old companies to license out IP. I just don't think that will happen, so it will face the same software development issues as the XO. Only it will be a worse product than the XO, because at least the XO was delivering relatively modern technology rather than 25 year old technology.
Which countries are we talking about again? You seem to be missing my basic point - what about countries with jobs, with adequate water and food supplies but a poorly educated population? Countries aren't homogenic either. The problems you speak about might exist in the country side in same e.g. South American countries, but not amongst members of the lower middle class in the larger cities there.
I've had this discussion a online million times regarding the OLPC. Why is it that some people find it so hard to accept that there are places on Earth where all these basic problems of food, water, electricity, literacy and basic infrastructure are solved, and cheap computers - ie., tools for further education - will actually do more good than just about anything else?
Eh? Are there any jobs left that don't involve using a computer?
It's a very interesting project, and thankyou for linking it. I'll be passing it on to some OLPC developers I know, amongst others.
I think the idea of basing it on an Apple II is sheer genius, for the reasons this Slashdot commenter lays out:
I think the idea of basing it on an Apple II is sheer genius, for the reasons this Slashdot commenter lays out:
It's not just a matter of saving time, it's a matter of how efficiently other resources are used. Growing food can be as simple as scattering seeds on the ground or a cow in a field, but we would never be able to feed the world using those methods.
Simply put, computers allow us to optimize stuff. A computer (with the appropriate peripheral) can tell you the moisture content of your land. It can look at weather history and forecasts and tell you when would be the best time to irrigate the fields or spread fertilizer or spread pesticides. Computer can be used to monitor the storage and track the shipping of food. There is a hell of a lot of stuff that computers do behind the scenes these days. Sure you could have people manually doing all of that stuff, but the system would quickly collapse under the burdern of interconnected people.
In all reality, this Apple II inspired computer probably won't be Apple II compatible at all. It will probably be based upon a modern microcontroller. These microcontrollers are pretty neat because they package almost all of a computer's guts inside of a single package. The only thing that you have to do is add I/O devices. These chips are also cheap because they are used everywhere in industry.
If they package it up as a glorified Apple II, I'm concerned that it won't be of huge value. Unless it is Apple II compatible, it won't have a pool of software and very few people will be willing to develop that software. Even if it is Apple II compatible, you have to worry about licensing. It would be almost useless for developing computer skills since technology has changed so much.
BUT what if it isn't a modern retake on an old computer. A lot of these devices have things like analog inputs. That allows you to create dirt cheap sensors. Monitor the temperature. Monitor vibrations. Whatever. You have a kid that wants to be an engineer, you have an education tool and an inspiration. You have a kid who wants to be a farmer, you give him the ability to consider technological solutions to complex problems. Heck, even playing games can be beneficial if it is done in moderation.
Simply put, computers allow us to optimize stuff. A computer (with the appropriate peripheral) can tell you the moisture content of your land. It can look at weather history and forecasts and tell you when would be the best time to irrigate the fields or spread fertilizer or spread pesticides. Computer can be used to monitor the storage and track the shipping of food. There is a hell of a lot of stuff that computers do behind the scenes these days. Sure you could have people manually doing all of that stuff, but the system would quickly collapse under the burdern of interconnected people.
In all reality, this Apple II inspired computer probably won't be Apple II compatible at all. It will probably be based upon a modern microcontroller. These microcontrollers are pretty neat because they package almost all of a computer's guts inside of a single package. The only thing that you have to do is add I/O devices. These chips are also cheap because they are used everywhere in industry.
If they package it up as a glorified Apple II, I'm concerned that it won't be of huge value. Unless it is Apple II compatible, it won't have a pool of software and very few people will be willing to develop that software. Even if it is Apple II compatible, you have to worry about licensing. It would be almost useless for developing computer skills since technology has changed so much.
BUT what if it isn't a modern retake on an old computer. A lot of these devices have things like analog inputs. That allows you to create dirt cheap sensors. Monitor the temperature. Monitor vibrations. Whatever. You have a kid that wants to be an engineer, you have an education tool and an inspiration. You have a kid who wants to be a farmer, you give him the ability to consider technological solutions to complex problems. Heck, even playing games can be beneficial if it is done in moderation.
Food prices are going up because of poor management, not because optimization makes things brittle.
I agree that optimization can make things more brittle. That is particularly true when you design a system close to tollerances.
On the other hand, optimization does not have to make things brittle. Irrigation is a form of optimization. It allows you to ensure that the availability of a resource is fairly uniform. Same goes for storing food. It is a form of optimization that allows us to carry over food supplies into future years. These things make the system more resiliant.
Yet it is possible to manage things poorly. If you over irrigate, the soil will end up salinated. A steady food supply may encourage the growth of cash crops. Those things make the systems more brittle. But they are management decisions.
I agree that optimization can make things more brittle. That is particularly true when you design a system close to tollerances.
On the other hand, optimization does not have to make things brittle. Irrigation is a form of optimization. It allows you to ensure that the availability of a resource is fairly uniform. Same goes for storing food. It is a form of optimization that allows us to carry over food supplies into future years. These things make the system more resiliant.
