Thursday, November 18, 2010

facebook or myspace

I choose Facebook because you can find your friends more easily. Plus Myspace has too many adds and its easier to get a virus on it. Facebook also loads faster and can is easier to communicate on.

Others say:

Most people who are active on social networking sites have a profile on both MySpace and Facebook. However, despite being on both sites, each user almost always has a preference for one site over the other. That's due to the fact that there are some significant differences between the twonetworking sites and the people who are most active on them. Neither one is necessarily better than the other but any one individual might consider one "better" in comparison because of the different uses for each of the sites. Here's a closer look at those differences:
User Demographic:
There's been an interesting shift in who uses the sites. MySpace began with a big preference for teenagers whereas Facebook was designed specifically for college students. (When it first started, you even needed a college email address to sign up with Facebook.) As the two sites have grown up, their users have changed. These days, teens may be on either site. And college studentsturn up on both of them as well.

Where the real differences lie now is in the professionals who are networking on the sites. Facebook has a number of different professionals who are on the site for networking and job hunting. Head hunters hang around to find people who might be right for certain jobs. If you're a career professional in the computer or business fields,Facebook is more your game. That's not to say that there aren't professionals on MySpace. However, they tend to be involved in more creative careers. Musicians, comedians and fashion designers are easy to find on MySpace.
Facebook has MySpace beat hands down for the number of applications that you can use on the site. In fact, new applications are being designed on a regular basis for Facebook, many of which assist with the professional networking that takes place on the site. If you're interested in the cutting edge ways that you can communicate with people (such as using Click-to-Call widgets to contact Facebookfriends via voice communication) then Facebook is your place. If all of thoseapplications are too confusing for you, you might want to stick with MySpace.
Despite the fact that there are plenty of applications for Facebook, the types of designs that you can have on your own profile page are somewhat limited. Most Facebook pages look basically the same at a first glance. In contrast, it's possible to really alter your MySpace profile so that it looks completely unique. People who want to show off their creative tendencies are likely to find that MySpace makes that a little bit easier to do.
Both MySpace and Facebook offer users the opportunity to create and join groups on the site. This can be a way to keep everyone from an old group (such as a college sorority) together on the site. It can also be a way to meet new people with the same interests as you. There are a range of different groups on each of the sites so which site you like better might depend on the ease with which you find a group on the site that you're most active on.
In general, many people say that they prefer the MySpace groups. This is due to the fact that the groups are very easy to find on the site. There is a page available which shows which groups there are under different categories. It also shows how many members are active in those groups. On the other hand, Facebook will tell you which groups were recently joined by your friends so you can get some hintsas to which groups you might like because of that feature. In this category, it really depends on your own interests and your preference between the appearance of the group layout on MySpace as compared to Facebook.
Spam doesn't seem to be a problem on Facebook whereas it can be quite a headache on MySpace. People hack MySpace profiles and send viruses to their friends on the site. MySpace users check their messages and find beautiful sexy girls there who want them to "come check out pics on this others site" (a site that is adult-only and needs to be paid for). If you don't want to deal with spam, Facebook is currently the place for you.
In the news
Despite the problems with spam, MySpace doesn't get too much negative news attention. The one area that it does get bad media is in the risk that it poses to the underage users on the site. (We've all heard the story of the teenage girl who met a boy on MySpace and met in public only to find out it was really an old man who wanted to do her harm.) However, this can happen on any social networking site. Most users of MySpace don't find this to be a problem assuming that they use common sense on the site.
In contrast, Facebook has recently gotten some negative publicity from users. There was a debacle recently in which advertising on the site changed and users were unhappy with the way that it happened. Some people were finding that their shopping preferences were being shown to their online friends, an issue which made them feel that their privacy was violated. As a result, many people who once really supported Facebook started moving over to sites such as MySpace.
Ultimately, which social networking site you prefer really depends on what you like in a site. In addition to MySpace and Facebook, there are numerous other socialnetworking sites that you can use to meet new people and to stay in touch with old friends. Each of these serves its own niche group (for example, there is Linked In for professionals). What is important to remember is that the popularity of each of these sites is going to wax and wane over time. If you're just looking to get on the latest trend, you'll have to flitter from site to site. But if you want to really develop connections on the sites, find the one that has an interface you're most comfortable with using and start getting to know people there!

Friday, November 12, 2010

D3 Items New

More Leeway with Set Items?

Set items functioned more as a precarious past time than battle armaments in Diablo II, often only assembled in full in the end-game or after the point at which they would be any use to a player. These and other issues have troubled the folks behind Diablo III for some time, especially since they still have every intention of including them in the newest game in the franchise. For some time, we have been very much in the dark as to how the team actually intends on addressing the complex issue:

Official Blizzard Quote:

Jay Wilson: We understand the problems with item sets. We want to solve them. Set items are under work now, if we cant’ find a way to solve the problem it won’t be in the game. But we’ve got a couple of ideas on the table and we think it’ll work out.

