Career Research Teachers Help Students Learn New Things...

Madeline Vagnoni April 11, 2017 Period: 6 Career Research Paper Teachers help students learn new things everyday. Some of today s brightest minds would not be where there are today if it was not for teachers. Teaching varies from teaching kindergarten students all the way up to college students. Some of the tasks that teachers complete are creating lesson plans, grading assignments, teach communication skills, and teaching lessons. There are a number of educational requirements that people need to meet to become a teacher. They need at least four years of college, and a bachelor s degree is required in elementary education. After a person gets their teaching degree, some states also require a master s degree. Most elementary†¦show more content†¦Teachers may need to complete work over the summer for the upcoming school year (Benefits of Becoming a Teacher | Top Perks of Being a Teacher.). The outlook for teaching is expected to grow. The growth of employment of kindergarten and elementary school teachers is predicte d to increase six percent from 2014 to 2024. The increase is due to the growth in student enrollment (Job Outlook). A typical day as a teacher requires a number of tasks to be completed. Teachers need to prepare for class, and this can take up a good portion of their day. One of the tasks that teachers need to complete is lesson planning. Another thing that teachers need to do to get ready for class is thinking about tomorrow s lectures. This basically means thinking about what he or she wants to talk to the students about in class. Teachers typically need to think think up some discussion questions to ask their students. One of the last important things teachers need to do to prepare for class is setting up the classroom, which is making sure that the room is tidy and clean. It is a good idea for teachers to think of some creative activities for the students to do so that they can Vagnoni Three better learn the material(What Teachers Do Every Day. ). As a profession, teachers teach kids new information everyday. Teachers also need to grade their studentsShow MoreRelatedMaria Montessori Education Essay1052 Words   |  5 Pagesextremely unusual for an Italian woman during her time. In†¯the†¯19th†¯century there was much controversy on whether children belonged in the work field or in the classroom. Based on their families†¯social class†¯a child would either go work at factories to help their family make money, or go to school to get a basic education. In the mid 19th†¯century some European countries outlawed sending young children to work in factories in an attempt to promote general education for all children regardless of economicRead MoreEssay on The Powerful Impact of Technology on Education1095 Words   |  5 Pageshas also been a blessing to some teachers; giving them more time and helping them find a unique new way to teach their students. Computers can be found in almost every single classroom and children as young as 4 years old have been taught the basic skills on the computer. Funding and new programs for computer teaching have come a long way. In the next few years, hopefully every child will have access to learning all sorts of new concepts on the computer. Several new institutes have arisen that focusRead MoreUse and Importance of Computers in Education Essay1639 Words   |  7 PagesUse and Importance of Computers in Education Many technological advances have been made throughout history making life easier, one of which is the computer. Computers have changed the world, as a lot of things can now be done through computers. Computers are everywhere at school, at work, and at home. Many daily activities either involve the use of or depend on information from a computer. Over the past decade, the number of schools with computer and the Internet access has grown exponentiallyRead MoreStrengths And Weaknesses Of A Good Teacher1505 Words   |  7 PagesTeachers come in all different shapes and sizes. The way someone shows up in the classroom, as a teacher, is associated with how they show up in their ordinary, everyday life. Which is to say, there are as many different teachers as there are different personalities in the world. Many factors contribute to an effective teacher, including the teaching approach, classroom presence, and capability for creativity. What Is a Good Teacher? Everyone may have their own idea of what a good teacher isRead MoreEssay on My Educational Goals and Philosophy Statement1439 Words   |  6 PagesThis philosophy not only teaches the core subject material, but it also allows the teacher to help develop the person the child is going to be. John Dewey, founder of progressivism, denounced the scholarly and classical school of curriculum. Dewey thought children should not be taught what to think but how to think through a continuous reconstruction of experience. This implies that children learn best when they do hands on activities, therefore, they are learning by doing. TheseRead MoreTypes Of Techniques Used By Different Learners1660 Words   |  7 Pagesthe results of the students. These techniques relate to the character of the learner and thus making studying easier and more enjoyable. There are in total seventy one learning styles, but four are identified at school level: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic and read-and-write. After taking the Learning style assessment task, I was placed in the auditory learning style, I was unsure about this style of learning because I have not learnt in auditory ways throughout my learning career, but as I read throughRead MoreExamples Of Web 2. 01205 Words   |  5 Pagesthe way we deliver information to students (Discover Kids). In the way content should be delivered to students. Ways that teachers can disseminate information includes: flipping the classroom, providing information and videos to the students that they can watch at home (Discover Kids). While in the classroom, the students will be working on the actual work and doing the project. Not having lectures during the actual class time. This allows students to not only learn in the classroom but outside asRead MoreHome School Has Become a Popular Way of Education1018 Words   |  5 Pageschoose to home school their children. Even though it has been said that the drop-out rate is higher than in public schools , it has been proven by the NHERI (National Home Education Research Institute) that home schooled children have a higher success rate for college education. NHERI conducts, collects and provides research on homeschooling and publishes the information in the Home School Researcher Journal. Home schooling has become very popular and some people believe that it provides a better educationRead MoreThe Impact of Sociological Theories in Education1674 Words   |  7 Pagesimportant part of a person’s life. Without a good education people would struggle in everyday life just to be able to get by. There are three theories that help understand education. Even though most people feel theories are just someone’s opinions, education has many different theories that support it because these theories help people understand education better and these theories are all different but yet they help identify what education really is. The three theories that are important for peopleRead More Visual Learning Style as Perceived by DLSL Education Students1337 Words   |  5 Pages(S.D.Fliess, 2009) Visual learners are those who learn things best through seeing them. Visual learners often prefer to sit in the front of the class and watch the lecture closely, because in this manner they see visual clearly so they understand and remember lessons. Visual aids such as maps, graph, pictures and colorful outline are the effective tools that can be used by teacher to accommodate students that are visual learners. Often, these students will find that confusing information makes more

