So what was the point of the experiment? Why couldn't they have just used some sort of nonsense names-names that would almost certainly have no correlation to real people? As near as I can tell, the test told them that having John Smith without additional information is not incredible useful. Granted, it's good to know with certainty, but that's pretty obvious. If they just wanted to test the database, there was no reason to use real names.
In short, they pulled out the shotgun, aimed for the foot, shot. Then reloaded....
"But earlier in the morning I can't enjoy it- I'm at work. By placing it at the end of the day, I can still have some time out in the sunlight after work ends."
You make one very large and incorrect assumption-that everyone works the same hours during the daylight. They don't. Other people might enjoy the daylight in the morning.
And I think people survived just fine without DST....
"As an example, my husband works in retail distribution. He has to be there at a certain hour because the warehouse supervisors are there at a certain hour because the shipping companies start at a certain hour."
Well, after working in distribution warehouses, I think you were correct up until the shipping companies part:) I suspect many warehouses do things because "that's the way we always have" and/or "the supervisors don't want to work at X hour" and/or "I dunno, it sounded good". I suspect very few do it for logical reasons. Very few places HAVE to be open the hours they are.
"Of those 45, 7 were subsequently contradicted, and 7 were found to report stronger effects. So that's 14 that are "inaccurate or overblown"."
So, I wonder where this study will fit in? Will it be contradicted, shown to be overstating the fact or accurate? I suspect this study has some of the same problems-a small sample size. That alone can probably explain some of the problems. And I am not sure that a change from a moderate effect to a lesser effect should be labeled "overblown". I mean, there still was a measurable effect, wasn't there? Certainly doesn't make the previous study a "bad" one.
I think I consider this study "overblown". After all, it is only one study. And you really shouldn't base treatments on the outcome of only one....
"Furthermore, we cannot expect the parents to ask for a better education, because the average person has no idea why education exists."
I think you missed the point. The parents don't HAVE to ask for a better education. They don't need to know education theory. Hell, they can be a moron. BUT they have to be INVOLVED in their childrens education. They have to value it. They have to make it a priority. If every parent did that, our education "problem" would rapidly diminish.
"I know it is in vogue to blame the parents..."
Really? If that were true there wouldn't be a demand for more funding, more testing and other quick and fairly useless fixes. No, I think it is in vogue to blame the schools and the teachers and the unions. Sure, they have some power-but the most important people are being left off the hook-the parents. Because they don't want to hear that it will take effort to improve education. That many of them are part of the problem. I think it's called self-denial.
"Here is the secret. Teaching isn't particularly hard. All it requires is a knowledgable and reasonably patient master and an apprentice motivated to learn."
And here's another secret. The former and the latter aren't a majority. Sure, it isn't too hard to teach motivated students. But most aren't. At least this is my experience at a University, where in theory everyone WANTS to be there.
Just because you are a math major doesn't mean you can teach. Teaching isn't easy for most. Now that doesn't mean that a lot of courses for teacher certs are useful.... And having a degree is enough to teach-as long as the district is willing and you go through the process of certifiying.
"Public schools don't work, can't work and aren't even compatible with a Republican form of Government."
To put it nicely, you are wrong. They worked for me. Therefore, your conclusion is incorrect. Other wise people would agree (I suspect some of them founded the US...)
Ultimately, if the schools aren't working well, it is the fault of the people who oversee them-aka the citizens. Ultimately, the students who do the best in school tend to be the ones with the most involved parents. The teachers, administrators, teaching styles, teaching materials, etc. are all secondary.
Re:Reminds me of why I hate banking websites
on
A $251 Million Typo
·
· Score: 1
"Bank web sites suck. All of them. Especially USAA's, if you have the displeasure of using that one."
Hmm, seems fine to me. Never had a problem with it. Granted, I wouldn't say it is really good-but certainly not bad.
"The way it works now, taking property by eminent domain is decided by a few politicians, usually by some council or other assembly vote."
