Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Perhaps explain evolution next. If you can make a small child understand, you've got some hope of making an adult creationist understand...
The primary difference here is that a small child might want to understand, while the creationist prefers to ignore logical explanations. Most creationists would be capable of learning and understanding if the desire were present.
I absolutely love the concept of these challenges to develop really good explanations of science related concepts. Children generally want to know why things are they way they are. Giving them clear lessons to their questions will only result in improved scientific literacy and interest. Very few things are as discouraging as an incorrect or poorly constructed explanation. For instance, my 5th grade science teacher (also a sports coach) totally screwed up the explanation of how the phases of the moon work, basically confusing them with eclipses. I'm sure that damaged several of my classmates.
Your scenario is not always plausible. Small private universities and rural state run universities may not have the required budget to acquire properly trained or capable personnel to implement and maintain your solution
Later on, we looked at outsourcing student email to Google or Microsoft. There were several reasons for this. Among them were 1. Collaborative tools for creating and sharing documents, spreadsheets, and presentations that would be beneficial to the students; 2. Reduced storage and server expense;3. Zero licensing costs vs. upgrading client access licenses for the next version of Exchange; 4. Reduced administrative effort to support email; and 5. Built-in Disaster Recovery/Business Continuance operation of email.
In conclusion, each situation is different. If there is an abundance of technically competent and skilled IT workers in the area, a university might be able to do email the way you described. Otherwise, that approach becomes less feasible, opening the other options. As you stated in #2, a university that can't do what you say is in fact evaluating its IT capabilities by finding the most cost-effective and functional option available to it.
I didn't read the article (yet), but I put together a game result predictor a couple of years ago that I ran against the tournament field with about an 83% success rate for the whole tournament. It was in the 93% range for the first two rounds. My algorithm utilized season long team statistics to get a team's baseline and then incorporated strength of schedule and seeding components. Just like you mentioned about how far a team has historically progressed from a specific seed, I used historical analysis of seed matchups as another component. Essentially those historical #12 beating #5 type of matchups included a slight scoring boost to the worse seed. In some pairings, that modifier kicked the scoring over the top, but in others it didn't. It turned out to be quite accurate and even predicted the Murray State win over Vanderbilt, among others.
I might make another run at tournament prediction this year using some different statistical metrics that are game pace independent rather than the raw scoring and defense that I used before. Game prediction simulators present unique challenges and are quite fun to work on, especially for nerds who also like sports.
You're right about the barrier to entry for serious contention. Look at how many GOP debates have invited Buddy Roemer during this presidential primary cycle. That guy is a former governor and also served as a member of the US House of Representatives, and he can't get in the room for a debate. His only presence has been on the internet, twitter, and random TV interviews that generally have him comment on the other candidates.
BTW, I'm not advocating the guy in any manner. He just seems like a really good example of your counterpoint.
Yes, you can use EAS or IMAP/CalDAV/CardDAV to get an iOS, Android or WM/WP device to work, but none of them are anywhere near as secure or manageable as BES. For the consumer or light business user, yes, EAS is fine, and geeks can suffer with IMAP+DAV and it's limitations, but as you increase either the number of users or the security and manageability requirements, they don't scale. Anyone who says otherwise has never actually used BES and has no idea what it does.
I disagree. I manage BES and ActiveSync in an enterprise environment. Some may like BES, but I don't see any real advantage in scalability in my environment. It is much easier to provision an Activesync device since I don't have to provide full access to the user's mailbox to a third party (BES service) user account, not to mention the security implications associated with a privileged account that can access everything in every BB users' mailboxes. If I need an audit trail on a user's mailbox, I would prefer all access to be done through the user's specific account. I find it just as simple to perform a remote wipe for a device through Exchange ActiveSync as I do with BES.
That said, as soon as someone duplicates what BES can do on iOS, Android and/or WP, BlackBerry is dead to the enterprise. It'll be Symbian all over again, and RIM will be left selling featurephones to teenagers, third-worlders, and third-world teenagers.
Additionally, the C-level administrators generally love the iPhone and iPad unless they have been long-term Blackberry users. Even those are frequently leaning toward the Apple devices. RIM has fallen behind in the usability department, and I am not sure they can catch up.
Whereas the Terminator is programmed in 6502 assembly code
That seems sufficiently proportional. Human programming in basic : KITT