The problem is that the idiots that do it now work for cheap because they won't be hired by any private company and people that know what they're doing are out of budget for any public school.
You're a fucking moron if you think that there has been no information to suggest that computers help the learning process. Seriously, go spend about 10 minutes on Google.
Now obviously they aren't a textbook or teacher replacement (as some schools have tried to make them), but to say that they're completely worthless and that their reliability is unimportant is just ignorant. Having a well managed computer lab open to students before, during, and after school hours with access to the internet can be incredibly helpful. Especially when you consider the fact that most high school text books aren't worth their weight in dirt.
Alright, this girl was texting on her cell phone. How much of a disruption is this really? It's not. It doesn't distract any other students. The police officer, on the other hand, interrupted the class of the girl who was a friend of the cell phone girl to see if cell phone girl had a cell phone. He stopped a class and pulled a student out to see if another student had a cell phone. Now that's a disruption. The fact that the school kept her in the office for several classes and then arrested her and barred her from school was a larger disruption.
Here's what would happen if they let her stay in class: Best case scenario: She learns something from class between text messages. Worst case: She doesn't learn anything and she doesn't disrupt anyone. (It's not like cell phone keys make a whole lot of noise)
They didn't try, so of course we can assume they would be completley ineffective. In fact, let's just give her the death penalty, after all, it's unlikely that anything lesser would have worked.
Whether or not they would be effective is irrelevant, they went untried when they should have been used first.
The problem here isn't the students, it's the shitty state of education. Years ago it would be just affecting these kids' grades. The teacher would move on and the students would fail the course. Now, as you said, the teacher slows down so that no one fails. I agree that it's a bad situation, but it's not the fault of the students, it's the fault of the shitty state of education brought on by society. (Little jimmy fails a course so his parents call up and threaten to sue, etc.)
Compare it to stealing a candy bar. In the case of theft, you take something away. If I steal a candy bar, then the store can no longer sell or use the candy bar. This is stealing.
However, if I make my own candy bar that's identical to the one in the store, that's copyright infringement.
To steal, you take something. To share music, you make copies. Copying is different because BOTH people have the content at the same time, rather than one.
Yeah, that's a wonderful idea. Making examples out of a few people because it's an impossible task to find everyone is stupid and cruel to whatever student happens to be singled out. Either do it right, or don't do it at all.
"All the posters who think you should leave things unlocked and use this as a way to teach trust are idiots with no experience managing computers with young adults."
And anyone who thinks that no students will bypass their restrictions is an idiot with no experience with young adults period.
The problem with taking students computers away is that then they won't be able to participate in any class activities. This will negatively impact their education. And no, they cannot simply get a 0 on the assignment, in a district rich enough to afford this crap, the parents will be threatening to sue the school if they start taking it out on a student's grades.
Giving every student a laptop is an incredibly stupid idea. What happens when someone gets a virus on theirs and all their work is gone? What happens when someone's computer isn't working during a class activity due to some failure (software or hardware)? What happens when a student damages their laptop, intentionally or otherwise? What about someone stealing the laptop (not another student, but some random thief)? What happens when (not if) someone reformat their machine? What happens when (not if) someone bypasses the restrictions on their laptop?
Have the teachers been taught how to use a computer (a lot of teachers are idiots when it comes to this)? Have the students been trained how to use these computers (there are some idiot students too)?
Why can't the students install other software? Do you seriously expect students to use these things if they can't customize them to their own personal tastes?
How much money is this going to cost the school district every year in terms of support staff and replacement hardware?
I'm going to go on a rant here: School districts like yours have way too much money and unfortunately no one seems to have any idea how to spend it responsibly. The decision to give students laptops has already been made, without any type of plan for managing them (as evidenced by you asking slashdot what you should do). It's stuff like this that pisses off taxpayers. "I agreed to increase my taxes and they spent it on a bunch of worthless computers?!?!?!?" Don't be surprised if you get your budget slashed in the coming years if this program goes tits-up.
Not a single student will use any forum software moderated by the school. It's best just not to waste the time and effort setting it up and maintaining it.
Yeah, we could search every single apartment, house, etc. for illegal stuff. I mean, it would make sense to scan all incoming email, right? It's obviously the same thing.
Emails are not terrorists and handling them in the same way is insanely stupid. You simply cannot apply mail handling principles to dealing with terrorism. Sacrificing freedom for security is incredibly stupid. You can go to some other country if you don't want the rights guaranteed by our constitution, but don't try to remove those rights for everyone else.
