California (US) wind farms are having trouble with environmentalists over the number of birds that run into windmills. I don't see any information on this "snail" related to preventing fish and other marine life from being negatively impacted.
If a driver is already "in a hurry" and speeding faster than much of the traffic, what on earth would make them say "ooh, the light turned yellow so I'd better stop at this intersection". Most speeders I know would just accelerate more to "beat the red light".
Safety-wise -- the only way this would be safe is if no other light change until the speeder either stops fully or exits the intersection (having run the light). If drivers in the other direction are given an early green, that would be a recipe for disaster.
Who remembers the couple of years worth of cars that talked? Bing - "The door is ajar". Bing - "The door is ajar". Someone thought it was a marvelous idea and less annoying than the constant beeping.
My point? For all that people pretend they want to be protected and made safer, they are seldom happy with methods that make them aware of their failings.
It sounds good until you realize that any whose income was over a certain amount would be unwilling to pay that much. Tax on $100,000 comes out to $20,000. Very few people who earn that much want to pay that much, so loopholes would be created or discovered.
Not to mention the many sources of "income". Corporations sit in a special class as far as taxation of their income. Income from stocks and bonds is earned from things purchased with already taxed money. And so on, and so forth.
Should we skip a moon base and go right to Mars? I don't think so. While launch costs may be about the same and landing on Mars more conservative of fuel, the Mars orbit is such that there long stretches of time where the distance between Earth and Mars is greater than the distance to the Sun. The delay in communications and the worse delay in potential resupply or rescue missions would be critical, especially at our current technology level. Even at its closest, it takes on the order of months to get to Mars, while travel to the moon is on the order of days. Of course, all this is based on a hypothetical question of sending humans to build a base on either.
As others have rightly pointed out - we don't even have semi-self-supporting bases in Antarctica, under the ocean, or on a orbital space station. (By semi-self-supporting I mean one that can provide enough food, air, water, activity, comfort, etc. to support humans for long enough to counter resupply failures and unexpected disasters.) The last few "life-bubble" experiments ended unsuccessfully. Until we can show - under extreme conditions - that a base is feasible, we shouldn't be sending people to Mars (or even the moon). In fact, for a Mars base it would make more sense to ship raw materials and "robots" first and have the base (or, better yet, multiple bases) built and operating long before humans ever set foot on the planet.
I understand the desire to get out there - I personally would be part of an extra-terrestrial base (or colony) in a heartbeat. Just to experience it vicariously through others is an exciting thought.
Christopher Columbus didn't sail on a raft or in a canoe. He had data that told him the earth was round and he could keep sailing west to reach India. He sailed with 3 well-equipped ships. We have much more precise data on the locations of the moon and Mars than he had on India and are obtaining data on their composition. The biggest thing that pushed him doesn't exist here - potential profits from a new trade route with an existing known trade partner. We don't have that. Having astronauts to throw their lives away just to say "We landed a man on Mars" or "We set up a base on the Moon" is foolhardy and more likely to shift public opinion into the negative on space exploration..
BTW - Every time space exploration comes up, the same old arguments and counter-arguments are brought out of the dustbin. It's expensive and we could better use the money to help feed people on earth. It's dangerous and people can easily die. It's all fake anyways. It will never have any useful purpose. Man wasn't meant to leave earth. And so on.
Yes, it is definitely expensive. But the idea that funnelling those millions spent on space exploration into human welfare projects misses the fact that billions are ALREADY pouring in that direction with little effect. Pouring water down the drain isn't filling the bathtub, so we want to run the sink's faucet into the bathtub as well. Really clever... that oughta work just peachy. Some of us would rather have our tax dollars fund an effort to establish a Moon or Mars base than increase the welfare dole or pay farmer's to not grow crops. (Besides, creating jobs is much more successful in handling poverty and hunger than increasing payouts.)
