You wait because some programmer thought it was more important to have animated menus than a fast algorithm. You wait because someone was told "computers have lots of disk space." You wait because the engineers never tested their database on a large enough scale. You wait because programmers today are taught to write everything themselves, and to simply expect new hardware to make their mistakes irrelevant.
That's a heck of a lot of Microsoft pushing for one little article.
That said, I agree fully. Tablets have always sucked, and the iPad is just another iteration of the same game. Maybe it'll bring some fresh ideas to usability, and maybe not. For the few folks who actually have a use for a tablet, it's an exciting time.
I taught English to kids in Africa, and found very few natural connections between English sounds and letters. One of the few techniques that worked decently was to pick some words that could be formed into the letter. For example, the letter "k" can be drawn as a key. It's not great, but it makes a connection that otherwise wouldn't exist. If your kids are picking up words well enough, this might be useful. Good luck.
Would you mind pointing out where it "clearly explains" it doesn't involve copyright law? To me, it looks like Warner Music is blatantly abusing copyright law to pressure a third party into catering to them.
Warner Music were claiming the song as their own and MySpace bought into it without even checking.
That looks like a fraudulent claim right there, but it's not, since it wasn't made in an "official" manner. Not that it particularly matters, mind you, since under the current state of the law, "copyright holders" (henceforth known as attackers), whether or not they actually own the copyright to an item, can claim practically anything they want, and it doesn't cost them a thing. Should the defender put up a fight, they have more than enough money to run the defendant into the ground financially.
I compared only equal versions of software, assuming you had to buy a full copy of each. That avoids trying to separate the OS X cost from the Mac, or trying to research any "upgrade now for only $X" deals. Full, non-OEM copies to start, and upgrades after that.
Of course it's stupid. The parent didn't mention hardware, so neither did I. I didn't compare system requirements, but I'd say off the top of my head that both paths would require a hefty upgrade somewhere in there, unless you were starting off with wildly different configurations.
I also went with the "can do everything" approach, since I don't feel like speculating on what features are worth the price or not. Features will always be worth different amounts to different people. I personally like having a sane and standard filesystem, so I use Linux almost exclusively. Windows could cost $10, and not be worth it to me.
I just like having facts, rather than just claims of "more expensive" and "safe to say".
Alright. I'll play your game. Let's calculate this:
Windows path: 300+107+196 = $603, if I'm adding correctly.
OS X path: 129+ 0+129 (at most - some users could upgrade for $20)+20+129+X+29 = 436+X, if I'm adding correctly.
I couldn't find a reliable price for Leopard, but as long as it was under $167, it looks like OS X is the cheaper route if you want to have all the features available. Yes, you could go with a cheaper version of Vista or 7, but you could also skip some OS X versions without much loss.
It sounds (no pun intended) like this material would have to absorb energy from the sound wave. I wonder how well it would work as an acoustic barrier bordering a highway. It'd be refilled by rain, powered by noise, and it might just block the sound better than those lovely concrete walls we have now.
Who is 'they'? Is it the judicial system, which (ideally) only fines people who have done something wrong? Is it the creditors, who are only loaning you money, and just want it back?
Going into bankruptcy means that not only have you exhausted your own supply of money, but generally you've exhausted what other people are willing to lend you. You should not be allowed to just forget all your old debts, any more than a bank should be allowed to forget that you made deposits.
I consider Wikipedia to be just as credible as a face-to-face interview with an expert in a given field. Given how articles are (generally) written by citing field experts, this makes sense.
The basic information will be entirely correct, but the most arcane details should be verified elsewhere. Furthermore, it will now and then include some crazy detail that nobody else agrees with, which should be passed off as fringe theories. It is credible, but not infallible.
I'm sorry if this comes as an insult to experts who think they are infallible.
I couldn't find it when I wrote my post, but this is (I think) the instance I had in mind. There was also personal experience, when I got detected by my university's automatic system for sharing music from Jamendo. The detection system used lists from major labels, and the music was under a CC license that allowed sharing.
