You forget though that the defendant's lawyer will advise them, and if they think they can win at trial they will try to. However, if the lawyer is very busy, they might not be enticed to go to trial if the client is indigent.
Maybe because people like you are not who this product is aimed at?
Could it be that MS knows good and well that having 29 windows and a million tabs open at once is a highly UNCOMMON usage for their OS and they could tell you exactly where you fit on the tail of that distribution?
The question is not "How does a slashdotter use their computer?" It's "How does a slashdotter's mom use a computer?"
My mom usually just has a browser open. Once a week she will fire up picasa, and once a month she will fire up word or excel. MS has said their own data tells them that the average person only uses about 11 applications, and only around 3 at the same time. They are trying to streamline the interface such that the average user can do what they do more easily, while still allowing us nerds to use the desktop we are familiar with.
Some nerds will still complain though that they (1) Don't like metro, and (2) can't believe microsoft still has the ugly old desktop underneath.
When really its just a clever way to make the interface simple for those who want it, and still powerful and flexible for those who want more. They're giving it all to us and it looks pretty great.
I doubt this. MS has been collecting user data from millions of people for years. They know how many windows people have open at a time, how often they switch between apps and how often they use every feature of the OS. Desktops get cluttered because the desktop becomes a dumping ground for files because people don't want to worry about how to organize the files they create and download (at least the people who have cluttered desktops, like. After all, if they wanted to organize, the desktop wouldn't be cluttered would it?) Metro tries to eliminate file organization like iOS does. Its trying to create (with its API's for cross app data-sharing) a simpler implementation of what the original WinFS was supposed to be.
iOS is irritating because I have so many apps I can't ever find the one I want, Windows for a while has been awesome, because I just hit the win key and type what I want and there it is. It's the OS version of "Why don't you just tell me what movie you want to see?"
Right, people who use computers for 'computing' (ie work) will always be using a PC. I am not going to tap out Matlab on a tablet, no matter what era I am in.
Agreed. What I find so irritating about the Windows 8 commentary I've read so far is "They still keep that horrible old desktop underneath the metro interface" and I think "Thank god! That's the part I will use for my work."
I have a desktop because I do serious computing. I need matlab and photoshop and excel and word and R all running concurrently in ways where I can see many windows at once. I do not want everything to be full screen and "split-screen" is not going to cut it.
I just want my computer to run all the applications I can throw at it and not crash.
If MS eliminates me traditional desktop I will be running an old OS for a very long time.
The authors of the study are based in Britain, where they don't have freedom of speech. They are also much more accepting of gov't control than the US (but not by much).
The internet is not a tool, its a medium. It is a medium for information flow. Air is also a medium for information flow. How can you have the right to express information, but not the right to use the medium? Saying someone has "free speech" without the implied right "to be heard" is an odd thing. It's like telling someone they can speak but only in this soundproof box.
And of course, the gov't need not provide people with megaphones so they can be heard presently, but someday and soon it will not be possible to be heard without internet access.
Why is it such a surprise that the average grade in a university physics class is a D?
If you took a random sampling of the population and tried to teach them a complex subject, do you expect that most of them would pass?
The fact that a lot of students fail, does not mean the teacher is bad. It could be so, but it could also be that the subject matter is difficult and most people are not smart enough to grasp it.
People fail classes. In fact, 50% of the students SHOULD fail (with modern grading paradigms).
Is the goal to have a university where everyone passes, or one where only the capable pass?
More like hes forcing the students to do the things in class they used to be expected to do on their own. When I was in school I used to think about the material and assess my understanding on my own time, now its done in class.
It is a clever outsourcing job though. The students who read the material and are prepared will end up teaching the material to the rest of the discussion group. Slackers will be rewarded, and the students who spend a lot of time preparing for their lecture will not benefit with a higher grade!
The theory of "learning types" has been dubunked, there is no evidence of (and is evidence against) the idea that some people absorb information better depending on format.
The thing is the standard used to be that given some readings, a lecture, and the ability to ask questions, you could learn something.
This article restates that standard into saying given readings, and some required class-time where you are forced to do the kind of work and thinking you used to do in your own time, you can learn something.
It rewards students for not being independent learners.