Yes, it is certainly dangerous. For that matter, living is dangerous. How many of us avoid showers or baths since that is the MOST dangerous activity in the home (according to some statistics)? Hey, no fair raising your hand if UT2004 is the real reason you haven't bathed. (War is dangerous too, but that is nearly always troll-bait rather than serious.) Anyway I'm willing to wager that there is not a single astronaut who is unaware of the many potential dangers of his or her career. Like other dangerous careers - firefighting, race car driving, soldier - there are known dangers and unknown dangers. I can say with certainty that there will not be a single space venture in my lifetime that involves an individual who didn't want to take that risk.
All the rest is simply opinion - and we all know that opinions are like a particular somethin because everyone has one.
I don't believe the console will ever be superior to a pc for gaming. I'm one of the crowd that games on both. Consoles have constrained hardware - it is limited to the level at the production time. PCs are open-ended in the respect that you can slap in any new card you are of a mind to purchase (and working drivers are available for).
What is happening right now is a shifting of the niches that console gaming and pc gaming (and let's not forget arcade gaming) have held for so long. PCs no longer have a monopoly in online gaming. However, consoles still are not as cutting edge in potential graphics and programming adaptability. (By adaptability I mean the ability to program in any number of ways - not just per a consoles specs.)
Personally, I hope the foul-mouthed bunch who plays only for their own pleasure migrates to consoles and leaves the PC MMORPG to those who really want to develop community. Pipe dream, eh?
What's so amazing and revolutionary about this? Of course those cheap "get a degree in computer science" curriculums teach only specific languages at the expense of putting out truly capable programmers. But many regular colleges and universities have had more complete studies including assembly language all along.
The only real positive I can see in this - a lessened dependence on the OS and pre-developed libraries to do all the work for them.
Humor would have to be number one. Unpredictability would be second.
Adams takes the reader on many twists and turns to wind up where we least expect.
My favorite aspect of the books is how a single event in one book can be later explained in another book from a wildly different perspective (e.g. a bowl of petunias thinking "not again" in one book is not explained until a later book).
I think I preferred the casting for LOTR. Martin Freeman looks like a good pick for Arthur, but the actors chosen for Ford and Trillian just do not fit my mental image.
Speculation: Sony's PS2 is already holding over half of the overall market share. Nintendo's GC has been grabbing more market share, close to passing Microsoft's Xbox. Xbox has no chance to catch Sony, so this $99 price is a step in positioning their console as a direct competitor with GC rather than the more expensive PS2.
One question: if a guy now goes and buys an Xbox for $99 (not to mention paying for Xbox Live), is he going to buy an Xbox2 soon after release? Unlikely, unless new and much better games come out for the Xbox2 right away. Otherwise, why bother outlaying a whopping 3-4X his initial investment in the Xbox to buy the Xbox2?
Second question: How many owners of the Xbox are so satisfied with the console and the titles that they would buy an Xbox2 in its first year? (Remember the PS2? Unable to deliver enough to satisfy demand for months - around 500,000 in the first few weeks if I remember correctly.)
Some people use their television to keep abreast of current affairs and learn about the world around them. Others use it to watch sitcoms, soaps, and/or game shows (and, of course, porn). The degree of market penetration of the television would not be where it is today if it had been only seen as a medium for education and news. Instead, the entertainment side is what drew the average Joe Sixpack.
Likewise, some of us utilize the Internet for research and keeping abreast of current affairs. Others use it to chat, download files, and play games. We wouldn't see the market penetration we have here without those kinds of features - the entertainment sector, you could say.
Without the housewife chatting with her pals, the kids playing games online, and the hubby downloading his porn, we may not have seen any push to get high-speed lines installed in many areas.
Near the end of the article, he mentions that a self-sustaining Mars colony would be an insurance policy against the "significant chance that civilization on Earth will be destroyed by an asteroid, a killer plague or a global war". Now, while I would most certainly volunteer for a one-way mission, I think the chances for civilization on Mars to be destroyed by an asteroid or a killer plague or any other natural or unnatural disaster are tremendously larger.
Not to mention the cushy jail cells they would have - where the government (via our tax dollars) would maintain them in the lifestyle they are accustomed to.
... that drives people to try to pinpoint the exact coming moment when it will become obsolete? I suspect it is a desired to tack their own 15 minutes of fame to the long-lasting fame Moore has enjoyed.
