Uh, that doesn't make much sense- I really doubt the two rovers would be interfering with one another if they were in the same area, as they could simply use different frequencies or cooperate on when they were going to transmit data, or work as master/slave...
There's a huge number of ways they could be working in the same area. The reason they're not is because there would be no point to it.
This is a serious question. That document, if it represents the way McBride really thinks, should be considered prima facie evidence that McBride is completely insane. Loopy. Out to fucking lunch.
He's one Beagle short of a lander. Asserting the GPL violates the Constitution? I'm no fan of the GPL myself, but holy shit, I wonder what the hell McBride is smoking.
1. A false dichotomy. You have other options (leave SCO and work for someone who will hire you, start your own business, change career paths completely, hell, even go on welfare if need be, and this list of alternatives to SCO v. the poor children is hardly exhaustive).
Horseshit. Any major career change is a huge risk, and just because someone has options does not mean they're viable ones. Finding another job isn't as simple as just flipping a switch. Besides, asshats are already saying they won't hire former SCO types, so where does that leave them?
Basically, you're saying (when it's boiled down) that a) anyone who works for SCO is unethical and should not be hired, and b) they should quit and find new jobs if they want to get away from that stigma.
Are you beginning to see the flaw in your argument?
If you really think this way, you're either very young or utterly pathetic. Only the most coddled, protected, or stupid have never found themselves in a moral quandry.
You obviously don't have children or a family, or if you do, don't care about their welfare.
When and if you're faced with the choice of standing on your own principle and violating the principle of taking care of your family, I'll be happy to hear what your decision is.
If you had any principles, if you had an ounce of self-respect and not arrogance, you'd consider that sometimes other people's needs come before yours. You, on the other hand, are evidently so arrogant, so self-centered, and so selfish, that you'd compromise your commitments in order to satisfy your ego. No excuse is enough to justify risking the welfare of your family for any length of time.
You have absolutely no consideration of what a "moral base" is, because moral decisions are rarely black and white. Choice a- quit your job over principles, but risk your family's well-being. Choice b- Realize there's a higher principle at stake, the well-being of your family, and commit to that instead of some lofty ideal that doesn't impact whether someone eats next week. In the meantime, look for additional work to satisfy said lofty ideal.
It's people who think in absolutes that are the most dangerous and least moral.
I'd rather be able to tell my son that I'd done something I didn't like because I had HIS best interests at heart, not mine.
There's another principle at stake here, which is that you don't let your family go hungry or risk their future. When these two come into conflict, I'll take care of my family before I take care of myself.
Hey, that's great. When you get to the real world, please let us know. We'd be happy to greet you.
In the meantime, don't pretend you can eat principles, or that principles put gas in the car, or food in your children's mouth.
I'm an extremely principled person, and if I was working for SCO Group when this debacle started I'd seek employment elsewhere, but I wouldn't jump ship until I had a new job. In this market, I'd probably still be looking. By your statement, I'm unprincipled, when I was putting the principle of paying for my family's needs ahead of the principle of working for an unethical employer.
This isn't a zero-sum game, and not everything is a simple choice. There can be more than one principled solution to a problem.
You know, this argument keeps getting trotted out in this thread, and it's bullshit. Total bullshit.
First, if the spectre of a lawsuit by SCO was something Damage was concerned about, they'd say so on their page. They also wouldn't have a cutoff date of May 2003 for making former SCO Group employees persona non grata. Because of these two factors alone, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see this transparent ploy for what it is; a sleazy publicity stunt. Even more sleazy because Damage Studios is indirectly using the sleazy actions of SCO Group to give themselves a promotional tool. Uber-sleazy.
Second, and this is the important bit, so pay attention: How much money do you think SCO Group could get out of Damage Studios? Enough to keep floating that sinking liner of theirs? Not likely. SCO Group will sue, but they're not going to sue small to medium-size companies who happen to hire one of their former employees. The costs of litigating that would be greater than any funds they'd get out of it. That's why they sued IBM, because that's where the fucking money is.
SCO Group is engaged in a cynical, disgusting practice of making money by lawsuits because they can't do it by selling products. Suing a pissant like Damage Studios for hiring one of their former drones would be an action not consistent with their current business plan.