Yet it is possible to manage things poorly. If you over irrigate, the soil will end up salinated. A steady food supply may encourage the growth of cash crops. Those things make the systems more brittle. But they are management decisions.
I'm hoping it is a II clone myself. The pool of ready made software that would be unleashed is huge. Imagine stock control and accounting software for a small shopkeeper who is doing everything by hand now. Let alone all of the industrial (and yes agricultural) control apps that were made possible by the II and it's available slots.
I very much doubt it would be a 1:1 clone; more likely a small, low-power recreation that integrates some of the old (and perhaps some new) peripherals.
And I want one!
I very much doubt it would be a 1:1 clone; more likely a small, low-power recreation that integrates some of the old (and perhaps some new) peripherals.
And I want one!
Food prices are going up because fuel prices are going up. Industrial agriculture is highly fuel dependent. Fertilizer is made from natural gas. And fuel price has pushed up the price (thus demand, thus supply) of biofuels, which are either made from food or grown on soil which could be growing food.
IMHO the biofuel boom has had a far smaller impact on food pricing than the moral panic suggests, and far smaller than the direct impact of fuel cost.
IMHO the biofuel boom has had a far smaller impact on food pricing than the moral panic suggests, and far smaller than the direct impact of fuel cost.
http://cultofmac.com/mit-designers-resurrecting-apple-ii-for-india/2474
I had a feeling that reporter knew sweet FA about computers.
And finally: the actual project website
http://design4dev.wetpaint.com/page/TV+Computer?t=anon
What amuses me the most is that indigenous "third" world entrepreneurship, by understanding the market and supplying what people actually want, might end up achieving what the OLPC foundation set out to do, from the $10 bottom up.
http://design4dev.wetpaint.com/page/TV+Computer?t=anon
What amuses me the most is that indigenous "third" world entrepreneurship, by understanding the market and supplying what people actually want, might end up achieving what the OLPC foundation set out to do, from the $10 bottom up.
I still want one! Place your orders by PM, folks, I'll be back in India some time in the next 12 to 18 months.
Having basic computer skills means nothing. If you want a job working with a computer you need to be an advanced user. Just knowing how to use a mouse and windows or a basic office package does not help you to get a job anymore because it is assumed everyone knows those things. If you want a job, you need to know a lot more.
So if kids use computers at an early age will they
(a) all become Nobel prize winners at extreme cleverness and solving the worlds problems in peace and harmony
( B) become spoonfed dummies with poor social skills who are incapable of critical or original thinking and have no idea on what research actually is.
Computers in schools is just anther big sink for tax payers money and another way of dumbing down kids while pretending to be doing them some kind of favour.
Times change, and the skills that people need to survive change with those time.
Consider some of the skills currently taught in school: we spend an inordinate amount of time teaching them how to read, how to do mathematics problems, understanding world history, and so forth. We spend next to no time teaching them skills like how to hunt or fish or grow food. Kids these days truly have no understanding of what it means to survive. They are helpless if there isn't a grocery store on the next block.
Yes, I'm being somewhat sarcastic here. But I do run into a lot of back-to-the-basics arguments, because it is proven to work. Really, that's why the majority of people dropped out of school before grade 6 a century ago and out of school before graduating high school less than half a century ago. They like to say that traditional methods promote understanding. Really. Knowing long division has as much bearing on understanding the concept of division as using a calculator or a computer. (Ever see a kid who knows long division, but doesn't even understand the idea that you are dividing something into equal parts?) Then the reall BS starts flying, things like they would be helpless without calculators or computers. Really. Well if the world went to hell in a handbasket and calculators and computers ceased being ubiquitous you would probably find that your grocery store would have gone the way of the do-do bird too. At that point, basic survival skills (the stuff not taught in school) will probably be more important than the academic stuff.
I do agree that our use of computers in schools is both inadequate and misdirected, but that has more to do with teachers who think that computers are word processors than with computers themselves.
Consider some of the skills currently taught in school: we spend an inordinate amount of time teaching them how to read, how to do mathematics problems, understanding world history, and so forth. We spend next to no time teaching them skills like how to hunt or fish or grow food. Kids these days truly have no understanding of what it means to survive. They are helpless if there isn't a grocery store on the next block.
Yes, I'm being somewhat sarcastic here. But I do run into a lot of back-to-the-basics arguments, because it is proven to work. Really, that's why the majority of people dropped out of school before grade 6 a century ago and out of school before graduating high school less than half a century ago. They like to say that traditional methods promote understanding. Really. Knowing long division has as much bearing on understanding the concept of division as using a calculator or a computer. (Ever see a kid who knows long division, but doesn't even understand the idea that you are dividing something into equal parts?) Then the reall BS starts flying, things like they would be helpless without calculators or computers. Really. Well if the world went to hell in a handbasket and calculators and computers ceased being ubiquitous you would probably find that your grocery store would have gone the way of the do-do bird too. At that point, basic survival skills (the stuff not taught in school) will probably be more important than the academic stuff.
I do agree that our use of computers in schools is both inadequate and misdirected, but that has more to do with teachers who think that computers are word processors than with computers themselves.
