Sorry about the spam. I came across this pic and found it too amusing to not share. It's in hindi though.
[image: aakash_laptop.jpg] On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa at gmail.com> wrote: > this thursday at change, kentaro will be sharing reflections on his > ten myths work and i'm assuming he'll touch on much of this. it should > be an interesting talk and we'll try to make the talk more widely > available online. > > if you have questions for kentaro, please submit them at > http://www.google.com/moderator/#16/e=f0f2f > > > http://change.washington.edu/2011/10/kentaro-toyama-reflections-on-the-10-myths-of-ict-for-development > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:50, Tapan Parikh <tapan at cs.washington.edu> > wrote: > > Now that Ive wasted a decent amount of time on this thread, I should > > also provide some explanation of why Im so annoyed by Kentaros > > argument. > > > > The first time I heard it was at the NYU CATER event in 2009. I > > remember thinking that everything that Kentaro said was true, but that > > the talk still left me completely deflated and uninspired. The > > emphasis was all wrong. I remember noticing that there were a number > > of students in the audience that felt the same way. I was worried that > > Kentaros perspective was scaring students (and funders, but that is a > > different story) away from ICTD, or at least not allowing them to have > > fun and to learn while doing it. > > > > The process of creation is supposed to be fun and engaging. The > > stories that we tell should be inspiring and motivating; not daunting > > and pessimistic. As students and designers, you are *allowed* to fail. > > That is how you learn. You dont need to understand all the "myths" > > and "chasms" of development from day 1; save that for the critical > > theorists (and the policy makers). If you follow the process of > > user-centered, iterative design, you will learn those things as you go > > along - and you may even find that some of well-established beliefs > > arent true, at least in your context! This is how innovation works, > > and how designers and engineers are able to do the impossible. But to > > do this - you have to believe, and you have to having fun. > > > > My students and I have had a great time designing ICTD technologies, > > while learning a huge amount along the way. I havent tried to > > proselytize, because I think that the jury is still out on ICTD, as it > > is for many other things, which is what makes it an exciting research > > area. But I do want to ensure that students know it is OK to believe > > in technological progress. If that is a myth, then it is one that is > > shared by the entire modern world, which makes it true if simply by > > convention. > > > > Finally, pointing all the ways that ICTD (and development) are hard is > > not an intellectual contribution - its common sense, and has been said > > before, by smarter people then you, or me, or Kentaro. As engineers > > and designers, if you want to make your mark, the best you can do is > > to create things that actually (and demonstrably) change the world for > > the better - b/c thats where all the brownie points are waiting. ;-) > > > > Dr. Glass Half-Full, signing off.... > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Tapan Parikh <tapan at cs.washington.edu> > wrote: > >> Thanks for the post Deepti. I think the last line summarizes your > argument: > >> > >> "All one is saying that every development dollar spent on 'technology > >> for development' is better spent on 'people for development'." > >> > >> 1) In 99% of "development/aid" situations, I agree. > >> > >> 2) Its usually not an either/or. One can (and often does) spend money > >> on both people and systems/process (that technology enables). As > >> Kentaro alludes, most successful (ICTD) projects do exactly that. And > >> the fact that public resource allocation is inefficient (and moreso in > >> "development/aid") is a systemic political problem, and not a problem > >> of technology. > >> > >> 3) If his is really a policy argument (as opposed to research), then > >> thats fine - he should take it up w/ the Kapil Sibals of the world. > >> Budgeting is a complicated political process, and policy makers can > >> use all the good advice they can get. > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Deepti Chittamuru > >> <deepti at ischool.berkeley.edu> wrote: > >>> I can see why Tap would argue that Clay Shirky's piece is a refutation > of > >>> Kentaro's claim. But I don't think Kentaro's claim is dislodged by > Shirky. > >>> Shirky says he does not seem to understand why we should be careful > when > >>> attributing agency to social media/communication tools while > everywhere else > >>> it is