Late last month Google dispatched its "Conversational Search
Source: http://gizmodo.com/late-last-month-google-dispatched-its-conversational-s-511069169
the legend of korra three stooges the three stooges the bee gees woodward keratosis pilaris rock and roll hall of fame 2012
Amazon's having a one-day sale on SanDisk storage?and that makes some of the products insanely good value for the next few hours.
The offers applies a wide range of USB Sticks, SD Cards and SSDs, so go take a look if there's anything you need. Or, you know, just want. A quick peek suggests you can pick up a 32GB version of the beautiful new Cruzer memory stick
Source: http://gizmodo.com/theres-60-percent-off-sandisk-ssds-and-sd-cards-on-ama-510990458
Solomon Islands Mary Leakey Side Effects bob marley weather the walking dead the walking dead
The online learning movement, spreading more by the week, will change how tomorrow's students go to school, who teaches them, and what they learn.?
This image shows one of the campus gates leading into Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
Ann Hermes/The Christian Science Monitor
EnlargeStudents at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are not automatically required to go to class. So you notice when, on a lousy midwinter evening in a driving 45-degree rain, 98 show up at Room 46-3002 in Singleton Auditorium. They come not for the free Thai takeout (though it's appreciated), but because everyone in Eric Lander's introductory biology course is needed. In person.
Skip to next paragraph' +
google_ads[0].line2 + '
' +
google_ads[0].line3 + '
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Ilana Porter, an ebullient first-year student from New Jersey, doesn't mind, and even dumps her plate of noodles to be on time. "We want good seats," she says, and secures a spot in the front row.
Dr. Lander, a MacArthur "genius" and a leader of the Human Genome Project, is the sort of iconic professor you expect to find at the front of a lecture hall at an eminent university. In Ms. Porter's pared down parlance, he is "legit." So much else here, though, is experimental. That's because "Introduction to Biology: The Secret of Life" is also a Massive Open Online Course, or MOOC, offered by edX, the MIT-Harvard University nonprofit, free of charge to anyone in the world with an Internet connection.
Producers film the course with three cameras "like a sporting event," says videographer James Donald. Professional stage lights illuminate the room. Techies with headsets hover at the perimeter. Before Lander, with rain-dampened hair, starts his lecture, he looks to Mr. Donald for the "we're rolling" sign. Then, during more than half the class, he gazes into a teleprompter, addressing a person whose expressive face has been projected onto the screen to make Lander respond to his remote pupils more naturally. Porter and her peers in the auditorium are just the brainy studio audience.
One might ask, exactly whose class is this, anyway?
It's a question arising with increasing frequency from Cambridge to California. Online learning, once considered the Yugo of higher education, is now sweeping through American academia faster than anyone thought conceivable just five years ago. Almost every week, some elite private college or public university announces plans to put professors on camera and beam lectures to students half a mile or half a world away. For the schools, the technology is a way to reach people they might not otherwise engage and to experiment with a tool that could transform how they dispense knowledge in the future.
For those tuning in ? often thousands, ranging in age from 9 to 90 ? it is a way to brush up on a subject, prepare for a course they may one day take on campus, or just learn from a professor they otherwise would never have access to, like a godfather of the Human Genome Project.
The candid question behind the camera is where this is all leading. Some people, like Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen, predict that in as little as 15 years half of the colleges in the United States will be in bankruptcy, upended by online learning and the move to hybrid models in which only select classes are taught in person on campus. Others see more incremental shifts, with virtual learning remaining a tool rather than a transformative technology in higher education.
Yet few doubt that college is ripe for change. Under the current system, students face serious problems getting into and through school, universities struggle to make money, and everyone grapples with fairness issues ? why did she get accepted and I didn't? This is to say nothing of the rising cost of a degree that may, or may not, prepare students for a job. Mix in the advent of new technologies such as cloud computing, which makes information, videos, and course work accessible at any time from anywhere, and old-style bricks-and-mortar colleges look ready for reinvention.