^--Indeed. Read "Mindstorms" by Seymour Papert for a cogent critique of everything that is wrong with computer education as it stood in the 1970s and still stands today, and a vision of how it can be (and in some places is)
But really, all this bitching and whinging has bugger all to do with the project at hand. Blah blah blah the world suxxors, things were better in my day, get off my lawn.
Now. Can we get back to some intelligent, constructive discussion, please?
But really, all this bitching and whinging has bugger all to do with the project at hand. Blah blah blah the world suxxors, things were better in my day, get off my lawn.
Now. Can we get back to some intelligent, constructive discussion, please?
II2II, porter, in a minor way paws:
Chill. It is not that important. For those of you who think it's stupid, it won't sell if it's stupid, and it'll die out. For those of you who think it's brilliant, it'll sell well if it is, and help people out.
Either it helps people or it dies out. There's no third option. Sure, someone could buy it then find out it's useless, but this would be fairly minor since 1. It's $12, not a huge investment even for subsistence farmers, and 2. They'll spread the word of it being useless and keep the total harm down close to zero.
Personally, I think that it's a great idea, but for kids in developed countries (note: I am NOT saying it should be barred to people in developing countries.) A modern, cheap Apple II would get lots of parents to buy them for their kids, and the kids would grow up not just learning about computers, but also having at least a basic understanding of how to program the computers (pardon the pun.) Kids now are growing up with the computers being just a glorified cell phone or game system, with none of the experience of actual creation that programming, even in BASIC, brings.
EDIT: Augh, somehow missed the "Not an Apple II" thing. Wish it was.
Chill. It is not that important. For those of you who think it's stupid, it won't sell if it's stupid, and it'll die out. For those of you who think it's brilliant, it'll sell well if it is, and help people out.
Either it helps people or it dies out. There's no third option. Sure, someone could buy it then find out it's useless, but this would be fairly minor since 1. It's $12, not a huge investment even for subsistence farmers, and 2. They'll spread the word of it being useless and keep the total harm down close to zero.
Personally, I think that it's a great idea, but for kids in developed countries (note: I am NOT saying it should be barred to people in developing countries.) A modern, cheap Apple II would get lots of parents to buy them for their kids, and the kids would grow up not just learning about computers, but also having at least a basic understanding of how to program the computers (pardon the pun.) Kids now are growing up with the computers being just a glorified cell phone or game system, with none of the experience of actual creation that programming, even in BASIC, brings.
EDIT: Augh, somehow missed the "Not an Apple II" thing. Wish it was.
On the subject of constructive discussion, I'd suggest that anyone who is interested should have a look at the real project website and make up their minds from there, ignoring all the inaccurate, lazy reporting in the previously linked media.
The system is on the market now, being sold into homes as a game/BASIC system, much like the C64 and other home computers of the 80s. The MIT team merely want to extend the education options available for it.
The system is on the market now, being sold into homes as a game/BASIC system, much like the C64 and other home computers of the 80s. The MIT team merely want to extend the education options available for it.
Kids are treating computers like cell phones and game systems. That has nothing to do with the computers themselves. Rather it has to do with society's attitudes towards computers.
After all, anyone can stick a simple programming language like Logo, SmallTalk, BASIC, or Python on their machine. All of these have free variants that are downloadable off of the Internet.
I think the stimulating part about computers in the olden days were that a lot of them did not have much software. The software that did exist was expensive and, in some cases, could be developed by an ambitious individual. There was a lot of talk about programming in the popular computer press, even going as far as programming books for kids. Some of those books were collections of games, others showed you how to program games. I even remember one piece of children's fiction that had a lead character solve problems by programming in Pascal, with the source code to those programs in the back.
If you think that a $12 computer is going to recreate that "golden age" of technophilia, I would assert that your idea is naive. Some of the problems out there don't call for technological solutions. They call for social solutions. Alas, creating social solutions is much harder.
After all, anyone can stick a simple programming language like Logo, SmallTalk, BASIC, or Python on their machine. All of these have free variants that are downloadable off of the Internet.
I think the stimulating part about computers in the olden days were that a lot of them did not have much software. The software that did exist was expensive and, in some cases, could be developed by an ambitious individual. There was a lot of talk about programming in the popular computer press, even going as far as programming books for kids. Some of those books were collections of games, others showed you how to program games. I even remember one piece of children's fiction that had a lead character solve problems by programming in Pascal, with the source code to those programs in the back.
If you think that a $12 computer is going to recreate that "golden age" of technophilia, I would assert that your idea is naive. Some of the problems out there don't call for technological solutions. They call for social solutions. Alas, creating social solutions is much harder.
I learned to program in the 80's because my 1st machine (A timex 2068) was orphaned a year after I got it and had few apps.
Kids in the 90's could be creative even with games because there were map editors out to design your own levels (quake, etc). Others did hacking, programming, artowrk, music etc.
My issues with computers in school are not in the machines, but with the software and how the machines are used. If you ever programmed you know that given a task there are a number of ways of doing it. Schools seems to teach the one "good" way to do something, and all others are inferior. When a kid comes up with a novel way of doing something and a student tells him it is the wrong way you kill creativity. I also don't like the memorization followed by multiple choice tests, they just get kids to memorize and puke the answer up on command when they see it.
