Listening to a professor drone on and on is not learning, is sheer boredom. While there are some professors that are skilled lecturers and are interesting to watch, for the most part most professors create a lecture plan and then follow it for decades and it is apparent with their complete lack of enthusiasm.
The problem is, most university level professors could not be classified as "teachers". Most are unwilling to spend the level of time and commitment suggested by the article and would prefer to stand up in a lecture hall and remain relatively detached from their "students" and let those students figure it out on their own. Student interaction is what the teacher's aids are for.
I agree a new paradigm is necessary for education in general, more hands on and less regurgitation of facts is a benefit to all, I just don't see many professors with decades of tenure wanting to change the system so hopefully this will apply to a new generation of professors that are starting their careers.
Have you played games in 3D? I find they appear to be nothing more then flat planes at various depths moving over the surface of the TV with some shadows to give the impression of distance. If I am playing CoD I should be able to peer around a corner or over ground cover, but you can't. I will agree that 3D brings more novelty to gaming, but I find it as ineffective for games as it is for movies mostly because I would tend to play a game > 90 minutes and 3D TV gives me a headache after about 15 minutes.
I think "executives" should be held up to a higher standard of values then "regular" employees. An executive that advertises they are looking for work is showing no commitment or respect for his/her current employer. An executive is paid a lot of money to run a company and keep it successful and to keep moral high, if they are unable to recognize the error of looking for job opportunities online, the effect it has on the moral of the company, then it is not acceptable for them to maintain an executive position, period.
Had this been an article about a regular Joe employee being fired for posting a CV online then I would be outraged, but an executive should be more discreet in searching for new work as they are getting paid a lot of money to protect the interests of the company that is employing them.
Most of you are applying moral outrage extrapolating the idea that you could be fired if you look for work online, however you are not paid hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for the sole purpose to aid in RUNNING a company. An executive has significantly more responsibilities at a company then showing up and punching a keyboard for 8 hours a day. Executive != keyboard jockey.
I fully agree that this company had a right to fire this "executive" and think the guy that got fired deserves the results for not being more clever and discreet if they are unhappy with their current employer.
They are ignoring one fundamental principle of cubical life, anything new introduced into an office environment will increase productivity, as demonstrated on Better Off Ted.
They could have achieved the same results by replacing one black chair with a red one for a much more cost efficient solution. When the office productivity dips again, swap which person get the red chair. They will think its a performance incentive and everyone will be working hard vying for the coveted red chair.
What exactly is an "open source" textbook? Stop using this term to apply to anything but software development because it is almost always used incorrectly.
The "source" of any text book is inherently open. If you can think you can write a book and thus no-one controls the content of the book you write.
There is a differences between opening up the standards used to select textbooks in schools systems, but the source content of a book is always open, there is no proprietary source for learning.
The EU is going to ban Iranian oil, fine. They are also proposing to ban Canadian oil, ok. But if you start alienating countries that have large reserves of oil, where the hell do you think you are going to get your oil from in the future? If Iran stops is nuclear programs under these sanctions or Canada finds more efficient less polluting ways of extracting oil from tar sands, then why would they return to doing business with the EU? There are larger markets then the EU out there that are not so finicky.
Not a week goes by that I don't hear about another stupid decision made by the EU in one shape or another which limits consumer rights and under the EU "protection", most EU countries are entering bankruptcy.
So why do Europeans put up with it?
Do only people outside the EU understand it is a epic disaster?
A class action lawsuit by definition is about lawyers representing a large group of people against a defendant who can afford to pay out. It is "almost never" about one person suing another person who is poor.
And no, its not something that should be tossed away.
I agree there are blatant attempts to game the system by making frivolous suits against large corporations and hoping for the best, but if some corporation causes physical or financial damages to a group of people, then the group has a right to file a lawsuit. Filing as individuals would swamp the system and guarantee that nothing will result from it, especially if the group involves millions of people.
