As I lay by the pool, contemplating how to structure this article on the uses of technology in education, I am rudely awoken from my reverie by a group of yammering high school students hunched over their iPhones.
Having lost my train of thought, I decide instead to go investigate which teen heartthrob is on their mind, and discretely inch my sun recliner closer. I am, however, shocked to find that the topic of their interest is ozone depletion, not One Direction.
In fact, the group have efficiently split up their project tasks, with two of them reading out research material off an app, while the third expertly relays said information to group members elsewhere via WhatsApp and coordinates their next steps.
Clearly the process of doing high school homework has changed drastically in the mere five years since I graduated. Education today is a rapidly evolving field in which students, institutions, administrators and research alike are critically challenging what it means to learn, how to assess their growth in learning and thus what their role is in the process.
In an era where we are continuously exposed to novel technologies, we are being pushed to incorporate these advanced tools into our learning processes, which as a whole is taking education in an exciting new direction. This begs the question -- what exactly are these tools bringing to our learning outcomes? What are the 21st century skills needed in this new learning environment, and how can mobile technology help us get there?
21st Century Skills 101
In the relevant literature, across various sources, there seems to be a consensus on what exactly these skills entail. Learning and innovation play a huge part. Today's students are expected to be critical thinkers who collaborate and effectively communicate in order to solve problems through creativity and innovation. Digital literacy is a must in all areas from Microsoft Office usage to social media. Last, but not least, career and life skills constitute an increasingly important part. On top of the obvious development of leadership skills and a sense of responsibility, one must also be willing to take initiative, be productive, but also accountable to themselves.
Knowing what these skills are in itself is not enough. In order to imbue these skills in students today, they must be implemented into educational curricula. In order for this to happen, we must have a better understanding of what kind of learning environments best support these 21st century skills.
Lesson 2: Learning Environments
One of the most effective approaches is through a student-centered learning environment. This is essentially the complete opposite of the traditional lecture-style approach where the main source of information comes from being talked at by teachers, while the students are expected to absorb all the knowledge, like sponges.
The modern approach sees the students at the center, as the builders of their own knowledge, while the teachers act as guides and help facilitate said knowledge building. Rather than being spoon-fed the answers, this approach requires students to be active, aware and engaged.
Add In Some Mobile...
Thus is follows that mobile technology (referring to both mobile apps and the internet) is an ideal tool to help support individualized, hands-on student-centered learning environments. The internet is able to provide access to vast and immediate information, while educational mobile apps provide learning tools and organizational platforms which enable students to be the agents of their own learning.
One of the greatest advantages to mobile technology is that it offers anytime, anywhere access to exactly what is needed, when it is needed. This can be particularly beneficial in tertiary education, where large, lecture hall type courses cater to the needs of the class as a whole, but do not readily support individualized learning for those students who learn at different paces, or through different means.
... And What Do You Get?
Used correctly, mobile can be used to support a plethora of 21st century skills. And no, stalking your exes and crushes on Facebook does not count. Rather, students who use their phones to access relevant information to their learning tasks practice initiative and self-direction. Taken a step further, their ability to assess whether or not the information constitutes a credible source applicable to their learning goal shows the practice of information literacy skills.
There also exist educational mobile apps that are particularly conducive to student-centered learning, which are aimed at helping students self-regulate their own learning. Basically, this means that students are able to consciously take strategic action to plan, monitor and evaluate their learning tasks.
Apps that enable time management (e.g. online calendars), self-evaluation (e.g. calorie tracking) and communication (e.g. a campus wall feed) are especially beneficial in supporting goal setting, self-monitoring and help seeking. Self-regulation in itself is a valuable tool with lifetime value that aids with problem solving, taking initiative and planning, adapting to situations and thinking critically.
Simply put self-regulation is a skill that takes everyday students and turns them into 21st century ninjas.
Where To Go From Here?
Sitting at the Starbucks opposite the NYU campus finishing up this article, I decide to end how I began, by discretely (I hope) observing how the students around me are using mobile to support their education. Again, students hunched over their phones surround me. While I'm sure that many are on Facebook, there are also a significant number reading articles and taking notes from their phones.
As a student-centered learning platform, mobile helps schools bridge the gap between how students live and learn. Mobile allows for a level playing ground where students can access the same information as their peers, with the added benefit of providing an authentic, real-world learning environment, based around their learning needs.
The future of mobile use in education promises apps specifically designed to support 21st century skills like self-regulation, which set a foundation for growth and development throughout a lifetime.
Sabado, Pebrero 28, 2015
Tired of being underpaid, Apple, Yahoo bus drivers vote to unionize
The bus drivers who shuttle Yahoo, Apple, eBay, Zynga and Genentech employees to and from their offices voted to unionize Friday after complaining about being overworked and underpaid.
The Compass Transportations drivers voted 104-38 to join the Teamsters union Friday, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The decision comes more than three months after Facebook bus drivers voted to also join the Teamsters union in November
Teamsters representatives plan to continue to court Silicon Valley drivers, who they say are not benefitting from the overall growth in the region Read more...