It is the kind of scientific prediction that is very safe to say. Who's going to be alive when this theory proves out (or doesn't)? What are the odds that this theory will even be remembered?
More importantly, how is this theory really going to change anything? Because some scientists "knows" the universe will end in X manner, does that make a near-earth asteroid any less threatening? Ah well, fun stuff to read at the least.
That's all I use. Friends and family know I will pick up if they start talking AND I'm available (and want the call). Anyone else doesn't matter. If the caller's voice is annoying, I can knock the volume down or just terminate the call without ever picking up. (Haven't had anyone stupid enough to call right back after that.)
The hardest part about DNC lists having been localized in the past - each business mainttaining their own - is that it is a hassle to remember if you have added your name to that particular company's list and even more of a hassle to go after them (prove you've asked to be on their DNC list? WTF). OTOH, a federal DNC list means ONE CALL; you know you are on the list and the telemarketer knows you are on the list. There is no "oops, someone must have lost your request" or "sorry, I grabbed the wrong list" BS. They call you, you call the federal agency, and they get fined. Period. They call again, you call the agency, they get fined again AND the agency can easily see the pattern.
Rather than complaining about the business they'll be losing, they need to be grateful that their time won't be wasted calling people who don't want to talk to them.
Ah, I begin to see the telemarketer's problem. Very quickly every telemarketer will be down to a few thousand numbers that aren't prohibited. Those few thousand people will be receiving hundreds of thousands of calls in a week, since the telemarketers have no one else to call. Soon there won't be any numbers for them to call. Poor babies.
The reason that plastics are seen to represent artificiality has nothing to do with their core makeup. It has to do with the fact they are used to replace other materials - in a way that mimics the original material without actually having any of the original material. Examples: faux furs and glasses (both cups and eyeglasses apply here). No matter how close in look and feel a plastic comes to the original material, it is still not really that material - and thus is artificial.
True, there are the exceptions to the rule. But don't automatically take donations to charity as evidence that a wealthy person cares about the people those charities help. There are many reasons for donations - including tax breaks, guilt, spousal influence, PR - beyond a simple desire to really help people.
I know a multi-millionaire who actually finds individuals who could do well if they had funding and helps set them up in business. He is one of the exceptions who does care about humanity.
Back to the topic at hand - gung-ho millionaires getting into space to represent humanity. Would those wealthy people who do represent humanity find it at all valuable to pour money into space INSTEAD of into programs that help here and now? Not likely. The majority of millionaires who would willingly put money into the space effort have either a personal interest in space or a profit motive.
IANAL, but wouldn't one of the points of this kind of case be showing that people are actually associating the usage of SPAM related to email with SPAM that you buy at the grocery store? When I see the name of the corporation, I certainly do NOT think of meat (or meat products). I think of all the ridiculous stuff that hits my inbox.
Since when has any gung-ho millionaire ever represented humanity? Millionaires don't become millionaires that way. It requires seeking profitable returns in everything and looking beyond the effect on the humans involved in achieving those profits. Who cares if there are layoffs as long as the owner's bank account has grown?
Course not - Windows is too easy to hack
on
Gates and Security
·
· Score: 1
Gates is right that it didn't come true... yet. Windows, as the base OS of such a system is so weak it couldn't possibly hold up to the underground attacks it would face.
Imagine teaching a basic math class to second graders and giving them calculators. They'll learn how to use calculators. They won't learn basic arithmetic.
You'll have to look very closely at what you want your students to learn. This might be the ability to spell-check and grammar-check their own writing without being dependent on a word processor. It might be to write regularly. It might be to read available text and review them.
Whatever it is, you will want to make sure the computer is nothing more than a tool - like a pencil. As several others have pointed out, it is very easy to abuse computers in a classroom setting. Access to the Internet is very hard to control completely and IM/IRC are not much more effective than group discussions.
The main benefit of computers might be minimizing paper. Sending the assignments and notes to each computer and having students do their assignments on the computer to send to you could be a great savings in paper.
