[Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper. - Linux

This is a discussion on [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper. - Linux ; Pass the ketchup. It appears that Intel's classmate, far from being the $125 wonderhouse that I claimed earlier, is actually being touted as a "sub-$400" affair (translation: $399.95, at all bookshops and computer stores that bother), compared to the OLPC ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

  1. [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

    Pass the ketchup.

    It appears that Intel's classmate, far from being the $125
    wonderhouse that I claimed earlier, is actually being
    touted as a "sub-$400" affair (translation: $399.95, at
    all bookshops and computer stores that bother), compared
    to the OLPC XO-1, which appears to be running at either
    $188 or $200 (it missed its $100, but that was presumably
    before the dollar dropped like a proverbial rock) -- and
    the OLPC XO-1 is actually the superior product, from all
    indications, except for the 2GB capability of the Classmate
    in its Flash storage and the even meaner delta in weight.

    (Besides, the OLPC XO-1 has about 3x-4x the battery life.
    Three guesses which is more important in sub-Saharan
    Africa.)

    Mea culpa.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    /dev/brain: Permission denied

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  2. Re: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:54:21 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > Pass the ketchup.
    >
    > It appears that Intel's classmate, far from being the $125
    > wonderhouse that I claimed earlier, is actually being
    > touted as a "sub-$400" affair (translation: $399.95, at
    > all bookshops and computer stores that bother), compared
    > to the OLPC XO-1, which appears to be running at either
    > $188 or $200 (it missed its $100, but that was presumably
    > before the dollar dropped like a proverbial rock) -- and
    > the OLPC XO-1 is actually the superior product, from all
    > indications, except for the 2GB capability of the Classmate
    > in its Flash storage and the even meaner delta in weight.
    >
    > (Besides, the OLPC XO-1 has about 3x-4x the battery life.
    > Three guesses which is more important in sub-Saharan
    > Africa.)


    My guesses:

    1) water
    2) water
    3) food

    >
    > Mea culpa.
    >
    > --
    > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    > /dev/brain: Permission denied



  3. Re: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

    * The Ghost In The Machine fired off this tart reply:

    > Mea culpa.


    Sounds like a flatfish nym.

    --
    Poopie Pant McTux!

  4. Re: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, ray

    wrote
    on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:16:31 -0700
    :
    > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:54:21 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> Pass the ketchup.
    >>
    >> It appears that Intel's classmate, far from being the $125
    >> wonderhouse that I claimed earlier, is actually being
    >> touted as a "sub-$400" affair (translation: $399.95, at
    >> all bookshops and computer stores that bother), compared
    >> to the OLPC XO-1, which appears to be running at either
    >> $188 or $200 (it missed its $100, but that was presumably
    >> before the dollar dropped like a proverbial rock) -- and
    >> the OLPC XO-1 is actually the superior product, from all
    >> indications, except for the 2GB capability of the Classmate
    >> in its Flash storage and the even meaner delta in weight.
    >>
    >> (Besides, the OLPC XO-1 has about 3x-4x the battery life.
    >> Three guesses which is more important in sub-Saharan
    >> Africa.)

    >
    > My guesses:
    >
    > 1) water
    > 2) water
    > 3) food


    I was referring to the scoped question, but yes, you do
    have a point. Most likely, however, it's more along the
    lines of

    1) water
    2) food
    3) sewage treatment

    but that's a quibble, and I frankly don't know how we'd
    solve the problem here in the US, never mind Africa (the
    Colorado River is tapped out, Georgia is having a nasty
    100 year drought, poverty in US cities is occasionally
    exposed, mentioned, and ignored, and Northern and Southern
    California routinely fight over Sacramento Delta water --
    fairly genteely compared to some wars in other parts of
    the world, fortunately).

    And then there's the corruption issue. Not the neatest of messes.

    >
    >>
    >> Mea culpa.
    >>
    >> --
    >> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    >> /dev/brain: Permission denied

    >



    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because it's there and it works.
    Windows. It's there, but does it work?

