Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Enrolls His Kids In Khan Academy

theodp writes "At some schools, a teaching load of five courses every academic year is considered excessive. But Sal Khan, as an earlier Slashdot post noted, manages to deliver his mini-lectures an average of 70,000 times a day. BusinessWeek reports that Khan Academy has a new fan in Bill Gates, who's been singing and tweeting the praises of the free-as-in-beer website. 'This guy is amazing,' Gates wrote. 'It is awesome how much he has done with very little in the way of resources.' Gates and his 11-year-old son have been soaking up videos, from algebra to biology. And at the Aspen Ideas Festival in front of 2,000 people, Gates gave Khan a shout-out, touting the 'unbelievable' Khan Academy tutorials that 'I've been using with my kids.'"

59 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. khaaan by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Funny

    KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN.

    What do you get if you cross God Father and an economist?

    An offer you can't understand

    I have nothing else :(

    1. Re:khaaan by Joebert · · Score: 5, Funny

      If all of "your material" is constantly getting "taken early", you're not a comedian, you're a clown. Or Carlos Mencia.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    2. Re:khaaan by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      All your material are belong to us.

    3. Re:khaaan by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, you get a dead economist. No one crosses the God Father.

      --
      ad astra per alia porci
  2. Insert Star Trek Quote by alphatel · · Score: 2, Funny

    Using Gates in place of Kirk, make your own cool Star Trek: Wrath of Khan movie quotes! Discuss...

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:Insert Star Trek Quote by Logarhythmic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Steve: I've done far worse than bankrupt you, Gates. I've humiliated you. And I wish to go on humiliating you. I shall leave you as you [kinda wish you could have] left me... marooned for all eternity in the mire of public opinion. Buried alive... buried alive

      Bill: JOOOOOOOOOOBS!

      --
      "Before criticizing someone, first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, you'll be a mile away... and you'll have his shoes."
  3. Gates Foundation by sourcerror · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would cool, if the Gates Foundation donated for Khan Academy, because as far as I know Khan is now burning his savings.

    1. Re:Gates Foundation by gilesjuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be nice if Microsoft hadn't been overcharging education establishments for their software for years. Perhaps then they would have had more money to spend on other things.

      All that money Gates and Microsoft have is down to them emptying everyone's pockets for mundane software like Office, adding the Microsoft "tax" to every PC sale and so on. Gates's charity is all about recognition. The best charity is that where the donors are anonymous, that way they have no agenda, they aren't trying to change the way people think about them.

      I'm sure if we all had more money than we could possibly spend we would give it away.

      Plenty of criticism here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism

    2. Re:Gates Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would be nice if Microsoft overcharged educational establishments enough that academics outside math, physics, computer science, and finance also started using LaTeX, which is older but vastly superior to Word.

    3. Re:Gates Foundation by thenextpresident · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The criticisms presented there seem to essentially be criticisms that could be thrown at any charity. None of them registered as problem with the foundation itself. In some of the cases, the only solution to resolve the complaint is to lower or eliminate the amount donated.

      Sorry, but those people complaining are going to complain whatever happens.

      --
      Jason Lotito
    4. Re:Gates Foundation by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The website says that "generous individuals" have donated enough that he can do it full time. Given Gates' well known financial commitments to education it wouldn't surprise me at all if Gates has donated.

      To a lesser extent I guess Google is also donating by hosting the projects infrastructure for free, notably YouTube but also AppEngine and other things.

    5. Re:Gates Foundation by Aquitaine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow. What an angry, narrow-minded post. 'Insightful' indeed.

      I have no more love for Microsoft than the next guy, but you act like we're all being forced to buy MS products and that every cent they've earned was all but stolen from our pockets, and that, if it weren't stolen from our pockets, we'd be giving all that money to charity ourselves. Yeah, right.

      Gates believes that recognition will drive more people to charity than anonymity. As an un-involved businessman who gives a small piece of his small profit to charity every year, I share your preference for anonymous donations, because the cause (whatever it may be) is certainly more important than the donor. This isn't what Gates is arguing. He's saying that whatever harm comes from the recognition factor, at the end of the day, you'll have an order of magnitude more money coming in from people who want that recognition such that, if the cause is so important, funding it an extra order of magnitude is much more important than our anonymity principle. That's a tough case to argue, because vanity is definitely a big piece of philanthropy, and as much as I think stamping people's names on university buildings or theater/classroom seats is dumb, I'd rather have a theater or a classroom with some stranger's name on everything than not have it.

