FIRST - Reason for existance

Originally Posted by Bridgette

I don’t think that FIRST is trying to decrease respect for the rich and famous as much as increase respect for others. FIRST offers great opportunities to thousands of students. These students are able to not only explore the possibilities of science and technology, but also the skills that they possess but just never realized they had. By encouraging talents that popular culture seems to shun, FIRST is already changing the lives of thousands of people.I think FIRST could someday have the ability to cause a change in the way society views science and technology.

If this sea change in society ever happens, then the way that entertainers are treated is going to change as well. While music and TV are very important parts of culture, I wish that the people who are truly changing the world received as much recognition as those with musical and acting talent.

Maybe I worded my original post incorrectly. I don't think FIRST is trying to decrease respect for popular culture icons. I said that some people think that.

I agree - when FIRST gets engineers/scientists/etc. enough respect as other icons - it will have succeeded in one part of its goal.

Now, on to mtrawls comments:

Originally Posted by mtrawls

How can you measure how much someone deserves a job? Or who is more worthy? Who gives you the moral superiority to say without a doubt that "those people deserve" the job "far more" than the greedy American who wants to "wear Nike shoes" and own a "Ford Excursion"?

For example, do certain FIRST sponsors' "unsavory" (I put it in quotes b/c morality is not univeral) behavior mean they are less fit to be FIRST sponsors? Does Microsoft's antitrust suits mean they are worse sponsors? Not at all.

I agree completely with mtrawls. But the greatness of capitalism is a discussion for another thread...

[Steve W]

I guess that I should post seeing that I started the thread. I am proud to be Canadian. I promote Canada. I trash talk Americans at competitions in good humor. I promote a healthy Canadian/American rivalry. But what does Dean think? What does Dave Lavery think? What does Woodie think? What about Paul Copioli (had to pick on someone Paul)? Really who cares.

Everyone of us has a reason for being here. It really doesn't matter if Canadian or American. What does matter is the fact that we are here learning together. Each and every one of us is human. We all have likes and dislikes. The thing that has drawn us all together is FIRST. What a great organization. Yeah, I hear Dean promoting the US. Sometimes I wonder why he forgets us non US residents. You know why he forgets us? I don't, but I have some ideas. I believe that Dean is proud to be an American. I believe that he speaks from his heart and sometimes forgets to mention others. I don't condemn him for this but I find it refreshing to see the passion that he shows to us. So many people are politically correct but are not sincere. I believe that that is not the case with Dean. I watched him on Curie as he spoke to the students and watched the game. His eyes told it all. Wide eyed and sincere as he watched competition and spoke to individuals.

Remember if you hear me at competitions. I do show my Canadian pride sometimes. I give a bit more to Canadian teams. I spend a little extra time in the pits with Canadian teams. Does that mean that I don't think that Americans are important? No, I just get a bit carried away, just as Dean does.

My feelings are that FIRST is a healthy organization that is pushing down boundries. I have felt nothing but goodwill no matter which regional or championship that I have been to. I believe that FIRST's main goal is what it states in it's name. No hidden agenda, just plain Inspiration and Recognition. These are items that have no political, national or social boundries. Boy I sure am glad that I was introduced to FIRST.

BTW in an earlier post it was mentioned that all of FIRST executive were US citizens. Paul Shay is Canadian I believe.

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by mtrawls

Shift it from, oh I don't know, capitalism? Maybe I misunderstand you, but currently "what it means to operate a busness in this country" is all based on capitalism ... try to provide the best product as cheaply as possible so as to maximize profits. It sounds awfully greedy, sure, but are you saying it is a bad thing? Those increased profit margins that "motivate" people are what keeps innovation going (granted when people stop playing by the rules this isn't necessarily the case).

Yet at the same time, it's the drive for increased profit margins of this Capitolist society which as at the heart of all this "outsourcing" debate.

you'll find a lack of competition and real motivation creates complacency, which is A Bad Thing. Increased profit margins, however "evil," create an incentive to do better. I'll refrain myself for now ... I think maybe I don't understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that capitalism is somehow bad? You say "when they can prove that they're motivated by something other than incresed profit margins" ... but why should the by motivated by anything else, as a business? Success and history are hard to argue with; those organizations motivated around utopian goals have largely failed, or done worse than those motivated by profit.

