nor will I read the novelization of TFA.

So Microsoft creates an App for a tool that leads back to an MS server that runs...(bet it's not Linux).

So by the poster's remarks, who really wins? The guy who gets MS to create a web app that runs on a Linux mobile device, or the guys who get you to use your Linux mobile device to access your docs on a Windows server?

Concur.

Yo, CmdrTaco, can you hold the door while I follow you out?

Seriously, if this is the best editorial quality we can expect in the "new era" I'm outta here.

And nothing of value was lost, by either party.

>unbookmarks /.

I believe this was done in of Titan A.E. They just weren't very thorough about it.

Seriously.

We have team leads at our company that hate to train or take on new people that don't meet a minimum standard, or can't work semi-autonomously right away. Fools they are, and here's why:

1. I frequently find myself overwhelmed with meetings, little tasks by the bushel, and stuff I just don't plain want to do. Send me the inexperienced guy, and I'll spend a day or a week or a month showing them the bare basics of what they need to know to get "close enough" on the job (like how to take notes/report status in a redundant, low-level meeting or do do a repetetive but necessary task or report). *poof* All the thankless little tasks go away, taken over by someone else, and I get credit for both training the new guys AND for doing work more appropriate for my experience level.

2. If the new guy's competent, he finds a way to make these tasks better -- for him/her. It's a critical thought exercise. Meet enough people, show you are competent/network. At the same time I'm showing the new guy (and sundry others) that I have faith in them. Most times that's paid off as they've moved to other projects/offices as I now have a trust relationship.

3. I train 'em my way. Makes my job easier. If they show competence in technical work, I work with them and bring them up my way, and it makes it easier to work together. If the have project management skills, I try to find them opportunities along those lines. Hate to lose a technical expert, but a technically competent manager is gold at our company. A technically competent manager I've worked well with is completely priceless to me.

4. If they don't work out, they're gone. I'm willing to train folks, but sometimes it doesn't work out, and it's to the company's benefit to identify general incompetence as quick as possible.
Not everyone thinks like I do, that's cool. I'm just willing to make the time to train the next generation 'cause I see some (possibly self-serving) benefit.

nice red shirt for you to wear...

A couple of things up front: I have both a B.S. and a M.S. in Computer Science, and I have a kid starting kindergarten this year, so I have more than a passing interest in technology in the classroom.

While shopping around for schools (we've chosen to go the private school route for a number of reasons) we had a discussion with one school that used iPads starting in Kindergarten. I asked what the value-added was, as I have a couple of ideas for the tech. What I was looking for was:

* We are minimizing the use of textbooks/workbooks by giving each child an e-reader that can do more.
* We have killer apps that we bought/created that can do (fill in the subject here)
* We have found through research that the use of this technology improves the learning experience by n letter grades (or a comparable metric)

What I got was a blank stare. Then I had some fun by whipping out my iPhone, giving it to my kid, and telling her to go to town on one of the educational apps that we'd downloaded. After she configured her preferences and started working on the reading exercises, I asked if they'd like to see her on a laptop while we were at it. Another blank stare. Even better, she can't quite read yet, but we're using tech around the house to help with that. She thinks its a game.

I guess when I see that schools are wholesale adopting the technology, I have to ask whether this is just a marketing gimmick, not for Apple or Google as was stated somewhere in the thread, but rather for the school to say "hey, we're cool, we have iPads." I just haven't seen tech a smooth tech adoption strategy that impresses me, yet. The tools are there, but I don't see the curriculum development that justifies either the cost or the hoopla.

And Mars probes. They always forget to mention the Mars probes...

I started school in 1980. In early elementary school we were taught inches/feet/yards/etc, but by about the 7th grade or so all science and math classes were exclusively metric. And that was in Indiana.

*Did they publish the abstracts in advance? Usually you can get a feel if a conference is worth it based on the topics to be presented. If there are a few papers that look interesting, I would say it's worth it.

*Are there any speakers of note? I have found getting the perspective of folks that have remained in the career field for a while to be invaluable. I may not agree with everything they say/so, but a lot of times there are some insights that help with my research, or at least give me an idea of a sub-specialty NOT to pursue.

*Expanding on the networking comments above, a lot of times the other presenters are available before/after their talks. I've make a lot of good connections that have helped me from an academic/professional perspective up to collaboration on projects. As a student, my advice is to use the opportunity to get a deeper understanding of topic areas you are interested in, if possible.

*Experience presenting: I emphasize this with all of the younger folks on my team. The ability to articulate your research will directly translate into more opportunities for research, and in some cases translate into funding. This sounds like it might be an opportunity to get some practice. Not all great computer scientists have that ability.

OTOH, if none of the above apply, see if they will be publishing the proceedings and get a copy. It's probably cheaper.

Wrong science. This is physics, not biology. Unless you are talking about ill-tempered robotic sharks with frickin' laser beams...

They manage to scale the frickin' lasers down to frickin' shark-size.

why didn't they just set up video tele-conferencing equipment instead? The bandwidth and equipment should be easily available, I gotta think that it would be a cheaper solution and get the same effect. What am I missing here?

Weird Al was way ahead of this one.