However, resources are a consideration; real hearts aren't always available.
Yeah, but as a teacher, I find that schools and districts use this as an excuse to cut resources. "Real hearts are better, but we've got this 3D simulation which is almost as good, so why should we use hearts any way?" And if the 3D software is commercial, the conversation becomes "Well we've paid for this software's annual license out of our budget, we'll have to cut back on photocopying, etc." Don't get me started on the $2000 solutions to $200 problems. (Interactive whiteboards and projector as opposed to whiteboard, projector, wireless mouse and whiteboard marker.)
I agree with the geography and astronomy examples, as they are pretty hard to get into a classroom any case, but I'm still concerned that in poorer districts 3D will replace field excursions and night viewings completely. Don't agree with the architecture example though - there are few enough opportunities for students to do papercraft and model-building as it is.:D
As it is, I have to fight hard (Not against the school administration so much, as lack of time, resources, facities, etc.) to ensure my science students get to do titrations, chemical experiments (They were going to ban sodium in Australian schools a few years ago!), roller coaster experiments, etc. 3D is a good supplement in science education, but science is based on observing the real world, which is always more complicated than simulation.
Recently we had our students do a scientific investigation involving colligative properties - specifically that salt will cause ice to melt faster, and we suggested the kids test this by timing how long ice cubes took to melt in salt and fresh water. Guess what? The ice takes longer in the salt water and the students spent about three weeks investigating why. (And man it was hard biting my tongue to not tell them the answer.) On the other hand, I have seen simulations of scientific phenomena that get things flat-out wrong. Hydrogen-producing reaction on a scale with a balloon over the opening of the flask, and the simulation shows the scale reading staying the same. Not true.
Re:While working on the spreadsheet format...
on
ODF 1.2 Is Approved
·
· Score: 1
He posted a pretty vitrolic comment, and did it as an Anonymous Coward, so I think he might have been trolling, Teun.
Yes but you can't touch a 3D visualisation, so things like "the aorta is made of elastic connective tissue to help it deal with the high blood pressure from the heart" doesn't have the immediacy of feeling it stretch like a rubber band. If you see a couple of posts above, you will see that my objection is not with the use of 3d visualisations, but with the replacement of hands-on activities.
Re:Where the Hell is panel decoupled from shell?
on
GNOME 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm staying with Ubuntu Lucid until the next Long Service Release comes out. Then I'll try Xubuntu and if that doesn't work, I'll try KDE. *sigh*
Re:For those of us who prefer a video
on
GNOME 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Until they decide to stop supporting this "legacy interface" and kill it in the next release.:(
Re:For those of us who prefer a video
on
GNOME 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
What happens if you want to read one screen (say containing information from a web page) and type into another screen (say a document)? Copy-Paste works if you want a word-for-word copy, but if you're interpreting and rewriting the information on the fly, not being able to stack and organise multiple applications on the same desktop means you have to copy-paste-rewrite-delete. Bleagh.
Re:For those of us who prefer a video
on
GNOME 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Yes hairyfeet.
Microsoft announced an intent to develop 3D desktops somewhere at the start of the 21st century. Linux developers said "That sounds good" and released a from-the-ground implementation of XGL and compiz in 2006 (after having a mostly stable downloadable beta for a bit more than a year). At the start of 2008, XGL was replaced with AIGLX and compiz fusion was pretty much the default STABLE window system in Linux distributions since 2007.
Windows 7 was released in at the end of 2009 and STABLE? Windows 8 is hopefully due to be released at the end of 2012.
So we've had the "cool flipping 3d windows" for 3-4 years longer than Windows if we're being generous about stability, and a stable version for 4-5 years longer (If Microsoft releases Windows 8 in 2012.):P Don't get me started about how long Linux has had multiple virtual desktops.
That's why a lot of Linux users (Including Linus Torvalds) are getting their knickers in a knot about KDE and GNOME throwing stable, advanced, flexible and TESTED desktop systems away and developing new "desktop experiences". Bleaghhhh.
And why do we need the expensive circularly polarised goggles. Is there a reason we can't use Red/Blue glasses and images? Then we can print them out in books, put them up on normal TV, computer screens and projectors.
