I use Phonak hearing aids, they have an external Bluetooth gateway called iCom which is an small box with an induction loop you have to wear as a necklace. The sound quality is very good when using the phone and both hearing aids are in usage when using the Bluetooth link. This is a big plus in my case since my capability to decipher the spoken language increase significantly when using both ears vs any single ear.
As mentioned, the reason the external box is required (in fact it is almost a battery only) is the required power would drain your hearing aids batteries very quickly if you have to power the Bluetooth chip.
However, with the new BT v4 low-power for medical devices, it is likely this will change in the few next years as the manufacturer will incorporate the new BT chip and convert to the new standard.
The necklace type gateways are better than nothing, however the design could have been much better. In the case the Phonak device, the material the wire was covered with harden with the time and eventually the wire simply break by lack of flexibility at the junction with the plug. I had to replace it at least once a year and the replacement cannot be done by the customer, that means you have to send the box to the company and be deprived of it for about a week. This should have been made field replaceable. At least the audioprothesist could have done the replacement without delay.
You have it wrong, a lab rat will surely survive a drop of 2.5 pounds of cannabis from 3 feet. Do your math properly, you are on news for nerds' website.
Donate to MOOC like Coursera and edX and request the money be spend on technology to facilitate access to disabled students. It is well proven education spent on disabled people is having a great ROI and enable them to avoid living in poverty.
I agree, the manned spaceflight were nothing more than the response to the Cold War running wild. It was all about the national chauvinism and proving you can get there before the adversary. It wasn't about the economy, neither about innovation, etc. All these were necessary things, but were never ever the goal.
I do not believe the money would have been better spent on poverty, I believe it could have been better spent for scientific advancement in other fields. As manned spaceflight today do not have all the virtues ones would like to attribute to them. Probes, robots, rovers, satellites are doing better cheaper. The cost to send a single man into space could be better spend on direct scientific research. But I guess the taxpayer doesn't buy this. It's manned spaceflights or don't pick a penny from my pocket.
The reality is the government isn't able to sell science to taxpayers because it isn't convince itself, on another hand increasing national chauvinism has a direct return for the governing party.
Anyway, there is a load of people out there who don't like the future, neither their present, they are looking at the good ol' time. Only nerds like the future.
It all depends where you live about the universities sucking as much money as they can. I can easily understand your point and I can even agree depending on which country you are talking about. Here, we do as much as we can to keep tuitions as low as possible, even doing strikes if necessary.
For the years to come, it will be a hot topic.
No country will be able to do well by restricting access to higher education so much its population will be condemned to manual jobs or low skills jobs. The economy cannot survive this situation very long. Destroying the middle class is a really bad idea. Or transforming the middle class into slaves though student loan packages isn't a good one neither.
I second too, and I would like to add the universities do not have a mission to teach about industry products. Their mission is to transfer universal skills applicable in many fields and the state of the art knowledge about a specific field. Teaching about specific products is a dead end for universities. Employers seeking for graduates with a knowledge of specific products just don't understand what a university grade is and hence, underestimate the value of these candidates by making their own judgement on unrelated points.
Teaching about a specific product is the employer's responsability. And if your staff quit after that, as many others already said, probably you are, again, underestimating the value of your employees.
Think about it two seconds. If universities are to teach specific products, which ones should they pick? Are they supposed to decide what products the industry must use in accordance of their own teaching or the reverse, must the industry decide what product a university must teach to conform to their own requirements? And what about the student learning specific products for which there is no job available?
I forgot. I took also Udacity course Robotic Car or something like that. I just abandoned the course at some point in the middle near Kalman filters when the homeworks were repeatedly not properly graded by the grader. I believe at this point it doesn't worth to work on something that do not respect your work. I suppose they managed to fix this now.