With Diablo III's development nearing 2011, Bashiok posted one of the ways that the team is trying to get around some of the drawbacks of set items as faced in prior games and their own experience with Diablo III:

Official Blizzard Quote:

It's looking more and more likely that set items will simply be something you chase in the end-game. And realistically that's really where they simply work the best.

We have a few ideas still that could allow them to be available while leveling, but each of them have sticking points that would require their own solutions. One is expanding sets out so that it isn't just one item in each slot, but a group of items all separated by level requirement. So there could be, say, five pairs of pants that all work as part of the set and are each better than the last. While leveling you could be wearing the first pair of pants and then find a new and better pair that still work to benefit your set bonus. That isn't without its problems though.

We of course like and intend to keep partial set bonuses, by the way.

Anyway, sets are actually in the game right now in very limited forms, there's a bit of design left on them yet, but as I said they work very well at end-game and that's where we're leaning toward them appearing.

With any luck, we won't be completing Sigon's Complete Steel in Nightmare mode this time around, and the nearly impossible to find sets won't be useless in Hell. But will tuning set items to work in the end-game only replace the old conundrum of mass Runeword abuse in Diablo II? As is just about everything concerning the third installment, we wait on the question of balance. Hopefully they implement a better item game play not the same ol same ol lightning, fire, ice, and poison.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

D3 has patent?!

News that the new DIABLO 3 has been filed for a patent!! :O what does this mean for upcomming D3 players/fans! this means that blizzard usually issues a patent, then the new game comes out within 4 months or so as we saw with Burning Crusade!!! :O :O :O Stay tunned to find out the rest!!


Monday, October 11, 2010

Bill Gates with the Education

Bill Gates talks education tech:

Bill Gates has been taking online classes for years. Now, he thinks it's time to make sure a whole lot more students do the same.
Today, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is announcing a new multiyear grant program that will give millions of dollars to those with novel ideas on how to use technology, and in particular online courses, to improve education. The Next Generation Learning Challenges are aimed at both funding new ideas and getting various groups to partner and expand on some of the good ideas that are being tried out, but only at small scale.
Bill Gates, seen here on a college speaking tour earlier this year, is pushing for technology to take a bigger role in transforming our education system.

But with all of the problems facing education, can technology really make that big of an impact?
Gates seems to think so.
"What's surprising is given how the Internet has changed how we buy airline tickets and books and how we look up things, is that formal education hasn't changed hardly at all," Gates said. "The technology sector deserves its blame--it could be doing more here. But now is the time."
Online classes can be a big part of the solution, particularly at the college level, Gates said. But it's not enough to just put classes online. Schools have to adopt them as part of their degree programs if they are going to appeal to people other than self-learners like Gates himself.
"If you watch those videos, nobody is going to give you a test and a degree," Gates said. "It just sits out there for the self-motivated learner who is not focused on a degree. That's too small of a group to have a huge impact."
For a long time now, Gates has been talking about ways that community colleges could reform themselves by using a combination of recorded lectures from top professors combined with locally held discussion sections and labs.
In a telephone interview last week, Gates talked about the new grant program, the opportunities of technology, as well as what he sees as the problems that tech alone can't solve.
Here's an edited transcript of our conversation:
Q: We know that technology can really help people buy things or discover things, but to what extent can we use it to help teachers teach better?
Bill Gates: There's many aspects here. One is that you can simply take the people who give the best lectures and record those lectures and make them available. Instead of asking, in music, hundreds or thousands of people to go and sing, you record the people who are very good. The very best are what people get.

This set of grants--the $20 million being announced [today] are postsecondary. We'll have another round that is K-12 focused next year. In our K-12 work, we are doing quite a bit of work where you videotape teachers and not only assess good practice but then make those videos available so people can look at, OK, here's where you made the concept interesting, here's where you calmed down the classroom, here's where you got the kid who was not paying attention...We're doing a lot with video. That's over in our "measuring effective teaching" set of grants.
They are using this panoramic camera that sits in the classroom and not only captures the teacher, but because it's panoramic, it captures the students as well. You can see whether they are paying attention. The analysis of those video clips is very interesting and it's far less disruptive to have that camera sitting there, because everyone just learns to ignore it, than having a bunch of adults coming in and out at various points in time.

This came up I remember during your college tour and we were talking in that session with the folks at MIT. You talked about how one of the things that was missing was the scale element.
What we are talking about here is putting interactive stuff and video online and getting a bunch of colleges to work together, measure the quality, and get to critical mass. That's this round of grants.

