What's your point? Are you a taxpayer in that district? Do you have children in those schools? I think it's perfectly reasonable for entities to have a basic policy of not discussing internal policy decisions with outsiders.
So far we've only heard what the father has chosen to say. He may be giving bad or incomplete information either on purpose or by accident.
The administration may have more facts at their disposal, but probably will discuss the case only with insiders - i.e., memebers of their own community. In effect, they're saying "you don't know the whole story, and anyway it's none of your business."
In any case, this has blown up so fast that the people with the authority to change their policy haven't had time to do so - or even fully consider the implications of doing so. The administrator responsible for answering questions has no choice but to follow the current policy. I imagine interested parents in that district are being given all the information they desire.
People have a lot of email because it is often better than discussing stuff in the halls.
Indeed. My managers are fighting a constant war against "hallway conversations" - well, sort of.
We still feel that hallway conversations are excellent for providing a certainl comfort level of human interaction, but we also feel that hallway conversations suck a bowl of rocks when it comes to clearly specifying and documenting project requirements or work requests.
Email and similar tools make my job possible, and save me insane amounts of time. Of course, I actually bother to optimize these tools - with filters, sorters, and an understanding that most email is unimportant and can be ignored/deleted. This approach saves me even more time, and makes me so productive that I can spend most of my workday posting long-winded rants to/.
As Diana also pointed out, we may not have all the facts of the case.
I'm willing to accept that she can't comment on the issue to us, since we're not taxpayers in that school district, and I'm also willing to accept that there may be more parameters governing the school administration's observed behavior - more paramters than the ones we see.
I tried to phrase my questions with these two possibilities in mind, and honestly didn't expect any sort of response at all. The fact that Diana was willing to engage in a personal dialog with me at all was surprising.
But my intent with the questions was to increase the probability of certain thoughts occurring to the school administration.
I didn't expect an answer, but I hope that they are at least thinking about documented ethics, proactive remedies, &c.
Bah. Nobody else is going to do this tomorrow. This was a specific theme, with a specific idea. It worked once, but nobody's going to appreciate it at all next time. The next company that tries it will be scorned as inconsiderate and unimaginative. By the time a third company tries it, the legal and law enforcement systems will have caught up with them, and it will no longer be worthwhile - you'd alienate your customers and be severly punished for doing so.
In the case of Slashdot those who disagree are moderated down immediately, just because their viewpoint is not liked.
Have you looked at what's below your threshold, lately?
The only things down there are trolls, crapfloods, and ACs posting at 0. Go look for yourself. I dare you to find one dissenting opinion that isn't flamebait and faulty logic. The truth is that "dissenting opinions" (assuming you even know what you mean by that term) at worst simply don't get modded up. Or maybe the worst case scenario is your own post, which did get modded up. ..
Don't boxers say the same thing? "I wanna dodge, block, or just plain ignore every punch you throw - and I wanna throw punches you can't dodge, block, or ignore at all, sucka!"
I'm sure what you meant to say was "they want a bomber flying at Mach 5 which will be too fast for anybody else to shoot down" and "they want a missile defense system capable of destroying everybody else's theater and ballistic missiles".
You're forgetting that people say "Military Intelligence is an oxymoron" because it's funny, not because it's true. HTH.
This is true for man-made circuits too, my friend. When you design a circuit, you must still test it against every state you can think of, right? So simply subject GA-designed circuits to the same tests you would subject your own designs to, and you're no worse off than I am right now - after all, my region boasts one or two human-designed nuclear power plants for which there undoubtedly exist untested states (and also, I might add, states that have been tested and are known to cause catastrophic failure).
You idiot. The article talks about a chip with a fixed number of circuits that are reconnected in different patterns. No new hardware is built during this process. RTFA.
Not necessarily. The rest of the alphabet may still want to play with A because [they're afraid A might do the same to them | B had it coming | they don't like the treaty | they don't like B | A has something they need | they don't care | A has somehow furthered their secret plan for world domination | &c.]
