On one hand, I understand (and largely agree with) the various concerns about algorithm-izing students, grade inflation, and using the money directly to fund teachers. Our public education system has a shit-ton of critical P1 bugs.

However. On the other hand, I'm reminded to Neal Stephenson's "Diamond Age" interactive primer. First, the manifestation from the book is clearly not the initial beta version; some lengthy amount of revision and improvement would clearly be necessary to achieve the level of sophistication presented in the storyline. As such, Gates' initial investment along these lines could be a key first step down this path. Second, the manifestation from the book demonstrates a clear power over educational thought that is conveyed by the approach -- that is, if creating an algorithm for more effective education WAS attainable, then it would be an algorithm which could single-handedly influence entire generations* down a path of compliance with, or rejection of, status quo systems.

* This technology would also likely be available only to the elites with money to fund it, at least initially. Perhaps GNU GPL versions would surface over time. Given the power over educational philosophy, would the developers have to be thoroughly licensed in the educational system first? With versions of the software that are considered with the same distaste as allowing middle-schoolers to read Hunter S Thompson?

I think this could be really big; their task is really quite hard. First they have to suss out the meaning of the sentence, and ideally the cadence, in order to hold back until the right moment. Then they have to figure out where their addition can be legitimately inserted; not just any opening will suffice. Their biggest risk now is if they release prematurely; the timing is key and they don't want to blow it.

I'm near Seattle in the moment, and TFA cites a presentation in Portland in June. I may just have to go down.

First of all, well put. :-)

That having been said, many don't have a fax #, don't leave a tab open to Twitter, don't keep Skype running, don't have a blog, rarely check LinkedIn due to steady job and deadlines, don't quite recall what jabber is. Personally, I monitor my work email (ActiveSync + Android TouchDown) like a hawk, and phone / SMS make their noises well enough, but everything else can wait until I get around to it.

Besides which, I guarantee* you can talk faster than you can type, and for a larger thread there's never a need to click "get latest mail" rapid-fire for 5 minutes to make sure you keep the conversation from branching. Being "on location" offers the same benefits as visiting a good friend versus just calling or emailing them -- clearer communication, better teamwork, more sharing of miscellaneous knowledge and ideas. I prefer to work from home occasionally, but mostly when I'm in the middle of a lengthy task and want to avoid interruptions, and can more or less skip my meetings for the day.

And let's face it. If you're valuable enough to your boss, if you over-deliver / deliver early / solve your boss' problems reliably enough, strongly contribute at meetings when dialed in, and never* ever* slip up due to being off-site, then it will be in your boss' best interests to let you work from home whenever you please. Those who excel, usually get more.

* Yeah yeah, I know. Work with me here.

You make a very convincing argument, and your self-fulfillment has enabled others to follow in your footsteps. And for this, I thank you.