Yeeeessss. But as dgatwood pointed out, any new and novel technology will become old and boring given enough time. Using multiple teaching technologies and experiences will counteract this, but at some point kids will have to bear down and learn something they find dull. (Especially when they're learning basic skills for a topic.) I agree that a good teacher tries to make a class exciting as possible, but I've noticed more and more kids expect to be entertained at school rather than taught.
I think that discovery learning has come up with some good stuff, but I can't help wonder if we've taken things a bit too far in making it the ONLY teaching method to use. Most research suggests that students do better if you just _teach_ them basic concepts rather than get them to _discover_ EVERYTHING. True discovery learning occurs best after students have mastered basic concepts and are then given something complex to work on.
But you're not giving them the engine, you're still giving them an image albeit a 3D one. Is there any reason we can't give the students a physical rock, a real fossil, get them to do a dissection?
As a teacher, I'm concerned that computer technology is being used to replace real experiences in schools, rather than supplement them. And I'm in my 30's and a Linux user, so it's not because I dislike technology or anything like that. It's just every time a new piece of software shows up, I've noticed a tendency to decrease exposure to real experiments. (Lack of time. Less expensive. It's been covered by the software.) I've been guilty of this myself, but try to fight it more and more.
As a teacher, if you have the time to write start-of-lesson notes up before a class, a blackboard is better than a projector.
1. About 1/4 of students (Those with vision problems.) find blackboards easier to read than projected images (or whiteboards) as they have less glare. 2. Written board notes allow a teacher to teach dynamically - if the students are having difficulty with a given concept, you can change the content of the lesson immediately. My worst uni teacher came in with a set of pre-prepared overheads and read them to the theatre. My best uni teacher wrote everything down during the lecture. 3. In order to write notes up, you have to think about your lesson structure, each and every lesson. 4. It's possible to shade on a blackboard. For scientific and mathematical diagrams, this makes it easier to show 3D structure. Shading is much more difficult on overhead projectors and whiteboards.
Now it's possible to use a digital projector and achieve 2 through 4 using a tablet, but you better hope the software or the hardware doesn't die halfway through a lesson.:(
As an aside, I'd like to know how much my hearing has been harmed when watching TV and the advertisements are piped through 20 decibels louder than the shows.:(
It's quite possible to build a device that can help with acne and isn't really much larger than a smartphone. Acne bacteria (and a number of other organisms that are responsible for other types of skin irritation) can be killed with UV light. You just need a bigger light. For someone who doesn't know the technical details and/or how much light it actually takes to see a measurable difference, it's not an unreasonable assumption that a company that sells a product with the claim that it can do enough to help with their acne isn't actually lying, especially not when they're citing dermatologists.
Or you could get out in the sun for a few minutes each day?
I think you lost most slashdotters there.
Unless of course it involved some weird experiment involving solar rays, an arduino microprocessor, and three goldfish of course.
It's quite possible to build a device that can help with acne and isn't really much larger than a smartphone. Acne bacteria (and a number of other organisms that are responsible for other types of skin irritation) can be killed with UV light. You just need a bigger light. For someone who doesn't know the technical details and/or how much light it actually takes to see a measurable difference, it's not an unreasonable assumption that a company that sells a product with the claim that it can do enough to help with their acne isn't actually lying, especially not when they're citing dermatologists.
Or you could get out in the sun for a few minutes each day?
In cold climates, you could run the cables up the piping of your track pants. Coat the piping with some cheap, efficient and flexible electro-luminescent material (No, I have no idea what you could use, just floating an idea) and you get to jog, charge your devices and glow in the dark a-la Tron.:D
Assuming that the device and your phone/device has an abysmal 10% total energy efficiency, and provides (and consumes) the 10W that the article quoted, that Mars bar will last you for:
E = Pt E/P = t 1050 000 * 0.1/10 = 10 500 seconds
= 175 minutes
= just shy of 3 hours.
And that's assuming that the phone is going to suck down 10W of power and burn it off instantly.
With the global "obesity epidemic" hitting first world countries, a little bit of inefficiency might be a good idea. Additionally, there is the point that having "shoe chargers" makes mobile devices truly mobile, and only dependent on the chemical energy you eat from food.
My current smart phone has a compass, gps, and a sd card that allows me to use maps "offline", yet one battery charge barely lasts a little more than a day on the most conservative power settings. Before that, I had a hand-held gps (no maps, just location, routes and waypoints) that could last two days on battery power. Not exactly the best idea if you're hiking or camping.