Frivolous lawsuits are, unfortunately, part of the legal system because in a free and democratic society anyone has a right to file a lawsuit if they feel they are due justice. The other options are marshal law or a dictatorship, would you be happy with either of those?
Fortunately there are judges that can weed out these lawsuits and throw them out of court before they become a public spectacle and overly waste of time and money.
BTW, don't feel sorry for large corporations or assume products and services would be cheaper without lawsuits. The price of the PS3 has dropped from $650 to $199 in the last 6 years in spite of these lawsuits. Most companies, believe it or not, are not going to nickle and dime customers to pay off for legal fees as they have amassed large collections of corporate lawyers and insurance to cover their asses.
Prove that anyone specifically bought the PS3 for the OtherOS feature and then incurred damages that were caused by Sony?
You can't, why?
First, the patch was issued with a warning indicating the removal of this feature. If you required the OtherOS feature because you built a product or service using it, then you applied the patch through your own ignorance of that warning, this is not Sony's fault and therefore cannot be held accountable.
Secondly, if you required using the OtherOS for a product or service then there was no reason for you to update your PS3's firmware. The patch improved features for the use of the PS3 as a game and entertainment platform not for improvements to the OtherOS feature. In fact the patch specifically warned against the detriment of applying the patch towards the OtherOS feature. The patch cannot be applied while running the OtherOS feature, and Sony did not force or push the patch without the user's consent. Therefore Sony is still not accountable.
Thirdly, a winning a lawsuit is about proving you incurred damages over the loss of the feature. Dabbling in the OtherOS as a hobby is not a damage. Even if you were ignorant for applying the patch after being warned about the loss of the feature, or felt compelled to apply it because you swapped using the OtherOS along with regular PS3 feature, then you have to prove you actually lost money over the loss of the feature and specifically bought the system for that feature.
The Judge understood the law and didn't make the decision based on FUD, hyperbole or emotional context.
I mean Sony added more value to the PS3 for free after its release then they took away. Had this lawsuit won then I think that would have ended Sony every adding more value to a game platform after its release, they most likely would have required new features to be paid for rather then given away.
Anybody that cared about "OtherOS" most likely where not using their PS3 for games and movies anyways, and Sony warned of the removal of the feature so this also made the lawsuit moot. If you were actually "running" the OtherOS, then you couldn't update the PS3 firmware. Any Sony did not auto-update the firmware either at the time, so a user would have had to purposely applied the firmware that removed the feature.
Lastly, you can run Linux on almost any piece of hardware out their, what purpose to lament the removal of Linux support on PS3? It didn't run well anyways, you can buy a $200 network and bet better Linux support on it then on the PS3.
Glad to see some sanity in the legal system on this one.
They saw that Apple would control a segment of the smartphone market and felt they could fill the the void of people not wanting to buy into the Apple platform. So instead of only rolling out only a few licensed vendors that conformed to strict hardware requirements, they instead allowed platform licensing with any fly-by-night company that could weld an IC chip and battery to a screen and call it a phone or tablet that barely runs Android, let alone subsequent updates. How many garbage tablets are being sold with Android on it this Christmas? How many garbage phones run it? Google doesn't care, they get money either way from pushing out their OS and services on gems or junk alike.
And Google hasn't helped hardware vendors either. By creating API's and OS versions that change quickly and dramatically between versions. How is a hardware vendor supposed to release a product when the OS is am moving target? I can imagine that from the time a product is first conceived to the time it is released Google may have released 2 or even 3 OS updates all with dramatically different features and requirements. How are you supposed to design against that? This is why there are STILL new phones and tablets being released with an Android version of anywhere from 1.6 to 4.0.
Buying an Android is a crap shoot, it might have a new version or may not, it might be well supported or may not, it might work or it may not. My first Android phone, the Motorola Milestone (Droid), was pure garbage, the phone "app" crashed on it constantly, I mean, com'on a phone that can't make phone calls?