Why Software Should Be Free Free Essays

Why Software Should Be Free by Richard Stallman (Version of April 24, 1992) Introduction The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how decisions about its use should be made. For example, suppose one individual who has a copy of a program meets another who would like a copy. It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party, called the â€Å"owner†? Software developers typically consider these questions on the assumption that the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers’ profits. We will write a custom essay sample on Why Software Should Be Free or any similar topic only for you Order Now The political power of business has led to the government adoption of both this criterion and the answer proposed by the developers: that the program has an owner, typically a corporation associated with its development. I would like to consider the same question using a different criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general. This answer cannot be decided by current law–the law should conform to ethics, not the other way around. Nor does current practice decide this question, although it may suggest possible answers. The only way to judge is to see who is helped and who is hurt by recognizing owners of software, why, and how much. In other words, we should perform a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of society as a whole, taking account of individual freedom as well as production of material goods. In this essay, I will describe the effects of having owners, and show that the results are detrimental. My conclusion is that programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study, and improve the software we write: in other words, to write â€Å"free† software. 1) How Owners Justify Their Power Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the emotional argument and the economic argument. The emotional argument goes like this: â€Å"I put my sweat, my heart, my soul into this program. It comes from me, it’s mine! † This argument does not require serious refutation. The feeli ng of attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them; it is not inevitable. Consider, for example, how willingly the same programmers sually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a salary; the emotional attachment mysteriously vanishes. By contrast, consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn’t even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist was not important. What mattered was that the work was done–and the purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of years. The economic argument goes like this: â€Å"I want to get rich (usually described inaccurately as `making a living’), and if you don’t allow me to get rich by programming, then I won’t program. Everyone else is like me, so nobody will ever program. And then you’ll be stuck with no programs at all! † This threat is usually veiled as friendly advice from the wise. I’ll explain later why this threat is a bluff. First I want to address an implicit assumption that is more visible in another formulation of the argument. This formulation starts by comparing the social utility of a proprietary program with that of no program, and then concludes that proprietary software development is, on the whole, beneficial, and should be encouraged. The fallacy here is in comparing only two outcomes–proprietary software vs. no software–and assuming there are no other possibilities. Given a system of software copyright, software development is usually linked with the existence of an owner who controls the software’s use. As long as this linkage exists, we are often faced with the choice of proprietary software or none. However, this linkage is not inherent or inevitable; it is a consequence of the specific social/legal policy decision that we are questioning: the decision to have owners. To formulate the choice as between proprietary software vs. no software is begging the question. The Argument against Having Owners The question at hand is, â€Å"Should development of software be linked with having owners to restrict the use of it? † In order to decide this, we have to judge the effect on society of each of those two activities independently: the effect of developing the software (regardless of its terms of distribution), and the effect of restricting its use (assuming the software has been developed). If one of these activities is helpful and the other is harmful, we would be better off dropping the linkage and doing only the helpful one. To put it another way, if restricting the distribution of a program already developed is harmful to society overall, then an ethical software developer will reject the option of doing so. To determine the effect of restricting sharing, we need to compare the value to society of a restricted (i. e. , proprietary) program with that of the same program, available to everyone. This means comparing two possible worlds. This analysis also addresses the simple counterargument sometimes made that â€Å"the benefit to the neighbor of giving him or her a copy of a program is cancelled by the harm done to the owner. † This counterargument assumes that the harm and the benefit are equal in magnitude. The analysis involves comparing these magnitudes, and shows that the benefit is much greater. To elucidate this argument, let’s apply it in another area: road construction. It would be possible to fund the construction of all roads with tolls. This would entail having toll booths at all street corners. Such a system would provide a great incentive to improve roads. It would also have the virtue of causing the users of any given road to pay for that road. However, a toll booth is an artificial obstruction to smooth driving-artificial, because it is not a consequence of how roads or cars work. Comparing free roads and toll roads by their usefulness, we find that (all else being equal) roads without toll booths are cheaper to construct, cheaper to run, safer, and more efficient to use. 2) In a poor country, tolls may make the roads unavailable to many citizens. The roads without toll booths thus offer more benefit to society at less cost; they are preferable for society. Therefore, society should choose to fund roads in another way, not by means of toll booths. Use of roads, once built, should be free. When the advocates of toll booths propose them as merely a way of raising funds, they distort the choice that is available. T oll booths do raise funds, but they do something else as well: in effect, they degrade the road. The toll road is not as good as the free road; giving us more or technically superior roads may not be an improvement if this means substituting toll roads for free roads. Of course, the construction of a free road does cost money, which the public must somehow pay. However, this does not imply the inevitability of toll booths. We who must in either case pay will get more value for our money by buying a free road. I am not saying that a toll road is worse than no road at all. That would be true if the toll were so great that hardly anyone used the road–but this is an unlikely policy for a toll collector. However, as long as the toll booths cause significant waste and inconvenience, it is better to raise the funds in a less obstructive fashion. To apply the same argument to software development, I will now show that having â€Å"toll booths† for useful software programs costs society dearly: it makes the programs more expensive to construct, more expensive to distribute, and less satisfying and efficient to use. It will follow that program construction should be encouraged in some other way. Then I will go on