They are not being better than SCO here- they're being just as bad or worse. SCO Group has a lot of employees, almost none of whom are involved with the kinds of stuff SCO is pulling. Punishing them for being employed by SCO is no better than SCO demanding money from Linux users. Both actions are based on unethical foundations.
Let's consider something else here- most people reading/. despise SCO for what they're doing, and would love to see them in the toilet. One way that might happen is if SCO Group employees start leaving en masse seeking employment with ethical employers. But now there's folks like this twonk at Damage Studios saying that he's not gonna hire former SCO Group employees. This isn't useful, it's not good business, and it's not good policy. It's just stupidity. Of the first water.
In my personal opinion, Damage Studios has done more damage to themselves than good. Even the most rabid anti-SCO zealot on/. knows there's a difference between the suits and the coders, and you just don't punish the coders for the shit the suits do, or you're no better than the suits. This was just a stunt that Damage pulled to get a link on/.'s main page (and sadly it worked).
Also, I don't imagine that Damage Studios gets a massive amount of resumes from former SCO group employees. I wonder if many/. readers would refuse to consider working at a place like Damage based on this?
Your assumption that this was an occurence due to something not being included in the packaging by accident is just that- an assumption, and a big one at that. I would be willing to bet that there was nothing different between the way this laptop was packaged and every other one Dell ships.
Regardless, the pure fact of the matter is that Dell is wrong. Pointing that out, and demanding that the company that has already received your money that they respect your rights and not attempt to force you into binding legal agreements that you cannot read after the sale has been concluded is not "causing trouble".
I'm not trying to make Dell "look bad". Fuck, they do that all the time without any help from little ol' me. And just because it's routine doesn't mean that it's right or that it shouldn't be protested. It's the sheeples with attitudes like yours that make sure the rest of us have to deal with this crap.
I don't have any particular problem with Dell as a company, personally. Pointing out that they are in the wrong for this particular tactic doesn't constitute "success envy" (how could it unless I was an unsucessful maker of computers?). I'm using a Dell Inspiron 4150 right now to type this. I never had to agree to this particular license, as I didn't get the system directly from Dell, and it was already reconfigured by the time I got it.
None of that changes the fact that Dell is in the wrong, and pointing that out, or protesting it, isn't "causing trouble", despite what you may think.
Yeah, all those bastards that think their rights important and should be respected are really a bunch of fucktards, aren't they? I mean, it's not as if these unimportant people really matter. It's only people that matter or large companies that deserve respect.
Everyone else should just STFU and eat their EULAs like good little sheep. They're not important, so why do they think they can act like their rights should be respected?
Just to be totally certain of your position here- you think it's OK for a company that sells you a product to force you to agree to a contract (AFTER you have purchased said product) that you cannot read, that they cannot or will not provide, that you are bound by if you agree to its terms, in order to use the product you purchased?
Really, is that what you think? Pay money, get product, be forced to agree to a legal contract that you aren't able to review in order to use said product, bought and paid for?
If taking Dell to task over that is causing trouble, I'm all for it. This isn't making life difficult for everyone else; I fail to see how your busy schedule was impacted by this little tiff, as you still have time to post to/.
Nobody likes to be told "no" when they request something, especially from someone (like yourself) who is seen as a resource within the organization that is supposed to respond to requests.
I'm going to echo what others have said, and that is essentially, communicate, communicate, and communicate some more. Don't whine, just explain the facts:
Fact 1. You are a human being, and you have a limited amount of time to accomplish tasks, just as any other human being does.
Fact 2. When you have responsibilities, those responsibilities take time. Additional responsibilities will require more time.
Fact 3. If tasks are expected to be accomplished at a higher rate of speed, management must either allocate more resources to accomplish those tasks, or must properly prioritize.
Fact 4. You should not be expected to work 70 hour weeks to keep up with the basic demands of your organization. This, it seems to me, is the most important one in the situation described- it points to a failure on the part of the organization to recognize that in order to accomplish their goals, they must be willing to allocate the proper resources to those goals.
Speak to your boss/manager, and explain the situtaion in simple, concrete terms. Don't be afraid to say "It is not reasonable to expect a single FTE to accomplish the tasks allocated." Document what you're doing, explain why (in simple terms) it takes the amount of time it does to do things, and be prepared to explain your reasoning. You are the subject matter expert, not management.