I think a hidden problem is that these people are not fundamentally capable of doing the things the economy needs. All the jobs these people could do are now done by machines, and the phase-space of things a machine cannot do is shrinking rapidly.
What we are currently doing is forcing the incapable into systems they cannot compete in and compensating by lowering standards. These people end up with degrees, but no robust competence.
What we will have to do in the next 30 years or so, when machines are able to do very advanced things (like diagnose disease and perform surgery), is rethink our economic paradigms.
While these were all smart people, and not average, my point is that while lectures maybe aren't the best for all disciplines, they are a proven method.
I think an unappreciated point is that with the increased societal goals of getting everyone into college, the average IQ of college graduates is steadily declining. Used to be, only very intelligent people went to college, now everyone is expected to go. Therefore teaching methods have to adapt to teach to lower and lower students. What I am unsure of in this article is if after these methods the students still have deep understanding, or are just better at answering questions they've already been asked before and been given the answers to in these discussions. Essentially it seems these discussion based methods are just out-sourcing the teaching to the students who do read the material.
I've heard someone say that intelligence means that someone is able to absorb and grok information in the form it is given. College education has been based loosely around this. There is some required reading, there is a lecture where you can ask questions, there are office hours/labs/recitations where you can ask more questions, then there is an exam. In this situation the burden is open the student to assess their own learning. Competent students can do this, and do. This new idea seems based around forcing students to think about the material and assess their own understanding through required discussion groups rather than learning to do this on their own. Consequently, I studied like a freak and spent a lot of introspective time asking myself if I understood this material.
In general I think the goal of the university should not be vocational. The goal is not to teach in such a strong way, but to merely make information available and have students learn how to learn. They've always done this with required readings, problem sets, etc. I'd be interested to see how many of these physics students who do so poorly actually do all their homework to the point in which they understand it. I had a labmate once (who was not cut out for physics) complain at how he did all the homework, but wasn't able to get the right answers. To me it seemed that he didn't really do it at all. (note: I am not a genius, but I am appropriately intelligent for college.)
What was once studying is now part of class time. When I was in school we worked in groups to independently form study/discussion groups, we didn't get our hands held by having teachers FORCE us to think about the material. This new method is interesting, but makes you think about what standards we expect of a college graduate. Does a degree mean that you know the material? Or should it mean that you have demonstrated the capability to learn the material? It would seem that in a job-environment they won't hold discussion groups to teach you how to do something, and a better skill would be to be able to learn on your own.
When I was in undergrad at the beginning of the past decade, the average grade in my physics class was a D, and this was normal. The average grade in organic chemistry was a C, and this was normal. The fact was that these were just very complex subjects and most people would not grasp all of it. The grades were adjusted upwards of course, but it was understood by the faculty that a course which covers the expected amount of material would be very difficult and the average student's raw score would be low, but that was ok.
Oh yeah, and who does consulting for Rapiscan (the people who sell these things)? Michael Chertoff! Former DHS secretary who, while in office, said it would be just great if we bought a bunch of these things!
I think they are a little scared because even if the company sells these things, it might not protect them from some giant class-action suit.
It seems to me though that most audiobooks are read by men, and of the ones I have read by women, I find the voice irritating. These are real people though, maybe its more to do with how male and female voices are synthed.
As stated the summary is nonsensical. It says the massive deforestation caused more carbon to be pulled from the atmosphere and reduced the earth's cooling. This makes no sense.
Reading the article, its actually massive reforestation which was caused by all the suddenly depopulated native human fields and cities.
It's still absurd though. Historical questions should be avoided in the hard sciences. It's easy to make up stories to explain trends in data, especially when they can't be experimentally validated.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just a false-flag event to shut down anonymity online. Before you know it a bill is going to be introduced to make anonymous email illegal.
You forget though that the defendant's lawyer will advise them, and if they think they can win at trial they will try to. However, if the lawyer is very busy, they might not be enticed to go to trial if the client is indigent.
Could it be that MS doesn't care what you want?
Maybe because people like you are not who this product is aimed at?
Could it be that MS knows good and well that having 29 windows and a million tabs open at once is a highly UNCOMMON usage for their OS and they could tell you exactly where you fit on the tail of that distribution?
The question is not "How does a slashdotter use their computer?" It's "How does a slashdotter's mom use a computer?"