Kids in the 90's could be creative even with games because there were map editors out to design your own levels (quake, etc). Others did hacking, programming, artowrk, music etc.
My issues with computers in school are not in the machines, but with the software and how the machines are used. If you ever programmed you know that given a task there are a number of ways of doing it. Schools seems to teach the one "good" way to do something, and all others are inferior. When a kid comes up with a novel way of doing something and a student tells him it is the wrong way you kill creativity. I also don't like the memorization followed by multiple choice tests, they just get kids to memorize and puke the answer up on command when they see it.
Teachers are in of a bit of a fickle here. The current pedagogical fad is based a lot on constructivism. Constructivism is one means of coming up with novel ways of doing something, because the student is expected to construct their own knowledge. Usually they are given the tools to figure something out, then any rational solution is considered valid. There are other ways of going about it, but constructivism seems to be the main way to use the different skills that students have. (There are teachers who will teach the content then assess solutions based on their validity rather than what they are taught, but the general outcome is that most students are working things out the same way because their understanding is based upon the instruction.)
Here's the hitch though: teachers are forced to teach to the curriculum, which rarely leaves time for the students to figure things out. The government then monitors how well teachers and schools are teaching to the curriculum through standardized testing (e.g. EQAO in Ontario). Some jurisdictions even use financial incentives and disincentives to force teachers to teach to the curriculum (e.g. No Child Left Behind in the U.S.). Of course I shouldn't blame just the government for that. Some teachers agree with this approach whole-heartedly, and some parents demand it for their child. After all, it is easier to guage knowledge than understanding.
Flipping back to software: there are a few constructivist tools out there (some may say constructionist here, but I'm not clear on the boundary). Some will be familiar to the Mac world through their creators, like Alan Kay's association with Squeak (a SmallTalk environment) and Bill Atkinson's association with HyperCard (HyperStudio is a variant on the theme, and still very much alive). Others stray away from programming, but still take on the same philosophy. These include products like Geometer's Sketchpad and Fathom.
But here's the hitch. When I've seen GSP and Fathom in use, students were always given explicit instructions on how to use it. So rather than using a constructivist approach, you are simply offering a variant on direct instruction. Part of the reason is time and those bloody curriculum expectations. Part of the reason is that students rarely know how to use this software and don't want to figure it out. But part of the reason is because the teacher's approach is all wrong too. By having all of the students use the software at the same time and for the same problems, you are basically reducing the software to an instructional tool rather than a learning tool.
As I've said before, most of the teacher's I've met simply don't understand computers. Ah well.
I don't think any such thing. Of course the circumstances are not the same, nor do I believe in recreating anything. I think this is interesting, and the street will find its own use for things, as always, and no doubt already is. The 21st century Bombay street, that is, not the 1970s upper-middle class Western suburban cul-de-sac. The well-meaning MIT team may or may not have some impact.
And yet, some do. Let the end user decide.
It's all very Western centric, really, isn't it.
Put it this way: I spent some time in a basti (settlement) of several hundred people in the center of Dehli.
Clean water, food, electricity, TVs, most families had at least one job-holder, and the kids were at school. But we're talking a family of eight in an eight by ten room, with another one or two built on top, a maze of two foot laneways in between.
Computers? There were four crappy old 486/P1 machines in the after-school drop-in center, and two of them were broken. Internet? Not since their last IT sponsor lost interest.
This is the market these $10 computers are going into - and no-one is shoving them down anyone's throat - people are buying them themselves.
IMHO we could all do with a break from pontificating about what the "third" world needs, and respect their intelligence enough to let them work it out for themselves.
If you're talking about India, well, they have the brain power to figure out the solutions themselves. It's not as though designing a decent computer is rocket science after all. A modern microcontroller offer more speed as well as internal flash memory and RAM. The I/O pins are a much more flexible data bus (for analog or digital) than a typical microprocessor. They also use a heck of a lot less power. If you do a bit of shopping, you can also find microcontrollers with internal RF communications modules. A network protocol like ZigBee is supposed to support several thousand nodes without external infrastructure. Everything is there, and (from what I've heard) the people in India and other developing nations can be bloody creative at using tools that we shun as primitive.
So why are we talking about a $12 computer designed in the west? Why not talk about what they're doing?
So why are we talking about a $12 computer designed in the west? Why not talk about what they're doing?
Hmm.
Our high school bought a bunch of BBCs and manuals, stuck them in a room and let us access them on breaks and after school. For at least a year, nothing much else was done with them, apart from purchasing a few more, and making a LAN with them.
We ended up with a room full of students throwing manuals back and forth at each other, calling out "Hey what's the xxx to do yyy?" and someone else calling the answer back over their shoulder in between madly trying to finish and save their port of Spacewar before the 15 minute recess was up. It was a hothouse of creativity in which we all learnt from the ground up, because we wanted to, and no-one got in out way.
I always assumed that it was simple ignorance and policy vacuum that created that situation, but now I wonder. It was a very conservative school, with a couple of very radical (and sneaky) teachers - one of whom set up the Beeb lab ...
