indeed, someone would have to dump money into a project like this. speaking as an alaskan i have no problem with that. unfortunately the wish for a tunnel or bridge is as old as the hills. the cost & technical problems make the political & security issues seem puny in comparison.
I like it. CS geeks being forced to communicate with humans is a good thing - bringing humanity to technology is overdue (without regard to Steve Job's responsive rant). And students being forced to learn more than, "OMGWTF" and maybe even the self confidence to read an owners manual for something.
Your point of view on the, "raise their wages" chorus is refreshing. But I'm curious what you think of the second part of the song, "shrink class sizes"? Do you think students would have a better chance of learning more/better/faster?
And to your point, the panel guiding the assessment agrees with your observation.
ICT literacy cannot be defined primarily as
the mastery of technical skills. The panel
concludes that the concept of ICT literacy
should be broadened to include both critical
cognitive skills as well as the application of
technical skills and knowledge. These cognitive
skills include general literacy, such as reading
and numeracy, as well as critical thinking and
problem solving. Without such skills, the
panel believes that true ICT literacy cannot
be attained.
The thing that caught my attention is that the CSU@Sacramento might require this assessment for admission. I suspect many other colleges & universities are considering the same.
I wonder what sort of changes can happen (and when and where) to make this less embarrassing on a global scale.
yup, the ICT Literacy Assessment was smacked around a month or so back. the notable bit in the article is a school (probably) requiring it as an assessment tool.
i build/maintain aix & sunOS clusters too and i've found that most organizations don't understand their business requirements very well much less their technical options. frankly, i've found that tossing the various buzz words around doesn't do any good in determining those requirements either. generally i've found that working backwards through business continuity plans can help determine the "best" path for most organizations.
well, me, i'll buy one. i use gnu/linux as my primary machine (on a laptop) and aix for my servers. this new mac with it's software & hardware features will become my new "sit next to the phone in the kitchen" machine. it does exactly what i need it to do without any fuss and, i admit, just a cool thing. sure, i could build a Cheap *nix Box but why bother? apple already did it for me!
in my way of thinking this was a management failure. technical, finiancial, and operational management share this joyful problem.
my understanding is that the software wasn't designed for the volume of txn pushed down it's throat. slowly this information "trickled up" the food chain and right back down. rinse, repeat.
the folks that supported the system would say it's overloaded. the technically-responsible management would tell the next layer up that they needed money to fix the problem. the financially-responsible management layer would tell the operationaly-responsible layer that someoneone wanted more money than the fiscal budgeting planned for and it would be painful to fix. the operational-management would squeal like stuck pigs and never, ever, tell shareholders a story like that one. the financially- responsible people would convey this unhappiness downwards. technically-responsible management would "find a way make it work" and divert the unhappiness to the support people. the support people would piss/moan/bitch and make-it-so as best as possible.
repeat this cycle 'til flames shoot out of the mission critical system(s).
then "suddenly" the problem is handled properly but in a somewhat hurried manner.
One important thing to consider is that you may not always work for this company. Your skills that leave with you may put your current employer in a hole. If they can't go to IBM for support they're faced with a problem they'd rather not deal with especially if/when things go wrong.
Debian is a great distro but in this case "the greater good" is to address the business' requirement for continuity of support.
Microsoft's market-share on desktops is, to say the least, dominant. That market-share comes with a both a sizeable income and a big responsibility. Responsibility to both users and investors.
I believe Microsoft should do more to protect "our" investment. Whether or not linux, OSX, BSD, Solaris, OS400, PalmOS, etc. are secure and stable isn't Microsoft's concern. That's a subject for a different thread.
What is important is that *most* desktops suffer from security problems. Microsoft is in the best position to fix those problems. I'm not saying any other groups of individuals (Open Source, Apple, IBM, Sun, etc.) could do better. I'm saying that Microsoft must do better than they are currently.
Waiting around for Longhorn as a response to the threats we face today seems a little silly.
Slashdot Mirror
indeed, someone would have to dump money into a project like this.
speaking as an alaskan i have no problem with that. unfortunately
the wish for a tunnel or bridge is as old as the hills. the cost
& technical problems make the political & security issues seem puny
in comparison.
still...what a long strange trip that would be.