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

    wrote
    on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:25:01 -0500
    :
    > * The Ghost In The Machine fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Mea culpa.

    >
    > Sounds like a flatfish nym.
    >


    Naah, his nym would be more like "Mia gulpa". :-P
    Besides, the phrase is traditional Latin:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mea_culpa

    and I doubt Flatfish dates from 1913, let alone
    the Confiteor traditional prayer in the RCC Mass. ;-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Murphy was an optimist.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  6. Re: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:25:01 -0500, Linonut
    wrote:

    >* The Ghost In The Machine fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Mea culpa.

    >
    >Sounds like a flatfish nym.


    nope...
    I'm insulted,,,

  7. Re: Intel a Monopoly Abuser; Was: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:29:43 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
    wrote:


    >IIRC, Intel was prepared to sell the CM for $225, which at the time led to
    >suspicion that Intel was "dumping" just to destroy OLPC. Guess what? Those
    >skeptics were right.


    Yawwn...
    You are a cracked pot Roy Schestowitz.
    Please take your conspiracy theories, and that is what they are,
    elsewhere.

  8. Re: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:54:21 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > Pass the ketchup.
    >
    > It appears that Intel's classmate, far from being the $125
    > wonderhouse that I claimed earlier, is actually being
    > touted as a "sub-$400" affair (translation: $399.95, at
    > all bookshops and computer stores that bother), compared
    > to the OLPC XO-1, which appears to be running at either
    > $188 or $200 (it missed its $100, but that was presumably
    > before the dollar dropped like a proverbial rock) -- and
    > the OLPC XO-1 is actually the superior product, from all
    > indications, except for the 2GB capability of the Classmate
    > in its Flash storage and the even meaner delta in weight.


    Exactly. One of the accusation constantly flung at the project is that
    there was little thought given to it. This is nonsense. The OLPC was
    *designed* for the conditions it would face in use in these countries,
    where ruggedness, lack of easily-damagable parts, long battery life and
    ability to be charged when there is no electricity supply is of great
    importance. I saw the thing in action on the Beeb, and it looks rather
    nice. I wouldn't mind one myself. It's the sort of gadjet I would feel
    confident in taking to work (I work in a factory).

    --
    Kier

  9. Re: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:40:53 -0500, flatfish wrote:

    > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:25:01 -0500, Linonut
    > wrote:
    >
    >>* The Ghost In The Machine fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> Mea culpa.

    >>
    >>Sounds like a flatfish nym.

    >
    > nope...
    > I'm insulted,,,


    How can anyone insult someone who doesn't care what anyone thinks of him
    - as you claim, flatty?

    --
    Kier


  10. Re: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

    * flatfish fired off this tart reply:

    > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:25:01 -0500, Linonut
    > wrote:
    >
    >>* The Ghost In The Machine fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> Mea culpa.

    >>
    >>Sounds like a flatfish nym.

    >
    > nope...
    > I'm insulted,,,


    For what it's worth, I'm using the flatfish term in a generic sense.

    Sort of like "tholen".

    --
    Tux rox!

  11. Re: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeed cheaper.

    Linonut wrote:

    >* flatfish fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:25:01 -0500, Linonut
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>* The Ghost In The Machine fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> Mea culpa.
    >>>
    >>>Sounds like a flatfish nym.

    >>
    >> nope...
    >> I'm insulted,,,

    >
    >For what it's worth, I'm using the flatfish term in a generic sense.


    What it's worth is irrelevant, Linonut.

    >Sort of like "tholen".


    On what basis do you make that claim, Linonut?

    8)


  12. Re: Intel a Monopoly Abuser; Was: [Retraction] OK, OLPC is indeedcheaper.

    flatfish wrote:

    > You are a cracked pot Roy Schestowitz.


    Where's the proof?


    > Please take your conspiracy theories, and that is what they are,
    > elsewhere.


    "BTW get ready for the Roy brigade to go into attack mode against me."
    --flatfish (11/28/07)
    news:sl4sk3l94mpqafvj4top1qo5p74c2lmkgq@4ax.com

+ Reply to Thread