As I head into break I wanted something I could use to hold and read files (pdfs, docs) on my iPod Touch. The screen is a little small for my old eyes and I prefer to mark on documents as I read, but there are situations in which just reading will do. Apps for the Touch are less than $10 so using something a few times is acceptable.
I looked at two apps – FileMagnet and DataCase. Reviews (Appletell) had similar things to say, but the approach was a little different. FileMagnet makes use of software loaded on the computer to transfer files and a Mac will recognize DataCase as a shared device. My original interpretation of this distinction was that the Touch had to be tethered – a reading error on my part because both use wifi.
I purchased DataCase. I could not get the app to work at the office. UND requires email authentication for wifi access. Even if the computer and the Touch have access, the computer does not see the Touch. Perhaps the port matters – beats me. I had a feeling that it was the weird authentication requirement and when I got home I found there was not a problem. Drag and drop worked to move files from my computer to the Touch.
Nice product – easy to use and the visual appearance of the content is of high quality.
Google comes up in the debate over net neutrality. ISPs have complained that Google should pay more because the content they offer fills up bandwidth out of proportion to the fees they pay. Net neutrality is a tough issue because the illustration offered is not necessarily at the core of the motives of ISPs. For example, in prioritizing bit types to thwart bandwidth hogs, companies could also protect their self interests (e.g., cable providers could slow online video to protect a primary service they offer).
While this is how I have previously understood the intertwined motives and challenges of providers, the Wall Street Journal just published an article that presents a position I find confusing. Google wants providers to offer them a fast lane. Now, the situation is growing more complicated. Providers may offer priority delivery of bits provided by paying customers (e.g., Google). Would allowing this business practice also allow cable providers to slow the video bits competing with the paid video business of the same cable company? These situations are different, but once the provider can slow/speed one category of information, will any justification for doing so be necessary?
You might not expect that the issue of which bits receive priority when passing through the Internet would seem an important political issue for the new administration, but the analysis offered by the WSJ may surprise you. The article notes that Google CEO Schmidt is a member of the transition team. The new Google position would seem just as much a violation of net neutrality as the thinly hidden agenda of the cable providers. One of the cool things about the Internet has been the role inexpensive access has provided in encouraging innovation. Hope this is not another of those “pay to play” political/business games.
We are in the middle of a two-day blizzard. So, we have lots of time with nothing to do. Actually, I knew this was coming and brought plenty of work home. But, work is work and blizzards are for having a good time.
I had to do play around a bit to overcome the limits of WordPress.
My son tweeted this morning about spending a tough night with a couple of friends (technical writers) who were just laid off. He has been working independently rather than for a production company most of his career and his life style is probably what more and more of us have to look forward to. At one time, he valued the opportunity and flexibility working for yourself allowed. He happens to be pretty good at what he does, but the stress of finding the next gig is always there.
If we are moving in this direction, I really wonder what happens when being hired as a temp to complete specific assignments becomes the norm. My fear is that a new normal will only increase the power/wealth/creativity gap. When most folks must scramble to find the next task, those who now relish their opportunities to be creative will find themselves in a much different situation. Creativity without security is not that common. Must be a Maslow hierarchy thing or something.
I know there is a similar trend in education. Tenure and security are out – possibly victims of public sentiment that regards those with secure positions as free loaders taking advantage of the system. Funny as I comment this morning (Saturday) on this topic there are three people in their offices on my floor – average age about 60.
High standards, new ideas, and creativity – supposedly what we need to compete and advance. Is that what you get when those with the most experience must accept their assignments from administrators with their own agendas? There really is a very significant difference between the commitment you see in those who work to live and those who live to work. Working to live means you complete assigned tasks and then go home. Living to work means you take a break to complete a blog post because you can and then you return to what you do weekend or not. Some of us are lucky.
If you spend a great deal of time using GMail, you may want to take note of a new feature. This feature adds a simple to-do list (called tasks). TechCrunch provided the first description I read.
My experience in trying the feature was a little different so I will attempt to explain the activation procedure as I experienced it.
