- Last Active
elijahg said:Our school did exactly this, replacing a few hundred netbooks with iPads. But unfortunately all we had was complaints about usability; kids couldn't write essays with the iPad keyboard, maths work was tedious and without a system to submit and mark work there is no way other than email to get coursework to the teachers - obviously that's not an Apple problem, it's a governmental lets spend $370 million and think about the practicalities later problem. Eventually our iPads got ditched for cheap laptops. Also, I'm not sure Scotland should be spending this kind of money considering their financial deficit.macplusplus said:elijahg said:Our school did exactly this, replacing a few hundred netbooks with iPads. But unfortunately all we had was complaints about usability; kids couldn't write essays with the iPad keyboard, maths work was tedious and without a system to submit and mark work there is no way other than email to get coursework to the teachers - obviously that's not an Apple problem, it's a governmental lets spend $370 million and think about the practicalities later problem. Eventually our iPads got ditched for cheap laptops. Also, I'm not sure Scotland should be spending this kind of money considering their financial deficit.
I have been an educator for 21 years. I tend to be someone who embraces technology in my personal and professional life. At school, I am often known as one of people to come to for help with various tech at the user level. I use two laptops, an iPad, a Smart Board, my phone and what is now legacy tech (CD, DVD, etc) for instruction. Technology has made my teaching more efficient. I have an extensive website that is used for flipped (home) and blended (home/school) instruction. Our older elementary students all have school-provided iPads and have access to netbooks. From my observation, it does allow them to complete certain tasks and interactive lessons more easily
If you're waiting for the "however," look no further: There is no evidence of which I'm aware that shows improved student learning because of the mass deployment of iPads. In fact, my personal observations are that students aren't using the technology at all to develop useful skills. I have seen zero increase or even a reduction in their executive functioning and organization abilities. My students refuse to even use the Calendar and Reminders apps to develop homework/practice schedules. This is after I take them through a mini lesson on exactly those apps and their uses. Sure, they can record themselves, submit projects through Learning Management System apps, etc. The teacher can push things to their iPads and they can be used for collaborative activities. But real skills in research, analysis, prediction, problem-solving, resiliency, etc? Not from my experience. If anything, these skills are atrophying at an alarming rate in the general population.
Of course, there is also the concern about the effect of "screen time" on our children's brains. Recent brain research shows that children and adolescents are having their brains rewired. 90% of the adult population (whose brains are less susceptible) cannot perform 2 or more tasks simultaneously without a huge reduction in efficiency. Children are far more prone to the negative effects of attempting to multitask. Sleep issues, anxiety, lack of focus, and depression are all major concerns. Anecdotally, we often hear from parents that they believe their children are getting too much screen time. As it stands, children are spending most of their school day looking at some version of a glowing rectangle.
The bottom line is I am not at all convinced that the mass deployment of devices for school children is a good thing. Technology has the ability to make our lives easier, work more efficient, and even more interesting. Right now, it seems that we are giving out massive quantities of a sort of digital drug (the iPad), figuring out what it does later, and hoping for the best. We've gone from using tech from increased efficiency, novelty and organization to getting on the iPad Train because of the 21st century, maaaannnnn.
frankie said:Of course he does. He needs to take credit for anything to stoke his ego, even though all of this money was already earmarked to be spent on regular employees, etc in the first place.
Where are the ACTUAL jobs? From what I've read Apple will now spend HALF of what it did last year on taxes, which is already a joke.
I love Apple products but give me a break.
I absolutely can't stand this man. He's the only person mocked by South Park to be portrayed as better than he actually is. He's been a disgrace for more than a decade, with notable assholish moves like stealing the spotlight from Taylor Swift and accusing George Bush of being a racist. But worse, his "music" sucks. Saw him on SNL the other night, and I truly believe it was one of the worst performances of all time on that show. It was like some teenagers got high on shrooms and starting dicking around with auto tune while dancing around as if they were severely concussed. I can't even stand the look on his face. He's a smug, self-obsessed hack who is famous for being famous at this point. Good riddance!
I don't get the complaints. This is clearly a workstation-grade Mac, something that has barely existed or not existed for a long time. It's for A/V professionals, game designers, people who are heavily into CGI, etc. Apple ignored this market for a long time, at least since the 2013 Mac Pro was introduced. It's not for "pros" in other fields for the most part. It's not a prosumer machine. I myself have been a prosumer user. I'm an educator in the arts, and need to do more than most people do with my hardware. But this isn't something I would remotely need. For the record, I think the new machine is absolutely awesome.
avon b7 said:dewme said:I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
This is incredibly naive. It's not just an insecure platform or the specter of secret surveillance/tracking. It's about:1. The relationship between the Communist Party/Government and "private" business.
2. The requirements placed upon said business, including surveillance and cooperation with government "requests" (e.g. spying, targeting).
3. China's advanced cyber and and industrial espionage programs
4. The company's advanced presence in 5G technology, which will soon be deployed world-wide.
In the end, this about China's wish to be globally dominant in all areas. Technology/the Internet is a key goal for them. Imagine an Internet run, in essence, by the Communist Chinese instead of the free market West. Huawei is not just some company that might be risky to do business with. They are an integral part of China's government, which seeks world domination. This is is why we are banning them. China has had it out for us since the late 1970's. They have been executing a 75 year plan to take us on militarily, economically and geopolitically. By 2050, their goal is to be the world's Super Power.
But yeah, that Trump is nuts, huh?
I feel like this and the previous editorials really illustrate how the change at AI over the last decade. It's one that I, quite frankly, don't like. I joined AI in early 2000, pre-Pismo Powerbook and pre-2001 blackout. For several years, AI was a place to get great hardware rumors, discussion, and even monumental political debates in Apple Outsider. All that has changed. There are few, if any, good rumors. There are fewer real scoops on what's coming. AO is gone, and the boards are policed heavily. Articles with any political content usually have comments turned off. AI has gone from an insurgent, true "insider" website to another cog in the corporate media machine. We get breathy editorials, a constant barrage of "best price" ads dressed up like news stories, and a site that might as well be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Apple itself. Unfortunate.
I'm sure the process isn't easy. However, this really comes off as whining to me. Oh, you were stressed in your business life because an international company wanted to acquire your firm? You're kidding. You let it seep into your professional life? Go figure. The owner's entire story comes across like something that happened to him, as if he had no control whatsoever. Any business owner should go in with eyes wide open. Did he not anticipate legal fees and stress and the possibility the deal would fall through? Did he not have contingency plans? Did he not get some kind of assurance from Apple that they would help make him whole if it didn't come to pass? Responsible owners do these things. He obviously was interested, otherwise he would have shut it down right away. I don't see any accusation that Apple made him sell or threatened his existing relationship.
Now, as a former Apple employee, he gets to talk about how hard it was. I'm just not sympathetic.