My mom usually just has a browser open. Once a week she will fire up picasa, and once a month she will fire up word or excel. MS has said their own data tells them that the average person only uses about 11 applications, and only around 3 at the same time. They are trying to streamline the interface such that the average user can do what they do more easily, while still allowing us nerds to use the desktop we are familiar with.
Some nerds will still complain though that they (1) Don't like metro, and (2) can't believe microsoft still has the ugly old desktop underneath.
When really its just a clever way to make the interface simple for those who want it, and still powerful and flexible for those who want more. They're giving it all to us and it looks pretty great.
I doubt this. MS has been collecting user data from millions of people for years. They know how many windows people have open at a time, how often they switch between apps and how often they use every feature of the OS. Desktops get cluttered because the desktop becomes a dumping ground for files because people don't want to worry about how to organize the files they create and download (at least the people who have cluttered desktops, like. After all, if they wanted to organize, the desktop wouldn't be cluttered would it?) Metro tries to eliminate file organization like iOS does. Its trying to create (with its API's for cross app data-sharing) a simpler implementation of what the original WinFS was supposed to be.
iOS is irritating because I have so many apps I can't ever find the one I want, Windows for a while has been awesome, because I just hit the win key and type what I want and there it is. It's the OS version of "Why don't you just tell me what movie you want to see?"
Right, people who use computers for 'computing' (ie work) will always be using a PC. I am not going to tap out Matlab on a tablet, no matter what era I am in.
Agreed. What I find so irritating about the Windows 8 commentary I've read so far is "They still keep that horrible old desktop underneath the metro interface" and I think "Thank god! That's the part I will use for my work."
I have a desktop because I do serious computing. I need matlab and photoshop and excel and word and R all running concurrently in ways where I can see many windows at once. I do not want everything to be full screen and "split-screen" is not going to cut it.
I just want my computer to run all the applications I can throw at it and not crash.
If MS eliminates me traditional desktop I will be running an old OS for a very long time.
When a financial bet fails, do you blame the guy who gambled your money stupidly or the guy who duped them?
The banks gambled and lost, boo hoo for them.
Quit acting like they are such victims.
The authors of the study are based in Britain, where they don't have freedom of speech. They are also much more accepting of gov't control than the US (but not by much).
The internet is not a tool, its a medium. It is a medium for information flow. Air is also a medium for information flow. How can you have the right to express information, but not the right to use the medium? Saying someone has "free speech" without the implied right "to be heard" is an odd thing. It's like telling someone they can speak but only in this soundproof box.
And of course, the gov't need not provide people with megaphones so they can be heard presently, but someday and soon it will not be possible to be heard without internet access.
Why not just start them with linux? Is to too pornographic?
Does it have an app store?
Why is it such a surprise that the average grade in a university physics class is a D?
If you took a random sampling of the population and tried to teach them a complex subject, do you expect that most of them would pass?
The fact that a lot of students fail, does not mean the teacher is bad. It could be so, but it could also be that the subject matter is difficult and most people are not smart enough to grasp it.
People fail classes. In fact, 50% of the students SHOULD fail (with modern grading paradigms).
Is the goal to have a university where everyone passes, or one where only the capable pass?
Thats why they have the assigned reading in the textbooks (which are like lectures which are written down, amazing!)
Problem is students don't read them, and if you had video lectures, no one would watch those.
What's so wrong with failing students?
More like hes forcing the students to do the things in class they used to be expected to do on their own. When I was in school I used to think about the material and assess my understanding on my own time, now its done in class.
It is a clever outsourcing job though. The students who read the material and are prepared will end up teaching the material to the rest of the discussion group. Slackers will be rewarded, and the students who spend a lot of time preparing for their lecture will not benefit with a higher grade!
The theory of "learning types" has been dubunked, there is no evidence of (and is evidence against) the idea that some people absorb information better depending on format.
The thing is the standard used to be that given some readings, a lecture, and the ability to ask questions, you could learn something.
This article restates that standard into saying given readings, and some required class-time where you are forced to do the kind of work and thinking you used to do in your own time, you can learn something.
It rewards students for not being independent learners.
I think a hidden problem is that these people are not fundamentally capable of doing the things the economy needs. All the jobs these people could do are now done by machines, and the phase-space of things a machine cannot do is shrinking rapidly.
