Listening to this discussion around 30min in, the discussion is about spam. I honestly have NOT seen spam on Google and I usually look at the whole 100 entries page.
I just plain don't trust Microsoft, so I don't use Bing. The Google experiment finding that Microsoft's Bing people have "borrowed," read stolen, Google's pages is just one more vindication for my choice of using Google.
Feb 5, 2011
No spam on my Google searches
Jan 26, 2011
They prefer dictatorship?
Looks like the three conservative justices who skipped Obama's State of the Union speech prefer a president who would not dare to call in question their decisions. Perhaps they'd prefer a dictatorship, where their decisions are not only considered above any law, but also beyond any criticism. So the right has now become rabid. Shame on them.
in reference to:"The three most conservative Supreme Court justices — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — skipped the speech. Last year, Alito balked when Obama took the court to task for one of its decisions. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a former Colorado senator, was left behind in the event that a catastrophe forced a presidential succession."
- State of the Union 2011: So much for civility - Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com (view on Google Sidewiki)
Jan 12, 2011
Microsoft lawsuit re "App Store" = normal
As usual Microhard shows zero, zilch, nada of capacity for originality or creativity. Instead they sue to beg, steal, borrow or in reality, simply copy. Ah, the flattery of it all.
What about Solution Maker or iTool Mart? No. They want to use another's successful marketing phrase idea to boost sales of an already years old tired sytem because they don't have the brain power ingenuity anymore to do otherwise. Poor, sad Microsoft.
Dec 1, 2010
WonderGeek emerges: amazement and frustration
What a day so far. I became totally enamored of the cleverly headlined "An Odyssey Through the Brain, Illuminated by a Rainbow" by Dr. Abigail Zuger. Solid writing and the slide shows and video interview of author Carl Schoonover were fine. Boggles the mind what scientists and technicians have wrought.
In seeing all this, however, my elearning soul yearned for MORE. More explanation, more detail, more pointing out of what each filament category did, how it functions, etc. Schoonover got me. I wanted to learn more.
Now go see it!! and then come back.
Wow. Think of how one could use these images, and the videos that scientists are now producing of cell activity in motion, to stimulate the imagination, and yes the desire for More, in say 10 year olds, 4th graders...and 6th graders, 8th, etc.!!! And hey, even 60ers in their middle age!
Sitting here in Peru, I'm thinking why don't the Education Ministers of the Andean spine countries, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia...even Chile,.. get together, form a lobbying org and persuade authors, book companies, scientist organizations, aid funders to help make knowledge like this available to the undereducated poor. I.e. make it accessible physically, but also mentally by constructing courselets by at least three education levels: kids, teens, adults. Let them share in the wonder of modern science, modern knowledge, for their own betterment.
And take a look just at this diagram. You could do a whole mp3 talk with it to go along just with it printed out. [I tried to insert it here, but Blogger resists.]
And hey, not only here in Peru, but really in the US as well it'd be great to make online learning available to all.
This stuff can be SO exciting, so enticing, so profoundly interesting, memorable, and unforgettable. And therefore it would stimulate kids to want to know more, study with attention and intention, and maybe follow a career line they never thought of before.
Now isn't that a great goal for learning??!!
Can you now see how "wonder" can lead to making the most out of life, excitement, yearning, on and on and on. That's why I'm going to now consider myself a WonderGeek and give myself permission to not only have Ballmer moments, but also Wonder moments as well:-)
In seeing all this, however, my elearning soul yearned for MORE. More explanation, more detail, more pointing out of what each filament category did, how it functions, etc. Schoonover got me. I wanted to learn more.
Now go see it!! and then come back.
Wow. Think of how one could use these images, and the videos that scientists are now producing of cell activity in motion, to stimulate the imagination, and yes the desire for More, in say 10 year olds, 4th graders...and 6th graders, 8th, etc.!!! And hey, even 60ers in their middle age!
Sitting here in Peru, I'm thinking why don't the Education Ministers of the Andean spine countries, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia...even Chile,.. get together, form a lobbying org and persuade authors, book companies, scientist organizations, aid funders to help make knowledge like this available to the undereducated poor. I.e. make it accessible physically, but also mentally by constructing courselets by at least three education levels: kids, teens, adults. Let them share in the wonder of modern science, modern knowledge, for their own betterment.
And take a look just at this diagram. You could do a whole mp3 talk with it to go along just with it printed out. [I tried to insert it here, but Blogger resists.]
And hey, not only here in Peru, but really in the US as well it'd be great to make online learning available to all.
This stuff can be SO exciting, so enticing, so profoundly interesting, memorable, and unforgettable. And therefore it would stimulate kids to want to know more, study with attention and intention, and maybe follow a career line they never thought of before.
Now isn't that a great goal for learning??!!
Can you now see how "wonder" can lead to making the most out of life, excitement, yearning, on and on and on. That's why I'm going to now consider myself a WonderGeek and give myself permission to not only have Ballmer moments, but also Wonder moments as well:-)
Nov 29, 2010
Wikileaks: my answer to the NYT
Wikileaks, not. My reply to the NYT.
