The $200 Laptop

[Pure]

U.S.-Canada program to buy laptops for 3rd World kids extended

Thu Nov 22, 10:30 PM

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - A project that hopes to supply developing-world schoolchildren with computers for less than $200 has extended a promotion in which a customer buying the machine in the United States or Canada automatically donates a second one to a poor country.


The One Laptop Per Child Program said the "Give One, Get One" program will now run through Dec. 31, instead of ending Nov. 26.


The non-profit spinoff from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said customers in the United States and Canada will pay $399 for two children's laptops, with the buyer taking one of the green-and-white, low-power "XO" machine. The other is sent to a child in a country such as Rwanda, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Haiti or Mongolia.


"In the past 10 days, we've experienced an outpouring of support from the public that is truly gratifying and encouraging," said Nicholas Negroponte, the program's founder.


"Because so many people have asked for more time to participate, either individually or in order to organize local and national groups to which they belong, we have decided to extend Give One Get One through the end of this year."


The computers were dreamed up as $100 laptops but cost $188.


The laptop has a homegrown user interface designed for children, boasts built-in wireless networking, uses very little power and can be recharged by hand with a pulley or a crank. Its display has separate indoor and outdoor settings so it can be read in full sunlight, something even expensive laptops lack.


Mass production was delayed until early this month because of reluctance from some potential buyers.

 

[only_more_so]

I walk by a bus-stop every day that has a poster advertising the buy one give one. It shows a little African girl holding a laptop on her head.

 

[angelicminx]

Just because I'm curious, and in that kind of mood:

Can someone tell me what 'we' (America) are doing for our own kids? I don't mean the kids whose parents can afford to give them everything they want, I mean the kids who aren't sure where their next meal is coming from, where they will sleep tonight, or if they will even wake up in the morning.

Maybe America is already doing a tremendous amount for these kids. Maybe the kids are already using their laptop as a pillow. Somehow, I doubt it. I'd love to hear about it, though. I'd love to hear a truthful account of how we don't have hungry, homeless, medically needy, or educationally needy children here in America.

While I do think it's commendable that we have the resources to help children in other countries, I've always wondered what we are doing at home. Have we as a country grown so cynical that we believe every parent with a needy child would sell our efforts for their next fix? Are we so cynical that we won't help the children because the parents are worthless?

Just my thoughts this morning. Please, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.


My husband adds: Why is America so quick to run help someone else? Why does America owe billions of dollars to itself because it borrowed to help someone else? Why is it that America will fly around the world to help others, but won't walk across the street, or even next door, to help one of her own?

 

[Pure]

note to angelic.

angelic, i think the poor US kids, of all colors, deserve laptops and good school facilities.

the US is hardly so poor it has to choose between US kids and African kids. divert a week's spending on the iraq war--that's about a billion-- to america's poor and you'd have laptops. divert 5% of the defense budget to education on a continuing basis, and there could be massive sustained improvements.

at least 30% of US voters, and half the US businesses (e.g. as represented by lobbyists), disagree with such a change.

how do you think it could come about?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That same laptop is for sale here in the US for $399. The laptops they send overseas are deeply discounted and/or given at cost. You can see the specs at

MicroCenter

FYI

 

[only_more_so]

Just because I'm curious, and in that kind of mood:

Can someone tell me what 'we' (America) are doing for our own kids? I don't mean the kids whose parents can afford to give them everything they want, I mean the kids who aren't sure where their next meal is coming from, where they will sleep tonight, or if they will even wake up in the morning.
...

My husband adds: Why is America so quick to run help someone else? Why does America owe billions of dollars to itself because it borrowed to help someone else? Why is it that America will fly around the world to help others, but won't walk across the street, or even next door, to help one of her own?

Not to go all biblical but, "Hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."

But, to a certain extent, I can understand people's reasoning. Mainly, I'm playing devil's advocate here: In the third world country, access to any computer is hard to come by. A school with books is hard to come by in many cases (especially if you only include books that are remotely up to date). Giving laptops to those children would enable them to have an education, perhaps enabling them to growup and contribute significantly to their country's development.

Children in the US have access to decent education. Schools have textbooks and computers that the children have access to.

Alright, done being devil's advocate.