to explain other methods of encouraging and (to the extent actually necessary) funding software development. The Harm Done by Obstructing Software Consider for a moment that a program has been developed, and any necessary payments for its development have been made; now society must choose either to make it proprietary or allow free sharing and use. Assume that the existence of the program and its availability is a desirable thing. (3) Restrictions on the distribution and modification of the program cannot facilitate its use. They can only interfere. So the effect can only be negative. But how much? And what kind? Three different levels of material harm come from such obstruction: †¢ †¢ †¢ Fewer people use the program. None of the users can adapt or fix the program. Other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work on it. Each level of material harm has a concomitant form of psychosocial harm. This refers to the effect that people’s decisions have on their subsequent feelings, attitudes, and predispositions. These changes in people’s ways of thinking will then have a further effect on their relationships with their fellow citizens, and can have material consequences. The three levels of material harm waste part of the value that the program could contribute, but they cannot reduce it to zero. If they waste nearly all the value of the program, then writing the program harms society by at most the effort that went into writing the program. Arguably a program that is profitable to sell must provide some net direct material benefit. However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do. Obstructing Use of Programs The first level of harm impedes the simple use of a program. A copy of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero price. A license fee is a significant disincentive to use the program. If a widely-useful program is proprietary, far fewer people will use it. It is easy to show that the total contribution of a program to society is reduced by assigning an owner to it. Each potential user of the program, faced with the need to pay to use it, may choose to pay, or may forego use of the program. When a user chooses to pay, this is a zero-sum transfer of wealth between two parties. But each time someone chooses to forego use of the program, this harms that person without benefitting anyone. The sum of negative numbers and zeros must be negative. But this does not reduce the amount of work it takes to develop the program. As a result, the efficiency of the whole process, in delivered user satisfaction per hour of work, is reduced. This reflects a crucial difference between copies of programs and cars, chairs, or sandwiches. There is no copying machine for material objects outside of science fiction. But programs are easy to copy; anyone can produce as many copies as are wanted, with very little effort. This isn’t true for material objects because matter is conserved: each new copy has to be built from raw materials in the same way that the first copy was built. With material objects, a disincentive to use them makes sense, because fewer objects bought means less raw material and work needed to make them. It’s true that there is usually also a startup cost, a development cost, which is spread over the production run. But as long as the marginal cost of production is significant, adding a share of the development cost does not make a qualitative difference. And it does not require restrictions on the freedom of ordinary users. However, imposing a price on something that would otherwise be free is a qualitative change. A centrally-imposed fee for software distribution becomes a powerful disincentive. What’s more, central production as now practiced is inefficient even as a means of delivering copies of software. This system involves enclosing physical disks or tapes in superfluous packaging, shipping large numbers of them around the world, and storing them for sale. This cost is presented as an expense of doing business; in truth, it is part of the waste caused by having owners. Damaging Social Cohesion Suppose that both you and your neighbor would find it useful to run a certain program. In ethical concern for your neighbor, you should feel that proper handling of the situation will enable both of you to use it. A proposal to permit only one of you to use the program, while restraining the other, is divisive; neither you nor your neighbor should find it acceptable. Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your neighbor: â€Å"I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I can have a copy for myself. † People who make such choices feel internal psychological pressure to justify them, by downgrading the importance of helping one’s neighbors–thus public spirit suffers. This is psychosocial harm associated with the material harm of discouraging use of the program. Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway. But they often feel guilty about doing so. They know that they must break the laws in order to be good neighbors, but they still consider the laws authoritative, and they conclude that being a good neighbor (which they are) is naughty or shameful. That is also a kind of psychosocial harm, but one can escape it by deciding that these licenses and laws have no moral force. Programmers also suffer psychosocial harm knowing that many users will not be allowed to use their work. This leads to an attitude of cynicism or denial. A programmer may describe enthusiastically the work that he finds technically exciting; then when asked, â€Å"Will I be permitted to use it? †, his face falls, and he admits the answer is no. To avoid feeling discouraged, he either ignores this fact most of the time or adopts a cynical stance designed to minimize the importance of it. Since the age of Reagan, the greatest scarcity in the United States is not technical innovation, but rather the willingness to work together for the public good. It makes no sense to encourage the former at the expense of the latter. Obstructing Custom Adaptation of Programs The second level of material harm is the inability to adapt programs. The ease of modification of software is one of its great advantages over older technology. But most commercially available software isn’t available for modification, even after you buy it. It’s available for you to take it or leave it, as a black box–that is all. A program that you can run consists of a series of numbers whose meaning is obscure. No one, not even a good programmer, can easily change the numbers o make the program do something different. Programmers normally work with the â€Å"source code† for a program, which is written in a programming language such as Fortran or C. It uses names to designate the data being used and the parts of the program, and it represents operations with symbols such as `+’ for addition and `-‘ for subtraction. It is design ed to help programmers read and change programs. Here is an example; a program to calculate the distance between two points in a plane: float distance (p0, p1) struct point p0, p1; { float xdist = p1. x – p0. x; float ydist = p1. y – p0. ; return sqrt (xdist * xdist + ydist * ydist); } Here is the same program in executable form, on the computer I normally use: 1314258944 1411907592 -234880989 1644167167 572518958 -232267772 -231844736 -234879837 -3214848 -803143692 -231844864 2159150 -234879966 1090581031 1314803317 1634862 1420296208 -232295424 1962942495 Source code is useful (at least potentially) to every user of a program. But most users are not allowed to have copies of the source code. Usually the source code for a proprietary program is kept secret by the owner, lest anybody else learn something from it. Users receive only the files of incomprehensible numbers that the computer will execute. This means that only the