Well, it's a good point. As far as I can tell, you've got two scenarios:
1. Pay for a software license. Pay a competent technician to manage the software. Pay for end-user training. Pay a support provider for support. Pay for periodic upgrades.
2. Get the software for free. Pay a competent technician to manage the software. Pay for end-user training. Pay a support provider for support. Get periodic upgrades for free.
The question is: "Does the money saved by getting the software for free offset the higher costs of a competent technician and end-user training?"
Microsoft seems to think the answer is "no", but with a caveat - even if owning, managing, and using the free software is cheaper, it is still difficult to find a market for applications developed on such platforms.
This makes little sense to me. First of all, if the free software truly is cheaper then more people will migrate to it, and the market for apps will increase dramatically. Second, many companies don't make money by selling software for platform X; they make money by selling physical objects or services of some kind (websites, clothing stores, auto manufacturers, &c.). For them, free software might reduce their overhead and allow them to spend more resources on improving their core business.
On the other hand, if free software achieves the goal of becoming user-friendly and intuitive, then the need for support will decline, and then there will be little or no revenue stream to support the development of free software. Free software will go back to being a basement hobby, and the commercial world will continue to be dominated by Micro$tarbucks/SunOracle.
I'll be the first to admit that my desires as a consumer are masterfully manipulated by the producers. And yes, I do settle for a reduction of personal freedoms in exchange for comfort. ..
What about you? You say that this sort of compromise is typically American, and you imply that it is not typically European. Perhaps this is true in the specific instance of "information ownership", but what about in other areas? What rights do you give up as a citizen of your nation?
And what the hell is wrong with retraining, anyway? Many companies see the value of footing the bill for ongoing tech training already. Surely a move to "incremental-upgrade" software saves you more training money in the long run than sticking with the "whole new OS" M$ approach.
Fact: If you want your SA to be current on Windows, you need to shell out once for WinNT certification, again for Win2k certification, again for WinStarbucks certification, again for.NET Imperial Edition, &c. If you want your SA to be current on Linux, certify him once and (s)he's set for life.
And this applies even if you don't think certifications are worth the paper they're printed on. The amount of "re-learning" time (and therefore cost) needed for each iteration of WinX is significantly higher than that for each iteration of Solaris or Linux x.y.z . . . not to mention the savings in re-coding and re-compiling your in-house apps.
See, I'm not sure it's entirely true that manufacturers just give people what they want. There are powerful forces in effect that cause manufacturers to seduce, trick or browbeat people into desiring whatever it is that the manufacturer is producing - whether people really want or need it at all.
Let's say you have a factory. Using classic Industrial Revolution assembly-line technology, this factory allows you to make things. Of course, the economy of scale is in full effect here, so in order for you to produce items cheaply enough to offset the factory's operating costs you must produce massive quantities of those items.
Now it's not enough to just produce lots of items - they won't pay off your operating costs by sitting in a warehouse, you know! (In fact, they'll just cost you more money if you store them for any length of time - inventory is bad.)
And you can't decide not to produce lots of items, because then your factory is just sitting there, using up valuable real estate, and costing you money!
So you have all these items that you must produce - whichs costs money - and then you have to sell them, to recover the cost of making them. Turning a profit is nice, too.
As a result, manufacturers are constantly faced with warehouses full of random stuff that they must then get us to purchase. Why? Not because we need it. Not because we wanted it - hell, we didn't even know Nike Air Jordans existed until Nike told us about them. . . No, they must sell this stuff simply because it's there.
It's not always like this, but it's often enough the case that you can't seriously say that manufacturers just sell us what we want. They sell us whatever they have, assuming their marketing campaign is good enough to convince us to exchange money for it.
Wow. This has to be one of the most bizarre trolls I've ever seen.