Yep. What most people fail to realize is that while the federal government gets most of the press and attention, it's the local government that can REALLY screw you over. The federal government tends to act indirectly while the local/state government is far more direct....
"It will increase the effectiveness of the teacher by, MAYBE, 2% and increase the cost of equipping the classrooms by... um... $5000 per classroom? A quarter of a million bucks?"
Well, even if we assume your random (made up) values, that works out to about $200 per student (assuming 25 students per class) or $40 a year (if they become obsolete in 5 years. I suspect if you could raise test scores by a few percent for that amount of money a heck of a lot of districts would be willing to spend it....
"At a time when schools are having problems buying textbooks?"
And if you saw the quality of textbooks you might not consider this a bad thing. For many subjects that basic material hasn't changed in a LONG time. And the teachers notes are probably a higher quality than the textbooks. In the textbook publishing industry, quality is not a priority.
"And teachers are being laid off?"
Teachers are the primary cost of running a school district. The only way to seriously cut costs is to reduce teachers. Technology often is a capital cost. Big difference. Your quarter of a million bucks would get maybe FOUR teachers in central Ohio, and you would have to pay that cost EVERY year.
"Good teachers can convey knowledge with very few whiz bang doohickies."
Yes they can. But if you give the students a choice between a chalkboard and powerpoint, they prefer powerpoint. Even if they don't do any better. Rather amusing.
In the end, if you can get it, and the teachers want it, why not? The good teachers can do amazing things with the tech.
"They (we!) learn better when we have good teachers with adequate supplies of basic essentials like books and teaching materials and we have an open mind."
Actually, I suspect it has a lot more to do with how much the parents value education. Motivated students can learn a lot from crappy teachers (I've had more than a few).
In any case, the largest operating expense for a school is salaries. And a whiteboard isn't going to come from the salary side of funding. Grants in many cases.
Better tools CAN make better teachers. If they want to use them.
Well, that position does sound like it wasn't the greatest. But I certainly wouldn't call it a "lecturer" position. Your University may have, but I suspect most wouldn't.
If you are doing more than teaching (for instance, required to do research), I sure as hell would consider it at least an untenured professor level position.
"Proving an idea wrong is far more useful than showing that an idea might be right."
Actually, data in support of an idea is very important.
I understand why this stuff happens. Suppose you propose a seemingly good hypothesis then cannot find significant evidence to support it. Say, for instance, that abandoned mines are impacting water quality. Can't really publish that. Sure, it's useful information but journals aren't terribly interested. This is really bad if you have managed to get funding for the idea.
Useful but boring data often does not get published in favor of more controversial but possibly less useful stuff. Everybody isn't going to make a major breakthrough-but the small stuff is important. But if you can't get funding for it or publish it, who is going to continue to do it?
"However, while it is important that kids learn how to use technology, it's much more important that they can do these things without it."
I would agree with you. However, if you are going to let the students use the technology in the classroom it doesn't make much sense to not allow it on the standardized testing. I have seen the results. Ugly. Especially for the people who score it.
I don't think that calculators (or other technology) inherently prevent kids from learning the theory behind the math (or other subject). You can go through the motions just as easily (well maybe not as easily) without calculators. Remember those multiplication tables? I have seen college level students divide two numbers and get a totally unreasonable answer-or at least it should have been unreasonable to them. But they accepted it. It has happened when they used a calculator and when they haven't. I don't know how to fix that-all I know is that by college (or high school) I suspect it is too late.
"If it was basic multiplication, that would be fine. Once you can multiple 2x3 on paper, you can multiply everything from 1x1 to 9x9."
Are you sure about that? I suspect the people who said that 8x4=24 in a long division problem probably could have handled 2x3. I suspect a lot of people never understood even the basic concepts-and calculator usage has only accelerated this. After all, most of the small number multiplication is memorized (or used to be).