Historically, the bohemoths of companies that have succeeded have done so through less than scrupulous means. Standard Oil was busted up for having a trust in the oil industry, and inflating prices. Bell was broken up for having a monopoly on the phone system (and are now slowly merging back together), and charging unfair prices. Microsoft gets money for virtually every computer built in the world, and has essentially been declared a monopoly by virtually every major world government, and slapped with countless fines and lawsuits, yet they continue to be "successful." I'd argue those organizations motivated around utopian goals have largely failed by being pushed around or bought out by the Big Guys through underhanded means. I know many small independant shops with utopian goals struggling to compete with the Walmarts of the day. Not because their products are inferior, but because Walmart has the buying power to undercut them in virtually everything they sell. Same with computer shops like the one I work in. We can't compete price wise with Dell or Compaq. The only reason we're in business is we provide one thing the big companies can't- personlized service. Capitolism is great in theory, but so was the Republic in Rome- which eventually fell for a number of reasons. Once any given market is dominated by companies large enough to control virtually every aspect of that market, choice slowly degrades as independant shops are wiped out as consumers choose lower prices over local business. Once all the competition is wiped out, the king of the hill is awarded the satisfaction of a high investor payout, while the owners of the independant shops file for chapter 11.

I think FIRST is a step in the right direction in this sense- if enough students are touched by the conept of gracious professionalism, those students will take those ideas and fundamentals with them into the business world. I hope the lessons learned about teamwork at the competitions play a role in the relationships the future leaders of this and other countries will create. I'd like to see world business and politics function as our own robotics competitions operate- teams willing to help each other out whenever possible- because in the end, everyone can win in some way. Teams learn new designs and techniques from one another, and grow and prosper with one another, even if in direct competition with each other. Idealistic- yes, but not unfeasable. The only thing preventing it from working is the current infrastructure of cut-throat competition of megacorporations. I'm hoping enough FIRSTers rise the ranks of these companies to steer them back in the direction of true capitolism- with visions for the long term, not just the quick payoffs of the present.

How can you measure how much someone deserves a job? Or who is more worthy? Who gives you the moral superiority to say without a doubt that "those people deserve" the job "far more" than the greedy American who wants to "wear Nike shoes" and own a "Ford Excursion"? So far as I see it, if a person does honest and hard work, he deserves just compensation.

No one has the moral intellect to decide what's best for everyone. But as you yourself stated, the drive of a company is to cut costs to inrease profit, even if it means expending hard working employees in favor of cheaper labor. The facts show that outsourced labor is a fraction of the cost of local labor, and of very comperable quality. As everything in our capitolist society, the contract typically goes to the lowest bidder.


Note- I apologize if I offend anyone in my posts... it's certainly not my intention. I like to look at the world from a global perspective... and I can't help but wonder what we, as a common species, humanity, are capable of if we all were to work together for the betterment of all, regardless of country, race, religion, or whatever.

[SilenceNoMore]

FIRST exists (or the stated mission) to provide inspiration to high school students to enter fields of science in their professional career. It is obvious to me that FIRST is supposed to be something that provides the United States with more engineers, which is noble.

However, I think FIRST right now is just serving to inflate Dean Kamen's inflated ego and to provide and outlet for him to spread his silly ideas.

[mtrawls]

Originally Posted by HHSJosh

At the risk of moving this thread a bit off topic, I would simply like to know which of his ideas are "silly"?

I'm not quite sure if it is the science or the technology ... but both seem to be sligthly amusing at best

Yet at the same time, it's the drive for increased profit margins of this Capitolist society which as at the heart of all this "outsourcing" debate.

Yes, and debate is healthy. And in this debate, it is often riddled with emotions. People look at one thing, that they are out of a job. Sure, that's not good for them, but they have to deal with it. Another side is that goods are produced cheaper. Most people, if they had a choice, would prefer cheaper goods to recovering lost American jobs -- well, actually most people want both and don't like to think about it too much. But I digress, and this has been discussed in another thread.

...
Once all the competition is wiped out, the king of the hill is awarded the satisfaction of a high investor payout, while the owners of the independant shops file for chapter 11.

Like I said, when people stop playing by the rules things go bad. If companies unfairly use their monopoly status, then this is surely not good. And if there is no competition for them, then they become complacent, which is not good (but also the problem of the utopian idea). Capitalism unguarded isn't perfect, sure ... even I admit that some control is needed (however slight). But it's the best we got.

I think FIRST is a step in the right direction in this sense- if enough students are touched by the conept of gracious professionalism, those students will take those ideas and fundamentals with them into the business world.

I agree with you here. Gracious professionalism is about the long run. Too many businesses are short sighted and look for increased profit margins in the short term, irrespective of what will eventually happen.

