"Actually, I said that the results of the high schools are not good, "
Isn't that a little like taechers not doing well? I see your point, though, but I think it generally all indicates that improving high schools isn't as easy as running to microsoft to solve the problem, or throw resources mindlessly at the question (a typical 'corporate' attitude, it seems at times).
In this issue, as in life in general, there are no silver bullets, except that society as a whole progresses.
- Fixing bugs is the most requested and profitable thing a large software company can do - The entire Microsoft product development branch is involved in spin and marketing. The smart and effective developers and product managers at Microsoft are just a myth, because all they do is ignore bugs and think of lies to tell the public. - Bill Gates actually said nobody will ever need more than 640k of memory, despite all the evidence that he didn't (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates) - Graduating people with the skills of MS employees is a bad because even though these people are valuable to Microsoft and all the other companies that popped up in Seattle that constantly leech hightly-skilled Microsoft employees after they've been screened and given training by Microsoft,..... I'm sorry, I'm still trying to figure out where you're going with this.
Other than the ability to set up as many strawmen as a farmer in june, you demonstrate that you don't grasp the difference between what a high school student needs to learn and what an MS employee needs to learn. And, actually, there is quite a difference just between what they need to learn, as well as how to teach them.
Oh, and don't just blindly believe everything BG says, or denies
From the article, it looks different:
"...Their laptops carry software that assesses how quickly they're learning the lesson."
. .. "Lessons will have more incorporation of current events to teach subjects. For instance, a question of whether Philadelphia is safe from the avian flu will teach students about geography, science and history."
MS is definetly getting involved in class content and the educational process itself. And of course, MS has no agenda at all, and can be trusted completely. In spite of the positive idea reflected in the above quoted paragraph, should a commercial interest drive education?
I mean, perhaps the answer is yes, and maybe no. But, it does have a natural outcome in that kids will almost certainly end up better at conforming than thinking for themselves. That might be what we need, although I don't think so.
Because that isn't the answer. The current school systems are already being pumped cash, but still show horrible results. Especially when compared to private schools. What Microsoft is doing is not a bad idea. I just cringe at the idea of applying "Microsoft Management Procedures" as a panacea to all the school's problems. Most likely, all that technology will just mean that the students do just as badly, but in a high tech environment!
That may be true enough, but my point is that this is a clear no-win situation for MS.
I bet lots of students learn MS-Word really well. They'll have great futures in word processing, but maybe not writing, if all they know is how to use technology, as opposed to think for themselves. Teach them to think, and they'll figure out technology for themselves. I'm sure there are people who know how to improve education, and probably none of them work at Microsoft.
On the upside, the incidence of pirated anything might end up lower. Or higher, depending on just how totalitarian and draconian MS treats the matter. Kids love to rebel - oh than one must have slipped through the crack at the MS "how to extend and embrace education" meetings.
Really, this idea has stink on it enough to make a skunk green with envy.
"Seriously. MS is trying to work in the ideas that made one of the largest most successful companies in the history of business"
As in steal ideas from others, lie to federal judges, violate federal laws, and spin faster than a top?
"and other big orgs"
Of course, MS isn't a "big org", and knows so much more about education than, say, educators. There are people out there who do turn around schools, and they do it by addressing the fundamental problems, not throwing technology at the situation as some kind of utopian panacea.
"What have you done for education lately"
One doesn't need to be a sailor to know that a ships float better than stones.
Really, from the article, it looks like MS just wants to train future MS employees. And have somebody else pay for it. And then not hire them.
"but also a learning process modeled on Microsoft's management techniques"
Does that mean that students only get help on the first Tuesday of each month?
Does anyone else see a problem with modeling a school after a management style better at spin than substance? Or with MS managers telling teachers how to do their jobs? I wonder if the lockers will have DRM built-in? The sheer magnitude of bullsh*t this promises is nearly limitless, based just the amazing lack of common sense found in the idea. Its like modeling a operating room after a CPA office. They may as well model it after circus clowns, for all the similarity the two have.
Why not just give money to the school system? That way if things go south, MS wouldn't bear part of the blame. This way they do. I wonder if that little bit of management wisdom will find its way into the classroom along with heavy-handed DRM.
Seriously, MS really needs to replace Larry, Curly, and Moe.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has famously called high schools "obsolete"
This from the guy who also said nobody will ever need more than 640k of memory.