So you're saying that throughout history human rights and freedoms have been in a constant state of flux, right? That there's an ebb and flow over the years, as people trade some freedom for some protection, and as their protectors are sometimes benevolent and sometimes despotic. That some governments are good, and some are bad, and most start out good, and become bad.
This is not news. And what about you, anyway? Do you live in a state of perfect freedom? Or do you live in a state of compromise, enjoying some freedoms while giving up others for convenience's sake? You're a mighty preachy fellow, sir - any chance you could enlighten us with the solution to our problem?
I'd figure the solution out for myself, but I'm really UNCOMFORTABLE with "Pilosophy". ..
First of all, yeah, that is what they get paid to do. . . I guess I'm kind of a jerk before my morning coffee. Sorry.
What gets me is that this is the second or third flip comment I've made in the past few weeks that has been moderated beyond all reason. It's a little embarrassing.
Ignore this shit. Every year, someone predicts the internet will "collapse under its own weight". Guess what? It NEVER DOES. People have been claiming the sky is falling since NSFnet became available to the public -- I'm still waiting.
I think you misspelled "Feel free to sit back on your lazy ass while somebody else designs and implements a fix - just like they always do". HTH. HAND.
You're totally right. I should have said "Lovecraftian" emphasis. . . ever notice how everybody says "Lovecraft" when they're actually thinking "Derleth"?
in 2001 contest was bginning
what happn
somebody set up us da bmb
we get signl
what
phone screen trn on
how r u gentlemen
all your trendy txtmsg r belng 2 us
what u say
Wow. That was disturbing. I'd argue that most disgruntled [kids|adults|people] could benefit greatly from a confidential "safe zone", where they could discuss their fears, fantasies, &c. without fear of moral censure or preemptive retaliation.
I'd also argue that providing such an environment is a task for skilled, experienced, mature individuals - not fucking teenaged hobbyists.
Few (if any) of these disgruntled kids have the insight to find truly supportive and helpful counsel, and it's a tragedy that they end up turning to these half-assed websites with no real guarantee of receiving the assistance they want and need.
Seriously, what would a real counsellor do? Listen to your rage-fantasies, panic, call the cops, obtain your personal information without disclosing her intent or (perceived) obligations, and turn you over to Interpol?
What do you expect? The "first impression" rule is as old as salesmanship. If he's got quality content, but hides it behind a particularly lame and off-putting homepage, then whose fault is it when visitors are immediately put off and promptly leave?
Slashdot Mirror
What's your point? Are you a taxpayer in that district? Do you have children in those schools? I think it's perfectly reasonable for entities to have a basic policy of not discussing internal policy decisions with outsiders.
So far we've only heard what the father has chosen to say. He may be giving bad or incomplete information either on purpose or by accident.
The administration may have more facts at their disposal, but probably will discuss the case only with insiders - i.e., memebers of their own community. In effect, they're saying "you don't know the whole story, and anyway it's none of your business."
In any case, this has blown up so fast that the people with the authority to change their policy haven't had time to do so - or even fully consider the implications of doing so. The administrator responsible for answering questions has no choice but to follow the current policy. I imagine interested parents in that district are being given all the information they desire.
People have a lot of email because it is often better than discussing stuff in the halls.
Indeed. My managers are fighting a constant war against "hallway conversations" - well, sort of.
We still feel that hallway conversations are excellent for providing a certainl comfort level of human interaction, but we also feel that hallway conversations suck a bowl of rocks when it comes to clearly specifying and documenting project requirements or work requests.
Email and similar tools make my job possible, and save me insane amounts of time. Of course, I actually bother to optimize these tools - with filters, sorters, and an understanding that most email is unimportant and can be ignored/deleted. This approach saves me even more time, and makes me so productive that I can spend most of my workday posting long-winded rants to /.
As Diana also pointed out, we may not have all the facts of the case.
I'm willing to accept that she can't comment on the issue to us, since we're not taxpayers in that school district, and I'm also willing to accept that there may be more parameters governing the school administration's observed behavior - more paramters than the ones we see.
