After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <2cjul.16502$19.6709@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Go dig around their site, especially their Wiki, and you'll find a
>> > document describing how they don't know what the effect of the OLPC will
>> > be--just that it is going to somehow transform third world societies.
>>
>> Cool. But you're leaving out a lot of the motivations and work done, in a
>> transparent effort to trivialize the OLPC foundation's efforts and inflate
>> Microsoft's contribution.
>
> Where exactly did I mention Microsoft? I have no idea what, if any,
> Microsoft contributed to the Intel Classmate.
<reply_in_group-A27381.11514712032009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Vincent Fritters <Vince@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What's a OLPC? Is that some toy-like computer that used to exist
> > before the advent of netbooks?
>
> It's a good will project that was sabotaged by Microsoft, Intel and
> others because they put their selfish interests first instead of the
> children who might benefit from the program.
So designing a better children's computer, based on extensive field
research in third world classrooms to find out what the teachers
actually need, is sabotage?
<Ogdul.14660$i9.8376@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
You're full of it, Tim.
You followed up on a post mentioning Microsoft.
Then you redirected the point to only one part of Microsoft's "sabotage",
helping Intel squelch the OLPC with an alternative (mischaracterizing that
effort somewhat, by the way), and then ignored the history of Microsoft's
direct interference in the project.
Do da Timmy Shuffle.
--
Nothing matters very much, and few things matter at all.
-- Arthur Balfour
|
|