      Gates' charity is not 'all about recognition,' either. He honestly believes that recognition is an important piece of the cycle; you're free to disagree, but as I imagine that neither you nor I have achievements that even come close to what his charity accomplishes in a single year, I think it's very easy for us to throw stones and paint him as a jerk.

      As it happens, I actually don't completely support a big piece of what his charity does -- focusing on disease in Africa -- but it's foolish and simply wrong to suggest that Gates is just a successful crook rather than an accomplished individual who is free to spend the fruits of his labor as he pleases.

    6. Re:Gates Foundation by Beetle+B. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The criticisms presented there seem to essentially be criticisms that could be thrown at any charity.

      This. Essentially, the criticisms are saying that the money could be better utilized, and not saying that it is doing any damage as it is. Put another way, had Bill Gates never provided the money in the first place (which is his right), nothing would be better. The Foundation isn't making anything in the world worse.

      --
      Beetle B.
    7. Re:Gates Foundation by Aquitaine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was just talking about that subject this morning, as it happens. The argument against fighting disease in Africa basically says that, when you spend hundreds of millions fighting diseases and starvation that kill children in Africa in countries without well-developed, democratic societies, what you get in 20-30 years is a large population of healthy young adults who are still in a country without a developed society, without even a semi-modern economy, and without much modern healthcare outside of what other countries donate. In other words, you have a population that is vastly larger than what the country can economically support, and you don't have jobs for them, so you get a lot of militant young guys whose pasttimes are either making lots of babies or causing problems.

      Now, that's a gross oversimplification of the problem, and I'm actually not sold on it as a reason to say 'bah, let disease kill millions!' as that's a pretty cold stance to take. You'll sometimes hear opponents of this kind of charity point out that disease is Nature's way of controlling population, but you could justify quite a few scary things with that reasoning.

      I do think that the 'feel good about yourself by donating to starving children' drive of the last 60-70 years is shortsighted in this respect, but of course it's much easier to feed even large numbers of starving people than it is to set up a modern government and economy in some of these African countries, assuming even that you have the right to try and do so (which is a big assumption).

      In other words, not unlike Mr. Gates himself, the 'disease and starvation in Africa' subject is a complex one that has a lot more going on than the sound bytes you usually hear. I haven't reached a conclusion on Africa because most of the conversation about it goes like this:

      Feels Good Guy: I just gave $1,000 to charity and saved the lives of 100 kids in Africa!
      Skeptical Guy: What about their education? Their future health care? Do they have a chance at being self-sufficient later or will they simply need even more external support as they get older?
      Feels Good Guy: Racist!

      Anyway, that's what's (potentially) wrong with it. I tried to paint a pretty neutral picture because I really do want to hear more actual conversation on the subject rather than the knee-jerk stuff that's out there.

    8. Re:Gates Foundation by sourcerror · · Score: 5, Informative

      I tell you one example when the schools didn't have choice:
      Hungarian government seals a 25 billion HUF deal with Microsoft. That includes both academic and government licenses. The universities had no say whether how would they prefer to spend the money spent in their name.

    9. Re:Gates Foundation by sourcerror · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the main problem I see is that you don't see these charities supporting trade schools, only elementary schools (and that won't improve the students' job prosopects).

    10. Re:Gates Foundation by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Microsoft often donated the software FREE to academic facilities, and when it wasn't totally free, they got huge discounts often paying 1/6th (or less) of the normal price. Somehow I fail to see how this is "overcharging" unless you take the view that all software should be completely free. I guess $10 for an office sweet is "overcharging" if you see things that way.

      I'm starting a revolution, I call it "lawn care should be free", or "open source lawncare". Perhaps you wouldn't mind coming over to my house and cutting my lawn for free. You obviously don't have a wife/girlfriend let alone a family to feed. Once you are done cutting my lawn and trimming my bushes, please GET OFF MY LAWN.

    11. Re:Gates Foundation by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But given that the Gates Foundation spends money on third world development as well, that seems to mostly satisfy that reservation of yours.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

      Of course the foundation and every other charity can do little about the politics of some countries. But letting people needlessly die because they are in a country which currently has a bad government is not really on. Besides citizens of those countries will not concern themselves with fixing their politics whilst they are still concerned with basic survival. See:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

    12. Re:Gates Foundation by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. And I have a choice to buy elsewhere or build my own. As it happens, that's exactly what I do.

