http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/give-one-get-one.php

http://www.slate.com/id/2192798/

"The $100 Distraction Device"

Just wanted to make a post from my couch on my new xo laptop. The keyboard is a little small (so I don't know about mudding) but it's awesome. I would have loved to have one of these as a child and I can't wait to show this to my neices and nephews.

Joking aside I have to agree with Isildur about the use of monies donated etc for struggling countries.

-----Abernyte

P.S. Give to smaller charities and the money gets to the needy and not spent on advertising and paperwork.

I'd rather give someone food. Or maybe books and study materials for him and several of his classmates. OLPC always struck me as a terribly inefficient use of money and effort.

First, I guess I should clarify that I'm getting it for myself because I think it's a cool device. I was inquiring who else would be buying themselves one.

>I'd rather give someone food.

They aren't for starving people. Giving someone who is starving a laptop is stupid.

>Or maybe books and study
>materials for him and several of his classmates.

How much information can be contained/accessed in $200 worth of books?
I've had college classes that cost me that much in books for one class.

How much "study materials" can you get with $200?

How much more information is available to someone with a computer?

>OLPC always struck me as a terribly inefficient use of money and effort.

I (obviously) strongly disagree.

I'd rather give someone food. Or maybe books and study materials for him and several of his classmates. OLPC always struck me as a terribly inefficient use of money and effort.

1) Prioritizing extreme poverty (i.e. people who need food) is one possible strategy. However, you could make the argument that education-oriented gifts have the ability to lift a country with less dire poverty into self-sufficiency. Depending on where we are talking about, there is often the case that there is plenty of food, but it's not reaching the people for political reasons. In those places, it doesn't really matter what you send-- it's going to get taken. It might be more productive in the short/medium term to target places with at least minimal infrastructure, and there food isn't a problem. Sending food to Darfur right now, for example, isn't terribly productive.

2) The laptop is infinitely cheaper and more efficient than books. Each one could be preloaded with a full K-12 syllabus in the native language-- there's plenty of public domain work out there.

3) There's a remarkable link between rising education and real, causative problems that keep people poor for generations:

- Educated people choose to have fewer children.
- Educated people are more receptive to extending rights to women, and racial/social/religious minorities.
- Educated people are more resistant to radical fundamentalism.

If you're supplying the laptops, you have the opportunity to make sure the texts do objective comparisons of different political systems, philosophies, etc., and cover modern science and history from a global perspective. You want people to say "Huh. There are plenty of places that don't live under quasi-feudalism or authoritarian theocracies, and their standard of living is quite good. Maybe we should try that.", along with more basic things like "Oh. AIDS isn't a curse or a punishment. It's a virus. That's why they're always trying to hand out condoms."

Personally, I think if you solve the social issues, the food takes care of itself in a generation's time.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

The OLPC program just strikes me as a particularly self-indulgent "western" charity, and it annoys me that techie types are so especially enamored of it. If it involves a computer, it has to be better than whatever existed before computers, right? If we could just get a computer into everyone's hand, things would surely turn around.

The computer isn't just another tool. It isn't like a hammer, or the steam engine, or the internal combustion engine... It's something that has already completely transformed the way everything in our culture is done to varying extents. Nothing compares to the effect that the computer has, and will have on humanity. So yes, getting people a computer won't neccessarily "turn things around" but it will give them opportunity to be more than a beast of burden when they are grown. More than any other tool of even 10x cost. It's a lifelong learning tool.

That rosie view never plays out in practice. I know I've read several articles about the domestic use of computers in education (i.e. outside actual computer science classes) and they paint a fairly negative picture. Even moreso if you consider it from a cost/benefit perspective. My crack about wanting to spend my money on food was said in haste. If I really wanted the most bang for my buck, I'd probably support the development of self-sustaining indigenous businesses and encourage foreign investment.

Another thing that's a little galling is that these things are being sold to governments, and not always governments that extremely impoverished. So if I were to participate in the buy-one-give-one program, I'm subsidizing a foreign government's purchase of educational materials that, really, it should have been purchasing already at full cost if they're as beneficial as you maintain they are. What are they doing with the funds my subsidy frees up?

I have no real opinion on the this program, though in general I feel anything that encourages one group of people to help another group of less fortunate people is a net positive. So in that light I'm not going to rail against something that might not be the "best" general solution as there is no guarantee in general that money spent by people for this program would be spent on a "better" or different program if this did not exist.

When studying the economics of charitable giving it is important to consider what a variety of programs can do for the total amount of such gifts. In the general case given more options more people will buy in and more dollars will be invested. This is true for gifts to the poor as it is for general non-profits. That is why large non-profits org's that survive primarily on donations tend to offer many ways to give. And why there is over lap in the services such organizations provide.

