Sunday, March 19, 2006

Gates Dismissive of $100 Laptop [1]. Gates Dismissive of $100 Laptop [1]: Many technology leaders have praised a nonprofit effort supported by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to build a $100 laptop for schoolchildren in the developing world. But Bill Gates is not among the project’s fans. Mr. Gates, Microsoft’s chairman and chief software architect, was dismissive of the project in remarks at an event for govenment leaders yesterday. If you’re going to give computers to the poor, he said, “geez, get a decent computer, where you can actually read the text and you’re not sitting there cranking the thing” while you use it. (The proposed $100 laptop includes a hand crank so that the device can be used even when no power outlet is available.) “I’ve yet to meet who’s going to buy the $100 thing. But it’s great, you know, the more computers the better.” —— I talked to quite a few people at wsis about this when i was there and I have to agree with Bill, this is not a great or even good project. What it has become is one huge publicity stunt, which isn’t uncommon for MIT. Nonetheless, the foundational idea of one laptop per child is fine…. It is the implementation that is a problem. They want to distribute these without support, basically cargo cult computing. here’s some gadgets, have fun… has never worked to develop the world. [Too many topics, too little time.] My take is that it may be both a publicity stunt and also a good project. Because, of course, the support issues wouldn't go away if every child were given a $1000 laptop, would they? Nor would anyone sit there cranking the $1000 laptop; they'd stare at it as it rested inert for want of a power outlet. The whole plan is that it isn't a gadget but a readily adaptable network node. UPDATE: There's more on this Monday following, as TMTTLT responds and I look for common ground. 12:51:33 PM    comment []

Robin: Helen Thomas Makes a Preemptive Attack. If the Bush Administration gets us into a preemptive war against Iran, it won't be because we didn't know they were planning it and didn't know that it was illegal and contravening a slew of international treaties. Because veteran journalist Helen Thomas asked the hard questions this week and put Scott McClellan's nose in it. Is anyone listening? Here's the transcript of the White House press briefing: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060316-4.html Q Does the President know that he's in violation of international law when he advocates preemptive war? The U.N. Charter, Geneva, Nuremberg. We violate international law when we advocate attacking a country that did not attack us. MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I would just disagree with your assessment. First of all, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign -- Q It's not a long-standing principle with us. It's your principle. MR. McCLELLAN: Have you asked your question? Q It's a violation of international law. MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, let me back up, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign policy. It is also part -- Q It's never been.  . . . Q Are we threatening Iran with preemptive war? MR. McCLELLAN: We're trying to resolve this in a diplomatic manner by working with our friends and allies. [Girl in the Locker Room!] 12:50:48 PM    comment []

Liberty Debate Team, Take 3. You know, for all of Jerry Falwell's complaining about the "liberal media", he's getting an astonishing amount of credulous and fawning coverage over the completely meaningless fact of the Liberty debate team being ranked #1 in the nation according to a point(less) system. The latest is a long article in the New York Times Magazine, of all places. Mark Twain famously said that there are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies, and statistics. This is a perfect example. As I've explained before, the #1overall ranking in college debate is nothing more than a total points system that counts novice, junior varsity and varsity all together and ignores the quality of the competition. Liberty University gets to be #1 ranked by sending lots and lots of novices and JV debaters to smaller regional tournaments, piling up points. But their varsity team is slightly above average at very best. No varsity team from Liberty has finished with a winning record at the National Debate Tournament (NDT) in the last 8 years. Here's a few more stats that might illuminate the true reality. Let's look at the winning percentages of the top teams from around the nation (each team is 2 people and each school typically has multiple teams entered in tournaments). Michigan State leads the way with two teams above 82% (one at 87%, far and away best in the nation). Behind them are the usual suspects - Emory, Berkeley, Northwestern. Where's Liberty? Their highest ranked team is 81st with a 54.2% winning percentage. None of their other teams are in the top 120. Read the entire post [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] 12:50:19 PM    comment []

Kevin Phillips informs us that up is up and down is down: NYT shocked (Hellie). As you no doubt know, Phillips is one of the fathers of the Southern Strategy, the coiner of the term 'sunbelt', the author of the book The Emergent Republican Majority, and the like. Despite this odious history, Phillips, being a... [Leiter Reports: A Group Blog (Jan. 23-May 31 2006)] 12:50:10 PM    comment []

Documentary on the state of the Internet in 1972. This 1972 documentary entitled "Computer Networks: The Heralds of Resource Sharing" covers the early years of ARPAnet, the precursor of the Internet, through interviews with the heroes of the internetworking revolution. Tightly wound internetworking geeks like the legendary LCR Licklider intensely recite the benefits that internetworking will shortly deliver, sliding in digs at the telecoms industry, the Bellheads who have no desire to see this future realized. This is a fantastic 30 minutes of paleo-nerd memorabilia. Link (Thanks, Justin and Kevin!) [Boing Boing] 12:02:28 AM    comment []