Talk:One Laptop per Child/Archive 1

message: I'm not sure what to make of the anti-features section. Personally, I don't think it's something this article should include. It's clear by looking at the features which features are missing. It would be better IMO to include a sentence that says that this laptop does not include features commonly found in other laptops. However, I didn't simply want to remove the entire section without discussing here first. Please comment. Jacoplane 20:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current "Intentionally omitted features" section looks very useful and informative to me. What to leave out is sometimes more important than what to include. ;-} sabre23t 01:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-features section 

message: I don't know any kids who go to bed in broad daylight.
*Some take naps (short sleeps) in the middle of the day, especially children. -EdGl 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the transmissive (backlight on) vs. reflective (backlight off) is independent of the mode (laptop vs. ebook), so a child could curl up in bed with the laptop day or night and still use it as an e-book. Walter.bender 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curl-up-in-a-bed mode 

message: MIT doesn't appear to have researched the entire range of possible affects of the $100 laptop project. Their FAQ is void of any in depth information.
As Mcluhan said, our technologies work us over completely ... they reshape every part of our lives. Injecting technology on this scale into the poorest countries in the world is nothing short of a huge anthropological experiment. Social, political, religious, and family structures are bound to be affected. MIT have a responsibility to research the entire range of effects (both good and bad) before implementing this project.
Once you start the questions about the $100 laptop project  go on and on and on.
Looing  for advice on how to add this criticism to the article.
Everythingisok 16:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism: how will these societies be affected? 

message: The criticism from Intel was widely reported and I was surprised not to see it in the article. (I know, ) - David Gerard 11:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism: Intel criticism

message: It's funny that most of the people criticizing this project are involved in companies whose competitors were chosen to supply hardware/software. Do you think they're just bitter? --Munchkinguy 02:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but also, where else would you expect to see the criticisms?  From the companies who are supplying the hardware/software?  (Of course, there's Microsoft who bashes the project while simultaneously trying to force Windows onto the system.) 67.166.242.232 15:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badmouthing from Corporate Bigwigs 

message: In the wiki they confirm the CPU will be a Geode. Pegua 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardware_specification

message: The photos of the laptop at the bottom of the article have been marked for deletion as copyvios.
Perhaps, someone should ask the OLPC people if they will grant us a license to these?  Or, maybe, including one would be considered fair use as it is picture of their product form advertising material.
We could also ask RMS (User:Rmstallman) if he will license the photo he took of the laptop under the GNU FDL.
Also, IMO, there should definitely be a photo in the infobox at the top.
--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 17:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I'll ask. I suspect it will be fine. —mako 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensed Photos