Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Link to Original Source
1. Lost/Stolen devices. Who pays for replacements? Why?
Did not happen to any degree (I don't recall hearing about any but it might have happened). The kids loved the laptops. They "grew up" and treated them as their most precious possession. We did not require them to take out insurance, just replaced from our stock.
2. Damaged systems that need replacement. Who pays? Why?
Happened very rarely. Couple of LCD screens got banged up (closing lid hard with pencil in the joint was the leading cause). Replaced the unit immediately (kid just exchanged at the repair room). We had a cheap source to replace the LCD (vendor set us up with their repair contractor). So no one paid anything.
3. Virus infections and such. What's the turn-around time on support for those? Will the school have extras to loan while they "clean" the students' machines?
Had Mac computers and no virus problems (don't hate me, it was true). We had replacements not loaners so all your data had to be on the server at all times. Any problem with the computer was dealt with by taking in the problem unit and replacing with one from stock. Then offline repairing the turned in unit.
4. Upgrade policy. Will the freshman class have better equipment than the senior class?
These started out as the units just replaced by a slightly faster model. Everyone in all classes got their computers from the same larger stock. All grades turned in their computers at year end and got a "different" unit the next year. But all the same model and style. For what you do with the laptop the fastest and latest is unnecessary. The plan was to replace them after three years with a new batch.
And so forth.
Throwing tech at a non-tech problem is stupid. And tech gets old really fast. And tech needs expensive support.
We had one adult in the exchange room during the day. The best techie student became the person that re-imaged devices (which was the first line of "repair"). And then any true damage was sent out for repair. 900 students with laptops. One person and a volunteer. The only crunch came before the year to image 900 units in a short period of time, but that is where we used adult volunteers and teaching staff in the summer for a week or so.
If anyone is truly interested I can share more details (I would need to look up some of the details, for example the number of extra computers we had in the tech room). Many parents were convinced their child could not be trusted (and many in the community were sure that these juvenile delinquents would immediately steal us blind). But other schools experiences mirrored what we saw. Very low incidents of any problems, these kids really rose to the occasion.
Conducted by Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel in 1972, it has proven to be a solid predicator of success in life and is used by elite preschools to screen their young candidates.
Now, a new study has shown that the ability to delay gratification for adults can also predict credit scores, arguably a metric of financial success in the United States.
Professors Stephan Meier of Columbia University and Charles Sprenger of Stanford University recruited 437 low-to-moderate income people in Boston for an experiment.
Each was asked whether he prefers smaller, more immediate rewards versus larger, more distant awards. The professors found that those who opted for the larger, more distant awards also happened to have better credit scores."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
it's not ok to yell fire in a packed movie theater room
The concept here is that yelling fire in a packed movie theater creates a "clear and present danger". It is clear that yelling it will cause people to run for their lives, and it is present in that people will react before cooler heads can put things into perspective. With a book, the reader has plenty of time to consider the consequences of their actions. So no, I don't think it spills over into books.
Also note the "clear and present danger" test was replaced in 1969 with "imminent lawless action" which is more strict.
Personally I don't believe in charity. You can't just throw money on social problems and have them magically disappear
You seem to think charities exist only to help the poor. With that in mind, many, many people will fall upon hard times at some point in their life and need assistance from others. Apparently you would rather they die off than help them out for a while until they get back on their feet.
Aside from helping the poor, charities also exist to:
- Reduce the spread of infections diseases.
- Help people recover from disasters (i.e. Red Cross).
- Provide grants to help people get an education.
- Operate museums to preserve history and spread knowledge.
- Fund medical research.
- Provide role models for children to help make up for poor parenting (Big Brothers, Big Sisters).
- Stop the government from overstepping its bounds (i.e. EFF, ACLU, NRA)
- and many other things...