Gates: A big missing part right now is, that U.S. education is--you have got to pass certain courses, and if you pass certain courses, then you get a degree and the degree is a key thing for getting a job.
If you just have a bunch of material online, that might help you learn statistics. It's really not that attractive if it doesn't help you pass a course that leads to a degree. Getting the great lectures and the great interactive stuff so they are part of official curriculum in these universities and then measuring which ones are doing it well--there's a lot of things that are holding it back. The MIT Opencourseware stuff, if you watch those videos, nobody is going to give you a test and a degree. It just sits out there for the self-motivated learner who is not focused on a degree. That's too small of a group to have a huge impact.

Are there other kinds of ideas that aren't in the realm of what the foundation is already doing that you hope these grants will spur? Are there areas where there haven't been enough investments? 
Gates: One of them is this new learning techniques category. One of the beauties of RFPs (requests for proposals) is you get a lot of ideas or meet with people you may not have seen.
There's all sorts of teaching things: like using game paradigms, like how you do measurement. There's one category where you don't have to collaborate with anybody. You just have to show us something that's new and different and we'll give you a grant. We'll see some neat things, we'll fund some neat things, but we're willing to have a fairly low success rate on that.
There's also grants in here that are really to take what is being done and bring a bunch of institutions together to really get behind it and get it being used by 40 times as many students as it is being used by today. Once you get it being used more, then you measure it more, you get more feedback, you can afford to put more into it. None of this online stuff is really at critical mass. The people who do videos are kind of separate from the people that do the online interactive testing part. You'd think you'd want to bring those together.
Where is our education system headed if we don't add more technology to the mix?
Gates: Well, It's less acceptable, it's not adding the capacity (we need).

At least once you get postsecondary, technology is one of the few things that can really change that. When you say K-12, there's a lot that can be done in teacher personnel--helping teachers learn more, be more effective, and all that. That, in the K-12, may be even more important--assuming it can happen--than the technology piece. The technology piece is [still very important].
When you get into postsecondary some of those personnel things are interesting--measuring who is doing well and rewarding them--but these technology pieces are probably the thing that will bring the most change, that is, raise the average quality and improve the accessibility. You have a lot of very motivated students that if the right tools were online and you could reduce the amount of time they need to go into the college, and reduce some of the costs, they would love to see a great lecture online and test their knowledge online and then, for only a modest piece, sit with other students and talk through problems.
You could really shift the cost structure and how the time is spent if the technology piece is very high quality and directly connected to passing the course and getting the degree and that leads to getting the job that you want.
One of the criticisms that is sometimes leveled at the Gates Foundation is an overreliance on technology. I'm curious what you think the limits are of the role that improved technology can play, particularly in K-12 education.
Gates: Every time I turn on my lamp or turn on my 
car, I think I am "overusing" technology. I haven't been plowing the field and growing any crops. We live in a society that has some dependence on technology.
"If somebody has another idea of how we can provide incredible postsecondary education that is not dependent at all on technology, we are very open-minded and we do a lot of grants. I think technology should be part of the mix. Of course, that's our background."
--Bill Gates
What's surprising is given how the Internet has changed how we buy airline tickets and books and how we look up things, is that formal education hasn't changed hardly at all. The technology sector deserves its blame--it could be doing more here. But now is the time [because of] the cost of the devices, the pervasiveness of the Internet, now is the time.
The people who are going to apply for these grants, they have all been doing interesting stuff. The grant will let them do a little bit more and it will encourage them to come together as a group. The money will help them do more measurement. We think the timing on this is really great and this will be very catalytic.
If somebody has another idea of how we can provide incredible postsecondary education that is not dependent at all on technology, we are very open-minded and we do a lot of grants. I think technology should be part of the mix. Of course, that's our background.
What do you see as the role of computers and tablets in K-12? We heard a lot several years back about one-on-one computing, and it seems like we hear less about that these days. I don't know if that is the economy and local funding issues or if there is a new way of thinking.
Gates: Like a lot of things in K-12, because you don't have strong measurement, identifying which things make a real difference--it's not as well-known as you like. There are some great laptop schools where things have gone well, and as laptop costs come down, you'll be hearing more about tablet-type devices, Netbooks, iPads in the classroom.
But it's the material that shows up on those devices that really counts. That's where the foundation is focused. We'll have another RFP early next year that is more focused on K-12 online material.
There's the idea of the hybrid. You've got to have effective teachers. The effective teacher is the most important thing. And yet how do you leverage their time so that kids are watching and trying things out (online), either out of school hours or when the teacher is with a small group of students?

Those hybrid models are really just beginning to emerge and be measured. Unless you get some really great content, the idea of just having the tool alone probably just has modest benefit. If you get the content right and widely available, then it has a much, much bigger impact.

