Hmm... as these are fairly early level university courses, I don't think it really matters whether they're accredited or not -- there is no such thing as "an eighth of a degree" or whatever, after all.
However, most CVs have a section for "Education" (School and University) and a section for "Other training and certificates" where you would list any sort of training you did that wasn't part of an accredited academic program -- I would see no problem with listing them there, if they are relevant to the role you're applying for. Remember that one of the buzzwords of our era is "CPD" -- Continual Professional Development. If you show an interest in proactively developing your career, that in itself is appealing to employers.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'most people'. Some people will have a harder time learning from just the lecture, textbook and office hours / labs.
That's a bit of a non-answer -- you have asserted something without anything to back it up.
The simple fact of the matter is that humans are social animals, and therefore find social interaction very intellectually stimulating. That is not a controversial statement.
However, I'm currently studying with one of the world's largest and most well-known distance universities, and they've been moving to online delivery. This means switching from books to webpages and from face-to-face tutorials to online conference calls with slideware. The only positive comment anyone has made about it is that it means not having to travel for tutorials. I've never heard anyone claim it's a better learning environment, but I've heard many say it's worse.
In my experience, no-one learns better on-line, but some people only are giving the opportunity if the course is on-line. On-line and "in person" universities serve different goals, and we should keep the two separate....
The thing about Slashdot is that you could be a slower-than-stopped particle, and the news would still be old.
(if you can have a particle that goes faster than light, then a particle that goes slower than stopped is surely possible!)
You could, but thanks to a recent amendment to the traffic laws of physics, it has to make an irritating beeping sound to warn you of its slower-than-stopped trajectory...
Yes, but the parent's point was that we may just have misapproximated c up to now. Occam's Razor says that with a low order difference (such as 10^-5 -- that's a 0.001% difference) we should start by checking our numbers, not our theory. If we split Einstein's c from v(light), we can still assume the same equations... for now....
PS. Computer translations will still need human proof-reading, and the market will adjust to that -- I wouldn't be surprised if all my translation work in 10 years' time was applying spit-and-polish to machine first drafts. But that would still be a professional job. Again, it's an improvement in efficiency, not unpaid labour.
Do you lay railroad tracks? Imagine if they had a machine to do that and your name is John Henry. Imagine if you were employed doing arithmetic for ballistic tables and they invented a computer. Are you a writer? Imagine someone wrote fiction for free?
These are very different things. New machines are increases in efficiency. I can't complain about those. People writing stuff as a hobby for free distribution (or in the low-profit amateur fiction magazines) -- I can't really complain about that either.
But when a company solicits free labour, it gives them an unfair commercial advantage and prejudices the value of my work. Where does it end?
The "article" assumes Valve would otherwise pay to have the translations done.
This is a questionable assumption. The alternative assumption is that these translations would be uneconomic to do professionally therefore they have allowed the community to do translations instead of not having it at all. The latter assumption seems more probable given we're talking about the back catalogue.
But Valve will profit from the translations and Valve aren't paying for the translations. Taken together, these equal exploitation.
It's not like we're talking about minority languages such as Breton and Ojibwe, we're talking about some of the biggest and financially most lucrative language communities in the world. French, Spanish, Portuguese and Chinese are spoken by untold millions. The Scandinavian countries are very well off. All of Europe is pretty rich in world terms, even despite the current crisis.
But I think it is really unfair to say that they are screwing people over. It is all volontary in the end.
I'm a language teacher who does translation on the side. It certainly doesn't help my career prospects when several Very Large Companies start getting their translations for free.
What sphere do you work in?
Are you a teacher? Imagine the harm it would do to you if schools started using volunteer teachers.
Are you a baker? Imagine if supermarkets gave accepted free bread from bored housewives and retirees.
Are you a bricklayer? Imagine if construction companies started allowing unemployed people to build houses for free.
But "it is all voluntary in the end", isn't it? So that's alright then.
Let's assume that Valve isn't willing to fork out the money to translate their platform to those other languages. As the article estimates, it's expensive (and I agree it's expensive... a company I worked for paid about 26k per translation of the software they developed internally, and some languages are much more expensive than others, and those are usually the ones that have fewer users). So that'd make some sense, since their market may not be as large in those areas - more so, their market of people that can't read English in those areas may not justify the cost and effort to create and maintain the translations themselves.