More about Silicon Valley and BusinessLarry Scanlon: A Progressive Battler
The progressive community lost one of its toughest and smartest fighters yesterday. Larry died in a car crash on a trip to Florida, and all of us who had the honor of being his friend will miss him greatly.
Larry's long tenure as political director of AFSCME brought them to a whole new level of political effectiveness. He was constantly innovating, constantly looking to be creative in how the union did its political work. He played a big role in the development, formation, and renewal of a whole series of organizations that have added to progressive infrastructure.
He and I worked together on a series of projects in the 1990s and first decade of this century that made a big difference in Democratic politics. In 1998, the conventional wisdom was overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats being blown out in the mid-terms because of the Lewinsky scandal, but Larry and I (I was the political director at People For the American Way at the time) were part of a group who came up with a strategy to overturn that conventional wisdom. On election day we surprised everyone: instead of losing 30 seats in the House like a lot of people were predicting, we picked up 5- and would have picked up a lot more and a majority in the House if Democratic strategists at the party committees had listened to us. We also won some big Senate and Governor races we weren't supposed to win as well- one I remembered well was in Iowa. When Tom Vilsack was 20 points down a month out, Larry and I were the only ones in DC who still thought that race could be won and kept investing resources there, and Vilsack won that race, going on to become the best Governor Iowa ever had.
The issue group American Family Voices (AFV), which I founded in 2000 and still chair, was the result of a series of conversations with Larry and his colleagues at AFSCME about the fact that there were tons of single issue organizations in progressive politics but not nearly enough which had the flexibility to take on issues that were important but that no one else was talking about, take on special projects that needed to be done but no one wanted to take on, and to innovate in terms of new ways to communicate and target messages to working class voters. In 2000, we did a series of ads and phone calling that, among other things, targeted unmarried women voters. We were the first group to ever do that, and now that demographic group is one of the core parts of the Democratic base.
Another project Larry and I cooked up together was a project AFV took on in 2005 called the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress. George W Bush had just won re-election, Karl Rove was crowing about a permanent Republican majority, and Democrats were in a pessimistic mood- when I wrote a memo to some donors suggesting that it would be possible to take the House back in 2006, I got an angry from a top person at the DCCC who told me I needed to stop raising expectations, that there was no way we could take the House back. But Larry and I and a bunch of other great people figured out a strategy to drive home the corrupt Republican Congress message and create a Democratic wave. Larry was also in the middle of putting together a new organization to fight Bush's Social Security privatization plan, which not only won that fight but was also key to defeating the Republicans in 2006, when we took back the House. That organization, which after the Social Security fight changed its name to Americans United for Change (which, full disclosure, I am on the board of) and is still doing great work at furthering the progressive cause.
Larry had some health problems a few years and had retired from AFSCME, but as his health had come back, he had started consulting again. I have no doubt he was cooking up some great new ideas to help further the cause. It is a bad blow to all of us who worked with him. He will always be remembered fondly.
Larry's long tenure as political director of AFSCME brought them to a whole new level of political effectiveness. He was constantly innovating, constantly looking to be creative in how the union did its political work. He played a big role in the development, formation, and renewal of a whole series of organizations that have added to progressive infrastructure.
He and I worked together on a series of projects in the 1990s and first decade of this century that made a big difference in Democratic politics. In 1998, the conventional wisdom was overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats being blown out in the mid-terms because of the Lewinsky scandal, but Larry and I (I was the political director at People For the American Way at the time) were part of a group who came up with a strategy to overturn that conventional wisdom. On election day we surprised everyone: instead of losing 30 seats in the House like a lot of people were predicting, we picked up 5- and would have picked up a lot more and a majority in the House if Democratic strategists at the party committees had listened to us. We also won some big Senate and Governor races we weren't supposed to win as well- one I remembered well was in Iowa. When Tom Vilsack was 20 points down a month out, Larry and I were the only ones in DC who still thought that race could be won and kept investing resources there, and Vilsack won that race, going on to become the best Governor Iowa ever had.
The issue group American Family Voices (AFV), which I founded in 2000 and still chair, was the result of a series of conversations with Larry and his colleagues at AFSCME about the fact that there were tons of single issue organizations in progressive politics but not nearly enough which had the flexibility to take on issues that were important but that no one else was talking about, take on special projects that needed to be done but no one wanted to take on, and to innovate in terms of new ways to communicate and target messages to working class voters. In 2000, we did a series of ads and phone calling that, among other things, targeted unmarried women voters. We were the first group to ever do that, and now that demographic group is one of the core parts of the Democratic base.