1?|?2?|?3?|?4?|?5?|?6Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/pGkwenXrxc4/How-online-learning-is-reinventing-college
Rivals Kaepernick Eddie Vanderdoes puppy bowl national pancake day bar refaeli Paul Harvey
http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/05/21/us/ap-us-lesbian-couple-morality-clause.html
This is a repost from an original article written in the New York Times. Same sex couple legally marries in jurisdiction that recognizes same sex marriage, and the above link is the ruling by Texas Court regarding the divorce of the same sex couple where the issue is Texas
does not recognize the validity of the marriage under current law.
Source: http://thedewittlawfirmpc.com/texas-court-ruling-on-same-sex-divorces/
lupus iCarly banana republic gap Victoria Secret Bath And Body Works Dicks Sporting Good
When Jeremy Bentham came up with the idea of Panopticon, a new prison model, in 1787, he surely didn?t have in mind that three centuries after constant surveillance would be possible in the non-material world: via the Internet.
In the case of the Panopticon, the concept of the design is to allow a watchman to observe (-opticon) all (pan-) inmates of an institution without them being able to tell whether or not they are being watched.
In the case of the new digital era and towards the era of the Internet of Things,?for some the?internet?has turned into a?massive surveillance tool, an electronic Panopticon in the hands of both companies and governments.
With current controversies about privacy rules in the European Union running very hot, the European Commission proposed?in January 2012 a new regulation?and a new directive?on Data Protection, updating existing legislation from 1995.
The draft regulation updates the principles set out in a 1995 directive,?so as to keep pace with major changes in data processing brought about by the Internet for social networks, online shopping, e- banking services etc.
The draft directive would replace and broaden the scope of a 2008 framework decision?on cross-border data processing in police and judicial cooperation. It is designed to protect both domestic and cross- border transfers of data.
During a seminar?[PDF link]?organised by the European Parliament Press service on 14-15.05.2013, journalists from the 27 member states of the EU, had the opportunity to discuss the hot key issues of the new legislation with MEPs and stakeholders. And as expected, the conversation was very vivid.
Have you ever fancied deleting your digital footprints? Well, look no further. The Commission proposal envisages ?a right to be forgotten?, according to which a person would be able to ask that their data be deleted if they no longer want them to be processed and there are no legitimate reasons for keeping them.
EU Commissioner Viviane Reding discussed the ?right to be forgotten? at DLD 2012
The provisions of this right have raised the opposition of Facebook, which states in a 11-page document, dated 30 March 2012 that this right ?raises major concerns with regard to the right of others to remember and of freedom of expression on the Internet.?
Naturally, the right to be forgotten is restricted in some cases, for instance when the data are needed to exercise freedom of expression, for public interest in public health, for historical, statistical and scientific purposes or when required by law.
Furthermore, reliance on the exemption for freedom of expression could mean news reports and archives or comments on posts are excluded. Concerning journalism, the general exemptions available will be set separately by the EU member states. The problem is that there?s a general lack of clarity about when these records are subject to freedom of expression or public interest arguments.
Last but not least, even if a person asks for the deletion of their data from a website, there?s a high possibility for this information to have been harvested and republished by other websites. It is not clear how far, for example, would a website be expected to go in tracking down other websites that have republished this data and to what extent it can achieve a satisfactory outcome for the individual.
The rift between individuals and companies over online personal data seems gaping in the case of profiling (observing, collecting and matching people?s personal data online to analyse or predict a person?s behaviour).
The new regulation proposed by the European Commission gives consumers the ability to block many forms of online web tracking and online targeted advertising. It would only allow web businesses to collect data and profile individuals if they give their explicit consent.
J?r?mie??Zimmermann, Spokesperson for La Quadrature du Net, a French advocacy group that promotes digital rights and freedoms of citizens, stated during the first day of the seminar that:
?It is beyond necessary that the legislative frame will be as clear as possible, in order for the citizens to know when they should give their consent for the deletion or usage of their data. Despite the fact that the initial proposal of the Commission was quite balanced and protective for the fundamental rights, now it is full of holes and windows. There were four votes in the opinion committees and they were all fully aligned with the industries lobbies. To my mind, the issue is clearly political and I am afraid more complex than the ACTA itself?.