I now have a solar charger, but would gladly swap it for shoe charger inserts (If they sold for about $50 AUD), as I could pop them into any shoe I was wearing, plug my phone in and have it charging, sunny or raining, day or night (Well, when I wasn't sleeping of course.).
Additionally, if the inserts are well designed, they could be set to only absorb the impact from the initial sharp foot-strike, stay compressed on stride-through, and recover while your foot was in the air. This way, you'd be getting power AND extra cushioning without making the foot-lift harder or wasting energy. (And yes, a good hiker learns to land their feet softly, but at the end of a long day hiking, your legs are tired, you will lose some gracefulness, and you WILL hit the ground harder than necessary.)
The only issues I might have with such a device, is that: 1. The power cord would need to be good and strong to avoid being broken by continuous flexing. 2. The entire device would need to be waterproof - even if wearing in the city. 3. The last thing you would want is a thick, round cord inside your shoe.
If they were sensible, they'd make the insert wrap around your foot, maybe using some cheaper material for the top, a nice broad-but-thin insulated ribbon material up your instep, then have a thick, round cord coming out the top of your boot (Maybe slip it in front of the tongue of the boot). Slip the insert between two pairs of socks (which you should already be wearing for hiking anyway) and you would be good to go.
It's a special case of the standard Slashdot curmudgeon technique, where you demonstrate how experienced and knowledgable you are by interpreting any piece of potentially good news as definite bad news. If you do it enough times, you win a patch of lawn to keep children off of.
And the 2nd tier achievement gives you a stick to wave at them.
Minority parties don't get to make policies so they can display more backbone. If they were actually given the power to implement things I bet they'd get corrupted quickly.
But theoretically that would take some time, and those 1 to 2 years of corruption-in-process would still have to be better than the current situation.
Slashdot Mirror
However, resources are a consideration; real hearts aren't always available.
Yeah, but as a teacher, I find that schools and districts use this as an excuse to cut resources. "Real hearts are better, but we've got this 3D simulation which is almost as good, so why should we use hearts any way?" And if the 3D software is commercial, the conversation becomes "Well we've paid for this software's annual license out of our budget, we'll have to cut back on photocopying, etc." Don't get me started on the $2000 solutions to $200 problems. (Interactive whiteboards and projector as opposed to whiteboard, projector, wireless mouse and whiteboard marker.)
I agree with the geography and astronomy examples, as they are pretty hard to get into a classroom any case, but I'm still concerned that in poorer districts 3D will replace field excursions and night viewings completely. Don't agree with the architecture example though - there are few enough opportunities for students to do papercraft and model-building as it is. :D
As it is, I have to fight hard (Not against the school administration so much, as lack of time, resources, facities, etc.) to ensure my science students get to do titrations, chemical experiments (They were going to ban sodium in Australian schools a few years ago!), roller coaster experiments, etc. 3D is a good supplement in science education, but science is based on observing the real world, which is always more complicated than simulation.
Recently we had our students do a scientific investigation involving colligative properties - specifically that salt will cause ice to melt faster, and we suggested the kids test this by timing how long ice cubes took to melt in salt and fresh water. Guess what? The ice takes longer in the salt water and the students spent about three weeks investigating why. (And man it was hard biting my tongue to not tell them the answer.)
On the other hand, I have seen simulations of scientific phenomena that get things flat-out wrong. Hydrogen-producing reaction on a scale with a balloon over the opening of the flask, and the simulation shows the scale reading staying the same. Not true.
He posted a pretty vitrolic comment, and did it as an Anonymous Coward, so I think he might have been trolling, Teun.
If not Mr. AC, how about you create an account? :P
Yes but you can't touch a 3D visualisation, so things like "the aorta is made of elastic connective tissue to help it deal with the high blood pressure from the heart" doesn't have the immediacy of feeling it stretch like a rubber band. If you see a couple of posts above, you will see that my objection is not with the use of 3d visualisations, but with the replacement of hands-on activities.
I'm staying with Ubuntu Lucid until the next Long Service Release comes out. Then I'll try Xubuntu and if that doesn't work, I'll try KDE. *sigh*
Until they decide to stop supporting this "legacy interface" and kill it in the next release. :(
What happens if you want to read one screen (say containing information from a web page) and type into another screen (say a document)? Copy-Paste works if you want a word-for-word copy, but if you're interpreting and rewriting the information on the fly, not being able to stack and organise multiple applications on the same desktop means you have to copy-paste-rewrite-delete. Bleagh.
