Because my first guess is that it is a security risk given the bad things that occasionally occur there, for example it simplifies the bad guy's preparation - no need to do things in person and possibly engage in suspicious behavior. So there must be some security benefit that I am missing.
If you want your opinion to count, don't rely on any politician to listen to you. Money is what gets represented, not people. Capitalism and democracy are like oil and water.
Wrong. Votes, not money, drive politics. Money is just a tool for getting votes when voters are apathetic, lazy. When voters are motivated their demands are heard. For example the National Rifle Association is not powerful because of donations, it is powerful because its members are highly motivated and will show up to vote.
Saying its all about the money is really just rationalizing voter apathy, an excuse for not doing anything.
Similarly corporations are also responsive to consumer demands, or their apathy. Consumer spending patterns dictate corporate behavior by defining where money will be made. Basically the corporate greed goes in the direction of consumer behavior. For example consider outsourcing. If consumers had punished that first corporation that experimented with outsourcing by switching to their domestically sourced competitors then corporate greed would have said stay with domestic production.
Again, the power over the corporations is in our hands should we wish to exercise it, via our spending. Just like the power over politicians is in our hands should we with to exercise it, via our voting.
The Q&A during class time was primarily the professor asking students questions, asking students to demonstrate conceptual understanding and the ability to apply those concepts; and sparking debate among the students via these questions.
Thanks for clarifying. IMHO having the lecture occur outside of class time and having more time for interaction seems to work. At my university interactions included everyone being called on to demonstrate basic understanding, then a followup question providing an opportunity to apply the knowledge. Debates among students were also encouraged. In grad school where I had many classes with the same people I definitely observed better preparation and outcomes compared to more traditional classes. I'm sure its not a panacea, a bad professor can probably screw up either format, however I do think that the good professors can get students further into a topic.
Rather than give the standard lecture during class time they make the recordings available to students. Students are told to watch the lectures on their own time and then class time is used for discussions
I am curious about this approach, but I have strong reservations that it looks like a nice idea in pure form, and with sincere good will on all sides could work, but may also just fail as it smacks into hard reality. Only some small percentage of students have the self-discipline to actually review the material carefully, rigorously. Unless there are frequent and regular exams/tests to enforce a learning schedule (which is a lot of work for the instructor and those grading, and moots the "on their own time" property) I suspect many will just do nothing most of the term and attempt to crib it all before the exam. It reminds me of efforts to relax assignment/coursework deadlines, and just let students hand material in whenever they want---it just doesn't work: most try to do everything at the end, fail miserably, and either end up doing badly in the course or begging for extensions.
In classes that I have had where recorded lectures have been used the discussions during classroom time were pretty heavy with Q&A. A professor called on students with a basic question validating they got the concepts from the lecture, then the professor would follow up with a more advanced question to see if they could apply the concepts rather than merely repeat them back. I got the impression that students were actually more conscientious in their preparation with this format. Nearly everyone got called once each lecture and your grade suffered if you could not manage informed responses.
Oh, and by the way, the idea of students learning the "dry material" outside of class and then coming to class for interaction is not at all new.
In the past, it was called "doing the reading."
I disagree, the lectures and readings are two different things. Very different for the good professors, not so much for the not-so-good. Textbooks do not always line up very well with what a professor may believe needs emphasis. In classes where we had recorded lectures we actually spent more time on the class. These recorded lectures were "additional" content, they did not replace normal readings nor classroom time.
Listening to a rote lecture is not much of an education. A lot of learning occurs during discussions and Q&A. Rote lectures can be watched online at the student's convenience. Universities still have an important role, they actually seem to be on a course to make themselves more valuable. Move the rote lectures online and use that valuable face-to-face time for interaction. Students learn more *and* professors are happier. They don't like giving the same lecture over and over, they much prefer interacting with students -- well the good ones at least.
Online education is ok, but there's no substitute for being able to ask questions in realtime and address issues with an actual teacher.
This is a variation on what is happening in universities across the world. Many professors are recording their lectures. Rather than give the standard lecture during class time they make the recordings available to students. Students are told to watch the lectures on their own time and then class time is used for discussions, Q&A, etc. Personally I thought classes organized like this have been a good idea. Using class time for a professor to perform the same old lecture is a poor use of time. Face-to-face time should be for interaction, not one way communication.