I tried to phrase my questions with these two possibilities in mind, and honestly didn't expect any sort of response at all. The fact that Diana was willing to engage in a personal dialog with me at all was surprising.
But my intent with the questions was to increase the probability of certain thoughts occurring to the school administration.
I didn't expect an answer, but I hope that they are at least thinking about documented ethics, proactive remedies, &c.
Bah. Nobody else is going to do this tomorrow. This was a specific theme, with a specific idea. It worked once, but nobody's going to appreciate it at all next time. The next company that tries it will be scorned as inconsiderate and unimaginative. By the time a third company tries it, the legal and law enforcement systems will have caught up with them, and it will no longer be worthwhile - you'd alienate your customers and be severly punished for doing so.
FWIW, here's a transcript of my interaction with the Administrator who is apparently receiving all the comments:
2 24 9&mode=nested (with commentary), I thought I'd take this opportunity to ask a
/ethics/ regarding school
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:27:40 -0500
From: "Diana Gulotta"
To: susano_otter
Subject: Re: Request for Information
Thank you Susano.
I have been personally threatened by people through slashdot site and
it is nice to have a reply from someone who is not cussing me out. Enjoy
your weekend, Diana
Susano Otter 04/19/01 01:08PM
Diana,
Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply.
Thank you also for reminding me that I am not in posession of all the
facts. I attempted to present questions that were valid in spite of my
handicap; I apologize if I expressed any unwarranted concerns.
I am encouraged by your response, and I encourage you stay true to your
principles and act humanely in all that you do.
Good luck!
:otter
--- Diana Gulotta wrote:
> It is a shame that those who have contacted us have decided to voice
their opinion based on only those facts that have been presented. And
unfortunately, we cannot provide any information on this situation
> because it is a private discipline matter and not public information.
Diana Gulotta,
> MISD
susano_otter 04/19/01 12:04PM The following feedback was received from our website:
My name is Susano Otter and I am Not a taxpayer in the MISD.
My e-mail address is
My comments are:
Given the recent news article posted here:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/04/17/213
couple questions:
First, what steps are you taking to mitigate the effects cruel and
abusive behavior exhibited by students that might lead to feelings of
alienation and stress among members of your student body?
Second, what are you doing to prevent this sort of behavior in the
first place?
Third, what is your policy on verifying student accusations of other
students?
Fourth, do you have clear, well-documented
administration? Do you feel that certain interest groups, if they
bring enough pressure to bear on your school administration, should
be allowed to override your ethics? This is not a loaded question -
it's possible that your ethics specify the supremacy of parental and
other interest groups' concerns.
Finally, do you feel that the reactive approach to resolving student
vs. student conflicts is a better solution than the proactive
approach, or just easier?
I imagine that you will be receiving a large number of comments on
this topic within the next few hours, and it may be difficult to
provide a personal response to each one - especially on top of your
normal workload.
A thoughful, reasonable form letter that makes some attempt to
address the kinds of concerns I've voiced here would be much
appreciated.
You may think I'm not entitled to a response, since I'm not a citizen
in your district, but I feel that we as a nation have some vested
interest in the ethics and actions of all our school districts,
especially now.
Many schools find themselves in the public eye, and the decisions of
their administrators will be an example, and set the tone of future
thinking on these issues nation-wide.
Your choices and your principles could have a profound affect on all
of us, and all our children.
"What happen?"
"Somebody set up us the asteroid!"
Sorry, it's just not funny enough.
In the case of Slashdot those who disagree are moderated down immediately, just because their viewpoint is not liked.
Have you looked at what's below your threshold, lately?
The only things down there are trolls, crapfloods, and ACs posting at 0. Go look for yourself. I dare you to find one dissenting opinion that isn't flamebait and faulty logic. The truth is that "dissenting opinions" (assuming you even know what you mean by that term) at worst simply don't get modded up. Or maybe the worst case scenario is your own post, which did get modded up. . .