Yes hairyfeet.
Microsoft announced an intent to develop 3D desktops somewhere at the start of the 21st century. Linux developers said "That sounds good" and released a from-the-ground implementation of XGL and compiz in 2006 (after having a mostly stable downloadable beta for a bit more than a year). At the start of 2008, XGL was replaced with AIGLX and compiz fusion was pretty much the default STABLE window system in Linux distributions since 2007.
Windows 7 was released in at the end of 2009 and STABLE? Windows 8 is hopefully due to be released at the end of 2012.
So we've had the "cool flipping 3d windows" for 3-4 years longer than Windows if we're being generous about stability, and a stable version for 4-5 years longer (If Microsoft releases Windows 8 in 2012.) :P
Don't get me started about how long Linux has had multiple virtual desktops.
That's why a lot of Linux users (Including Linus Torvalds) are getting their knickers in a knot about KDE and GNOME throwing stable, advanced, flexible and TESTED desktop systems away and developing new "desktop experiences". Bleaghhhh.
And why do we need the expensive circularly polarised goggles. Is there a reason we can't use Red/Blue glasses and images? Then we can print them out in books, put them up on normal TV, computer screens and projectors.
Or you can give them a real heart to dissect!!! Gaaaahhhhh.
Yeeeessss. But as dgatwood pointed out, any new and novel technology will become old and boring given enough time. Using multiple teaching technologies and experiences will counteract this, but at some point kids will have to bear down and learn something they find dull. (Especially when they're learning basic skills for a topic.)
I agree that a good teacher tries to make a class exciting as possible, but I've noticed more and more kids expect to be entertained at school rather than taught.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&q=mathematics+exams+from+30+years+ago
I think that discovery learning has come up with some good stuff, but I can't help wonder if we've taken things a bit too far in making it the ONLY teaching method to use. Most research suggests that students do better if you just _teach_ them basic concepts rather than get them to _discover_ EVERYTHING. True discovery learning occurs best after students have mastered basic concepts and are then given something complex to work on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_instruction
But you're not giving them the engine, you're still giving them an image albeit a 3D one.
Is there any reason we can't give the students a physical rock, a real fossil, get them to do a dissection?
As a teacher, I'm concerned that computer technology is being used to replace real experiences in schools, rather than supplement them. And I'm in my 30's and a Linux user, so it's not because I dislike technology or anything like that. It's just every time a new piece of software shows up, I've noticed a tendency to decrease exposure to real experiments. (Lack of time. Less expensive. It's been covered by the software.) I've been guilty of this myself, but try to fight it more and more.
As a teacher, if you have the time to write start-of-lesson notes up before a class, a blackboard is better than a projector.
1. About 1/4 of students (Those with vision problems.) find blackboards easier to read than projected images (or whiteboards) as they have less glare.
2. Written board notes allow a teacher to teach dynamically - if the students are having difficulty with a given concept, you can change the content of the lesson immediately. My worst uni teacher came in with a set of pre-prepared overheads and read them to the theatre. My best uni teacher wrote everything down during the lecture.
3. In order to write notes up, you have to think about your lesson structure, each and every lesson.
4. It's possible to shade on a blackboard. For scientific and mathematical diagrams, this makes it easier to show 3D structure. Shading is much more difficult on overhead projectors and whiteboards.
Now it's possible to use a digital projector and achieve 2 through 4 using a tablet, but you better hope the software or the hardware doesn't die halfway through a lesson. :(
By the look of it, the "wheels" are just custom hoods over the real wheels. I'd imagine this would make it VERY difficult to corner!
Oh god, who was the idiot who started a language war in Slashdot?
As an aside, I'd like to know how much my hearing has been harmed when watching TV and the advertisements are piped through 20 decibels louder than the shows. :(
It's quite possible to build a device that can help with acne and isn't really much larger than a smartphone. Acne bacteria (and a number of other organisms that are responsible for other types of skin irritation) can be killed with UV light. You just need a bigger light. For someone who doesn't know the technical details and/or how much light it actually takes to see a measurable difference, it's not an unreasonable assumption that a company that sells a product with the claim that it can do enough to help with their acne isn't actually lying, especially not when they're citing dermatologists.