But those indie artists can already distribute free or do whatever they want with their music.
I was referring to the ones who, for whatever reason, were with a label and have since returned to being independent. In practice, entering a contract with a label means they will try to own you, even after it's terminated, and even if it's not exclusive.
It's not like the big labels have some right to your material before you make a contract with them.
Note the second point I made. In practice, labels use whatever music they want, and MIGHT fulfill obligations later. If you sue, they can simply say "Oh, we were trying to find you, but couldn't. Hey, can we use your song for that album we released five years ago? No? Okay, we won't sell that album again. Sorry."
If you get any level of fame, the labels will try to take advantage of you, and you don't have much in the way of recourse. If you sue them, they can simply bring in the parade of high-priced lawyers, and you're stuck with what you can afford. The only way to have a chance would be to immediately sell out to another label with money, but they'd be in the RIAA too, so your suit would be dropped or settled for a trivial amount.
the only way for an indie artist to actually succeed is by playing the RIAA's game. Earn a tiny amount of fame on your own, get the attention of a big label, and sell your soul in a permanent exclusive contract. When that contract's expired, retire into oblivion and never produce music again. Be a good peon, and you might get some royalty checks now and then.
Meanwhile, those indie artists who actually WANT free distribution get screwed by the general assumption that all songs/movies are controlled by the RIAA/MPAA.
If an artist ever had a contract with a big label, that label will try to control their songs, permanently. It's happened before, and it will happen again. It doesn't matter what the details of the contract were. Somebody's going to make a poor design choice (possibly but deniably with intent), and say "For all these billion songs we published, start sending DMCA notices to Youtube users," and their automated system will do it. It doesn't matter that since that original (non-exclusive) contract, the song is now freely available. If they get caught, they say "Oops, sorry!" and pay no fine, and make no effort to prevent it from happening again. If they don't get caught, then it's another person who might pay them a $2000 settlement for music they don't own.
It's not even likely that tougher laws will prevent the recording labels from trampling your rights anyway. According to OSNews, each label has a list of songs they used without permission, such as for compilation albums and such. They say they're making an effort to track down the artists on that list, and that's good enough for them. They can claim that with such a huge number of songs to deal with, and so many contracts, such things fall through the cracks. They'll get sympathy from courts, and go on their merry way.
The system, especially when designed by big groups, screws over normal people.
Clarification: a MINOR side effect with 0.1% occurrence. I'm not talking about "1 in 1000 dies instantly". I'm talking about "1 in 1000 has a mild headache".
I'm in favor of full disclosure of significant risks, but I think it's a bit ridiculous that a side effect with 0.1% occurrence needs to be listed in every advertisement. If you're getting a prescription medication, you should be talking to a doctor. The doctor should be able to warn you of significant side effects, and those lovely information sheets can tell you about the rest. Is this much information REALLY necessary?
We learn to override our innate self-centered tendencies as we grow up. Yes, you can become spiteful as a consequence, but that is purely YOUR CHOICE. If you choose to be grumpy about the fact that...
...many students can't stand your lectures, you'll push students out of amazing opportunities. Meanwhile, those professors...
...who aren't running around with a gigantic sense of entitlement are going to...
...have students who learn better and will...
...succeed in life.
If you really think it's 100% the student's fault that they do poorly, you are sadly ignorant of the past few decades of education theory. I've taught classes, and seen students who ignore everything. There are some you simply can't help. Those that make a bit of an effort, however, should be helped as much as possible, and if that means you need to change your teaching style, then so be it.
If you can't shed your self-centered ideal of being the great master teacher, bear in mind that our known history of Socrates comes primarily because he was Plato's teacher. In your class are a few dozen or more brilliant minds, and your lecture could be the one to spur them on to great deeds. Surely, those many minds can potentially do more good than your single one.
As teachers, we teach not for ourselves, but for our students. If the students aren't paying attention, especially on a widespread scale, it may not be the student's fault.
Personally, I've noticed the same thing, and I think it's because of the interaction. A television simply feeds you information, and you accept it. That makes you quite adept at just accepting information. In contract, a computer, even used for only playing games, requires some critical thought to decide what to do next.