program’s owner can change the program. A friend once told me of working as a programmer in a bank for about six months, writing a program similar to something that was commercially available. She believed that if she could have gotten source code for that commercially available program, it could easily have been adapted to their needs. The bank was willing to pay for this, but was not permitted to–the source code was a secret. So she had to do six months of make-work, work that counts in the GNP but was actually waste. The MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab (AI Lab) received a graphics printer as a gift from Xerox around 1977. It was run by free software to which we added many convenient features. For example, the software would notify a user immediately on completion of a print job. Whenever the printer had trouble, such as a paper jam or running out of paper, the software would immediately notify all users who had print jobs queued. These features facilitated smooth operation. Later Xerox gave the AI Lab a newer, faster printer, one of the first laser printers. It was driven by proprietary software that ran in a separate dedicated computer, so we couldn’t add any of our favorite features. We could arrange to send a notification when a print job was sent to the dedicated computer, but not when the job was actually printed (and the delay was usually considerable). There was no way to find out when the job was actually printed; you could only guess. And no one was informed when there was a paper jam, so the printer often went for an hour without being fixed. The system programmers at the AI Lab were capable of fixing such problems, probably as capable as the original authors of the program. Xerox was uninterested in fixing them, and chose to prevent us, so we were forced to accept the problems. They were never fixed. Most good programmers have experienced this frustration. The bank could afford to solve the problem by writing a new program from scratch, but a typical user, no matter how skilled, can only give up. Giving up causes psychosocial harm–to the spirit of self-reliance. It is demoralizing to live in a house that you cannot rearrange to suit your needs. It leads to resignation and discouragement, which can spread to affect other aspects of one’s life. People who feel this way are unhappy and do not do good work. Imagine what it would be like if recipes were hoarded in the same fashion as software. You might say, â€Å"How do I change this recipe to take out the salt? † and the great chef would respond, â€Å"How dare you insult my recipe, the child of my brain and my palate, by trying to tamper with it? You don’t have the judgment to change my recipe and make it work right! † â€Å"But my doctor says I’m not supposed to eat salt! What can I do? Will you take out the salt for me? ‘ â€Å"I would be glad to do that; my fee is only $50,000. † Since the owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large. â€Å"However, right now I don’t have time. I am busy with a commission to design a new recipe for ship’s biscuit for the Navy Department. I might get around to you in about two years. † Obstructing Software Development The third level of material harm affects software development. Software development used to be an evolutionary process, where a person would take an existing program and rewrite parts of it for one new feature, and then another person would rewrite parts to add nother feature; in some cases, this continued over a period of twenty years. Meanwhile, parts of the program would be â€Å"cannibalized† to form the beginnings of other programs. The existence of owners prevents this kind of evolution, making it necessary to start from scratch when developing a program. It also prevents new practitioners from studying existing programs to learn useful techniques or even how large programs can be structured. Owners also obstruct education. I have met bright students in computer science who have never seen the source code of a large program. They may be good at writing small programs, but they can’t begin to learn the different skills of writing large ones if they can’t see how others have done it. In any intellectual field, one can reach greater heights by standing on the shoulders of others. But that is no longer generally allowed in the software field–you can only stand on the shoulders of the other people in your own company. The associated psychosocial harm affects the spirit of scientific cooperation, which used to be so strong that scientists would cooperate even when their countries were at war. In this spirit, Japanese oceanographers abandoning their lab on an island in the Pacific carefully preserved their work for the invading U. S. Marines, and left a note asking them to take good care of it. Conflict for profit has destroyed what international conflict spared. Nowadays scientists in many fields don’t publish enough in their papers to enable others to replicate the experiment. They publish only enough to let readers marvel at how much they were able to do. This is certainly true in computer science, where the source code for the programs reported on is usually secret. It Does Not Matter How Sharing Is Restricted I have been discussing the effects of preventing people from copying, changing, and building on a program. I have not specified how this obstruction is carried out, because that doesn’t affect the conclusion. Whether it is done by copy protection, or copyright, or licenses, or encryption, or ROM cards, or hardware serial numbers, if it succeeds in preventing use, it does harm. Users do consider some of these methods more obnoxious than others. I suggest that the methods most hated are those that accomplish their objective. Software Should be Free I have shown how ownership of a program–the power to restrict changing or copying it–is obstructive. Its negative effects are widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn’t have owners for programs. Another way to understand this is that what society needs is free software, and proprietary software is a poor substitute. Encouraging the substitute is not a rational way to get what we need. Vaclav Havel has advised us to â€Å"Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed. ‘ A business making proprietary software stands a chance of success in its own narrow terms, but it is not what is good for society. Why People Will Develop Software If we eliminate copyright as a means of encouraging people to develop software, at first less software will be developed, but that software will be more useful. It is not clear whether the overall delivered user satisfaction will be less; but if it is , or if we wish to increase it anyway, there are other ways to encourage development, just as there are ways besides toll booths to raise money for streets. Before I talk about how that can be done, first I want to question how much artificial encouragement is truly necessary. Programming is Fun There are some lines of work that few will enter except for money; road construction, for example. There are other fields of study and art in which there is little chance to become rich, which people enter for their fascination or their perceived value to society. Examples include mathematical logic, classical music, and archaeology; and political organizing among working people. People compete, more sadly than bitterly, for the few funded positions available, none of which is funded very well. They may even pay for the chance to work in the field, if they can afford to. Such a field can transform itself overnight if it begins to offer the possibility of getting rich. When one worker gets rich, others demand the same opportunity. Soon all may demand large sums of money for doing what they used to do for pleasure. When another couple of years go by, everyone