Another project Larry and I cooked up together was a project AFV took on in 2005 called the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress. George W Bush had just won re-election, Karl Rove was crowing about a permanent Republican majority, and Democrats were in a pessimistic mood- when I wrote a memo to some donors suggesting that it would be possible to take the House back in 2006, I got an angry from a top person at the DCCC who told me I needed to stop raising expectations, that there was no way we could take the House back. But Larry and I and a bunch of other great people figured out a strategy to drive home the corrupt Republican Congress message and create a Democratic wave. Larry was also in the middle of putting together a new organization to fight Bush's Social Security privatization plan, which not only won that fight but was also key to defeating the Republicans in 2006, when we took back the House. That organization, which after the Social Security fight changed its name to Americans United for Change (which, full disclosure, I am on the board of) and is still doing great work at furthering the progressive cause.
Larry had some health problems a few years and had retired from AFSCME, but as his health had come back, he had started consulting again. I have no doubt he was cooking up some great new ideas to help further the cause. It is a bad blow to all of us who worked with him. He will always be remembered fondly.
Gary Johnson At CPAC: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND -- Typically, when a politician meets a reporter for an interview, decorum dictates that said politician offer up a bland pleasantry to break the ice. "Thanks for spending time with us!" or "Try to keep up!" are standard.
When I meet former New Mexico governor and 2012 Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), he takes a different tack.
"So you drew the short straw? Some reporter always does."
Johnson is a friendly, kinetic presence, but he isn't exactly the brightest star in the political universe right now, a fact he'll readily concede and even point out. Like much of the Libertarian Party, he finds himself in a precarious position heading into 2016. On the one hand, his laissez-faire platform has never been more popular, with the public increasingly skeptical about developments like the war on drugs, the militarization of America's police departments and an increasingly intrusive regime of government surveillance.
On the other hand, his policy agenda is being partially appropriated by both of America's dominant political parties, and the popularity and likely presidential campaign of libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has only served to further diminish the Libertarians' standing.
I encounter Johnson as he's manning the booth of his advocacy organization, Our America Initiative, talking with supporters and catching knowing glances from passers-by. Where most prominent politicians would never deign to be seen very long in the deepest, most zoo-like bowels of CPAC, Johnson is happily holding court. Indeed, it feels at times that Johnson is no more a sideshow than The Weekly Standard's photo booth or the gentleman nearby dressed as Captain America.
When an aide tries to interject some optimism by pointing out that Johnson finished third place in CPAC's 2011 straw poll of presidential candidates, Johnson, who governed New Mexico from 1995 to 2003 and turned 61 this year, offers a characteristic retort.
"Yeah, you can see where that got me."
Despite his less-than-hopeful outlook on his own political standing, Johnson remains cautiously optimistic about the effects of Paul's success.
"If Rand Paul wins the nomination, that'd be terrific," he tells me. "If he were to prevail he'd be the best Republican nominee in a long time." His enthusiasm for the GOP field, however, ends at Paul. "Based on the current crop, I'd vote for the Libertarian candidate," he says.
But Johnson still sees a lot of daylight between him and Paul on issues like marriage equality, reproductive rights, drug reform, foreign policy and immigration reform, and makes no attempt to hide it.
"He's a social conservative and I'm not," Johnson says. "I think he's towing a fine line on the whole military intervention thing" -- a reference to Paul's efforts to soften his image as an isolationist.
"I call it punting. His dad [former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas)] punted, too. They punt on drug policy, they punt on marriage equality."
That said, Johnson, who says he is still hasn't decided whether to seek the Libertarian Party's nomination in 2016, is somewhat agnostic about the daunting prospect of another nationwide campaign. He hates it. I mean, he really hates it.
"When I ran in 2012, 90 percent of what I did ended up being wasted time. I must have spent three months on Internet radio talking to people who I envision were guys in their mid-40s and the only people listening were their parents in the room upstairs."
He adds that not all Internet radio hosts live in their parents' basement, before continuing, "I'm a horrible fundraiser and I must have spent months on the phone talking to people. I like talking to people but I never get around to raising any money. I just can't ask for money. It's not in my marrow."
"You can't meet everybody," he says. "You can't stand somewhere for hours on end because it's just draining."
But it's not all that bad. Events like CPAC offer Johnson the opportunity to mingle with a largely receptive audience. Even supporters of other candidates come and pay Johnson respect -- seeking a sort of absolution from the current high priest of libertarianism. A woman wearing a Ted Cruz sticker asks Johnson about his views on disability policy. She tells him about her condition, which causes her to experience seizures regularly.
"Are you doing CBD?" he asks. "It's marijuana based."
One man wearing a Rand Paul sticker approaches and urges Johnson to get in the race to keep things competitive. A group of college-aged men profess their admiration. "You were such an inspiration to me!" says one. Another man, in a cowboy hat and a shirt that reads "COPS SAY LEGALIZE POT ASK ME WHY" is an old acquaintance who briefly catches up with Johnson.
"For me right now, this does not suck," Johnson says. "So this go around, if I end up doing it, it's not going to suck!"
"Although I might discover new kinds of suck," he adds with a laugh. "But I won't relive the old kinds of suck."