That's completley different from parenting. This is you hurting yourself because you failed to RTFM (or listen to instructions). It's not someone intentionally harming you because you disobeyed their instructions.
Oh no! He's wearing pants that don't fit! HOLY CRAP! He must be an absolutely horrible person that will never be capable of raising a child.
You need to recognize the difference between parenting ability and wearing clothes that are "trendy" or "fashionable". He's also 19, I'm pretty sure he isn't planning on becoming a parent anytime soon.
There's a difference between "having no money" and "having the ability to purchase things". Adults have credit cards and whatnot and can run up a large debt.
Kids have whatever cash they had for their allowance, they have no ability to run up a debt because no one is giving a credit card to a child.
The reason kids are advertised to is because they then nag their parents.
Any parent working multiple jobs isn't doing so to buy the "latest" clothes or a big TV. They're doing it because they can't afford to live otherwise. Of course, kids growing up when their parent is working this much turn out one of two ways: 1. Dealing drugs. 2. Being an incredibly responsible kid with a great work ethic. (Because they take care of their siblings, get homework done, etc.)
He asked you for evidence, you have provided absolutely none. A link to a TV show that serves to sensationalize the threat of child predators is not evidence. Going into a chat room, pretending to be a 14 year old girl, and attempting to get 500 old men to meet you at some location, is not evidence.
Statistics from studies done by independent people are evidence, not a TV show produced by people whose ratings are based on how many old men they get to show up.
Re:Remember the RFC: Be liberal in what you accept
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 1
Also, your argument about giving children a gun is completley stupid. The consequences of giving children access to the internet is perhaps exposing them to some porn, the consequences of giving them access to a gun is perhaps death. If you actually think that these situations are similar, you need to do some serious thinking.
Re:Remember the RFC: Be liberal in what you accept
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 1
He's not saying that the controls are done for the same reason as the RIAA, he's simply saying that the reaction to the controls is the same. The child doesn't care whether the controls are done out of "love and care" or for some other reason.
They will simply see it as their parents invading their privacy and react as such.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the idiots that do it now work for cheap because they won't be hired by any private company and people that know what they're doing are out of budget for any public school.
You're a fucking moron if you think that there has been no information to suggest that computers help the learning process. Seriously, go spend about 10 minutes on Google.
Now obviously they aren't a textbook or teacher replacement (as some schools have tried to make them), but to say that they're completely worthless and that their reliability is unimportant is just ignorant.
Having a well managed computer lab open to students before, during, and after school hours with access to the internet can be incredibly helpful. Especially when you consider the fact that most high school text books aren't worth their weight in dirt.
Alright, this girl was texting on her cell phone. How much of a disruption is this really? It's not. It doesn't distract any other students. The police officer, on the other hand, interrupted the class of the girl who was a friend of the cell phone girl to see if cell phone girl had a cell phone. He stopped a class and pulled a student out to see if another student had a cell phone. Now that's a disruption. The fact that the school kept her in the office for several classes and then arrested her and barred her from school was a larger disruption.
Here's what would happen if they let her stay in class:
Best case scenario: She learns something from class between text messages.
Worst case: She doesn't learn anything and she doesn't disrupt anyone. (It's not like cell phone keys make a whole lot of noise)
They didn't try, so of course we can assume they would be completley ineffective. In fact, let's just give her the death penalty, after all, it's unlikely that anything lesser would have worked.
Whether or not they would be effective is irrelevant, they went untried when they should have been used first.
The problem here isn't the students, it's the shitty state of education. Years ago it would be just affecting these kids' grades. The teacher would move on and the students would fail the course. Now, as you said, the teacher slows down so that no one fails. I agree that it's a bad situation, but it's not the fault of the students, it's the fault of the shitty state of education brought on by society. (Little jimmy fails a course so his parents call up and threaten to sue, etc.)
There's a huge difference between fraud and lying.
Compare it to stealing a candy bar.
In the case of theft, you take something away. If I steal a candy bar, then the store can no longer sell or use the candy bar. This is stealing.
However, if I make my own candy bar that's identical to the one in the store, that's copyright infringement.
To steal, you take something. To share music, you make copies. Copying is different because BOTH people have the content at the same time, rather than one.
That's very simple. It's completely illegal to REQUIRE every parent to buy their child a laptop.
Yeah, that's a wonderful idea.
Making examples out of a few people because it's an impossible task to find everyone is stupid and cruel to whatever student happens to be singled out.
Either do it right, or don't do it at all.