You get the worst of all worlds when you don't teach the basic theory, don't stress the useful memorization, then allow calculators in school but not on the exams. Lots of people in and around education need extended applications of a cluebyfour-parents, students, teachers, administrators, legislators, publishers, and the public. I'm not holding my breath.
"Isn't that what math is about? The details are far less important than the ability to analyze a problem a solve it."
Well, the last time I checked, there is a CORRECT answer to a math problem. And if you do the numbers/variables/etc wrong, the answer CANNOT be correct. Details are important in math.
Sure, knowing how to do the problem and screwing up the math isn't as bad as not knowing how to do the problem. But it isn't good either. I have scored standardized tests-let me assure you that the more basic arithmetic errors you find, the less you are certain that the student knows what they are doing, even if the procedure was correct. And they make them even if you allow calculators. It's just easier to score (they generally don't show their work as much).
They said "No, show that you're dividing both sides by 5" and I was just baffled - well it's OBVIOUS that both sides need to be divided by 5! Do people really need to be *told* that?
Yes, they do. At some point you did to. You just don't remember it. Of course, one would hope by about tenth grade they wouldn't... But trust me, many could screw that up regularly. I'm guessing x=100 would not be too uncommon an answer based on my recent experience....
"Paying someone to read email is vastly cheaper than the alternatives."
IF those alternatives have a reasonable chance of happening. It is all about what level of risk you are willing to take. I find it hard to believe that email alone will result in those outcomes-in other words, those things can happen just as easily without it in many cases. And who monitors the monitors to be sure they aren't doing it?
"If you drive 20 years without an accident, do you consider the insurance payments you made to be "wasted"?"
Yes, absolutely. Of course, insurance tends to be mandated. And I am very poor at predicting the future. So, I probably wouldn't go without. But I certainly don't have more than I think I will need.
Ultimately, I suspect it would be cheaper to buy insurance to cover for certain problems than employ additional people. But apparently hiring people to monitor communications is easier than 1) hiring good employees and 2) good management.
"(2) for the first time in over a hundred years the life expectancy is decreasing in the USA, due to obesity,"
So, do you have any data to support that? Sure, there is at least one study that suggests that life expectancy may decrease. But that isn't the same thing.
And obesity does not come from eating Big Macs. It comes from consuming more calories than you burn.
No, I don't think they are implying that a different set applies. After all, if the students hadn't gotten caught, they wouldn't have been punished. Seems to be the norm in ethics for business and the rest of human relations:)
Could we please stop the analogies? Not that they can't be useful, it's just that most people suck at them...
"For one, your assuming that the University purposely posted this information in a place where it could be found easily. Which they did not. It was a loophole in their system."
Hmm, typing the proper URL into a webpage gets you the desired information. Sounds easy to me. Sounds like it was meant to be accessible to the public. Expecially if there was no password required. And URL's are not passwords.
It may not have been their intent, but then again, I can't read minds. Tried, but failed. Your loophole sounds like a school screw up and violation of federal law to me....
"For example, let's say (and this happens constantly) a vendor mistakenly faxes sensitive information to us instead of to the correct client, one of our competitors. According to your logic, this is even more legitimately obtained information than the acceptance information, right?"
As far as I know, it is legitimely obtained information. They sent it to you willingly. Now whether this is the LEGAL opinion, I'm not sure. And most people would probably not use it-I would sure hope they wouldn't in a business without running it by a lawyer. Of course, any intelligent person could use it and no one would ever be the wiser (or really prove it).... Hard to get the info out of your head once you have seen it. Now the person who faxed that info would probably be fired.
However, that is not the case here. The students looked for their own info. If they looked up others, sure, I have no problem with the outcome. Otherwise, in the absence of an explicit agreement/understanding NOT to look for the information, I see no ethical/moral problem here.
Let's face it, the students are probably suffering because they made the schools look bad. Leaving educational records lying about for anyone to access isn't legal. So it's CYA time.... Talk about ethics and morals.