One of the biggest obstacles Johnson sees is being admitted to the presidential debates -- he was excluded from most of the GOP primary debates in 2012 before he switched to run as a Libertarian, and even then was excluded from the general election debates. In his view, a feedback loop emerges when pollsters and debate organizers exclude third-party candidates, thereby diminishing their stature with the electorate.
Although being in the debates would have its pitfalls, too.
"Even if I were to appear in the presidential debates, holy shit! Can you imagine the anxiety of appearing in a presidential debate?"
But far from being bummed about his semi-obscure place in the political zeitgeist -- or his .9 percent showing in the 2012 presidential election -- Johnson couldn't be enjoying life more. That's not surprising, as his life is almost certainly better than yours or mine.
He engages himself in a number of different passion projects. In addition to the Our America Initiative, he's the CEO of Cannabis Sativa, a $100 million market cap marijuana company (ticker symbol HI -- get it?), which he insists on numerous occasions will "survive 100 years from now." The Coca-Cola of weed, if you will.
But easily the most envy-inducing parts of Johnson's existence are his outdoor hobbies, which he pursues with great relish from his home in Taos, New Mexico. He recently ascended the "Seven Summits" -- the highest points on each continent -- when he climbed Mount Vinson in Antarctica. More recently, he competed in a race on Al's Run, a notoriously treacherous slope in Taos Ski Valley, finishing third behind a 31- and 21-year-old.
But mostly, as the governor puts it, he just "skis and hangs out."
And while most serious politicians would spend the rest of their lives chasing after more favorable election results, Johnson's joie de vivre helps him have the perspective to be content with the fact that 1 million people wanted him to be the most powerful person in the world.
"There's no itch," Johnson says flat-out when asked if he ever misses elected office. "I don't feel an itch."
"It's the right thing to do [running for president]. If anyone else were doing this, I'd be back home. I love my life."
Later, during a debate over drug legalization between Johnson and former Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle, Johnson fakes a heart attack and falls over on the stage to illustrate his opinion of Buerkle's anti-drug arguments.
“You know, I think the governor has had great fun with his humor," Buerkle, now a commissioner on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, says. “It’s not funny. It is something that we as Americans have to pay attention to.”
Johnson is having great fun, which begs the question: Why on earth would he want to be president?
When I meet former New Mexico governor and 2012 Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), he takes a different tack.
"So you drew the short straw? Some reporter always does."
Johnson is a friendly, kinetic presence, but he isn't exactly the brightest star in the political universe right now, a fact he'll readily concede and even point out. Like much of the Libertarian Party, he finds himself in a precarious position heading into 2016. On the one hand, his laissez-faire platform has never been more popular, with the public increasingly skeptical about developments like the war on drugs, the militarization of America's police departments and an increasingly intrusive regime of government surveillance.
On the other hand, his policy agenda is being partially appropriated by both of America's dominant political parties, and the popularity and likely presidential campaign of libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has only served to further diminish the Libertarians' standing.
I encounter Johnson as he's manning the booth of his advocacy organization, Our America Initiative, talking with supporters and catching knowing glances from passers-by. Where most prominent politicians would never deign to be seen very long in the deepest, most zoo-like bowels of CPAC, Johnson is happily holding court. Indeed, it feels at times that Johnson is no more a sideshow than The Weekly Standard's photo booth or the gentleman nearby dressed as Captain America.
When an aide tries to interject some optimism by pointing out that Johnson finished third place in CPAC's 2011 straw poll of presidential candidates, Johnson, who governed New Mexico from 1995 to 2003 and turned 61 this year, offers a characteristic retort.
"Yeah, you can see where that got me."
Despite his less-than-hopeful outlook on his own political standing, Johnson remains cautiously optimistic about the effects of Paul's success.
"If Rand Paul wins the nomination, that'd be terrific," he tells me. "If he were to prevail he'd be the best Republican nominee in a long time." His enthusiasm for the GOP field, however, ends at Paul. "Based on the current crop, I'd vote for the Libertarian candidate," he says.
But Johnson still sees a lot of daylight between him and Paul on issues like marriage equality, reproductive rights, drug reform, foreign policy and immigration reform, and makes no attempt to hide it.
"He's a social conservative and I'm not," Johnson says. "I think he's towing a fine line on the whole military intervention thing" -- a reference to Paul's efforts to soften his image as an isolationist.
"I call it punting. His dad [former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas)] punted, too. They punt on drug policy, they punt on marriage equality."
That said, Johnson, who says he is still hasn't decided whether to seek the Libertarian Party's nomination in 2016, is somewhat agnostic about the daunting prospect of another nationwide campaign. He hates it. I mean, he really hates it.
"When I ran in 2012, 90 percent of what I did ended up being wasted time. I must have spent three months on Internet radio talking to people who I envision were guys in their mid-40s and the only people listening were their parents in the room upstairs."
He adds that not all Internet radio hosts live in their parents' basement, before continuing, "I'm a horrible fundraiser and I must have spent months on the phone talking to people. I like talking to people but I never get around to raising any money. I just can't ask for money. It's not in my marrow."