However, if there's still some market there, why not let that market justify itself... they provide the translation, and they get to reap the benefits (able to use Steam and view some games in their native tongue). That sure does sound like a nice benefit to me.
Sorry, that's a poor justification. There isn't just a choice of "full cost up-front" and "pay nothing at all". If Valve/Steam can't afford to pay the translation costs up front, there is an alternative way of paying: commission. The translator gets a slice of the profit on all sales of their translated versions of games.
What we have here is actually in line for anti-trust investigations, because Steam are leveraging their dominance in on-line distribution to further gain competitive advantage over other software producers -- software producers who don't have a "community" to do translations for free and therefore have to pay for their translations, which will be reflected in the retail price.
But if they sign up to Steam, they'll get the translations for free. So lots of small software houses will be signing up for Steam.
But presumably the translations will only be permitted for Steam distribution. So Steam nudges out other on-line and physical distribution channels.
It's a play for monopoly, and it should be nipped in the bud.
But yes, medical CFCs should not have been banned too soon.
The US first banned CFCs in conventional aerosols in 1978. That's 23 years ago. 23 years is an extremely long time in modern pharmaceuticals, and the pharmaceutical industry has moved on and developed suitable alternatives. The only thing is that these alternatives are under patent. The latest and greatest always is.
Presumably they mean the actual telephone tranceiver, and not an optional add-on such as wifi that can quite easily be turned on and off by the user....
Found this, confronted them, and negotiated a significant settlement for not going public with the info. Don't care if they track me down now based on this posting, though, as they just laid off a ton of my great friends who remained..
You don't care if they track you down and declare you're in breach of a legally binding contract and take you to court to get the settlement money back...?
Do not underestimate the power of suggestion. If you tell someone something is there, they are more inclined to notice it. Which was Judas Priest's defense in the the "subliminal messages" trial, and did not result in acquittal, but actually in the case being thrown out of court. Suggestion is powerful, so even simply suggesting that someone is cheating could be considered slander.
Except the Nuremberg Defense is actually valid, as was demonstrated by Stanley Milgram's famous experiment. It is human nature to follow orders.
That said, in this case, we should be looking at the Stanford Prison Experiment, because the behaviour described by the author of the original blog sounds a lot like the behaviour of the guards in the experiment.
What we have here is an escalation and corruption of levels of importance. The TSA buy into the myth of security theatre, hence genuinely believe that perfoming searches is literally the same as stopping a suicide bomber. The search is no longer a means-to-an-end, but now becomes an end in itself. Once you believe that, anyone who attempts to obstruct the search process is clearly and unambiguously an "enemy", and fair game for all sorts of punishment and humiliation.
If they want to use my feedback to help develop a monetized version, that's fine with me; I get to learn cool stuff from smart people, and the provider of the service gets to improve their product.
Sure. But why didn't the just say it in the first place? Maybe they expected that some people wouldn't have been as happy as you. Or maybe not, but it would still have been the polite thing to do. I'm not on the course (I did two years of AI at university anyway), but I assumed that the results would be used within Stanord. The idea of an "angel-funded startup" - well, it's generating funds for private investors, when people thought they were donating their time to a university....
If it wasn't for the minor issue of sharp implements in school, you could demonstrate code libraries by moving from a traditional loaf to a bagged sliced loaf....
I was going to suggest drawing-by-instructions (sort of like a live LOGO) -- it's good fun, but it's a bit abstract. The sandwich is perfect. OP: do this. Do it.
Is it more effort for 10,000 non-US-based geeks to look up Wikipedia, or 1 US-based OP to mention an internationally recognisable age in his question...?
Actually, this came at the perfect time for me -- I've been thinking about learning Python recently and wasn't aware of the VS Shell until this discussion. I'll give it a look.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... as these are fairly early level university courses, I don't think it really matters whether they're accredited or not -- there is no such thing as "an eighth of a degree" or whatever, after all.
However, most CVs have a section for "Education" (School and University) and a section for "Other training and certificates" where you would list any sort of training you did that wasn't part of an accredited academic program -- I would see no problem with listing them there, if they are relevant to the role you're applying for. Remember that one of the buzzwords of our era is "CPD" -- Continual Professional Development. If you show an interest in proactively developing your career, that in itself is appealing to employers.