Well, in some sense the services model IS based on the idea that you are giving your customers crap. It is how you define that word crap. For instance, does it mean something that works poorly or something that doesn't do what the user wants even though it was advertised to do it. In either case, from a user point of view, it sucks, especially if you have to pay to just get it to work. Great software should be easy to configure and do what is wanted/promised. Granted, it's not limited to open source.... Definitions matter.
Finally, what exactly is the "services" model? I mean, I would consider any software that the service contract costs more than the price of the software a services model.... I suspect that would include Bitkeeper.
"The per-pilot cost is actually in the range of the cost of their airplane, if not higher."
I think you are wrong. I mean, if we are talking order of magnitude, well, ok. Aside from initial training and retention bonuses, they shouldn't cost much more than another officer.
Hmm, some quick searching: Cheap planes cost 20 to 30 million (one figure for an F18 is 24 million, another 29 million). Costs for unsucessful candidates for AF training only run about 50k. I doubt the Navy would be much higher. Navy training was estimated at around one million in CBO testimony circa 1999.
Frankly, considering the small production runs of planes vs the high numbers of people who are qualified to be pilots, planes are more valuable purely on a cost basis. But it isn't easy to replace experience. And having too many planes and pilots is as bad as having too few. The planning has to suck.
"The dogfight is no longer a central aspect of warfare, ground-to-air missile technology is adequately cheap and effective enough to remove any threat from the air..."
That's funny. Really funny. Sorry but I'm afraid that this idea of no more dogfights gets mentioned every so often. Missiles can do it all. Then they build planes without guns. Then they retrofit them once they get into air to air combat. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Here's a question for you (mostly rhetorical): If you can't lock on with a missile (think stealth), how can it hit something? It's now an expensive rocket.
A basic tenet of air to air combat (or surface to air) is that you need to ID your target. The best way is visual. If you can see him, projectile weapons are very handy. That's why long range missiles are rarely used. Rather bad things happen when you shoot down friendly or civilian aircraft....
Drones are useful. At some point they may replace manned aircraft completely. But probably not in my lifetime. There are just certain missions that you want flown by manned aircraft.
Slashdot Mirror
So what was the point of the experiment? Why couldn't they have just used some sort of nonsense names-names that would almost certainly have no correlation to real people? As near as I can tell, the test told them that having John Smith without additional information is not incredible useful. Granted, it's good to know with certainty, but that's pretty obvious. If they just wanted to test the database, there was no reason to use real names.
In short, they pulled out the shotgun, aimed for the foot, shot. Then reloaded....
"But earlier in the morning I can't enjoy it- I'm at work. By placing it at the end of the day, I can still have some time out in the sunlight after work ends."
You make one very large and incorrect assumption-that everyone works the same hours during the daylight. They don't. Other people might enjoy the daylight in the morning.
And I think people survived just fine without DST....
"As an example, my husband works in retail distribution. He has to be there at a certain hour because the warehouse supervisors are there at a certain hour because the shipping companies start at a certain hour."
:) I suspect many warehouses do things because "that's the way we always have" and/or "the supervisors don't want to work at X hour" and/or "I dunno, it sounded good". I suspect very few do it for logical reasons. Very few places HAVE to be open the hours they are.
Well, after working in distribution warehouses, I think you were correct up until the shipping companies part
"Of those 45, 7 were subsequently contradicted, and 7 were found to report stronger effects. So that's 14 that are "inaccurate or overblown"."
So, I wonder where this study will fit in? Will it be contradicted, shown to be overstating the fact or accurate? I suspect this study has some of the same problems-a small sample size. That alone can probably explain some of the problems. And I am not sure that a change from a moderate effect to a lesser effect should be labeled "overblown". I mean, there still was a measurable effect, wasn't there? Certainly doesn't make the previous study a "bad" one.
I think I consider this study "overblown". After all, it is only one study. And you really shouldn't base treatments on the outcome of only one....
"Furthermore, we cannot expect the parents to ask for a better education, because the average person has no idea why education exists."