"You can't meet everybody," he says. "You can't stand somewhere for hours on end because it's just draining."
But it's not all that bad. Events like CPAC offer Johnson the opportunity to mingle with a largely receptive audience. Even supporters of other candidates come and pay Johnson respect -- seeking a sort of absolution from the current high priest of libertarianism. A woman wearing a Ted Cruz sticker asks Johnson about his views on disability policy. She tells him about her condition, which causes her to experience seizures regularly.
"Are you doing CBD?" he asks. "It's marijuana based."
One man wearing a Rand Paul sticker approaches and urges Johnson to get in the race to keep things competitive. A group of college-aged men profess their admiration. "You were such an inspiration to me!" says one. Another man, in a cowboy hat and a shirt that reads "COPS SAY LEGALIZE POT ASK ME WHY" is an old acquaintance who briefly catches up with Johnson.
"For me right now, this does not suck," Johnson says. "So this go around, if I end up doing it, it's not going to suck!"
"Although I might discover new kinds of suck," he adds with a laugh. "But I won't relive the old kinds of suck."
One of the biggest obstacles Johnson sees is being admitted to the presidential debates -- he was excluded from most of the GOP primary debates in 2012 before he switched to run as a Libertarian, and even then was excluded from the general election debates. In his view, a feedback loop emerges when pollsters and debate organizers exclude third-party candidates, thereby diminishing their stature with the electorate.
Although being in the debates would have its pitfalls, too.
"Even if I were to appear in the presidential debates, holy shit! Can you imagine the anxiety of appearing in a presidential debate?"
But far from being bummed about his semi-obscure place in the political zeitgeist -- or his .9 percent showing in the 2012 presidential election -- Johnson couldn't be enjoying life more. That's not surprising, as his life is almost certainly better than yours or mine.
He engages himself in a number of different passion projects. In addition to the Our America Initiative, he's the CEO of Cannabis Sativa, a $100 million market cap marijuana company (ticker symbol HI -- get it?), which he insists on numerous occasions will "survive 100 years from now." The Coca-Cola of weed, if you will.
But easily the most envy-inducing parts of Johnson's existence are his outdoor hobbies, which he pursues with great relish from his home in Taos, New Mexico. He recently ascended the "Seven Summits" -- the highest points on each continent -- when he climbed Mount Vinson in Antarctica. More recently, he competed in a race on Al's Run, a notoriously treacherous slope in Taos Ski Valley, finishing third behind a 31- and 21-year-old.
But mostly, as the governor puts it, he just "skis and hangs out."
And while most serious politicians would spend the rest of their lives chasing after more favorable election results, Johnson's joie de vivre helps him have the perspective to be content with the fact that 1 million people wanted him to be the most powerful person in the world.
"There's no itch," Johnson says flat-out when asked if he ever misses elected office. "I don't feel an itch."
"It's the right thing to do [running for president]. If anyone else were doing this, I'd be back home. I love my life."
Later, during a debate over drug legalization between Johnson and former Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle, Johnson fakes a heart attack and falls over on the stage to illustrate his opinion of Buerkle's anti-drug arguments.
“You know, I think the governor has had great fun with his humor," Buerkle, now a commissioner on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, says. “It’s not funny. It is something that we as Americans have to pay attention to.”
Johnson is having great fun, which begs the question: Why on earth would he want to be president?
5 can't-miss apps: 'Sheepop,' Clinique, Nat Geo View and more
Between freedom-loving llamas on the loose in Arizona and the dress that broke the Internet, you may have overlooked some of this week's best new apps.
Luckily, each weekend, we round up our favorite new and updated apps, so you won't miss out.
This week's list includes a new photo-focused app from National Geographic, a game called Sheepop that challenges you to throw sheep, and an app to help you manage all your subscription services
Check out the gallery, below, to see all the apps that made our list of top picks. And if you're looking for more, take a look at last week's roundup of can't-miss apps. Read more...
More about Tech, Android Apps, Ios Apps, Apps Software, and Weekly App RoundupTinder Plus Will Launch On Monday
Tinder Plus, the dating app’s first step into the wonderful world of freemium monetization, will launch on Monday for $9.99, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Tinder Plus includes at least one highly requested feature and a few others that are meant to add broader functionality to the service, which essentially boils down the usual online dating experience into a simple… Read MoreJoin us for the unveiling of Samsung's Galaxy S6
BARCELONA — Samsung, at 12:30 p.m. ET on Sunday, will show the world its latest flagship smartphone: the Galaxy S6
Rumored to come in several versions — one of which reportedly has a curved screen — the S6 might be the company's most exciting launch in recent years
What makes this year's event even more interesting is that while the Mobile World Congress officially kicks off Monday, nearly all of the smartphone makers present decided to show off their wares on Sunday. Samsung's announcement is among the day's last, and it'll likely be the cherry on top Read more...