Seymour Papert:
constructivism -> LOGO -> SmallTalk -> Squeak
->"Mindstorms" (book)
->Lego Mindstorms
->OLPC
Adopting the tool, but completely failing to grasp the idea.
Most of the teachers I've met don't understand learning. They may understand teaching, but that's not the same thing at all.
We're.Not.
{grinds teeth}
By the way II2II, I agree with you about the potential for µc-based systems. I've discussed this with my OLPC chums, and tossed around names like "One Micro Per Child" and the "$5 laptop". I could well see someone tossing together a system with an AVR or PIC, and junked cellphone displays and keyboards.
In fact, Contiki potentially would be a good starting point, as it has been ported to quite a few micros, as well as 8 bit compys.
The problem being that it's hard to get into developing for these systems without a working "real" computer. A $10 computer with its own dev system onboard (even BASIC) has some real potential.
Sorry, missed the follow up articles. 
Anyway, now to read that article that I missed.
I'm going to hold my tongue to avoid commenting on many of the teachers that I've met, but I think it's fairly safe to say that noone really understands learning. All that I know is how we do it feels wrong. We like to say that we are there to help the child, but more often than not we are really just covering the curriculum.
I'm not sure if a 486/P1 will be appropriate for them, but the design philosophy of a computer is more adaptable to their needs.
Anyway, now to read that article that I missed.
The question is though: is that what they really need?
I've heard horror stories relating to traditional computers in tropical climates. These range from over-heating (ask our friends in the southern US for a mild example of that), to various critters and molds growing in them. Clearly this isn't going to be the case in every under developed part of the world, but it could be.
I did read about half of that wiki Bunsen pointed to. It sounds like they are trying to develop a new computer, albeit on principles developed by local markets (the so-called NES clones). There may be a good reason for this. One being compatability between systems, in the case that they aren't true NES clones. After all, it sounds like the purpose of the project is content.
Content appears to be one of the objectives, as well as developing means of transmitting that content (writable media and communications systems). They claim that one of the reasons for this is that the profit motive may sell the systems, but they have failed to fully develop the market. Perhaps for good reason: it's probably hard to sell accessories or higher cost systems (my speculation). As such they are suggesting some sort of commercial/non-profit hybrid.
Back to why our rejects won't help: most computers outside of the 8 and 16-bit era don't actually use televisions as displays. One of the reasons for the popularity of these $10-$15 computers is because they work with TVs. Oddly enough, that probably parallels the early adoption of personal computers in developed nations. Even donating a monitor may not help. The target market used in this example only uses the TV for a couple of hours per day, because they are run off of car batteries. (Wow, car batteries have that much juice!) These 8-bit computers probably don't do much to lower the battery life, but a full computer and monitor will. Particularly since my recollection of CRT monitors is that they do use more power than CRT TVs. Then you have a power hungry computer on top of that. Of course not all markets are power constrained like that, but not all markets are like North America with cheap and plentiful electricity.
So no, discards probably won't work.
Here's the first piece of reasonably accurate reporting I've managed to track down. Judging by the comment thread below it though, people are still failing to grasp that they are not designing a new computer, but looking to use an existing one.
(a) New Jersey
( B) Somalia
© waiting helplessly for the US to save them
(d) really all that interested in what we think
Neither. Nor is the rest of the world outside the US, EU, Japan and Australia
(a) New Jersey
( B) Somalia
© waiting helplessly for the US to save them
(d) really all that interested in what we think
It's your own ignorance and arrogance that's on display here, and repeatedly
Yes, just another bunch of ignorant, greedy American capitalists looking to grease their palms :
In the sense that they are from the Americas, yes ...
II2II; I'm not calling Canada a developing nation. I'm just pointing out that the people involved are for the most part not from the United States, nor does it seem like any of them are motivated by profit, which the more cynical amongst us have suggested. And that given their respective origins and professional associations, the idea that they are exploitative profiteers who would have "no idea" what the developing world might need or want is pretty silly.
I originally bolded the last participant's name as well, but then I thought I was also being silly.
Even though I speak no Portuguese, it's pretty clear that Engenheiros Sem Fronteiras translates as Engineers Without Borders, who, like Médicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), are a volunteer, non-profit program that sends professionals where they are most needed.
Title updated and post-edit commentary regarding the change.Maybe this thread needs to be moved and the title changed.I did notice that this evening. Shame, as it would have been really cool had they actually based it off the Apple II. Ah well, still cool enough.
In this sort of case, I think it's fair to bundle in a Canadian with Americans. Our countries may be different, but there are sufficient similarities and enough wannabe Americans for the perceived motives to be the same. I'm also concerned about the Reverend in the mix, since they are often viewed as a colonialist or westernizing influence.
Motivations and, frequently, perceived motivations are very. One of my old roommates would always shop at big box stores and would always make purchases on credit or debit cards. He had a perception that small business owners and paying with cash was a sure way to get ripped off or robbed. The fact that all of the big box stores are either American or Americanized lead to his belief that they conducted honest transactions, while the largely immigrant operated stores that line the streets of this city led him to believe that they are fly-by-nights that are only interested in ill gained money. In other parts of the world, there may be backlashes towards Americanized or Westernized projects. Perhaps because they view it has having a negative impact on their culture, or simply because they believe that they best way to support their own kind is by dealing with their own kind.