A good teacher must mix both substance and style. According to [url="http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Techniques-Teaching-Joseph-Lowman/dp/078795568X"]Joseph Lowman[/url], there are two dimensions involved in the quality of teaching. First, there is simple mastery of the subject matter. A teacher who knows nothing will teach nothing. Second, there is the personal rapport between the teacher and the students. A teacher who is capable of engaging ALL students, through whatever appeals to them, can teach even the most boring subject to even the most disinterested student.
If a student doesn't care about the course, and the teacher doesn't care about the student, then nothing will be learned. In your example, the boring teacher had exactly what you needed to be interested: insight. That's fine for you, but may not work so well for another student who, for example, might learn more from charts and diagrams.
It'd be nice if maturity worked that way, but it doesn't. Humans in general are easily distracted, no matter how mature they are or what kind of media you're working in. Everything is a competition for attention. Whether it's a sales pitch, a lecture, or a political debate, the presenter with the most substance AND the most interesting delivery will come out the victor. Sure, it's possible for a student to force himself to pay attention, but that will just make the class seem like a hostile environment, no less than draconian rules and bullying do the same for elementary school.
Here's a thought: Instead of banning distractions, be the distraction yourself. For centuries, teachers have been competing with distractions, including daydreamers and sleepers. Laptops and the Internet are just more things to compete with. Instead, make your lectures interesting. Vary the tone of your voice, provide practical examples, and stay away from the temptation to just stand there and talk. Yes, you're a professor. Yes, students are paying to hear your ideas. No, they are not paying to just hear your voice.
As mentioned a few comments up, a key element is to have the mass of the battery itself used in the charging system. I don't know about watches, but from the move-to-charge devices I've seen, they all have an additional moving mass. Using the battery itself to charge would reduce the overall weight significantly. That seems to be the novel idea here.
Slashdot Mirror
Here you go: R r
Copy & paste as needed.
You wait because some programmer thought it was more important to have animated menus than a fast algorithm. You wait because someone was told "computers have lots of disk space." You wait because the engineers never tested their database on a large enough scale. You wait because programmers today are taught to write everything themselves, and to simply expect new hardware to make their mistakes irrelevant.
This is why links doomed for a Slashdot article should go through CoralCDN, first.
That's a heck of a lot of Microsoft pushing for one little article.
That said, I agree fully. Tablets have always sucked, and the iPad is just another iteration of the same game. Maybe it'll bring some fresh ideas to usability, and maybe not. For the few folks who actually have a use for a tablet, it's an exciting time.
I taught English to kids in Africa, and found very few natural connections between English sounds and letters. One of the few techniques that worked decently was to pick some words that could be formed into the letter. For example, the letter "k" can be drawn as a key. It's not great, but it makes a connection that otherwise wouldn't exist. If your kids are picking up words well enough, this might be useful. Good luck.
I am very sad now that I wasted my last mod point on a troll.
Would you mind pointing out where it "clearly explains" it doesn't involve copyright law? To me, it looks like Warner Music is blatantly abusing copyright law to pressure a third party into catering to them.
Warner Music were claiming the song as their own and MySpace bought into it without even checking.
That looks like a fraudulent claim right there, but it's not, since it wasn't made in an "official" manner. Not that it particularly matters, mind you, since under the current state of the law, "copyright holders" (henceforth known as attackers), whether or not they actually own the copyright to an item, can claim practically anything they want, and it doesn't cost them a thing. Should the defender put up a fight, they have more than enough money to run the defendant into the ground financially.
I compared only equal versions of software, assuming you had to buy a full copy of each. That avoids trying to separate the OS X cost from the Mac, or trying to research any "upgrade now for only $X" deals. Full, non-OEM copies to start, and upgrades after that.
Of course it's stupid. The parent didn't mention hardware, so neither did I. I didn't compare system requirements, but I'd say off the top of my head that both paths would require a hefty upgrade somewhere in there, unless you were starting off with wildly different configurations.