More about Samsung, Mobile World Congress, Tech, Mobile, and Galaxy S6TC Makers: We Sample The Goods At The Dogfish Head Brewery
Beer is my favorite food. That means I was especially excited to be able to visit the Dogfish Head Brewery in Milton, DE, a palace dedicated to the production of some of the nicest beers around.
Sam Calagione, founder of the company, wanted to make weird beers at his restaurant on the beach. As he got better – and bolder – he began experimenting with all sorts of amazing flavors… Read MoreThe WebRTC Race Begins Today
As recently as 2012, it seemed that Web Real-Time Communication, or WebRTC, was so clandestine that the technology was a skunk works project, hidden in a back office somewhere in Silicon Valley. It is now an emerging standard of web communication which makes high definition, high resolution, low bandwidth video, audio, chat and peer to peer data transfer as simple as a single browser link.… Read MoreNeil deGrasse Tyson answers all of your curious questions about space
Neil deGrasse Tyson is doing what he does best: blowing minds.
The acclaimed astrophysicist sat down with Mashable to answer SnapChat users' interesting and downright strange questions about the universe.
The most pressing conundrums that have been weighing on your mind have finally been answered, from whether aliens exist to what dogs smell like in the cold, empty vacuum of space.
Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments. Read more...
More about Viral Videos, Space, Videos, Funny, and NerdyPentagon Struggles To Downplay Disclosure Of ISIS War Plan
WASHINGTON -- It could hardly have been a more perfect storm, and it was all because of a single question in a routine briefing.
On Feb. 19, U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for military operations in the Middle East, gave reporters a standard background briefing about the ongoing campaign against the Islamic State. The official who conducted the briefing responded to one question with a discussion of a particularly sensitive part of the campaign: the U.S.-led coalition’s plans to take back Mosul, a key Iraqi city that the Islamic State captured in a shocking victory last summer. The official indicated that 20,000 or more Iraqi troops would ideally start the Mosul offensive in April 2015.
Within hours, headlines were screaming with the apparently sensitive information CENTCOM had released.
Opponents of the Obama administration screamed too. “Never in our memory," hawkish Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote to President Barack Obama the day after the briefing, "can we recall an instance in which our military has knowingly briefed our own war plans to our enemies.”
And almost immediately, the notoriously leak-phobic Obama administration entered damage control mode.
The White House said it could not confirm the comments, instead punting the question to the Department of Defense. Meanwhile, hours after the briefing, newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Ash Carter refused to address the specifics, even though they had already been provided to reporters. Asked about the timing of the Mosul offensive, Carter said, “Even if I knew exactly when that was going to be, I wouldn’t tell you."
To make matters worse, the two U.S. partners who are essential to the plan's success -- the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Kurds -- seemed equally perturbed. Iraq's government issued a protest over the revelation, and the Kurdish region's representative to the U.S., Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, said on Thursday that her government was "surprised" by the announcement.
Neatly wrapped in newsprint, a little scandal had landed in the laps of skeptics who have long questioned the White House's strategy to combat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. After a week of mixed messaging from all corners of the Obama administration, the Pentagon indicated late on Friday that the attack is likely to come in the fall. The announcement leaves last Thursday's briefing seeming even more puzzling and the White House’s strategy looking even clumsier and more disorganized.
The ongoing confusion about who knew of the Mosul details and who approved their release has given critics two equally powerful lines of attack: first, that officials are careless enough to release details of war strategy that could prove helpful to U.S. enemies; and second, that the administration can’t even coordinate the release of its own sensitive information.
The McCain-Graham letter exemplified the first criticism. And in an interview with The Huffington Post on Tuesday, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, turned to the second: "I can't believe [Obama and Carter] are claiming they didn't know, were out of the loop," he said, calling the entire episode "baffling."
A large part of the problem is that the administration has struggled to issue a clear response to the briefing.
The White House continues to say it was not involved in the briefing, and has referred reporters asking questions to the Department of Defense. Meanwhile, the Defense Department will say only that Carter was aware of the briefing but not of its content. And CENTCOM will not specify who authorized the briefing.
Immediately after the Mosul disclosure, some officials attempted to make a more robust defense: that the revelations would actually help the U.S. score a victory against ISIS.
A Pentagon official told The Washington Post the day after the briefing that the announcement was intended to put ISIS fighters "into a defensive crouch, which saps their energy."
The same day, The Post published a separate story quoting another unnamed defense official who said the comments were intended to make most ISIS fighters flee Mosul prior to the U.S.-aided Iraqi assault.
In the days since, a different explanation has surfaced. The briefing, several officials said, was not intended to cover the details on Mosul that ended up grabbing the headlines.
"If a question about Mosul didn't come up, it wouldn't have been covered in such detail," one official involved in organizing the briefing, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told HuffPost on Wednesday.
The administration has also faltered in its efforts to clarify just how consequential the revelations were. When Carter told reporters on Feb. 20 that he would be disinclined to share the planned date of the offensive even if he knew it, he implied that publicizing the timing would, in fact, be a risk to U.S. strategy.