HAL.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'most people'. Some people will have a harder time learning from just the lecture, textbook and office hours / labs.
That's a bit of a non-answer -- you have asserted something without anything to back it up.
The simple fact of the matter is that humans are social animals, and therefore find social interaction very intellectually stimulating. That is not a controversial statement.
However, I'm currently studying with one of the world's largest and most well-known distance universities, and they've been moving to online delivery. This means switching from books to webpages and from face-to-face tutorials to online conference calls with slideware. The only positive comment anyone has made about it is that it means not having to travel for tutorials. I've never heard anyone claim it's a better learning environment, but I've heard many say it's worse.
In my experience, no-one learns better on-line, but some people only are giving the opportunity if the course is on-line. On-line and "in person" universities serve different goals, and we should keep the two separate....
If you're clever and have the right job, you can avoid people almost entirely.
Tried that -- it wasn't very satisfying. I switched to trying to be more sociable -- it's infinitely better.
Troll? It's satire, people! Note "SB" -- Silvio Berlusconi. It's A Joke!
The thing about Slashdot is that you could be a slower-than-stopped particle, and the news would still be old.
(if you can have a particle that goes faster than light, then a particle that goes slower than stopped is surely possible!)
You could, but thanks to a recent amendment to the traffic laws of physics, it has to make an irritating beeping sound to warn you of its slower-than-stopped trajectory...
Erm... is that a joke? If they'd done that it would have been noticed immediately....
Yes, but the parent's point was that we may just have misapproximated c up to now. Occam's Razor says that with a low order difference (such as 10^-5 -- that's a 0.001% difference) we should start by checking our numbers, not our theory. If we split Einstein's c from v(light), we can still assume the same equations... for now....
PS. Computer translations will still need human proof-reading, and the market will adjust to that -- I wouldn't be surprised if all my translation work in 10 years' time was applying spit-and-polish to machine first drafts. But that would still be a professional job. Again, it's an improvement in efficiency, not unpaid labour.
Do you lay railroad tracks? Imagine if they had a machine to do that and your name is John Henry. Imagine if you were employed doing arithmetic for ballistic tables and they invented a computer. Are you a writer? Imagine someone wrote fiction for free?
These are very different things. New machines are increases in efficiency. I can't complain about those. People writing stuff as a hobby for free distribution (or in the low-profit amateur fiction magazines) -- I can't really complain about that either.
But when a company solicits free labour, it gives them an unfair commercial advantage and prejudices the value of my work. Where does it end?
The "article" assumes Valve would otherwise pay to have the translations done.
This is a questionable assumption. The alternative assumption is that these translations would be uneconomic to do professionally therefore they have allowed the community to do translations instead of not having it at all. The latter assumption seems more probable given we're talking about the back catalogue.
But Valve will profit from the translations and Valve aren't paying for the translations. Taken together, these equal exploitation.
It's not like we're talking about minority languages such as Breton and Ojibwe, we're talking about some of the biggest and financially most lucrative language communities in the world. French, Spanish, Portuguese and Chinese are spoken by untold millions. The Scandinavian countries are very well off. All of Europe is pretty rich in world terms, even despite the current crisis.
Nope, it's profiteering, pure and simple.
But I think it is really unfair to say that they are screwing people over. It is all volontary in the end.
I'm a language teacher who does translation on the side. It certainly doesn't help my career prospects when several Very Large Companies start getting their translations for free.
What sphere do you work in?
Are you a teacher? Imagine the harm it would do to you if schools started using volunteer teachers.
Are you a baker? Imagine if supermarkets gave accepted free bread from bored housewives and retirees.
Are you a bricklayer? Imagine if construction companies started allowing unemployed people to build houses for free.
But "it is all voluntary in the end", isn't it? So that's alright then.
Let's assume that Valve isn't willing to fork out the money to translate their platform to those other languages. As the article estimates, it's expensive (and I agree it's expensive... a company I worked for paid about 26k per translation of the software they developed internally, and some languages are much more expensive than others, and those are usually the ones that have fewer users). So that'd make some sense, since their market may not be as large in those areas - more so, their market of people that can't read English in those areas may not justify the cost and effort to create and maintain the translations themselves.
