I agree with your post up to the point at which you begin trolling about formats. Yes, tech staff do have to wear two hats to support both Windows and Mac environments, but a few creative types using macs in a windows business rarely amounts to major headaches for IT staff. Yes, there are some format issues early on, but users adjust quickly and FAQ pages (and tech staff templates) get updated quickly.
Has the mac penetrated business? I doubt it, although I have no data. Is it hard to run a mixed environment? More so than a single-platform environment, but not terribly so in limited situations. Does letting employees choose the platform that causes the fewest headaches for them (vis a vis familiarity, software availability, format compatibility, support, etc.) improve productivity and work satisfaction? I would strongly suggest so. But perhaps I'm wrong.
Interestingly, when I went to the doctor for a persistent fever, coughing, and sore throat, he advised me that I was likely to have an influenza variant but that this health division was no longer doing swabs for H1N1 unless you were admitted to a hospital. This means that, at least in my area, there are probably a great number of cases un-reported, despite having presented themselves to medical personnel with typical symptoms.
Oh, and I live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, home of ~200 cases.
Much of the disagreement in Canada comes from the well-meant desire to protect the good name of engineering from the obvious (and occasionally not so obvious) cereal-box-top code monkeys denigrated in previous posts. That much is laudable. Where the fight gets interesting, and perhaps more contentious, is the desire (not universal, but significantly present) to keep software engineering accreditation as something that only schools of engineering can achieve. Software engineering is studied and taught equally in engineering and in computer science. It's the conflict between these two fields that has historically (at least in Canada, but strangely not in the rest of the world) been the site of the most litigation and vitriol. I think this does little for either side, but as a graduate from a computer science program with a degree in software engineering (University of Saskatchewan) I may be biased.
I think that both engineering and whatever software engineering will become will benefit from a more rigid structure of professionalism in software production and maintenance and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a software engineering graduate (from either discipline) who would disagree. That said, this is less about protecting the public from people like me (I flatter myself) and more about those who call themselves software engineers with few or no qualifications. I often think of this as the fight that psychologists face when trying to deal with the large number of "psychotherapists" who purport to provide similar services -- just without the education and legal responsibilities.
I'm startled at the highly modded trolling found in this commentary -- not to the usual standards of Slashdot, but apparently this touched a nerve.
The problem with any technology in schools has always been trying to integrate it to support the curriculum rather than merely using it to show interested parties (accreditation boards/parents/distinguished visitors) that the school is cutting edge. Interesting research on Bayesian student models and education using inspectable Bayesian networks is being done in several locations -- this one is an excellent example.
These systems allow the technology to be used in positive ways that don't necessarily need teachers with computer science degrees (except for a district sysadmin, perhaps) but take advantage of the great networking and individual attention that can be lavished on a student in a networked environement.
I imagine there will be a slow balancing of the system as the pendulum swings back and forth between teachers and technology. We certainly were more teacher-centric in the 60s and 70s, but that, you must remember, was a reversal from the early 1900's where teachers were incidental to the learning of students -- much of the learning was done independently through books. Perhaps we'll reach a stage where we decide that independent learning through computers isn't the best direction to be heading and we'll start teaching with teachers again. But this time, because we will be used to the technology, we'll be able to use it more effectively.
The "novice" user should either be secured more effectively from downloading/installing problem software on his or her computer or more effectively educated about the potential problems an unsecured system hooked up to a live web connection. We have to take drivers tests to be able to wield a potentially lethal weapon (a car), why aren't there basic courses in security before you can purchase a connection from an ISP or even your basic personal computer.
Not only could ISPs reap the benefits of the extra cash or the PR value of offering it for free, governments could subsidize the classes. After all, who benefits from a more IT knowledgable population? All of us. Sure, worms/viruses/hoaxes/trojans would still be out there (and probably more sophisticated), but users would be more aware and able to respond more quickly. After all, consider the lack of updating of required security patches for Windows (regardless of their effectiveness). Some users simply don't update because they're afraid of viruses (oh how Jonathan Swift would have loved that).
Or perhaps this is like giving everyone a gun so that violent crime will be reduced.....
It seems odd to me to recommend an increase of torte action in any nation. If anything, the individual should only have to pursue 'justice' through the courts when his/her government has failed to sufficiently protect his/her financial or personal safety. Alternately, such actions could be used to goad a government to action through the continuing decisions of the Judicial branch in cases where the Federal or State/Provincial laws lag behind what society deems as just and fair (a situation that is developing here in Canada with 'soft' drug use)
Additionally, at what point would an individual be able to reasonably claim financial recompense for intense spamming by a particular company? Let's not clog the courts in any country with spurious claims for the sake of defending a principle... it's our responsibility to instead inform and educate our elected officials to implement change.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your post up to the point at which you begin trolling about formats. Yes, tech staff do have to wear two hats to support both Windows and Mac environments, but a few creative types using macs in a windows business rarely amounts to major headaches for IT staff. Yes, there are some format issues early on, but users adjust quickly and FAQ pages (and tech staff templates) get updated quickly. Has the mac penetrated business? I doubt it, although I have no data. Is it hard to run a mixed environment? More so than a single-platform environment, but not terribly so in limited situations. Does letting employees choose the platform that causes the fewest headaches for them (vis a vis familiarity, software availability, format compatibility, support, etc.) improve productivity and work satisfaction? I would strongly suggest so. But perhaps I'm wrong.
