It won't work because there is no money to be made in it. Who will invest into development of this? And even if a group of enthusiasts will spend their time to implement something like that, implementation is the least of the problems. Who will spend millions promoting altruistic system where you don't own anything and can't sell anything? Solve this problem and options will follow...
monopoly is not about lock-in's friend, it's about one company serving all the searches on the web, and yes, you can abuse this position without lock-ins, just hide more competitive competitor's hits in your search results to drive traffic to your sites and stifle the competitor's... you don't like the monopoly you can always go to competitors -- true of any monopoly except.... there are no suitable competitors, that's why it is called monopoly
The Android process is OTA, same as iOS - and, unlike iOS, it has been that way since forever. Your phone will tell you that there is an update via the notification drawer. You tap the notification, it asks if you want to install it. You tap "yes", then go make some coffee, and in about 5 minutes or so your phone is updated.
I thought you were going to say "...and your phone is dead..." there for a moment...
I think what we are seeing now is an entire generation being taken hostage by mega-corps on the scale not imagined by any anti-monopoly legislators: all search goes through goolge, all email is on hotmail/gmail, all friends are in facebook - however you look at it it's fucked.
On the other hand, the answer is obvious - don't like facebook rules don't use it, thankfully there are alternatives now - go to diaspora and tell all your friends to do the same. Or better yet quit it all together - not being able to push another nonsense update or spend an evening peeking into the lives of your friends is not a life threatening condition. And what is it with having your dirty laundry hanging in front of the entire world as the so called "timeline" anyway? Do a weekly gettogethers and look at the photos there - as people did it before - a lot better...
I think it just means that the people did not really have a moral position on the issue, if when asked to review their altered answers they did not realize the substitution
why don't you read the cited article: he uses sample of size 1 to discuss the quality of that 1 course; nowhere he really tries to talk about online classes in general -- do your homework
This is wrong. The post's name is Udacity Statistics 101. He says
As a college educator myself, I felt compelled to survey one of these courses, so as to assess their general quality, advantages, and disadvantages... This summer, Sebastian Thrun's Udacity unveiled a new course, Introduction to Statistics, taught by Thrun himself, which I felt would be ideal for my purposes – my current job largely specializing in teaching statistics at one of the community colleges in the City University of New York
And that's what he concludes:
the course is amazingly, shockingly awful. It is poorly structured; it evidences an almost complete lack of planning for the lectures; it routinely fails to properly define or use standard terms or notation; it necessitates occasional massive gaps where “magic” happens; and it results in nonstandard computations that would not be accepted in normal statistical work. In surveying the course, some nights I personally got seriously depressed at the notion that this might be standard fare for the college lectures encountered by most students during their academic careers.
Somehow online education had become a religion for some and any critique of such is taken as a spit in the face... get real, the system "school-college-university-employment" is not going to change any time soon, and no university is going to implode because of youtube. If I want to hire a CS specialist, I wouldn't give a damn about that you learned your stuff by watching videos from Khan Academy or Udacity in your free time -- if you wanted to learn something on your own there had been tons of reading materials around for decades. in fact if you went for a chewed down stuff on youtube instead of a good textbook I'd strike you down right away... If I can't look at your real skills in practice, I'll take a certification from a known authority -- and that's where the "universities" come in... that's how the world works... but it's all just about this new shiny toy for you now, but face it - the world will continue grinding its gears the way it is for a long time ahead
Jee, why don't just have the students read the darn textbook? or is it all about technology these days, even if it is like trying to stuff a chicken pie via your poop-hole???
The original post was not about online courses but about "Introduction to Statistics" by founder Sebastian Thrun at Udacity, how it was awful, and how with the explosion of money being poured in Khan Academy and alikes this becomes the main stream of the "university education". The issue is not about online vs. real courses, but about online courses by bad teachers advertised and sold to the new generation as the modern age's education panacea.
I've myself taken courses from coursera, and even though they are heavily watered down to the level I don't personally like, being given by respective experts from real universities leaves important footprint. Mass-selling "lectures" by self-installed "educators" in a "silicon value startup" manner is a recipe for disaster...
