At least one person has done his PhD doing exactly that. Outcome? The videos were more likely to reinforce preexisting erroneous beliefs than they were to teach new concepts.
That's right, watching educational videos, on average, has a negative effect.
That's why universities all use the lecture/seminar/lab triad. Lecturer to teach you (and yes, it's important to have a live lecturer... videos are a very poor teaching method, often worse than nothing), seminar with a TA where you can engage in a smaller group, and lab for hands on.
It's like people figured out this stuff hundreds of years ago.
Exactly wrong. Live lectures can be quite good or very bad. Recorded live lectures (or recorded anything else) are always bad. People often love the videos, but research shows that even if you enjoy the video it's more likely to reinforce your erroneous preconceptions rather than teach you something new.
Lectures are a compromise between efficiency of delivery and optimum knowledge transfer. They're not the best at either, but they seem to achieve an optimum tradeoff.
Yes. This is another in a long series of articles that describe the absolute worst possible example of a lecture, declare "lectures" awful and/or dead, and make some exhortation about learning styles (which have zero scientific basis, except for passive/active).
Summary: awful lectures are awful. Good lectures are good. Lectures not dead.
Sure, why not? You'd convert some major streets to fully automatic thoroughfares. Kind of like freeways are now (you don't go wandering across those, do you?) except they'd be practical for getting into the centre of cities. Those streets would have overpasses. Pedestrian/bike overpasses are cheap compared to vehicle ones, and also cheap compared to building the infrastructure to handle roads that are two orders of magnitude less efficient. Other roads could be semi-automatic: the cars thread their way through then they all stop and foot and bike traffic crosses. That would still be more efficient than currently. Finally, you'd have regular neighbourhood roads that are as they are now.
North Americans seem to be too stupid to use them. There are three on the small island I live on. Even the locals can't seem to figure out how to use them properly. They work magnificently well in Europe though. Perhaps because the Europeans require more than passing a multiple choice test and tipping your examiner when you're 16.
Build a bridge. Know what happens if you have the gall to try and cross a subway track? You go to jail. That's perfectly acceptable. But someone proposes that making vehicular traffic more efficient? Think of the pedestrians!
Different types of people I guess. I see a lot of people using video phones in both their personal and professional lives. They don't call them video phones, of course. They call them smartphones, tablets and notebooks. Or in business, "videoconferencing."
My parents are retired, in their sixties, and they and their siblings and friends like to video chat. My mother didn't really use her dumb phone much, and my father didn't ever have one, but as soon as smartphones became reasonably capable they each had one. Their children (including me) seem to prefer to text, but I suppose that might change as we get older and there are babies to see.
From Amazon's financial statements, which are freely available (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97664&p=irol-sec#14806946), most of their revenue comes from actual product sales. Their advertising revenue is comparatively very small.
Most of what you describe is Amazon trying to convince you to buy more stuff from amazon. While that might be annoying, it's not the abusive "you are the product" advertising the OP was talking about.
Contrast with companies like Google, that make very little on actual product sales but make the majority of their money on selling advertising to third parties. Amazon, at least at present, is an electronic store that dabbles in a bit of advertising. Google is an advertising firm that dabbles in making and selling a product now and then (mostly to support their advertising business).
He can't be that much of an idiot. In Canada we watched mystified as the people who would benefit most from Obama's health care reform seemed to be the ones who attacked it the most viciously.
Democracy requires the citizenry to be educated in order to productively participate in the decision making process (through voting). As you've correctly pointed out (and many scientific studies have found), poorly educated people very often make or support decisions that are against their best interest, for stupid reasons.
It's a bit of a vicious circle too, because poorly educated people vote in abusive leaders who tend to discover that keeping people poorly educated is the best way to keep getting elected.
A condition of receiving treaty benefits is often that you stay on the reservation. If a basic income project had as a condition that you had to live in the middle of nowhere, where there are barely any people and no capital investment, it would indeed be a stupid program.
Actual experiments with basic income have been done, and have been quite successful.
