OLPC myths/lang-ko

• 참고: 기술적인 자료의 번역을 위해 여러분의 도움을 기대합니다. www.laptop.org 사이트와 이 사이트의 메인 페이지들은 대부분 번역되었으나, 나머지는 한글 요약만을 제공하고 있습니다. 어느 페이지든 추가 번역이 필요하면, XO Korea의 번역 섹션에 메시지를 남겨 주시기 바라며, 모자라는 번역 부분을 채워주실 손길을 기다리고 있습니다.
• Note: Some core pages have been fully translated, and others are provided with summaries. If you need more translation, please leave a message onto the discussion page of this, or that of XO Korea.

오해

"잘못된" 또는 "문제가 있는" 이해, 즉 오해와 그 답변입니다.

노트북에 하드디스크와 같은 내부 저장장치가 없다.

아닙니다. 노트북에는 많은 컴퓨터 상점에서 판매하는 USB 플래시 드라이브와 비슷한 1GB의 내부 플래시 메모리가 있습니다. OS를 설치할 수 있고 파일들도 이 메모리에 저장할 수 있습니다. 또한 이 노트북에는 외부 하드드라이브 장착을 위한 USB포트도 있습니다. 따라서 내부 저장장치는 OS와 일부 파일들의 저장에 쓰일 수 있고, 일반적인 외부 USB 드라이브들은 필요하다면 필요하다면 부족한 부분을 보충할 수 있습니다. 거기에 이 노트북에는 더 많은 확장을 위한 SD 카드 슬롯도 한 개 있습니다

노트북 옆면에 손으로 돌리는 전력발생 장치가 있다

네, 그렇지만 다른 대안이 적용됩니다. 노트북과는 별도의 인력에 의한 전력 발생 장치가 공급되며, 그 외에도, Freecharge portable charger와 비슷한 패달 충전기, 태양광 패널, 크랭크, 그리고 풀리 (요요 모양의 전력 발생장치) 등이 검토되고 있습니다.

True, but irrelevant. The hand crank was there in early prototypes but the actual shipping units will use an off-board human-power system, connected to the power brick. Candidates include a foot-pedal charger similar to the Freecharge portable charger, solar panels, a crank, and a pulley system.

가난을 제거할 해결책(마법 총알!)다.

아닙니다. 전혀 그렇지 않습니다.

False: Not at all. It is simply a tool for education and communication and only helps, in part, in contributing to the entirety of aid programs where these laptops are distributed. Nevertheless it provides access to education, health, technology, economic opportunity, and more, and a few children will be able pull themselves out of poverty with no other assistance.

3D 게임등 자원을 많이 소요하는 프로그램을 돌릴 수 없다.

아뇨 (* 역주: 시스템 사양이 최근 업그레이드 되었습니다.)

True but irrelevant: That's not the purpose of this laptop. It is designed to be an inexpensive way for people of limited means to use a computer for such things as internet and simple educational software. The choice is not currently between this system and a more capable one. It is between this and nothing. This is better. [What programs the laptop will run well is more about how well the program is written than the functionality of the program, e.g., the laptop will have little forgiveness for programs with memory leaks.]

이 노트북은 리눅스 기반이다

네, 맞습니다. 첫번째 프로토타입이 살을 뺀(!) 페도라 코어에 [레드헷]이 만든 슈가 사용자 인터페이스로 작동할 것입니다. 하지만 다른 시스템들도 고려되어 왔으며 나중에 로드될 수도 있습니다

MS 윈도우를 돌릴 수 있다

넵. S D슬롯으로 윈도우를 쓸 수도 있습니다.

True: Microsoft is working on a Windows based system that can be executed on the OLPC laptop. False: There is no strategy change. The OLPC is continuing to develop a Linux-based software set for the laptop in conjunction with Red Hat. But since the OLPC project is open we cannot (and maybe even don't want to) stop other people from developing and supplying alternate software packages.

이 노트북 대신에 낡은 펜티엄 컴퓨터로도 똑같은 기능을 수행할 수 있다

아뇨. 이 노트북은 지금까지의 모든 노트북과 확연히 다릅니다. 특히, 전력 소모 면에서 그러합니다. XO 노트북은 기존 컴퓨터보다 현저히 적은 전력을 소모하므로, 친환경적일 뿐 아니라, 저개발국의 부족한 전력 인프라 상황에서도 작동할 수 있습니다.