"-- and mental acuity is especially critical to Microsoft"
From the company that only thinks, if you can call it that, in term of covering up old problems with new problems - fix is a four letter word at MS. They just want the opportunity to shape impressionable minds in their mold. I wonder how free speech will size up at "MS High".
Worst of all, MS conned the PA school system into paying for their little experiment. They could have at least come up with part of the cost, as a show of good faith. I guess they'll kids how to be good con artists.
"The high school will use an "education competency wheel," patterned after a set of desirable traits Microsoft encourages among its employees. Officials, teachers and students are to be trained in dozens of skills, including organizing and planning, negotiating, dealing with ambiguity and managing relationships."
So, they'll graduate a bunch of MS employees. Will the graduation speeched extoll how great it is to work for Microsoft?
Individuals are liable only if they 1) participate in the action that is the basis of the suit or criminal charges
That would explain why so many people were punished every time walmart illegally priced goods below cost, the same goods sold by smaller competitors in a market. Corporations exist to maximize value to the shareholders, and legally they shield the operators and owners from more than just financial liability - they are a vehicle for managing legal risks as well. Although nowadays more and more operators are less and less protected. It'll be interesting if anyone gets the heat for this scam.
In a way, this kind of thing is an outgrowth of the nature of a corporation. Corporations are created to insulate individuals from the consequences of their actions. Not that any reasonable person doing this kind of thing should expect a corporate umbrella to save them, but it seems to be a prevalent mindset in corporation culture. After all, that's the name of the game - hide behind something.
So what you are trying to say is that President Bush can do the impossible?
Or that GB Jr can fail where his father suceeded (GB Sr managed to avoid falling alongside Jr). How telling. The funniest part in the article referenced in the parent post:
The machine's creator, Dean Kamen, wants to see US Special Forces troops eventually ride Segways into battle.
Just imagining that is all but too funny for words.
Its like using filter paper. The more layers of holey software you use, the more likey that bugs will get stuck on one of layers.
Except that for each layer of holey software, there are new off-ramps to to the operating system. Such exploits won't care about getting to the browser, since they can just exploit the 'software shield' and get to the operating system to do their damage via that vector.
No, I think this just creates more opportunity for system exploits, especially if MS grafts the so-called shield onto their OS.
Thank goodness I set camino to only play anim gifs once. It stops on the 'buy' part of the image. The real suckers would be anyone who paid to build/send such a message. Somewhere there's a photoshop jockey laughing all the way to the bank.
---
"Right now, your ISP charges you to access the Internet, and that's it. It this way because right now the Internet treats everything equally, and is considered 'Neutral'. What ISPs and Telcos want to charge you another fee in exchange for giving them complete control over what you see on the Internet and how well you see it. Net Neutrality is an effort to stop them from charging that extra fee and taking control over what you see and how you see it."
---
The funny thing about the whole discussion is that net neutrality is actually the best thing for the Telcos. If they charge content providers like Disney or Apple for improved performance for that provider's content, that provider will have to get a Service Level Aggreement from the ISP charging for prioritizing traffic. That performance improvement will be defined and monitored. When the performance falls short (Nobody will let an ISP/Telco monitor such performance), penalty clauses will automatically kick in. Also, for the Disneys, Apples, and Googles, switching to another provider is usually far from impossible like it is for so many residential consumers.
And, actually getting Diffserv/QOS to work consistantly end-to-end on the Internet is little more than snake oil. Any guarantees made about how much better some content provider's data will reach the end-user will quickly be found to be false. That's because each time a packet crosses a provider boundry (say from AT&T to TimeWarner), how its tagged 'priority' gets treated is totally up for grabs. Will AT&T treat TimeWarner's priority traffic the same as it own? Not likely. Essentially, if telcos start charging for traffic prioritization, they will end up in court faster than you can say 'lawyer', with content providers and eachother. They'll be like a bunch of cannibals locked together in a room with no food. Fine.
What it comes down to is that the Telcos have no idea what they are getting themselves into. No wonder they think 'net neutrality' is mumbo jumbo. Content providers know what it means, and have enough weight to make it hurt for telcos, and it will.
As if the above wasen't enough to establish how utterly brain-dead telcos are, the ad is evidence that the telcos think TV adds are where the 'battle' is being fought. They really have no idea what the 'blogosphere' is, or to that extent it has influence. The ad is what amounts to the dying gasps of a dinosaur, barely aware of what the meaning of the bright flash on the horizon is.
But also, notice the principle objectors to the new language came from places like MIT, who have invested a lot in "open*". That's a bias too.