As for encouraging foreign investment into underdeveloped nations, that is what this type of charity is; it is a direct investment into the education of such people. It is unfortunate but much of the direct foreign investment into such nations by developed nations in the form of business investment comes at a net cost to the indigenous people. These costs come from exploitation of natural resources and underdeveloped employment laws and regulations, etc. What would tend to show the greatest benefit would be investment into such nations infrastructures, health and education systems, pushing the governments to a more open economic system with better regulation and controls, and the removal of foreign trade barriers.

It is important to note that many underdeveloped nations do have indigenous industries that can already produce goods for export that often suffer because of trade barriers erected by the developed world. The US and the EU among others all have local industries that benefit from some form of government protection that inadvertently hurts under developed nations.

Anyway this is longer then I intended already; to sum it up I think encouraging economic growth in under developed nations is not a very straight forward endeavor and it is probably a good thing to try a variety of approaches.

Okay, I acknowledge up front: "consider the source," but apparently I'm not the only one who isn't impressed with OLPC:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2227850,00.asp

Only much more arrogantly. Don't give them laptops, give them food would be a valid argument if there was any intention of give these to people who were starving. If you don't understand the target market, then it is pointless to argue merits of a laptop when you and I see them as being used in entirely different ways.

Nor is it the goal of the program to impress you (at least I doubt it is), if you do not think this is a good program worthy of your charitable donations then don't support it. While I cannot claim to know where 100% of this programs funds come from, it is simple in general to show your dislike for a non-profit, don't buy into it, don't give them your donation. The author of the article your post links to and your own post make it sound as though YOU have a stake in this program when in reality you probably do not*.

*By stake I mean a direct financial cost to you. It is possible a program like this could receive some government funding and thus there is an indirect cost to you as a portion of your tax receipts might be paying for the program. But, considering all government spending on foreign aid is estimated at only 16.994 Billion dollars for 2007 (Approx 0.6% of the Fed Budget) I think such an arguement fails when compared to other Federal spending problems. (Budget/spending data from the http://www.gpoaccess.gov)

>Nor is it the goal of the program to impress you (at least I
>doubt it is), if you do not think this is a good program
>worthy of your charitable donations then don't support it.

I plan on doing just that. That doesn't mean I can't still find the tech community's die-hard support to be more than a little annoying. That may be what galls me most of all, actually. You don't hear normal people going gaga over OLPC. Who you do find going gaga over it is the "slashdot crowd", for lack of a better term.

Imagine if you will a program called OVPC: One Violin Per Child. The idea is to put a low-cost musical instrument (in this case a violin) in the hand of hundreds of thousands of impoverished children. If only these kids had the chance to experience music, it would forever change their outlook on life, broadening their horizons and motivating them to learn all sorts of other things.

Given that such a program is sort of...well...moronic...wouldn't it annoy you a little that all these guys are sinking so much cash into it? Cash that could be spent on something more constructive (say, the OLPC program)?

People can improvise their own instruments, not to mention that violin is a difficult instrument to master. The laptop is a bit better idea than that, but not a one I'd donate to.

EDIT: Besides, isn't a few laptops per village enough for them anyway? Or blackboards and chalk?

Given that such a program is sort of...well...moronic...wouldn't it annoy you a little that all these guys are sinking so much cash into it? Cash that could be spent on something more constructive (say, the OLPC program)?

No I guess it would not bother me. While I would not agree with the basic idea of such a program, and would not support it with any donations, it does not bother me how other people choose to spend their money. If your hypothetical situation bothers you, what about the millions of dollars in donations that are spent each year to support local orchestras or other arts within the US? Could these dollars not be better spent on assisting people that have real problems instead of just helping "rich" people find local musical entertainment or other diversions, does this also annoy you? My point is, people spend money on what they want to spend money on, why should it bother me that some people feel it would be valuable to assist underdeveloped countries by helping provide laptops for their citizens?

It would be presumptuous of me to assume I know what they should in fact spend it on, and a little hypocritical since I also spend money on frivolous things, and certainly am not doing what I would be asking others to do.

>what about the millions of dollars in donations
>that are spent each year to support local orchestras or other
>arts within the US? Could these dollars not be better spent
>on assisting people that have real problems instead of just
>helping "rich" people find local musical entertainment or
>other diversions, does this also annoy you?

Yes it does. But only when the ones making the contributions view it as something other than a self-serving gesture.

>My point is,
>people spend money on what they want to spend money on, why
>should it bother me that some people feel it would be valuable
>to assist underdeveloped countries by helping provide laptops
>for their citizens?