False: The point of this laptop is to keep people connected with the modern computer net-based society. Using a laptop that may be on its way to obsolescence from a second-hand store, or building new expensive Pentium laptops for this purpose isn't feasible. You have to design something specifically to answer all the requirements of the $100 laptop. If we could make a reliable $2 laptop that is modern and can do everything required of it in our program, we would absolutely make such a device. Another problem with the "old- or used-computer" approach is that it doesn't scale. The overhead of deployment and support would overshadow any potential economies in terms of the capital costs. A final, insurmountable problem with the "old- or used-computer" approach is power. The XO laptop uses an order of magnitude less power than the typical laptop. It is both environmentally reckless and economically infeasible to power used computers in developing world.

가난한 나라가 필요한 건 노트북이 아니라, 음식이다.

아뇨. 천 번도 넘게 설명했습니다.

Falsehood: Not at all. Like it was said earlier, this is only a tool and should not be seen as more than that. We agree that other more urgent matters must be attended to before you insert high tech into the situation of poverty.

Not everybody agrees with that idea. Some think that access to the Net is the fastest way for poor people to get the political clout to require their governments to provide services to them. Or to get the education for real jobs that take them out of poverty completely. Or access to innovative technologies for providing food, water, clothing, shelter, energy, etc.

But we believe education and communication with the modern world to be important as well. Food, water, clothing and other necessities come first. Nevertheless, a world view and good education can do wonders for a child's mind and continued health. Computers, especially those that are networked, have shown to be development 'multipliers', that is they help to improve the delivery of medical, educational and communication services.

노브북이 아니라, 장난감이다.

전혀. 완전한 컴퓨터이며, 동시에 컴퓨터 이상의 제품입니다.

Falsehood: What does this mean? To call it a "gadget" implies that this is nothing more than a toy or an insignificant object of interest. Can a commercially available PDA do better? Highly unlikely. Can a cell phone do better? Why waste a cell phone that may not have the needed features in an effort to avoid designing something to really solve these problems? This is not to say that others can't come up with better ideas; we encourage it. In the strictest utilitarian sense our hope is that this technology we call a laptop can do much more than mere gadgetry. And we're confident it can.

전원이 없으면 쓸 수 없다.

아뇨. 자체적으로 전력을 생산할 수 있습니다.

False: If the laptop comes with a method of inexpensive self-contained rechargeable power, such as wind-up power that lasts a good long time, this is not true. [We are aiming for a minimum of a 10:1 ratio between time put into reading the eBook and time human-powering, i.e., one minute of cranking gives you at least ten minutes of reading.] You might be surprised at the number and variety of energy sources available in poor countries, including solar, wind, water, bicycle, animal, biomass, etc.

재활용 가능한 부품이 없다

지구 상의 그 어떤 노트북보다도 친환경적입니다. EPEAT (www.epeat.net) 측정 결과, XO는 Gold 등급을 받았을 뿐 아니라, 추후에 더 높은 등급을 받을 것으로 시사되고 있습니다.

False: The XO is the greenest laptop ever made. EPEAT (www.epeat.net) is an organization that measures the environmental impact of laptops. OLPC is in process of applying for a rating for them, which we believe will be excellent. XO appears destined to be the first laptop to receive their Gold Rating, and in fact, it has been suggested that the XO may warrant establishing a new, even higher rating.

환경 문제를 야기할 것이다

각국의 정부가 엄격히 관리할 것입니다.

We hope that is not true. If the program is run well by governments all or most laptops will be accounted for. No doubt some laptops will find their way into trash bins and garbage dumps, where there are strong financial incentives for almost all of them to be reclaimed. Will broken laptops be brought back and recycled or parted out for new laptops (refurbished)? Hopefully. And hopefully distribution and reclamation will be conducted in a responsible manner.

다른 사람들이 그들 자신의 아이디어를 제시하는 경우는 귀하의 아이디어에 뭔가 내재적으로 잘못된 것이 있기 때문이다

아니오. 이전에 밝힌 바와 같이, 다른 그룹이나 비즈니스가 그들 자신의 아이디어를 제시하는 것을 우리는 고무합니다. 그것이 자동적으로, 경쟁하는 아이디어들 간의 가치 판단을 제기하는 것은 아닙니다. 일부 아이디어들과 프로젝트들은 각기 장단점이 있으며, 우리는 서로에게서 배우고, 선의의 목적을 향해 나아가길 바랍니다.

Falsehood: Not so. Like mentioned earlier, if other groups and businesses come up with their own ideas then we encourage it. That doesn't automatically put a value judgement on competing ideas. Some ideas or projects may have strengths and weaknesses that others do not. We can only learn from each other to better each other's ideas and we hope we will in the spirit of goodwill towards those who need it. But what we hope this does not turn into is petty rivalry and cutthroat politics in business that is not conducive to a cause we happen to champion.

이익보다는 나쁜 점이 더 많다.

넌센스..