Yes and if you go far enough back liberal means modern-day libertarian. Conservative and liberal are labels that really only make sense in a time and place context. Which is why a little tiny part of me dies whenever people refer to parties with similar names 200 years ago in relation to modern politics.
And the Progressive Party was an offshoot of the Republican Party created by Republican Teddy Roosevelt, an environmentalist and monopoly buster. "Libertarian", "Progressive", "Democrat", "Republican", etc all representing different beliefs depending upon the timeframe you look at.
Which brings me to the silliness of party loyalty. Even if beliefs aren't shifting in your lifetime party loyalty is counterproductive. If you are a party loyalist then your party can ignore you, they already have your vote. Meanwhile the other party can also ignore you because there is nothing they can do to receive your vote.
If you want your opinion to count you can not be loyal to a party. You must give every candidate a chance and make them earn your vote through their policy positions.
My own theory is that we are in the middle of a dramatic and broad technological and economic shift in which software companies are poised to take over large swathes of the economy.
FOSS undermines your theory. If anything popular emerges some group is bound to start a project to implement a clone of the commercial software.
I don't know how many people will be able to afford such a trip, outside of Las Vegas, Hollywood, Cupertino, Redmond, and few retirees
That is a really strange perspective on where wealth (defined as having $200K to indulge in a fantasy trip) is found. Early Apple and Microsoft employees, movie moguls, and casino owners?
It will set you back $200,000. I don't know how many people will be able to afford such a trip, outside of Las Vegas, Hollywood, Cupertino, Redmond, and few retirees, but I suppose they are thinking that they can make their money back with this project in the long term.
When you have something with limited availability you start with those customers with a higher willingness to pay and charge them something at or near their perceived value. When you have exhausted this segment of the market you can lower the price and go for the next tier down. Walking down the prices in this manner maximizes revenue, everyone pays near their perceived value. So they are really making their money back in the shortest term possible.
It probably had something to do with Borders closing.
No, it has to do with a disappearing magazine. I've been checking out Linux Journal for many years at various bookstores and magazine stands, and occasionally purchased an interesting issue. The magazine has been getting thinner and thinner in recent years. Not long ago I began to expect something like this, I've seen it before. Byte, Doctor Dobb's Journal, C Users Journal, etc.
There is another angle to this. Perhaps China will restrict the export of components, such as rare earth magnets, to be used in the manufacture/assembly of HDs in other countries but they will probably not restrict the export of Chinese manufactured/assembled HDs. This may merely be a tactic to force Seagate and WD to move more production to China.
China does not want to manufacture low priced commodities. They want to manufacture high tech finished goods. They will use all forms of pressure to reach this goal.
certain sectors 'require' apple products and as such you have to pay an unfair price. If your then running a business out of Australia this makes you less able to compete in a free market.
I understand being very annoyed at paying a higher price but are you really less able to compete? I would expect the incremental amount being paid is trivial compared to other costs such as labor.
Malicious code is the least of the problems with online voting. It becomes almost trivial to buy/extort votes.
You sure about that? Purchasing and extorting votes is a manual process. Malicious code automates the process. Imagine every malware infested PC altering the vote
Congratulations, you have just proven that electronic voting is a bad idea. If you were responsible for 100% of fraudulent transactions, could not challenge charges, count not reverse charges, etc... would use use online banking? Voting is a one time event, there is no do over, at best a fraudulent vote is thrown out.
Direct democracy!
Also known as mob rule. Be careful what you ask for.
Fine. They can offer you a link to the google source and we are done or they can wait for you to send a $10 or so check, wait for it to clear, and then burn and mail a CD-R to you. The later fully complies with the GPL. Your choice. Keep in mind that if you want to get letter of the law so can they.
Slashdot Mirror
Because my first guess is that it is a security risk given the bad things that occasionally occur there, for example it simplifies the bad guy's preparation - no need to do things in person and possibly engage in suspicious behavior. So there must be some security benefit that I am missing.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how this improves security in Israel. I can't imagine this being allowed unless there was some security benefit.