I also went with the "can do everything" approach, since I don't feel like speculating on what features are worth the price or not. Features will always be worth different amounts to different people. I personally like having a sane and standard filesystem, so I use Linux almost exclusively. Windows could cost $10, and not be worth it to me.
I just like having facts, rather than just claims of "more expensive" and "safe to say".
Alright. I'll play your game. Let's calculate this:
Windows path: 300+107+196 = $603, if I'm adding correctly.
OS X path: 129+ 0+129 (at most - some users could upgrade for $20)+20+129+X+29 = 436+X, if I'm adding correctly.
I couldn't find a reliable price for Leopard, but as long as it was under $167, it looks like OS X is the cheaper route if you want to have all the features available. Yes, you could go with a cheaper version of Vista or 7, but you could also skip some OS X versions without much loss.
...Hindenburg Highway?
It sounds (no pun intended) like this material would have to absorb energy from the sound wave. I wonder how well it would work as an acoustic barrier bordering a highway. It'd be refilled by rain, powered by noise, and it might just block the sound better than those lovely concrete walls we have now.
Who is 'they'? Is it the judicial system, which (ideally) only fines people who have done something wrong? Is it the creditors, who are only loaning you money, and just want it back? Going into bankruptcy means that not only have you exhausted your own supply of money, but generally you've exhausted what other people are willing to lend you. You should not be allowed to just forget all your old debts, any more than a bank should be allowed to forget that you made deposits.
I consider Wikipedia to be just as credible as a face-to-face interview with an expert in a given field. Given how articles are (generally) written by citing field experts, this makes sense.
The basic information will be entirely correct, but the most arcane details should be verified elsewhere. Furthermore, it will now and then include some crazy detail that nobody else agrees with, which should be passed off as fringe theories. It is credible, but not infallible.
I'm sorry if this comes as an insult to experts who think they are infallible.
I couldn't find it when I wrote my post, but this is (I think) the instance I had in mind. There was also personal experience, when I got detected by my university's automatic system for sharing music from Jamendo. The detection system used lists from major labels, and the music was under a CC license that allowed sharing.
But those indie artists can already distribute free or do whatever they want with their music.
I was referring to the ones who, for whatever reason, were with a label and have since returned to being independent. In practice, entering a contract with a label means they will try to own you, even after it's terminated, and even if it's not exclusive.
It's not like the big labels have some right to your material before you make a contract with them.
Note the second point I made. In practice, labels use whatever music they want, and MIGHT fulfill obligations later. If you sue, they can simply say "Oh, we were trying to find you, but couldn't. Hey, can we use your song for that album we released five years ago? No? Okay, we won't sell that album again. Sorry."
If you get any level of fame, the labels will try to take advantage of you, and you don't have much in the way of recourse. If you sue them, they can simply bring in the parade of high-priced lawyers, and you're stuck with what you can afford. The only way to have a chance would be to immediately sell out to another label with money, but they'd be in the RIAA too, so your suit would be dropped or settled for a trivial amount.
the only way for an indie artist to actually succeed is by playing the RIAA's game. Earn a tiny amount of fame on your own, get the attention of a big label, and sell your soul in a permanent exclusive contract. When that contract's expired, retire into oblivion and never produce music again. Be a good peon, and you might get some royalty checks now and then.
Meanwhile, those indie artists who actually WANT free distribution get screwed by the general assumption that all songs/movies are controlled by the RIAA/MPAA.
If an artist ever had a contract with a big label, that label will try to control their songs, permanently. It's happened before, and it will happen again. It doesn't matter what the details of the contract were. Somebody's going to make a poor design choice (possibly but deniably with intent), and say "For all these billion songs we published, start sending DMCA notices to Youtube users," and their automated system will do it. It doesn't matter that since that original (non-exclusive) contract, the song is now freely available. If they get caught, they say "Oops, sorry!" and pay no fine, and make no effort to prevent it from happening again. If they don't get caught, then it's another person who might pay them a $2000 settlement for music they don't own.
