campuses haven't been a bastion of free speech since the early 90's, if not before.
Especially if you're a Republican, or if you don't toe the PC line, your views are shouted down or otherwise suppressed in the name of diversity and sensitivity.
From what we've been told, it sounds to me like the administration had first planned a "what's this all about" sort of meeting, but someone in legal got wind of it, and then the cops decided to take action to make sure no one was doing anything ilegal. It sounds like their grounds for a search were pretty flimsy; I hope they've got good lawyers.
It's a great illustration of how paranoid our institutions have become because of the perceived climate of violence and the frivolous lawsuits thrown around these days.
Also, I find the disclaimer at the top of the campus paper unsettling... the threat of perceived harm due to lawsuits has had a severely chilling effect on speech, and I guess CYA rules the day on campus now. Everything must have its disclaimer, lest the unwary be offended into calling their lawyers and suing the school.
You're mistaken. The rest of the country isn't nearly as expensive as LA/SF or the northeast. I make $48K a year and support a wife and 3 kids in a 1800sq.ft. home. We have extra money every month.
I spend $550 a month to feed 5 people. My in-laws in SF spend $800 a monthto feed 3.
in my interview experience with Linuxgruven, there was one other person in the interview with me. He had his MCSE but no experience at all, and he was asked to take a test to show his competence with general computer stuff before even being offered the option of taking the class. I've been in IT for 9 years, and I didn't have to take the competency test.
I interviewed with them and asked the HR Director for the company this exact question. He told me that it guaranteed that: a) only serious people were in the classes. b) People didn't take the class and then leave for another job.
In the situation you describe, there's nothing to stop people from getting the training, working there 2 months, then leaving for a better job somewhere else. They have to protect their investment, and one way to do that is to recoup their time up front in the form of cash.
Here's my experience with Linuxgruven: I interviewed with the Director of HR, who flew to Austin to do interviews back in mid-2000. Myself and one other person interviewed together. THere was a general review of our resumes, after which the HR guy decided that the other candidate should take a skills test (he was MCSE but had never had an IT job) before continuing, and that I had sufficient experience to continue talking.
Basically, I got exactly what the article said: if I'd pay for their course up front at around $2000, AND I passed the tests afterwards, I'd have a job @45K/yr. I tried to haggle with him quite a bit, since I really wanted the training (and the job) but didn't have $2000. He stated taht they used to train people for free, but they had a lot of people who got trained then abandoned the company, so they started charging. I offered to sign a contract stating that I'd remained employed for a year if they'd take the fee out of my salary, but he wouldn't do it.
It was made clear to me, then and later, that I didn't have to take the class to get the job. Passing their tests was what mattered, and even taking their class was no guarantee I'd pass the test. I was also told specifically that if I had a SAIR certification, I'd be hired on the spot, foregoing the test completely. I asked about RHCE and they said that Linuxgruven was trying to be distro non-specific and that having a RHCE cert didn't guarantee a job. Same for LPI.
While I was frustrated at Linuxgruven because I didn't get what I wanted, I didn't feel like it was a scam, because it was clear I could try the tests w/out taking the class, and if I passed I was hired. In fact, several people (incluing the DIrector of HR) have told me that the training materials would be available for free download from their website. As of December 2000 they were not, and emails regarding this were not answered. I felt like they pushed the class in a sort of semi-salesman way... "hey, you *might* be able to pass it without the class, but you'll have a MUCH better chance if you take the class first...", but again, I never thought it was a scam, and I was never offered a job if I took a class... only if I passed their test.
I totally agree with this sentiment. We're starting to get it backwards in this country regarding privacy; citizens don't have to justify their privacy. It's a fundamental right. Government needs to justify the removal of privacy.
This law appears to me to have two potentially conflicting standards. It mentions obscenity, which is a legal term defined at the local level, and which is different from place to place. A library in New York, New York would have to apply a different standard for obscenity than a library in Backwater, Nebraska.
It also mentions content 'harmful to minors' which would quite possibly conflict with the obscenity standard in place.
In short, I don't think there's a filter out there that can conform to the standards the law requires. It would have to be completely configurable by the library and also allow multiple levels of filtering depending on who was at the keyboard.
Slashdot Mirror
campuses haven't been a bastion of free speech since the early 90's, if not before.
