Although I agree on the basic idea behind Nagarjuna's gist, the actual question can be better resolved by impressing the concerned people that the OLPC is meant for children and is entirely based on Learning through Discovery, if I may put it this way. You cannot explain why a certain toy is made in a certain way or why the child likes it simply because an adult has no business to interfere in it. <div>
<br></div><div>The person(s) who has asked the question must fully understand that if he or she thinks that it is necessary for them first to understand something before giving i children has probably the delusion of being a "royal taster" or is simply wasting time of productive efforts.I do not think that anybody is enforcing how learning should be if an XO is provided to children.<div>
<br></div><div>I gave my nephew, Arvind, the XO and immediately he asked me "What should I do now?" I replied, "Have you ever asked me before playing a Windows game?" He immediately understood my rationale and tried the maze game and soon we were playing the game together on the same device, something that I did not know about and he said, beaming, "Yes, I found how to play two players mode".<div>
<br></div><div>So, the question is unreasonable and should be dealt with to only the extent required otherwise, it will encourage more questions on similar lines, which does not bode good for the OLPC initiative.</div><div>
<br></div><div>The source of such confusion in Windows or OLPC way of learning can be resolved if people can re-orient themselves towards OLPC. If an adult, a decision maker or a teacher or a parent, does not understand the real idea of discovery, and how important it is in a child's upbringing, behind the OLPC it is out of context to go about educating them first on the entire thrust behind OLPC and then start the child education.</div>
<div><br></div><div>You do not ask the clock maker to explain why a digital clock does not have a chime. Similarly, why the need to educate people on why OLPC and not Windows? </div><div><br></div><div>There is no co-relation to do so.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Jv<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Nagarjuna G <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nagarjun@gnowledge.org" target="_blank">nagarjun@gnowledge.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Development Associates<br>
<<a href="mailto:adhikaris@hotmail.com" target="_blank">adhikaris@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Because state governments want it.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>If the Govt wants it, that is because the people who asked for it have<br>
no idea of what they are going to gain or lose if they get Windows on<br>
OLPC. It is our duty to educate them.<br>
<br>
1. we do not want the children to become mere clerks, but creative citizens.<br>
2. we do not want the children to end up their precious time in<br>
becoming consumers and not producers, since most software we get for<br>
Windows is consumer oriented.<br>
3. we do not want the children to keep on fighting computer viruses.<br>
4. we want them to use the constructionist learning environment like<br>
the sugar learning platform and not merely use passive instructionist<br>
environments.<br>
5. also the likelyhood of children wasting a lot of time and get<br>
addicted to the various consumer oriented comptuter games that provide<br>
very little learning experience. We don't want such games on OLPC,<br>
since we want to leave children alone when seriously engaged in<br>
building something using the OLPC. You cannot do that with a Windows<br>
PC and we need constant monitoring of abuse. OLPC is designed to keep<br>
the abuse to least level possible.<br>
<br>
There may be many other points of comparison, but I will place the<br>
above on top, for not using Windows on OLPC.<br>
<br>
--<br>
GN<br>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Nagarjuna G <<a href="mailto:nagarjun@gnowledge.org" target="_blank">nagarjun@gnowledge.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Development Associates<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:adhikaris@hotmail.com" target="_blank">adhikaris@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
</div><div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> India mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:India@lists.laptop.org" target="_blank">India@lists.laptop.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/india" target="_blank">http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/india</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div><span><font color="#888888">--<br>
GN<br>
<a href="http://metaStudio.org/" target="_blank">http://metaStudio.org/</a> reShaping Education<br>
</font></span><div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
India mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:India@lists.laptop.org" target="_blank">India@lists.laptop.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/india" target="_blank">http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/india</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Regards,<br><br>Ravichandran Jv<br><a href="http://ravichandranjv.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://ravichandranjv.blogspot.com</a><br>
</div></div>
</div>