On the one hand, you have bias towards sharing information, supporting the involvement of a community of professionals and related engineers in projects, and open collaboration. On the other hand, with MS, you have bias in the other direction.
Of course there's bias on both sides. Pick the one you think will help education.
FTFP:"As I said, diamond is just a form of carbon, and like the more prosaic forms will burn quite nicely."
His area of expertise may be invertebrate biology, but not apparently, basic chemistry. Flamethrowers won't ignite diamonds. Diamonds may be combustable under certain conditions, but are not flammable, and won't "burn quite nicely" - certainly not as a result of flame-throwing ant-killing military rampages of the sort in Them!
Gerri Elliott, corporate vice president at Microsoft's Worldwide Public Sector division, sent an e-mail message to fellow commissioners Friday evening saying that she "vigorously" objected to a paragraph in which the panel embraced and encouraged the development of open source software and open content projects in higher education.
Why does anyone take an MS VP 'opinion' over those of people actually working in higher education. Why is anyone even listening to her? What does she have to do with the process at all? What's her background in higher education? Why is MS a part of such a discussion anyway? Why would anyone not think that the only reason MS is involved is to find ways to extort more money out of higher education?
Elliott, though. She thanked Duderdstadt for his suggestion but objected to his proposed inclusion of "open source" ("it's a method of coding software, and one of several available, period") and "open content" (a "term which can mean different things and enter us into some copyright debate"). She suggested language that struck those phrases.
It's worth pointing out that the Internet itself is the result of an OPEN collaboration, not entirely unlike OSS, which is also an open collaboration. The right thing to do would be to let her "never sign" the report, and thank her for her 'input'.
I normally wouldn't respond to my own comment, but in the spirit of 'slashback', I just now got spam from comcast, promising to show me how to 'enhance' parts of my life. Off to spamcop they go...
I'm all for blocking spam, but this doesn't sound like a way to reduce spam - it sounds like runaway stupidity. Spamcop makes a lot more sense. Maybe they do that already, and it wasen't enough.
They may want to adjust that "10M customers" figure in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
"Actually, I said that the results of the high schools are not good, "
Isn't that a little like taechers not doing well? I see your point, though, but I think it generally all indicates that improving high schools isn't as easy as running to microsoft to solve the problem, or throw resources mindlessly at the question (a typical 'corporate' attitude, it seems at times).
In this issue, as in life in general, there are no silver bullets, except that society as a whole progresses.
Other than the ability to set up as many strawmen as a farmer in june, you demonstrate that you don't grasp the difference between what a high school student needs to learn and what an MS employee needs to learn. And, actually, there is quite a difference just between what they need to learn, as well as how to teach them.
Oh, and don't just blindly believe everything BG says, or denies
"However, I feel compelled to point out that a large number of high schools teachers manage to do quite well despite the shortfall of funds."
...).
Not to be a nit-picker, earlier you said they are not doing well.
Still, getting resources into the classroom can't hurt, nor can getting parents more involved (how to solve that one
"MS isn't there to tell them how to educate."
.
From the article, it looks different:
"...Their laptops carry software that assesses how quickly they're learning the lesson."
. .
"Lessons will have more incorporation of current events to teach subjects. For instance, a question of whether Philadelphia is safe from the avian flu will teach students about geography, science and history."
MS is definetly getting involved in class content and the educational process itself. And of course, MS has no agenda at all, and can be trusted completely. In spite of the positive idea reflected in the above quoted paragraph, should a commercial interest drive education?
I mean, perhaps the answer is yes, and maybe no. But, it does have a natural outcome in that kids will almost certainly end up better at conforming than thinking for themselves. That might be what we need, although I don't think so.
Because that isn't the answer. The current school systems are already being pumped cash, but still show horrible results. Especially when compared to private schools. What Microsoft is doing is not a bad idea. I just cringe at the idea of applying "Microsoft Management Procedures" as a panacea to all the school's problems. Most likely, all that technology will just mean that the students do just as badly, but in a high tech environment!
That may be true enough, but my point is that this is a clear no-win situation for MS.
I bet lots of students learn MS-Word really well. They'll have great futures in word processing, but maybe not writing, if all they know is how to use technology, as opposed to think for themselves. Teach them to think, and they'll figure out technology for themselves. I'm sure there are people who know how to improve education, and probably none of them work at Microsoft.
On the upside, the incidence of pirated anything might end up lower. Or higher, depending on just how totalitarian and draconian MS treats the matter. Kids love to rebel - oh than one must have slipped through the crack at the MS "how to extend and embrace education" meetings.