attributed routinely and everyone understands perfectly well > what it > >>> means. I don't think Kentaro would argue that a quirk of the English > >>> language is the danger. He would rather argue that repeated use of such > >>> language if and when it leads to mistaken attribution of agency would > be > >>> dangerous. His argument presumes that such mistaken attribution of > agency > >>> is occurring in the context of ICTs especially in the development and > public > >>> policy sectors. > >>> I had a version of this conversation recently with Kentaro and here is > what > >>> I believe he would say. Again, this is my understanding of what he > would > >>> say, it does not necessarily capture his beliefs very accurately. I > write it > >>> as a conversation simply because that is how I remember it in my own > head. A > >>> lot of the examples below are drawn from my understanding so if they > are > >>> wrong then it is my fault and not his. :) > >>> Kentaro: While it is perfectly fine for you to use such terms, it is > the > >>> belief that these tools are somehow causing good that is distracting. > It > >>> does not matter if the lay man believes this but it starts getting > dangerous > >>> when resource allocating public policymakers or folks in the > development > >>> sector start believing that offering a laptop/mobile phone based game > to a > >>> teacher-less child or to a teacher who does not know how or even what > to > >>> teach will be more effective than investing the same resources into > training > >>> teachers in terms of increase in literacy in a community. > >>> In a war after all it isn't the weapons but the strategy (how you use > them) > >>> that wins the war. Every single general in history will attest to that. > >>> There have been instances when an enemy with superior weaponry > (technology) > >>> has been defeated by people with better strategy and more will power > even if > >>> the latter had less advanced war technology. > >>> If you have to choose between training soldiers and building out your > >>> technological prowess, then choose to focus on your soldiers and on war > >>> strategists, etc., Technology after all is only meant to enhance a > soldier's > >>> ability to fight the war, if he is himself not effective what will a > super > >>> high-powered gun do for him? except probably lead him to shoot himself > in > >>> the foot... > >>> But the concern is that what the generals already know, the > policymakers and > >>> people in the development sector might not remember. > >>> When teacher's do not know the absolute basics that they ned to teach, > do > >>> not have the motivation or self-efficacy to turn up everyday in a class > >>> which is nearly empty to teach children who are hungry; If mothers are > too > >>> unwell to give birth to healthy children and the children grow up to be > >>> malnourished, then it might be a better idea to focus every resource > you > >>> have on building self-efficacy and motivation amongst the teachers and > to > >>> offer them teaching skills, instead of overhead LED projectors; it > might be > >>> better to offer community health workers motivational and self-efficacy > >>> interventions and skills to educate women and their families rather > than to > >>> offer them mobile phones and cool apps. > >>> It does not mean the cool apps don't help or that the overhead LED > >>> projectors don't help. They do, but are less value for the resources > spent > >>> on them. Furthermore if you did manage to improve the self-efficacy > levels > >>> of a teacher or the educational/motivational skills of a community > health > >>> worker then he or she would find a way to get the LED projector or the > cool > >>> mobile phone app. > >>> Technology isn't the hardest part to get while doing development work > but > >>> the skills and knowledge necessary to do the work are difficult to > acquire. > >>> So if you have to choose between putting in a million dollars into > either > >>> buying mobile phones for community health workers or into training > them to > >>> enhance their persuasion skills or their knowledge of the healthcare > issues > >>> and solutions, then choose the latter. > >>> Only if you believe that you already have an effective force of > community > >>> health workers/teachers/ human rights activists/whoever is helping > should > >>> you be spending the money on accessorizing them so to speak with > >>> technology. > >>> Technology can help you do whatever you do more effectively, > powerfully, > >>> efficiently, etc... whether it be good or evil. It is a magnifier of > human > >>> intent and capacity. But you have to know what to do for technology to > help > >>> you do it better, more widely, more powerfully, etc... Twitter cannot > help > >>> you