I like it. CS geeks being forced to communicate with humans is a good thing - bringing humanity to technology is overdue (without regard to Steve Job's responsive rant). And students being forced to learn more than, "OMGWTF" and maybe even the self confidence to read an owners manual for something.
Your point of view on the, "raise their wages" chorus is refreshing. But I'm curious what you think of the second part of the song, "shrink class sizes"? Do you think students would have a better chance of learning more/better/faster?
ETS has a couple references related to the creation of the ICT Literacy Assessment.
http://tinyurl.com/fq757
And to your point, the panel guiding the assessment agrees with your observation.
ICT literacy cannot be defined primarily as
the mastery of technical skills. The panel
concludes that the concept of ICT literacy
should be broadened to include both critical
cognitive skills as well as the application of
technical skills and knowledge. These cognitive
skills include general literacy, such as reading
and numeracy, as well as critical thinking and
problem solving. Without such skills, the
panel believes that true ICT literacy cannot
be attained.
The thing that caught my attention is that the CSU@Sacramento might require this assessment for admission. I suspect many other colleges & universities are considering the same.
I wonder what sort of changes can happen (and when and where) to make this less embarrassing on a global scale.
i included [California State University at Sacramento] in my submission but it was modded out. dammit.
yup, the ICT Literacy Assessment was smacked around a month or so back. the notable bit in the article is a school (probably) requiring it as an assessment tool.
first thing i thought of too.
damn i'm old.
i build/maintain aix & sunOS clusters too and i've found that most organizations don't understand their business requirements very well much less their technical options. frankly, i've found that tossing the various buzz words around doesn't do any good in determining those requirements either. generally i've found that working backwards through business continuity plans can help determine the "best" path for most organizations.
.
well, me, i'll buy one. i use gnu/linux as my primary machine (on a laptop) and aix for my servers. this new mac with it's software & hardware features will become my new "sit next to the phone in the kitchen" machine. it does exactly what i need it to do without any fuss and, i admit, just a cool thing. sure, i could build a Cheap *nix Box but why bother? apple already did it for me!
in my way of thinking this was a management failure. technical, finiancial, and operational management share this joyful problem.
my understanding is that the software wasn't designed for the volume of txn pushed down it's throat. slowly this information "trickled up" the food chain and right back down. rinse, repeat.
the folks that supported the system would say it's overloaded. the technically-responsible management would tell the next layer up that they needed money to fix the problem. the financially-responsible management layer would tell the operationaly-responsible layer that someoneone wanted more money than the fiscal budgeting planned for and it would be painful to fix. the operational-management would squeal like stuck pigs and never, ever, tell shareholders a story like that one. the financially- responsible people would convey this unhappiness downwards. technically-responsible management would "find a way make it work" and divert the unhappiness to the support people. the support people would piss/moan/bitch and make-it-so as best as possible.
repeat this cycle 'til flames shoot out of the mission critical system(s).
then "suddenly" the problem is handled properly but in a somewhat hurried manner.
One important thing to consider is that you may not always work for this company. Your skills that leave with you may put your current employer in a hole. If they can't go to IBM for support they're faced with a problem they'd rather not deal with especially if/when things go wrong.
Debian is a great distro but in this case "the greater good" is to address the business' requirement for continuity of support.
...whilst sitting on the roof of a building drinking too many ginandtonics.
Microsoft's market-share on desktops is, to say the least, dominant. That market-share comes with a both a sizeable income and a big responsibility. Responsibility to both users and investors.
I believe Microsoft should do more to protect "our" investment. Whether or not linux, OSX, BSD, Solaris, OS400, PalmOS, etc. are secure and stable isn't Microsoft's concern. That's a subject for a different thread.
What is important is that *most* desktops suffer from security problems. Microsoft is in the best position to fix those problems. I'm not saying any other groups of individuals (Open Source, Apple, IBM, Sun, etc.) could do better. I'm saying that Microsoft must do better than they are currently.
Waiting around for Longhorn as a response to the threats we face today seems a little silly.
.
more like early craftsman styling to my eye, but i'm picking virtual nits here.