Introduction to Artificial Intelligence from Prof Sebastian Thrun and Prof Peter Norvig (Stanford)
Machine Learning from Prof Andrew Ng (Stanford)
Introduction to Databases from Prof Jennifer Widom (Stanford)
Cryptography from Prof Dan Boneh (Stanford)
Algorithms from Prof Tim Roughgarden (Stanford)
Algorithms from Prof Robert Sedgewick (Princeton)
Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computation from Prof Umesh Vazirani (Berkeley)
Electronic circuits from Prof Anant Agarwal (MIT)
Game Theory from Prof Jackson and Shoham (Stanford)
Probabilistic Graphical Models from Daphne Koller (Stanford)
Natural Language Processing from Prof Dan Jurafsky and Chris Manning (Stanford)
Computer Vision from Prof Malik (Berkeley)
And I can say that quality vary greatly from one course to the other. It appears some lecturers are just rushing their material to the MOCC platform without doing the preparatory work. Some greatly underestimate the required work to produce a good course. Some seems have no clue what is a good on-line course. Some are just stetching together videos they already have thinking the magic will operate by itself. Some are doing serious work to deliver upstanding courses.
Conclusion, I believe one that is talking about MOCC should take many courses before making his own judgement about the MOCC. Most of the problems aren't with the MOCC itself, but with those designing and putting together the material to make a course.
I can't believe we are back to this fucking stupid idea to mimic real things like a fucking faked stamp on a fucking faked envelope with a fucking faked tongue licking the fucking faked stamp and a fucking faked hand to put the fucking faked stamp on the fucking faked envelope and put the fucking faked envelope in a fucking faked mail box, looking at a fucking faked postman picking the fucking faked envelope to put it in a fucking faked bag and riding a fucking fake bicycle to mimic the internet and send this fucking email. What the fuck! Are we that stupids?
I never said Lenovo was supposed to know, but they are supposed to cover the ass of their customers against this possibility provided the shit happens. That's what contracts are about. So, they win a lawsuit against nVidia and fixed the replacement period to only one year after the lawsuit. What about those customers the board is failing one year and one day after the lawsuit win? And they are a ton.
What these customers are told? "You know, your laptop is old and it is normal at some point it time it breaks". What is the reasonable point in time? My old Thinkpad, more than 10 years old is still working. I even have a old 486 17 years old, still working perfectly and until recent times was up and running 24h/day 7d/week. Sorry, but the lifetime of a laptop isn't 3 years, particularily if you pay for top end products with enterprise quality. They just manage to conceal their responsability toward their customers.
Provided almost all T61(p) are about to die due to the problem with the nVidia chip, there is over 130 pages of complaints on the Lenovo forum on this sole subject and still active. Provided Lenovo picked the nVidia chip, it was up to them to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of their customers. They did really bad. They kept the replacement board unaffordable while the prices were dropping fast (over 1000$ for a replacement board in Canada from Lenovo when I checked less than 10 months ago). They never recalled all the laptops likely to fail, many laptops failed just after the warranty expiration and the few months after. At the very beginning, yes, nVidia is responsible, but before the customers Lenovo is responsible. It is to them to negociate contracts with their providers and get some kind of QA on the products they buy and resell in a laptop. I was a loyal customer starting with IBM Thinkpad, I was willing to pay more for the enterprise level quality. My last experience with Lenovo proves me wrong about this so called enterprise level quality and worst, with the desire of the company to maintain a top quality service.
Sorry, Lenovo, never again.
I prefer to buy a cheap laptop I can replace easily and use a real desktop at my office instead of a boosted laptop.
The idea to customize insurance up to individual profiles is completely opposite to the very first idea of the insurance itself which is a way to share a risk within a large pool of fellows in order to distribute the cost. If you start building precise profiles of individuals and charge them accordingly, you defeat the idea behind the insurance. At term, you will charge the whole risk to each individual and they will no longer see advantages to insure themselves. Insurance is about sharing a risk over the largest population possible.
From my experience, no site render well on mobile browsers except if there is a website's version written for mobile devices. Something few are paying attention to.