spread the message far and wide and effectively mobilize people if > you > >>> do not know what message you have to send to mobilize people. > >>> This argument is about whether it is more important to teach people > what to > >>> do or improve people's ability to do it. The latter (improving how > they do > >>> it) presumes the existence of knowledge of the former (what to do and > how to > >>> do it)... mistakenly so in my opinion. As of today I would argue that > the > >>> biggest challenge in the development sector is helping people - > teachers, > >>> community health workers, etc., - figure out what to do and how to do > it. > >>> Only after achieving at least a minimum level of knowledge, > self-efficacy > >>> and motivation does it make sense to explore how we can help them do it > >>> better. > >>> Some people seem to argue that simply having access to the right > technology > >>> will help people figure out what to do or how to do it and that is the > main > >>> issue of contention here. Technology is about how to do it better, not > about > >>> what to do or how to do it. So I argue that we (folks in the > development and > >>> public policy sector) should first focus on teaching what to do and > how to > >>> do it before we begin investing resources in figuring out how to do it > >>> better. > >>> Deepti: Yeah but if I do not have the money to build a full force of > >>> effective workers (in whatever development area) would we not be > better off > >>> at least "magnifying the intent" of the few good teachers, community > health > >>> workers, etc. that we have? > >>> After all building effective human abilities even in a fraction of the > >>> workforce in development is so much more expensive and slower than > being > >>> able to magnify the abilities of those who are already effective. > Wouldn't > >>> the latter be more value for each dollar spent? > >>> Also wouldn't the very deployment of technology be an intervention in > >>> increasing skills, knowledge and self-efficacy of the community health > >>> workers/teachers/whoever else even amongst those (admittedly the > >>> majority) community health workers/teachers/whoever else who aren't > very > >>> knowledgeable, self-efficacious or motivated? > >>> Even for those who aren't very great teachers/community health workers, > >>> etc., wouldn't simply having access to technology increase - if only > >>> slightly - their levels of knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation? > >>> Kentaro: Just access to technology does not reliably lead to an > increase in > >>> knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation and one cannot depend on the > hope > >>> that technology might have such a side-effect when one is spending a > billion > >>> dollars developing and deploying it. Also if there is such an increase > in > >>> knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy, it is only marginal. Why > spend so > >>> many resources to only have a marginal impact on vital issues. > >>> This is like investing resources into inventing super-efficient > surgical > >>> tools that facilitate quicker healing times for patients undergoing > brain > >>> surgery when there aren't enough good surgeons to go around. Agreed a > >>> patient bleeding into his brain will benefit from shorter recovery > periods > >>> after brain surgery but he will benefit even more from having access > to a > >>> superb brain surgeon. So if you do not have resources to do both (train > >>> surgeons to treat the bleeding brain and invent great surgical tools), > if it > >>> is a question of whether to allocate resources here or there, then you > are > >>> better off focusing on the creation of better surgeons than the > invention of > >>> better tools. > >>> Also the market does have a way of finding out what works best and > >>> eventually developing whatever is most useful. We do not really have to > >>> spend public or development dollars on building better mobile phone > >>> interfaces or apps. We are better off spending public money on building > >>> human capital. > >>> Furthermore if the human capital is knowledgeable enough, > self-efficacious > >>> and motivated enough they will identify and obtain the technological > tools > >>> they need, whereas going the other way -from access to technological > tools > >>> building knowledge and self-efficacy- round is much harder. > >>> As to your first point about whether magnifying the intent of a few > good > >>> teachers isn't as good a way to spend resources as increasing the > number of > >>> good teachers, especially since the former is easier and less > expensive to > >>> do than the latter - No it isn't. > >>> For such a strategy to be successful in improving the over all levels > of > >>> education, health, etc., you still need a minimum number (critical > mass?) of > >>> good teachers, community health workers, etc... We do not have even > that > >>> minimum number of great teachers, community health workers, etc., and > hence > >>> every "development" dollar that you spend on designing or deploying a > >>> "useful" mobile phone app is a dollar that you are taking away from > doing > >>> more useful things like building better human resources. > >>> Nobody is saying that technology does not help, the argument is about > how > >>> much it helps. Does it help enough to justify spending on technology > >>> "instead" of spending on people doing development work? Is it so > effective > >>> that it can do as much as a great teacher or a very effective community > >>> health worker? If not then one is better off spending on improving > >>> teachers, community health workers, etc... at this stage. All one is > saying > >>> that every development dollar spent on 'technology for development' is > >>> better spent on 'people for development'. > >>> > >>> -d > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Tapan Parikh <tapan at cs.washington.edu > > > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> This could be a very entertaining conversation if I wanted to play > devils > >>>> advocate for a bit, but unfortunately deadlines loom. > >>>> So Ill say yes, you are absolutely right, but your argument could be > used > >>>> just as well as a defense for the hypothetical folks that Kentaro > appears to > >>>> be railing against. I dont think anyone sensible (that I've run > across > >>>> anyway) has argued that technology is instrumental for development to > occur, > >>>> at least on an individual basis. > >>>> The economists have looked for causality at the macro-level, but > recent > >>>> events have led many prominent economists (Keynesians, granted) to > suggest > >>>> that large parts of that sub-discipline are irrelevant to the real > world. > >>>> Anyway, Ill close by saying that whether words determine reality, and > >>>> whether modern classical macro-economics is completely bogus, are both > >>>> hugely interesting unsolved questions that I dont have time to engage > with > >>>> today, or before tenure for that matter. ;) > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Sunil Garg <sunilgarg at gatech.edu> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Where is the refutation? > >>>>> Just because the English language wants us to frame things in a > certain > >>>>> way doesn't mean that's the reality. > >>>>> -Sunil > >>>>> > >>>>> On Oct 17, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Tapan Parikh wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Clay Shirky rebuts Toyama much better then I ever could: > >>>>> > >>>>> > http://crookedtimber.org/2011/10/10/guestpost-communications-tools-agency-and-anxiety/ > >>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Tapan Parikh < > tapan at cs.washington.edu> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ive never understood Kentaros point here, or at least why its > delivered > >>>>>> with such pessimism. > >>>>>> Its strictly a glass half-full, half-empty kind of argument. Of > course > >>>>>> technology does not achieve its effect in isolation. Of course you > need all > >>>>>> the rest of the things Kentaro mentions. But an "amplifier of your > intent" > >>>>>> still sounds pretty awesome to me. This is what Steve Jobs was > trying to do > >>>>>> for us, and what we are trying (successfully or unsuccessfully) to > achieve > >>>>>> for the poor and marginalized through ICT4D. Im not saying that > computers > >>>>>> are the best or most appropriate technology, but the potential is > there, and > >>>>>> that is why we are working to achieve it, and why it is still > research. > >>>>>> I find Joyojeet's critique much more interesting. Are computers > truly > >>>>>> amplifiers, or are they strictly aspirational? Said another way, > is high > >>>>>> technology perceived as an end in and of itself, or do we > understand its > >>>>>> true machinations*, and use them for some other higher purpose - > the highest > >>>>>> being to learn, and through the process become better people, or a > better > >>>>>> society. I am sure everyone who has worked in ICTD has directly > observed > >>>>>> "gadget lust" in our partners, users, and without doubt, in > ourselves. > >>>>>> Summarizing my point, the important question is "are u the one > riding > >>>>>> the horse, or is the horse riding you?". The jury is still out on > this for > >>>>>> ICT4D, as it is for the rest of the World, IMHO. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * For the philosophy and German buffs, see Heidegger's "The Question > >>>>>> Concerning Technology". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> rahul, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> i would encourage you to check out > >>>>>>> http://www.kentarotoyama.org/research. i think his work on > >>>>>>> technology as an amplifier and the ten myths of ict4d will be quite > >>>>>>> insightful. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> yaw > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 18:16, Rahul Banerjee > >>>>>>> <banerjee at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > >>>>>>> > Yes, I agree that this is simply another hardware platform on > which > >>>>>>> > people can build stuff. It is a solution enabler, not a solution > in > >>>>>>> > itself. However, this price point means that one can deploy > solutions > >>>>>>> > for cheaper than with existing hardware. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > I think we all agree that *solutions* built on top of hardware > >>>>>>> > platforms change people's lives -- cheap hardware simply opens up > >>>>>>> > such > >>>>>>> > possibilities to interested parties who want to build solutions, > but > >>>>>>> > don't have enough money for expensive hardware. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > I would like to emphasize this point -- the best ideas can come > from > >>>>>>> > anywhere. Once you let such a cheap device loose into the wild > (so to > >>>>>>> > speak), I'm certain that several talented people will come up > with > >>>>>>> > good ideas and implement them. What remains to be seen is how > many of > >>>>>>> > those are useful and improve people's lives significantly. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > -- > >>>>>>> > Rahul > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Clint Tseng < > cxlt at cs.washington.edu> > >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>> >> Yes, but your argument is centered around how the technology is > >>>>>>> >> better. I > >>>>>>> >> don't think I have to point out who we're echoing when we say > that > >>>>>>> >> technology alone is not enough. We could make the Galaxy S2 or > the > >>>>>>> >> iPhone 4 > >>>>>>> >> cost $10 and it simply wouldn't make the kind of difference > you'd > >>>>>>> >> hope for > >>>>>>> >> (eg, much at all). > >>>>>>> >> The App Store is not available because you have to pay Google > >>>>>>> >> licensing fees > >>>>>>> >> to put it on your device, which would have driven the cost up. > >>>>>>> >> Touchscreens are nice, but I don't think any of this will truly > >>>>>>> >> matter for > >>>>>>> >> the populations we're talking about until we see voice > technology > >>>>>>> >> like Siri > >>>>>>> >> develop to the point where you don't need to care that you're > >>>>>>> >> talking to > >>>>>>> >> technology. At that point, perhaps it's worth revisiting the > >>>>>>> >> distribution of > >>>>>>> >> generic technology to remote regions and untrained users without > >>>>>>> >> caring > >>>>>>> >> about what their actual needs are. For now, it's still much > better > >>>>>>> >> to > >>>>>>> >> actually do the footwork to figure out what people need and give > >>>>>>> >> them that > >>>>>>> >> than to try to hand out or sell general purpose computing > devices > >>>>>>> >> and hope > >>>>>>> >> to make a difference. > >>>>>>> >> $0.02. > >>>>>>> >> -Clint > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Rahul Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Against a cell phone, the tablet's screen is a compelling > argument. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> However, I don't know if really poor people (who are mostly > >>>>>>> >> illiterate) would go for a tablet over a *television* -- I've > >>>>>>> >> observed > >>>>>>> >> that even people living in illegally constructed shacks next to > >>>>>>> >> train > >>>>>>> >> tracks always have a DTH antenna dish sticking out from the > roof. My > >>>>>>> >> belief is that: > >>>>>>> >> 1. TV's are dead simple to operate -- turn them on and they > work. If > >>>>>>> >> you can't navigate your magical tablet's touchscreen, you have a > >>>>>>> >> magical paperweight. > >>>>>>> >> 2. There's decent infrastructure in place (in India) to get a > >>>>>>> >> direct-to-home subscription. I've been to some pretty remote > places > >>>>>>> >> in > >>>>>>> >> India (places that are accessible only using off-road vehicles > and > >>>>>>> >> are > >>>>>>> >> completely cut-off for three months during winter) and nearly > all > >>>>>>> >> these houses had dish antennas. AFAIK, 3G-based data plans > aren't > >>>>>>> >> that > >>>>>>> >> ubiquitous yet (you could only get them in certain cities in > India > >>>>>>> >> last time I checked -- about 2 months ago). > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> The battery