This was 2003, when many fewer universities put their syllabi up on the public web (MIT OCW had been announced just a few months before, and most places still used private Blackboard pages if they used anything at all). It was still possible to get textbook recommendations if you knew where to look - I got many of them off the C2 Wiki a year or so later - but it was not immediately obvious that one could simply Google and the answers would magically appear.
Nice! I'd eliminate the reflection, I was rather confused when I saw a reversed screen. At least add a transparency gradient to it (let me know if you need help). Also, are you selling it while giving away the source code for free, or just haven't updated the site yet?
thanks don't know how to add transparency gradient. haven't really thought about whether I should keep selling it doesn't cost me anything to keep the site up, though I may add a link on it somewhere mentioning source code being available.
The ability to focus afterwards is at the tradeoff of image size and quality, assuming they use a microlens array similar to the study located here: http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/. However, this is cleverly marketed towards the social media crowd, which has little use for high resolution photos.
You are absolutely correct, I should have phrased it better regarding the cheating. My observation was that the organized cheating groups were populated exclusively by asian students. These were the ones that were highly systematized and had repeatable means of obtaining mid terms and finals in advance of the test. I knew about them because as the highest scorer on most tests, I would routinely get invited to join them since I would be able to find the correct answer to the questions. I always declined. It's not true that all asians were members of these groups, and it's also true that white students cheated, but just not in such organized and efficient ways. One thing I discovered was that the existence of the organized groups was a cultural phenomenon. I learned that western style Lone Wolf models of accomplishment are considered inefficient ways to do things. Cooperating and sharing information with one's group is more desirable. Subterfuge, such as getting ahold of a test before the exam, is not considered dishonest at all. But copying from someone else's paper during the actual test is considered dishonest and not done at all. At my school these were nearly all immigrant students and first generation immigrants who had at least some personal upbringing with schools in China and Korea. (Japan I don't know about, I don't recall any Japanese immigrant students in my program.) Anyway the result would be that they would do better on tests than students who did no studying or reading or projects at all, but not as well as those of us who studied and didn't "cheat". For an engineering, sciences, or maths degree, I do believe you have to put in the time. It's not sufficient just to learn the ways that specific problems are worked out.
This is a really difficult thing to discuss because "the cheaters were all asians" sounds disparaging and is impossible to explain fully without elaborate explanation. Subtleties in particular are that it's not considered cheating by the students that do it, but rather is considered smart studying and efficient use of time. Because of this it doesn't indicate dishonesty. As a parallel, consider the industrialization of Japan and China, much of which has depended on copying western designs, industrial espionage, and then, in the long run, often making the process more efficient by taking in feedback from workers at all levels collaborating to improve the overall system (which is perhaps a strength they have that the west doesn't as much). Westerners first faced with these methods have sometimes exclaimed "they are stealing our designs" and "they are cheating", but in the east, copying things makes more sense than reinventing the wheel. However, there are advantages to reinventing the wheel, as one learns about things on a deeper level when inventing it from scratch or first principles rather than simply copying a preexisting method.
Amazing. I'm having a flash back to 1987 when I was taking a computing science 150 course at Coquitlam College - predominately Asian students (Hong Kong) at the time and a significant part of the class already had the exam. They, somehow, had determined that our instructor also taught at BCIT, and, had managed to acquire the exam he used their.
Lo and behold, when the exam was presented, I realized that I'd already seen it, and went to the instructor to let him know.
I'd never really thought that this was a cultural thing, but, in hindsight, it was astonishingly well organized...
It may appear well-organized, but it only takes one clever cookie to figure out the instructor was reusing exams. And that person was just too impressed with himself not to let others know. Let's not underestimate the ingenuity of cmpt students! Perhaps the cultural thing was a hacker thing not an asian thing. Just saying you have to be careful of hindsight. What if the class was not full of Asian students? You wouldn't be mentioning this flashback at all then.
I'm sure neither of you intended to come off as racist here, but I'm not sure this helped...how is assuming that Asians have no genuine interests (read: that they're unmotivated and don't think for themselves) any better than assuming they're cheaters?
I do agree with the rest of the original comment though, this Scott guy sounds like a run-of-the-mill smart person who ended up at a mediocre school, not "one of the world's most efficient studiers." I'm sure 80% of the students at MIT, Stanford, etc would do just as well at his school. Very surprised this made the front page.
It's a slippery slope from generalization to prejudice to racism. Each little step "makes sense" and is innocuous enough. We take many little steps and then we wind up far away from where we started off with.