What it comes down to is that when the rubber meets the road, an organization that wishes to have tasks accomplished in a timely manner by any division, IT or not, must be prepared to support that goal with resources. If the organization cannot or will not provide those resources, you MUST explain (politely) that it is not possible to accomplish what is expected in the timeframe alloted.
I realize that not everyone is in the position to say "give me the resources I need or find someone else to tell you what you want to hear", but the alternative is to eventually fail; in a case where you simply cannot make management see the facts, it would be prudent to seek employment elsewhere if possible.
I speak from experience here- I tried to be Superman and Scotty all in one to a number of organizations. I suceeded for a while, but only by totally destroying anything I had resembling a life outside of work, and that led to long-term health problems, both physical and emotional.
Trust me, you'll burn out long before anyone takes any notice of your plight, unless you make it perfectly clear what you bring to the table, and what you do not- 70 hour work weeks shouldn't be in that package.
Well, it was 25 years ago, so I may not recall the exact distance. The thing is, I was *on top* of the dryer, reaching over it from a crouched position with both my feet on the top of the dryer.
I think a kid as tall and skinny as I was (As a yardstick, I was 6'4" and 141 pounds at the age of 19) crouched on top of a dryer could quite easily cover that distance if the muscles of the legs were stimulated properly.
I do know I cracked the door where I hit it. Of course, it was a cheap door. Still, I was pretty shook up.
Re:Auditioning for the Darwin award???
on
Solving a Wiring Mess?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I did some theater work, in the totally amateur area, and on one production that I produced, I had to wire the lighting panel into the mains, because the theater was built in 1924 and still had most of its original lighting equipment. We figured that 75-year old rheostat dimmers the size of car tires that made a sound like a chainsaw when you pulled the foot-long lever weren't going to work well for our production.
So we borrowed/rented the equipment we needed, and the lights, wired everything up, and got ready to hook the main control box up. I got the pigtails ready and opened up the panel where the theater tech told me the power should be.
Inside, three very large, uninsulated, copper bars going from top to bottom.
All the others with me just looked at it and said "all yours, man". Great. So I double-checked the power was turned off to this panel- it had a very large switch, and you could *see* the switches disengage, but I still didn't trust that, then triple-checked it with a meter.
I was still nervous as all hell just putting my hand near these things, even knowing they were off. One handed, keeping the other hand behind me (I remembered that advice from my HS electronics teacher) I undid the big allen bolts and hooked the pigtail up.
It actually worked first try. Undoing it at the end of the production was almost as harrowing as the first time. I had the old mantra of labratory physics running through my head- "Hot glass looks exactly like cold glass", only I had modified it to "live copper looks exactly like dead copper". I also knew that if it was live, I probably wouldn't even know it before I was killed or rendered unconscious.
Yeesh. I still can't believe I was stupid or bold enough to do that.
In keeping with the other folks here, I'd say to the original asker, hire a bloody electrician, and don't get near the thing until someone tells you it's safe. Budget be damned, you don't want to risk your life on something like that.
Hooking up a simple pigtail is one thing, futzing around in the panel you described is suicide.
On a side note, I once got nailed by a 220 V dryer when I was about 8 years old. I was reaching for a sock that had fallen behind it, and touched one of the leads that was left exposed (!). It threw me about 15 feet across the laundry room and put a crack in the door where I hit it.
No need- end our little war in Iraq and we'll free up the funds needed. I read yesterday that the cost of the war in and occupation of Iraq will cost over $600 billion dollars.
Just close up the operation a little early and divert those funds.
Nah, never happen. Preemptive wars and years-long occupations of nations that are of dubious (at best) threat to US interests are more important than making sure your lights stay on.
Oh, grrow the fuck up. Learn to differentiate between humor (even tasteless) and something actually worth getting offended over.
There's way too many whiny little crybabies getting offended by something someone said these days. Don't like it? Move along, and turn in your PC police badge at the exit.
You don't have to find it amusing, but jeebus fucking christ, grow a damn skin.
"your boss" isn't generally a public employee, and a school isn't a private enterprise. It's there for the public good, and I don't think that putting cameras in the classrooms is a good way to spend education dollars, which are few enough as it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, that doesn't make much sense- I really doubt the two rovers would be interfering with one another if they were in the same area, as they could simply use different frequencies or cooperate on when they were going to transmit data, or work as master/slave... There's a huge number of ways they could be working in the same area. The reason they're not is because there would be no point to it.