As I've mentioned before, there is a social element to technology. How we react to it is often as important as what it does. It is impractical to catalog what the social reaction to something will be because it is often the cumulative impact of individual choices, and sometimes conflicting choices. For example, I have often heard people deriding Chinese manufactured goods yet buy them anyway because they are lower cost. They may deride them because of safety or quality, even though most of the stuff I've seen holds up remarkably well. They may deride them because they are taking American jobs, but few are willing to pay the higher price for those better paying American jobs. Some people are quite adamant though and will stick by their value judgments as best as we can.
See how we question the motives of someone else (real or perceived). Chinese jobs vs. American jobs (or Canadian or Australian). Profiting at the cost of quality and security. Hum. How do you think that notion affects how other people see us?
As I've mentioned before, there is a social element to technology. How we react to it is often as important as what it does. It is impractical to catalog what the social reaction to something will be because it is often the cumulative impact of individual choices, and sometimes conflicting choices. For example, I have often heard people deriding Chinese manufactured goods yet buy them anyway because they are lower cost. They may deride them because of safety or quality, even though most of the stuff I've seen holds up remarkably well. They may deride them because they are taking American jobs, but few are willing to pay the higher price for those better paying American jobs. Some people are quite adamant though and will stick by their value judgments as best as we can.
See how we question the motives of someone else (real or perceived). Chinese jobs vs. American jobs (or Canadian or Australian). Profiting at the cost of quality and security. Hum. How do you think that notion affects how other people see us?
And still you fail to understand. People in developing countries need basic survival skills before they need to learn to use technology. What good does it do when everyone knows how to use a computer when nobody is growing food? Computer skills are of little use to people who are starving and dying of dysentery. We should be building up the agro base of these countries before doing anything else so they can be self sufficient.Here's the first piece of reasonably accurate reporting I've managed to track down. Judging by the comment thread below it though, people are still failing to grasp that they are not designing a new computer, but looking to use an existing one.
Neither. Nor is the rest of the world outside the US, EU, Japan and Australia
(a) New Jersey
( B) Somalia
© waiting helplessly for the US to save them
(d) really all that interested in what we think
It's your own ignorance and arrogance that's on display here, and repeatedly
Yes, just another bunch of ignorant, greedy American capitalists looking to grease their palms :
People seem to think it's easy going into a poor country that has nothing and turning into a new high tech state. It took hundreds of years for Western nations to reach that point of societal evolution, so what makes you think you can force it to happen overnight just by bringing in technology from outside? If anything, forcing technology on countries that are not ready for it is detrimental because now they suddenly have to build an energy infrastructure that they didn't need before to support it and they have to import fuel to sustain it, but where is the money coming from when they can't even feed themselves? They need self sufficiency first, then they need a strong export base to get hard cash rolling in, and THEN you can worry about teaching them more advanced skills. Teaching them about technology when they don't even have enough viable farms or clean water to sustain their population is putting the cart before the horse.
You say that typing skills alone can make a big difference, but how many jobs do you really think there are in those countries? When you have millions of starving people, 1,000 better paying jobs is a drop in the bucket, and what good does the extra money do for the people when there is nothing in the shops to buy? There is no difference at all between $1 hour and a $1 a day if you are still starving.
There are a few problems with your assumptions.
1. Developing nations are at various stages of development. Some of these nations may have a reliable food supply, effective public health system, and ample resources to supply their own economy. What they lack are the skilled labor to maintain all of that.
2. Computers can teach more than computer skills. People are seriously considering using computers as glorified books because they cost less. The notion of ebooks in the west is notoriously expensive because we treat them as novelty items rather than as tools, and as a means of controlling distribution rather than freeing distribution. Different design decisions would reduce the cost.
3. The energy infrastructure may already be there. Yes, it is true that our computers are gluttonous energy hogs. But that is a design decision that values performance over efficiency. There are entire computers that use about 10 W of power (including display), and you can probably drive that energy use even lower. That means that a computer could probably use less energy than the televisions that already populate these nations.
4. There is no such thing as self-sufficiency and long term stability. Large systems have smaller statistical fluctuations. In order to be a member of that larger system, you have to have a diverse enough economy to be a full participant. Take food. You can become self-sufficient by growing enough food to feed the population, but that does nothing to buffer yourself from a localized drought. You can develop better methods of preserving food, but that will not buffer you from a long term drought or intensive agriculture that has depleted the land.
5. Modern computers are communications tools. Why do you think that people who live in abject poverty have access to a radio, a TV, a cell phone, or even internet cafes? There are a multitude of reasons, but one reason is to have a communications tool. Cell phones are important for setting up business deals. Television and radio is important for getting timely news from the outside world. (Prior to the invention of the telegraph, news would often take days or weeks to jump from industrialized nations like France to Britain.