To the editors of the unsigned "A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents" of Nov. 28, 2010:
I'm wondering if stating that "…it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name," means you are saying that the government should therefore have no right to secrecy about any communication or deliberation. Because that's exactly what that statement implies. Do you really mean that we the public should have the right to know everything that is done or said "in our name" by government?
If that is so, then I must as an American journalist of thirty years ask if you are advocating that the government should fail, i.e. lose all power to negotiate, lose all power to react to possible threats, lose all power to be considered an ally since all those actions normally have some aspect of secrecy or confidentiality involved?
By not condemning, or questioning at the least, the wholesale dump of cables and in fact enjoying the fruits of readership by their publication, not as part of stories generated by decisions of reporters and their editors to pursue information, but as part of the illegal stealing of lawfully classified secret documents, you are in fact encouraging more of the same illegal thefts of government information and making a mockery of "freedom of the press."
You are not recognizing that the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) exists for this purpose to make it possible for legitimate members of the media to get the documents they need to better help the public exercise their franchise, the main reason for freedom of the press in the first place, i.e., for the public to be able to cast an intelligent, well-informed vote.
As much as I have admired and certainly daily read the NYTimes, your reputation for me is now sullied, smirched, dirty, and your actions show you are putting monetary gain ahead of the rule of law and the welfare of the nation.
To help you remain consistent, I hope that from now on the NY Times will record and publish all meetings at the top executive levels of the paper and require reporters to videotape their interviews with all sources and put them on YouTube. Because after all, isn't it presumptuous to conclude that subscribed American readers have no right to know what is really behind the investigative stories which form the bedrock of your freedom of press?
To the editors of the unsigned "A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents" of Nov. 28, 2010:
I'm wondering if stating that "…it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name," means you are saying that the government should therefore have no right to secrecy about any communication or deliberation. Because that's exactly what that statement implies. Do you really mean that we the public should have the right to know everything that is done or said "in our name" by government?
If that is so, then I must as an American journalist of thirty years ask if you are advocating that the government should fail, i.e. lose all power to negotiate, lose all power to react to possible threats, lose all power to be considered an ally since all those actions normally have some aspect of secrecy or confidentiality involved?
By not condemning, or questioning at the least, the wholesale dump of cables and in fact enjoying the fruits of readership by their publication, not as part of stories generated by decisions of reporters and their editors to pursue information, but as part of the illegal stealing of lawfully classified secret documents, you are in fact encouraging more of the same illegal thefts of government information and making a mockery of "freedom of the press."
You are not recognizing that the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) exists for this purpose to make it possible for legitimate members of the media to get the documents they need to better help the public exercise their franchise, the main reason for freedom of the press in the first place, i.e., for the public to be able to cast an intelligent, well-informed vote.
As much as I have admired and certainly daily read the NYTimes, your reputation for me is now sullied, smirched, dirty, and your actions show you are putting monetary gain ahead of the rule of law and the welfare of the nation.
To help you remain consistent, I hope that from now on the NY Times will record and publish all meetings at the top executive levels of the paper and require reporters to videotape their interviews with all sources and put them on YouTube. Because after all, isn't it presumptuous to conclude that subscribed American readers have no right to know what is really behind the investigative stories which form the bedrock of your freedom of press?
Aug 12, 2010
¡Por fin!
Legalizar es la única via. El mero hecho que hay un cantidad pequeña que podrías tener y usar LEGALmente es una burla total al concepto de IL-legalidad de la droga.
Esta exposición del Dr. Núñez es lo más acertado que he leido. Felicidades y ojalá que los politicos por fin empiezan de entender que su supuesta 'solución' del consumo de drogas hace mucho más daño al público que el consumo en sí— y que el público ya anda reconociendolo más y más.
El malo de la 'guerra contra la droga' ya está por la culpabilidad de los politicos.
Jul 10, 2010
Medium is the elitist Medium, eh?
Typo here, David? "...home with 500 books..." That's a pretty select group.
Re physical presence of books making the difference in school grades. Well, yes, because for many it's the first time they've had the opportunity to sit and just plain ol' read for an extended period of time. And yes, they will have had other "worlds" opened to them with the right sort of books, and that's great if you've never really had it, and it should logically have impact on school grades as well.
And, yes, we are to remember that "prestigious" is far more important than simply "useful."
Wow, David, this is really an elegant, elitist view of the reading world, "deep, alternative worlds," "lasting wisdom." Yeah, maybe once in a while, for certain people, but there's an extraordinary amount of information that can just help people get along in the world, help them achieve something more by reading than they would have, learn how to take care of themselves better, learn how to better treat other people, learn the joy, fun, delight there is in sheer good reading.
Ah, no, another type of real reading is more important you claim. "But the literary world is still better at helping you become cultivated, mastering significant things of lasting import. To learn these sorts of things, you have to defer to greater minds than your own."
I'd say that what matters most for readers is having "learning" available to them, in a language they can understand at the level of learning they are at for useful purposes for their lives....prestigious, cultured, literary or not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)