But then came the turnaround. That same day, deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes downplayed the episode, arguing in a CNN interview that nothing was revealed that was different from what the administration had already been saying about the plan to retake Mosul. "The bottom line is that this operation will be conducted when the time is ready," Rhodes said.
Defense officials have since picked up that refrain.
"Pretty much everything that was briefed has been discussed before in different fora," one defense official who asked not to be named told HuffPost, adding that the information in the briefing should have been considered "heavily caveated."
"We've seen timelines shift," the official said. "Come April, if it's not where we're at, it's not the end-all be-all. There is no timeline: It's a snapshot of what we think could happen."
Maj. Curtis Kellogg, a spokesman for CENTCOM, said in a Wednesday email that the details discussed in the briefing "revealed nothing of operational value" to the Islamic State.
This is the present approach: Just play down the importance of the briefing. But opponents continue to latch onto the discrepancies in the administration's line.
McCain dismissed the idea that the president and defense secretary didn't know about the briefing's content. "It was sort of an immaculate conception?" he scoffed. "One then wonders about the chain of command."
The Arizona Republican added that his inquiry to the White House about who authorized the briefing had not yet been answered. As the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain helped guide Carter to his confirmation to the Pentagon's top position just weeks ago.
Burr expressed similar doubts.
“I think there are a lot more people in the dark on that decision than there were knowledgeable that it was going to happen," he said. “There's nothing that happens in this government that the White House doesn't sign off on."
Some analysts share that suspicion, and have hinted at strategic reasons for the revelations, just like some administration officials did early on after the briefing. To Joel Wing, a widely cited independent researcher on Iraq, the incident looked like a conscious response to mounting pressure on the administration -- including from the Iraqis -- to show something tangible for its monthslong military offensive against the Islamic State.
Speculation aside, it is clear that the criticism has had an impact just as the Obama administration is attempting to win support in Washington for the fight against ISIS, including congressional approval for an authorization to use military force. The fact that the Pentagon is now signaling a complete shift in plans from what was indicated at the briefing is likely to bolster skepticism about the administration's strategy.
The department seems aware that damage control is in order. Kellogg, the CENTCOM spokesman, assured HuffPost in his email that the Pentagon would "respond appropriately to [McCain's and Graham's] concerns and in an expeditious manner."
On Feb. 19, U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for military operations in the Middle East, gave reporters a standard background briefing about the ongoing campaign against the Islamic State. The official who conducted the briefing responded to one question with a discussion of a particularly sensitive part of the campaign: the U.S.-led coalition’s plans to take back Mosul, a key Iraqi city that the Islamic State captured in a shocking victory last summer. The official indicated that 20,000 or more Iraqi troops would ideally start the Mosul offensive in April 2015.
Within hours, headlines were screaming with the apparently sensitive information CENTCOM had released.
Opponents of the Obama administration screamed too. “Never in our memory," hawkish Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote to President Barack Obama the day after the briefing, "can we recall an instance in which our military has knowingly briefed our own war plans to our enemies.”
And almost immediately, the notoriously leak-phobic Obama administration entered damage control mode.
The White House said it could not confirm the comments, instead punting the question to the Department of Defense. Meanwhile, hours after the briefing, newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Ash Carter refused to address the specifics, even though they had already been provided to reporters. Asked about the timing of the Mosul offensive, Carter said, “Even if I knew exactly when that was going to be, I wouldn’t tell you."
To make matters worse, the two U.S. partners who are essential to the plan's success -- the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Kurds -- seemed equally perturbed. Iraq's government issued a protest over the revelation, and the Kurdish region's representative to the U.S., Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, said on Thursday that her government was "surprised" by the announcement.
Neatly wrapped in newsprint, a little scandal had landed in the laps of skeptics who have long questioned the White House's strategy to combat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. After a week of mixed messaging from all corners of the Obama administration, the Pentagon indicated late on Friday that the attack is likely to come in the fall. The announcement leaves last Thursday's briefing seeming even more puzzling and the White House’s strategy looking even clumsier and more disorganized.
The ongoing confusion about who knew of the Mosul details and who approved their release has given critics two equally powerful lines of attack: first, that officials are careless enough to release details of war strategy that could prove helpful to U.S. enemies; and second, that the administration can’t even coordinate the release of its own sensitive information.
The McCain-Graham letter exemplified the first criticism. And in an interview with The Huffington Post on Tuesday, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, turned to the second: "I can't believe [Obama and Carter] are claiming they didn't know, were out of the loop," he said, calling the entire episode "baffling."
A large part of the problem is that the administration has struggled to issue a clear response to the briefing.
The White House continues to say it was not involved in the briefing, and has referred reporters asking questions to the Department of Defense. Meanwhile, the Defense Department will say only that Carter was aware of the briefing but not of its content. And CENTCOM will not specify who authorized the briefing.
Immediately after the Mosul disclosure, some officials attempted to make a more robust defense: that the revelations would actually help the U.S. score a victory against ISIS.
A Pentagon official told The Washington Post the day after the briefing that the announcement was intended to put ISIS fighters "into a defensive crouch, which saps their energy."
