[lug] One laptop per child

[dio2002 at indra.com]

> dio2002 at indra.com wrote:
>
>> Technology that withstands an honest challenge is stronger for enaging
>> in
>> the process.
>
> [Choke on coffee, gag...]
>
> I can think of plenty of bad technologies out there that have withstood
> many challenges from better ones, where the better ones lost because of
> the status quo.

Ummm that's because they probably weren't *honest* challenges... if a mega
corp has gazillions at its disposal to flood the market, set prices below
cost, use it's leverage on suppliers, market to the hilt to crush a
competitor(s), there's nothing honest about that.  And if people are
stupid enough to believe the hype thrown at them or don't have access to
good information and buy an inferior product then they're not really
challenging in their position as consumers.  They're being dictated to.

I agree with you .. many bad technologies do prevail and it's because they
have never recieved an *honest* challenge.

And my suspicion is that a good many people don't care, unfortunately.

> To try to back up in history far enough to give a good example without
> picking a modern controversial one, the story of the Tucker automobile
> might be far enough back.  Cadillacs and other high-end brands now have
> steerable headlights...
>
> You're saying that the technology that stands -- even if it's worse than
> the challenger -- is made better by people's general mass ignorance?

Wow.. i don't think i said that all.  In fact, everything i said supports
everything *else* you said :-).  My general assertion was that technology
is *not* rigorously or honestly tested enough.  That's the problem.  It's
often blindly accepted and there isn't necessarily any logic to it.  Which
is why good technologies go by the wayside purely for first to market and
other non related substance issues.

> What a horrible phrase, mostly because it might actually be true.  We
> all know "first to market" almost always trumps "best to market".
>
> Your attempt to clean it up with the word "honest" simply doesn't work
> in real life -- what's an "honest" challenge?  Has there ever been one?

Sometimes yes..
But i would completely agree with you that the majority of the time it is
probably not honest or at least as rigourous and fair as it should be
(especially in terms of big markets).  And that's the problem.  That's why
I phrased the statement the way i did.  Everything you mention here is
implied in that one sentence.  And that word "honest" is the key to it. 
Or at least that is how i hoped it was pereived. oh well.

fwiw though, i still believe there is *room* for honest challenges and
they can and do occur.  depends on what field and who's involved.  you do
it everyday when you decide what to buy however small that may seem.  you
might do it with your boss. etc.

you got to leave that door open.   if you don't you're basically just
slogging through this existence with no purpose and influence on anything
or anyone.

> As far as the laptop project goes...
>
> People look after their own best interests.  Period.  If these guys feel
> better, wake up happy, and generally have shinier hair and gleaming
> white teeth because they're shipping laptops to the third world, more
> power to 'em.

Mostly Agree.

I do know others that do look after other then their own interests though.
 So people like that do exist.

curious - where do you fit in your own view of the world? would you
classify yourself as one who purely looks after his own interests?

> They won't fix the real root-cause problems of many poverty stricken
> places, because they are related to the pro-creation instinct hard-coded
> into our DNA.
> That instinct (and many others - selfish hunter/gatherer instincts we
> base our entire society off of) rarely serve us well anymore, but
> haven't disappeared from our genetic makeup, yet.

Agree - that the problem ultimately is in the DNA.

Disagree - I do believe they may just do something positive to impact that
DNA.  who's to say?  if no one believes then nothing ever will get
accomplished.

> They may not be gone from our genetic code soon enough to keep us from
> killing our species or our planet.  Certainly not soon enough to save
> the next few generations from ourselves.

Agreed.

> So let people ship kids laptops or find people find clean water, or
> whatever... none of them will address the root-cause problems, inherent
> inside us.  Let them do it because it makes them feel better about
> themselves.

Disagree. I actually know people that do things because they make things
better for others not purely for themselves.
Agree - nothing wrong with feeling good about yourself.

> There's a very real chance that in order to build these cheap laptops,
> they're enslaving a whole new group of people to build them, while
> attempting to help others out of poverty.  Just moving the pain around.

Exactly.  This is what i was talking about when i mentioned "honest"
challenge.  How technology may not always be the answer. And about how
scrutiny is important.

> How's that for deep?

We don't live in a perfect world my friend.  I share many of your
thoughts.  I have a little more optimism than you in my fellow man
though... :-)