 

[angelicminx]

angelic, i think the poor US kids, of all colors, deserve laptops and good school facilities.

the US is hardly so poor it has to choose between US kids and African kids. divert a week's spending on the iraq war--that's about a billion-- to america's poor and you'd have laptops. divert 5% of the defense budget to education on a continuing basis, and there could be massive sustained improvements.

at least 30% of US voters, and half the US businesses (e.g. as represented by lobbyists), disagree with such a change.

how do you think it could come about?

Actually I agree with you, Pure. We should be able to help both.

An analogy (?): Getting a child off the 'Angel Tree', (You know, the one that has needy children to buy Christmas for). A tradition started by my grandmother is to take at least one child off the tree and buy thier Christmas. How many we bought for depended on our financial situation at the time. Our own family was covered first, and then a second, third or fourth child. The year I turned 15, the older kids (14-18) decided to forego their gifts that year in order to help more 'Angels'. The point being, we took care of our family first and then helped others, or we made the decision as a family to help others, within our financial capabilities.

I would love to see the war money diverted into the areas of improving life, rather than destroying it.

If 30% of voters disagree with the change, that still leaves 70%. What do they think? Or do they have an opinion? I honestly don't think polititians and lobbyists represent the people. I think they represent themselves and popular opinion within their own ranks.

How could it come about? I don't know. What would be the consequence for diverting war money? How would monetary spending for the world as a whole affect the whole world? Sometimes I think if the world would take care of the children, conflict among the children would end. We were all children, once upon a time. Why is it so blessed hard to just get along in the world? Why must conflict end in bloodshed?

Where does the money generated from increased cigarette tax, gasoline tax, alcohol tax, lottery, etc. go?

 

[angelicminx]

Not to go all biblical but, "Hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."

But, to a certain extent, I can understand people's reasoning. Mainly, I'm playing devil's advocate here: In the third world country, access to any computer is hard to come by. A school with books is hard to come by in many cases (especially if you only include books that are remotely up to date). Giving laptops to those children would enable them to have an education, perhaps enabling them to growup and contribute significantly to their country's development.

Children in the US have access to decent education. Schools have textbooks and computers that the children have access to.

Alright, done being devil's advocate.

I'm not sure if your biblical quote is directed at me or at the nation, but I like the quote.

In the same vein as your 'devil's advocacy', there are rural areas still in the US that experience the same difficulty with access to computers and education as third world countries. There may be urban areas experiencing the same problem. I don't know, I'm not familiar.

My question is still, are we doing as much for our own children as we are for the children of other nations?

 

[Liar]

My question is still, are we doing as much for our own children as we are for the children of other nations?[/COLOR][/B]

Yes.
More even.
But that doesn't mean that enough is done.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Rwanda is wired for WiFi?

 

[neonlyte]

Rwanda is wired for WiFi?

Leaping technology - you go from no phones to WiFi in a single investment.
ETA: Rwanda link http://www.green-wifi.org/ourstory.html

 

[angelicminx]

Leaping technology - you go from no phones to WiFi in a single investment.

LMFAO

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Leaping technology - you go from no phones to WiFi in a single investment.
ETA: Rwanda link http://www.green-wifi.org/ourstory.html

You know, this is another term to put into that SETI equation for determining the probability of detecting extraterrestrial civilizations through their electromagnetic broadcasts. WiFi isn't powerful enough to qualify as broadcasting and wouldn't be detectable from space. If a civilization went from broadcasting EM radiation to a system like WiFi in roughly 80-90 years like we're doing, that would give us only an 80 year window to detect their radio emissions in space. That would cut down on the odds tremendously.

Maybe that's why SETI isn't finding anything. Everyone's gone WiFi.

 

[The_Fool]

I want my very own IP Address right fucking now...

 

[only_more_so]

You know, this is another term to put into that SETI equation for determining the probability of detecting extraterrestrial civilizations through their electromagnetic broadcasts. WiFi isn't powerful enough to qualify as broadcasting and wouldn't be detectable from space. If a civilization went from broadcasting EM radiation to a system like WiFi in roughly 80-90 years like we're doing, that would give us only an 80 year window to detect their radio emissions in space. That would cut down on the odds tremendously.

Maybe that's why SETI isn't finding anything. Everyone's gone WiFi.

Wifi hasn't affected our (earthlings) broadcasting. There are still super powerful radio stations, we even have radio broadcasting powerful enough to be beamed from geostationary orbit. Not to mention all the radio broadcasts going to and from our other satellites, the exploration vehicles we sent to other planets and out of the solar system.

The real way they would be hard to track down is if they go to a non-EM based communications.