The same day, The Post published a separate story quoting another unnamed defense official who said the comments were intended to make most ISIS fighters flee Mosul prior to the U.S.-aided Iraqi assault.
In the days since, a different explanation has surfaced. The briefing, several officials said, was not intended to cover the details on Mosul that ended up grabbing the headlines.
"If a question about Mosul didn't come up, it wouldn't have been covered in such detail," one official involved in organizing the briefing, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told HuffPost on Wednesday.
The administration has also faltered in its efforts to clarify just how consequential the revelations were. When Carter told reporters on Feb. 20 that he would be disinclined to share the planned date of the offensive even if he knew it, he implied that publicizing the timing would, in fact, be a risk to U.S. strategy.
But then came the turnaround. That same day, deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes downplayed the episode, arguing in a CNN interview that nothing was revealed that was different from what the administration had already been saying about the plan to retake Mosul. "The bottom line is that this operation will be conducted when the time is ready," Rhodes said.
Defense officials have since picked up that refrain.
"Pretty much everything that was briefed has been discussed before in different fora," one defense official who asked not to be named told HuffPost, adding that the information in the briefing should have been considered "heavily caveated."
"We've seen timelines shift," the official said. "Come April, if it's not where we're at, it's not the end-all be-all. There is no timeline: It's a snapshot of what we think could happen."
Maj. Curtis Kellogg, a spokesman for CENTCOM, said in a Wednesday email that the details discussed in the briefing "revealed nothing of operational value" to the Islamic State.
This is the present approach: Just play down the importance of the briefing. But opponents continue to latch onto the discrepancies in the administration's line.
McCain dismissed the idea that the president and defense secretary didn't know about the briefing's content. "It was sort of an immaculate conception?" he scoffed. "One then wonders about the chain of command."
The Arizona Republican added that his inquiry to the White House about who authorized the briefing had not yet been answered. As the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain helped guide Carter to his confirmation to the Pentagon's top position just weeks ago.
Burr expressed similar doubts.
“I think there are a lot more people in the dark on that decision than there were knowledgeable that it was going to happen," he said. “There's nothing that happens in this government that the White House doesn't sign off on."
Some analysts share that suspicion, and have hinted at strategic reasons for the revelations, just like some administration officials did early on after the briefing. To Joel Wing, a widely cited independent researcher on Iraq, the incident looked like a conscious response to mounting pressure on the administration -- including from the Iraqis -- to show something tangible for its monthslong military offensive against the Islamic State.
Speculation aside, it is clear that the criticism has had an impact just as the Obama administration is attempting to win support in Washington for the fight against ISIS, including congressional approval for an authorization to use military force. The fact that the Pentagon is now signaling a complete shift in plans from what was indicated at the briefing is likely to bolster skepticism about the administration's strategy.
The department seems aware that damage control is in order. Kellogg, the CENTCOM spokesman, assured HuffPost in his email that the Pentagon would "respond appropriately to [McCain's and Graham's] concerns and in an expeditious manner."
Gillmor Gang: Temporary Filling
The Gillmor Gang — John Taschek, Kevin Marks, Keith Teare, and Steve Gillmor. Topics include Microsoft squeezing Facebook and Google messaging out, or did they says John Taschek? Also Google making everything but money on Android; does it all add up to the new Search? And the chat room fears House of Cards will Eat your Weekend. Plus, the latest G3.
@stevegillmor, @jtaschek, @kteare… Read MoreFormer New York Knicks player Anthony Mason dies at 48
Anthony Mason, the rugged power forward who was a defensive force in the NBA from the 1990s into the early 21st century, has died. He was 48.
New York Knicks spokesman Jonathan Supranowitz confirmed Mason's death, which was first reported Saturday by the New York Daily News.
Former Knick Anthony Mason has died at the age of 48.
http://t.co/fXAM0m7g0a pic.twitter.com/RwONEk2zS0
— NBA New York Knicks (@nyknicks) February 28, 2015
More about Nba, Entertainment, Sports, Anthony Mason, and KnicksNBA Commissioner Adam Silver released the following statement regarding the passing of Anthony Mason pic.twitter.com/8lBNRKEMVE
— NBA (@NBA) February 28, 2015 Read more...
Trying To Hire A Diverse Team Of Engineers? It’s Not Just A Pipeline Issue
Recently, there have been a flurry of articles discussing the lack of diversity in tech. Many reference “pipeline” issues as justification for the low numbers. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, blacks and Hispanics collectively make up approximately 18 percent of U.S. computer science graduates, yet Facebook, Yahoo, and LinkedIn are between 8 to 11… Read MoreWhy Greece Should Not Switch To Bitcoin
In some discussions about Greece exiting the euro, it has been suggested that Greece should swap the euro for bitcoin. At first glance, bitcoin may appear to be the cure. But if the euro is the problem, switching to Bitcoin would be like trying to cure a headache with a bullet to the brain. Read More
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)