connected with the field will deride the idea that work would be done in the field without large financial returns. They will advise social planners to ensure that these returns are possible, prescribing special privileges, powers, and monopolies as necessary to do so. This change happened in the field of computer programming in the past decade. Fifteen years ago, there were articles on â€Å"computer addiction†: users were â€Å"onlining† and had hundred-dollar-a-week habits. It was generally understood that people frequently loved programming enough to break up their marriages. Today, it is generally understood that no one would program except for a high rate of pay. People have forgotten what they knew fifteen years ago. When it is true at a given time that most people will work in a certain field only for high pay, it need not remain true. The dynamic of change can run in reverse, if society provides an impetus. If we take away the possibility of great wealth, then after a while, when the people have readjusted their attitudes, they will once again be eager to work in the field for the joy of accomplishment. The question, â€Å"How can we pay programmers? † becomes an easier question when we realize that it’s not a matter of paying them a fortune. A mere living is easier to raise. Funding Free Software Institutions that pay programmers do not have to be software houses. Many other institutions already exist that can do this. Hardware manufacturers find it essential to support software development even if they cannot control the use of the software. In 1970, much of their software was free because they did not consider restricting it. Today, their increasing willingness to join consortiums shows their realization that owning the software is not what is really important for them. Universities conduct many programming projects. Today they often sell the results, but in the 1970s they did not. Is there any doubt that universities would develop free software if they were not allowed to sell software? These projects could be supported by the same government contracts and grants that now support proprietary software development. It is common today for university researchers to get grants to develop a system, develop it nearly to the point of completion and call that â€Å"finished†, and then start companies where they really finish the project and make it usable. Sometimes they declare the unfinished version â€Å"free†; if they are thoroughly corrupt, they instead get an exclusive license from the university. This is not a secret; it is openly admitted by everyone concerned. Yet if the researchers were not exposed to the temptation to do these things, they would still do their research. Programmers writing free software can make their living by selling services related to the software. I have been hired to port the GNU C compiler to new hardware, and to make user-interface extensions to GNU Emacs. (I offer these improvements to the public once they are done. I also teach classes for which I am paid. I am not alone in working this way; there is now a successful, growing corporation which does no other kind of work. Several other companies also provide commercial support for the free software of the GNU system. This is the beginning of the independent software support industry–an industry that could become quite large if free sof tware becomes prevalent. It provides users with an option generally unavailable for proprietary software, except to the very wealthy. New institutions such as the Free Software Foundation can also fund programmers. Most of the Foundation’s funds come from users buying tapes through the mail. The software on the tapes is free, which means that every user has the freedom to copy it and change it, but many nonetheless pay to get copies. (Recall that â€Å"free software† refers to freedom, not to price. ) Some users who already have a copy order tapes as a way of making a contribution they feel we deserve. The Foundation also receives sizable donations from computer manufacturers. The Free Software Foundation is a charity, and its income is spent on hiring as many programmers as possible. If it had been set up as a business, distributing the same free software to the public for the same fee, it would now provide a very good living for its founder. Because the Foundation is a charity, programmers often work for the Foundation for half of what they could make elsewhere. They do this because we are free of bureaucracy, and because they feel satisfaction in knowing that their work will not be obstructed from use. Most of all, they do it because programming is fun. In addition, volunteers have written many useful programs for us. (Even technical writers have begun to volunteer. This confirms that programming is among the most fascinating of all fields, along with music and art. We don’t have to fear that no one will want to program. What Do Users Owe to Developers? There is a good reason for users of software to feel a moral obligation to contribute to its support. Developers of free software are contributing to the users’ activities, and it is both fair and in the long-term interest of the users to give them funds to continue. However, this does not apply to proprietary software developers, since obstructionism deserves a punishment rather than reward. We thus have a paradox: the developer of useful software is entitled to the support of the users, but any attempt to turn this moral obligation into a requirement destroys the basis for the obligation. A developer can either deserve a reward or demand it, but not both. I believe that an ethical developer faced with this paradox must act so as to deserve the reward, but should also entreat the users for voluntary donations. Eventually the users will learn to support developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public radio and television stations. What Is Software Productivity? If software were free, there would still be programmers, but perhaps fewer of them. Would this be bad for society? Not necessarily. Today the advanced nations have fewer farmers than in 1900, but we do not think this is bad for society, because the few deliver more food to the consumers than the many used to do. We call this improved productivity. Free software would require far fewer programmers to satisfy the demand, because of increased software productivity at all levels: †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ Wider use of each program that is developed. The ability to adapt existing programs for customization instead of starting from scratch. Better education of programmers. The elimination of duplicate development effort. Those who object to cooperation claiming it would result in the employment of fewer programmers are actually objecting to increased productivity. Yet these people usually accept the widely-held belief that the software industry needs increased productivity. How is this? â€Å"Software productivity† can mean two different things: the overall productivity of all software development, or the productivity of individual projects. Overall productivity is what society would like to improve, and the most straightforward way to do this is to eliminate the artificial obstacles to cooperation which reduce it. But researchers who study the field of â€Å"software productivity† focus only on the second, limited, sense of the term, where improvement requires difficult technological advances. Is Competition Inevitable? Is it inevitable that people will try to compete, to surpass their rivals in society? Perhaps it is. But competition itself is not harmful; the harmful thing is combat. There are many ways to compete. Competition can consist of trying to achieve ever more, to outdo what others have done. For example, in the old days, there was competition among programming wizards–competition for who could make the computer do the most amazing thing, or for who could make the shortest or fastest program for a given task. This kind of competition can benefit everyone, as long as the spirit of good sportsmanship is maintained. Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to great efforts. A number of people are competing to be the first to have visited all the countries on Earth; some even spend fortunes trying to do this. But they do not bribe ship captains to strand their rivals on desert islands. They are content to let the best person win. Competition becomes combat when the competitors begin trying to impede each other instead of advancing themselves–when â€Å"Let the best person win† gives way to â€Å"Let me win, best or not. † Proprietary software is harmful, not because it is a form of competition, but because it is a form of combat among the citizens of our society. Competition in business is not necessarily combat. For example, when two grocery stores compete, their entire effort is to improve their own operations, not to sabotage the rival. But this does not demonstrate a special commitment to business ethics; rather, there is little scope for combat in this line of business short of physical violence. Not all areas of business share this characteristic. Withholding information that could help everyone advance is a form of combat. Business ideology does not prepare people to resist the temptation to combat the competition. Some forms of combat have been banned with anti-trust laws, truth in advertising laws, and so on, but rather than generalizing this to a principled rejection of combat in general, executives invent other forms of combat which are not specifically prohibited. Society’s resources are squandered on the economic equivalent of factional civil war. â€Å"Why Don’t You Move to Russia? † In the United States, any advocate of other than the most extreme form of laissezfaire selfishness has often heard this accusation. For example, it is leveled against the supporters of a national health care system, such as is found in all the other industrialized nations of the free world. It is leveled against the advocates of public support for the arts, also universal in advanced nations. The idea that citizens have any obligation to the public good is identified in America with Communism. But how similar are these ideas? Communism as was practiced in the Soviet Union was a system of central control where all activity was regimented, supposedly for the common good, but actually for the sake of the members of the Communist party. And where copying equipment was closely guarded to prevent illegal copying. The American system of software copyright exercises central control over distribution of a program, and guards copying equipment with automatic copying-protection schemes to prevent illegal copying. By contrast, I am working to build a system where people are free to decide their own actions; in particular, free to help their neighbors, and free to alter and improve the tools which they use in their daily lives. A system based on voluntary cooperation and on decentralization. Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists. The Question of Premises I make the assumption in this paper that a user of software is no less important than an author, or even an author’s employer. In other words, their interests and needs have equal weight, when we decide which course of action is best. This premise is not universally accepted. Many maintain that an author’s employer is fundamentally more important than anyone else. They say, for example, that the purpose of having owners of software is to give the author’s employer the advantage he deserves–regardless of how this may affect the public. It is no use trying to prove or disprove these premises. Proof requires shared premises. So most of what I have to say is addressed only to those who share the premises I use, or at least are interested in what their consequences are. For those who believe that the owners are more important than everyone else, this paper is simply irrelevant. But why would a large number of Americans accept a premise that elevates certain people in importance above everyone else? Partly because of the belief that this premise is part of the legal traditions of American society. Some people feel that doubting the premise means challenging the basis of society. It is important for these people to know that this premise is not part of our legal tradition. It never has been. Thus, the Constitution says that the purpose of copyright is to â€Å"promote the progress of science and the useful arts. ‘ The Supreme Court has elaborated on this, stating in `Fox Film vs. Doyal’ that â€Å"The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors. † We are not required to agree with the Constitution or th e Supreme Court. (At one time, they both condoned slavery. ) So their positions do not disprove the owner supremacy premise. But I hope that the awareness that this is a radical right-wing assumption rather than a traditionally recognized one will weaken its appeal. Conclusion We like to think that our society encourages helping your neighbor; but each time we reward someone for obstructionism, or admire them for the wealth they have gained in this way, we are sending the opposite message. Software hoarding is one form of our general willingness to disregard the welfare of society for personal gain. We can trace this disregard from Ronald Reagan to Jim Bakker, from Ivan Boesky to Exxon, from failing banks to failing schools. We can measure it with the size of the homeless population and the prison population. The antisocial spirit feeds on itself, because the more we see that other people will not help us, the more it seems futile to help them. Thus society decays into a jungle. If we don’t want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes. We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from others. I hope that the free software movement will contribute to this: at least in one area, we will replace the jungle with a more efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation. Footnotes 1. The word â€Å"free† in â€Å"free software† refers to freedom, not to price; the price paid for a copy of a free program may be zero, or small, or (rarely) quite large. 2. The issues of pollution and traffic congestion do not alter this conclusion. If we wish to make driving more expensive to discourage driving in general, it is disadvantageous to do this using toll booths, which contribute to both pollution and congestion. A tax on gasoline is much better. Likewise, a desire to enhance safety by limiting maximum speed is not relevant; a free-access road enhances the average speed by avoiding stops and delays, for any given speed limit. . One might regard a particular computer program as a harmful thing that should not be available at all, like the Lotus Marketplace database of personal information, which was withdrawn from sale due to public disapproval. Most of what I say does not apply to this case, but it makes little sense to argue for having an owner on the groun ds that the owner will make the program less available. The owner will not make it completely unavailable, as one would wish in the case of a program whose use is considered destructive. How to cite Why Software Should Be Free, Essay examples

Carrefours failure in Singapore free essay sample

In November 2012, France-based Carrefour SA (Carrefour), the second largest retailer in the world and the pioneer of the hypermarket concept in Singapore, closed down its two megastores in Suntec and Plaza Singapura, marking Carrefours exit from the Singapore retail market. According to the company’s statement, Carrefour Singapore had decided to quit, as â€Å"expansion and growth perspectives do not allow reaching a leadership position in the medium and long term†. Ho Sue Yuin A0088564N 2. 0 Complications faced by Carrefour in Singapore The main problems encountered by Carrefour while expanding its market in Singapore include low growth in sales, ambiguous consumer preference, limited space and loss of focus due to handling of main operations in Europe. 2. 1 Tough competition in a saturated market A hypermarket is a one-stop shop that combines a supermarket and department store and hence offers a wide range of products. As a pioneer of the hypermarkets in Singapore, Carrefour stores initially managed to attract customers who preferred convenience due to busy work schedules in this rapidly growing country. Singaporeans were excited to shop at a place that offered both groceries and general merchandise such as electronics and furniture under one roof. However, competitors from both local and neighboring regions started to emerge fiercely and began to overtake Carrefour. Giant, originally from Malaysia, opened its first store in Singapore in 2000 and currently has nine outlets; NTUC FairPrice, which entered the market in 2006 with strong governmental support, has five stores now. Besides, grocery retailers like Cold Storage and Shop and Save; electronic retailers like Courts and Best Denki gave Carrefour a tough time gaining market share. 2. 2 Consumer preference shifted towards convenience and price Carrefour was successful in attracting customers in the beginning due to its new concept in Singapore, but it faced difficulty in retaining them. As the hype died down and more local players emerged, customers started to have more contemplations when choosing from the various shopping options available. According to Sonya Madeira (Madeira), managing partner, Rice Communications, the main reason for Carrefours failure in Singapore was low product differentiation, Low product differentiation means that shoppers can get similar products quite easily elsewhere, and so make purchase decisions based on convenience and price. Indeed, as more choices became available, customers tended to be more sensitive towards convenience and price. Letty Lee, director of retail services at CB Richard Ellis, also pointed out that â€Å"the convenience of supermarkets in suburban malls added to Carrefour’s woes†. 2. 3 Restricted space for Carrefour operations and customers’ storage As a hypermarket, Carrefour required large area for its operations – typically ranging from 6,500 to 7,400 square meters. It failed to open more stores in Singapore due to lack of space and high population density; even when there was space available, Carrefour always lost out to the local players who had stronger ties with developers; and thus have more advantages in negotiations with regards to leases. As a result, Carrefour’s stores were located at the major real estate sites in the main shopping areas, which in turn incurred substantial cost in rental. In Europe, where Carrefour’s main operations were, consumers tend to shop less frequently and purchase in large quantities, as they have no issues in goods storage. On the other hand, in Singapore where space is at a premium, consumers shop more regularly and hence have a liking for neighborhood stores due to accessibility and proximity. It was too troublesome for them to travel to Carrefour located in the center of the city, with heavy traffic and high parking fees. 2. 4 Complicated management issues faced by parent company With the appointment of the new Chief Executive Officer of Carrefour SA in France, Mr. Georges Plassat, attempts were made to restructure Carrefour’s operations and concentrate on its European markets. As analyzed by Mr Plassat, Carrefour’s overexpansion had left it with â€Å"insufficient funds to invest at home. † Carrefour also found it arduous to administer the process from the sourcing to the delivery to the stores. The systems required to manage such procurements are extremely complicated, especially for products in the fashion area, where variation and uneven demand became the main struggles. Hence as a part of its recovery plan, Carrefour decided to pull out of some markets, including Singapore, to raise cash for the ailing parent company. Allan Chia, head of the marketing program at UniSIM’s School of Business, suggested that Carrefour’s move in Singapore would likely help it streamline its operations and focus on its European markets. 3. 0 Recommendations for internationalization International growth is a high-risk but high-reward proposition, and it is essential for the growth of the world’s leading retailers like Carrefour. This section analyses the strategies used by Carrefour Singapore to handle the challenges and reasons of failure. Lessons learnt and suggestions proposed are then included for the reference of future companies to avoid similar mistakes made by Carrefour in order to achieve success in international expansions. 3. 1 Adopt a clear differentiation strategy that distinguishes itself from the competitors Retail market in Singapore was highly saturated and dominated by local players with a formidable presence. Carrefours competitors were spread across the country with hundreds of stores. While the product assortment was similar to other retailers’, Carrefour did not offer any distinct exclusivity in the products and services it offered. The prices were also slightly higher than the local rivals. Carrefour tried to tap onto the existing consumer phenomenon, whereby foreign brands were perceived as of the higher quality products and were previously more preferred by the locals due to rising affluence and brand awareness. However, local rivals could easily copy this approach with the ease of accessible resources and network distributions available due to globalization. To overcome this issue, Carrefour should recognize the existence of threat posed by the local competitors who had more competitive advantages such as better understanding of the local markets, extensive network of suppliers and partners, etc. Carrefour had to find a way to stand out and be different, by gaining a good reputation in a specific area or due to qualities possessed, to be perceived as the unique and outstanding hypermarket where customers would prefer over the other retailers. For example, the ability to provide high quality products, to offer low prices, to deliver excellent and personalized customer service, etc. My recommendation in this section is for Carrefour to look into after-sales service, as changes in price and quality of the products brought in from Europe would require a lot of time and mass modifications, which makes it more challenging to adjust in short term. The after-sales services proposed include online shopping, delivery of goods, appropriate â€Å"return and refund policy† and customer service or helpline. As it is a known fact that efficiency and convenience have become the top few priorities considered by Singaporeans when they do grocery shopping, online platform such as Internet website and mobile App could be developed to allow customers to browse through products in store, make orders and have the goods delivered to the doorstep. With this extra service provided, concerns with regards to traffic problems and inconvenience could be eliminated. A return and refund policy which allows consumers to change their minds and return undamaged goods within 7 days, could be introduced. This flexibility for the consumers would increase the chance of those who are undecided in purchasing the goods first and end up not returning. Good customer service and useful guidance, which is consistent before and after sales, could distinguish Carrefour from its rivals who act as mere intermediaries. I believe the above approaches, which revolved around exclusive and premium services, could