6. The lack of economic or technological development frequently has nothing to do with being prepared for it. Many nations had strong economies and solid education systems before they deteriorated due to war. Many of the people who suffer from the lack of education and economic development aren't even the barbarians that perpetrated the war, but stuck in the turbulence of war. They need tools to help them fight back without bloodshed.
The problem with most developing nations is that the previous government ran up huge debts (most african nations) leaving the people to sell resources to try and keep up with the payments leaving them little to expand the economy (and the world bank likes it that way). I notice that the world bank has a tendency to forgive loans to industrial nations, but not 3rd world ones.
That's because they don't want underdeveloped nations to start exploiting their own resources and providing for themselves. They want to keep them enslaved to the wealthier nations. Colonialism doesn't fly in todays world so they do the next best (or is it worst?) thing and make debt slaves out of the developing world so they can never rise up to challenge the industrial might of the westernized world. This is why all these charitable projects to bring underdeveloped nations into the modern age are doomed to failure. The powers that be will never allow them to succeed.
I am well aware of the problems that exist in this world. Every country has to deal with them at some point in their history. What I am trying to point out, that you keep missing, is that for one reason or other many countries simply aren't ready to transition to a tech based economy. Maybe feeding people isn't a problem for all countries, but most suffer from some gap in their infrastructure that prevents them from utilizing high technology. How do you expect people to afford to buy these things when their incomes are so low? Even skilled labor doesn't get paid much in most countries. Then, once they own a piece of technology, how do they afford to maintain it? Energy isn't free. Power plants cost money to build and fuel also costs money. A country with a small economy often can't afford to make the transition without going into crippling debt. That is the problem Africa faces. They want to modernize and exploit their own resources but they can't because they are in debt to the world bank and western countries provide them with foreign aid that would be cut off as soon as they start trying to support themselves. There are no more empires, but the poor countries are still being exploited by the rich ones just the same only instead of conquering them, we force them into debts they can never repay by telling them they need to upgrade their technology and loaning them the money to do it. The third world needs to be left to develop at it's own pace, whether that be fast or slow, and be allowed to do so from the exploitation of their own resources and not by going into debt.
Sidestepping the issue that Quadraman and Bunsen are so angry about (for the record, I'm with Bunsen, but I'll say no more but that)
If Contiki gets ported to that, I am getting one even if I have to get it shipped from India, assuming of course it has a modem/ethernet/some communications port, which is a reasonable assumption considering it's said to be able to connect to the net.
If Contiki gets ported to that, I am getting one even if I have to get it shipped from India, assuming of course it has a modem/ethernet/some communications port, which is a reasonable assumption considering it's said to be able to connect to the net.
I think working computers should be exported and used (something not 100% obsolete either).
Still someday down the road everything will fail, what is africa going to do with all the monitors then?
Something tells me 200 years from now companies will be mining the landfills in africa looking for the stuff nobody wants now.
Still someday down the road everything will fail, what is africa going to do with all the monitors then?
Something tells me 200 years from now companies will be mining the landfills in africa looking for the stuff nobody wants now.
Well, the video in question suggests that about 20% of the equipment that the receive doesn't work, and that they try to fix it. If they cannot fix it, then it ends up as landfill. They don't have recycling facilities.
Here's a story from the BBC on the topic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7544003.stm
It also sounds like importing the computers is out of the businesses pockets, and people decide to buy this stuff from the business themselves. If they don't want it, they won't import it.
Given our tendency to dump stuff that is over 5 years old, I doubt that they will see much equipment that is over 10 years old. Given the right software, you can do pretty much anything we do today on a 10 year old machine.
You know, I'm thinking of how much less waste there would be if we simply upgraded wisely. Swapping mainboards and hard drives instead of replacing the entire enclosure. It would probably reduce the cost of shipping stuff to developing nations too (alas, components would be harder to test in this fragmentary state).
Here's a story from the BBC on the topic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7544003.stm
It also sounds like importing the computers is out of the businesses pockets, and people decide to buy this stuff from the business themselves. If they don't want it, they won't import it.
Given our tendency to dump stuff that is over 5 years old, I doubt that they will see much equipment that is over 10 years old. Given the right software, you can do pretty much anything we do today on a 10 year old machine.
You know, I'm thinking of how much less waste there would be if we simply upgraded wisely. Swapping mainboards and hard drives instead of replacing the entire enclosure. It would probably reduce the cost of shipping stuff to developing nations too (alas, components would be harder to test in this fragmentary state).
If it makes you feel any better, I have been using the same ATX full tower case as my primary desktop case since 2005 and it is currently housing it's 5th motherboard.
It would seem that I *might* be on the verge of a 6th and the number is really only that high because I started out with a Rev 1 B&W -> Rev 2 B&W -> Sawtooth -> Digital Audio -> Asus P5K. Next board might be a Gigabyte GA-P45-DS3R in the next few months unless I wait it out for Nehalem prices to get low enough and Apple to support it.Been using the same Antec Neopower 650 Blue since near the end of my Sawtooth board's usage as well and I hope to keep using it for some time to come. There are two problems with economists:
- Most of them do not know how to do math, nor want to, which sucks when they're in a profession that is about the numbers.