Don't boxers say the same thing? "I wanna dodge, block, or just plain ignore every punch you throw - and I wanna throw punches you can't dodge, block, or ignore at all, sucka!"
I'm sure what you meant to say was "they want a bomber flying at Mach 5 which will be too fast for anybody else to shoot down" and "they want a missile defense system capable of destroying everybody else's theater and ballistic missiles".
You're forgetting that people say "Military Intelligence is an oxymoron" because it's funny, not because it's true. HTH.
This is true for man-made circuits too, my friend. When you design a circuit, you must still test it against every state you can think of, right? So simply subject GA-designed circuits to the same tests you would subject your own designs to, and you're no worse off than I am right now - after all, my region boasts one or two human-designed nuclear power plants for which there undoubtedly exist untested states (and also, I might add, states that have been tested and are known to cause catastrophic failure).
You idiot. The article talks about a chip with a fixed number of circuits that are reconnected in different patterns. No new hardware is built during this process. RTFA.
Not necessarily. The rest of the alphabet may still want to play with A because [they're afraid A might do the same to them | B had it coming | they don't like the treaty | they don't like B | A has something they need | they don't care | A has somehow furthered their secret plan for world domination | &c.]
Well, it's a good point. As far as I can tell, you've got two scenarios:
1. Pay for a software license. Pay a competent technician to manage the software. Pay for end-user training. Pay a support provider for support. Pay for periodic upgrades.
2. Get the software for free. Pay a competent technician to manage the software. Pay for end-user training. Pay a support provider for support. Get periodic upgrades for free.
The question is: "Does the money saved by getting the software for free offset the higher costs of a competent technician and end-user training?"
Microsoft seems to think the answer is "no", but with a caveat - even if owning, managing, and using the free software is cheaper, it is still difficult to find a market for applications developed on such platforms.
This makes little sense to me. First of all, if the free software truly is cheaper then more people will migrate to it, and the market for apps will increase dramatically. Second, many companies don't make money by selling software for platform X; they make money by selling physical objects or services of some kind (websites, clothing stores, auto manufacturers, &c.). For them, free software might reduce their overhead and allow them to spend more resources on improving their core business.
On the other hand, if free software achieves the goal of becoming user-friendly and intuitive, then the need for support will decline, and then there will be little or no revenue stream to support the development of free software. Free software will go back to being a basement hobby, and the commercial world will continue to be dominated by Micro$tarbucks/SunOracle.
I'll be the first to admit that my desires as a consumer are masterfully manipulated by the producers. And yes, I do settle for a reduction of personal freedoms in exchange for comfort. . .
What about you? You say that this sort of compromise is typically American, and you imply that it is not typically European. Perhaps this is true in the specific instance of "information ownership", but what about in other areas? What rights do you give up as a citizen of your nation?
And what the hell is wrong with retraining, anyway? Many companies see the value of footing the bill for ongoing tech training already. Surely a move to "incremental-upgrade" software saves you more training money in the long run than sticking with the "whole new OS" M$ approach.
Fact: If you want your SA to be current on Windows, you need to shell out once for WinNT certification, again for Win2k certification, again for WinStarbucks certification, again for .NET Imperial Edition, &c. If you want your SA to be current on Linux, certify him once and (s)he's set for life.
And this applies even if you don't think certifications are worth the paper they're printed on. The amount of "re-learning" time (and therefore cost) needed for each iteration of WinX is significantly higher than that for each iteration of Solaris or Linux x.y.z . . . not to mention the savings in re-coding and re-compiling your in-house apps.
See, I'm not sure it's entirely true that manufacturers just give people what they want. There are powerful forces in effect that cause manufacturers to seduce, trick or browbeat people into desiring whatever it is that the manufacturer is producing - whether people really want or need it at all.
Let's say you have a factory. Using classic Industrial Revolution assembly-line technology, this factory allows you to make things. Of course, the economy of scale is in full effect here, so in order for you to produce items cheaply enough to offset the factory's operating costs you must produce massive quantities of those items.