Maybe you don't have a lot of relatives? Mine all love Skype and FaceTime. I also do a fair amount of consulting and collaborating with people around the world, and many of those people, particularly Europeans, like Skype video calls.
You can, and people have, checked to see what smartphones send home. Aside from malware, most of them (so far) seem to be pretty good about not sending more than you would reasonably assume they send. But the always on cloud assistants, by definition, need to send everything they hear back to home base.
Young kids don't have a great sense of privacy. They learn that as they get older. As soon as it occurs to them that the echo, or the shared home phone line, or the neighbour, might be reporting on them to mom or dad, they learn about privacy really quickly.
The idea of a computer that can listen has been cool for a really long time. The issue now that we can finally do it in a useful way seems to be that all the companies providing these things think they should be in "the cloud." The processing demands aren't that great: there's no reason why you couldn't have your own voice activated personal assistant running on your own hardware, in your own home. In a year or two you'll be able to have it run locally on your own phone.
Convincing a major western country to elect an extremist government by killing a couple of dozen people in a handful of low-tech attacks would be a pretty dramatic demonstration of the vulnerability of our current systems to terrorism.
Elections for the US congress and senate are reminiscent of the UK electoral system, and most systems that descend from it (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). The US presidential election system is pretty uniquely American.
Violent conflict almost is almost always attributable to economic reasons. More so the bigger it is. That doesn't mean religion isn't frequently used as a means to rally people to your cause. The IRA riling up catholic Irish against protestant English for example.
But if you want an example of some purely christian terrorists, the nutjobs who shoot up abortion clinics are a pretty good one.
When you're removing things, it works about as well as you suggest. When you want to add something (changing requires removal AND adding) then it's a lot better than anything before, but it still involves a lot of random chance. You can't really use something that random therapeutically.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot colonization.
Most of my slides have no text on them, at all. It annoys the hell out of a couple percent of the audience. Everyone else loves it.
At least one person has done his PhD doing exactly that. Outcome? The videos were more likely to reinforce preexisting erroneous beliefs than they were to teach new concepts.
That's right, watching educational videos, on average, has a negative effect.
That's why universities all use the lecture/seminar/lab triad. Lecturer to teach you (and yes, it's important to have a live lecturer... videos are a very poor teaching method, often worse than nothing), seminar with a TA where you can engage in a smaller group, and lab for hands on.
It's like people figured out this stuff hundreds of years ago.
Exactly wrong. Live lectures can be quite good or very bad. Recorded live lectures (or recorded anything else) are always bad. People often love the videos, but research shows that even if you enjoy the video it's more likely to reinforce your erroneous preconceptions rather than teach you something new.
Lectures are a compromise between efficiency of delivery and optimum knowledge transfer. They're not the best at either, but they seem to achieve an optimum tradeoff.
Yes. This is another in a long series of articles that describe the absolute worst possible example of a lecture, declare "lectures" awful and/or dead, and make some exhortation about learning styles (which have zero scientific basis, except for passive/active).
Summary: awful lectures are awful. Good lectures are good. Lectures not dead.
Sure, why not? You'd convert some major streets to fully automatic thoroughfares. Kind of like freeways are now (you don't go wandering across those, do you?) except they'd be practical for getting into the centre of cities. Those streets would have overpasses. Pedestrian/bike overpasses are cheap compared to vehicle ones, and also cheap compared to building the infrastructure to handle roads that are two orders of magnitude less efficient. Other roads could be semi-automatic: the cars thread their way through then they all stop and foot and bike traffic crosses. That would still be more efficient than currently. Finally, you'd have regular neighbourhood roads that are as they are now.
North Americans seem to be too stupid to use them. There are three on the small island I live on. Even the locals can't seem to figure out how to use them properly. They work magnificently well in Europe though. Perhaps because the Europeans require more than passing a multiple choice test and tipping your examiner when you're 16.