Corporate IT guys may seem to have the ultimate control over what software is purchased and used. However, having worked in various places I have seen how little control some of these guys actually have.
In one place, the co-owners were in their seventies and relatively comfortable with DOS. Windows was completely foreign to them. What the IT guys wanted and the employees needed to do their jobs was unimportant - Windows was not going to be on any office computer. This was not while Windows 3.1 was new - it was when Windows 95 was giving way to Windows 98.
In another place, the CEO and other execs didn't really know how any of the computer stuff worked -- they just liked the pretty pictures that Windows had. When comparing word-processors the decision went to the most aesthetically pleasing one regardless of bugs or functions.
In most places, only a rare handful of us know how to do more than the minimal functions of the software. When a corporation pays $100K for software functions that will save time, but only 2% of their staff ever learn how to utilize those functions, is it the fault of the software vendor for providing way more functions than will be used and charging for them?
Most of the time when we criticize software as bloatware, we fail to realize that functions we consider critical may be bloat to other users - while their critical functions are bloat to us. The company I work for now has never used any of the outlining functions in MS Word. Think how clean and quick MS Word would be without all that extra code. MS Word includes it even though we don't need it and don't want to pay for it. Why? Because a lot of other companies do use it.
Would a carpenter build a house knowing the roof would fall in...?
No, because there are laws that make him responsible for structural issues even after the house is sold. However, many a carpenter has been known for using the lowest quality materials possible because the customers want to pay less for the house. Buying lumber that is completely cured, re-using nails and laying on over-heated tar may not produce a roof that will fall in, but it will reduce the price of the home -- with the pitfall of the roof leaking a few years into its life.
The business consumer needs to get work done and has been conditioned to accept that "no software is bug-free" out the door. He runs into a bug and most likely gripes the first few times, then avoids it.
Imagine what would have happened to Microsoft if the market had refused to buy any computer with Windows 98 on it until all the known bugs were handled. Quite a different scenario than what we have. As long as the consumer wants the cheapest possible software that will do the job he needs, companies will push their coders to get it out the door (making money).
Slashdot Mirror
California (US) wind farms are having trouble with environmentalists over the number of birds that run into windmills. I don't see any information on this "snail" related to preventing fish and other marine life from being negatively impacted.
If a driver is already "in a hurry" and speeding faster than much of the traffic, what on earth would make them say "ooh, the light turned yellow so I'd better stop at this intersection". Most speeders I know would just accelerate more to "beat the red light".
Safety-wise -- the only way this would be safe is if no other light change until the speeder either stops fully or exits the intersection (having run the light). If drivers in the other direction are given an early green, that would be a recipe for disaster.
Who remembers the couple of years worth of cars that talked? Bing - "The door is ajar". Bing - "The door is ajar". Someone thought it was a marvelous idea and less annoying than the constant beeping.
My point? For all that people pretend they want to be protected and made safer, they are seldom happy with methods that make them aware of their failings.
It sounds good until you realize that any whose income was over a certain amount would be unwilling to pay that much. Tax on $100,000 comes out to $20,000. Very few people who earn that much want to pay that much, so loopholes would be created or discovered.
Not to mention the many sources of "income". Corporations sit in a special class as far as taxation of their income. Income from stocks and bonds is earned from things purchased with already taxed money. And so on, and so forth.
Should we skip a moon base and go right to Mars? I don't think so. While launch costs may be about the same and landing on Mars more conservative of fuel, the Mars orbit is such that there long stretches of time where the distance between Earth and Mars is greater than the distance to the Sun. The delay in communications and the worse delay in potential resupply or rescue missions would be critical, especially at our current technology level. Even at its closest, it takes on the order of months to get to Mars, while travel to the moon is on the order of days. Of course, all this is based on a hypothetical question of sending humans to build a base on either.
... that oughta work just peachy. Some of us would rather have our tax dollars fund an effort to establish a Moon or Mars base than increase the welfare dole or pay farmer's to not grow crops. (Besides, creating jobs is much more successful in handling poverty and hunger than increasing payouts.)
