Cindy:
Actually, it doesn't...it's a speculation on the direction of
communications technology, and on what the next milestones might be.
It's an interesting posting, but the kinds of collaborative mind-mapping
he's talking about are closely related to a resurgence of the
client-server model instead of the more distributed model of current
computing. This is independent of the mode of delivery...nothing in that
article suggests "telecenter" or "television" specifically, but could
work equally well with any mode of delivery, including the personal
computer.
Satish: I found your post, and Arun's response, to be interesting. I
would agree with you that the computer was not, originally, a bottom-up
design...it was descended from mainframes built on a centralized
computing model, with a vague vision that being able to put one of these
in a person's home might be interesting and profitable for the company
concerned. However, would you argue that the internet isn't a bottom-up
design? We're fighting for net neutrality here in the US precisely to
keep it that way.
Similarly, while the development of the personal computer was originally
via a top-down approach, I would argue that it's current growth is
purely bottom-up. New products are targetted very specifically at their
audiences, after a tremendous amount of research, or they simply fail as
marketed products. While it may be possible in some arenas (especially
in a less industrialized market) to impose market conditions from above,
this is not something that can be sustained indefinitely. The
development of the blog, the wiki, the content management system, and of
course, anything and everything open source are arguments that these
technologies are now market-driven.
This laptop debate has gone on for too long, I think. We've moved away
from discussing the merits of the Negropointe machine, or even the
merits of similar initiatives, and onto discussions of whether a laptop
is a valid idea when populations are starving. Mark Warschauer's post
is illuminating. The laptop we're discussing is not being proposed as a
panacea for digital divide issues, but as an idea that may be a
component towards some of our goals. It's certainly not being proposed
as a solution to world hunger, or world poverty, though it may play a
part in those issues as well, simply as a side-effect of being an
empowering tool.
I also think it is important to seperate the idea of affordable, mobile
telecommunications (which has been around for years) from this project
specifically. Is this project going to realize the potential of the
ideas they've espoused? Only time will tell. I think this project in
particular may have some interesting caveats (such as the $500m minimum
investment) which may sink it, coming from too commercial an interest;
however the idea, in and of itself, is valuable. The announcement of the
idea at such a publicised event may be pointless in that it draws
attention to a product which may or may not have such merit, but it is
valuable in that it gets people (ourselves included) talking about
affordable mobile technology initiatives and their potential, and I
maintain that this is not (and cannot be) a bad thing.
As educated consumers, we can dispel the marketing hype around the
Negropointe machine with our usual cynicism...but to do so is to not do
justice to the idea of the Simputer, which was built around some of the
same idealogy. The criticism of the Negropointe machine has moved beyond
a specific criticism of the machine in question, and into a criticism of
the idea of a $100 laptop, which I think is absurd...how can we
criticise the idea of providing mobile, networked computing at a
significantly lower price point than is currently available? Arguing
that children are starving in Africa is irrelevant, unless we mean to
say that addressing the digital divide is irrelevant because there are
other, more deserving causes out there, in which case we should disband
the DDN altogether. When the Negropointe machine is put in the hands of
these starving children, and then we walk away without giving them
training or support, then those criticisms will be valid; however, this
does not seem to have ever been suggested, except by critics of the plan.
So, what shall it be? Should we discuss the specifics of this project as
a viable, marketable commodity, or should we discuss the general
ideology of the $100 laptop, or both (as long as we make the distinction
between the two)? Or, neither, and lay this topic to rest? I must admit
the latter appeals to me.
Dave.
-------------------
Dave A. Chakrabarti
Projects Coordinator
CTCNet Chicago
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(708) 919 1026
-------------------
Cindy Lemcke-Hoong wrote:
Below is an interesting blog posting by Dave Pollard of How to Save the World.
It supports the discussions/suggestions why telecenters or using television as
access tool to internet make much better sense.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/
Sharing Your Brain: Making Your Hard Drive into a Wiki
Cindy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=============
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in the body of the message.
_______________________________________________
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in the body of the message.