Build a bridge. Know what happens if you have the gall to try and cross a subway track? You go to jail. That's perfectly acceptable. But someone proposes that making vehicular traffic more efficient? Think of the pedestrians!
Sounds like the goal of modern management practices all right.
Google.
Different types of people I guess. I see a lot of people using video phones in both their personal and professional lives. They don't call them video phones, of course. They call them smartphones, tablets and notebooks. Or in business, "videoconferencing."
My parents are retired, in their sixties, and they and their siblings and friends like to video chat. My mother didn't really use her dumb phone much, and my father didn't ever have one, but as soon as smartphones became reasonably capable they each had one. Their children (including me) seem to prefer to text, but I suppose that might change as we get older and there are babies to see.
From Amazon's financial statements, which are freely available (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97664&p=irol-sec#14806946), most of their revenue comes from actual product sales. Their advertising revenue is comparatively very small.
Most of what you describe is Amazon trying to convince you to buy more stuff from amazon. While that might be annoying, it's not the abusive "you are the product" advertising the OP was talking about.
Contrast with companies like Google, that make very little on actual product sales but make the majority of their money on selling advertising to third parties. Amazon, at least at present, is an electronic store that dabbles in a bit of advertising. Google is an advertising firm that dabbles in making and selling a product now and then (mostly to support their advertising business).
He can't be that much of an idiot. In Canada we watched mystified as the people who would benefit most from Obama's health care reform seemed to be the ones who attacked it the most viciously.
Democracy requires the citizenry to be educated in order to productively participate in the decision making process (through voting). As you've correctly pointed out (and many scientific studies have found), poorly educated people very often make or support decisions that are against their best interest, for stupid reasons.
It's a bit of a vicious circle too, because poorly educated people vote in abusive leaders who tend to discover that keeping people poorly educated is the best way to keep getting elected.
A condition of receiving treaty benefits is often that you stay on the reservation. If a basic income project had as a condition that you had to live in the middle of nowhere, where there are barely any people and no capital investment, it would indeed be a stupid program.
Actual experiments with basic income have been done, and have been quite successful.
Maybe you don't have a lot of relatives? Mine all love Skype and FaceTime. I also do a fair amount of consulting and collaborating with people around the world, and many of those people, particularly Europeans, like Skype video calls.
For now. There was a story last week about how Amazon wants to get into advertising in a big way.
You can, and people have, checked to see what smartphones send home. Aside from malware, most of them (so far) seem to be pretty good about not sending more than you would reasonably assume they send. But the always on cloud assistants, by definition, need to send everything they hear back to home base.
Young kids don't have a great sense of privacy. They learn that as they get older. As soon as it occurs to them that the echo, or the shared home phone line, or the neighbour, might be reporting on them to mom or dad, they learn about privacy really quickly.
The idea of a computer that can listen has been cool for a really long time. The issue now that we can finally do it in a useful way seems to be that all the companies providing these things think they should be in "the cloud." The processing demands aren't that great: there's no reason why you couldn't have your own voice activated personal assistant running on your own hardware, in your own home. In a year or two you'll be able to have it run locally on your own phone.
Convincing a major western country to elect an extremist government by killing a couple of dozen people in a handful of low-tech attacks would be a pretty dramatic demonstration of the vulnerability of our current systems to terrorism.
Hopefully that doesn't happen.
Elections for the US congress and senate are reminiscent of the UK electoral system, and most systems that descend from it (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). The US presidential election system is pretty uniquely American.
Violent conflict almost is almost always attributable to economic reasons. More so the bigger it is. That doesn't mean religion isn't frequently used as a means to rally people to your cause. The IRA riling up catholic Irish against protestant English for example.
But if you want an example of some purely christian terrorists, the nutjobs who shoot up abortion clinics are a pretty good one.
When you're removing things, it works about as well as you suggest. When you want to add something (changing requires removal AND adding) then it's a lot better than anything before, but it still involves a lot of random chance. You can't really use something that random therapeutically.
Funny. Except that you can buy CRISPR kits specifically designed for home experiments. Right now. For $100.