So, lets face it. Google is the new Microsoft creating a platform of ass and reaping billions for it in spite of themselves. There are some good vendors and a lot of junk vendors, but Google created this mess in the first place and so blame should be placed squarely and only on them. I just don't think they care because from their perspective Android is a huge financial success so why change it?
So how many millions were spent to bring truth to mascara advertising?
You know there are real problems in this world. Disease, famine, war, civil rights, the environment. Do we really need to worry about people touching up ads?
If I buy something and it doesn't do what it claims to do I return it or never buy it again. Why isn't buyer beware enough? If a company establishes a reputation for not doing what they claim their products should do then the company should suffer from poor sales or bad word of mouth.
How about a campaign to make the populace less vain, suggestive and ignorant rather then wasting millions protecting stupid people from wasting a few bucks on "miracle" products that don't work.
Actually, its about time that companies invest a little money updating their intranets. Chances are that an intranet that was written for IE6 is an unused intranet.
Don't know if you are being serious (my sarcasm filter not working today), I have not yet seen an infant or toddler in existence that is not amazed at something which lights up and has many buttons, physical or virtual. My niece, nephew and a all my friends children absolutely love any iDevice or phone they can get their hands on. They don't care what is going on, but if they press the screen and something happens they will be engaged for hours.
I would probably send my child to a doctor if they grow disinterested in the visual stimulus of a phone or tablet device after only a few minutes, it is not normal.
Why? How does it affect you personally that one phone maker is suing another? Worry about stuff you have any stake in, not what is going on with billion dollar companies.
Hollywood seems to be at a loss for good ideas for science fiction movies. They should review this encyclopedia and start looking up sci-fi greats like Isaac Asimov for suggestions for movies as opposed to churning out comic book fodder from Stan Lee.
The whole reason why people feel compelled to answer and make phone calls and texts while driving is because they feel their life is more important then everyone else on the road and everything in their life is emergent.
Also, I find that there is absolutely no ability to enforce this law. We have had it in Ontario, Canada for a year now and I have seen people drive right past the cops while holding a cellphone to their ear. In fact I have seen more then a few cops holding them on their ear as well.
I guess the only thing that can be done is that if you are involved in an accident and witnesses saw you were holding a phone when it happened then you should be charged astronomical fees for car insurance afterwards as you are known abuser of phone technology and largely no law will prevent you from doing it again. Maybe $1000 insurance + $50 phone plan per month might deter you from ever texting on a phone in the car.
The only thing worse then someone talking/texting on a phone in their car is someone that feels compelled to slow down traffic and pull over to take a call.
Really, what technology is in a drone that can't be found in one of those remote toy helicopters and planes, except for a more sophisticated microprocessor. Its a plane with some advanced programming, and even then, its designed to fly a pre-determined path and come back to base for a recharge.
I've seen university labs that take off the shelf toy flying machines and make the build structures autonomously, far more sophisticated then "Send to coordinate x,y,z and take some pictures along the way).
If Iran is that hard up they can't make a model airplane and slap a smartphone on it to take some surveillance pictures then I don't think the US or the world will have any problems.
The newest buzzword, joins the ranks of the "Cloud", "Nano", "iSomething", "Web 2.0", "eSomething" etc, as previously overused buzz words that do not really mean what they are supposed to mean. Everything is going "quantum" these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Listening to a professor drone on and on is not learning, is sheer boredom. While there are some professors that are skilled lecturers and are interesting to watch, for the most part most professors create a lecture plan and then follow it for decades and it is apparent with their complete lack of enthusiasm.
The problem is, most university level professors could not be classified as "teachers". Most are unwilling to spend the level of time and commitment suggested by the article and would prefer to stand up in a lecture hall and remain relatively detached from their "students" and let those students figure it out on their own. Student interaction is what the teacher's aids are for.