This is a serious question. That document, if it represents the way McBride really thinks, should be considered prima facie evidence that McBride is completely insane. Loopy. Out to fucking lunch. He's one Beagle short of a lander. Asserting the GPL violates the Constitution? I'm no fan of the GPL myself, but holy shit, I wonder what the hell McBride is smoking.
1. A false dichotomy. You have other options (leave SCO and work for someone who will hire you, start your own business, change career paths completely, hell, even go on welfare if need be, and this list of alternatives to SCO v. the poor children is hardly exhaustive). Horseshit. Any major career change is a huge risk, and just because someone has options does not mean they're viable ones. Finding another job isn't as simple as just flipping a switch. Besides, asshats are already saying they won't hire former SCO types, so where does that leave them? Basically, you're saying (when it's boiled down) that a) anyone who works for SCO is unethical and should not be hired, and b) they should quit and find new jobs if they want to get away from that stigma. Are you beginning to see the flaw in your argument?
This got hashed out a few months ago. http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=78073&cid= 6934358
*twitch* I had mercifully forgotten about that bastard.
Never the mod points when I need them. +1 Funny as all hell.
If you really think this way, you're either very young or utterly pathetic. Only the most coddled, protected, or stupid have never found themselves in a moral quandry.
You have my pity. No ifs about it.
You obviously don't have children or a family, or if you do, don't care about their welfare.
When and if you're faced with the choice of standing on your own principle and violating the principle of taking care of your family, I'll be happy to hear what your decision is.
If you had any principles, if you had an ounce of self-respect and not arrogance, you'd consider that sometimes other people's needs come before yours. You, on the other hand, are evidently so arrogant, so self-centered, and so selfish, that you'd compromise your commitments in order to satisfy your ego. No excuse is enough to justify risking the welfare of your family for any length of time.
You have absolutely no consideration of what a "moral base" is, because moral decisions are rarely black and white. Choice a- quit your job over principles, but risk your family's well-being. Choice b- Realize there's a higher principle at stake, the well-being of your family, and commit to that instead of some lofty ideal that doesn't impact whether someone eats next week. In the meantime, look for additional work to satisfy said lofty ideal.
It's people who think in absolutes that are the most dangerous and least moral.
I'd rather be able to tell my son that I'd done something I didn't like because I had HIS best interests at heart, not mine.
There's another principle at stake here, which is that you don't let your family go hungry or risk their future. When these two come into conflict, I'll take care of my family before I take care of myself.
There's your principle.
Hey, that's great. When you get to the real world, please let us know. We'd be happy to greet you.
In the meantime, don't pretend you can eat principles, or that principles put gas in the car, or food in your children's mouth.
I'm an extremely principled person, and if I was working for SCO Group when this debacle started I'd seek employment elsewhere, but I wouldn't jump ship until I had a new job. In this market, I'd probably still be looking. By your statement, I'm unprincipled, when I was putting the principle of paying for my family's needs ahead of the principle of working for an unethical employer.
This isn't a zero-sum game, and not everything is a simple choice. There can be more than one principled solution to a problem.
You know, this argument keeps getting trotted out in this thread, and it's bullshit. Total bullshit.
First, if the spectre of a lawsuit by SCO was something Damage was concerned about, they'd say so on their page. They also wouldn't have a cutoff date of May 2003 for making former SCO Group employees persona non grata. Because of these two factors alone, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see this transparent ploy for what it is; a sleazy publicity stunt. Even more sleazy because Damage Studios is indirectly using the sleazy actions of SCO Group to give themselves a promotional tool. Uber-sleazy.
Second, and this is the important bit, so pay attention: How much money do you think SCO Group could get out of Damage Studios? Enough to keep floating that sinking liner of theirs? Not likely. SCO Group will sue, but they're not going to sue small to medium-size companies who happen to hire one of their former employees. The costs of litigating that would be greater than any funds they'd get out of it. That's why they sued IBM, because that's where the fucking money is.
SCO Group is engaged in a cynical, disgusting practice of making money by lawsuits because they can't do it by selling products. Suing a pissant like Damage Studios for hiring one of their former drones would be an action not consistent with their current business plan.
