even if it doesn't stop spam. Its time the people of the world stood up against these bastards even if its just a symbolic gesture. What the spammers are doing should be considered "illegal".
It seems to me that maybe what we want is a machine that records the voters vote in a computer-readable format. You touch a big button on the screen to vote, confirm your answer, and the computer prints out a card with a bar code or something that can be read by another counting computer. That way, you always have the physical, paper, evidence of the vote which can't be stolen by hackers or corrupted by computer crashes, etc, but you also don't have hanging chads and the like. Maybe this is the way it already works, I don't know, but it seems if you keep the whole thing digital you are asking for trouble...
I don't understand exactly what this second part is, the part they are keeping - how do they make money handling the infrastructure? Could someone please explain? Thanks...
The reason I use it is because it organizes the information in the same way it is presented in class. (The idea is that the students can print out the slides and follow along without having to write down everything I say. Then they can focus on listening rather than writing.) There is also a lot of multimedia that can't really be adequately conveyed in text. Diagrams, pictures, animations, etc. It is covenient and all of the UCLA computer labs have it so the students have access to the software. I wish I didn't have to use a Microsoft product - I have tried Apple's Keynote but I do not find it to be a sufficient replacement.
Yes, this is true. I make my lectures available to students as Powerpoint files, which get very large, especially with animations and videos. These files are too large to send via email. Right now we do it via a course webpage, but with the amount of data being distributed I can see how this is not the best way to do it. It would also be nice to share large datasets with colleagues more easily....
Does anyone understand how this technology works? "Without special glasses" - Do you need to cross your eyes the whole time you are working on the computer?
I don't think product placement works on the premise that the viewers will explicitly remember which shows the particular products were placed in. I think the idea is to affect the formation of implicit associations between the product and some situation or feelins. This can work largely unconsciously. You don't need to remember that Seinfeld used an Apple for the experience to affect the nebulous semi-conscious feelings you have when you see the shiny Apple logo next time.
Part of the power and danger of this technique is that it can bypass our conscious reasoning about the product.
Also, one brain cell doesn't act particularly intelligent on its own, but put 100 billion together and you have quite a bit of intelligence. This certainly doesn't defy logic. There's no reason to expect a group to have exactly the same properties as the individual parts that make it up.
Slashdot Mirror
even if it doesn't stop spam. Its time the people of the world stood up against these bastards even if its just a symbolic gesture. What the spammers are doing should be considered "illegal".
It seems to me that maybe what we want is a machine that records the voters vote in a computer-readable format. You touch a big button on the screen to vote, confirm your answer, and the computer prints out a card with a bar code or something that can be read by another counting computer. That way, you always have the physical, paper, evidence of the vote which can't be stolen by hackers or corrupted by computer crashes, etc, but you also don't have hanging chads and the like. Maybe this is the way it already works, I don't know, but it seems if you keep the whole thing digital you are asking for trouble...
I don't understand exactly what this second part is, the part they are keeping - how do they make money handling the infrastructure? Could someone please explain? Thanks...
I would say forget msn and use iChat to connect to AIM.
The reason I use it is because it organizes the information in the same way it is presented in class. (The idea is that the students can print out the slides and follow along without having to write down everything I say. Then they can focus on listening rather than writing.) There is also a lot of multimedia that can't really be adequately conveyed in text. Diagrams, pictures, animations, etc. It is covenient and all of the UCLA computer labs have it so the students have access to the software. I wish I didn't have to use a Microsoft product - I have tried Apple's Keynote but I do not find it to be a sufficient replacement.
No, they aren't gigabytes. My point was that they were too large for email. I'm teaching neuroscience.
Yes, this is true. I make my lectures available to students as Powerpoint files, which get very large, especially with animations and videos. These files are too large to send via email. Right now we do it via a course webpage, but with the amount of data being distributed I can see how this is not the best way to do it. It would also be nice to share large datasets with colleagues more easily....
Does anyone understand how this technology works? "Without special glasses" - Do you need to cross your eyes the whole time you are working on the computer?
I don't think product placement works on the premise that the viewers will explicitly remember which shows the particular products were placed in. I think the idea is to affect the formation of implicit associations between the product and some situation or feelins. This can work largely unconsciously. You don't need to remember that Seinfeld used an Apple for the experience to affect the nebulous semi-conscious feelings you have when you see the shiny Apple logo next time.
Part of the power and danger of this technique is that it can bypass our conscious reasoning about the product.
Also, one brain cell doesn't act particularly intelligent on its own, but put 100 billion together and you have quite a bit of intelligence. This certainly doesn't defy logic. There's no reason to expect a group to have exactly the same properties as the individual parts that make it up.