      Good for you.

      I go to a public university. As part of my computer science degree, I get a "free" -- that is, paid through via either tuition or tax dollars -- copy of several versions of Windows, Visual Studio, and about a dozen other random Microsoft products. In addition, there are dozens of computer labs around campus which are available to me for "free", meaning whether or not I use them, I'm paying for them one way or another.

      So you see, it doesn't matter that my laptop came with Ubuntu preinstalled. I still have to pay for Windows, one way or another. Even if I went to another university, my tax dollars would still end up here.

      Now, I don't have a huge problem with this, as there are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of random deals the university makes with outside vendors to give me free shit. I'm sitting here with a "free" water bottle that I got just for moving into the dorms.

      But even you aren't pretending you can avoid Microsoft:

      My business buys some MS products that my business uses (like SQL Server and Windows Server) and very cheaply at that.

      Yep.

      Nobody forced us to do this and we could switch to an open-source alternative if we wanted to (and we have a few reasons why we might one day, but not yet).

      I'm betting the "not yet" reasons are significant, or you'd already have switched.

      How many products does MS make? You want to get rid of every single one of them because they got convicted of bundling browsers and Windows pre-installation schemes?

      I would, actually. It would send a powerful message -- when the head of your company is corrupt, you get fucked. If you don't want all your eggs in one basket that way, don't make a single gigantic corporation -- because it takes a gigantic corporation to make truly gigantic fuck-ups that even the government can't control.

      It won't happen, of course. If the government won't do it to BP, I can't imagine they would do it to Microsoft.

      How many businesses and consumers that depend on MS (out of their choice!) would be screwed out of a livelihood

      When your livelihood is that tightly tied to a single vendor, you're in a dangerous situation anyway. I know -- I worked for a startup which lost everything that way.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    13. Re:Gates Foundation by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's like the Rockefeller's. Once you have more money than you can spend in a lifetime, you tend to give it away (at least with new money, the Hiltons, Fords and such, where the ones that made the things that earned the money didn't make it to "filthy rich" until the children were involved tend to be tight-assed pricks).

      Money you give to charity is money you would have had to give to income tax, but you get to look generous and to make sure it goes to causes that do not interfere with your investment strategies.

      Your argument fails because it isn't a tax credit, but a tax deduction. There is no dollar that would have gone to the feds that you get to donate to charity. You have to give $3 to charity to prevent $1 from going to the feds, so it is a real net loss to give to charity, not a break even.

  4. attention to the polarised by FuckingNickName · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He's the rich founder of MS, yet he's an awesome philanthropist and geek father keen to educate his kids properly.

    You have stuff to learn from this guy.

    1. Re:attention to the polarised by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "He's an overflowing cup filled with the very cream of human goodness. In all the time I've known him he's never done anything immoral." - Hanover Fiste

    2. Re:attention to the polarised by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:attention to the polarised by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No it doesn't. He started giving money away because his dad yelled at him about not giving anything back. William Gates Sr has been well known around Seattle for a long time. And one of the things he's known for is his generosity and more recently his push for an income tax on only high earners to compensate the state for the relative free ride that those individuals get under the current sales tax system.

    4. Re:attention to the polarised by JonJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Take a step back,think about what you just posted, and get a life.

      What kind of argument is that? 'Get a life'? This is not relevant at all to the case at hand. Even if I didn't have a life, it still wouldn't be relevant.

      Considering what goes on in the world today, is "what Microsoft did" so deserving of your wrath and your feeling of injustice?

      Considering how many of the criminals that get their funding via Microsofts incomptence and Microsoft creating an insecure monopoly in computers, I'd say they're guilty of quite a lot. What Microsoft did was hinder development and destroy innovation, who knows how far ahead we would be if Microsoft didn't come along? They had a propelling effect in the start, but that effect dwarves the stifling effect they've had on the industry since.

      The guy does good philanthropic work, and his business practices never killed or maimed anyone.

      I never claimed they did either, I said they ruined peoples lives. You can do that without kill or maim, it's enough to drive someone out of buisness using underhanded tactics. Which Microsoft is a master at. http://web.archive.org/web/19991115213922/http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/dirtytricks.shtml This is just a few things, Microsoft has a long history of dirty tricks. And like Darl McBride, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer should serve hard time. However, the United States prefer to reward sociopaths and law breakers. For some insane reason. Why aren't people brought to justice for the shit they pull?