question is an interesting one -- I read a review > which > >>>>>>> >> stated that the battery life is two hours. I've observed in > urban > >>>>>>> >> slums that (illegally) hooking up wires to overhead electricity > >>>>>>> >> supply > >>>>>>> >> cables (a dangerous practice, to be sure) is common. I'm not > >>>>>>> >> claiming > >>>>>>> >> that this is the norm everywhere, but financial pressure often > >>>>>>> >> eliminates batteries anyway :) > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> I'm going to keep on harping on the "poor but > intelligent/talented > >>>>>>> >> student" angle. These are the people who'll benefit the most > from > >>>>>>> >> such > >>>>>>> >> a device. Imagine being able to read textbooks on this! Btw, I > also > >>>>>>> >> discovered in the review that the App Store / Marketplace is > >>>>>>> >> disabled, > >>>>>>> >> which is *not cool*. Maybe they don't expect the target users to > >>>>>>> >> have > >>>>>>> >> connectivity, but this severely limits the platform. There are > a ton > >>>>>>> >> of free apps out there which the users cannot get, and now > custom > >>>>>>> >> delivery platforms will have to be built for every project (I'm > >>>>>>> >> thinking of textbooks, telemedicine, the fieldwork apps like the > >>>>>>> >> Verbal Autopsy stuff, etc) > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> I've rambled enough here. My summary would be that this is a > giant > >>>>>>> >> step forward, but the poorest of the poor (think indigent > poverty) > >>>>>>> >> won't magically lift themselves out of poverty using this one > >>>>>>> >> device. > >>>>>>> >> However, it does generate lots of exciting possibilities for > >>>>>>> >> "slightly-better-off" segments and it can be an enabling device > for > >>>>>>> >> several projects on a shoestring budget. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> -- > >>>>>>> >> Rahul > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Fritz Meissner > >>>>>>> >> <fritz.meissner at gmail.com> > >>>>>>> >> wrote: > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Just brainstorming a hypothetically compelling reason: > consumption > >>>>>>> >> of > >>>>>>> >> locally-made movies, which I'm given to understand currently > happens > >>>>>>> >> wholesale on cellphones in India. Would the move to tablet form, > >>>>>>> >> i.e. bigger > >>>>>>> >> screen and (one would hope) better sound, make for a massively > >>>>>>> >> improved > >>>>>>> >> experience? > >>>>>>> >> The Aakash could be a better investment than a TV / DVD player, > >>>>>>> >> given the > >>>>>>> >> greater capacity and reusability of USB or SD cards compared to > >>>>>>> >> DVDs. Of > >>>>>>> >> course, the TV has a bigger screen, but it doesn't run on > batteries. > >>>>>>> >> How > >>>>>>> >> much would a TV cost? > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Fritz > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jerome White < > jerome at cs.caltech.edu> > >>>>>>> >> wrote: > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> However, there is a "rural/poor" segment that could afford this: > >>>>>>> >> those > >>>>>>> >> making between 5 and 10 thousand Rupees a month. In fact it's > what > >>>>>>> >> some > >>>>>>> >> spend on a mobile phone. However, with the mobile, there is very > >>>>>>> >> compelling > >>>>>>> >> reason to make such an investment. A similarly compelling > reason, > >>>>>>> >> from their > >>>>>>> >> perspective, to own this device isn't clear to me. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> But, at least we've got another device to help us generate > >>>>>>> >> publications :) > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> jerome > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> On 06-Oct-2011, at 4:11 PM, Fritz Meissner wrote: > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> How much is $35 to the poorest of the poor? I recall an > economics > >>>>>>> >> study > >>>>>>> >> that paid Indian workers the equivalent of a monthly salary, I > think > >>>>>>> >> that > >>>>>>> >> was 50USD... 35USD is beyond cheap in the West but perhaps > still not > >>>>>>> >> affordable in that context. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> OTOH if the tablet is locally made, perhaps just the work that > the > >>>>>>> >> manufacturer provides will be beneficial. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Fritz > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Joyojeet Pal < > joyojeet at gmail.com> > >>>>>>> >> wrote: > >>>>>>> >> I agree with Yaw on this -- sure, it is great that this > technology > >>>>>>> >> is so > >>>>>>> >> cheap, and one can argue that similar such efforts have brought > up > >>>>>>> >> new > >>>>>>> >> technology innovations (Netbook etc) and various other benefits, > >>>>>>> >> what is > >>>>>>> >> deeply problematic is the idea that this will solve the issues > of > >>>>>>> >> development in India, and Indian minister Kapil Sibal's > announcing > >>>>>>> >> the > >>>>>>> >> project as being some kind of a dig out of exclusion > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> ( > http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/india-announces-35-tablet-computer-to-help-lift-villagers-out-of-poverty/2011/10/05/gIQAPT8PNL_story.html > ) > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> If you look at UNDP's latest HDI report on India, you may find > that > >>>>>>> >> someone should find this claim at least quixotic, given that the > >>>>>>> >> country > >>>>>>> >> ranks 119th in the world for what ranks are worth. India as a > state > >>>>>>> >> spends > >>>>>>> >> among the lowest on education (3.6%) and healthcare (1.1%) and > has > >>>>>>> >> an income > >>>>>>> >> inequality problem that is by all measure growing yearly, gender > >>>>>>> >> inequity is > >>>>>>> >> 0.748 (on a scale of the 'best' at 0.212 and 'worst' at 0.814). > the > >>>>>>> >> average > >>>>>>> >> Indian spends 4.4 years in formal schooling.. the list goes on > and > >>>>>>> >> on. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> i'm not saying this is not a significant achievement, my > concern is > >>>>>>> >> tying this to development in such a way, in fact specifically > in the > >>>>>>> >> perception that this could be the state's part in providing > >>>>>>> >> development in > >>>>>>> >> india. i think it hurts the cause of folks working in this > space at > >>>>>>> >> the very > >>>>>>> >> least. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa at gmail.com> > >>>>>>> >> wrote: > >>>>>>> >> the hype around this tablet is terrible. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> i think it's great to have cheaper technology, but android > tablets, > >>>>>>> >> even cheap $35 android tablets, will not lift villagers out of > >>>>>>> >> poverty. i wish it were that easy... > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 15:49, Rahul Banerjee > >>>>>>> >> <banerjee at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Sorry for the spam, but I couldn't resist sharing such wonderful > >>>>>>> >> news: > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/India-announces-35-tablet-computer-for-rural-poor-2203509.php > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> (Actually, the government is subsidising its price (which would > be > >>>>>>> >> closer to $50), but it's still pretty amazing that something > like > >>>>>>> >> this > >>>>>>> >> exists at all) > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> -- > >>>>>>> >> Rahul > >>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> >> change mailing list > >>>>>>> >> change at change.washington.edu > >>>>>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> >> change mailing list > >>>>>>> >> change at change.washington.edu > >>>>>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> >> change mailing list > >>>>>>> >> change at change.washington.edu > >>>>>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> >> change mailing list > >>>>>>> >> change at change.washington.edu > >>>>>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> >> change mailing list > >>>>>>> >> change at change.washington.edu > >>>>>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> >> change mailing list > >>>>>>> >> change at change.washington.edu > >>>>>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> >> change mailing list > >>>>>>> >> change at change.washington.edu > >>>>>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> > change mailing list > >>>>>>> > change at change.washington.edu > >>>>>>> > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> change mailing list > >>>>>>> change at change.washington.edu > >>>>>>> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> change mailing list > >>>>> change at change.washington.edu > >>>>> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> change mailing list > >>>> change at change.washington.edu > >>>> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > change mailing list > > change at change.washington.edu > > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > > > > _______________________________________________ > change mailing list > change at change.washington.edu > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/private/change/attachments/20111109/c1be7f9b/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: aakash_laptop.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 77034 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/private/change/attachments/20111109/c1be7f9b/attachment.jpg>