As others have rightly pointed out - we don't even have semi-self-supporting bases in Antarctica, under the ocean, or on a orbital space station. (By semi-self-supporting I mean one that can provide enough food, air, water, activity, comfort, etc. to support humans for long enough to counter resupply failures and unexpected disasters.) The last few "life-bubble" experiments ended unsuccessfully. Until we can show - under extreme conditions - that a base is feasible, we shouldn't be sending people to Mars (or even the moon). In fact, for a Mars base it would make more sense to ship raw materials and "robots" first and have the base (or, better yet, multiple bases) built and operating long before humans ever set foot on the planet.
I understand the desire to get out there - I personally would be part of an extra-terrestrial base (or colony) in a heartbeat. Just to experience it vicariously through others is an exciting thought.
Christopher Columbus didn't sail on a raft or in a canoe. He had data that told him the earth was round and he could keep sailing west to reach India. He sailed with 3 well-equipped ships. We have much more precise data on the locations of the moon and Mars than he had on India and are obtaining data on their composition. The biggest thing that pushed him doesn't exist here - potential profits from a new trade route with an existing known trade partner. We don't have that. Having astronauts to throw their lives away just to say "We landed a man on Mars" or "We set up a base on the Moon" is foolhardy and more likely to shift public opinion into the negative on space exploration..
BTW - Every time space exploration comes up, the same old arguments and counter-arguments are brought out of the dustbin. It's expensive and we could better use the money to help feed people on earth. It's dangerous and people can easily die. It's all fake anyways. It will never have any useful purpose. Man wasn't meant to leave earth. And so on.
Yes, it is definitely expensive. But the idea that funnelling those millions spent on space exploration into human welfare projects misses the fact that billions are ALREADY pouring in that direction with little effect. Pouring water down the drain isn't filling the bathtub, so we want to run the sink's faucet into the bathtub as well. Really clever
Yes, it is certainly dangerous. For that matter, living is dangerous. How many of us avoid showers or baths since that is the MOST dangerous activity in the home (according to some statistics)? Hey, no fair raising your hand if UT2004 is the real reason you haven't bathed. (War is dangerous too, but that is nearly always troll-bait rather than serious.) Anyway I'm willing to wager that there is not a single astronaut who is unaware of the many potential dangers of his or her career. Like other dangerous careers - firefighting, race car driving, soldier - there are known dangers and unknown dangers. I can say with certainty that there will not be a single space venture in my lifetime that involves an individual who didn't want to take that risk.
All the rest is simply opinion - and we all know that opinions are like a particular somethin because everyone has one.
I don't believe the console will ever be superior to a pc for gaming. I'm one of the crowd that games on both. Consoles have constrained hardware - it is limited to the level at the production time. PCs are open-ended in the respect that you can slap in any new card you are of a mind to purchase (and working drivers are available for).
What is happening right now is a shifting of the niches that console gaming and pc gaming (and let's not forget arcade gaming) have held for so long. PCs no longer have a monopoly in online gaming. However, consoles still are not as cutting edge in potential graphics and programming adaptability. (By adaptability I mean the ability to program in any number of ways - not just per a consoles specs.)
Personally, I hope the foul-mouthed bunch who plays only for their own pleasure migrates to consoles and leaves the PC MMORPG to those who really want to develop community. Pipe dream, eh?
What's so amazing and revolutionary about this? Of course those cheap "get a degree in computer science" curriculums teach only specific languages at the expense of putting out truly capable programmers. But many regular colleges and universities have had more complete studies including assembly language all along.
The only real positive I can see in this - a lessened dependence on the OS and pre-developed libraries to do all the work for them.
What drew me to the Hitchhikers Guide series?
Humor would have to be number one.
Unpredictability would be second.
Adams takes the reader on many twists and turns to wind up where we least expect.
My favorite aspect of the books is how a single event in one book can be later explained in another book from a wildly different perspective (e.g. a bowl of petunias thinking "not again" in one book is not explained until a later book).
I think I preferred the casting for LOTR. Martin Freeman looks like a good pick for Arthur, but the actors chosen for Ford and Trillian just do not fit my mental image.