Because if they're funding a program that is comparitively less effective, and if they'd be willing to donate the money elsewhere, then the beneficiaries are essentially getting short-changed.

To make the hypothetical even more ludicrous, suppose there was an OIPC program: One iPod per Child. A friend of yours dumps $300 into this charity in order to provide a 80GB video ipod to a refugee in the Sudan. You're telling me that wouldn't bug you just a little bit?

To make the hypothetical even more ludicrous, suppose there was an OIPC program: One iPod per Child. A friend of yours dumps $300 into this charity in order to provide a 80GB video ipod to a refugee in the Sudan. You're telling me that wouldn't bug you just a little bit?

I don't know what to tell you, other then I think it is a little self-righteous of you to presume to know how other people should spend their money. It would not bother me if someone went ahead and donated money to some program as you describe here, it is their own choice. Just as I don't get upset by Toy's For Tots programs that give toys to underprivelaged kids who probably would be better served by more practical donations of food, clothing, or education supplies themselves. I will not get upset over how someone else chooses to donate/spend their own money. Nor, do I really care for the reasons a person would choose to donate in this fashion, I don't need to buy into their ideas, again the person spending the money needs to make a choice if they like it for whatever reason who am I to say that choice is wrong.

Some points that I think are being lost here are:

1) It's basically a 'teach a man to fish' kind of idea. I think it's too early for anyone on any side of the argument to say authoritatively how well that will work out.

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. Hell, I assume the world will ultimately see some benefit from Nigerian youths using computers to execute 419 scams. Someday.

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.

>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.

>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.

I don't think it's immune to criticism. It just seems to me like Dvorak in particular lost sight of that, or chose to ignore it because he makes a living by making the kind of half ass informed rants against or for something that inspire conversation and piss people off enough to tell their friends 'You have to go read this idiot's article.'

Basically, he's the Howard Stern of tech journalism.

>>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.

Well, you'll get that. No avoiding it really. (Although, better pr0n than ethnic cleansing, if it comes to that.)

It's kind of like growing crops or flowers. You toss out a lot of seed, and a lot of it never grows, but your plan is such that if some/enough of it does, you still consider it a win.

>>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.

I think you'll see that kind of attitude frequently in the slashdot kind of crowd because it's disproportionately made up of the kind of people for whom it was or would be.

My life would be a lot, lot different if I hadn't had access to a very crappy computer at a young age. I wanted to play games and didn't have access to any, so I taught myself the basics of programming to be able to make them. If you really think about it, that also necessitated teaching myself (very basic) algebra and a few other things that probably most six year olds don't encounter of their own volition. There's an excellent chance that, minus those events, I would have a very different career and set of peers at this point in my life, and also that I would have spent much more of it wooing attractive women. Whether you call that a net positive or not I can't really say, but I can attest to the transformitive power of a computer for the right child. It won't be that for every child, and I can't say that I'm convinced that even at $100 per laptop it's worth the price, but I can understand in some small way where the people who do are coming from.

It is quite an assumption to believe that donating money to OLPC is equivalent to creating one more "educated" person in the world.

It is quite an assumption to believe that donating money to OLPC is equivalent to creating one more "educated" person in the world.

I'm missing where I said that.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

3) There's a remarkable link between rising education and real, causative problems that keep people poor for generations:

- Educated people choose to have fewer children.
- Educated people are more receptive to extending rights to women, and racial/social/religious minorities.
- Educated people are more resistant to radical fundamentalism.

I'm just saying that for that to be relevant to this conversation you're making a leap of faith that OLPC will increase the number of educated people in the world.

>I'm just saying that for that to be relevant to this
>conversation you're making a leap of faith that OLPC will
>increase the number of educated people in the world.

I don't think that takes a leap of faith at all.

Assuming there'll be something like a 1 OLPC = 1 or more educated people ratio, yeah. Assuming that the whole project will result in at least one more educated person doesn't seem to take a lot of faith.

I'd rather give someone food.

Just wondering if you are aware of the fact that African food producers are somewhat shafted because of how EU dumps cheap export subsidied food into the area and they can't compete with the price. Giving food isn't that simple and easy solution and can lead you being in a cycle where you have to keep giving a fish since people there grow dependent on it and those who know how to fish have thrown their pole in the corner to grow moss since they can't get their catch sold to the populace when people go to you and your charity to get their fish instead (milk is more apt analogy, with the cheap European milk powder pretty much dominating the market in Africa). African goverments have been pretty angry at EU for ####ing up their market with cheap subsidied products. Makes me wonder why we are paying for that.