Especially if you're a Republican, or if you don't toe the PC line, your views are shouted down or otherwise suppressed in the name of diversity and sensitivity.
From what we've been told, it sounds to me like the administration had first planned a "what's this all about" sort of meeting, but someone in legal got wind of it, and then the cops decided to take action to make sure no one was doing anything ilegal. It sounds like their grounds for a search were pretty flimsy; I hope they've got good lawyers.
It's a great illustration of how paranoid our institutions have become because of the perceived climate of violence and the frivolous lawsuits thrown around these days.
Also, I find the disclaimer at the top of the campus paper unsettling... the threat of perceived harm due to lawsuits has had a severely chilling effect on speech, and I guess CYA rules the day on campus now. Everything must have its disclaimer, lest the unwary be offended into calling their lawyers and suing the school.
You're mistaken. The rest of the country isn't nearly as expensive as LA/SF or the northeast. I make $48K a year and support a wife and 3 kids in a 1800sq.ft. home. We have extra money every month.
I spend $550 a month to feed 5 people. My in-laws in SF spend $800 a monthto feed 3.
in my interview experience with Linuxgruven, there was one other person in the interview with me. He had his MCSE but no experience at all, and he was asked to take a test to show his competence with general computer stuff before even being offered the option of taking the class. I've been in IT for 9 years, and I didn't have to take the competency test.
I don' tthink they're hiring just anybody...
$45K a year is a respectable starting salary here in TX.
I interviewed with them and asked the HR Director for the company this exact question. He told me that it guaranteed that: a) only serious people were in the classes. b) People didn't take the class and then leave for another job.
In the situation you describe, there's nothing to stop people from getting the training, working there 2 months, then leaving for a better job somewhere else. They have to protect their investment, and one way to do that is to recoup their time up front in the form of cash.
Here's my experience with Linuxgruven: I interviewed with the Director of HR, who flew to Austin to do interviews back in mid-2000. Myself and one other person interviewed together. THere was a general review of our resumes, after which the HR guy decided that the other candidate should take a skills test (he was MCSE but had never had an IT job) before continuing, and that I had sufficient experience to continue talking.
Basically, I got exactly what the article said: if I'd pay for their course up front at around $2000, AND I passed the tests afterwards, I'd have a job @45K/yr. I tried to haggle with him quite a bit, since I really wanted the training (and the job) but didn't have $2000. He stated taht they used to train people for free, but they had a lot of people who got trained then abandoned the company, so they started charging. I offered to sign a contract stating that I'd remained employed for a year if they'd take the fee out of my salary, but he wouldn't do it.
It was made clear to me, then and later, that I didn't have to take the class to get the job. Passing their tests was what mattered, and even taking their class was no guarantee I'd pass the test. I was also told specifically that if I had a SAIR certification, I'd be hired on the spot, foregoing the test completely. I asked about RHCE and they said that Linuxgruven was trying to be distro non-specific and that having a RHCE cert didn't guarantee a job. Same for LPI.
While I was frustrated at Linuxgruven because I didn't get what I wanted, I didn't feel like it was a scam, because it was clear I could try the tests w/out taking the class, and if I passed I was hired. In fact, several people (incluing the DIrector of HR) have told me that the training materials would be available for free download from their website. As of December 2000 they were not, and emails regarding this were not answered. I felt like they pushed the class in a sort of semi-salesman way... "hey, you *might* be able to pass it without the class, but you'll have a MUCH better chance if you take the class first...", but again, I never thought it was a scam, and I was never offered a job if I took a class... only if I passed their test.
Good riddance. Don't come back, either.
I totally agree with this sentiment. We're starting to get it backwards in this country regarding privacy; citizens don't have to justify their privacy. It's a fundamental right. Government needs to justify the removal of privacy.
This law appears to me to have two potentially conflicting standards. It mentions obscenity, which is a legal term defined at the local level, and which is different from place to place. A library in New York, New York would have to apply a different standard for obscenity than a library in Backwater, Nebraska. It also mentions content 'harmful to minors' which would quite possibly conflict with the obscenity standard in place. In short, I don't think there's a filter out there that can conform to the standards the law requires. It would have to be completely configurable by the library and also allow multiple levels of filtering depending on who was at the keyboard.