While Zimmermann spoke in front of the journalists about ?a massive cooperative lobbying that is about to drive the EU policy,??some important news?recently came into limelight: The Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), which works to expose privileged access in EU policy making, said in a complaint that the European Privacy Association (EPA), a pan-European think tank based in Brussels, is working to represent industry interests in the debate on data protection in Europe. EPA managing director Pietro Paganini confirmed to the IDG News Service that Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are members of EPA and claimed that the failure to list these companies on the Transparency Register was an oversight.
It is noted that the register, which is operated by the European Parliament and European Commission, requires all signatories to disclose their interests, objectives or aims and, where applicable, the clients they represent.
The CEO used harsh words describing EPA as an ?astroturf organization? or front group, defending the interests of large IT corporations. Following the accusations [PDF link], EPA issued a press statement on the issue.
Richard Szostak, member in charge of data protection in the Cabinet of European justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, who originally proposed the measures, stated during the seminar that one of the big assets of the new data protection reform is that it will lead to a strong, clear and uniform legal framework at EU level which in turn cut red tape and costs for business.
As Vivian Reding also has stated in one of her interviews: ?By having a single set of rules on data protection that are valid across the EU, businesses will reduce costs from lower legal fees. We have calculated that all this will save firms around ?2.3 billion a year?.
The new legislative package, if passed, would also grant European consumers a fundamental new right: data portability, or the right to easily transfer an individual?s posts, photographs and video from one online service site to another. Also, according to the regulation, when explaining their privacy policies, data processors (e.g. web businesses, search engines, social networks) will have to use clear, plain language and avoid legal jargon.
It is noted that under the Commission proposal, penalties for serious breaches of the rules are envisaged for companies (such as processing sensitive data without an individual?s consent or without any legal grounds) of up to ?1 million or up to 2% of the global annual turnover of a company. The fines would start out at ?250,000 or up to 0.5% of turnover for less serious offences. Moreover, companies would notify to a single national data protection authority in the EU country where they have their main base (at the moment, companies must notify to each national authority).
Furthermore, those employing at least 250 persons would be required to appoint a data protection officer (DPO). These requirements combined with the right given to consumers to withhold basic personal details while using the Web,?have been considered by companies as a major crimp in their financial model and revenues.
Nuria Rodriguez, Senior Legal Officer at the European Consumers? Organisation (BEUC) stated on the matter: ?Considering the argument that the new legislation will stifle innovation, it is my firm belief that the lack of trust of the consumers for the companies and the usage of their personal data create problems to the business?.
The proposed regulation applies if the data controller or processor (organization) or the data subject (person) is based in the EU. Most importantly, it also applies to organizations based outside the European Union if they process personal data of EU residents, having drawn the attention of US and international technology and advertising companies.?
The fact that 3,999 amendments were tabled to the proposal for a regulation, the highest number of amendments ever tabled to a single legislative file in Parliament (a total of 771 amendments were tabled to the draft directive) reveals the complexity and marks the alleged fears of not reaching an agreement on the debatable issues.
The aim is to reach an agreement before the next European elections in 2014, while once adopted, member states would have 2 years to adapt their national legislation to the new laws (both the regulation and the directive).
It is a fact that facilitating the free flow of information, while at the same time ensuring a high level of data protection between and across the member states in a harmonized framework is surely a tricky challenge for Europe.
Despite the fact that revitalizing and adapting fundamental privacy principles to the information age is among the strengths of the current proposal, some core concepts of data protection regulation, such as the definitions of personal data and individual?s consent, have turned out to be highly politicised. Damage would be done if a new regulation protects less than all personal data and consent is not explicit and separated from any other transaction.
As MEP Dimitrios Droutsas the Rapporteur for the General Data Protection Directive said ?I feel a certain shift towards the companies? interests instead of highly protecting our citizens, which I dislike. However, one should take the important work of European Union into account in the field of data protection so far.?