Simple enough, because it is some kind of measurement of the value of your comments. So, it is self rewarding to know your comments are actually appreciated by some/many people. However, it is difficult to cheat and you earn not this reward if you cheat. Somewhat different since I guess in some countries, getting an accomplishement certificate from Coursera may have some actual value nonethless it earns you credit for a university or not. You know, some countries are having really bad education systems. I can imagine an employer will give some credit to an accomplishement certificate in those countries. And, to be frank, as an employer, I would certainly pay attention to a candidate completing some of the Coursera courses provided s/he didn't cheat. There is some good stuff there and this is an indication of the motivation of a candidate. Someone that care about self-educate himself and increase his/her knowledge on a regular basis.
For this to be true and accurate, the evaluation process itself and what it actually measure must be accurate. For many courses, it isn't simply the case. So, even students with high scores without cheating aren't necessarily what you think they are. But, probably you reduce your risk by putting aside a valuable and worthwhile candidate by picking only the highest scores, whatever it means. That is really unfortunate since valuable people will be put aside by bad evaluation/measurement process.
The "best" schools/universities are claimed the "best" base on the research quality/quantity and capacity to attract grants. The quality of the students they produce isn't a measurement at all of their goodness as an academic institution because they are picking the very "best" students at the beginning. Those who can learn even with bad teaching. It isn't in any way a measure of the quality of the education delivered by the institution itself, it is all about reputation and the power the reputation gives them to seggregate at the very beginning.
This being said, yes, they have some good teachers too, but they aren't alone.
Agree, NASA has done a complete upgrade on the previous rover. This isn't new stuff and it has been tested, the procedure is well known. Well, yes, someone may do stupid thing at the wrong time, however, the main difference is the speed of transfer and the delay between transmission and confirmation everything went fine. The environment is well controlled and I do not doubt there is fallback mechanisms in place. So, I'm sorry, on this one I am not really impressed by the NASA team.
FOTRAN and COBOL, both took off. I don't know what you are talking about saying FORTRAN was the best thing at his time. Both language where targetting different applications. COBOL and FORTRAN are still heavily in usage these days in legacy applications and represent a huge money investement.
FORTRAN's compiler was first available in 1956, while COBOL was available in 1959.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Phonak hearing aids, they have an external Bluetooth gateway called iCom which is an small box with an induction loop you have to wear as a necklace. The sound quality is very good when using the phone and both hearing aids are in usage when using the Bluetooth link. This is a big plus in my case since my capability to decipher the spoken language increase significantly when using both ears vs any single ear.
As mentioned, the reason the external box is required (in fact it is almost a battery only) is the required power would drain your hearing aids batteries very quickly if you have to power the Bluetooth chip.
However, with the new BT v4 low-power for medical devices, it is likely this will change in the few next years as the manufacturer will incorporate the new BT chip and convert to the new standard.
The necklace type gateways are better than nothing, however the design could have been much better. In the case the Phonak device, the material the wire was covered with harden with the time and eventually the wire simply break by lack of flexibility at the junction with the plug. I had to replace it at least once a year and the replacement cannot be done by the customer, that means you have to send the box to the company and be deprived of it for about a week. This should have been made field replaceable. At least the audioprothesist could have done the replacement without delay.
You have it wrong, a lab rat will surely survive a drop of 2.5 pounds of cannabis from 3 feet. Do your math properly, you are on news for nerds' website.
Donate to MOOC like Coursera and edX and request the money be spend on technology to facilitate access to disabled students. It is well proven education spent on disabled people is having a great ROI and enable them to avoid living in poverty.
I agree, the manned spaceflight were nothing more than the response to the Cold War running wild. It was all about the national chauvinism and proving you can get there before the adversary. It wasn't about the economy, neither about innovation, etc. All these were necessary things, but were never ever the goal.