- Virtually all of them are indoctrinated with the same economic theories as a part of their training. So economics pretty much ends up as one big group thing.
I understand you perfectly. It's just that you're talking complete horse-puckey, and you're too dim, stubborn or arrogant to notice, even when it's been patiently explained to you half a dozen times.
Your point of view (on both the world, and what anybody else here is saying) is so far disconnected from reality that it would have to work its way up to being merely wrong. Calling it wrong is an insult to wrong things.
Your failure to notice the difference between something I claim, and a quote from one of the team members, someone who has actually been to India, goes some way to explaining your failure to differentiate between a button marked "Quote" and one marked "Reply", or what that key in the top right of your keyboard marked "Del" is for. If you're going to paste my entire post into yours, perhaps you should consider reading it first.
I hear community colleges have excellent courses in adult remedial reading comprehension these days. Perhaps you should consider one. If that's too challenging, consider watching more Discovery Channel and less Fox News. Alternatively, consider putting down the bong, moving out of your mother's basement and seeing the world beyond Podunk, Iowa*, or wherever it is that you skulk. Don't worry, you won't be eaten by cannibals.
India and China are the two fastest growing boom economies in the world. If I was you, I'd be more worried about my own children's future than theirs.
You are the reason the world hates America.
* No collateral offense to indigenous Iowans is intended
From somebody who visited one large city in a country you seem to know everything about it Bunsen. Both India and China have a huge percentage of people without a pot to piss in, just like there are areas in the US that were dirt poor even when the country had 50 years of booming economy.
My neighbors son whos wife came from India and has family there tells me it takes 2-3 days by bus from the closest airport to get to her small town. That doesn't sound too high tech to me.
There has been always a rich section of India and China, during the latest booms there is emerging a nice middle class, but those 2 huge countries still have some of the poorest people on the planet that number in the 100's of millions.
My neighbors son whos wife came from India and has family there tells me it takes 2-3 days by bus from the closest airport to get to her small town. That doesn't sound too high tech to me.
There has been always a rich section of India and China, during the latest booms there is emerging a nice middle class, but those 2 huge countries still have some of the poorest people on the planet that number in the 100's of millions.
*Ahem*
Those people that you say have no pots to piss in are not the target market. Have fun with your straw man, though.
*deep breath*
Why does a discussion of a cool piece of hardware always have to turn into a debate with both sides mudslinging? Maybe there are people it'll benefit, maybe not. It isn't a crime to try to make and sell the thing, and trying to argue that the designers are [stupid/selfish/greedy/etc] says more about your intelligence than theirs. Yes, they are selfish - it's called capitalism. However, they are presumably trying to help people with the project. Is that so wrong that you have to post long rants about its futility? It isn't like they're going to harm anyone if the project fails... at the worst, a few more Indians will have typing skills. Whether they need them, or whether it will help them get a better job, isn't really foreseeable at this point, but personally I think that $12 is a good price for even a potentially useless [skill/computer]
Those people that you say have no pots to piss in are not the target market. Have fun with your straw man, though.
*deep breath*
Why does a discussion of a cool piece of hardware always have to turn into a debate with both sides mudslinging? Maybe there are people it'll benefit, maybe not. It isn't a crime to try to make and sell the thing, and trying to argue that the designers are [stupid/selfish/greedy/etc] says more about your intelligence than theirs. Yes, they are selfish - it's called capitalism. However, they are presumably trying to help people with the project. Is that so wrong that you have to post long rants about its futility? It isn't like they're going to harm anyone if the project fails... at the worst, a few more Indians will have typing skills. Whether they need them, or whether it will help them get a better job, isn't really foreseeable at this point, but personally I think that $12 is a good price for even a potentially useless [skill/computer]
I mentione a middle class in both China and India, and also mentioned there are poor people even in the USA. Did you not read it?
Kind of odd some western people are going to design a product, make it in china, and sell it in china that the chinese never thaught of needing themselves.
I could be wrong, but gunpowder was invented at a time China was unified and not fighting wars with their neighbors. Europe was busy fighting endless wars so they were busy looking for ways to kill each other easier. Sad to say many inventions come out of wars or war mongering.
I still get annoyed that greeks invented the steam engine thousands of years ago and just used it for a toy, if they had figured out a way to make a motor out of it the industrial revolution would have happened a long time ago. Granted other inventions needed to happen to make it usefull.
I still get annoyed that greeks invented the steam engine thousands of years ago and just used it for a toy, if they had figured out a way to make a motor out of it the industrial revolution would have happened a long time ago. Granted other inventions needed to happen to make it usefull.
Once again:
The computer already exists. It is already being purchased by, in this case, Indians who are presumably intelligent enough to work out for themselves that they want it. The "western" people (who for the most part aren't) on the MIT team are looking for ways to extend its educational usefulness.
Not at all. But I can read, and generally understand what I read.
My point in mentioning the (one) bhasti I visited is that there definitely -is- a market for these machines, and one where they would potentially be more useful than junked 486s or XOs. If you want to assume that that single settlement of a few hundred people is the entire world market, you go ahead.