It's not even likely that tougher laws will prevent the recording labels from trampling your rights anyway. According to OSNews, each label has a list of songs they used without permission, such as for compilation albums and such. They say they're making an effort to track down the artists on that list, and that's good enough for them. They can claim that with such a huge number of songs to deal with, and so many contracts, such things fall through the cracks. They'll get sympathy from courts, and go on their merry way.
The system, especially when designed by big groups, screws over normal people.
Clarification: a MINOR side effect with 0.1% occurrence. I'm not talking about "1 in 1000 dies instantly". I'm talking about "1 in 1000 has a mild headache".
I'm in favor of full disclosure of significant risks, but I think it's a bit ridiculous that a side effect with 0.1% occurrence needs to be listed in every advertisement. If you're getting a prescription medication, you should be talking to a doctor. The doctor should be able to warn you of significant side effects, and those lovely information sheets can tell you about the rest. Is this much information REALLY necessary?
We learn to override our innate self-centered tendencies as we grow up. Yes, you can become spiteful as a consequence, but that is purely YOUR CHOICE. If you choose to be grumpy about the fact that...
...many students can't stand your lectures, you'll push students out of amazing opportunities. Meanwhile, those professors...
...who aren't running around with a gigantic sense of entitlement are going to...
...have students who learn better and will...
...succeed in life.
If you really think it's 100% the student's fault that they do poorly, you are sadly ignorant of the past few decades of education theory. I've taught classes, and seen students who ignore everything. There are some you simply can't help. Those that make a bit of an effort, however, should be helped as much as possible, and if that means you need to change your teaching style, then so be it.
If you can't shed your self-centered ideal of being the great master teacher, bear in mind that our known history of Socrates comes primarily because he was Plato's teacher. In your class are a few dozen or more brilliant minds, and your lecture could be the one to spur them on to great deeds. Surely, those many minds can potentially do more good than your single one.
As teachers, we teach not for ourselves, but for our students. If the students aren't paying attention, especially on a widespread scale, it may not be the student's fault.
Personally, I've noticed the same thing, and I think it's because of the interaction. A television simply feeds you information, and you accept it. That makes you quite adept at just accepting information. In contract, a computer, even used for only playing games, requires some critical thought to decide what to do next.
A good teacher must mix both substance and style. According to [url="http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Techniques-Teaching-Joseph-Lowman/dp/078795568X"]Joseph Lowman[/url], there are two dimensions involved in the quality of teaching. First, there is simple mastery of the subject matter. A teacher who knows nothing will teach nothing. Second, there is the personal rapport between the teacher and the students. A teacher who is capable of engaging ALL students, through whatever appeals to them, can teach even the most boring subject to even the most disinterested student.
If a student doesn't care about the course, and the teacher doesn't care about the student, then nothing will be learned. In your example, the boring teacher had exactly what you needed to be interested: insight. That's fine for you, but may not work so well for another student who, for example, might learn more from charts and diagrams.
It'd be nice if maturity worked that way, but it doesn't. Humans in general are easily distracted, no matter how mature they are or what kind of media you're working in. Everything is a competition for attention. Whether it's a sales pitch, a lecture, or a political debate, the presenter with the most substance AND the most interesting delivery will come out the victor. Sure, it's possible for a student to force himself to pay attention, but that will just make the class seem like a hostile environment, no less than draconian rules and bullying do the same for elementary school.
Here's a thought: Instead of banning distractions, be the distraction yourself. For centuries, teachers have been competing with distractions, including daydreamers and sleepers. Laptops and the Internet are just more things to compete with. Instead, make your lectures interesting. Vary the tone of your voice, provide practical examples, and stay away from the temptation to just stand there and talk. Yes, you're a professor. Yes, students are paying to hear your ideas. No, they are not paying to just hear your voice.
As mentioned a few comments up, a key element is to have the mass of the battery itself used in the charging system. I don't know about watches, but from the move-to-charge devices I've seen, they all have an additional moving mass. Using the battery itself to charge would reduce the overall weight significantly. That seems to be the novel idea here.