<div><div>Patrick,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for not calling me out on AMD. But, at the risk of trying to dig myself out of a hole, it's really the same question when AMD gets bought . . . or even before then. What is so irritating to me (even leaving aside questions about cultural imperialism or a greater need for, say, fresh water) is the way the project seems dependent on corporate charity (and this would be even more true if/when Pixel Qi starts sending them stuff at cost). Beyond that, per your point, I'm trying to figure out how, in the long run, if the trend will be, as we might reasonably expect, toward cheaper and cheaper machines all the way around, what then is the role of an organization like OLPC?
</div><div><br></div><div>Shutting up, now, perhaps two messages too late.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>j</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 8, 2008 3:05 PM, Patrick Lichty <<a href="mailto:voyd@voyd.com" target="_blank">
voyd@voyd.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div></div><div>Without seeming too short, I think a point that various pundits have said
regarding the OLPC is that it has made the possibility of the creation of a
cheap commodity computer possible. I actually find this exciting as an artist
who uses computation, as I think it might open a lot of opportunities on
institutional scales.
For the past few months, I have had a manifesto on durable computing on the
back burner - probably as good a time as any to finish and post it.
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div>