Really, this idea has stink on it enough to make a skunk green with envy.
"Seriously. MS is trying to work in the ideas that made one of the largest most successful companies in the history of business"
As in steal ideas from others, lie to federal judges, violate federal laws, and spin faster than a top?
"and other big orgs" Of course, MS isn't a "big org", and knows so much more about education than, say, educators. There are people out there who do turn around schools, and they do it by addressing the fundamental problems, not throwing technology at the situation as some kind of utopian panacea.
"What have you done for education lately"
One doesn't need to be a sailor to know that a ships float better than stones.
Really, from the article, it looks like MS just wants to train future MS employees. And have somebody else pay for it. And then not hire them.
"but also a learning process modeled on Microsoft's management techniques"
Does that mean that students only get help on the first Tuesday of each month?
Does anyone else see a problem with modeling a school after a management style better at spin than substance? Or with MS managers telling teachers how to do their jobs? I wonder if the lockers will have DRM built-in? The sheer magnitude of bullsh*t this promises is nearly limitless, based just the amazing lack of common sense found in the idea. Its like modeling a operating room after a CPA office. They may as well model it after circus clowns, for all the similarity the two have.
Why not just give money to the school system? That way if things go south, MS wouldn't bear part of the blame. This way they do. I wonder if that little bit of management wisdom will find its way into the classroom along with heavy-handed DRM.
Seriously, MS really needs to replace Larry, Curly, and Moe.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has famously called high schools "obsolete"
This from the guy who also said nobody will ever need more than 640k of memory.
"-- and mental acuity is especially critical to Microsoft"
From the company that only thinks, if you can call it that, in term of covering up old problems with new problems - fix is a four letter word at MS. They just want the opportunity to shape impressionable minds in their mold. I wonder how free speech will size up at "MS High".
Worst of all, MS conned the PA school system into paying for their little experiment. They could have at least come up with part of the cost, as a show of good faith. I guess they'll kids how to be good con artists.
"The high school will use an "education competency wheel," patterned after a set of desirable traits Microsoft encourages among its employees. Officials, teachers and students are to be trained in dozens of skills, including organizing and planning, negotiating, dealing with ambiguity and managing relationships."
So, they'll graduate a bunch of MS employees. Will the graduation speeched extoll how great it is to work for Microsoft?
Individuals are liable only if they 1) participate in the action that is the basis of the suit or criminal charges
That would explain why so many people were punished every time walmart illegally priced goods below cost, the same goods sold by smaller competitors in a market. Corporations exist to maximize value to the shareholders, and legally they shield the operators and owners from more than just financial liability - they are a vehicle for managing legal risks as well. Although nowadays more and more operators are less and less protected. It'll be interesting if anyone gets the heat for this scam.
taken over by MBA type idiots
More
Bullsh*t comes from your
Ass
In a way, this kind of thing is an outgrowth of the nature of a corporation. Corporations are created to insulate individuals from the consequences of their actions. Not that any reasonable person doing this kind of thing should expect a corporate umbrella to save them, but it seems to be a prevalent mindset in corporation culture. After all, that's the name of the game - hide behind something.
Sounds like a good way to get anyone to leave, from top to bottom.
I seem to get front and back after a head-banging session - but everything else gets clearer.
That explains why banging the front of my head against a wall helps me think.
So what you are trying to say is that President Bush can do the impossible?
Or that GB Jr can fail where his father suceeded (GB Sr managed to avoid falling alongside Jr). How telling. The funniest part in the article referenced in the parent post:
The machine's creator, Dean Kamen, wants to see US Special Forces troops eventually ride Segways into battle.
Just imagining that is all but too funny for words.
if you're drunk and jousting on Segways
It all fun and games until someone gets an eye poked out - then its entertainment.
Its like using filter paper. The more layers of holey software you use, the more likey that bugs will get stuck on one of layers.
Except that for each layer of holey software, there are new off-ramps to to the operating system. Such exploits won't care about getting to the browser, since they can just exploit the 'software shield' and get to the operating system to do their damage via that vector.
No, I think this just creates more opportunity for system exploits, especially if MS grafts the so-called shield onto their OS.
Thank goodness I set camino to only play anim gifs once. It stops on the 'buy' part of the image. The real suckers would be anyone who paid to build/send such a message. Somewhere there's a photoshop jockey laughing all the way to the bank.