Or you could get out in the sun for a few minutes each day?
I think you lost most slashdotters there.
Unless of course it involved some weird experiment involving solar rays, an arduino microprocessor, and three goldfish of course.
It's quite possible to build a device that can help with acne and isn't really much larger than a smartphone. Acne bacteria (and a number of other organisms that are responsible for other types of skin irritation) can be killed with UV light. You just need a bigger light. For someone who doesn't know the technical details and/or how much light it actually takes to see a measurable difference, it's not an unreasonable assumption that a company that sells a product with the claim that it can do enough to help with their acne isn't actually lying, especially not when they're citing dermatologists.
Or you could get out in the sun for a few minutes each day?
Rossdee makes a good point. I think these things would have to be waterproof just to handle the sweat.
In cold climates, you could run the cables up the piping of your track pants. Coat the piping with some cheap, efficient and flexible electro-luminescent material (No, I have no idea what you could use, just floating an idea) and you get to jog, charge your devices and glow in the dark a-la Tron. :D
Yup, and how do your feet feel after jogging for a long time on concrete? A bit of extra cushioning would be a good thing!
One 53g Mars Bar = 1050 kJ.
http://www.calorieking.com.au/foods/calories-in-chocolate-bars-mars-original_f-2lkPTQzMzMxJmJpZD00MzYmZmlkPTYyMDMmcGFyPSZrZXk9bWFycyBiYXI.html
Assuming that the device and your phone/device has an abysmal 10% total energy efficiency, and provides (and consumes) the 10W that the article quoted, that Mars bar will last you for:
E = Pt /10 = 10 500 seconds
E/P = t
1050 000 * 0.1
= 175 minutes
= just shy of 3 hours.
And that's assuming that the phone is going to suck down 10W of power and burn it off instantly.
With the global "obesity epidemic" hitting first world countries, a little bit of inefficiency might be a good idea.
Additionally, there is the point that having "shoe chargers" makes mobile devices truly mobile, and only dependent on the chemical energy you eat from food.
My current smart phone has a compass, gps, and a sd card that allows me to use maps "offline", yet one battery charge barely lasts a little more than a day on the most conservative power settings. Before that, I had a hand-held gps (no maps, just location, routes and waypoints) that could last two days on battery power. Not exactly the best idea if you're hiking or camping.
I now have a solar charger, but would gladly swap it for shoe charger inserts (If they sold for about $50 AUD), as I could pop them into any shoe I was wearing, plug my phone in and have it charging, sunny or raining, day or night (Well, when I wasn't sleeping of course.).
Additionally, if the inserts are well designed, they could be set to only absorb the impact from the initial sharp foot-strike, stay compressed on stride-through, and recover while your foot was in the air. This way, you'd be getting power AND extra cushioning without making the foot-lift harder or wasting energy. (And yes, a good hiker learns to land their feet softly, but at the end of a long day hiking, your legs are tired, you will lose some gracefulness, and you WILL hit the ground harder than necessary.)
The only issues I might have with such a device, is that:
1. The power cord would need to be good and strong to avoid being broken by continuous flexing.
2. The entire device would need to be waterproof - even if wearing in the city.
3. The last thing you would want is a thick, round cord inside your shoe.
If they were sensible, they'd make the insert wrap around your foot, maybe using some cheaper material for the top, a nice broad-but-thin insulated ribbon material up your instep, then have a thick, round cord coming out the top of your boot (Maybe slip it in front of the tongue of the boot). Slip the insert between two pairs of socks (which you should already be wearing for hiking anyway) and you would be good to go.
Modded Insightful and not Funny?
I love the quote, but just can't understand the logic of the moderator. :/
It's a special case of the standard Slashdot curmudgeon technique, where you demonstrate how experienced and knowledgable you are by interpreting any piece of potentially good news as definite bad news. If you do it enough times, you win a patch of lawn to keep children off of.
And the 2nd tier achievement gives you a stick to wave at them.
Its not that the major parties are antagonistic towards technology, its that they are ignorant.
... WILFULLY ignorant!
Minority parties don't get to make policies so they can display more backbone. If they were actually given the power to implement things I bet they'd get corrupted quickly.
But theoretically that would take some time, and those 1 to 2 years of corruption-in-process would still have to be better than the current situation.