      --
      -- Linux user #369862
    5. Re:attention to the polarised by FuckingNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, what's happening here is that someone with a lot of capital is investing it to increase the amount of money available. This is what almost all well-funded foundations do. It would be, you hopefully realise, fucking stupid to either stuff the money under the mattress or give it all away immediately.

      Now, such investments will almost certainly in some ways trickle down to operations which are harmful to some people in some way. Every cent you have in a bank or other investment account is doing a similar thing. It is perfectly legitimate to call a foundation up on this in the hope that you can encourage them to make investments you consider more ethically sound, but it doesn't imply some sort of plot to exploit / harm the ones you're helping.

      In Gates' specific case he's tried to stop the investment side from interfering with the giving side and vice versa to prevent conflicts of interest. The inevitable result is that sometimes an investment will appear in some indirect way to harm a charitable effort. Perhaps you can argue that each side should keep a closer eye on what the other is doing.

    6. Re:attention to the polarised by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if his giving today is completely the result of his dad persuading him, what exactly is wrong with that? Are you saying that goodness is only goodness if the decision to be good is made in a vacuum?

      "Yeah, he saved my life, but he only saved my life because last Thursday his grandmother encouraged him to attend a First Aid course." The guy still considered the options and made the final decision to attend the course / give away the money. He didn't have to.

    7. Re:attention to the polarised by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's wrong with being invested into "big pharma"?

      The Gates Foundation will not provide immunizations for nations which do not provide strong patent protection for pharmaceutical companies. This is not necessary for immunizing the developing world. This is a clear conflict of interest when coupled with Gates' personal investments, to say nothing of those of the foundation itself.

      Hate "big oil"? Stop driving your car.

      I drive as little as possible, I've changed my vehicles for more fuel-efficient turbo-diesels, and I've amassed some oil and a biodiesel processor. As soon as I work out a way to get the 55 gallon drum of methanol to my house I'm going to make a whole bunch of biodiesel.

      Hate "big government"? Stop putting your hand out to take their give aways.

      Indeed, I wish they would stop trying to give me so much. Then they would stop taking so much, and then I could afford to do as you say. But of course, the system was designed to be self-perpetuating.

      0

      Hate "big media"? Put out your own free media so that people have an alternative.

      Plenty of people are doing that, for the average person it is enough to consume such media and support the artists.

      Stop demanding that others change, change yourself.

      Oh, the irony. Keep your hypocrisy to yourself. Log in so I can foe you.

      Invest yourself into systems you think are corrupt and change them yourself.

      Fighting the system from within is a sad joke. The answer is to put your energy into another system.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Education... by mayberry42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    you Khan believe in!

    1. Re:Education... by xtracto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you elaborate on that?

      I am a scientist (PhD in Comp. Sci., currently working in an EU project along with around other 20 scientists and their PhD students) and do not see any issue with the Kahn material.

      Basically, because he is not claiming any new scientific achievement but just explaining currently known and proven facts and processes in a way which is easy to understand to the majority of people.

      Hence, he does not need any "scientific method" to impart such knowledge.

      So I reiterate, can you please elaborate what is wrong with his approach?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  6. Give me fooking break by s-whs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He's the rich founder of MS, yet he's an awesome philanthropist and geek father keen to educate his kids properly.

    He gives money away that he has no use for anyway. Result: He can steer the direction of research that 'his' money goes to, he gets to decide which charities get money. With being an criminal in how he did business in Microsoft, he's effectively stolen money from hundreds of millions of people, driven other business into the ground, and taken away the choice to give to charity to other people. Whether that would have been done is another matter, he's still taken away the choice. Oh and as to giving away 'his' money, from what I've read he has not actually done so but in effect set up another business (the business of providing money to his selected charities) which is based on 'his' money but mainly giving other people's money, those people who have given their money to his foundation, away to his selected charities.

    You have stuff to learn from this guy.

    Let me me be quite blunt here because it's appropriate: Give me a fooking break! There is nothing I can learn from a sociopath like Billy gates.

    1. Re:Give me fooking break by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For much of that time there wasn't a viable alternative and his business plan was to keep it that way. It's a bullshit argument people make that because there wasn't a gun involved that there must therefor have been a reasonable choice. Which is just something that Libertarians say so that they can sleep at night, the reality is that if you wanted to apply for a job and send in an electronic resume, good luck doing so with any other format than .doc because nobody would be looking at it. Or at work if you wanted to collaborate, you were stuck with Excel, Word, Powerpoint, etc., all owned and sold by MS. And that was their business plan, make people an offer that they had little choice but to accept at a price that was much higher than what the market would bear were there any real competition.