If you want your opinion to count, don't rely on any politician to listen to you. Money is what gets represented, not people. Capitalism and democracy are like oil and water.
Wrong. Votes, not money, drive politics. Money is just a tool for getting votes when voters are apathetic, lazy. When voters are motivated their demands are heard. For example the National Rifle Association is not powerful because of donations, it is powerful because its members are highly motivated and will show up to vote.
Saying its all about the money is really just rationalizing voter apathy, an excuse for not doing anything.
Similarly corporations are also responsive to consumer demands, or their apathy. Consumer spending patterns dictate corporate behavior by defining where money will be made. Basically the corporate greed goes in the direction of consumer behavior. For example consider outsourcing. If consumers had punished that first corporation that experimented with outsourcing by switching to their domestically sourced competitors then corporate greed would have said stay with domestic production.
Again, the power over the corporations is in our hands should we wish to exercise it, via our spending. Just like the power over politicians is in our hands should we with to exercise it, via our voting.
The Q&A during class time was primarily the professor asking students questions, asking students to demonstrate conceptual understanding and the ability to apply those concepts; and sparking debate among the students via these questions.
Thanks for clarifying. IMHO having the lecture occur outside of class time and having more time for interaction seems to work. At my university interactions included everyone being called on to demonstrate basic understanding, then a followup question providing an opportunity to apply the knowledge. Debates among students were also encouraged. In grad school where I had many classes with the same people I definitely observed better preparation and outcomes compared to more traditional classes. I'm sure its not a panacea, a bad professor can probably screw up either format, however I do think that the good professors can get students further into a topic.
Rather than give the standard lecture during class time they make the recordings available to students. Students are told to watch the lectures on their own time and then class time is used for discussions
I am curious about this approach, but I have strong reservations that it looks like a nice idea in pure form, and with sincere good will on all sides could work, but may also just fail as it smacks into hard reality. Only some small percentage of students have the self-discipline to actually review the material carefully, rigorously. Unless there are frequent and regular exams/tests to enforce a learning schedule (which is a lot of work for the instructor and those grading, and moots the "on their own time" property) I suspect many will just do nothing most of the term and attempt to crib it all before the exam. It reminds me of efforts to relax assignment/coursework deadlines, and just let students hand material in whenever they want---it just doesn't work: most try to do everything at the end, fail miserably, and either end up doing badly in the course or begging for extensions.
In classes that I have had where recorded lectures have been used the discussions during classroom time were pretty heavy with Q&A. A professor called on students with a basic question validating they got the concepts from the lecture, then the professor would follow up with a more advanced question to see if they could apply the concepts rather than merely repeat them back. I got the impression that students were actually more conscientious in their preparation with this format. Nearly everyone got called once each lecture and your grade suffered if you could not manage informed responses.
Oh, and by the way, the idea of students learning the "dry material" outside of class and then coming to class for interaction is not at all new.
In the past, it was called "doing the reading."
I disagree, the lectures and readings are two different things. Very different for the good professors, not so much for the not-so-good. Textbooks do not always line up very well with what a professor may believe needs emphasis. In classes where we had recorded lectures we actually spent more time on the class. These recorded lectures were "additional" content, they did not replace normal readings nor classroom time.
Listening to a rote lecture is not much of an education. A lot of learning occurs during discussions and Q&A. Rote lectures can be watched online at the student's convenience. Universities still have an important role, they actually seem to be on a course to make themselves more valuable. Move the rote lectures online and use that valuable face-to-face time for interaction. Students learn more *and* professors are happier. They don't like giving the same lecture over and over, they much prefer interacting with students -- well the good ones at least.
Online education is ok, but there's no substitute for being able to ask questions in realtime and address issues with an actual teacher.
This is a variation on what is happening in universities across the world. Many professors are recording their lectures. Rather than give the standard lecture during class time they make the recordings available to students. Students are told to watch the lectures on their own time and then class time is used for discussions, Q&A, etc. Personally I thought classes organized like this have been a good idea. Using class time for a professor to perform the same old lecture is a poor use of time. Face-to-face time should be for interaction, not one way communication.
