http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Lou_Jepsen

Quoting from there, since it’s easier: “She co-created the first holographic video system in the world at the MIT Media Lab in 1989 [...] At OLPC, notably, Jepsen invented the laptop's sunlight-readable display technology.” You don’t get put in charge of the technology for displays at Intel (her job before OLPC) by being unaccomplished.

Here’s a (non-exhaustive, I think) list of her patents: http://www.google.com/patents?q=mary+lou+jepsen&btnG=Sea...

Several of those, like the OLPC dual-mode display, are really clever (better than anything else of the kind, feasible to manufacture on existing fabs, no more expensive than existing displays, etc.).

Also, your implication that her involvement with OLPC was “suspiciously” predatory (or for that matter the implication that OLPC on the whole is some kind of exploitative scam) is a cheap insult below the expected level of this forum. Really bright high-level engineer–executives who take out a few years of their careers to work at well below pay grade for non-profit companies trying to change the world should be lauded, in my book.

For the record, this didn't start out as an attack on Ms. Jepsen who I said probably had good intentions. My point is people like her go around thinking their good intentions mean something without end results. So they end up pushing things like the OLPC which hurt more than they help. Then they laud themselves and their partners for having been such great people and done such a great thing and shade their eyes from all the flaws.

Every reports I've heard has said the OLPCs have major hardware and software problems and my own died pretty shortly after I opened it up. Selling PCs like that to third world countries deprives those kids of actual working PCs which in my book is a bad thing

Also, I didn't mean to malign Ms. Jepsen's technical accomplishments which are impressive. But when I referred to "accomplishments" I was talking in the sense of "making products that make a difference in the word" which is exactly what I think she thinks she accomplished and which I dispute.

(I can't reply to your comment below for some reason but let me just say this. The arguments that have been made in the last few days that suggest the OLPC is flawed are perfectly valid. The only people I've seen deny them are people like you who worked for the project. So assuming those flaws are real (again, I'm living proof since mine broke 2 weeks out) imagine a country who bought 1000 OLPCs for 1000 kids rather than 500 Windows or Linux PCs. Now if those OLPCs are flawed than those kids have been deprived of computers. The fact that you can't see that just goes to show your hero worship of a project that has clearly not met it's goals)

Actually, no, you shifted the goal posts twice.

> “Your argument boils down to the OLPC is great no matter what.”

You’re putting words in my mouth. Where did I argue that?

> “hurt more than they help”

Have any evidence (or even reasoning) to back that up?

> “shade their eyes from all the flaws”

Do you have any evidence that Mary Lou has done that? Nicholas has, in public perhaps (though I’d be cautious to say that even).

> “deprives those kids of actual working PCs”

Can you back that up with a plausible explanation? As far as I can tell, not a single person has been “deprived” of a PC because of the OLPC project, and you’re the only one who is suggesting so.

* * *

This is a very narrow discussion, in which you insulted and maligned someone with no cause, and I called you out on it, and then you tried to make it stick rather than apologizing as would be appropriate for a reputable discussion. I haven’t made any claims about everything else being great, or anything of the kind, and I don’t even really see how you’re reading that into any of my statements.

* * *

Edit:

> “ people like her go around thinking their good intentions mean something without end results.”

I also want to push back on this point. First, good intentions + deliberate action really does mean something, even in the unlikely even that they have no result. I personally think there is nothing more important in the world than the combination of good intentions plus the willingness to back those up with action. (An only slightly joking quesion: What have you done for the children of the world recently?) But second, the whole point of Mary Lou’s post is that there has been a result. The “netbook” market is growing by leaps and bounds, and more and more children all over the place are getting their hands on various kinds of laptops, whether made by OLPC or otherwise. This was always Nicholas’s primary publicly stated goal (whether he had different private goals I have no idea), and the success on that front more than justifies the effort.

Sorry to hear that. Mine works beautifully.

The OLPC is a quirky little product -- beset by flaws, yes, but also boasting some remarkable innovations. The display is one of them but it's just one. The networking hardware, the ruggedized case, the fact that they built the motherboard and all critical electronics into the display unit, so when you open it up the hot parts are kept off your lap and you can use it as an actual laptop -- all of these little details being built into a machine of such low price make the OLPC a literally game-changing machine. (The entire netbook market owes its existence to OLPC; the EeePC got started when Asus wanted to develop a competitor.)

The flaws are mainly kinks to be worked out, save one: I really wish that they hadn't written Sugar in Python. It's too slow and memory-consuming. Maybe if they precompiled the hotspots into native code...

The whole thing really does sound rather Harold Hill, doesn't it? I admit, if I hadn't seen it for myself, I probably wouldn't have believed it. Back when it was called the "$100 laptop" I wondered, "What's that going to do for kids?"