There's nothing that has emerged yet where all the schools are using a common set of content, and the amount of budget that K-12 school systems have for online stuff is pretty modest. We really need a nudge to get things moved in the right direction.
You just got back from China. Did you see things being done there or elsewhere internationally in terms of educational technology that you think might be worth pursuing in the U.S.?
Gates: Well, the focus on results in Asian education systems and the willingness to go to school a lot of days and long hours and the focus on science and math and nonfiction reading that they have there is a bit daunting. There is some good online stuff starting to happen in those countries. This is not a dimension where they have solved it and have an answer.
The online technology piece is not why the Asian systems are getting better results at this stage. It's more classic school day, teacher personnel systems...some cultural elements where they are very strong.
If we don't adopt technology, that's another thing that they could get out in front on, because like the U.S., they are experimenting. They have a standard curriculum. One thing that favors innovation is if you have a countrywide curriculum, because then everything gets measured against that. That's why this thing we are doing called the Common Core to get the U.S. to have a common curriculum at least in math and reading and writing, we think is so important. States are saying they are going to do it, but it is at the early stages. The real test of whether they are serious about it and getting it rolled out, that's over the next four or five years. That would give us what India and China have, which is a nationwide curriculum that everything is measured against.
 Read more in on comming articles ;D your friend d3logger!

Obama has Had it!?!?

Obama Scales Back Campaign Finance Criticism After Claims Decried as 'Baseless'

Published October 11, 2010
President Obama on Sunday scaled back his claim that Republicans are taking foreign money for their campaigns, using slightly more ambiguous language at a rally in Philadelphia after GOP strategists warned Democrats against telling "baseless" lies to win votes. 
Democrats had been directing their criticism at the Chamber of Commerce and other GOP-supporting groups. But after the latest Democratic National Committee ad outright claimed "it appears they're even taking secret foreign money to influence our elections," White Housesenior adviser David Axelrod acknowledged that "no one knows" where the money is coming from. 
Obama, speaking at a Philadelphia rally Sunday, hammered the campaign finance theme but left open the question of whether anybody is violating U.S. law by using foreign money. 
"There's no question the other side sees a chance to get back in the driver's seat," Obama said. "They are being helped along this year by special interest groups that are spending unlimited amounts of money on attack ads ... just attacking people without ever disclosing who's behind all these attack ads. You don't know. It could be the oil industry. It could be the insurance industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don't know because they don't have to disclose." 
The president had left less wiggle room during a rally in Maryland Thursday, when he referenced the Chamber of Commerce, saying it was paying for ads against Democrats while taking money from "foreign corporations." 

Then Obama twice mentioned GOP strategist Karl Rove by name at an Illinois rally, saying "two groups funded and advised by Karl Rove have outspent the Democratic Party 2 to1 in an attempt to beat" Democratic Senate nominee Alexi Giannoulias. "So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won't tell you where the money for their ads come from," Obama said. 
Then the Democratic National Committee rolled out the new ad accusing Rove, former Republican National CommitteeChairman Ed Gillespie and the Chamber of Commerce of "stealing our democracy." 
The ad accused them of "spending millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress." 
The accusations drew a sharp rebuke from Rove, a Fox News contributor. 
"Have these people no shame? Does the president of the United States have such little regard for the office that he holds that he goes out there and makes these kind of baseless charges against his political enemies?" Rove said on "Fox News Sunday." "This is just beyond the pale. How dare the president do this." 
Rove and Gillespie helped found the political group American Crossroads; Rove also helped found Crossroads GPS. 
But Rove said those groups raise money legally, that it's "inaccurate" to say he's personally writing out checks to the groups and that American Crossroads reports its donors. In a heated retort, Rove said Sunday that the DNC ad effectively accused them all of a criminal violation of U.S. law -- only without proof. 
"They have not one shred of evidence to back up that baseless lie. This is a desperate and I think disturbing trend by the president of the United States to tar his political adversaries with some kind of, you know, enemies list unrestrained by any facts or evidence whatsoever," Rove said. 
The Chamber of Commerce accusation apparently stemmed from a report last week by the Center for American Progress-affiliated Think Progress. The report claimed the Chamber was generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign money every year and questioned whether those funds were going toward its multimillion-dollar political operations. 
But the Chamber adamantly denies this, saying foreign money is separated from its U.S. political activity. The Chamber said in a statement Sunday that the DNC ad is "ridiculous and false." Rove also said the White House cannot back up its accusation. 
Asked about the charge, Axelrod put the onus on groups like the Chamber of Commerce to prove foreign money is not influencing the election. 
"No one knows where the money's coming from," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "Why not simply disclose where this money is from and then all these questions will be answered?" 
But Gillespie said the idea that the White House could lob charges and then leave it up to the accused to refute them is an "unbelievable mentality." 
"David Axelrod is either woefully uninformed or willfully deceptive and dishonest," Gillespie said. 
He said Obama was basing his original charge off a report from a group, the Center for American Progress, "that does not disclose its donors." 
"This is the kind of abuse of power in a lot of ways ... that most Americans are rejecting," Gillespie said.