Yes and if you go far enough back liberal means modern-day libertarian. Conservative and liberal are labels that really only make sense in a time and place context. Which is why a little tiny part of me dies whenever people refer to parties with similar names 200 years ago in relation to modern politics.
And the Progressive Party was an offshoot of the Republican Party created by Republican Teddy Roosevelt, an environmentalist and monopoly buster. "Libertarian", "Progressive", "Democrat", "Republican", etc all representing different beliefs depending upon the timeframe you look at.
Which brings me to the silliness of party loyalty. Even if beliefs aren't shifting in your lifetime party loyalty is counterproductive. If you are a party loyalist then your party can ignore you, they already have your vote. Meanwhile the other party can also ignore you because there is nothing they can do to receive your vote.
If you want your opinion to count you can not be loyal to a party. You must give every candidate a chance and make them earn your vote through their policy positions.
My own theory is that we are in the middle of a dramatic and broad technological and economic shift in which software companies are poised to take over large swathes of the economy.
FOSS undermines your theory. If anything popular emerges some group is bound to start a project to implement a clone of the commercial software.
I don't know how many people will be able to afford such a trip, outside of Las Vegas, Hollywood, Cupertino, Redmond, and few retirees
That is a really strange perspective on where wealth (defined as having $200K to indulge in a fantasy trip) is found. Early Apple and Microsoft employees, movie moguls, and casino owners?
It will set you back $200,000. I don't know how many people will be able to afford such a trip, outside of Las Vegas, Hollywood, Cupertino, Redmond, and few retirees, but I suppose they are thinking that they can make their money back with this project in the long term.
When you have something with limited availability you start with those customers with a higher willingness to pay and charge them something at or near their perceived value. When you have exhausted this segment of the market you can lower the price and go for the next tier down. Walking down the prices in this manner maximizes revenue, everyone pays near their perceived value. So they are really making their money back in the shortest term possible.
How am i supposed to read the journal, when I can't take it with me?
That is what tablets are for. :-)
It probably had something to do with Borders closing.
No, it has to do with a disappearing magazine. I've been checking out Linux Journal for many years at various bookstores and magazine stands, and occasionally purchased an interesting issue. The magazine has been getting thinner and thinner in recent years. Not long ago I began to expect something like this, I've seen it before. Byte, Doctor Dobb's Journal, C Users Journal, etc.
There is another angle to this. Perhaps China will restrict the export of components, such as rare earth magnets, to be used in the manufacture/assembly of HDs in other countries but they will probably not restrict the export of Chinese manufactured/assembled HDs. This may merely be a tactic to force Seagate and WD to move more production to China.
China does not want to manufacture low priced commodities. They want to manufacture high tech finished goods. They will use all forms of pressure to reach this goal.
certain sectors 'require' apple products and as such you have to pay an unfair price. If your then running a business out of Australia this makes you less able to compete in a free market.
I understand being very annoyed at paying a higher price but are you really less able to compete? I would expect the incremental amount being paid is trivial compared to other costs such as labor.
Malicious code is the least of the problems with online voting. It becomes almost trivial to buy/extort votes.
You sure about that? Purchasing and extorting votes is a manual process. Malicious code automates the process. Imagine every malware infested PC altering the vote
If you can bank online you can vote online.
Congratulations, you have just proven that electronic voting is a bad idea. If you were responsible for 100% of fraudulent transactions, could not challenge charges, count not reverse charges, etc ... would use use online banking? Voting is a one time event, there is no do over, at best a fraudulent vote is thrown out.
Direct democracy!
Also known as mob rule. Be careful what you ask for.
They only disarm bombs during the day time and weather permitting...
Given that its *Navy* EOD you might want to add only bombs that are on land or at the surface. :-)
It doesn't matter that you didn't modify the source you still have to distribute source yourself if you distribute the binaries. This has come up before in the context of Linux distribution - it is not sufficient to point to someone else's source when distributing GPL licensed binaries.
Fine. They can offer you a link to the google source and we are done or they can wait for you to send a $10 or so check, wait for it to clear, and then burn and mail a CD-R to you. The later fully complies with the GPL. Your choice. Keep in mind that if you want to get letter of the law so can they.