I agree a new paradigm is necessary for education in general, more hands on and less regurgitation of facts is a benefit to all, I just don't see many professors with decades of tenure wanting to change the system so hopefully this will apply to a new generation of professors that are starting their careers.
Have you played games in 3D? I find they appear to be nothing more then flat planes at various depths moving over the surface of the TV with some shadows to give the impression of distance. If I am playing CoD I should be able to peer around a corner or over ground cover, but you can't. I will agree that 3D brings more novelty to gaming, but I find it as ineffective for games as it is for movies mostly because I would tend to play a game > 90 minutes and 3D TV gives me a headache after about 15 minutes.
Every TV is going to have it, nobody is ever going to use it.
I think "executives" should be held up to a higher standard of values then "regular" employees. An executive that advertises they are looking for work is showing no commitment or respect for his/her current employer. An executive is paid a lot of money to run a company and keep it successful and to keep moral high, if they are unable to recognize the error of looking for job opportunities online, the effect it has on the moral of the company, then it is not acceptable for them to maintain an executive position, period.
Had this been an article about a regular Joe employee being fired for posting a CV online then I would be outraged, but an executive should be more discreet in searching for new work as they are getting paid a lot of money to protect the interests of the company that is employing them.
Most of you are applying moral outrage extrapolating the idea that you could be fired if you look for work online, however you are not paid hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for the sole purpose to aid in RUNNING a company. An executive has significantly more responsibilities at a company then showing up and punching a keyboard for 8 hours a day. Executive != keyboard jockey.
I fully agree that this company had a right to fire this "executive" and think the guy that got fired deserves the results for not being more clever and discreet if they are unhappy with their current employer.
They are ignoring one fundamental principle of cubical life, anything new introduced into an office environment will increase productivity, as demonstrated on Better Off Ted.
They could have achieved the same results by replacing one black chair with a red one for a much more cost efficient solution. When the office productivity dips again, swap which person get the red chair. They will think its a performance incentive and everyone will be working hard vying for the coveted red chair.
What exactly is an "open source" textbook? Stop using this term to apply to anything but software development because it is almost always used incorrectly.
The "source" of any text book is inherently open. If you can think you can write a book and thus no-one controls the content of the book you write.
There is a differences between opening up the standards used to select textbooks in schools systems, but the source content of a book is always open, there is no proprietary source for learning.
The EU is going to ban Iranian oil, fine. They are also proposing to ban Canadian oil, ok. But if you start alienating countries that have large reserves of oil, where the hell do you think you are going to get your oil from in the future? If Iran stops is nuclear programs under these sanctions or Canada finds more efficient less polluting ways of extracting oil from tar sands, then why would they return to doing business with the EU? There are larger markets then the EU out there that are not so finicky.
Not a week goes by that I don't hear about another stupid decision made by the EU in one shape or another which limits consumer rights and under the EU "protection", most EU countries are entering bankruptcy.
So why do Europeans put up with it?
Do only people outside the EU understand it is a epic disaster?
That Nokia is in a death spiral from top-tier cell phone manufacture to novelty act.
Yeah but, most jobs will post something like
require 10 years experience with iOS
Even though iOS hasn't been around for 10 years.
HR staff are not the brightest group of people and largely have no understanding of the requirements of the jobs they are filling,
Most likely if the job posting says it requires 10 years experience, they probably just added up all the numbers for the skills required:
3 years c++ + 2 years something else + 1 years something else + 5 years industry experience = 10 ... according to HR math.
But true, years of varied experience should go further to get a job interview then having recent experience in core skills.
A class action lawsuit by definition is about lawyers representing a large group of people against a defendant who can afford to pay out. It is "almost never" about one person suing another person who is poor.
And no, its not something that should be tossed away.
I agree there are blatant attempts to game the system by making frivolous suits against large corporations and hoping for the best, but if some corporation causes physical or financial damages to a group of people, then the group has a right to file a lawsuit. Filing as individuals would swamp the system and guarantee that nothing will result from it, especially if the group involves millions of people.