I think you missed the point. The parents don't HAVE to ask for a better education. They don't need to know education theory. Hell, they can be a moron. BUT they have to be INVOLVED in their childrens education. They have to value it. They have to make it a priority. If every parent did that, our education "problem" would rapidly diminish.
"I know it is in vogue to blame the parents..."
Really? If that were true there wouldn't be a demand for more funding, more testing and other quick and fairly useless fixes. No, I think it is in vogue to blame the schools and the teachers and the unions. Sure, they have some power-but the most important people are being left off the hook-the parents. Because they don't want to hear that it will take effort to improve education. That many of them are part of the problem. I think it's called self-denial.
"Here is the secret. Teaching isn't particularly hard. All it requires is a knowledgable and reasonably patient master and an apprentice motivated to learn."
And here's another secret. The former and the latter aren't a majority. Sure, it isn't too hard to teach motivated students. But most aren't. At least this is my experience at a University, where in theory everyone WANTS to be there.
Just because you are a math major doesn't mean you can teach. Teaching isn't easy for most. Now that doesn't mean that a lot of courses for teacher certs are useful.... And having a degree is enough to teach-as long as the district is willing and you go through the process of certifiying.
"Public schools don't work, can't work and aren't even compatible with a Republican form of Government."
To put it nicely, you are wrong. They worked for me. Therefore, your conclusion is incorrect. Other wise people would agree (I suspect some of them founded the US...)
Ultimately, if the schools aren't working well, it is the fault of the people who oversee them-aka the citizens. Ultimately, the students who do the best in school tend to be the ones with the most involved parents. The teachers, administrators, teaching styles, teaching materials, etc. are all secondary.
"Bank web sites suck. All of them. Especially USAA's, if you have the displeasure of using that one."
Hmm, seems fine to me. Never had a problem with it. Granted, I wouldn't say it is really good-but certainly not bad.
"The way it works now, taking property by eminent domain is decided by a few politicians, usually by some council or other assembly vote."
Yep. What most people fail to realize is that while the federal government gets most of the press and attention, it's the local government that can REALLY screw you over. The federal government tends to act indirectly while the local/state government is far more direct....
"It will increase the effectiveness of the teacher by, MAYBE, 2% and increase the cost of equipping the classrooms by... um... $5000 per classroom? A quarter of a million bucks?"
Well, even if we assume your random (made up) values, that works out to about $200 per student (assuming 25 students per class) or $40 a year (if they become obsolete in 5 years. I suspect if you could raise test scores by a few percent for that amount of money a heck of a lot of districts would be willing to spend it....
"At a time when schools are having problems buying textbooks?"
And if you saw the quality of textbooks you might not consider this a bad thing. For many subjects that basic material hasn't changed in a LONG time. And the teachers notes are probably a higher quality than the textbooks. In the textbook publishing industry, quality is not a priority.
"And teachers are being laid off?"
Teachers are the primary cost of running a school district. The only way to seriously cut costs is to reduce teachers. Technology often is a capital cost. Big difference. Your quarter of a million bucks would get maybe FOUR teachers in central Ohio, and you would have to pay that cost EVERY year.
"Good teachers can convey knowledge with very few whiz bang doohickies."
Yes they can. But if you give the students a choice between a chalkboard and powerpoint, they prefer powerpoint. Even if they don't do any better. Rather amusing.
In the end, if you can get it, and the teachers want it, why not? The good teachers can do amazing things with the tech.
"They (we!) learn better when we have good teachers with adequate supplies of basic essentials like books and teaching materials and we have an open mind."
Actually, I suspect it has a lot more to do with how much the parents value education. Motivated students can learn a lot from crappy teachers (I've had more than a few).
In any case, the largest operating expense for a school is salaries. And a whiteboard isn't going to come from the salary side of funding. Grants in many cases.
Better tools CAN make better teachers. If they want to use them.
Well, that position does sound like it wasn't the greatest. But I certainly wouldn't call it a "lecturer" position. Your University may have, but I suspect most wouldn't.