Speculation: Sony's PS2 is already holding over half of the overall market share. Nintendo's GC has been grabbing more market share, close to passing Microsoft's Xbox. Xbox has no chance to catch Sony, so this $99 price is a step in positioning their console as a direct competitor with GC rather than the more expensive PS2.
One question: if a guy now goes and buys an Xbox for $99 (not to mention paying for Xbox Live), is he going to buy an Xbox2 soon after release? Unlikely, unless new and much better games come out for the Xbox2 right away. Otherwise, why bother outlaying a whopping 3-4X his initial investment in the Xbox to buy the Xbox2?
Second question: How many owners of the Xbox are so satisfied with the console and the titles that they would buy an Xbox2 in its first year? (Remember the PS2? Unable to deliver enough to satisfy demand for months - around 500,000 in the first few weeks if I remember correctly.)
Some people use their television to keep abreast of current affairs and learn about the world around them. Others use it to watch sitcoms, soaps, and/or game shows (and, of course, porn). The degree of market penetration of the television would not be where it is today if it had been only seen as a medium for education and news. Instead, the entertainment side is what drew the average Joe Sixpack.
Likewise, some of us utilize the Internet for research and keeping abreast of current affairs. Others use it to chat, download files, and play games. We wouldn't see the market penetration we have here without those kinds of features - the entertainment sector, you could say.
Without the housewife chatting with her pals, the kids playing games online, and the hubby downloading his porn, we may not have seen any push to get high-speed lines installed in many areas.
Not to excuse these people in any way, but what sort of answers would they get if they actually asked Joe Sixpack what he wants?
"Something that works without me having to figure it out."
"Something that does what I want without having to be told what I want and has it done when I want it."
"Something better than we have now."
Near the end of the article, he mentions that a self-sustaining Mars colony would be an insurance policy against the "significant chance that civilization on Earth will be destroyed by an asteroid, a killer plague or a global war". Now, while I would most certainly volunteer for a one-way mission, I think the chances for civilization on Mars to be destroyed by an asteroid or a killer plague or any other natural or unnatural disaster are tremendously larger.
Not to mention the cushy jail cells they would have - where the government (via our tax dollars) would maintain them in the lifestyle they are accustomed to.
... that drives people to try to pinpoint the exact coming moment when it will become obsolete? I suspect it is a desired to tack their own 15 minutes of fame to the long-lasting fame Moore has enjoyed.
More importantly, how is this theory really going to change anything? Because some scientists "knows" the universe will end in X manner, does that make a near-earth asteroid any less threatening? Ah well, fun stuff to read at the least.
That's all I use. Friends and family know I will pick up if they start talking AND I'm available (and want the call). Anyone else doesn't matter. If the caller's voice is annoying, I can knock the volume down or just terminate the call without ever picking up. (Haven't had anyone stupid enough to call right back after that.)
The hardest part about DNC lists having been localized in the past - each business mainttaining their own - is that it is a hassle to remember if you have added your name to that particular company's list and even more of a hassle to go after them (prove you've asked to be on their DNC list? WTF). OTOH, a federal DNC list means ONE CALL; you know you are on the list and the telemarketer knows you are on the list. There is no "oops, someone must have lost your request" or "sorry, I grabbed the wrong list" BS. They call you, you call the federal agency, and they get fined. Period. They call again, you call the agency, they get fined again AND the agency can easily see the pattern.
Rather than complaining about the business they'll be losing, they need to be grateful that their time won't be wasted calling people who don't want to talk to them.
Ah, I begin to see the telemarketer's problem. Very quickly every telemarketer will be down to a few thousand numbers that aren't prohibited. Those few thousand people will be receiving hundreds of thousands of calls in a week, since the telemarketers have no one else to call. Soon there won't be any numbers for them to call. Poor babies.
The reason that plastics are seen to represent artificiality has nothing to do with their core makeup. It has to do with the fact they are used to replace other materials - in a way that mimics the original material without actually having any of the original material. Examples: faux furs and glasses (both cups and eyeglasses apply here). No matter how close in look and feel a plastic comes to the original material, it is still not really that material - and thus is artificial.