Where this leads down the road should be quite clear
Just try to stick to making updates that DO NOT (and I mean it!) break old features. Then each new desktop will be slightly better than the previous one by simple continuity, no need for rocket science...
This doesn't really make much sense - it either works both on family level and national scale or it doesn't at both - if you can make it work for small groups of families, you can use the same tricks for the bigger society -- what are the real differences there really? If in a communist society people can decide to ride it off on the backs of the others, then same can happen at a small community level. If small community settings provide something in a way of a sufficient deterrent to such behavior, then you can figure it out and implement it on the larger scale. The truth of the matter is that no one really wants to - as with any "old-vs-new" crisis, the people who are in control and who can make things happen typically are the ones who benefit from the system and are the least interested in the change...
... well, there is a thing for that -- it's called research papers and reviews, and there is just about a ton of them everywhere for any one to read...
Science is about explaining things, not cataloging facts.
Wrong! Science is as much about cataloging facts as explaining things. Any good science begins with cataloging - how the hell will you know what to explain otherwise???... and so respectively most if not all branches of modern science began and some times for hundreds of years existed as catalogs! This goes for biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, and even Math, even if cataloging took place during Pythagoras and Archimedes!
My problem with that is that we're still working on the assumption that you need to memorize those enzymes.
Why?
Happy to say - in some fields of science memorization of certain things and ability to recall them are integral part of any work performed in there. So is most of the flavors of biology - if you want to work out certain kinds of biological processes you need to have the grasp of a certain list of enzymes. If you don't, it's like trying to write a code without knowing the language's operators and functions -- if that makes for an easier analogy for you.
In some fields you just need to learn a dozen programming language operators; in some fields it takes a score of enzyme names. The purpose of requiring the students to learn those things is not for them to remember all the digestive enzymes, but to work out an approach and habit that they will need to pursue this kind of work, biology or medicine.
Imagine if your doctor had no clue about the list of medicines and their properties available on the market (and that is _vast_); that'd be a disaster for you.
This is just bulls^%t so please go ahead and stick it up ur arss where it came from... charging in absentia is old as the world itself and if I just don't show up for interview in Sweden then they can't charge me... what a laughable joke... and stop posting all over this thread --- everyone got what you have to say and vomiting your garbage all over this place won't make the sh%t that's going on look any different than what it is
NASA had been doing "spectacular landings" and "terrifying software upgrades" their entire existence; not to detract from the awesomeness of it all, the recent spin-offs are just a publicity stunt! -- doesn't it strike you how all this got suddenly so-o-o-o-o-o terrifying and spectacular just about the time of NASA's budget cuts and the NASA's declaration of the fight for "hearts and minds" of its fellow american citizens? This is all fine and cool, of course, but/. should know better duh...
While it is interesting to know what the area of a bit is, it is probably also interesting to know that not one thing has ever been sucked into the event horizon, and so "lost", in the history of the universe -- and never will be -- meet the general relativistic time dilation...
If you have N-way entanglement you need to measure all N-1 particles to determine if the one you caught is fast or not, it works the other way around, not #particles/N but #particles*(N-1)/N. The two way split is the optimal in this sense.
And moreover there was a nice analogy here about a pair of billiard balls being hit by an incoming ball of unknown energy and broken into a pair, one billiard balls is then measured and the other is "caught" by the Demon; by the conservation of energy/momentum you can still tell if the caught ball is fast or not from what you get out of your measured ball. However, just as this system is completely classical and so presumably obeys the laws of thermodynamics, there is nothing new in the mentioned paper other than a fancy word "entanglement".
The departments where people only do research that is guaranteed to work are usually the weaker ones. Good research addresses problems where the solution isn't known, where there are only some approximate ideas about what it may be, and where failure is likely. A big problem in academia today is exactly the attitude in your post - that people who do research that may fail should be penalised.
FULLY SUBSCRIBE TO THAT... and btw, historically, the only effect of "focusing research on the problems that will benefit economy" was to hurt the economy but what would you expect from politicians, knowledge of history?