Frivolous lawsuits are, unfortunately, part of the legal system because in a free and democratic society anyone has a right to file a lawsuit if they feel they are due justice. The other options are marshal law or a dictatorship, would you be happy with either of those?
Fortunately there are judges that can weed out these lawsuits and throw them out of court before they become a public spectacle and overly waste of time and money.
BTW, don't feel sorry for large corporations or assume products and services would be cheaper without lawsuits. The price of the PS3 has dropped from $650 to $199 in the last 6 years in spite of these lawsuits. Most companies, believe it or not, are not going to nickle and dime customers to pay off for legal fees as they have amassed large collections of corporate lawyers and insurance to cover their asses.
No, the Judge understands the law.
Prove that anyone specifically bought the PS3 for the OtherOS feature and then incurred damages that were caused by Sony?
You can't, why?
First, the patch was issued with a warning indicating the removal of this feature. If you required the OtherOS feature because you built a product or service using it, then you applied the patch through your own ignorance of that warning, this is not Sony's fault and therefore cannot be held accountable.
Secondly, if you required using the OtherOS for a product or service then there was no reason for you to update your PS3's firmware. The patch improved features for the use of the PS3 as a game and entertainment platform not for improvements to the OtherOS feature. In fact the patch specifically warned against the detriment of applying the patch towards the OtherOS feature. The patch cannot be applied while running the OtherOS feature, and Sony did not force or push the patch without the user's consent. Therefore Sony is still not accountable.
Thirdly, a winning a lawsuit is about proving you incurred damages over the loss of the feature. Dabbling in the OtherOS as a hobby is not a damage. Even if you were ignorant for applying the patch after being warned about the loss of the feature, or felt compelled to apply it because you swapped using the OtherOS along with regular PS3 feature, then you have to prove you actually lost money over the loss of the feature and specifically bought the system for that feature.
The Judge understood the law and didn't make the decision based on FUD, hyperbole or emotional context.
I mean Sony added more value to the PS3 for free after its release then they took away. Had this lawsuit won then I think that would have ended Sony every adding more value to a game platform after its release, they most likely would have required new features to be paid for rather then given away.
Anybody that cared about "OtherOS" most likely where not using their PS3 for games and movies anyways, and Sony warned of the removal of the feature so this also made the lawsuit moot. If you were actually "running" the OtherOS, then you couldn't update the PS3 firmware. Any Sony did not auto-update the firmware either at the time, so a user would have had to purposely applied the firmware that removed the feature.
Lastly, you can run Linux on almost any piece of hardware out their, what purpose to lament the removal of Linux support on PS3? It didn't run well anyways, you can buy a $200 network and bet better Linux support on it then on the PS3.
Glad to see some sanity in the legal system on this one.
Simply put, Google got greedy.
They saw that Apple would control a segment of the smartphone market and felt they could fill the the void of people not wanting to buy into the Apple platform. So instead of only rolling out only a few licensed vendors that conformed to strict hardware requirements, they instead allowed platform licensing with any fly-by-night company that could weld an IC chip and battery to a screen and call it a phone or tablet that barely runs Android, let alone subsequent updates. How many garbage tablets are being sold with Android on it this Christmas? How many garbage phones run it? Google doesn't care, they get money either way from pushing out their OS and services on gems or junk alike.
And Google hasn't helped hardware vendors either. By creating API's and OS versions that change quickly and dramatically between versions. How is a hardware vendor supposed to release a product when the OS is am moving target? I can imagine that from the time a product is first conceived to the time it is released Google may have released 2 or even 3 OS updates all with dramatically different features and requirements. How are you supposed to design against that? This is why there are STILL new phones and tablets being released with an Android version of anywhere from 1.6 to 4.0.
