- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
OpenDocument Debate Enters Round Three
Steven Titch responded to yesterday's article with a single question. "If this is simply an issue of Microsoft's willingness to commit to open standards, what is your take on Open XML?" Yet again, Titch asks askew. You can see Titch thinking here. If it's really about committing to open standards, then I should be fine with Microsoft's submission of a competing standard. However, in order to determine the logic behind Massachusetts' policy (what the real issue is), one has to examine the policy, not my opinion. Even so, here we go again. My Response? If you want to know whether it is really about Microsoft's willingness to commit to open standards, why don't you check with the ITD to find out what their policy actually says? Everything I have said is based on the fact (as opposed to your fiction-based straw man) that the policy is about defining standards that everyone can meet - something that is currently impossible, given the status quo. Government agencies should be allowed to choose whatever office suite they desire, provided that the citizens of the Commonwealth - including its employees - can still use alternatives when the situation allows or dictates. In other words, right now, Sun, IBM and other companies face the artificial barrier of a proprietary document format. With a standard format that everyone can implement, this artificial barrier is removed. Thus, Sun, IBM, Corel, or even me (assuming I can prove I have the abilities) can compete based on the standard. Most people call this a free market. I'm sure you've heard of such a thing. If Microsoft's XML format meets the definition of a standard, then I don't have a problem with Massachusetts using it. Then you should compare the two formats to see which one measures up to the definition of a standard. If you examine a two brands of tape measure, say one from Stanley and the other from Black & Decker, you'll discover that, although the two products differ in composition, they both use the same standards of measure. You will not find Stanley extending the inch in a proprietary way - something the Microsoft XML format allows. This defeats the purpose of a standard, and could jeopardize the whole experiment. At the very least, government agencies will not be able to make use of the proprietary extensions, since that would lock down the data contained therein. Microsoft have tried to make the standards debate about GNU/Linux, about FOSS, and about anything else they can think of that will draw attention away from the fact that they refuse to commit to an open standard. This is a point that you nor anyone else has adequately addressed. That's how I responded. If you want to know whether this is about standards, check the ITD policy itself. If you want to know whether I think Microsoft's format meets the qualifications of a standard, the answer is a resounding no. If you want to know whether I think Microsoft should be allowed to defend its monopoly, using proprietary mechanisms to lock customers in and lock competitors out, the answer is, again, a resounding no. When I was in the Marines, we did an exercise in Okinawa, at night. During our raid, someone released tear gas. It was already dark, and the tear gas cloud made it even more difficult to see. Crazy as Marines can be at times, we did not even don our gas masks, per our training. Instead, we cut quickly through the haze and took our objective. I hope I have been able to help others cut through the smoke screen of fiction and straw man arguments raised by Titch. Hopefully, I have been able to bring clarity to the OpenDocument debate. I also hope that Titch has been able to better understand the real issues at stake. CorrectionPer SJM's comment (http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/22761/), I confess I omitted the word "open" from my discussion of the standard. Microsoft's format may well be a standard, but allowing proprietary extensions excludes it as an "open" standard. My point stands, but with the qualifying term "open" in the appropriate places above. My apologies for the omission. Related Stories
|
LXer Feature: 25-May-06
|
|
Comments (112)
you have
Not quite
Your article falls short on one vital point. Your definition of "standard" is a little flawed.
This is an example:
That's how I responded. If you want to know whether this is about standards, check the ITD policy itself. If you want to know whether I think Microsoft's format meets the qualifications of a standard, the answer is a resounding no.
MIcrosoft's format could easily meet the qualification of a standard. But the debate isn't about whether it is a standard or not (it is). The debate is about standards vs. open standards. You have mixed the two and seem to be saying that in order to qualify to be a standard, said item must be open. You equate standard and open standard.
The current MSOffice document format is a standard. The problem is that it is not an open standard. Not everyone has access to it. That is the crux of the whole debate and, from what I know, the reason MS's Open XML fell short in the Mass. debate. Open XML is a standard, it's just not completely open.
This is an example:
That's how I responded. If you want to know whether this is about standards, check the ITD policy itself. If you want to know whether I think Microsoft's format meets the qualifications of a standard, the answer is a resounding no.
MIcrosoft's format could easily meet the qualification of a standard. But the debate isn't about whether it is a standard or not (it is). The debate is about standards vs. open standards. You have mixed the two and seem to be saying that in order to qualify to be a standard, said item must be open. You equate standard and open standard.
The current MSOffice document format is a standard. The problem is that it is not an open standard. Not everyone has access to it. That is the crux of the whole debate and, from what I know, the reason MS's Open XML fell short in the Mass. debate. Open XML is a standard, it's just not completely open.
In addition, Microsoft will be able to extend their proposed standard at any time, making it incompatible with everyone else's implementation.
macho dopes!
Gas masks are good for you! I hope you've been wearing one during this particular debate. :)
What makes these sorts of 'debates' so difficult to swallow is the Microsoft side doesn't really have a defensible position. It's not a difference of opinion, or competing, equally valid policies- it's just the big gorilla, as usual, doing everything it can, legal and illegal, to lock-in its market share and shut out competition. I wonder how they find people who are so willing to look like utter fools in public.
What makes these sorts of 'debates' so difficult to swallow is the Microsoft side doesn't really have a defensible position. It's not a difference of opinion, or competing, equally valid policies- it's just the big gorilla, as usual, doing everything it can, legal and illegal, to lock-in its market share and shut out competition. I wonder how they find people who are so willing to look like utter fools in public.
...so willing to look like utter fools in public.
The problem is that the public in some ways has been so dumbed down that they don't see the picture so clearly. They don't realize the lies are actually lies. "I saw it on TV. It must be true!" or the like.
The problem is that the public in some ways has been so dumbed down that they don't see the picture so clearly. They don't realize the lies are actually lies. "I saw it on TV. It must be true!" or the like.
tuxchick2: >"I wonder how they find people who are so willing to look like utter fools in public."
Money.
How much could you spread around if you were getting about $1,000 U.S. per second for a product that, essentially, has a $0 cost of production?
Money.
How much could you spread around if you were getting about $1,000 U.S. per second for a product that, essentially, has a $0 cost of production?
"The only thing money can't buy you?, Poverty." - My Father
> Gas masks are good for you! I hope you've been wearing one during this particular debate. :)
You should try wearing a gas mask when the optical inserts fog up and fall out. Given I can't see past the end of my nose without glasses - and in the darK, too? - I was ready to risk the CS gas. At least it wasn't pepper spray. :-)
But for this debate? I know Titch's position stunk to high heaven, but I was willing to risk it to clarify the issues. :-D
You should try wearing a gas mask when the optical inserts fog up and fall out. Given I can't see past the end of my nose without glasses - and in the darK, too? - I was ready to risk the CS gas. At least it wasn't pepper spray. :-)
But for this debate? I know Titch's position stunk to high heaven, but I was willing to risk it to clarify the issues. :-D
Who is this guy?
It's almost like he doesn't understand that calling something "Open Widget 2.0" doesn't make it open, or even necissarily a widget. What are his credentials again?
"What are his credentials again?"
Funded by Microsoft, perhaps?
Funded by Microsoft, perhaps?
about Open XML
1) It is an *ugly* standard, for an incredibly messy format that no
programmer in his right mind would put up with; no consensus
driven technical (as opposed to political) standards body would
find it acceptable. Not up to the quality expected from ISO's J3,
for example...
2) It is *still* proprietary, since it provides for the inclusion of MS-Word binaries as BLOBs
2) It is *still* proprietary, since it provides for the inclusion of MS-Word binaries as BLOBs
Rev You are putting too much effort into this answer.
64 earlier comments in the full thread.
Grouch et al :
Lest I forget, happy Memorial Day!
It seems fitting that today is a day of barbecue, baseball, picnics, yard-work, road-trips, parades, family, as much as it is a remembrance of brave sacrifice because all of those things represent the essence of what millions of brave men and women gave their lives to protect.
Foolish and greedy politics may needlessly waste those lives, but no leader's evil, no matter how egregious, can erase the individual courage embodied in the many answers to duty's call that we remember today.
Lest I forget, happy Memorial Day!
It seems fitting that today is a day of barbecue, baseball, picnics, yard-work, road-trips, parades, family, as much as it is a remembrance of brave sacrifice because all of those things represent the essence of what millions of brave men and women gave their lives to protect.
Foolish and greedy politics may needlessly waste those lives, but no leader's evil, no matter how egregious, can erase the individual courage embodied in the many answers to duty's call that we remember today.
> I can honestly say that until this very moment, I have not. Is it a magazine or is that someones name?
Vox Day is the pen name of one of the writers on WND. He has his own blog called Vox Popoli. He considers himself a "Christian Libertarian", which many people seem to think is an oxymoron. Your earlier comments echo some of his, which is why I asked. I find him, hmm..., entertaining.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/
Vox Day is the pen name of one of the writers on WND. He has his own blog called Vox Popoli. He considers himself a "Christian Libertarian", which many people seem to think is an oxymoron. Your earlier comments echo some of his, which is why I asked. I find him, hmm..., entertaining.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/
Grouch:
> Shall we return to the days when the quality of a basic education was solely determined by the number and wealth of the citizens whose children attended any given school?
Over today's heavily federalized system? Yes. Fortunately, those are two ends of a spectrum, and there's lots of room in the middle.
> Shall we return to the days when the quality of a basic education was solely determined by the number and wealth of the citizens whose children attended any given school?
Over today's heavily federalized system? Yes. Fortunately, those are two ends of a spectrum, and there's lots of room in the middle.
He considers himself a "Christian Libertarian"? and I sound like him? Cool.
I'll admit that I have some conservative opinions and a liberal outlook towards others, is that what you mean?
As long as he is not a Fundamentalist its not an oxymoron. You can be Christian and Liberal as long as you do not take your religion too literally. I believe that if there is a God, whatever Man thinks he knows about it is way off. Any real God does not play favorites between men and women, or care what color they are. I believe that it is not what you are that matters to God, but how you are.
That said, I checked out the link and yes I do agree with some if not most of what he says but I just don't find politics to be entertaining in any way shape or form. Too much negativity, that's why I quit watching T.V., I'm much happier now, yes MUCH HAPPIER CAN'T YOU TELL!!!
:-)
I'll admit that I have some conservative opinions and a liberal outlook towards others, is that what you mean?
As long as he is not a Fundamentalist its not an oxymoron. You can be Christian and Liberal as long as you do not take your religion too literally. I believe that if there is a God, whatever Man thinks he knows about it is way off. Any real God does not play favorites between men and women, or care what color they are. I believe that it is not what you are that matters to God, but how you are.
That said, I checked out the link and yes I do agree with some if not most of what he says but I just don't find politics to be entertaining in any way shape or form. Too much negativity, that's why I quit watching T.V., I'm much happier now, yes MUCH HAPPIER CAN'T YOU TELL!!!
:-)
Hmmm. Big Business *or* Big Government?
What surprises me is that no one has yet pointed out that the two very much go together. With big Government comes big Business to exploit the carefully placed loop-holes, with big Government comes a source of power to crush competition which is just begging to be purchased, corrupted, "campaign contributed".
As has been mentioned, the existence of "limited liability" corporations is because of laws (by government) creating the basis for their existence.
The biggest, most abusive businesses have always been the government mandated monopolies: AT&T years ago, and now again since SBC bought the name, even through the "baby bell" period never lost their regional mandated monopoly status. The government "contractors", Haliburton, Carlisle Group, Morton Thiacol(sp?), Lockheed Martin, etc. How about the big drug companies and their FDA todies, their bought-and-paid-for politicians who enact huge new laws like the "Medicare Drug Benefit" without even reading it.
And let's not forget the e$teemed Senator from Disney.
I can recommend the articles on the Ludwig von Mises Institute web site, and a quick search for "big business" brought up this gem: http://blog.mises.org/archives/004152.asp
Eliminate big Government, big Business ceases to be a problem.
----------------
As far as public school verses private, keep in mind that most private schools are bound just as much by the laws of the state which certifies them, which defines the "standardized" testing. Indeed the vast majority of "private" schools far surpass the quality of their comparable "public" counterparts, and the public school advocates will tell you it's only because the private schools get to pick and choose their students.
However, home schoolers surpass most private schools with ease. At the same time, some actual teachers exist in the public schools, and I credit the three that I met, in my entire 13 years of forced labor for the crime of being young, for saving my life.
Do I sound angry? Indeed. To make my bias perfectly clear, until every public school is razed to the ground, no stone left standing upon another and salt sown into the ground where they once were, I will not be satisfied. The fate of Troy is too good for them, for even Troy was able to be rediscovered.
Vin Sprynowicz said it well by entitling one of his chapters "Burn The Schools" in _The Ballad of Carl Drega_. Highly recommended, even if you disagree. Especially so, since I would be surprised if someone could read his books and not be moved. Links available upon request.
It seems that Grouch was lucky enough to have at least one such actual teacher, and I wish that John Stossel had found one in his 20/20 show on the subject. Just one would have been nice. Also, especially since Stossel interviews Dutch students, it might be of interest to the other posters in this thread to see the video. Those outside the copyright reach of the US can use this link: http://www.mininova.org/tor/199080
I can also suggest anything and everything by John Taylor Gatto, whose experience as a public school teacher aught to be required course material to become a professional teacher at all. Mininova lists some of his works, as well as http://www.johntaylorgatto.com
Scott, I stopped watching "broadcast" tv too. Maybe some "Americas Funniest Home Videos", some small quantity of "History Channel" although it does tend to be sanitized pap. Teaching my 3-year old to read and write has been a pleasure, phonics makes it possible. I cannot imagine how anyone can be expected to read without the simple recourse to "sound it out". Hell, there are words *I* "sound out" at 43 and I out-read my "grade" from the very beginning!
What surprises me is that no one has yet pointed out that the two very much go together. With big Government comes big Business to exploit the carefully placed loop-holes, with big Government comes a source of power to crush competition which is just begging to be purchased, corrupted, "campaign contributed".
As has been mentioned, the existence of "limited liability" corporations is because of laws (by government) creating the basis for their existence.
The biggest, most abusive businesses have always been the government mandated monopolies: AT&T years ago, and now again since SBC bought the name, even through the "baby bell" period never lost their regional mandated monopoly status. The government "contractors", Haliburton, Carlisle Group, Morton Thiacol(sp?), Lockheed Martin, etc. How about the big drug companies and their FDA todies, their bought-and-paid-for politicians who enact huge new laws like the "Medicare Drug Benefit" without even reading it.
And let's not forget the e$teemed Senator from Disney.
I can recommend the articles on the Ludwig von Mises Institute web site, and a quick search for "big business" brought up this gem: http://blog.mises.org/archives/004152.asp
Eliminate big Government, big Business ceases to be a problem.
----------------
As far as public school verses private, keep in mind that most private schools are bound just as much by the laws of the state which certifies them, which defines the "standardized" testing. Indeed the vast majority of "private" schools far surpass the quality of their comparable "public" counterparts, and the public school advocates will tell you it's only because the private schools get to pick and choose their students.
However, home schoolers surpass most private schools with ease. At the same time, some actual teachers exist in the public schools, and I credit the three that I met, in my entire 13 years of forced labor for the crime of being young, for saving my life.
Do I sound angry? Indeed. To make my bias perfectly clear, until every public school is razed to the ground, no stone left standing upon another and salt sown into the ground where they once were, I will not be satisfied. The fate of Troy is too good for them, for even Troy was able to be rediscovered.
Vin Sprynowicz said it well by entitling one of his chapters "Burn The Schools" in _The Ballad of Carl Drega_. Highly recommended, even if you disagree. Especially so, since I would be surprised if someone could read his books and not be moved. Links available upon request.
It seems that Grouch was lucky enough to have at least one such actual teacher, and I wish that John Stossel had found one in his 20/20 show on the subject. Just one would have been nice. Also, especially since Stossel interviews Dutch students, it might be of interest to the other posters in this thread to see the video. Those outside the copyright reach of the US can use this link: http://www.mininova.org/tor/199080
I can also suggest anything and everything by John Taylor Gatto, whose experience as a public school teacher aught to be required course material to become a professional teacher at all. Mininova lists some of his works, as well as http://www.johntaylorgatto.com
Scott, I stopped watching "broadcast" tv too. Maybe some "Americas Funniest Home Videos", some small quantity of "History Channel" although it does tend to be sanitized pap. Teaching my 3-year old to read and write has been a pleasure, phonics makes it possible. I cannot imagine how anyone can be expected to read without the simple recourse to "sound it out". Hell, there are words *I* "sound out" at 43 and I out-read my "grade" from the very beginning!
> Hmmm. Big Business *or* Big Government?
What we see now is that Big Business and Big Government are both ignoring the individual Citizen pretty much at will. This has been getting worse throughout my lifetime, and I don't see any signs of it getting better. We know that a true 'Democracy' has a limit as to how large the thing becomes before it stops working. What worries me is that we may have outgrown the 'Republic'. We may be able to extend the thing by giving more power to Local government, but I begin to think that's only a patch.
What we see now is that Big Business and Big Government are both ignoring the individual Citizen pretty much at will. This has been getting worse throughout my lifetime, and I don't see any signs of it getting better. We know that a true 'Democracy' has a limit as to how large the thing becomes before it stops working. What worries me is that we may have outgrown the 'Republic'. We may be able to extend the thing by giving more power to Local government, but I begin to think that's only a patch.
JimF, America is now an Empire, no doubt. When Lincoln crushed the last peaceful secession effort, it was no longer a Republic, but it took the Spanish American war to gather territories by military victory. The rest has been a long slide into fascism.
Fascism is the so-called "third way", titular ownership of private property, but under strict government regulation. Such as you "own" a car, but your use of it is strictly limited by licensure, registration, speed limits, etc.
I really don't see any way out of this without another revolution. I don't mean "civil war", because a "civil war" is two or more factions fighting over the same political power structure. I mean revolution as the overthrow of the power structure in place. Preferably a war of Independence, at least the independence of the individual states from the Empire that has grown out of their so-called "limited" Federal government.
Fascism is the so-called "third way", titular ownership of private property, but under strict government regulation. Such as you "own" a car, but your use of it is strictly limited by licensure, registration, speed limits, etc.
I really don't see any way out of this without another revolution. I don't mean "civil war", because a "civil war" is two or more factions fighting over the same political power structure. I mean revolution as the overthrow of the power structure in place. Preferably a war of Independence, at least the independence of the individual states from the Empire that has grown out of their so-called "limited" Federal government.
Well Bob, Jefferson said as much. I simply don't see a way to do that now.
I failed miserably in public schools, but thrived when sent to a private military school for the last two years of high school. I didn't have to worry about bullies at the private school, and our 2-1/2-hour study hall was monitored by faculty and cadet officers alike. I needed both, the safety and the discipline in those days. The quality of the teachers was better as well, but I think that was secondary to the first to issues.
dcparris:
Sounds like some public schools had a budget problem. Maybe fewer truckloads going to Bill's retirement fund would mean a teaching job could compete with private enterprise offerings.
We threw an incredible amount of money at the cold war. We wasted an incredible amount, too, but that's the inefficient nature of government. Somehow, though, the same ones in government who tried to excuse $600 toilet seats for the military (which became an $1800 toilet seat 16 years later) are the same ones who scream loudest that throwing money at education or health care problems won't help.
How much does our government waste on our favorite monopolist, anyway?
Sounds like some public schools had a budget problem. Maybe fewer truckloads going to Bill's retirement fund would mean a teaching job could compete with private enterprise offerings.
We threw an incredible amount of money at the cold war. We wasted an incredible amount, too, but that's the inefficient nature of government. Somehow, though, the same ones in government who tried to excuse $600 toilet seats for the military (which became an $1800 toilet seat 16 years later) are the same ones who scream loudest that throwing money at education or health care problems won't help.
How much does our government waste on our favorite monopolist, anyway?
Bob:
> until every public school is razed to the ground, no stone left standing upon another and salt sown into the ground where they once were, I will not be satisfied. The fate of Troy is too good for them, for even Troy was able to be rediscovered.
OK. I thought I was the only one here who felt that way. Nice to know I'm not alone.
I don't know if I've mentioned here before, but you may want to check out my wife's page:
http://www.ravendays.org/
> until every public school is razed to the ground, no stone left standing upon another and salt sown into the ground where they once were, I will not be satisfied. The fate of Troy is too good for them, for even Troy was able to be rediscovered.
OK. I thought I was the only one here who felt that way. Nice to know I'm not alone.
I don't know if I've mentioned here before, but you may want to check out my wife's page:
http://www.ravendays.org/
jimf:
> Well Bob, Jefferson said as much. I simply don't see a way to do that now.
Oh, the ways are simple and well known. Unfortunately, they mean killing a significant portion of the population. That's not a step I'm willing to take. I only have a handful of decades more to live, and we don't have any children. If the US citizenry wants to vote themselves into totalitarianism, they're welcome to do so.
> Well Bob, Jefferson said as much. I simply don't see a way to do that now.
Oh, the ways are simple and well known. Unfortunately, they mean killing a significant portion of the population. That's not a step I'm willing to take. I only have a handful of decades more to live, and we don't have any children. If the US citizenry wants to vote themselves into totalitarianism, they're welcome to do so.
Grouch:
> the same ones who scream loudest that throwing money at education or health care problems won't help.
Well, with education at least, it won't. We already fund education at a level far above the world average. Unfortunately, our students don't achieve at a rate equal to the funding.
> the same ones who scream loudest that throwing money at education or health care problems won't help.
Well, with education at least, it won't. We already fund education at a level far above the world average. Unfortunately, our students don't achieve at a rate equal to the funding.
grouch:
> Sounds like some public schools had a budget problem. Maybe fewer truckloads going to Bill's retirement fund would mean a teaching job could compete with private enterprise offerings.
Smug, easy, and, quite possibly, wrong answer.
It's entirely possible that the Rev's local public schools were far better funded than the private school he attended. The private schools I've been able to muster, like most private schools, have had to do the job on far less money than the local public schools. Very few parents can afford to match public school spending.
Median (not average) teacher salary in 2004 was low to mid 40s. More people were entering the field in response to demand, generally in indication that compensation is not too low.
Teacher salaries vary incredibly, depending on district, experience, advanced degrees, subject matter, etc. In some of the suburban school districts around here, teachers with more than five years of experience and an advanced degree can earn more than I could make working a similar schedule, and far more when benefits are taken into account.
Per capita spending in the US has doubled over the last 30 years, adjusted for inflation, and compares well with other G-7 countries.
Smug, easy, and, quite possibly, wrong answer.
It's entirely possible that the Rev's local public schools were far better funded than the private school he attended. The private schools I've been able to muster, like most private schools, have had to do the job on far less money than the local public schools. Very few parents can afford to match public school spending.
Median (not average) teacher salary in 2004 was low to mid 40s. More people were entering the field in response to demand, generally in indication that compensation is not too low.
Teacher salaries vary incredibly, depending on district, experience, advanced degrees, subject matter, etc. In some of the suburban school districts around here, teachers with more than five years of experience and an advanced degree can earn more than I could make working a similar schedule, and far more when benefits are taken into account.
Per capita spending in the US has doubled over the last 30 years, adjusted for inflation, and compares well with other G-7 countries.
dinotrac: >"Smug, easy, and, quite possibly, wrong answer."
Smug reply, but no refutation. Without numbers to the contrary, I will continue to assume school expenditures associated with MS software are significant, based on anecdotal stories from people working in schools.
>"Median (not average) teacher salary in 2004 was low to mid 40s. More people were entering the field in response to demand, generally in indication that compensation is not too low."
Has the private sector been suppressed that much? It hasn't been very many years ago that I tried to convince my son not to become a teacher, using the example of another family member whose starting salary in a medical device engineering company, with a fresh BS degree, was equivalent to my wife's salary at the time as a teacher with experience of 20 years and "rank one" (a certain number of hours of study beyond a master's degree; highest recognized in my state for teachers).
The total cost of employee is roughly twice the salary, so every $80K in license fees paid to MS amounts to another teacher or support staff member. MS uses site licensing for schools. Every computer that is merely capable of running MS Windows requires a license fee. Audits and threats of audits are used to keep schools in line with MS's saturation goals. It's the same old OEM per cpu licensing from the consent decree, just moved outward one layer in the monopoly.
People demanded that schools teach "computer literacy". Did the tons of money spent on such a nebulous fad really benefit anyone? Going back to when it started, how many adults are living better lives because they learned how to use VisiCalc in school?
Maybe fixing the roof or HVAC or the wiring in a school building would be a better way to spend money than entering a no-exit contract with MS. (One room my wife taught in had an electrical outlet duct-taped in the wall, while down the hall there was a full computer lab with every computer running MS Windows with MS Office. "Overflow" students were taught in a pair of mobile homes rented and parked beside the school.)
>"Teacher salaries vary incredibly, depending on district, experience, advanced degrees, subject matter, etc."
Salaries also vary incredibly due to the varied funding in districts. In my own state, funding is closely tied to property taxes, which makes the educational opportunity of a child roughly dependent on the market value of land where the child grows up. It doesn't make sense, to me.
The requirements for becoming a teacher are also incredibly varied. Many times these requirements depend on how vocal parents are about overcrowded classrooms. It's a political see-saw that jerks and jars the children and the local educational system according to the latest craze in the news.
Smug reply, but no refutation. Without numbers to the contrary, I will continue to assume school expenditures associated with MS software are significant, based on anecdotal stories from people working in schools.
>"Median (not average) teacher salary in 2004 was low to mid 40s. More people were entering the field in response to demand, generally in indication that compensation is not too low."
Has the private sector been suppressed that much? It hasn't been very many years ago that I tried to convince my son not to become a teacher, using the example of another family member whose starting salary in a medical device engineering company, with a fresh BS degree, was equivalent to my wife's salary at the time as a teacher with experience of 20 years and "rank one" (a certain number of hours of study beyond a master's degree; highest recognized in my state for teachers).
The total cost of employee is roughly twice the salary, so every $80K in license fees paid to MS amounts to another teacher or support staff member. MS uses site licensing for schools. Every computer that is merely capable of running MS Windows requires a license fee. Audits and threats of audits are used to keep schools in line with MS's saturation goals. It's the same old OEM per cpu licensing from the consent decree, just moved outward one layer in the monopoly.
People demanded that schools teach "computer literacy". Did the tons of money spent on such a nebulous fad really benefit anyone? Going back to when it started, how many adults are living better lives because they learned how to use VisiCalc in school?
Maybe fixing the roof or HVAC or the wiring in a school building would be a better way to spend money than entering a no-exit contract with MS. (One room my wife taught in had an electrical outlet duct-taped in the wall, while down the hall there was a full computer lab with every computer running MS Windows with MS Office. "Overflow" students were taught in a pair of mobile homes rented and parked beside the school.)
>"Teacher salaries vary incredibly, depending on district, experience, advanced degrees, subject matter, etc."
Salaries also vary incredibly due to the varied funding in districts. In my own state, funding is closely tied to property taxes, which makes the educational opportunity of a child roughly dependent on the market value of land where the child grows up. It doesn't make sense, to me.
The requirements for becoming a teacher are also incredibly varied. Many times these requirements depend on how vocal parents are about overcrowded classrooms. It's a political see-saw that jerks and jars the children and the local educational system according to the latest craze in the news.
JDixon, you really will enjoy the articles and books by Vin Sprynowicz, here's a link to his newspaper's editorial section: http://www.reviewjournal.com/columnists/suprynowicz.html
I can also suggest L. Neil Smith, he can be a bit course at times. Direct, unvarnished opinions are usually course, but they're also quite a bit easier to decypher than page-long parenthetical asides. http://www.lneilsmith.org/lns_lever.html
Grouch, no kidding about the political turmoil. An inevitable result of making "education" a political issue.
Now about that idea of throwing money at the "problem". Look up that 20/20 episode by Stossel called "Stupid In America". He features the effort that took place in Kansas City, where a judge ordered an additional $Billion/year spent on their schools. Test scores decreased.
Also, "education" is the largest employer in the US, 50 state and federal education departments, administrators, janitors, oh and teachers. The NEA is the largest union in America as well.
There is no lack of money, it's a simple fact of bureaucratic verses entrepreneurial management. In a bureaucratic management structure, there is no motivation to produce. "Success" is measured by larger staffs and bigger budgets, and in a government situation the most efficient way to have your budget increased and get more staff is to _fail_ at your stated goals. The lower the test scores, the more teachers, principals assistants, administrators and facilities get funded. The "failing" public schools are succeeding wonderfully at their actual purpose: Perpetuating The Bureaucracy.
Under entrepreneurial management, if an effort fails it is changed or eliminated. If a teacher fails to teach a child to read, that teacher is in danger of losing their job. That's why such private efforts such as Sylvan Learning Centers can do in a few weeks what a public school cannot do in year after year: teach basic skills.
Two articles, please let me know what you think after reading them:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Apr-16-Sun-2006/...
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Apr-23-Sun-2006/...
I can also suggest L. Neil Smith, he can be a bit course at times. Direct, unvarnished opinions are usually course, but they're also quite a bit easier to decypher than page-long parenthetical asides. http://www.lneilsmith.org/lns_lever.html
Grouch, no kidding about the political turmoil. An inevitable result of making "education" a political issue.
Now about that idea of throwing money at the "problem". Look up that 20/20 episode by Stossel called "Stupid In America". He features the effort that took place in Kansas City, where a judge ordered an additional $Billion/year spent on their schools. Test scores decreased.
Also, "education" is the largest employer in the US, 50 state and federal education departments, administrators, janitors, oh and teachers. The NEA is the largest union in America as well.
There is no lack of money, it's a simple fact of bureaucratic verses entrepreneurial management. In a bureaucratic management structure, there is no motivation to produce. "Success" is measured by larger staffs and bigger budgets, and in a government situation the most efficient way to have your budget increased and get more staff is to _fail_ at your stated goals. The lower the test scores, the more teachers, principals assistants, administrators and facilities get funded. The "failing" public schools are succeeding wonderfully at their actual purpose: Perpetuating The Bureaucracy.
Under entrepreneurial management, if an effort fails it is changed or eliminated. If a teacher fails to teach a child to read, that teacher is in danger of losing their job. That's why such private efforts such as Sylvan Learning Centers can do in a few weeks what a public school cannot do in year after year: teach basic skills.
Two articles, please let me know what you think after reading them:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Apr-16-Sun-2006/...
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Apr-23-Sun-2006/...
It's also possible a move to another city would have made a difference, but I still needed the additional discipline that the private school offered. I consider that the crucial element. The safer environment supported the additional discipline. I think a number of the teachers in both schools cared and were fairly interested in teaching. But there's nothing quite like getting motivated at the private school by the football coach to study for US/State Political history. ;-)
I'm just not certain it was a matter of the money each school had. I think it's safe to say the private school had better funding - the public school didn't even have those early laptop-looking "computers" that were just coming out. I mean, in 1985, we didn't have computers in school. It didn't have a cafeteria, or a swimming pool. The private school had some sort of early computer (I have no idea what they were) that looked like an electronic word processor. At any rate, I think the difference lies in the fact that my parents didn't do so good in the "make sure I did my homework" department. The private school cured that.
I'm just not certain it was a matter of the money each school had. I think it's safe to say the private school had better funding - the public school didn't even have those early laptop-looking "computers" that were just coming out. I mean, in 1985, we didn't have computers in school. It didn't have a cafeteria, or a swimming pool. The private school had some sort of early computer (I have no idea what they were) that looked like an electronic word processor. At any rate, I think the difference lies in the fact that my parents didn't do so good in the "make sure I did my homework" department. The private school cured that.
DC, variety is more important than money. No two students will respond best with the same curriculum.
And what do computers have to do with teaching reading, writing and mathematics anyway? There's far more to be learned with just pencils and paper. I taught myself Basic programming from a book a year before I owned a computer (TRS-80 Mod 1, christmas 78).
As I've told my 3-year old many times, once you can read you can learn anything.
And what do computers have to do with teaching reading, writing and mathematics anyway? There's far more to be learned with just pencils and paper. I taught myself Basic programming from a book a year before I owned a computer (TRS-80 Mod 1, christmas 78).
As I've told my 3-year old many times, once you can read you can learn anything.
Bob:
> As I've told my 3-year old many times, once you can read you can learn anything.
You know, reading is what got me here. That coach is the one who taught me Knowledge is Power. I forget the origins of that phrase, but I know it's true. And I bought "Running Linux" before I got the P-II/350 I was going to install it on. Anyway... I went from technophobe to Editor-in-Chief of a tech news site - the best confounded tech news site on the whole Internet, far as I'm concerned - because I know how to read.
You know, reading is what got me here. That coach is the one who taught me Knowledge is Power. I forget the origins of that phrase, but I know it's true. And I bought "Running Linux" before I got the P-II/350 I was going to install it on. Anyway... I went from technophobe to Editor-in-Chief of a tech news site - the best confounded tech news site on the whole Internet, far as I'm concerned - because I know how to read.
Bob:
> you really will enjoy the articles and books
Bookmarked for later perusal. Thanks.
> you really will enjoy the articles and books
Bookmarked for later perusal. Thanks.
Bayonet practice
Thank you Don. Say, didn't the Marines use a straw man for bayonet practice? If so, you quartered Steve Titch and his "piece" as deftly as I'm sure you did with your bayoneted M16. One would think that with Microsoft's money they could have done a little better than the likes of Mr. Titch. I think any real journalist is giving Microsoft's argument against ODF a wide berth. You have also served notice to any other would-be "journalist" for hire. Get your facts right or get hammered by a real journalist.
Microsoft & Open Standards
This Titch dares to ask: "If this is simply an issue of Microsoft's willingness to commit to open standards, what is your take on Open XML?"
How does he dare, seen the history of MS in 'not opening' their SMB protocol, even when asked by the EU and getting a fine of €497 million and possibly €2 million a day? Asking this is brutal distortion of facts (sorry, I'm really pissed off by anyone saying Microsoft is willing to commit to open standards seen the history). Microsoft isn't willing to commit to any open standards at all, unless they loose more than $1 billion or so, which might be the case with their office-application not offering any surplus value compared to the free OpenOffice, apart from the good 'old MS-formats support'. All they do is add the term 'open' to their products, purely for marketing purposes, thereby distorting the meaning of 'open', and using framing-language.
Could anyone please check this guys bank account to look for 'Baystar-money'?
How does he dare, seen the history of MS in 'not opening' their SMB protocol, even when asked by the EU and getting a fine of €497 million and possibly €2 million a day? Asking this is brutal distortion of facts (sorry, I'm really pissed off by anyone saying Microsoft is willing to commit to open standards seen the history). Microsoft isn't willing to commit to any open standards at all, unless they loose more than $1 billion or so, which might be the case with their office-application not offering any surplus value compared to the free OpenOffice, apart from the good 'old MS-formats support'. All they do is add the term 'open' to their products, purely for marketing purposes, thereby distorting the meaning of 'open', and using framing-language.
Could anyone please check this guys bank account to look for 'Baystar-money'?
You understand perfectly, here's how it works.
Distort facts - Lie - Lie about the lies - Distort the lies - When presented with facts, ignore them and lie again - direct attention away from issue and use language that was used in the facts presented to you - lie some more...
Ok so it gets a little complicated, but that's how it usually pans out.
The only thing M$ is 'open' to? Everyone getting out of their way.
Distort facts - Lie - Lie about the lies - Distort the lies - When presented with facts, ignore them and lie again - direct attention away from issue and use language that was used in the facts presented to you - lie some more...
Ok so it gets a little complicated, but that's how it usually pans out.
The only thing M$ is 'open' to? Everyone getting out of their way.
More From Titch Next Week?
Steve shot me an e-mail a little while ago. He's plans to revisit this issue next week. As I told him, I can hardly wait.
How far can he bury his foot in his mouth this time?
Or is he used to the taste by now?
Or is he used to the taste by now?
Scott -
Titch is the sort you need to be careful about.
From what I've seen so far, I can't tell if he's especially smart or not -- and that concerns me.
There's an argumentitive trick (and a teaching trick) called hiding the ball.
You lead your opponent in one direction, allowing them to bite hard on the bait. You don't even care if you get whipped because your actual goal is elsewhere. The idea is that the other guy is now driving so hard, he never sees the switch coming. You're prepared and you even use his persistance as evidence for the real point you want to make.
Titch doesn't care how free any standard, format or license is. He doesn't care about us.
He has one goal and only one goal:
To deliver the message that the state's policy will increase costs to the state's taxpayers without providing a significant benefit.
The truth, of course is just the opposite. The state's policies will create opportunities for Massachusetts business that do not exist today, or that get funneled westward by default.