If you are doing more than teaching (for instance, required to do research), I sure as hell would consider it at least an untenured professor level position.
"Proving an idea wrong is far more useful than showing that an idea might be right."
Actually, data in support of an idea is very important.
I understand why this stuff happens. Suppose you propose a seemingly good hypothesis then cannot find significant evidence to support it. Say, for instance, that abandoned mines are impacting water quality. Can't really publish that. Sure, it's useful information but journals aren't terribly interested. This is really bad if you have managed to get funding for the idea.
Useful but boring data often does not get published in favor of more controversial but possibly less useful stuff. Everybody isn't going to make a major breakthrough-but the small stuff is important. But if you can't get funding for it or publish it, who is going to continue to do it?
"However, while it is important that kids learn how to use technology, it's much more important that they can do these things without it."
I would agree with you. However, if you are going to let the students use the technology in the classroom it doesn't make much sense to not allow it on the standardized testing. I have seen the results. Ugly. Especially for the people who score it.
I don't think that calculators (or other technology) inherently prevent kids from learning the theory behind the math (or other subject). You can go through the motions just as easily (well maybe not as easily) without calculators. Remember those multiplication tables? I have seen college level students divide two numbers and get a totally unreasonable answer-or at least it should have been unreasonable to them. But they accepted it. It has happened when they used a calculator and when they haven't. I don't know how to fix that-all I know is that by college (or high school) I suspect it is too late.
"If it was basic multiplication, that would be fine. Once you can multiple 2x3 on paper, you can multiply everything from 1x1 to 9x9."
Are you sure about that? I suspect the people who said that 8x4=24 in a long division problem probably could have handled 2x3. I suspect a lot of people never understood even the basic concepts-and calculator usage has only accelerated this. After all, most of the small number multiplication is memorized (or used to be).
You get the worst of all worlds when you don't teach the basic theory, don't stress the useful memorization, then allow calculators in school but not on the exams. Lots of people in and around education need extended applications of a cluebyfour-parents, students, teachers, administrators, legislators, publishers, and the public. I'm not holding my breath.
"Isn't that what math is about? The details are far less important than the ability to analyze a problem a solve it."
Well, the last time I checked, there is a CORRECT answer to a math problem. And if you do the numbers/variables/etc wrong, the answer CANNOT be correct. Details are important in math.
Sure, knowing how to do the problem and screwing up the math isn't as bad as not knowing how to do the problem. But it isn't good either. I have scored standardized tests-let me assure you that the more basic arithmetic errors you find, the less you are certain that the student knows what they are doing, even if the procedure was correct. And they make them even if you allow calculators. It's just easier to score (they generally don't show their work as much).
They said "No, show that you're dividing both sides by 5" and I was just baffled - well it's OBVIOUS that both sides need to be divided by 5! Do people really need to be *told* that?
Yes, they do. At some point you did to. You just don't remember it. Of course, one would hope by about tenth grade they wouldn't... But trust me, many could screw that up regularly. I'm guessing x=100 would not be too uncommon an answer based on my recent experience....
"Paying someone to read email is vastly cheaper than the alternatives."
IF those alternatives have a reasonable chance of happening. It is all about what level of risk you are willing to take. I find it hard to believe that email alone will result in those outcomes-in other words, those things can happen just as easily without it in many cases. And who monitors the monitors to be sure they aren't doing it?
"If you drive 20 years without an accident, do you consider the insurance payments you made to be "wasted"?"
Yes, absolutely. Of course, insurance tends to be mandated. And I am very poor at predicting the future. So, I probably wouldn't go without. But I certainly don't have more than I think I will need.
Ultimately, I suspect it would be cheaper to buy insurance to cover for certain problems than employ additional people. But apparently hiring people to monitor communications is easier than 1) hiring good employees and 2) good management.
"(2) for the first time in over a hundred years the life expectancy is decreasing in the USA, due to obesity,"
So, do you have any data to support that? Sure, there is at least one study that suggests that life expectancy may decrease. But that isn't the same thing.