Try this:
---
"Right now, your ISP charges you to access the Internet, and that's it. It this way because right now the Internet treats everything equally, and is considered 'Neutral'. What ISPs and Telcos want to charge you another fee in exchange for giving them complete control over what you see on the Internet and how well you see it. Net Neutrality is an effort to stop them from charging that extra fee and taking control over what you see and how you see it."
---
The funny thing about the whole discussion is that net neutrality is actually the best thing for the Telcos. If they charge content providers like Disney or Apple for improved performance for that provider's content, that provider will have to get a Service Level Aggreement from the ISP charging for prioritizing traffic. That performance improvement will be defined and monitored. When the performance falls short (Nobody will let an ISP/Telco monitor such performance), penalty clauses will automatically kick in. Also, for the Disneys, Apples, and Googles, switching to another provider is usually far from impossible like it is for so many residential consumers.
And, actually getting Diffserv/QOS to work consistantly end-to-end on the Internet is little more than snake oil. Any guarantees made about how much better some content provider's data will reach the end-user will quickly be found to be false. That's because each time a packet crosses a provider boundry (say from AT&T to TimeWarner), how its tagged 'priority' gets treated is totally up for grabs. Will AT&T treat TimeWarner's priority traffic the same as it own? Not likely. Essentially, if telcos start charging for traffic prioritization, they will end up in court faster than you can say 'lawyer', with content providers and eachother. They'll be like a bunch of cannibals locked together in a room with no food. Fine.
What it comes down to is that the Telcos have no idea what they are getting themselves into. No wonder they think 'net neutrality' is mumbo jumbo. Content providers know what it means, and have enough weight to make it hurt for telcos, and it will.
As if the above wasen't enough to establish how utterly brain-dead telcos are, the ad is evidence that the telcos think TV adds are where the 'battle' is being fought. They really have no idea what the 'blogosphere' is, or to that extent it has influence. The ad is what amounts to the dying gasps of a dinosaur, barely aware of what the meaning of the bright flash on the horizon is.
But also, notice the principle objectors to the new language came from places like MIT, who have invested a lot in "open*". That's a bias too.
On the one hand, you have bias towards sharing information, supporting the involvement of a community of professionals and related engineers in projects, and open collaboration. On the other hand, with MS, you have bias in the other direction.
Of course there's bias on both sides. Pick the one you think will help education.
FTFP:"As I said, diamond is just a form of carbon, and like the more prosaic forms will burn quite nicely."
His area of expertise may be invertebrate biology, but not apparently, basic chemistry. Flamethrowers won't ignite diamonds. Diamonds may be combustable under certain conditions, but are not flammable, and won't "burn quite nicely" - certainly not as a result of flame-throwing ant-killing military rampages of the sort in Them!
Gerri Elliott, corporate vice president at Microsoft's Worldwide Public Sector division, sent an e-mail message to fellow commissioners Friday evening saying that she "vigorously" objected to a paragraph in which the panel embraced and encouraged the development of open source software and open content projects in higher education.
Why does anyone take an MS VP 'opinion' over those of people actually working in higher education. Why is anyone even listening to her? What does she have to do with the process at all? What's her background in higher education? Why is MS a part of such a discussion anyway? Why would anyone not think that the only reason MS is involved is to find ways to extort more money out of higher education?
Elliott, though. She thanked Duderdstadt for his suggestion but objected to his proposed inclusion of "open source" ("it's a method of coding software, and one of several available, period") and "open content" (a "term which can mean different things and enter us into some copyright debate"). She suggested language that struck those phrases.
It's worth pointing out that the Internet itself is the result of an OPEN collaboration, not entirely unlike OSS, which is also an open collaboration. The right thing to do would be to let her "never sign" the report, and thank her for her 'input'.
My virutal internet girlfriends all tell me that using the internet makes me a stud.
But after school started, Ms. Adam started to worry.
Ms. Adam - that's the name grandpa Simpson is going by these days?
"My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!"
letting isp's make decisions for their customers' "own good" is a dangerous path to start on.
True enough. I do think participating in spamcop blocking lists is good idea though.
I normally wouldn't respond to my own comment, but in the spirit of 'slashback', I just now got spam from comcast, promising to show me how to 'enhance' parts of my life. Off to spamcop they go...
they're protecting 10M customers from spam
I'm all for blocking spam, but this doesn't sound like a way to reduce spam - it sounds like runaway stupidity. Spamcop makes a lot more sense. Maybe they do that already, and it wasen't enough.
They may want to adjust that "10M customers" figure in the near future.