No one has the moral intellect to decide what's best for everyone. But as you yourself stated, the drive of a company is to cut costs to inrease profit, even if it means expending hard working employees in favor of cheaper labor. The facts show that outsourced labor is a fraction of the cost of local labor, and of very comperable quality. As everything in our capitolist society, the contract typically goes to the lowest bidder.

Are you assuming this is a bad thing?

I'd argue those organizations motivated around utopian goals have largely failed by being pushed around or bought out by the Big Guys through underhanded means.

Some, for sure. But let me give you an example of what I mean. Take the Red Cross; they train lifeguards as a non-profit organization and various swimming pools require red cross certification. Wonderful service; entierly necessary ... but the red cross was only motivated by utopian principles. (Which isn't a bad thing, i admit; but profit can sometimes be better.) There's a certain company in Florida that started training lifeguards as well, but they are a for-profit company. They follow up their training and do periodic suprise checks to make sure life-guards are paying attention, and also do many test drills of emergency situations. Also, they've innovated many techniques (which the red cross has duly copied). The moral? The red cross is great ... but many pools in Florida have started switching over to the for-profit company's lifeguards because they are better trained and stay on task, since they know they're going to be watched. Was the red cross doing a good thing? Yes -- but without competition, they were complacent to leave it at a good thing. Looking for a buck or two, this company managed to make it a better thing.

Remember, it's not just "the Big guys" that are capitalists ... most small businesses are motivated by profit too. And if they can innovate and provide a better service to the market for a better price, generally they will succeed. If not, what should we do? Help them out because their motives are pure? Even if it means more money out of our pocket -- money we probably have other uses for? A lot of people complain about the big guys and their buying power and what not ... but oddly enough, I haven't heard a single person complain about the lower prices they're paying! Oh, and all those "awful" "Robber barons" we learned about in history ... remember that they started out penniless.

But a debate about capitalism and monopolies probably isn't appropriate for this thread -- it would take many pages, I imagine. And I've procrastinated enough from my english paper (for now, anyways).

[Steve W]

Silly ideas are only seen as silly in the eyes of the beholder. All ideas come from thought processes. If Dean or any of the rest of us only think within the box, nothing will ever change or get accomplished. I am not saying that SilenceNoMore doesn't think outside of the box (actually I'm sure that he/she must), but that he/she does not always agree with others that think outside of the box.

I have said to students "what are you thinking about?" when they are trying to solve a problem and when I look back, I realize I was the one that hadn't opened my eyes. Look around, keep an open mind and see what new things that we can experience. This is FIRST.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Silly ideas are only seen as silly in the eyes of the beholder.

Very true, how about the most useless invention of all time the slinky. It's a silly invention right? What was Richard James thinking in 1945? I'll tell you who doesn't think it's silly, Poof Products. They sell the slinky. Did you know approximately 300 million slinkys have been sold worldwide? That's a lot of "silly money."

[Arefin Bari]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

To expand on that, perhaps the question needs to be asked "Why shouldn't it be the best thing that has ever happened in a foreign student's life?" I honestly don't know exactly what FIRST claims their mission to be but whatever it is, it is working and it is working worldwide.

i am not a foreign student....

[soezgg]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I guess that I should post seeing that I started the thread. I am proud to be Canadian. I promote Canada. I trash talk Americans at competitions in good humor. I promote a healthy Canadian/American rivalry. But what does Dean think? What does Dave Lavery think? What does Woodie think? What about Paul Copioli (had to pick on someone Paul)? Really who cares.

yeah, our team does nothing but rag on canadians and their tiny worthless money, the frenchness, the stereotypes and just over all canadianism.
however, we dont dislike them enough to avoid the Canadian Regional, which we have been a part of since the beginning.

by creating the Canadian Regional, FIRST is both promoting rivalry in competiton and partnerships in industry, science and tech.
personally, i am $@#$@#$@#$@# glad that 639...cough cough....639 luckily managed to whoop some canadian $@#$@#$@# this year and recover our lost pride on the missisauga battleground from previous years.

Rivalry and competition drive performance. Everyone knows it. That is why FIRST is a COMPETITION. Yes I said it. FIRST is a competition first and foremost.

good game.

[Steve W]

Soezgg, I am sure glad that you don't say what you really mean. We here in Canada were glad to help that fragile flower (Red Tulip) grow into a beautiful thing. It must be the cool arctic air that stimulates the plants growth. I just hope that next year that it doesn't suffer from wind burn, shrival up and die.

BTW now that we know how you feel, we will be notifying the accomodations people and will be lowering your priority level to a lower mid quality igloo for next year. We will make sure that an outhouse is within 100 yards of your igloo to prevent any accidents.

Your Canadian Host,
Steve