It seems that the resistance of some companies and industry associations towards the new reforms somewhat underline the underestimation of privacy from their part.What is equally interesting is that according to Hielke Hijmans, Head of Unit Policy & Consultation, European Data Protection Supervisor, it was proposed the financial sector to be excluded from the proposed regulation.
Moreover, there were previous attempts to introduce a specific Directive for employment data protection but that failed. As Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP, Rapporteur for the General Data Protection Regulation stated,??There is a mechanism for the [EU] Commission to adopt a delegated act for this. However, it would be better for it to be a separate act or a comprehensive set of rules be integrated in the current regulation.?
Finally, it remains to be seen if the new legislation, if adopted, will be an old wine in new bottles or a step forward for protection of the fundamental rights of individuals in the new era of digital ?smoothening.?
Image credits: AFP/Getty Images, Getty Images
cpac powell the last lecture josh powell madonna halftime show linsanity the alamo
To use this website, cookies must be enabled in your browser. To enable cookies, follow the instructions for your browser below.
Enabling Cookies in Internet Explorer 7, 8 & 9
Enabling Cookies in Firefox
Enabling Cookies in Google Chrome
Enabling Cookies in Mobile Safari (iPhone, iPad)
international criminal court ios 5.1 apple tv update new ipad release pregnant jessica simpson international womens day joe the plumber
May 30, 2013 ? Nicotine replacement therapy and other licensed drugs can help people quit smoking, according to a new systematic review published in The Cochrane Library. The study, which is an overview of previous Cochrane reviews, supports the use of the smoking cessation medications that are already widely licensed internationally, and shows that another drug licensed in Russia could hold potential as an effective and affordable treatment.
In Europe and the US the only medications currently licensed for smoking cessation are nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) such as nicotine patches and gums, the antidepressant bupropion and the drug varenicline, which blunts the effects of nicotine on nicotine receptors in the brain. In Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe cytisine, which is similar to varenicline, is also licensed for smoking cessation.
The authors combined the findings of existing Cochrane reviews on the subject, using all the available data from across the individual reviews. In total, they collected evidence from 267 studies, which together involved a total of 101,804 people. The studies covered a wide variety of licensed and unlicensed smoking cessation medications, comparing the treatments with placebo, and the three main treatments with each other. If a person stopped smoking for six months or longer, this was considered a successful quit attempt.
The three widely licensed medications and cytisine all improved smokers' chances of quitting. The odds of quitting were about 80% higher with single NRTor bupropion than with placebo, and between two and three times higher with varenicline than with placebo. However, Varenicline was about 50% more effective than any single formulation of NRT (patches, gum, sprays, lozenges and inhalers), but similar in efficacy to combining two types of NRT. Based on two recent trials, cytisine improved the chances of quitting nearly four-fold compared with placebo. Among other treatments tested, nortriptyline, another antidepressant drug, was more effective than placebo but did not offer any additional improvement when combined with NRT.
"This review provides strong evidence that the three main treatments, nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion and varenicline, can all help people to stop smoking," said lead researcher Kate Cahill of the Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford in Oxford, UK. "Although cytisine is not currently licensed for smoking cessation in most of the world, these data suggest it has potential as an effective and affordable therapy."
The researchers also assessed the safety of different medications. Bupropion, which is known to trigger occasional seizures in vulnerable people, did not lead to an increase in the rate of seizures when used for smoking cessation in its slow-release version. Overall, NRT, bupropion and varenicline are considered low risk treatments, although the researchers say the results are currently less clear-cut for varenicline.
"Further research may be warranted into the safety of varenicline," said Cahill. "However, in the trials we looked at we did not detect evidence of any increase in neuropsychiatric, heart or circulatory problems."
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/most_popular/~3/vyGm84yoZlw/130530192402.htm
washington redskins Carly Rae Jepsen Rose Bowl 2013 anderson cooper adrian peterson chicago bears netflix