I do not believe the money would have been better spent on poverty, I believe it could have been better spent for scientific advancement in other fields. As manned spaceflight today do not have all the virtues ones would like to attribute to them. Probes, robots, rovers, satellites are doing better cheaper. The cost to send a single man into space could be better spend on direct scientific research. But I guess the taxpayer doesn't buy this. It's manned spaceflights or don't pick a penny from my pocket.
The reality is the government isn't able to sell science to taxpayers because it isn't convince itself, on another hand increasing national chauvinism has a direct return for the governing party.
Anyway, there is a load of people out there who don't like the future, neither their present, they are looking at the good ol' time. Only nerds like the future.
It all depends where you live about the universities sucking as much money as they can. I can easily understand your point and I can even agree depending on which country you are talking about. Here, we do as much as we can to keep tuitions as low as possible, even doing strikes if necessary.
For the years to come, it will be a hot topic.
No country will be able to do well by restricting access to higher education so much its population will be condemned to manual jobs or low skills jobs. The economy cannot survive this situation very long. Destroying the middle class is a really bad idea. Or transforming the middle class into slaves though student loan packages isn't a good one neither.
I second too, and I would like to add the universities do not have a mission to teach about industry products. Their mission is to transfer universal skills applicable in many fields and the state of the art knowledge about a specific field. Teaching about specific products is a dead end for universities. Employers seeking for graduates with a knowledge of specific products just don't understand what a university grade is and hence, underestimate the value of these candidates by making their own judgement on unrelated points.
Teaching about a specific product is the employer's responsability. And if your staff quit after that, as many others already said, probably you are, again, underestimating the value of your employees.
Think about it two seconds. If universities are to teach specific products, which ones should they pick? Are they supposed to decide what products the industry must use in accordance of their own teaching or the reverse, must the industry decide what product a university must teach to conform to their own requirements? And what about the student learning specific products for which there is no job available?
I forgot. I took also Udacity course Robotic Car or something like that. I just abandoned the course at some point in the middle near Kalman filters when the homeworks were repeatedly not properly graded by the grader. I believe at this point it doesn't worth to work on something that do not respect your work. I suppose they managed to fix this now.
I took:
And I can say that quality vary greatly from one course to the other. It appears some lecturers are just rushing their material to the MOCC platform without doing the preparatory work. Some greatly underestimate the required work to produce a good course. Some seems have no clue what is a good on-line course. Some are just stetching together videos they already have thinking the magic will operate by itself. Some are doing serious work to deliver upstanding courses.
Conclusion, I believe one that is talking about MOCC should take many courses before making his own judgement about the MOCC. Most of the problems aren't with the MOCC itself, but with those designing and putting together the material to make a course.
Buy him a new bike.
You may ask him: If a tree falldown in the forest and you are out for lunch, does it make noise?
Great deception. I expected the message being something like: That whisky was fucking good!
I can't believe we are back to this fucking stupid idea to mimic real things like a fucking faked stamp on a fucking faked envelope with a fucking faked tongue licking the fucking faked stamp and a fucking faked hand to put the fucking faked stamp on the fucking faked envelope and put the fucking faked envelope in a fucking faked mail box, looking at a fucking faked postman picking the fucking faked envelope to put it in a fucking faked bag and riding a fucking fake bicycle to mimic the internet and send this fucking email. What the fuck! Are we that stupids?
Like: I plan to skeuomorph a bit on Facebook this week-end, and you?
Need to say, beside eating Doritos and watching TV, it will soon be possible to play harp on the internet cloud. This may be appealing to some of us.
Hum, I guess this isn't true for everyone. Take for example Ed Wood, I am about sure he was way more productive after 12-16 hour working in line.
I never said Lenovo was supposed to know, but they are supposed to cover the ass of their customers against this possibility provided the shit happens. That's what contracts are about. So, they win a lawsuit against nVidia and fixed the replacement period to only one year after the lawsuit. What about those customers the board is failing one year and one day after the lawsuit win? And they are a ton.
