OLPC myths/lang-ja
- This is an on-going translation
OLPCにまつわる噂の真相
明らかに"間違い"である誤解と"虚偽"（そして不正確）な誤解、更にその他適切な反応について区別してあります。
Myths
Separated by "False" and "Falsehood" (inaccuracies) misunderstandings, and other responses where appropriate.
OLPCのラップトップはハードディスクのような内蔵ストレージを持たない
間違いです：このラップトップは巷の多くのストアで売られている安いサムドライブ（訳注：USBメモリスティック）と同様な1GBのフラッシュメモリを内蔵しています。オペレーティングシステムと場合によってはファイルもこのメモリに格納することができます。更にラップトップは外部ハードドライブ接続のためのUSBポートを備えています。従って内蔵フラッシュストレージはOSとある種のファイルストレージに、そして必要があれば広く普及している外部USBドライブに不要なファイルを退避することができます。更に、ラップトップは更なる拡張性のためにSDカードスロットを装備しています。
本体の横にハンドルが付いてるなんて、全く不恰好だ
そのとおりです。しかしそれこそが（最終的に）本体からハンドルが取り除かれた理由です。手回しクランクは初期プロトタイプでは装備されていました。しかし実際の最終出荷ユニットでは外部設置の人力発電システムを使う予定です。Freecharge portable chargerに似たフットペダル型充電器、太陽電池パネル、クランク、そしてプリーシステムなどが候補として上がっています。
OLPCはこの(ラップトップ)が貧困に対する魔法の銃弾になることを期待している
間違いです：全くそのようなことはありません。ラップトップは、部分的にはこれらのラップトップが分配されるエイドプログラムの完全性に寄与するという点で、単に教育とコミュニケーション、そして補助としての道具です。にもかかわらず、このラップトップは教育、健康、技術、経済的機械、そしてもっと多くのものへのアクセス手段を提供し、外部からの支援なしで行く認可の子供たちは彼／彼女たち自身を貧困から脱出させることができるでしょう。
最近の3Dゲームや多くのリソースを要するビデオ編集ソフトのようなその他のソフトウェアを走らせるのに全く非力なマシンである。
有るケースにおいては正しいですが、議論そのものが見当違いです。そのようなソフトウェアを走らせるのがこのラップトップの目的ではありません。インターネットと教育ソフトウェア等のためにコンピュータを使う限られた手段しか持たない人々のための高価で無い手段となるようデザインされています。比較すべき対象はこのラップトップと、そのようなことができるラップトップではありません：すなわちこのコンピュータか、あるいは何も無いか、です。何も無いよりはいいはずです。[ラップトップでどのプログラムがうまく走るかという命題は、プログラムの機能の問題というよりはいかにプログラムがうまく書かれているかということです。すなわちメモリリークするようなプログラムに対してラップトップは言い訳などできません。]
提案されている100ドルの機械はLinuxベースとなる予定だ
本当です。最初のプロトタイプは、スリム化されたバージョンのFedora CoreとRed Hatより提供されるSugerユーザインタフェースが走る予定です。しかしながらその他のシステムもまた引き続き検討されています。
提案されている100ドルのマシンはMicrosoft Windowsオペレーティングシステムを走らせる予定だ
本当です：MicrosoftはOLPCのラップトップ上で実行可能なWindowsベースのシステム開発に取り組んでいるところです。 間違いです：戦略自身に変更はありません。OLPCはRed Hatとともに、Linuxベースのソフトウェア群の開発を継続しているところです。しかしながらOLPCプロジェクトはオープンであり、OLPCがその他の人々が代替のソフトウェアパッケージを開発することをとめることはできないし、恐らくそうしたいとも思わないでしょう。
古いPentiumのマシンでも同じようなことはできる。
間違いです：このラップトップのポイントは、現代的なコンピュータネットを基盤とする社会へ人々がつながり続けるようにすることです。この目的のために、中古ショップで入手したますます古くなっていくラップトップや、新しく高価なPentiumラップトップをビルドするのは現時的ではありません。100ドルラップトップに必要とされる全ての要求に特に応えるべく何かをデザインする必要があるのです。もし最新で私たちのプログラムのなかで必要とされる全てが可能な信頼できる2ドルのラップトップができるのなら、間違いなく私たちはそのようなデバイスを作るでしょう。"古いコンピュータか中古のコンピュータか"というアプローチのもう一つの問題はそのやり方を拡張できない点です。資本コストに関し、開発とサポートのオーバーヘッドは将来性の有るいかなる経済活動にも影を投げかけます。そして最後に"古いコンピュータか中古のコンピュータか"というアプローチの抱える克服不可能な問題は消費電力の問題です。XOラップトップは典型的なラップトップに比べ桁違いの低消費電力です。発展途上国へそのような電力を消費するコンピュータを持ち込むことは環境的に無視できないだけでなく経済的に実行不可能です。
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.
OLPCはラップトップよりも食料や水や住居を必要としている貧困にあえぐ地域にこんなものを押し付けるのか。
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.
これはラップトップではない。新し物好きのおもちゃだ
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.
電気も供給されてないところでラップトップなんて使えない
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.
再生可能な部品で構成されて無い
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.
大量に作れば、世界中の埋立地の造成に役立つだろう
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.
もし他の人たちが別のアイデアを思いついたとするなら、OLPCの考えは本質的に何か間違っているだろう
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.
このラップトップは良いことより悪いことしか起こさないだろう
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.
過去このような活動がなされてこなかった背景には、そうしないほうが良いという正当な理由があるに違いない。
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.
OLPCには(これこれこういった内容が)計画されて無いのでだめだ
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?
OLPCは実質的にOSとPythonのUIガジェットレベルで全てのコードを書き直している
This is probably false. The reasons probably include significant code not rewritten in Python (examples?), the fact that python isn't as slow as interpreted languages used to be (statistics?), and empirical evidence that things are working fine on the OLPC (examples?).
(When this answer is rewritten with specifics, please remove my signature: Homunq 15:30, 29 July 2007 (EDT))
- The L2 Cache on the LX has a big impact on Python performance as well... --Walter 20:20, 29 July 2007 (EDT)