What we are currently doing is forcing the incapable into systems they cannot compete in and compensating by lowering standards. These people end up with degrees, but no robust competence.
What we will have to do in the next 30 years or so, when machines are able to do very advanced things (like diagnose disease and perform surgery), is rethink our economic paradigms.
While these were all smart people, and not average, my point is that while lectures maybe aren't the best for all disciplines, they are a proven method.
I think an unappreciated point is that with the increased societal goals of getting everyone into college, the average IQ of college graduates is steadily declining. Used to be, only very intelligent people went to college, now everyone is expected to go. Therefore teaching methods have to adapt to teach to lower and lower students. What I am unsure of in this article is if after these methods the students still have deep understanding, or are just better at answering questions they've already been asked before and been given the answers to in these discussions. Essentially it seems these discussion based methods are just out-sourcing the teaching to the students who do read the material.
I've heard someone say that intelligence means that someone is able to absorb and grok information in the form it is given. College education has been based loosely around this. There is some required reading, there is a lecture where you can ask questions, there are office hours/labs/recitations where you can ask more questions, then there is an exam. In this situation the burden is open the student to assess their own learning. Competent students can do this, and do. This new idea seems based around forcing students to think about the material and assess their own understanding through required discussion groups rather than learning to do this on their own. Consequently, I studied like a freak and spent a lot of introspective time asking myself if I understood this material.
In general I think the goal of the university should not be vocational. The goal is not to teach in such a strong way, but to merely make information available and have students learn how to learn. They've always done this with required readings, problem sets, etc. I'd be interested to see how many of these physics students who do so poorly actually do all their homework to the point in which they understand it. I had a labmate once (who was not cut out for physics) complain at how he did all the homework, but wasn't able to get the right answers. To me it seemed that he didn't really do it at all. (note: I am not a genius, but I am appropriately intelligent for college.)
What was once studying is now part of class time. When I was in school we worked in groups to independently form study/discussion groups, we didn't get our hands held by having teachers FORCE us to think about the material. This new method is interesting, but makes you think about what standards we expect of a college graduate. Does a degree mean that you know the material? Or should it mean that you have demonstrated the capability to learn the material? It would seem that in a job-environment they won't hold discussion groups to teach you how to do something, and a better skill would be to be able to learn on your own.
When I was in undergrad at the beginning of the past decade, the average grade in my physics class was a D, and this was normal. The average grade in organic chemistry was a C, and this was normal. The fact was that these were just very complex subjects and most people would not grasp all of it. The grades were adjusted upwards of course, but it was understood by the faculty that a course which covers the expected amount of material would be very difficult and the average student's raw score would be low, but that was ok.
I don't think any geek in the past decade has said that design doesn't matter.
I think you're missing a subtlety here, Linux users DO want to mess with command line settings and tools.
Apple users don't, and therefore they don't get them. No one tool is best for all jobs or all users.
There is a false dichotomy in technological discussions that technological options can be ranked on a one-dimensional matrix.
If they were not concerned with technical details, why was the touchscreen operated by a stylus? Isn't a finger a superior pointing device?
I make a good habit of ignoring my phone. I even made a nice Tasker widget to put it on a timed airplane mode when I don't even want to hear it.
Also, make it a habit to not give your boss regular quick turnarounds on their emails, they will only come to expect it. Manage expectations.
The Kardashians talk like this a lot, Kathy Griffen does a pretty good impression.
Oh yeah, and who does consulting for Rapiscan (the people who sell these things)? Michael Chertoff! Former DHS secretary who, while in office, said it would be just great if we bought a bunch of these things!
I think they are a little scared because even if the company sells these things, it might not protect them from some giant class-action suit.
It seems to me though that most audiobooks are read by men, and of the ones I have read by women, I find the voice irritating. These are real people though, maybe its more to do with how male and female voices are synthed.
As stated the summary is nonsensical. It says the massive deforestation caused more carbon to be pulled from the atmosphere and reduced the earth's cooling. This makes no sense.
Reading the article, its actually massive reforestation which was caused by all the suddenly depopulated native human fields and cities.
It's still absurd though. Historical questions should be avoided in the hard sciences. It's easy to make up stories to explain trends in data, especially when they can't be experimentally validated.