Slashdot Mirror
It won't work because there is no money to be made in it. Who will invest into development of this? And even if a group of enthusiasts will spend their time to implement something like that, implementation is the least of the problems. Who will spend millions promoting altruistic system where you don't own anything and can't sell anything? Solve this problem and options will follow...
you'd have to go with round phones with rectangular edges from now on buddy
monopoly is not about lock-in's friend, it's about one company serving all the searches on the web, and yes, you can abuse this position without lock-ins, just hide more competitive competitor's hits in your search results to drive traffic to your sites and stifle the competitor's... you don't like the monopoly you can always go to competitors -- true of any monopoly except .... there are no suitable competitors, that's why it is called monopoly
Pardon my ignorance, but can you sue a foreign national in a local small claims court???
The Android process is OTA, same as iOS - and, unlike iOS, it has been that way since forever. Your phone will tell you that there is an update via the notification drawer. You tap the notification, it asks if you want to install it. You tap "yes", then go make some coffee, and in about 5 minutes or so your phone is updated.
I thought you were going to say "...and your phone is dead..." there for a moment...
I rolled up my twitter project and left half a year ago, if you are a twitter developer, I suggest you do the same...
I think what we are seeing now is an entire generation being taken hostage by mega-corps on the scale not imagined by any anti-monopoly legislators: all search goes through goolge, all email is on hotmail/gmail, all friends are in facebook - however you look at it it's fucked.
On the other hand, the answer is obvious - don't like facebook rules don't use it, thankfully there are alternatives now - go to diaspora and tell all your friends to do the same. Or better yet quit it all together - not being able to push another nonsense update or spend an evening peeking into the lives of your friends is not a life threatening condition. And what is it with having your dirty laundry hanging in front of the entire world as the so called "timeline" anyway? Do a weekly gettogethers and look at the photos there - as people did it before - a lot better...
I think it just means that the people did not really have a moral position on the issue, if when asked to review their altered answers they did not realize the substitution
why don't you read the cited article: he uses sample of size 1 to discuss the quality of that 1 course; nowhere he really tries to talk about online classes in general -- do your homework
As a college educator myself, I felt compelled to survey one of these courses, so as to assess their general quality, advantages, and disadvantages... This summer, Sebastian Thrun's Udacity unveiled a new course, Introduction to Statistics, taught by Thrun himself, which I felt would be ideal for my purposes – my current job largely specializing in teaching statistics at one of the community colleges in the City University of New York
And that's what he concludes:
the course is amazingly, shockingly awful. It is poorly structured; it evidences an almost complete lack of planning for the lectures; it routinely fails to properly define or use standard terms or notation; it necessitates occasional massive gaps where “magic” happens; and it results in nonstandard computations that would not be accepted in normal statistical work. In surveying the course, some nights I personally got seriously depressed at the notion that this might be standard fare for the college lectures encountered by most students during their academic careers.
Somehow online education had become a religion for some and any critique of such is taken as a spit in the face... get real, the system "school-college-university-employment" is not going to change any time soon, and no university is going to implode because of youtube. If I want to hire a CS specialist, I wouldn't give a damn about that you learned your stuff by watching videos from Khan Academy or Udacity in your free time -- if you wanted to learn something on your own there had been tons of reading materials around for decades. in fact if you went for a chewed down stuff on youtube instead of a good textbook I'd strike you down right away... If I can't look at your real skills in practice, I'll take a certification from a known authority -- and that's where the "universities" come in... that's how the world works... but it's all just about this new shiny toy for you now, but face it - the world will continue grinding its gears the way it is for a long time ahead
Jee, why don't just have the students read the darn textbook? or is it all about technology these days, even if it is like trying to stuff a chicken pie via your poop-hole???
The original post was not about online courses but about "Introduction to Statistics" by founder Sebastian Thrun at Udacity, how it was awful, and how with the explosion of money being poured in Khan Academy and alikes this becomes the main stream of the "university education". The issue is not about online vs. real courses, but about online courses by bad teachers advertised and sold to the new generation as the modern age's education panacea.
I've myself taken courses from coursera, and even though they are heavily watered down to the level I don't personally like, being given by respective experts from real universities leaves important footprint. Mass-selling "lectures" by self-installed "educators" in a "silicon value startup" manner is a recipe for disaster...
Where this leads down the road should be quite clear
Just try to stick to making updates that DO NOT (and I mean it!) break old features. Then each new desktop will be slightly better than the previous one by simple continuity, no need for rocket science...