And obesity does not come from eating Big Macs. It comes from consuming more calories than you burn.
No, I don't think they are implying that a different set applies. After all, if the students hadn't gotten caught, they wouldn't have been punished. Seems to be the norm in ethics for business and the rest of human relations :)
Could we please stop the analogies? Not that they can't be useful, it's just that most people suck at them...
"For one, your assuming that the University purposely posted this information in a place where it could be found easily. Which they did not. It was a loophole in their system."
Hmm, typing the proper URL into a webpage gets you the desired information. Sounds easy to me. Sounds like it was meant to be accessible to the public. Expecially if there was no password required. And URL's are not passwords.
It may not have been their intent, but then again, I can't read minds. Tried, but failed. Your loophole sounds like a school screw up and violation of federal law to me....
"For example, let's say (and this happens constantly) a vendor mistakenly faxes sensitive information to us instead of to the correct client, one of our competitors. According to your logic, this is even more legitimately obtained information than the acceptance information, right?"
As far as I know, it is legitimely obtained information. They sent it to you willingly. Now whether this is the LEGAL opinion, I'm not sure. And most people would probably not use it-I would sure hope they wouldn't in a business without running it by a lawyer. Of course, any intelligent person could use it and no one would ever be the wiser (or really prove it).... Hard to get the info out of your head once you have seen it. Now the person who faxed that info would probably be fired.
However, that is not the case here. The students looked for their own info. If they looked up others, sure, I have no problem with the outcome. Otherwise, in the absence of an explicit agreement/understanding NOT to look for the information, I see no ethical/moral problem here.
Let's face it, the students are probably suffering because they made the schools look bad. Leaving educational records lying about for anyone to access isn't legal. So it's CYA time.... Talk about ethics and morals.
Well, in some sense the services model IS based on the idea that you are giving your customers crap. It is how you define that word crap. For instance, does it mean something that works poorly or something that doesn't do what the user wants even though it was advertised to do it. In either case, from a user point of view, it sucks, especially if you have to pay to just get it to work. Great software should be easy to configure and do what is wanted/promised. Granted, it's not limited to open source.... Definitions matter.
Finally, what exactly is the "services" model? I mean, I would consider any software that the service contract costs more than the price of the software a services model.... I suspect that would include Bitkeeper.
"The per-pilot cost is actually in the range of the cost of their airplane, if not higher."
I think you are wrong. I mean, if we are talking order of magnitude, well, ok. Aside from initial training and retention bonuses, they shouldn't cost much more than another officer.
Hmm, some quick searching:
Cheap planes cost 20 to 30 million (one figure for an F18 is 24 million, another 29 million). Costs for unsucessful candidates for AF training only run about 50k. I doubt the Navy would be much higher. Navy training was estimated at around one million in CBO testimony circa 1999.
Frankly, considering the small production runs of planes vs the high numbers of people who are qualified to be pilots, planes are more valuable purely on a cost basis. But it isn't easy to replace experience. And having too many planes and pilots is as bad as having too few. The planning has to suck.
"The dogfight is no longer a central aspect of warfare, ground-to-air missile technology is adequately cheap and effective enough to remove any threat from the air..."
That's funny. Really funny. Sorry but I'm afraid that this idea of no more dogfights gets mentioned every so often. Missiles can do it all. Then they build planes without guns. Then they retrofit them once they get into air to air combat. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Here's a question for you (mostly rhetorical): If you can't lock on with a missile (think stealth), how can it hit something? It's now an expensive rocket.
A basic tenet of air to air combat (or surface to air) is that you need to ID your target. The best way is visual. If you can see him, projectile weapons are very handy. That's why long range missiles are rarely used. Rather bad things happen when you shoot down friendly or civilian aircraft....
Drones are useful. At some point they may replace manned aircraft completely. But probably not in my lifetime. There are just certain missions that you want flown by manned aircraft.