They are not being better than SCO here- they're being just as bad or worse. SCO Group has a lot of employees, almost none of whom are involved with the kinds of stuff SCO is pulling. Punishing them for being employed by SCO is no better than SCO demanding money from Linux users. Both actions are based on unethical foundations.
/. despise SCO for what they're doing, and would love to see them in the toilet. One way that might happen is if SCO Group employees start leaving en masse seeking employment with ethical employers. But now there's folks like this twonk at Damage Studios saying that he's not gonna hire former SCO Group employees. This isn't useful, it's not good business, and it's not good policy. It's just stupidity. Of the first water.
/. knows there's a difference between the suits and the coders, and you just don't punish the coders for the shit the suits do, or you're no better than the suits. This was just a stunt that Damage pulled to get a link on /.'s main page (and sadly it worked).
/. readers would refuse to consider working at a place like Damage based on this?
Let's consider something else here- most people reading
In my personal opinion, Damage Studios has done more damage to themselves than good. Even the most rabid anti-SCO zealot on
Also, I don't imagine that Damage Studios gets a massive amount of resumes from former SCO group employees. I wonder if many
Your assumption that this was an occurence due to something not being included in the packaging by accident is just that- an assumption, and a big one at that. I would be willing to bet that there was nothing different between the way this laptop was packaged and every other one Dell ships.
Regardless, the pure fact of the matter is that Dell is wrong. Pointing that out, and demanding that the company that has already received your money that they respect your rights and not attempt to force you into binding legal agreements that you cannot read after the sale has been concluded is not "causing trouble".
I'm not trying to make Dell "look bad". Fuck, they do that all the time without any help from little ol' me. And just because it's routine doesn't mean that it's right or that it shouldn't be protested. It's the sheeples with attitudes like yours that make sure the rest of us have to deal with this crap.
I don't have any particular problem with Dell as a company, personally. Pointing out that they are in the wrong for this particular tactic doesn't constitute "success envy" (how could it unless I was an unsucessful maker of computers?). I'm using a Dell Inspiron 4150 right now to type this. I never had to agree to this particular license, as I didn't get the system directly from Dell, and it was already reconfigured by the time I got it.
None of that changes the fact that Dell is in the wrong, and pointing that out, or protesting it, isn't "causing trouble", despite what you may think.
Yeah, all those bastards that think their rights important and should be respected are really a bunch of fucktards, aren't they? I mean, it's not as if these unimportant people really matter. It's only people that matter or large companies that deserve respect.
Everyone else should just STFU and eat their EULAs like good little sheep. They're not important, so why do they think they can act like their rights should be respected?
Just to be totally certain of your position here- you think it's OK for a company that sells you a product to force you to agree to a contract (AFTER you have purchased said product) that you cannot read, that they cannot or will not provide, that you are bound by if you agree to its terms, in order to use the product you purchased?
/.
Really, is that what you think? Pay money, get product, be forced to agree to a legal contract that you aren't able to review in order to use said product, bought and paid for?
If taking Dell to task over that is causing trouble, I'm all for it. This isn't making life difficult for everyone else; I fail to see how your busy schedule was impacted by this little tiff, as you still have time to post to
Nobody likes to be told "no" when they request something, especially from someone (like yourself) who is seen as a resource within the organization that is supposed to respond to requests.
I'm going to echo what others have said, and that is essentially, communicate, communicate, and communicate some more. Don't whine, just explain the facts:
Fact 1. You are a human being, and you have a limited amount of time to accomplish tasks, just as any other human being does.
Fact 2. When you have responsibilities, those responsibilities take time. Additional responsibilities will require more time.
Fact 3. If tasks are expected to be accomplished at a higher rate of speed, management must either allocate more resources to accomplish those tasks, or must properly prioritize.
Fact 4. You should not be expected to work 70 hour weeks to keep up with the basic demands of your organization. This, it seems to me, is the most important one in the situation described- it points to a failure on the part of the organization to recognize that in order to accomplish their goals, they must be willing to allocate the proper resources to those goals.
Speak to your boss/manager, and explain the situtaion in simple, concrete terms. Don't be afraid to say "It is not reasonable to expect a single FTE to accomplish the tasks allocated." Document what you're doing, explain why (in simple terms) it takes the amount of time it does to do things, and be prepared to explain your reasoning. You are the subject matter expert, not management.
