I don't think the author is suggesting that details don't matter. Rather, he is suggesting that on a first pass through material, it is often better to focus on learning the material on a conceptual level (where is this material taking me? What does this theorem really tell me?) rather than focusing on the mechanical details of the derivations and proofs. To a certain extent, this is already built into the curriculum: freshman and sophomore mathematics coursework tends to focus on concepts and computation, while junior and senior coursework chases after the fundamental reasons why the theory works. Consider, for example, the relationship between Calculus I (freshman course) and Intro to Real Analysis (sometimes called Advanced Calculus, typically in the senior year). These courses cover very similar material, but the mathematical maturity required for Real Analysis course is significantly higher. I believe the author is suggesting that students spend more time on understanding the "why" and less time on "how". You can go back and figure out the "how" much quicker a little later on. "How" is nevertheless important, because ultimately you need to learn how to prove your own results.
The other important point is that the author's intended audience are individuals who are determined to master mathematics at a deep level, the sort who are determined to crank through all the details. The message makes much less sense outside of the intended audience.
For BS and MS degrees, the name of the university is important, because there is generally no guarantee that you spent significant time with a faculty member. For a PhD, the name of your thesis adviser takes precedence over the name of the university, especially if the adviser has a respected name in the field. For these reasons, I would opt for the CS degree from the (lesser known?) European university rather than the Biology degree from the American Ivy League university.
Note that this is a United States patent case. Under US patent law (unlike international patent law), patent rights are assigned by first to invent, not first to file. This means the case depends on how long Nintendo and ThinkOptic were working on the devices before filing. This makes for really messy patent fights. I'm really surprised that Nintendo wouldn't have previous patents related to this technology. Then again, they probably do, but those patents aren't mentioned in the article, which is written from the ThinkOptic perspective without a response from Nintendo.
1) requires minimal training
2) secure and reliable
3) provides point to point connection with verifiable delivery
To which I'd add:
4) backwards compatible with fax
Since everyone in an industry is not going to switch from fax at once, it'd be best if the same device could be used for remote document delivery, whether it be over fax or IP. It seems like there could be an opportunity for a combination of an internet service and firmware to be licensed by scanner/fax OEMs. The scanner/fax/printer would be plugged into both network and phone line (or perhaps use a a VOIP connection through some service, so then just plugged into network). You would enter the phone number or Machine ID you want to send your document to. If it's a phone number, the document is routed over the phone line (or VOIP) as a tradition fax. If it's a Machine ID, it contacts the central server of the internet service, which tracks machines using unique static registered IDs. If the requested machine is available to receive, then the server provides a tunnel from one machine to the other (machine makes outbound connections to the server to get around firewall issues). All data on the network between the two machines would be encrypted. The received document could be immediately printed (if the machine includes a printer) or logged as a pdf file. (There could be several options for getting the pdf to somewhere useful. e.g. machine could appear as a network drive, could locally email the document, or could allow it to be copied to a usb thumb drive.) The server could provide receipt confirmation. The advantage over traditional fax would be that a separate phone line would not be needed, and much high quality scans could be transmitted as fast as you can scan them (in color even). A disadvantage is that the internet service knows who is faxing whom (though wouldn't be able to decrypt what was faxed), which might raise privacy concerns. This all seems very feasible. The tricky part would be getting buy-in from the OEMs.
I've used both systems for small, medium, and large documents as well. For documents that are written by large numbers of authors in short amounts of time (like grant proposals), I like Word with Track Changes. I find the visual display of changes in the formatted document focuses attention and speeds up the writing process. I'm fine with non-WYSIWYG editing in general, but the visualization of changes is just really effective.
I know how to return clicks from xdvi and yap to an editor. But it's the coauthors' edits that I'm interested in, not just finding my place in the source file or identifying who wrote a particular line.
I've used versioning systems with latex documents as a single author as well as with coauthors. It worked great as a way to keep a centrally located authoritative version of the document. One thing I didn't like was that versioning systems often pay attention to whitespace, so trivial changes in the line wraps would be reported as large changes in the document. (This was with CVS. Perhaps newer systems understand text better.)
With latex documents for which someone else is the primary author, I often end up writing comments on a printout, scanning, and returning. This generally ends up being a better use of my time than trying to teach a coauthor (often not a programmer) about versioning systems.
The separation between US R&D and China manufacturing persists because more of the qualified R&D workforce prefer to live in the US than in China. That won't necessarily always be the case.
If Chrome is suddently twice as fast on Google websites then all other browsers, then gives the combination of Chrome+Google websites a huge advantage.
Because the big bottleneck on the web is the time spent waiting for search results?