This review is posted on Amazon as the foremost review of the book, with one difference:
"(FTC disclosure (16 CFR Part 255)): The reviewer has accepted a reviewer's copy of this book which is his to keep. He intends to provide an honest, independent, and fair evaluation of the book in all circumstances.)"
Can we get the courtesy of the same disclosure here on Slashdot?
The problem with this approach is that it assumes students are in class to learn.
But that's not the system we live in.
Increasingly, students are in class to memorize material so that they can quickly recall it on one of many tests.
Tests. Memory. That's what we're teaching to these days. Not learning. Key difference.
Happens to the best of us, in fact we tend to work ourselves right out of these in-house positions.
You should probably find something else for yourself to do (say, like, implementing your side project), or start looking for other jobs. If they have no budget to implement core systems, they certainly have no budget to hang on to Sys Admins with "a lot of downtime".
"The example code is generally of good quality, but not always consistent; for instance, is employed in some places, but elsewhere — leaving the reader to wonder why."
This whole move to respond to people's questions from the Executive Branch is very clearly a tactic to redirect voter ire to the Legislative Branch, where laws are made and passed. I would expect most of the replies to include some portion urging voters to contact their legislators. Recent administrations have left the American public under the impression that the executive branch can act unilaterally as long as you have Darth Vader as a vice president.
That's not the way this country is supposed to run. Things like this with the Executive communicating with voters directly are great, don't stop that, but call your goddamned lawmaker, too.
I really enjoy the community and the moderation system on Slashdot. The combination of the 2 are working well together, in my opinion, and I told them that.
I also lambasted the editors for not editing, for headlines that are downright false, and various other editorial issues. One thing that stops me from suggesting slashdot to my friends is that I never know when some story is going to get posted with completely false information in the headline or summary, with a 100+ comment conversation that ensues about information that isn't even accurate.
When that happens, and it happens often, it makes the site look foolish and by extension it makes me look foolish for having suggested it. Slashdot needs to tighten up the editorial department, for me that is the single biggest area for improvement on the site. I told them as much.
You're right to an extent (the news cannot be free as in beer), but the nation-wide non-profit online only experiment that I was referring to is really more aimed at the kind of reporting you are talking about. See: The Voice of San Diego, The MinnPost, and The St. Louis Beacon for examples. Non-profit, local newspapers going 100% online and depending on their communities for support (with maybe some ad sales on the side). All of them are doing hard news coverage and in some cases are doing it better than their city's major daily paper.
Also, your local NPR station has long operated on the model that you just described, providing the kind of coverage that you've described.
The model may not yet be proven for "print" but it is certainly being tested, and seems to be holding up pretty well.
The non-profit, online-only journalism model is being tested out across the country to some notable success. Granted, the orgs tend to partner with print and TV media to get their stories a wider audience (like ProPublica has done with the NYT, NPR and FrontLine), but the non-profit membership model of news gathering (like your local NPR affiliate or like ProPublica) is gaining steam.
Freedom of the press doesn't guarantee quality, which is what I think we all want. Put your money where your eyeballs are and throw a few bucks at ProPublica if you admire their work.
I don't work for them, btw... just a fan.
I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman