Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
So in your case the component that failed was between the keyboard and the chair.
That would be called a PEBKAC
Generally the classroom/lab computers will have no interaction what so ever with a student computer. We go out of our way to prevent the student computers from infecting or even being able to connect to the academic\business networks. The students do have a wireless network which depending on the campus implementation of their wifi shouldn't have problems with linux.
The proceeds from the sale of the buildings will be spent on that fiscal year to close any gaps in the budget. There wont be any left over money so where are they getting the rent money from? Where are they going to get the money to buy them back in a few years? The money is gone and can only be made back thru taxes they collect. Which obviously are not enough.
As you say its enough to help get some cash on hand to pay the bills but for only that year. If they are dumping the proceeds from the sale into the current budget then the money is gone. You kind of contradict yourself saying that they will be using the money to pay rent and have something to start with to buy the buildings back but they are doing this to pay off their current debt. The fact is though they wont have a dime of that money left over in a year if they do pay their debts with this money. Kind of a catch 22 I would say.
Thats why it only partially makes sense to me. Its nothing but a loss.
It seems to me this sounds like a bs accounting scheme. Kinda similiar how a few states say its cheaper to keep a murderer in prison for life then it is to execute him within a few years. Its looks great in the short term but in the long run it costs much more.
It just sounds really stupid to me. I can understand trying to get some money to make ends meet but this whole deal makes me scratch my head.
Personally though im of the mind that if something was created in the academic world it should be fair game for everyone not looking to make money because our tax money partially paid for it. Anything innovated for profit from said copyright should at least acknowledge and pay something to the original inventor. You take public funds and you'd better be willing to give that item, idea or whatever to those that funded it. The public. They couldn't of made it otherwise.
As an example my boss has meetings nearly every day, some all day meetings. She rarely comes back and talks about what was mentioned in the meetings but none of it is ever useful or changes things for the better. This has gone on for almost 8 years now.
Ive been to a few of those meetings as well and more then half of the meeting is the women talking about their family, some other pointless crap or kissing the ass of the higher up boss. The other half is them asking what did we do last meeting and asking questions that should be answered but never do because "Ill have to check on that" is the typical response. The meetings are nothing more then a waste of time.
I pretty much govern myself except when my boss feels the need to make herself look good and rushes me through a project just so she can brag about how quickly something was done...
Maybe its because I work in higher education or because 75% of the management here are women who would rather play social games with each other.