Titch is the sort you need to be careful about.
From what I've seen so far, I can't tell if he's especially smart or not -- and that concerns me.
There's an argumentitive trick (and a teaching trick) called hiding the ball.
You lead your opponent in one direction, allowing them to bite hard on the bait. You don't even care if you get whipped because your actual goal is elsewhere. The idea is that the other guy is now driving so hard, he never sees the switch coming. You're prepared and you even use his persistance as evidence for the real point you want to make.
Titch doesn't care how free any standard, format or license is. He doesn't care about us.
He has one goal and only one goal:
To deliver the message that the state's policy will increase costs to the state's taxpayers without providing a significant benefit.
The truth, of course is just the opposite. The state's policies will create opportunities for Massachusetts business that do not exist today, or that get funneled westward by default.
>He has one goal and only one goal:
To deliver the message that the state's policy will increase costs to the state's taxpayers without providing a significant benefit.
Dino, I think you are right on here. It's what I've been feeling all long but couldn't quite put into words. Thanks for putting it so succcinctly!!
Don K.
To deliver the message that the state's policy will increase costs to the state's taxpayers without providing a significant benefit.
Dino, I think you are right on here. It's what I've been feeling all long but couldn't quite put into words. Thanks for putting it so succcinctly!!
Don K.
dinotrac: Thank You for your concern but I have seen his kind before. And you are right, he thinks he's hiding the ball.
I will keep myself in check for the sake of others though, that is the right thing to do.
Understand, I have been in way to many 'fights' so to speak to be afraid of someone like him. I have seen too many like him to flinch now.
I went to high school in NYC, his 'game' doesn't have jack on the guys I had to deal with back then. :-)
Still, Its nice to know that you care about me though.
Your so good to me, since the baby came. LOL!!
I will keep myself in check for the sake of others though, that is the right thing to do.
Understand, I have been in way to many 'fights' so to speak to be afraid of someone like him. I have seen too many like him to flinch now.
I went to high school in NYC, his 'game' doesn't have jack on the guys I had to deal with back then. :-)
Still, Its nice to know that you care about me though.
Your so good to me, since the baby came. LOL!!
Scotty -
You needn't behave yourself.
We just need remember what he's really all about and not be surprised at the twists to come.
The thing I'm curious about is why he's bothered to engage Don. I'm not sure what purpose it serves, although several possibilities come to mind:
1. It's fun to argue. 2. It draws out arguments and lets him try out replies in a forum that his real audience is unlikely to see. 3. He's trolling for ammunition. 4. He's keeping the argument where he wants it for now. 5. He actually believes the things he's writing, and any connection with Microsoft has more to do with their supporting someone who supports them rather than the other way around.
Any combination of those, including all of the above could be true.
As to caring about you ---
Well, Scotty, somebody has to do it!
You needn't behave yourself.
We just need remember what he's really all about and not be surprised at the twists to come.
The thing I'm curious about is why he's bothered to engage Don. I'm not sure what purpose it serves, although several possibilities come to mind:
1. It's fun to argue. 2. It draws out arguments and lets him try out replies in a forum that his real audience is unlikely to see. 3. He's trolling for ammunition. 4. He's keeping the argument where he wants it for now. 5. He actually believes the things he's writing, and any connection with Microsoft has more to do with their supporting someone who supports them rather than the other way around.
Any combination of those, including all of the above could be true.
As to caring about you ---
Well, Scotty, somebody has to do it!
Dont forget #6 - people love to see a good fight.
But also, he has engaged me since I've been keeping him posted on what I'm saying over here. I keep shooting him e-mails in something of an "in your face" fashion. Things to the effect of "you need to stop misleading your audience", "you should get your facts straight", etc. Since we know his ability to influence his audience depends on his reputation for getting his facts straight, I'm sure it's a bit un-nerving to have someone like me pestering him like I have been.
If he happens to see the light, that will be an added bonus.
But also, he has engaged me since I've been keeping him posted on what I'm saying over here. I keep shooting him e-mails in something of an "in your face" fashion. Things to the effect of "you need to stop misleading your audience", "you should get your facts straight", etc. Since we know his ability to influence his audience depends on his reputation for getting his facts straight, I'm sure it's a bit un-nerving to have someone like me pestering him like I have been.
If he happens to see the light, that will be an added bonus.
Don.
First, thank you, everyone should remember number six.
Secondley, and more to the point...
My favorite example of open standards, when talking to business people, is car tires.
You know those numbers on the sides of tires like "P185/60R14 82H." that represent the fact this is a "P" Passenger car tire, "185" mm width, ratio of "60" for sidewall height to tread width, "R" for Radial, "14" inch wheel widthe, and 82H has something to do with Load, speed and temperature rating.
Tire manufacturers have all agreed upon standard tire sizes. This allows any car to use tires from many different manufacturers.
Car companies could try to be like computer printer manufacturers and try to lock you into buying only their brand of ink cartridges. Or they could try to act like closed source computer software makers and try to lock you into storing your data in their format, so you must license their software to have access to your own business data.
You would think the possibility of locking in car buyers to a proprietary set of tires would make auto executives salivate with the thought of future profits to be reaped from unsuspecting customers who need to come back to the original manufacturer to buy replacement tires.
You would be wrong.
Auto manufacturers would have shoulder the whole cost of developing and manufacturing non-standard proprietary tires. They would lose the benefits of commoditization. If a hurricane, or earthquake disrupted the supply of non-standard proprietary tires, the auto manufacturer would be unable to sell new cars or supply replacement tires. They could not just "work around" the disruption by turning to a new tire supplier for a short period.
Think about Ford a few years ago when all of their Explorer SUV's were rolling over. Part of the blame was placed on a type of Firestone tire. Ford was able to replace the tires with similar sized tires from a competing tire manufacturer, and to continue shipping Explorers. If the tires had been specialized Ford proprietary tires, Ford would have had to re-tool a factory, and recall all explorers to switch to a different tire.
I know that tire standards are not quite the same as the standard that defines the inch, or the standard that ODF is under. But people have shopped for tires, and they know they can buy tires from a different manufacturer. They can shop around for the best deal, or even upgrade to a more expensive model with bettre features. They can do this, in part, because tires come in standard sizes.
Open standards promote competition and reduce costs to the consumer. Open standards help drive the market economics towards commoditization of goods.