"All the posters who think you should leave things unlocked and use this as a way to teach trust are idiots with no experience managing computers with young adults."
And anyone who thinks that no students will bypass their restrictions is an idiot with no experience with young adults period.
The problem with taking students computers away is that then they won't be able to participate in any class activities. This will negatively impact their education. And no, they cannot simply get a 0 on the assignment, in a district rich enough to afford this crap, the parents will be threatening to sue the school if they start taking it out on a student's grades.
Giving every student a laptop is an incredibly stupid idea.
What happens when someone gets a virus on theirs and all their work is gone?
What happens when someone's computer isn't working during a class activity due to some failure (software or hardware)?
What happens when a student damages their laptop, intentionally or otherwise?
What about someone stealing the laptop (not another student, but some random thief)?
What happens when (not if) someone reformat their machine?
What happens when (not if) someone bypasses the restrictions on their laptop?
Have the teachers been taught how to use a computer (a lot of teachers are idiots when it comes to this)?
Have the students been trained how to use these computers (there are some idiot students too)?
Why can't the students install other software? Do you seriously expect students to use these things if they can't customize them to their own personal tastes?
How much money is this going to cost the school district every year in terms of support staff and replacement hardware?
I'm going to go on a rant here:
School districts like yours have way too much money and unfortunately no one seems to have any idea how to spend it responsibly. The decision to give students laptops has already been made, without any type of plan for managing them (as evidenced by you asking slashdot what you should do).
It's stuff like this that pisses off taxpayers. "I agreed to increase my taxes and they spent it on a bunch of worthless computers?!?!?!?"
Don't be surprised if you get your budget slashed in the coming years if this program goes tits-up.
Not a single student will use any forum software moderated by the school. It's best just not to waste the time and effort setting it up and maintaining it.
Because these laptops obviously can't be used to learn things.
Yeah, we could search every single apartment, house, etc. for illegal stuff. I mean, it would make sense to scan all incoming email, right? It's obviously the same thing.
Emails are not terrorists and handling them in the same way is insanely stupid. You simply cannot apply mail handling principles to dealing with terrorism. Sacrificing freedom for security is incredibly stupid. You can go to some other country if you don't want the rights guaranteed by our constitution, but don't try to remove those rights for everyone else.
That's completley different from parenting. This is you hurting yourself because you failed to RTFM (or listen to instructions).
It's not someone intentionally harming you because you disobeyed their instructions.
"To get around this, we keep snacks on us all the time"
Like dog treats?
"Asking for something that is not deserved ("Can I have a ...") looses a stick."
God forbid your kids ever ask for anything.
Oh no! He's wearing pants that don't fit! HOLY CRAP! He must be an absolutely horrible person that will never be capable of raising a child.
You need to recognize the difference between parenting ability and wearing clothes that are "trendy" or "fashionable". He's also 19, I'm pretty sure he isn't planning on becoming a parent anytime soon.
There's a difference between "having no money" and "having the ability to purchase things". Adults have credit cards and whatnot and can run up a large debt.
Kids have whatever cash they had for their allowance, they have no ability to run up a debt because no one is giving a credit card to a child.
The reason kids are advertised to is because they then nag their parents.
Any parent working multiple jobs isn't doing so to buy the "latest" clothes or a big TV. They're doing it because they can't afford to live otherwise. Of course, kids growing up when their parent is working this much turn out one of two ways:
1. Dealing drugs.
2. Being an incredibly responsible kid with a great work ethic. (Because they take care of their siblings, get homework done, etc.)
In either case, TV isn't a big concern.
Speaking of code monkey... Bring in the song of the same name by John Coulton. That might help get them interested.
He asked you for evidence, you have provided absolutely none. A link to a TV show that serves to sensationalize the threat of child predators is not evidence. Going into a chat room, pretending to be a 14 year old girl, and attempting to get 500 old men to meet you at some location, is not evidence.
Statistics from studies done by independent people are evidence, not a TV show produced by people whose ratings are based on how many old men they get to show up.
Also, your argument about giving children a gun is completley stupid. The consequences of giving children access to the internet is perhaps exposing them to some porn, the consequences of giving them access to a gun is perhaps death. If you actually think that these situations are similar, you need to do some serious thinking.
He's not saying that the controls are done for the same reason as the RIAA, he's simply saying that the reaction to the controls is the same. The child doesn't care whether the controls are done out of "love and care" or for some other reason.
They will simply see it as their parents invading their privacy and react as such.