One Laptop per Child - grid computing for the poor

Negroponte's dream project for $100 computers for every poor child in developing nations, "One Laptop per Child", has a critical vision beyond that perceived in the popular press.

The New York Times covered this yesterday (november 30,2006) in an article "For $150, Third world laptop stirs a Big Debate" by John Markoff. Compare to "Microsoft would put Poor Online by Cellphone", also by John Markoff, Jan 30, 2006.

According to Markoff's article yesterday "Five countries — Argentina, Brazil, Libya, Nigeria and Thailand — have made tentative commitments to put the computers into the hands of millions of students, with production in Taiwan expected to begin by mid-2007." Much of the rest of the article deals with pricing, technology, and competing views about the impact of this computer on education.

That misses the most important aspect of this, in my mind, which Markoff mentions near the end of the piece:

One factor setting the project apart from earlier efforts to create inexpensive computers for education is the inclusion of a wireless network capability in each machine.

The project leaders say they will employ a variety of methods for connecting to the Internet, depending on local conditions. In some countries, like Libya, satellite downlinks will be used. In others, like Nigeria, the existing cellular data network will provide connections, and in some places specially designed long-range Wi-Fi antennas will extend the wireless Internet to rural areas.

When students take their computers home after school, each machine will stay connected wirelessly to its neighbors in a self-assembling “mesh” at ranges up to a third of a mile. In the process each computer can potentially become an Internet repeater, allowing the Internet to flow out into communities that have not previously had access to it.

“The soldiers inside this Trojan horse are children with laptops,” said Walter Bender, a computer researcher who served as director of the Media Laboratory after Mr. Negroponte and now heads software development for the laptop project.

Each machine will come with a simple mechanism for recharging itself when a standard power outlet is not available. The designers experimented with a crank, but eventually discarded that idea because it seemed too fragile. Now they have settled on several alternatives, including a foot pedal as well as a hand-pulled device that works like a salad spinner....

“They should buy Dell’s $499 laptop for now,” he said. “Ours is really designed for developing nations — dusty, dirty, no or unreliable power and so on.”

In his two decades as director of the Media Laboratory, Mr. Negroponte often faced criticism because the institution’s impressive demonstrations of technology only occasionally led to commercial applications.

So, a few observations and comments

First, and most importantly, this technology should be immediately incorporated into Homeland Security and emergency preparedness infrastructure. It is astounding that, during Katrina, because of the damage, for the most part the people in the Superdome, and elsewhere, were simply cut off from communications with the outside world.

This technology demonstrates that we don't need all that infrastructure. We don't need a power grid, or satellites, or cell phones, in an emergency, if we have hardware that assembles its own network and passes messages from one user to another. This won't handle normal computing, but it sure would handle emergency traffic better than occurred during Katrina.

Stephenson points out the need for this type of infrastructure repeatedly. Yesterday he posted "Communications Strategy Emphasizes Reslience" . He has a marvelous cache of his best posts on Homeland Security and the first of those, "Why doesn't DHS have a netwars strategy to avoid future debacles?" (June 26, 2006) makes these points:

Fostering emergent behavior by a networked homeland security strategy: chaos or community?

By W. David Stephenson International Conference on Complex Systems June 26, 2006

This presentation will examine the possibility of extending the netwar concept to domestic homeland security. In particular, the author's thesis is that a combination of two factors that have only become widespread during the past 15 years:

• the development and widespread adoption of networked communications technologies and applications on one hand
• and the growing body of scientific understanding of emergent behavior on the other,

present a new opportunity that, to my knowledge, has not been formally analyzed in this regard: using networked communications technologies that were unavailable as recently as when Arquilla and Ronfeldt wrote "The Advent of Netwar" only a decade ago, to not just make emergent behavior possible, but actually foster it. To the author's knowledge, this is an option that has not received any serious scrutiny by the Department of Homeland Security, let alone consideration of it as a basic operating principle.

The presentation will conclude with an example providing a sense of how a networked homeland security strategy designed specifically to encourage emergent behavior might be structured and function.

...

individuals participating in emergent behavior produce results that are far greater than the sum of their parts. In the case of Katrina, still others spontaneously came together to craft imaginative Google Map mashups to allow identification of homes in New Orleans, or to create unified databases of those needing assistance.

So we know that emergent behavior is possible even under the trying circumstances of a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.

... Equally important but less understood by decision makers, unlike landline phones or the broadcast media, these devices are themselves increasing networked, self-organizing, and self-healing. In many cases, such as mesh networks that were originally developed for the military in battlefield conditions and now are being used by civilians, the networks don't require any kind of external networking: simply turn them on and the network self organizes.

I am convinced that such a networked homeland security strategy is feasible today, using existing technology and requiring much less time to create and deploy than some of the costly, dedicated emergency communications systems government is creating. Equally important, by facilitating those three qualities needed in a crisis: flexibility, robustness, and self-organizing, it could transform the general public from hopeless victims, waiting for aid that may never come, into self-reliant components of the overall response. To paraphrase Dr. King, which will it be, chaos, or community? [emphasis added]

So why isn't a networked homeland security strategy under consideration?

(photo by GustavoG at Flickr)

technorati tags:homelandsecurity, preparedness, socialcomputing, networking, negroponte, onelaptopperchild, SED, selforganizing