If tires don't work, then I try cooking and measurements
First, thank you, everyone should remember number six.
Secondley, and more to the point...
My favorite example of open standards, when talking to business people, is car tires.
You know those numbers on the sides of tires like "P185/60R14 82H." that represent the fact this is a "P" Passenger car tire, "185" mm width, ratio of "60" for sidewall height to tread width, "R" for Radial, "14" inch wheel widthe, and 82H has something to do with Load, speed and temperature rating.
Tire manufacturers have all agreed upon standard tire sizes. This allows any car to use tires from many different manufacturers.
Car companies could try to be like computer printer manufacturers and try to lock you into buying only their brand of ink cartridges. Or they could try to act like closed source computer software makers and try to lock you into storing your data in their format, so you must license their software to have access to your own business data.
You would think the possibility of locking in car buyers to a proprietary set of tires would make auto executives salivate with the thought of future profits to be reaped from unsuspecting customers who need to come back to the original manufacturer to buy replacement tires.
You would be wrong.
Auto manufacturers would have shoulder the whole cost of developing and manufacturing non-standard proprietary tires. They would lose the benefits of commoditization. If a hurricane, or earthquake disrupted the supply of non-standard proprietary tires, the auto manufacturer would be unable to sell new cars or supply replacement tires. They could not just "work around" the disruption by turning to a new tire supplier for a short period.
Think about Ford a few years ago when all of their Explorer SUV's were rolling over. Part of the blame was placed on a type of Firestone tire. Ford was able to replace the tires with similar sized tires from a competing tire manufacturer, and to continue shipping Explorers. If the tires had been specialized Ford proprietary tires, Ford would have had to re-tool a factory, and recall all explorers to switch to a different tire.
I know that tire standards are not quite the same as the standard that defines the inch, or the standard that ODF is under. But people have shopped for tires, and they know they can buy tires from a different manufacturer. They can shop around for the best deal, or even upgrade to a more expensive model with bettre features. They can do this, in part, because tires come in standard sizes.
Open standards promote competition and reduce costs to the consumer. Open standards help drive the market economics towards commoditization of goods.
If tires don't work, then I try cooking and measurements
dinotrac: >"The thing I'm curious about is why he's bothered to engage Don."
Free publicity. Perhaps he subscribes to the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. I suspect his ego leads him to believe that he can get the audience to ignore Don's opposing views and completely swallow his own line.
Free publicity. Perhaps he subscribes to the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. I suspect his ego leads him to believe that he can get the audience to ignore Don's opposing views and completely swallow his own line.
grouch :
You've got a point. Most folks -- including the decision makers and influencers, won't appreciate some of the finer points, but will get the picture of two people engaging the issue.
Then, from a Titch standpoint, "Look, we've engaged the community. We know there are differences, there always are, but the real question is: What's best for Massachusetts -- and what's it going to cost?"
You've got a point. Most folks -- including the decision makers and influencers, won't appreciate some of the finer points, but will get the picture of two people engaging the issue.
Then, from a Titch standpoint, "Look, we've engaged the community. We know there are differences, there always are, but the real question is: What's best for Massachusetts -- and what's it going to cost?"
My article called "Think tanks like Heartland and their ties with Microsoft: What everybody should know" is almost ready, so expect the fight to go on pretty soon.
In answer to his question...
My answer to the question (I'm paraphrasing) "What do you think about the 'Open Specification' called 'Open XML' is simply this:
Open XML - Isn't
It isn't Open at all, especially on the very important and often overlooked point of the future of the 'Specification'. If you read carefully some of the early stories you'll note that all future versions and revisions of the 'Specification' will be authored by Microsoft Corporation. That means that it will be a "Closed future" (my term for it) which continues to allow 'Innovation' in the 'Specification' to be followed immediately by software, available now from Microsoft Corporation. This is monetized by ensuring no effective competition. So it isn't very 'Open', in fact it's not open at all.
As to it's being a specification, when you start talking on page 1677 of about 4000 about the 'Maple Leaf' border type you have clearly gone from defining a 'Specification' to defining an implementation. I haven't researched this but based on who's defining the 'Specification' and whether it results in money flowing to Redmond or not, my bet is that a partial implementation of the 'Specification' will be deemed non-compliant. So it isn't very much of a specification.
And finally, I've seen some reports that it's going to include XML wrappers around all the old Office binary formats. So it isn't even XML!
So in summary, the 'Open Specification' known by the marketing term 'Open XML' is not open, is not a specification, and is not XML. In short, Open XML - Isn't. Any implication otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Open XML - Isn't
It isn't Open at all, especially on the very important and often overlooked point of the future of the 'Specification'. If you read carefully some of the early stories you'll note that all future versions and revisions of the 'Specification' will be authored by Microsoft Corporation. That means that it will be a "Closed future" (my term for it) which continues to allow 'Innovation' in the 'Specification' to be followed immediately by software, available now from Microsoft Corporation. This is monetized by ensuring no effective competition. So it isn't very 'Open', in fact it's not open at all.
As to it's being a specification, when you start talking on page 1677 of about 4000 about the 'Maple Leaf' border type you have clearly gone from defining a 'Specification' to defining an implementation. I haven't researched this but based on who's defining the 'Specification' and whether it results in money flowing to Redmond or not, my bet is that a partial implementation of the 'Specification' will be deemed non-compliant. So it isn't very much of a specification.
And finally, I've seen some reports that it's going to include XML wrappers around all the old Office binary formats. So it isn't even XML!
So in summary, the 'Open Specification' known by the marketing term 'Open XML' is not open, is not a specification, and is not XML. In short, Open XML - Isn't. Any implication otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Completely enlightening
Thanks for the explantions you have given as this article too's and fro's. Makes for interesting reading not only from the position of those of us advocating open standards but of those who see things rather differently. My take on this is that if we were to go back to days of yor, with no PC's and communication was via pencil/pen and paper. Can you imagine what would have happened if you could only write documents using MicroSofts Pens because with the paper that was available, this was the only pen where the ink was visible? A cheap pen from the local shop just wouldn't work!!
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
you have - but you didn't have to with me - I actually read the ITD policy itself and microsoft's xml does NOT meet it.
I am sure Titch has not read it but yet writes a column like he is an expert.