This doesn't really make much sense - it either works both on family level and national scale or it doesn't at both - if you can make it work for small groups of families, you can use the same tricks for the bigger society -- what are the real differences there really? If in a communist society people can decide to ride it off on the backs of the others, then same can happen at a small community level. If small community settings provide something in a way of a sufficient deterrent to such behavior, then you can figure it out and implement it on the larger scale. The truth of the matter is that no one really wants to - as with any "old-vs-new" crisis, the people who are in control and who can make things happen typically are the ones who benefit from the system and are the least interested in the change...
They may have invented TCP/IP, but not "on a computer". So I call this prior art invalid.
You should say "prior aNt"
... well, there is a thing for that -- it's called research papers and reviews, and there is just about a ton of them everywhere for any one to read ...
Science is about explaining things, not cataloging facts.
Wrong! Science is as much about cataloging facts as explaining things. Any good science begins with cataloging - how the hell will you know what to explain otherwise??? ... and so respectively most if not all branches of modern science began and some times for hundreds of years existed as catalogs! This goes for biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, and even Math, even if cataloging took place during Pythagoras and Archimedes!
My problem with that is that we're still working on the assumption that you need to memorize those enzymes.
Why?
Happy to say - in some fields of science memorization of certain things and ability to recall them are integral part of any work performed in there. So is most of the flavors of biology - if you want to work out certain kinds of biological processes you need to have the grasp of a certain list of enzymes. If you don't, it's like trying to write a code without knowing the language's operators and functions -- if that makes for an easier analogy for you.
In some fields you just need to learn a dozen programming language operators; in some fields it takes a score of enzyme names. The purpose of requiring the students to learn those things is not for them to remember all the digestive enzymes, but to work out an approach and habit that they will need to pursue this kind of work, biology or medicine.
Imagine if your doctor had no clue about the list of medicines and their properties available on the market (and that is _vast_); that'd be a disaster for you.
This is just bulls^%t so please go ahead and stick it up ur arss where it came from... charging in absentia is old as the world itself and if I just don't show up for interview in Sweden then they can't charge me ... what a laughable joke ... and stop posting all over this thread --- everyone got what you have to say and vomiting your garbage all over this place won't make the sh%t that's going on look any different than what it is
NASA had been doing "spectacular landings" and "terrifying software upgrades" their entire existence; not to detract from the awesomeness of it all, the recent spin-offs are just a publicity stunt! -- doesn't it strike you how all this got suddenly so-o-o-o-o-o terrifying and spectacular just about the time of NASA's budget cuts and the NASA's declaration of the fight for "hearts and minds" of its fellow american citizens? This is all fine and cool, of course, but /. should know better duh...
While it is interesting to know what the area of a bit is, it is probably also interesting to know that not one thing has ever been sucked into the event horizon, and so "lost", in the history of the universe -- and never will be -- meet the general relativistic time dilation...
Every time you vote republican a kitten is dying...
If you have N-way entanglement you need to measure all N-1 particles to determine if the one you caught is fast or not, it works the other way around, not #particles/N but #particles*(N-1)/N. The two way split is the optimal in this sense.
And moreover there was a nice analogy here about a pair of billiard balls being hit by an incoming ball of unknown energy and broken into a pair, one billiard balls is then measured and the other is "caught" by the Demon; by the conservation of energy/momentum you can still tell if the caught ball is fast or not from what you get out of your measured ball. However, just as this system is completely classical and so presumably obeys the laws of thermodynamics, there is nothing new in the mentioned paper other than a fancy word "entanglement".
So, have a bigger brain and prefrontal lobe and more connections and you are 25% intelligent... nice !!!
The departments where people only do research that is guaranteed to work are usually the weaker ones. Good research addresses problems where the solution isn't known, where there are only some approximate ideas about what it may be, and where failure is likely. A big problem in academia today is exactly the attitude in your post - that people who do research that may fail should be penalised.
FULLY SUBSCRIBE TO THAT... and btw, historically, the only effect of "focusing research on the problems that will benefit economy" was to hurt the economy but what would you expect from politicians, knowledge of history?