Eventually you mature and leave the cradle. No guarantees for those who choose to remain behind in the cradle.

I teach in Japan, so I would not recommend it as a model. As a matter-of-fact, here in Osaka they are lauding the idea of adopting the "No Child Left Behind" model, I kid you not. Education over here is very, very broken. And that's *with* the teeth of the teachers' unions pulled (they're banned from striking), so good luck thinking that union-busting is going to do you any good, either. The only reason that Japan scores higher is the ridiculous amount of money that parents throw away on cram schools, where the real education is done. You could do away with public education altogether in Japan for all the good it does anybody.

By the way, to dispel some of your other misconceptions about Japanese education:

1. Kids here do stand up when the teacher enters or leaves. That has zero impact on anything, including actual respect for the teacher. It just teaches the kids that if they follow certain societal niceties they can get away with anything.

2. Vocational training at Japanese schools is restricted to dedicated vocational schools. They are considered the last place you want to teach because discipline is terrible and student behavior worse.

3. Commercials that laud education on TV in Japan? No such thing. Commercials in Japan are just as rampant as on American television, and just as vapid. There are a couple of channels run by NHK that offer educational programming, but they're dedicated channels; easily avoided by kids who aren't interested.

I don't think this X-Prize nonsense is going to get anywhere, but I don't think that you should be looking to Japan for advice, either. They've attempted to model themselves after the Germans and, failing that, are going after the Americans now. The real problems in the US and Japan are the administrative bureaucrats who haven't actually ever taught, and the fact that people blame teachers for EVERYTHING. You would never blame a PE teacher for your kid being less physically capable than other kids, because bodies are easy to judge. However, trying to make schools crank out grade-A students by tweaking some sort of magical formula that works for everyone is nonsense, too. Some kids are better at certain subjects; some are worse. Some have discipline problems because they don't fit well into rigid systems; some because their parents neglect them, or worse, beat them.

Do you know what the magic bullet is? Tailor-make curriculums for each child based on what he or she can and cannot do. We have the resources and the technology; stop treating everyone like they're cookie-cutter equal, because they're not. The best thing you could do for a kid who is academically challenged is give him more attention, and those who can self-study less; in that way, you're much more likely to bring them up to a similar level in the end, or at least put them in a place where they'll actually learn things that will enable to live a fulfilling life based on their true aptitude.

And stop grading kids on a curve. it only hides the problem and punishes success. Worst idea ever.

I agree. We're far enough into the global warming thing for 100% of scientists to agree that global warming is occurring, and 98% of them to agree that it's somehow caused or contributed to by human activity (those are real statistics in an article I read on the problems of the media trying too hard to present both sides of an argument regardless of the percentages involved; I'm too lazy to provide a link, but hey, so's the grandparent). The "healthy skepticism" sounds like someone trying to sound reasonable while still obviously not wanting to believe that anything bad is really happening.

Yeah, but what most people think of as Mexican food is really Tex-Mex. Be prepared for disappointment!

After buying our Macs that come preloaded with some of the best software on the planet, we typically don't have any need to buy any more software.

While this robot is passingly interesting in terms of more realistic human movement, I don't see where the "anime girlfriend" comes in. Somebody's projecting a little too much.

Read the sentence immediately following your quote one more time.

I get your point; hands-on is always the best when possible. However, resources are a consideration; real hearts aren't always available. Also, the heart is only one example. What about in the macro? Architecture, geography, astronomy. There are a ton of applications where hands-on isn't just impractical, it's impossible.

Not as good. As the article points out, the benefit is in showing the students a working heart. Typically they're not as functional by the time they hit the dissection table.

Optometrists have already said that children below the age of five may be at risk if they use 3D for several hours a day non-stop, because their true depth perception is still developing. After that age, however, the risks are slight to none. As someone who has no depth perception, I've had the reasons why explained to me pretty thoroughly.

I disagree. This is about visualization of 3D objects students are traditionally forced to study using 2D illustrations and text descriptions. Allowing them to see something like a human heart from every angle as it operates is a killer application. Your argument is similar to saying that showing kids color images over black and white will lose its effectiveness because color is just a fad. The better we can visualize things the easier they are to comprehend. Finally, a real use for 3D!

And "by yourself" you mean if you're a programmer capable of troubleshooting and writing code for routers. It's far less trouble and more cost-effective to just go out and buy a new router.

That's because trains transcend the banality of batteries. It's not a valid experiment. ;)

Sounds like prior art to me!

I think the annoying close-ups are to help offset the annoying lack of detail in the overview.