I found that the feature had to be activated from Settings (top of GMail screen). The beaker symbol did not appear for me until I had activated “Tasks”. I am guessing the beaker symbol does not appear until you experiment with one feature.
Under the settings heading, you want to activate “Tasks”. This is the to-do feature.
When tasks is activated, a link (Tasks) will appear in the left sidebar under contacts.
Selecting the “Tasks” link opens a window allowing the input, deletion, and prioritization of tasks.
Dave Warlich’s post on learning at conferences gives me an opportunity to say some things I have been thinking about for some time. First, let me say that the conference experience is not a unitary thing. There are various types of sessions and various categories of presenters. There are also informal opportunities that are planned for and that attendees generate themselves. Second, folks go to conferences for multiple reasons. My attitudes are my own and reflect my experiences and personality. Conferences also differ greatly. I attend some conferences at which most attendees are active researchers and are there to share (AERA). They present, but they also listen. I attend other conferences which involve very distinct categories of participants – some presenters arrive, give their pitch and then leave; others mostly listen and move from session to session picking up what they can (NECC).
I hate it when a presenter in a moderately sized group or larger takes time away from a presentation to engage the audience in a Q&A or worse yet asks them to talk among themselves. I attend sessions based on the topic and the reputation of the presenter. My time at most conferences is limited and I would rather not spend it in what nearly always amounts to unproductive chit chat. Random combinations of people in a large group sharing ideas for a few minutes at a time seems very unproductive. I know that short writing assignments and short discussions are promoted in large lecture classes, but this is a very different situation in which the participants spend a great deal of time together and acquire some skill in responding to what become predictable requests from the instructor. A presenter is not an instructor. If the presenter is not going to present, I would like to know so ahead of time so that I can avoid such sessions.
A format that I do like is the round table. This is one of the options AERA uses as an alternative to short (15-20 minute) research papers and longer presentations. You can move from table to table if you like, but typically you pick the paper that most interests you and spend a longer period of time with that group. The person presenting his/her work usually has a paper to distribute and spends some time describing their work, but the interaction is free flowing and unpredictable. Most conferences have sessions focused around a large collection of posters that provide similar opportunities.
So, most conferences have opportunities for topical discussions. I would rather when someone signs on to take the role of presenter they not turn their session into something else.
I seem to remember that Microsoft Word has a built-in autosummarization tool. I am the curious type so I have used it to see what the tool thought was the core of what I had written. I was never certain what I was to do with the results. After spending hours writing something, I was not likely to send a 10 sentence summary to anyone.
GreatSummary offers a similar service online. You submit a URL or upload a document and the service will return a summary consisting of the number of sentences you specify.
According to the site, the system works by:
# Using a mathematical technique called singular value decomposition, the system identifies the words that capture the key threads of the text. The process is repeated until the number of sentences requested by the user is reached.
# GreatSummary then ranks the sentences according to these words.
The content I decided to summarize can be found on our web site – Participatory Web. It is a description of Web 2.0 (participatory web) applications and the common characteristics that identify Web 2.0 applications. I would think the core of this piece would be the characteristics of Web 2.0 applications. Our list was not selected, but the first sentence selected (see below) is a reasonable choice.
* Our intent is to offer these examples as a frame of reference before attempting to identify ”characteristics” of these or other examples that both explain what experts argue make such a collection of services different from what was available previously and perhaps set the stage for speculation regarding the adaptation of such services for educational purpose (18)
* We provide these examples because we assume you are aware of at least a few, not because we are proposing that the examples are suited to educational applications as the examples are commonly encountered or that a given example is the most educationally relevant within a category (e.g., all blog services, all wikis). (18)
* Within this environment, learners have ready access to the collected skills and knowledge of the community (collective intelligence) and these resources can be tapped efficiently (access data at a granular level). (43)
* Henry Jenkins (2006) (note this is a pdf) challenges educators to involve students with participatory experiences to address some different issues. (46)
* Taking some time to consider these characteristics is productive because it is the characteristics rather than the examples that make the case for a qualitative difference in the way many use the Internet (28)
It reminds me of the speed reader’s summary of War and Peace.
You must be logged in to post a comment.