Last week I had the opportunity to attend (and present at) EDUCAUSE Connect: Denver. This is the third year of the Connect events, and I think they’re starting to come in to their own. This year both facilitators and participants seemed to get the format and mostly came ready to have some fun together.
Early today Inside HigherEd covered some interesting work going on at Morovian College in Pennslylvania. They’re definitely doing some substantial upgrades to their network infrastructure (along with handing out laptops and tablets to all students), but here’s the part I find interesting:
I was just listening to an interview with the always interesting Audrey Watters. Those of you who follow Audrey’s work won’t be surprised by what she had to say, and that isn’t really what I wanted to highlight. Near the end they began talking about blog comments and threats Audrey has received. What I want to talk about is the almost throwaway comment the interviewer made with regards to that.
At EDUCAUSE this year I took the opportunity to attend a pre-conference seminar entitled Weaving a Tale So Others Will Listen: Technical to Fantastical led by Crista Copp and Michael Berman. This wasn’t just a “make your PowerPoint pretty” workshop (although we did spend some time on that), it was a full blown introduction to the art of story telling.
After a week at EDUCAUSE I’ve been catching up on my news need and happened upon this post from Josh Kim. I feel as if this piece pre-supposes that the only kind of interaction that is valuable or useful is face-to-face interaction.
The place we live in Honolulu is right on a marina and has a boat dock. I’m not really a boat person, but the idea of being able to take a boat to do grocery shopping or go to the movies was just too seductive. I couldn’t help myself. I bought a boat. In the last year I’ve learning a great deal about the difference between procuring a thing and taking care of a thing.
Over my years as a CIO I’ve heard lots of reasons to not deploy something. One of the most perplexing to me is the “it might get damaged” argument (or its corollaries, “it might go down,” “it might get hacked,” and “it might get stolen”). It is very easy to give this kind of argument a very flippant response. You know, like “and a meteor might fall from the sky and strike us dead” (one of my personal favorites). The reality is, though, that there is some interesting and nuanced conversation to be had regarding risk and risk tolerance when thinking about deploying IT solutions.