    2. Re:Give me fooking break by Beetle+B. · · Score: 3, Informative

      He gives money away that he has no use for anyway. Result: He can steer the direction of research that 'his' money goes to, he gets to decide which charities get money. With being an criminal in how he did business in Microsoft, he's effectively stolen money from hundreds of millions of people, driven other business into the ground, and taken away the choice to give to charity to other people. Whether that would have been done is another matter, he's still taken away the choice. Oh and as to giving away 'his' money, from what I've read he has not actually done so but in effect set up another business (the business of providing money to his selected charities) which is based on 'his' money but mainly giving other people's money, those people who have given their money to his foundation, away to his selected charities.

      You make it sound as if he made most of his money by charging the Windows tax for every computer sold, because that's the only really troublesome thing he did.

      Since you're talking about "choice", almost always people had the choice not to buy MS software. Almost always there was a viable alternative. If they paid for an overpriced product, almost none was forced to.

      And suggesting he's not giving his own money is just plain ignorant. Look it up - he gave $3.5 billion of his own money just in the last few years. And it's estimated that over his whole life, he's given $28 billion of his own assets away.

      --
      Beetle B.
  7. I love LaTeX, but really, now by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > started using LaTeX, which is older but vastly superior to Word

    I love LaTeX, it produces beautifully typeset math, but for your average biologist, English professor, etc., I can see that something a bit less high-powered and easier to use ("what you see is approximately what you get") would be more optimal.

    In other words, it's not chance that many academics don't use LaTeX.

    1. Re:I love LaTeX, but really, now by Mathinker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ooops, forgot to add --- all those academics who don't use LaTeX could probably use something open-source (OO.o, Abiword, KWord), except that my guess is that (many of) the journals they publish in only accept their submissions in MS Word format. So they decide to play safe and use MS.

    2. Re:I love LaTeX, but really, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wouldn't wish LyX on my worst enemy.

      Anyone who thinks LyX is worth its weight in bits is kidding (him/her)self. The UI is horrible and it's buggy as hell.

    3. Re:I love LaTeX, but really, now by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Informative

      TeX and LaTeX produce the most beautiful documents I've ever seen off a computer. If you're googling for them, be sure to include "document preparation system" in your keywords, though. Otherwise you'll have to wash your brain.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:I love LaTeX, but really, now by Jezza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Err, nonsense. This is a tool you use everyday right? How long did it take to learn to use a pencil? OK so there is a bit of "upfront" learning, then you can write documents everywhere you can find an editor, and seldom think about formatting. Yet your documents look fantastic (or sh!t if you've got no taste).

      How many Microsoft Word users actually use Styles? (Fewer than you think) How many understand Sections? (Fewer than you think) How many actually understand tab stops and how to use them (I mean the different kinds)? (Fewer than you think)

      So you either have a tool that when you don't know how to use it, you're totally aware you don't know how to use it, or a tool that most people think they know how to use even though they don't have a clue.

      Now what's optimal?

  8. Think about it by giltwist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Thirty years ago, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) released a controversial document entitled An Agenda for Action. Part of what made the position statement so controversial was the recommendation that computers and calculators should be a part of every mathematics classroom (http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=17282). Many teachers and parents feared that students might never learn mathematics properly if they could just press a few buttons to produce a correct answer. In stark contrast, the schoolchildren of the YouTube generation are virtually inseparable from their portable electronics - many of which are more powerful than early graphing calculators that NCTM. Dubbed digital natives (http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky - Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants - Part1.pdf), none among them were alive during a time when there was no Internet. As a result, the question is no longer “if” technology should be a part of public education but is now “how much”.

