Originally posted by Les Kern
You can be sure that the technology to be used in those schools will NOT be Apple.
It's not true as it's not for technology. You'd know that if you spent one SECOND looking into the story instead of spouting the "company line". I'll challenge you to find out what the money is for. [/B]
*ahem*
Grants and gifts from the foundation have an outward appearance of support for districts and schools, either in building them or supporting their causes. The unwritten inference is that the classroom technology and backbone support of that technology will be Microsoft driven.
I've seen this first hand and I know of what I speak, with a 25 million dollar foundation grant at my district. It was connected directly with the understanding that certain employees at high levels would continue their employment with the district, and not so blatently stated but witnessed nonetheless was a flurry of activity soon afterwards related to wide scale implementaion of Microsoft standards, software and support contracts.
I would be a heartless fool to openly bash Bill's generousity and obvious passion for his causes. All I stated was "You can be sure that the technology to be used in those schools will NOT be Apple." It's simply a statement, not spouting a "company line". Neither am I rasing a red flag, warning everyone to "Watch out! Bill is taking over the world, starting with our children! The sky is falling, it's a cover up!"
Bill's foundation is a tremendous asset to whomever it touches. All I'm saying is that with such amounts of money, back room "understandings" between parties are not uncommon. So I stand by my apparently controversial, uninformed "party line" statement.