generate consumer’s satisfaction and earn customer loyalty. This would allow Carrefour to position itself uniquely as one of the premium and then preferred hypermarkets for consumers to shop at. Adapt flexibly to local lifestyle and changes in the market Consumers from different regions respond differently to a firm’s operational strategies. Hence, localization is very important for an international company to have a firm spot in a saturated market like Singapore. Carrefour’s failure in penetrating the Singapore market has shown that local market dynamics has a potential to make good supply chain strategies impossible to operate. What works in France does not guarantee an equivalent success in Singapore as the market dynamics play an important role. Relevant evidence could be seen in the headquarter of Carrefour itself in France, when Lars Olofsson, the former Carrefour CEO, brought in an Englishman from Tesco to run French hypermarkets. He attempted to make Carrefour use English in its operations and for communication within the executives, but things did not work out well and critics were all over the place. His successor, Mr Plassat, who successfully turned the company over, made an important statement relating to localization, Ho Sue Yuin A0088564N 8 MNO 3303 Individual Assignment â€Å"When dealing with something as sensitive as the place people get their food, it’s important to be close to the local culture. † My recommendation here is to relook into the sales of the products Carrefour were selling in all aspects and make suitable amendments to cut off some product lines, remain only the promising Europe products, and venture into collaborations with local or regional suppliers. With the exception of products that thrive on being â€Å"imported† or whose brand is tied to an allure of the originating country back at home, Carrefour should strive towards reception of local brands. Every market has a unique local taste, and it is important to realize the difference between Europe and Singapore that is bombarded with a variety of cultures and food. Distinct, or sometimes completely contrasting tastes, makes it necessary for Carrefour to alter the product assortments, regulate pricing and merchandise in-store differently than the stores in Europe. More Asian brands that are highly popular in Singapore could be brought to the racks, as these products, tested and proven, would ensure sustainable demand followed by promising sales. Besides translating the marketing materials into English and Chinese (the common languages in Singapore), advertising campaigns could tap onto the domestic marketing resources and arouse feelings of reminiscence by reflecting local culture, values and language such as the various dialects and Singapore’s unique slang called â€Å"Singlish†. Events and promotional campaigns suited to the various festive seasons in the multi-cultural Singapore could also be held to boost sales during the occasions celebrated. For example, TV ads could be designed to portray the joy and excitement of shopping in Carrefour during Chinese New Year. Another suggestion would be to encourage customers to voice out their views by giving feedback on products and services. Carrefour has to be open and inviting to suggestions given by the consumers to understand local culture and grasp the need of the local consumers. By flexibly adjusting and improving slowly with the help of the customers, Carrefour would be able to portray a positive and sincere image, which would earn the liking of customers. 3. 3 Invest in the right operation sites Carrefour’s two megastores in Singapore were situated at the Suntec and Plaza Singapura. These two busy and commercialized sites located at central Singapore seemed to promise a large crowd and great business opportunities, but it was also a deterrent for a huge group of potential consumers who were not willing to travel all the way to the central areas where heavy traffic and heavy consumption costs were inevitable. Besides, the rental fees for both locations were so expensive that Carrefour suffered significant financial woes, especially when coupled with the deteriorating sales. The lesson learnt here is to have a detailed and thorough research conducted on all possible locations in the new country penetrated before deciding on the business spots. The research should cover analysis of the target consumers’ population within the potential area, the cost incurred from rental and leasing fees, and not to forget the sales statistics of the nearby businesses in the area considered. Given the capital investment required to open a new store, a location off the beaten path would be a very costly mistake with disappointing results. In this case, IKEA’s successful locations in Singapore could be a reference for Carrefour. As a lifestyle store that requires a lot of space as well, Ikea chose to have its stores situated at two ends of Singapore – Alexandra at West Singapore and Tampines at East Singapore. This ensures that consumers from all over the country are being reached out to. A well-defined real-estate strategy could also be considered for the benefits of the company’s long-term expansion. Research on real estate takes time and guidance by local experts as strategic locations should be spotted and looked into carefully. After studying the locations in Singapore, I would recommend Carrefour to set up its store at IMM, Jurong East. This location is less expensive than sites at the town area and provides a substantial crowd. It would also be able to pull in customers from the neighborhood around with its convenience and reputation. This allows Carrefour to potentially receive higher profit margins, as the rental costs are way lower. 3. 4 Develop responsive local management and consider strategic alliances As could be seen by the lack of efficiency of Carrefour in responding to the market dynamics, it is essential to have a great understanding to the market penetrated. The market expansion strategies implemented may not necessarily have to be tied to the approach used by the parent company at home. My recommendation would be to have a decentralized organizational structure by establishing a strong local management team with the autonomy to make decisions according to the local market trends and consumer phenomenon observed. Carrefour should hire a local team comprising the general manager and support staff, as they are the ones who would easily understand local consumer preferences and how to market to these consumers. To make sure that the business objectives do not alleviate from the parent company too much, expatriates could be sent over to serve as guidance for the operations overseas and linking bridge between Carrefour Singapore and its headquarter in France. Strategic alliances through joint ventures or acquisition also form a major part of my suggestions for Carrefour. Partnerships with local leaders or acquisition of local companies which had been established and operating in the retail market in Singapore would allow Carrefour to the leveraging of many advantages, for example the ability to tap on local contacts, existing business relationships, legal requirements, etc. Mutualism achieved through combined resources, expertise and knowledge would strengthen Carrefour’s operations and competencies, enhance its competitive advantage, minimize possible missteps and pitfalls, timely grasp opportunities and overall increase its confidence in the market. It is also vital to engage the services of knowledgeable and experienced people in the Singapore retail markets. These local experts could assist Carrefour in understanding the genuine cost of managing business operations in Singapore and steer the management past dangerous miscalculations about the true financial opportunity available. Ho Sue Yuin A0088564N