    Many schools are emerging that are online-only (http://keystonehighschool.com/) or otherwise devoted to technology (http://www.neatorama.com/2010/01/09/school-teaches-its-students-almost-entirely-through-video-games/). You can even earn a doctorate at an online university (http://www.phoenix.edu/colleges_divisions/doctoral.html)! Additionally, online resources like the amateur Khan Academy or the commercial ALEKS (http://www.aleks.com/) are beginning to challenge several long-standing assumptions about the need for face-to-face instruction or even the need for teachers. Most importantly, it is worth stating that the research on eLearning is mixed, as a whole. A specific eLearning package may help in reading but not in mathematics, may help at third grade but not eighth grade, or may help on a state-level test but not on a national-level test. So, there is no clear answer on a “best” package or way to use technology. However, there are several key points to consider:

    Embarrassment

    To be honest, nobody likes to be wrong, and mathematics is a subject in which students are often told that they are, at least technically, incorrect. It is no wonder that eLearning can get such positive feedback from students. Many packages use little to no direct contract with a teacher; even if they do, a student is not going to be told they are incorrect in front of twenty or thirty of their peers. A private email is not so bad in comparison to even the gentlest public rebuke. Similarly, nobody needs to know if a given student has been successful either. It is often considered geeky to be good at school, especially in the STEM subjects. This turns many people away from science and mathematics, particularly girls. eLearning can provide a method to circumvent such peer scrutiny.

    Motivation

    Students like computers. Given a choice between a hands-on activity and an identical computer activity, many students will opt for the latter. Moreover, students like games, and eLearning developers are actively trying to capitalize on that appeal. While good in theory, a key implementation problem is that much edutainment uses the games as a reward for practice (http://www.funbrain.com/math/index.html) rather than as the means for actually teaching the material (http://ldt.stanford.edu/ldt1999/Students/kemery/esc/rockyDemoFrame.htm). I certainly approve of additional practice, but even the most motivated student requires a good explanation now and then.

    Willingness

    Another thing to keep in mind is that school occurs on a set schedule over which the student has little to no control. Much of eLearning is available whenever the student is willing to participate. In other words, those who succeed are those who have chosen to participate. In fact, research often shows that eLearning success is strongly dependent upon the amount of time a student participates. Of course, convincing someone to dedicate time and effort to actual eLearning is no

  9. Wow. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen on the Internet. Finally, somebody is taking a new medium and presenting this kind of lecture material in a format and method where students can obtain the material themselves. Kids, without money, can actually obtain this stuff and learn from it. It's not a product being sold, it's just incredible. I dreamed of this kind of content as a kid. I think all geeks did. It was only available to be doled out by clueless adults to learn at the pace they felt you were ready for it, or it was crap being shoveled at parents to give their kids a "head start"

    ...and presenting it world-wide, this is *stunning*.

    1. Re:Wow. by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What you are talking about is called a library. A place where people can go and learn all sorts of things. Most developed countries have one in various locations to be accessible to the populous.

      One may say the tech innovation is the video aspect, but people have been making educational videos for years, often selling that at very low prices or giving them away for free. I have a friend who does this and sells them in the villages of developing country where is from. They don't have internet access or reliable electricity, but they have laptops with DVD players. In terms of getting information to the children who need it, and not just the kids who already have all the advantages, this method works.

      So what is the innovation here. That he is recording lectures? That he is streaming lectures for those few that good internet access? Maybe I am down on this because what I don't think lecture is 100% of an education. Much of what I leared I learned from reading books or working the problem. This would be a good supplement to a home school education, but there is no relevance in these lectures.

      On assumption of the Bill Gates Foundation and High School that works is that the world is full of mostly bad teachers doing a mostly bad job and it would be better to have mostly good teachers creating content and delivering content to the kids. The reason kids are out of control is that they are no engaged. But kids are not robots and often must be redirected to things they don't like like doing math in math class and formalized exercise in gym.A teacher is there to asses and try to teach to each student, at least some of the time. It it was simple as making a video and having the students watch the video, there educational problem would already be solved. There is no silver bullet for complex problems.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:Wow. by AnyoneEB · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I can tell, the key innovation is that the Khan Academy education videos are actually good. He explains concepts in a way that actually works for a lot of people. It is quite possible that there are other good educational videos, which leads into the other innovation: free internet video is a very accessible medium, so the opportunity cost of trying out the Khan Academy videos is almost nothing, and someone who likes the videos can easily and quickly recommend them to their friends who can start watching them immediately if they are interested. To be fair, anyone who is going to be watching the Khan Academy videos is probably self-motivated to learn the topic or they would not be watching the video, so there may be some bias on how well they work vs. a teacher in a classroom who cannot guarantee an interested and well-motivated audience.

