>1) It's basically a 'teach a man to fish' kind of idea.

Granted, though it can still be compared to other "teach a man to fish" proposals. You could donate books. You could fund a Peace-Corps-esque program that sends teachers to staff free schools in impoverished areas. You could do like Oprah and fund your own school. You could fund a need-based scholarship program to allow students from these countries to attend U.S. universities. Etc. One could argue that these would all be less effective than OLPC; my point is just that the "teach a man to fish" aspect of OLPC doesn't render it immune to criticism.

>2) People are transformed by the ideas they're exposed to --
>even if they're warlord lackies with computers forcibly
>removed from the clutches of starving children.

More kids (and/or adults) hooked on pr0n. Just what the world needs.

>3) Because many people have gotten fired up about the OLPC
>idea and donated that would never donate to the Feed
>the Children fund or what have you, the choice isn't really
>between give starving children food or give starving children
>laptops -- in probably most cases, it's between give starving
>children laptops or give starving children nothing.

Sure. And in that sense I guess I support it. But it still makes me want to slap the people who'll pay $200 bucks to buy someone a crappy laptop, but not to help them in any other (arguably much more tangible) way. It's the "computers are a silver bullet" attitude that irks me.