What these customers are told? "You know, your laptop is old and it is normal at some point it time it breaks". What is the reasonable point in time? My old Thinkpad, more than 10 years old is still working. I even have a old 486 17 years old, still working perfectly and until recent times was up and running 24h/day 7d/week. Sorry, but the lifetime of a laptop isn't 3 years, particularily if you pay for top end products with enterprise quality. They just manage to conceal their responsability toward their customers.
Provided almost all T61(p) are about to die due to the problem with the nVidia chip, there is over 130 pages of complaints on the Lenovo forum on this sole subject and still active. Provided Lenovo picked the nVidia chip, it was up to them to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of their customers. They did really bad. They kept the replacement board unaffordable while the prices were dropping fast (over 1000$ for a replacement board in Canada from Lenovo when I checked less than 10 months ago). They never recalled all the laptops likely to fail, many laptops failed just after the warranty expiration and the few months after. At the very beginning, yes, nVidia is responsible, but before the customers Lenovo is responsible. It is to them to negociate contracts with their providers and get some kind of QA on the products they buy and resell in a laptop. I was a loyal customer starting with IBM Thinkpad, I was willing to pay more for the enterprise level quality. My last experience with Lenovo proves me wrong about this so called enterprise level quality and worst, with the desire of the company to maintain a top quality service.
Sorry, Lenovo, never again.
I prefer to buy a cheap laptop I can replace easily and use a real desktop at my office instead of a boosted laptop.
The idea to customize insurance up to individual profiles is completely opposite to the very first idea of the insurance itself which is a way to share a risk within a large pool of fellows in order to distribute the cost. If you start building precise profiles of individuals and charge them accordingly, you defeat the idea behind the insurance. At term, you will charge the whole risk to each individual and they will no longer see advantages to insure themselves. Insurance is about sharing a risk over the largest population possible.
From my experience, no site render well on mobile browsers except if there is a website's version written for mobile devices. Something few are paying attention to.
Simple enough, because it is some kind of measurement of the value of your comments. So, it is self rewarding to know your comments are actually appreciated by some/many people. However, it is difficult to cheat and you earn not this reward if you cheat. Somewhat different since I guess in some countries, getting an accomplishement certificate from Coursera may have some actual value nonethless it earns you credit for a university or not. You know, some countries are having really bad education systems. I can imagine an employer will give some credit to an accomplishement certificate in those countries. And, to be frank, as an employer, I would certainly pay attention to a candidate completing some of the Coursera courses provided s/he didn't cheat. There is some good stuff there and this is an indication of the motivation of a candidate. Someone that care about self-educate himself and increase his/her knowledge on a regular basis.
For this to be true and accurate, the evaluation process itself and what it actually measure must be accurate. For many courses, it isn't simply the case. So, even students with high scores without cheating aren't necessarily what you think they are. But, probably you reduce your risk by putting aside a valuable and worthwhile candidate by picking only the highest scores, whatever it means. That is really unfortunate since valuable people will be put aside by bad evaluation/measurement process.
The "best" schools/universities are claimed the "best" base on the research quality/quantity and capacity to attract grants. The quality of the students they produce isn't a measurement at all of their goodness as an academic institution because they are picking the very "best" students at the beginning. Those who can learn even with bad teaching. It isn't in any way a measure of the quality of the education delivered by the institution itself, it is all about reputation and the power the reputation gives them to seggregate at the very beginning.
This being said, yes, they have some good teachers too, but they aren't alone.
Agree, NASA has done a complete upgrade on the previous rover. This isn't new stuff and it has been tested, the procedure is well known. Well, yes, someone may do stupid thing at the wrong time, however, the main difference is the speed of transfer and the delay between transmission and confirmation everything went fine. The environment is well controlled and I do not doubt there is fallback mechanisms in place. So, I'm sorry, on this one I am not really impressed by the NASA team.
FORTRAN's compiler was first available in 1956, while COBOL was available in 1959.
There is no law, except as a rhetoric for justifying manipulation.
You are not a citizen - but merely an object.