I faced a similar question in 2005 when I went back to school for a PhD. I ended up using an HP Tablet PC with OneNote, and it worked well at times. As others have said, the search ability (including OCR) is the key to making those notes quickly useful. Sometimes I would take notes on paper and other times I would take notes directly in OneNote. Either way, they were transcribed into OneNote eventually (usually using Windows Speech Recognition to help with transcription). I still search my notes from my graduate seminars and from the notes I made for the courses I've taught.
I am now a professor, and I believe that different courses and different faculty require different approaches to study. For example, the recent trend of the "flipped" classroom where the content of the course is delivered between course settings and the problems / case studies are discussed in class might lead to a different technology set for working in the classroom. I also found that my statistics notes were quite different than notes from my seminar courses. Seminars were more for discussion of which schools of thought were more and less reasonable, and thus less amenable to note-taking.
Therefore, if I were to start again, I think I would prepare for multiple types of courses. One would be where note-taking would be necessary in class. Another would be where I use notes in class for contributing to the discussion / case study / problem sets.
Also, good luck. My advice to any graduate student is to read everything that is assigned, always go to class, and work harder than you ever have in your life. You've chosen to do this rather than earn real money... you might as well do it well.
To suggest that IBM is dumping all hardware business lines is inaccurate. IBM is staying in hardware, they just aren't staying in commodity hardware. IBM's Watson and its derivatives are examples of the type of business they are keeping and trying to develop. They will leave most of the low-margin commodity business to others while they research and develop new technology to exploit.
This strategy assumes that they can develop something that will be commercially viable, of course. Will that happen? It appears to be a risk they are willing to take.
When a nation is no longer able to excel in a technology they pioneered, it's very difficult to come back. [...]
Ultimately, what will define how technology will evolve is not the day-to-day improvement but the grand vision. [...]
I think the implication of a decline in technology in the U.S. that is implied by "decadence" is a little unfair. My view is that the U.S. has shifted the focus of its technological development. This shift has been away from technologies involving travel, and towards technologies involving communications (electronics, internet, etc.) and our biological / physiological existence (the human genome and such).
The "change" is because the elections web site is only in operation for elections. Its operation was contracted to SmartTech by the Ohio Secretary of State. There was no "hack". Partisans and partisan companies are involved in the elections and voting process. The key is having enough oversight to keep everyone honest.
You're right... Calling the switch a "hack" was too strong for the evidence we have at the moment.
Any patent reform proposals will be fought with basic, easily understandable, concepts of ownership and property. Something like, "I wrote it, I should benefit from it's creation."
Before your panties get in a twist, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I think ownership needs to be redefined in both the copyright and patent space. I just see patent reform as an uphill battle because of the simple to understand arguments against it.
Dualism (binary thinking) is a core value of Western culture. So it will be very difficult for many of us to escape formulating our decision models into dual forms. Because of that, I'm not sure this model is inherently bad.
By the way, Western culture also likes to build hierarchies, and atomize (break things down).
Isn't it interesting that a business school book is encouraging INSIDE-the-box thinking, though?
Slashdot Mirror
I faced a similar question in 2005 when I went back to school for a PhD. I ended up using an HP Tablet PC with OneNote, and it worked well at times. As others have said, the search ability (including OCR) is the key to making those notes quickly useful. Sometimes I would take notes on paper and other times I would take notes directly in OneNote. Either way, they were transcribed into OneNote eventually (usually using Windows Speech Recognition to help with transcription). I still search my notes from my graduate seminars and from the notes I made for the courses I've taught.
I am now a professor, and I believe that different courses and different faculty require different approaches to study. For example, the recent trend of the "flipped" classroom where the content of the course is delivered between course settings and the problems / case studies are discussed in class might lead to a different technology set for working in the classroom. I also found that my statistics notes were quite different than notes from my seminar courses. Seminars were more for discussion of which schools of thought were more and less reasonable, and thus less amenable to note-taking.
Therefore, if I were to start again, I think I would prepare for multiple types of courses. One would be where note-taking would be necessary in class. Another would be where I use notes in class for contributing to the discussion / case study / problem sets.
Also, good luck. My advice to any graduate student is to read everything that is assigned, always go to class, and work harder than you ever have in your life. You've chosen to do this rather than earn real money... you might as well do it well.
To suggest that IBM is dumping all hardware business lines is inaccurate. IBM is staying in hardware, they just aren't staying in commodity hardware. IBM's Watson and its derivatives are examples of the type of business they are keeping and trying to develop. They will leave most of the low-margin commodity business to others while they research and develop new technology to exploit. This strategy assumes that they can develop something that will be commercially viable, of course. Will that happen? It appears to be a risk they are willing to take.
When a nation is no longer able to excel in a technology they pioneered, it's very difficult to come back. [...]
Ultimately, what will define how technology will evolve is not the day-to-day improvement but the grand vision. [...]
I think the implication of a decline in technology in the U.S. that is implied by "decadence" is a little unfair. My view is that the U.S. has shifted the focus of its technological development. This shift has been away from technologies involving travel, and towards technologies involving communications (electronics, internet, etc.) and our biological / physiological existence (the human genome and such).
Think of the children... No, seriously, think of the children.
You're right... Calling the switch a "hack" was too strong for the evidence we have at the moment.
I stand corrected.
1. How reliable is the Netcraft data? What would it take to hack Netcraft and make it look like there was a hack of the Ohio SOS?
2. What information do we have that the election.sos.state.oh.us domain was a part of the election procedures during the 2004 election?
3. Was the April 2006 change during a primary election?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Before your panties get in a twist, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I think ownership needs to be redefined in both the copyright and patent space. I just see patent reform as an uphill battle because of the simple to understand arguments against it.
By the way, Western culture also likes to build hierarchies, and atomize (break things down).
Isn't it interesting that a business school book is encouraging INSIDE-the-box thinking, though?