How so?: If it's simply a tool as water purifying machines are tools, how will it harm the people it's intended to help? If you're talking about the digital divide in most places where this program may be instituted, think on that a minute. If this laptop does what it's intended to do it can only open avenues to better close that divide. If you're talking about the environment, read the entries on that further up the list. Or do you think that these laptops will, for example, destroy languages and cultures? Hardly. Even now, minority languages that seemed to be dying out, such as Hawai'ian, Welsh and Irish, and Yiddish are coming back. Why wouldn't that work for languages of Africa or Asia? These laptops will provide unequalled opportunities for saving once endangered aspects of civilization and bring them to the attention and consideration of the entire world community. This is what we generally mean by "communication" and this laptop can only help, not hinder, in the achievement of this goal.

지금까지 이런 시도가 없었던 이유는 프로그램 자체에 어떤 결함이 있기 때문이다.

아뇨. 모든 일은 시작이 있습니다. 귀하 이전에 그러한 일을 한 사람이 없다는 것이 그 일을 해서는 안될 이유가 될 수는 없습니다. 이전에 실패한 주요한 이유는 적합한 기술이 없었기 때문일 것입니다. 이제 우리에게는 이와같은 일을 추진할 기술이 있으며, 우리는 이전의 위대한 인물들이 남겨준 실패를 통해 배우고, 새로운 방안을 모색할 수 있습니다. 이러한 기술의 진화는 무어의 법칙에 기초합니다. epistemology의 진화는 기술과 학습에 관한 40년 간의 연구에 기초합니다. 결국, 문자는 세계를 주유하며, 문명과 더불어 발전해 왔습니다. 이 프로젝트는 어디에선가 누군가에 의해 시작되어야만 했습니다. 기술과 ubiquity와 동일합니다.

False: All things have a beginning. And not doing things just because others before you haven't done those things is no reason not to do them or make excuses why not to do them. Most likely because possible previous attempts have failed (presumably) is because the right technology just wasn't there to begin with. Now we have technology that is cheap enough and available enough to attempt something of this magnitude. That's how it's always been. We are trying to "stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before us" and learn from their mistakes, and we have had to invent some things from scratch to bypass some of the well-known pitfalls of such a project. This evolution of technology is based on Moore's Law. The evolution of the epistemology--recall that this is a learning project--is based on 40 years of research into technology and learning. Eventually the written word spread across the globe and obviously was developed as civilization developed. It had to start somewhere with someone. Same with technology and its eventual seeming ubiquity.

OLPC는 (특정 화제를 삽입하세요)에 대한 계획이 없다

People say that OLPC has no plan for recycling the laptops, or training teachers, or getting software into local languages, or preventing wholesale theft and resale of the machines, or a host of other things that we clearly should plan for. The fact is that it is too soon to have an announced plan for any of these things. But lack of an announced plan does not equate to lack of planning. Significant numbers of people are putting their best thoughts and other efforts into these problems, and will have much to say at the appropriate times.

On the other hand, how can we plan in any detail for such huge transforming events as bringing a generation out of poverty? Look at countries where it has happened, like South Korea, or is happening, like Thailand. Who could have predicted twenty or thirty years ago where they would be today, and what they would need next? Who could have predicted that South Korea would become the most highly digitally-connected nation on Earth, or the state of the North Korean and Burmese refugee problems?

So the kind of planning we have to do is what software developers call Agile Planning. We have to know what we can do next, and we have to create a process for understanding what happens when we do it, and how we can proceed from wherever we get to. The opposite of the infamous Soviet or Indian Five-Year Plan, or the Waterfall model of software development, where everything is supposed to be known in advance, whether it can be or not.

What do we need to do next?

• Build and test the computer, and get it ready for production
• Get more software for it in more languages
• Get financial commitments for the first production run and field trials
• Plan enough of the training and logistics for the trials
• Research the trials
• Plan the next larger rollout

We have a pretty good idea how to do the first two, Sales & Marketing (AKA Prof. Negroponte) is working the third about as well as he can, and it's still too soon to do more than outline the last three. The problems of training and logistics will be different in every country. We will need to focus considerable energy on the issues that actually arise, and not wish for a plan that could meet every possible contingency.

How can we tell what happened?

• Pay attention, AKA research, done by professional researchers and by the people concerned. Read the children's blogs, for one major thing.

Then what?

• Oh, just another 200 or so countries where 6,000+ languages are spoken, major health problems, the odd civil war or tyranny, a little of this and a little of that, you know. No shortage of challenges. The perfect setting for a flowering of ingenuity that will put the Industrial Revolution to shame. I'm counting on the brainpower and energy of a few hundred million hungry children. You and I can't outthink them, especially not in advance.

So are you going to stand there cursing the darkness, or teach people to make candles?