What it comes down to is that when the rubber meets the road, an organization that wishes to have tasks accomplished in a timely manner by any division, IT or not, must be prepared to support that goal with resources. If the organization cannot or will not provide those resources, you MUST explain (politely) that it is not possible to accomplish what is expected in the timeframe alloted.
I realize that not everyone is in the position to say "give me the resources I need or find someone else to tell you what you want to hear", but the alternative is to eventually fail; in a case where you simply cannot make management see the facts, it would be prudent to seek employment elsewhere if possible.
I speak from experience here- I tried to be Superman and Scotty all in one to a number of organizations. I suceeded for a while, but only by totally destroying anything I had resembling a life outside of work, and that led to long-term health problems, both physical and emotional.
Trust me, you'll burn out long before anyone takes any notice of your plight, unless you make it perfectly clear what you bring to the table, and what you do not- 70 hour work weeks shouldn't be in that package.
Well, it was 25 years ago, so I may not recall the exact distance. The thing is, I was *on top* of the dryer, reaching over it from a crouched position with both my feet on the top of the dryer. I think a kid as tall and skinny as I was (As a yardstick, I was 6'4" and 141 pounds at the age of 19) crouched on top of a dryer could quite easily cover that distance if the muscles of the legs were stimulated properly. I do know I cracked the door where I hit it. Of course, it was a cheap door. Still, I was pretty shook up.
I did some theater work, in the totally amateur area, and on one production that I produced, I had to wire the lighting panel into the mains, because the theater was built in 1924 and still had most of its original lighting equipment. We figured that 75-year old rheostat dimmers the size of car tires that made a sound like a chainsaw when you pulled the foot-long lever weren't going to work well for our production.
So we borrowed/rented the equipment we needed, and the lights, wired everything up, and got ready to hook the main control box up. I got the pigtails ready and opened up the panel where the theater tech told me the power should be.
Inside, three very large, uninsulated, copper bars going from top to bottom.
All the others with me just looked at it and said "all yours, man". Great. So I double-checked the power was turned off to this panel- it had a very large switch, and you could *see* the switches disengage, but I still didn't trust that, then triple-checked it with a meter.
I was still nervous as all hell just putting my hand near these things, even knowing they were off. One handed, keeping the other hand behind me (I remembered that advice from my HS electronics teacher) I undid the big allen bolts and hooked the pigtail up.
It actually worked first try. Undoing it at the end of the production was almost as harrowing as the first time. I had the old mantra of labratory physics running through my head- "Hot glass looks exactly like cold glass", only I had modified it to "live copper looks exactly like dead copper". I also knew that if it was live, I probably wouldn't even know it before I was killed or rendered unconscious.
Yeesh. I still can't believe I was stupid or bold enough to do that.
In keeping with the other folks here, I'd say to the original asker, hire a bloody electrician, and don't get near the thing until someone tells you it's safe. Budget be damned, you don't want to risk your life on something like that.
Hooking up a simple pigtail is one thing, futzing around in the panel you described is suicide.
On a side note, I once got nailed by a 220 V dryer when I was about 8 years old. I was reaching for a sock that had fallen behind it, and touched one of the leads that was left exposed (!). It threw me about 15 feet across the laundry room and put a crack in the door where I hit it.
Hmm. Possibly true. However, I was referring to energy infrastructure, not supply. Still, it's a good point.
No need- end our little war in Iraq and we'll free up the funds needed. I read yesterday that the cost of the war in and occupation of Iraq will cost over $600 billion dollars.
Just close up the operation a little early and divert those funds.
Nah, never happen. Preemptive wars and years-long occupations of nations that are of dubious (at best) threat to US interests are more important than making sure your lights stay on.
Bwahahaha! Nice.
*applause*
:)
Well done.
Oh, grrow the fuck up. Learn to differentiate between humor (even tasteless) and something actually worth getting offended over. There's way too many whiny little crybabies getting offended by something someone said these days. Don't like it? Move along, and turn in your PC police badge at the exit. You don't have to find it amusing, but jeebus fucking christ, grow a damn skin.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
"your boss" isn't generally a public employee, and a school isn't a private enterprise. It's there for the public good, and I don't think that putting cameras in the classrooms is a good way to spend education dollars, which are few enough as it is.