Buying an Android is a crap shoot, it might have a new version or may not, it might be well supported or may not, it might work or it may not. My first Android phone, the Motorola Milestone (Droid), was pure garbage, the phone "app" crashed on it constantly, I mean, com'on a phone that can't make phone calls?
So, lets face it. Google is the new Microsoft creating a platform of ass and reaping billions for it in spite of themselves. There are some good vendors and a lot of junk vendors, but Google created this mess in the first place and so blame should be placed squarely and only on them. I just don't think they care because from their perspective Android is a huge financial success so why change it?
Just don't do anything wrong and you will be fine.
So how many millions were spent to bring truth to mascara advertising?
You know there are real problems in this world. Disease, famine, war, civil rights, the environment. Do we really need to worry about people touching up ads?
If I buy something and it doesn't do what it claims to do I return it or never buy it again. Why isn't buyer beware enough? If a company establishes a reputation for not doing what they claim their products should do then the company should suffer from poor sales or bad word of mouth.
How about a campaign to make the populace less vain, suggestive and ignorant rather then wasting millions protecting stupid people from wasting a few bucks on "miracle" products that don't work.
PETAphiles are going to have a field day with this, they don't even like the Japanese dressing up virtual Italian plumbers in a fur suit.
Actually, its about time that companies invest a little money updating their intranets. Chances are that an intranet that was written for IE6 is an unused intranet.
Really, everything works fine in Safari?
That ends your credibility as a developer.
Don't know if you are being serious (my sarcasm filter not working today), I have not yet seen an infant or toddler in existence that is not amazed at something which lights up and has many buttons, physical or virtual. My niece, nephew and a all my friends children absolutely love any iDevice or phone they can get their hands on. They don't care what is going on, but if they press the screen and something happens they will be engaged for hours.
I would probably send my child to a doctor if they grow disinterested in the visual stimulus of a phone or tablet device after only a few minutes, it is not normal.
Why? How does it affect you personally that one phone maker is suing another? Worry about stuff you have any stake in, not what is going on with billion dollar companies.
Hollywood seems to be at a loss for good ideas for science fiction movies. They should review this encyclopedia and start looking up sci-fi greats like Isaac Asimov for suggestions for movies as opposed to churning out comic book fodder from Stan Lee.
At using sunglasses to counter the counter measure.
But, I guess its slightly more advanced then yelling "stop" repeatedly.
The whole reason why people feel compelled to answer and make phone calls and texts while driving is because they feel their life is more important then everyone else on the road and everything in their life is emergent.
Also, I find that there is absolutely no ability to enforce this law. We have had it in Ontario, Canada for a year now and I have seen people drive right past the cops while holding a cellphone to their ear. In fact I have seen more then a few cops holding them on their ear as well.
I guess the only thing that can be done is that if you are involved in an accident and witnesses saw you were holding a phone when it happened then you should be charged astronomical fees for car insurance afterwards as you are known abuser of phone technology and largely no law will prevent you from doing it again. Maybe $1000 insurance + $50 phone plan per month might deter you from ever texting on a phone in the car.
The only thing worse then someone talking/texting on a phone in their car is someone that feels compelled to slow down traffic and pull over to take a call.
Really, what technology is in a drone that can't be found in one of those remote toy helicopters and planes, except for a more sophisticated microprocessor. Its a plane with some advanced programming, and even then, its designed to fly a pre-determined path and come back to base for a recharge.
I've seen university labs that take off the shelf toy flying machines and make the build structures autonomously, far more sophisticated then "Send to coordinate x,y,z and take some pictures along the way).
If Iran is that hard up they can't make a model airplane and slap a smartphone on it to take some surveillance pictures then I don't think the US or the world will have any problems.
The newest buzzword, joins the ranks of the "Cloud", "Nano", "iSomething", "Web 2.0", "eSomething" etc, as previously overused buzz words that do not really mean what they are supposed to mean. Everything is going "quantum" these days.