Now it's not enough to just produce lots of items - they won't pay off your operating costs by sitting in a warehouse, you know! (In fact, they'll just cost you more money if you store them for any length of time - inventory is bad.)
And you can't decide not to produce lots of items, because then your factory is just sitting there, using up valuable real estate, and costing you money!
So you have all these items that you must produce - whichs costs money - and then you have to sell them, to recover the cost of making them. Turning a profit is nice, too.
As a result, manufacturers are constantly faced with warehouses full of random stuff that they must then get us to purchase. Why? Not because we need it. Not because we wanted it - hell, we didn't even know Nike Air Jordans existed until Nike told us about them. . . No, they must sell this stuff simply because it's there.
It's not always like this, but it's often enough the case that you can't seriously say that manufacturers just sell us what we want. They sell us whatever they have, assuming their marketing campaign is good enough to convince us to exchange money for it.
Now go buy a Mercedes SUV.
Wow. This has to be one of the most bizarre trolls I've ever seen.
So you're saying that throughout history human rights and freedoms have been in a constant state of flux, right? That there's an ebb and flow over the years, as people trade some freedom for some protection, and as their protectors are sometimes benevolent and sometimes despotic. That some governments are good, and some are bad, and most start out good, and become bad.
This is not news. And what about you, anyway? Do you live in a state of perfect freedom? Or do you live in a state of compromise, enjoying some freedoms while giving up others for convenience's sake? You're a mighty preachy fellow, sir - any chance you could enlighten us with the solution to our problem?
I'd figure the solution out for myself, but I'm really UNCOMFORTABLE with "Pilosophy". . .
IHBT. HTH. HAND.
First of all, yeah, that is what they get paid to do. . . I guess I'm kind of a jerk before my morning coffee. Sorry.
What gets me is that this is the second or third flip comment I've made in the past few weeks that has been moderated beyond all reason. It's a little embarrassing.
Ignore this shit. Every year, someone predicts the internet will "collapse under its own weight". Guess what? It NEVER DOES. People have been claiming the sky is falling since NSFnet became available to the public -- I'm still waiting.
I think you misspelled "Feel free to sit back on your lazy ass while somebody else designs and implements a fix - just like they always do". HTH. HAND.
You're totally right. I should have said "Lovecraftian" emphasis. . . ever notice how everybody says "Lovecraft" when they're actually thinking "Derleth"?
in 2001 contest was bginning
what happn
somebody set up us da bmb
we get signl
what
phone screen trn on
how r u gentlemen
all your trendy txtmsg r belng 2 us
what u say
Well written, well put. Not that I'm authorized to judge :)
I'm glad to see you made it through the tough times.
You know what, though? I'd rather return to the days when the "hip" thing for highschool outcasts to do was warez scams and carding.
It sure beats the current fad of shooting your classmates.
(Lovecraftian emphasis added)
Wow. That was disturbing. I'd argue that most disgruntled [kids|adults|people] could benefit greatly from a confidential "safe zone", where they could discuss their fears, fantasies, &c. without fear of moral censure or preemptive retaliation.
I'd also argue that providing such an environment is a task for skilled, experienced, mature individuals - not fucking teenaged hobbyists.
Few (if any) of these disgruntled kids have the insight to find truly supportive and helpful counsel, and it's a tragedy that they end up turning to these half-assed websites with no real guarantee of receiving the assistance they want and need.
Seriously, what would a real counsellor do? Listen to your rage-fantasies, panic, call the cops, obtain your personal information without disclosing her intent or (perceived) obligations, and turn you over to Interpol?
I don't think so.
What do you expect? The "first impression" rule is as old as salesmanship. If he's got quality content, but hides it behind a particularly lame and off-putting homepage, then whose fault is it when visitors are immediately put off and promptly leave?
Hell, I'd put Romero on my list just because of the negative impact he's had on the gaming world!