However, if there's still some market there, why not let that market justify itself... they provide the translation, and they get to reap the benefits (able to use Steam and view some games in their native tongue). That sure does sound like a nice benefit to me.
Sorry, that's a poor justification. There isn't just a choice of "full cost up-front" and "pay nothing at all". If Valve/Steam can't afford to pay the translation costs up front, there is an alternative way of paying: commission. The translator gets a slice of the profit on all sales of their translated versions of games.
What we have here is actually in line for anti-trust investigations, because Steam are leveraging their dominance in on-line distribution to further gain competitive advantage over other software producers -- software producers who don't have a "community" to do translations for free and therefore have to pay for their translations, which will be reflected in the retail price.
But if they sign up to Steam, they'll get the translations for free. So lots of small software houses will be signing up for Steam.
But presumably the translations will only be permitted for Steam distribution. So Steam nudges out other on-line and physical distribution channels.
It's a play for monopoly, and it should be nipped in the bud.
HAL.
But yes, medical CFCs should not have been banned too soon.
The US first banned CFCs in conventional aerosols in 1978. That's 23 years ago. 23 years is an extremely long time in modern pharmaceuticals, and the pharmaceutical industry has moved on and developed suitable alternatives. The only thing is that these alternatives are under patent. The latest and greatest always is.
Presumably they mean the actual telephone tranceiver, and not an optional add-on such as wifi that can quite easily be turned on and off by the user....
Found this, confronted them, and negotiated a significant settlement for not going public with the info. Don't care if they track me down now based on this posting, though, as they just laid off a ton of my great friends who remained..
You don't care if they track you down and declare you're in breach of a legally binding contract and take you to court to get the settlement money back...?
Do not underestimate the power of suggestion. If you tell someone something is there, they are more inclined to notice it. Which was Judas Priest's defense in the the "subliminal messages" trial, and did not result in acquittal, but actually in the case being thrown out of court. Suggestion is powerful, so even simply suggesting that someone is cheating could be considered slander.
But they're devaluing their prime product. It's like selling one army a nerve gas and selling the other army gas masks.
Except the Nuremberg Defense is actually valid, as was demonstrated by Stanley Milgram's famous experiment. It is human nature to follow orders.
That said, in this case, we should be looking at the Stanford Prison Experiment, because the behaviour described by the author of the original blog sounds a lot like the behaviour of the guards in the experiment.
What we have here is an escalation and corruption of levels of importance. The TSA buy into the myth of security theatre, hence genuinely believe that perfoming searches is literally the same as stopping a suicide bomber. The search is no longer a means-to-an-end, but now becomes an end in itself. Once you believe that, anyone who attempts to obstruct the search process is clearly and unambiguously an "enemy", and fair game for all sorts of punishment and humiliation.
HAL.
Left turns? Who gave this commie a bicycle?
"Angels" aren't pro-bono investors, they're silent investors. They give you money, and they ask for money back.
If they want to use my feedback to help develop a monetized version, that's fine with me; I get to learn cool stuff from smart people, and the provider of the service gets to improve their product.
Sure. But why didn't the just say it in the first place? Maybe they expected that some people wouldn't have been as happy as you. Or maybe not, but it would still have been the polite thing to do. I'm not on the course (I did two years of AI at university anyway), but I assumed that the results would be used within Stanord. The idea of an "angel-funded startup" - well, it's generating funds for private investors, when people thought they were donating their time to a university....
If it wasn't for the minor issue of sharp implements in school, you could demonstrate code libraries by moving from a traditional loaf to a bagged sliced loaf....
Good God, man, that's genius!
I was going to suggest drawing-by-instructions (sort of like a live LOGO) -- it's good fun, but it's a bit abstract. The sandwich is perfect. OP: do this. Do it.
HAL.
This information is available on wikipedia.
Is it more effort for 10,000 non-US-based geeks to look up Wikipedia, or 1 US-based OP to mention an internationally recognisable age in his question...?
Glad to hear it -- thanks.
Actually, this came at the perfect time for me -- I've been thinking about learning Python recently and wasn't aware of the VS Shell until this discussion. I'll give it a look.
HAL.