      I agree that a good, real, live teacher who could answer questions is important for a good education... but a good lecturer means you do not have as many questions in the first place. Putting a good teacher in every classroom is, obviously, a hard problem. I recall from school that pretty much any time there was an educational video, it was awful. I cannot imagine anyone volunteering to sit through any educational video we were shown in school; luckily they were rare. It is possible that a video of a good lecture has its place in a high school classroom. At the same time, doing so seems like admitting that the teacher can't deliver a good lecture.

      I should note that I have not actually watched any of the Khan Academy videos; I strongly prefer learning from written information, but I realize that is a personal preference.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  10. RTF and ODT are Word-compatible formats by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    (many of) the journals they publish in only accept their submissions in MS Word format

    RTF is an "MS Word format" because Word 2007 will read it. As of Office 2007 SP2, so is ODF.

    1. Re:RTF and ODT are Word-compatible formats by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately, Word and OpenOffice still can't seem to agree on formatting. It's subtle, but it does result in screwing up my every attempt to place appropriate page breaks -- one will make the text just slightly longer than the other.

      I've found a safe solution is to use OpenOffice, but ultimately produce a PDF if I care about printing. If I don't, I use something like Markdown and HTML.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:RTF and ODT are Word-compatible formats by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      If it makes you feel any better, this is also a problem between different versions of Word. Sucks but true.

      --
      Qxe4
  11. Gates complains a situation he created by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gates complains about smart Americans all going to Wall Street instead of R&D. But Gates has gone before the US congress, many times, and argued that even more US tech workers should lose their jobs to H1B visa workers.

    Just last year, even as Microsoft was firing US tech workers by the thousands, Microsoft was simultaneously hiring their H1B replacements.

    Due to the situation that Gates himself has helped create, smart Americans would be stupid to train for STEM (Science Technology Engineering Mathematics) jobs.

    1. Re:Gates complains a situation he created by mc+moss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why I left the tech sector and went straight into finance. That along with the ridiculous job requirements (must know every language under the sun) & ageism, staying in the tech sector for the long run didn't seem like a good idea.

      Still code as a hobby though :)

    2. Re:Gates complains a situation he created by DarkFencer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No - what often happens with H1B is the lying. You ever see those job postings which ask for impossible things like 20 years experience with Java or 7 years experience with Windows 7? The companies that want an excuse for H1B will accept (knowing its false) that the H1B applicants actually have that experience. They will use that excuse to say "Look - we can only find people with H1B that have this experience! We need to hire internationally!".

      I'm not saying all the time impossible skill requirements are because of this (there are ignorant people often writing job requirements) but it is true sometimes.

    3. Re:Gates complains a situation he created by dcposch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit.

      I'm currently "training for a STEM job", as you would put it, by pursuing at degree in computer science. I don't think my choice was a mistake. I see the fact that our industry is a global one as an opportunity, not a threat.

      The US is in the enviable position that a lot of other countries' best and brightest want to work here. By restricting the number of H1Bs that companies can hire, the goverment is squandering some of that opportunity. And it's doing so at the behest of people like you, who think of jobs like poker chips--little non-replaceable entities that you can gain, lose, give away, or have "taken" from you. That's not what jobs are. Consider, for example, what happens when Intel hires a rockstar Chinese chip fab engineer. That engineer creates a cadre of supporting positions--testers, integration engineers, PMs, EE interns from the local college, etc. Maybe he, a litho expert from India, and an industrial robotics expert from the US end up leading a project to build a new fab in America. Maybe that fab leads to a couple million processors every year that are being etched in America instead of China.

      Collaboration like this is what put America on top of the innovation food chain in the first place. Google was started by a Russian guy and an American who were grad students at Stanford. Tesla Motors was co-founded by an American and Elon Musk.

      The way I see it, every country starts with roughly the same bell curve of talent and ability. Some have great education systems and make the most of it. Others, not so much. Where America sits on that scale is for another post. But the crazy thing is: America can cheat. We can cherry-pick the smartest and most innovative people from places like India and China. We can skim off the top of a pool of 2.5 billion people, simply by letting them in.

      That some of us think it's good for our government to prohibit us from hiring those people boggles my mind.

    4. Re:Gates complains a situation he created by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Enjoy training your H1B replacement, or having your job offshored.

      Just to let you know: everybody thinks it will never happen to them. I have worked in IT for 30 years. I hear it all the time: "I'm much too valuable, they could never hire a foreign worker to do what I do."

      Pride before the fall.

  12. Gaates by fartrader · · Score: 2, Funny

    GAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTESSSSSSS!

