Add your comments
DLS Archives
May 2012
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Essential Windows Apps | Do Not Track | Microsoft Office | SayNow | LibreOffice | Zeam Android Launcher | Dead Space iPhone | Firefox 4 Mobile | Firefox 4 Release | PlayStation iPhone App | Excel Tips | Android Launcher | Google One Pass | Dead Space | Google Cloud Print | Songbird for Android | NBA Jam | Internet Explorer 9 | Windows 7 Connector for Mac | Office Mac 2011 | IE9 RC
Gadget News
- Lenovo ThinkPad Edge S430 readies to enter Euro market, gets priced at €809 on German site
- Precise Biometrics' Tactivo for iPhone, iPad locks data by fingerprint and smart card, is overkill for your diary (video)
- Volvo's driverless road train in Spain is public mainly on the plain (video)
- Smart Pebble robots replicate objects the way a good hive mind should (video)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MysteriusJan 7th 2008 5:04PM
Can't you see how Intel's playing you all?
It develops a rival product, then joins OLPC so that it can hype its involvement, but without abandoning its own project. Then, naturally, it proves reluctant to help design an OLPC project using Intel chips, b/c it would compete with its own in-house design.
How could OLPC expect Intel to work cooperatively as part of their team if it was at the same time trying to promote a rival product?
Of course, Intel then leaves after tying up OLPC resources designing an Intel version (though OLPC claims little development was wasted, they must have spent significant time if they apparently were going to launch an Intel version in the next few months), and portrays it as OLPC trying to stifle competition.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to hold that team members shouldn't be competing against the team at the same time they're supposed to be part of the team, don't you?
(Unverified)Jan 8th 2008 9:32PM
Stop posting under another name, Dolores. The point here is that not only could Intel have a point, but you tried waaaaay too hard to jam your viewpoint down our throats. Report what happens. Keep your uninformed opinions out of the story, jackass.
MysteriusJan 8th 2008 10:29PM
Check my commenting history, if you wish. I am NOT "Dolores", whoever she is.
Of course Intel has a point. And so does OLPC, which previous commenters denied.
As for "jamming" my viewpoint down your throat, I'm sorry if I was too persuasive. ;)
More seriously, apologies if my comment was too assertive, but my only aim was to present what I thought OLPC's viewpoint was, in response to the blatantly pro-Intel, anti-OLPC comments above.