True, there are the exceptions to the rule. But don't automatically take donations to charity as evidence that a wealthy person cares about the people those charities help. There are many reasons for donations - including tax breaks, guilt, spousal influence, PR - beyond a simple desire to really help people.
I know a multi-millionaire who actually finds individuals who could do well if they had funding and helps set them up in business. He is one of the exceptions who does care about humanity.
Back to the topic at hand - gung-ho millionaires getting into space to represent humanity. Would those wealthy people who do represent humanity find it at all valuable to pour money into space INSTEAD of into programs that help here and now? Not likely. The majority of millionaires who would willingly put money into the space effort have either a personal interest in space or a profit motive.
IANAL, but wouldn't one of the points of this kind of case be showing that people are actually associating the usage of SPAM related to email with SPAM that you buy at the grocery store? When I see the name of the corporation, I certainly do NOT think of meat (or meat products). I think of all the ridiculous stuff that hits my inbox.
Since when has any gung-ho millionaire ever represented humanity? Millionaires don't become millionaires that way. It requires seeking profitable returns in everything and looking beyond the effect on the humans involved in achieving those profits. Who cares if there are layoffs as long as the owner's bank account has grown?
Gates is right that it didn't come true ... yet. Windows, as the base OS of such a system is so weak it couldn't possibly hold up to the underground attacks it would face.
Imagine teaching a basic math class to second graders and giving them calculators. They'll learn how to use calculators. They won't learn basic arithmetic.
You'll have to look very closely at what you want your students to learn. This might be the ability to spell-check and grammar-check their own writing without being dependent on a word processor. It might be to write regularly. It might be to read available text and review them.
Whatever it is, you will want to make sure the computer is nothing more than a tool - like a pencil. As several others have pointed out, it is very easy to abuse computers in a classroom setting. Access to the Internet is very hard to control completely and IM/IRC are not much more effective than group discussions.
The main benefit of computers might be minimizing paper. Sending the assignments and notes to each computer and having students do their assignments on the computer to send to you could be a great savings in paper.
Corporate IT guys may seem to have the ultimate control over what software is purchased and used. However, having worked in various places I have seen how little control some of these guys actually have.
In one place, the co-owners were in their seventies and relatively comfortable with DOS. Windows was completely foreign to them. What the IT guys wanted and the employees needed to do their jobs was unimportant - Windows was not going to be on any office computer. This was not while Windows 3.1 was new - it was when Windows 95 was giving way to Windows 98.
In another place, the CEO and other execs didn't really know how any of the computer stuff worked -- they just liked the pretty pictures that Windows had. When comparing word-processors the decision went to the most aesthetically pleasing one regardless of bugs or functions.
In most places, only a rare handful of us know how to do more than the minimal functions of the software. When a corporation pays $100K for software functions that will save time, but only 2% of their staff ever learn how to utilize those functions, is it the fault of the software vendor for providing way more functions than will be used and charging for them?
Most of the time when we criticize software as bloatware, we fail to realize that functions we consider critical may be bloat to other users - while their critical functions are bloat to us. The company I work for now has never used any of the outlining functions in MS Word. Think how clean and quick MS Word would be without all that extra code. MS Word includes it even though we don't need it and don't want to pay for it. Why? Because a lot of other companies do use it.
Would a carpenter build a house knowing the roof would fall in ...?
No, because there are laws that make him responsible for structural issues even after the house is sold. However, many a carpenter has been known for using the lowest quality materials possible because the customers want to pay less for the house. Buying lumber that is completely cured, re-using nails and laying on over-heated tar may not produce a roof that will fall in, but it will reduce the price of the home -- with the pitfall of the roof leaking a few years into its life.
The business consumer needs to get work done and has been conditioned to accept that "no software is bug-free" out the door. He runs into a bug and most likely gripes the first few times, then avoids it.
Imagine what would have happened to Microsoft if the market had refused to buy any computer with Windows 98 on it until all the known bugs were handled. Quite a different scenario than what we have. As long as the consumer wants the cheapest possible software that will do the job he needs, companies will push their coders to get it out the door (making money).