  13. Happy Student by Soulshift · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm currently teaching myself linear algebra with the aid of Khan's videos, and I couldn't be happier with the quality of the material.

    The fact that his work is steadily garnering more attention is a good thing in my view, since it increases the likelihood of more excellent videos being made available for free as a result of donations, grants, etc.

    --
    node-def: a tactical hacking sim. Now in open beta.
  14. Re:well written apology for Mr. Gates' behavior by Johnny+Loves+Linux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was a well written, respectful, explanation excusing Mr. Gates' behavior by rationalizing that everybody's money in some way or another funds "bad" things in life. I, however, don't agree nor do I accept any attempt to excuse his behavior. The bottom line is that MOST people don't have BILLIONS of dollars invested DIRECTLY into corporations with unethical behavior. Does Gates foundation fund charities? Well, maybe they do. The questions I have for everyone who thinks that Mr. Gates is doing good is this: Are there any restrictions on the donations,i.e., does the charity have to use ONLY Microsoft products? If the answer is yes, they do have to use ONLY Microsoft products, then do you still believe that is he's doing good charity or good marketing? They are not the same, and they are exclusive.

  15. Sale Sale Sale by squirrl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    H1B's take back what they learn, Microsoft. Their governments take back an indoctrinated acolyte. I can understand mastery of a toolset. Person A comes to work skilled and certified in Visual Studio, C#, and SQL Server. Person B comes to work familiar with the aforementioned products but as well is familiar with Oracle, Ubuntu, and Java's suite of tools. Person C comes to work familiar with SQL Server but generally only has an administrative background. So management has these three people to work as a team to derive a product within three months. You can only imagine the difficulties that transpire as a result of conflicting personal views. So from a management world view: You won't an employee that will take the resources you have and provide a product in a short time with the least difficulties. H1B's are the Person A's. Skilled U.S. workers are the Person B's. Corporate executives are the Person C's. This is changing as more U.S. workers are attempting to get certifications.

  16. Re:More important than Africa by Doug+Neal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With America's wealth, it shouldn't need charity to fight disease. Also, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Also, it's not more important.

  17. Gates Foundation Invests in Monsanto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Gates Foundation Invests in Monsanto

    http://www.infowars.com/gates-foundation-invests-in-monsanto/

    http://www.seattleglobaljustice.org/2010/08/for-immediate-release-gates-foundation-invests-in-monsanto/

    Community Alliance for Global Justice
    August 27, 2010

    Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation's investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000 (see the Foundation's 2008 990 Form).

    "The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. "First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests."

    Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto's genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. "When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising," said Mayet. Monsanto's aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue--and bankrupt--farmers for "patent infringement."

    News of the Foundation's recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, "We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA--the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation--had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto." Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, "The Foundation's ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa." In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation's grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)--considered by the Foundation to be its "African face"--work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program.

    Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA's grantees in promoting the

  18. Re:well written apology for Mr. Gates' behavior by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yea, I'm sure Gates is all like: "I'll only donate 10 million dollars to your foundation if you agree to pay me $100 for these 2 copies of Microsoft office and swear a blood oath never to install Open Office." It's the perfect crime!!

  19. Re:Here we go again ... by Lobachevsky · · Score: 4, Informative

    Um, whom are you referring to when you say "he should 'give something back'" ? The lectures are not by Bill Gates, they're by Sal Khan. I don't think anybody accuses Khan of not giving back. Bill Gates is merely stating that Sal Khan is doing a good job, but Sal Khan does not work for Bill Gates or for Microsoft. Nor do Bill Gates or Microsoft seem to donate any money to Sal Khan.

  20. Re:You've got to be kidding by thijsh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [...] real--and competent--teacher.

    You are literally lucky to find one, while this is just a guy with a tablet and an internet connection doing a pretty decent job... To claim it's 'disastrous' is a bit of a hyperbole.

    In my experience most people who hate math and geometry (and consequently suck at it) seem to have had inadequate tyrants as math teachers in high school (there is an apparent abundance of those). So a guy who tries to teach in a pleasant way which might stimulate your child(ren) to learn more about the subject is the best possible thing you could want if you want them to learn the joy of learning. Overall Khan seems to do a better than average job teaching, so he provides a great starting point to learn about these subjects. Just compare his site to Wikipedia: it's nowhere near perfect, but it's the best available to quickly learn something about a subject.