Exactly, I've always thought that Calculus, Trig, and Statistics should be taught in high school with computers only. No paper, pencil, and NO math notation. Learn how to use it to solve problems and get the concepts down. Plenty of time to learn the theory and notation in college when you've had a couple years of doing tasks on a computer. Teachers spend so much time teaching the notation regurgitating the theory that has no basis in how it's actually used that it's no wonder so many teens get turned off to higher math and consequently programming. Saying "well, not everyone is cutout for math or programming" is a cop-out. Like saying not everyone is cutout for reading or writing. If I was king, programming would be taught every year from the first grade just like writing.
I wouldn't be so cynical if they had forwarded those ratings on to Google Play so people browsing the store for a good game had a more accurate rating of the game before they installed it and started playing it for themselves, discovered it was a bad game and then the cycle repeats thousands of times. Seems to me EA is the cynical bastard here.
Wow, I guess it's my ignorance. Haven't seen a movie rating on Amazon Prime below 4 stars ever. Also, I don't understand why Amazon recommends all the previous novels when you are looking at the last novel of a series. Seems a waste, especially if I've already bought the book. Amazon should be much smarter. Looks like they may recognize that with the Goodreads purchase.
You're right, my bad, I rushed the submission. Should have also included some links about all the rating manipulation going on at eBay, Amazon, and Yelp. Has me wondering if there is any place were ratings are still useful. Maybe GoodReads, but that may just be ignorance on my part.
fplatten (588351) writes "I would definitely call this unethical manipulation of the ratings system: Worst Company America, EA is routing all ratings made in game of 1 to 4 stars as an email that is sent to EA, but all 5 star ratings are routed to the Google Play store where it's rating is currently 4.3 out of 5."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Bad advice. If you don't have enough tax withheld and owe more than $1000 when you file your taxes, you have to pay a penalty with interest on the amount.
fplatten (588351) writes "I think this is all you need to see to know what legacy Steve Ballmer has left at Microsoft where it's IE browser market share has collapsed from a high of 86% in 2002 to just 9% now. I guess this is just another in a long list of tech companies that failed to maintain it's dominant market share. Also, IE may be the one product that never really deserved it, but just piggybacked on Windows and users left in droves once decent (more secure) alternatives and standards became popular."
Hey, the kindle version is only $8.99! Harry Harrison died in 2012. Glad to see that an eBook which costs nothing to produce and written 47 years ago is still making money for someone. Too bad they can only make money for another 68 years. Public domain is just thievery.
Trailrunner7 writes "It's bound to happen: you create a cool, forward looking incentive program designed to tap the 'wisdom of the crowd' and help make your products better, only to find out that, in fact, the 'crowd' isn't all that wise — and now wants you to pay cold, hard cash for their tepid ideas. That's the experience that Google appears to have had since announcing that it would extend its bounty program for bugs from its Chromium platform to the various Web applications that the company owns. In an updated blog post this week, the company said it has already committed to some $20,000 in bounties, but also provided some 'clarification' to the terms of the reward program, saying that — in essence — not all bugs are equal and that researchers dumping low priority vulnerabilities shouldn't expect to get much in return. 'The review committee has been somewhat generous this first week,' wrote Google's Security Team in a blog post. 'We've granted a number of awards for bugs of low severity, or that wouldn't normally fall under the conditions we originally described.'"