Interestingly, when I went to the doctor for a persistent fever, coughing, and sore throat, he advised me that I was likely to have an influenza variant but that this health division was no longer doing swabs for H1N1 unless you were admitted to a hospital. This means that, at least in my area, there are probably a great number of cases un-reported, despite having presented themselves to medical personnel with typical symptoms. Oh, and I live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, home of ~200 cases.
Much of the disagreement in Canada comes from the well-meant desire to protect the good name of engineering from the obvious (and occasionally not so obvious) cereal-box-top code monkeys denigrated in previous posts. That much is laudable. Where the fight gets interesting, and perhaps more contentious, is the desire (not universal, but significantly present) to keep software engineering accreditation as something that only schools of engineering can achieve. Software engineering is studied and taught equally in engineering and in computer science. It's the conflict between these two fields that has historically (at least in Canada, but strangely not in the rest of the world) been the site of the most litigation and vitriol. I think this does little for either side, but as a graduate from a computer science program with a degree in software engineering (University of Saskatchewan) I may be biased.
I think that both engineering and whatever software engineering will become will benefit from a more rigid structure of professionalism in software production and maintenance and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a software engineering graduate (from either discipline) who would disagree. That said, this is less about protecting the public from people like me (I flatter myself) and more about those who call themselves software engineers with few or no qualifications. I often think of this as the fight that psychologists face when trying to deal with the large number of "psychotherapists" who purport to provide similar services -- just without the education and legal responsibilities.
I'm startled at the highly modded trolling found in this commentary -- not to the usual standards of Slashdot, but apparently this touched a nerve.
Of course, Canada has an extraordinarily long history of monopolies. In fact, we exist largely as a result of one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson's_Bay_Company
The problem with any technology in schools has always been trying to integrate it to support the curriculum rather than merely using it to show interested parties (accreditation boards/parents/distinguished visitors) that the school is cutting edge. Interesting research on Bayesian student models and education using inspectable Bayesian networks is being done in several locations -- this one is an excellent example. These systems allow the technology to be used in positive ways that don't necessarily need teachers with computer science degrees (except for a district sysadmin, perhaps) but take advantage of the great networking and individual attention that can be lavished on a student in a networked environement. I imagine there will be a slow balancing of the system as the pendulum swings back and forth between teachers and technology. We certainly were more teacher-centric in the 60s and 70s, but that, you must remember, was a reversal from the early 1900's where teachers were incidental to the learning of students -- much of the learning was done independently through books. Perhaps we'll reach a stage where we decide that independent learning through computers isn't the best direction to be heading and we'll start teaching with teachers again. But this time, because we will be used to the technology, we'll be able to use it more effectively.
The "novice" user should either be secured more effectively from downloading/installing problem software on his or her computer or more effectively educated about the potential problems an unsecured system hooked up to a live web connection. We have to take drivers tests to be able to wield a potentially lethal weapon (a car), why aren't there basic courses in security before you can purchase a connection from an ISP or even your basic personal computer.
Not only could ISPs reap the benefits of the extra cash or the PR value of offering it for free, governments could subsidize the classes. After all, who benefits from a more IT knowledgable population? All of us. Sure, worms/viruses/hoaxes/trojans would still be out there (and probably more sophisticated), but users would be more aware and able to respond more quickly. After all, consider the lack of updating of required security patches for Windows (regardless of their effectiveness). Some users simply don't update because they're afraid of viruses (oh how Jonathan Swift would have loved that).
Or perhaps this is like giving everyone a gun so that violent crime will be reduced.....
Don't you wish sometimes the end was the means?
It seems odd to me to recommend an increase of torte action in any nation. If anything, the individual should only have to pursue 'justice' through the courts when his/her government has failed to sufficiently protect his/her financial or personal safety. Alternately, such actions could be used to goad a government to action through the continuing decisions of the Judicial branch in cases where the Federal or State/Provincial laws lag behind what society deems as just and fair (a situation that is developing here in Canada with 'soft' drug use)
Additionally, at what point would an individual be able to reasonably claim financial recompense for intense spamming by a particular company? Let's not clog the courts in any country with spurious claims for the sake of defending a principle... it's our responsibility to instead inform and educate our elected officials to implement change.