The house edge on blackjack worsens

Well, the inevitable has begun to happen. When the recession first hit and credit dried up, everyone predicted the casinos would lose out. If the banks squeeze credit, people cannot maintain their levels of discretionary spending and, sadly, gambling is always going to be one of the choices made less often. The prediction then ran on: if fewer people go into casinos and those that do go spend less, the casinos will find their profits under pressure. At this point, the forecasters would take a deep breath. This will not be a problem so long as the casinos hold their nerve. The economy will slowly pick up. Confidence will return as consumers save less and spend more. In three to five years time, casino revenues will be back to their normal levels. But, and this is where the forecasters would look grim, if the casinos try to suck extra dollars of profit out of fewer players, they risk killing the golden goose. So which way have casinos played their hands?

In most states, blackjack has always been the biggest table game. But in 2009, casinos across the US lost an average 20% of their annual revenue from the tables. When you lose such a big slice of your revenue from just one game, this puts pressure on the casino operators. Unfortunately, they have tended to move in the wrong direction. Most states regulate on the basis of a 3:2 payout on blackjack (i.e. if you bet $10 and win, the casino pays $15). In Colorado, operators have applied for an increase in table odds to 6:5 (i.e. a winning $10 bet pays out only $12). For those of you who like the math, this lifts the house edge from 1.5% to 2.9%. In Nevada, the table odds moved to 6:5 months ago, closely followed by a general raise in the table minimums. This drove away the casual players and, not surprisingly, the high rollers followed. The casinos shot themselves in the foot by both tightening the rules and reducing the payouts.

Where has the business gone? Well, the hard core gamblers have decided they don't like the deck being so obviously stacked against them. There's no reason why should they tolerate low payouts when online casinos have kept their table odds at a fair level and not changed their table minimums. Online, you can still play at $1 or $5 tables if that's all you want to risk. The higher table minimums are there if you want them but there's no pressure. In the real world, slightly stressed staff are trying to encourage you to spend more. Sitting in the peace of your own home, you can pull a beer out of the fridge and take life easy. There are so many good online casinos where you can play blackjack with many different styles of online blackjack to choose from. If the mood takes you, there are tournaments to play. If the money runs out, you can always play for free. This is one time when the greed of the real world operators has worked against them. In the good old days before the internet, it was a real world casino or nothing. Now that the internet has come of age and the quality of the casino software has improved, the real world casinos have a real fight on their hands if they want to remain relevant.

Why play for free?

Walk through the doors into any real world casino and you hit the slot machines. There's a slight difference of opinion between the casino operators. Some believe the machines are the most popular form of gambling and make everyone walk into the floor area where the machines are sited before they get to the table games. Others have a floor plan called the premium strategy that pitches their operations at the non-slot players who spend more per head on the table games. The machines are still featured as you walk into the casino, but the view of the tables is more obvious. Interestingly, there seems to be very little difference in the spend-per-machine in both layouts. The people who favor slot machines will play them no matter where they are sited in the casino. It's also a fact that, except for the contributions made by individual whales, casinos make more money from slot machines than from the table games, the balance shifting depending on whether the premium strategy is in operation. Online, there are sites that are exclusively based on slot machines. Other sites operate the full spread of casino games. This leaves the operators to compete on the bonuses (welcome and otherwise), comps and the quality of the service. In real world casinos, the operators can comp you on the machines but it's technically difficult to enable free play. Online, all that changes.

Every site allows all users the opportunity to play some of their games for free. Why should anyone want to play for free and give up the chance of winning some real money? The answers are both simple and complicated. The spinning reels are essentially the same in both real world and online casinos with the games easy to understand and so quick to learn. Once the reels are set in motion, all you can do is wait for them to stop moving. This means no particular skill is required to play. As a bald description, this misses out two key factors. The spinning reels are quite hypnotic. You almost feel you can reach out and stop each reel in just the right position to score a big win. Secondly, it's fun to play. This fun element is what sells free play. Yes, you lack the extra excitement by giving up the chance of winning. But it really is still fun to play. More importantly, with more and more new games coming online every month, it's very useful to be able to study them without risking your money. Although the basic concepts are the same, the individual variations still have to be learned. In the real world, you can stand and watch others play, learning from their mistakes. Online, you are denied this opportunity. That makes free play a fair offer from the casino operators.

There is one final reason and this may be a little complicated depending on your view of luck. Many people who play slots believe in flows of good and bad luck. If your luck is out, it's good to be able to keep on playing for free. No-one wants to keep feeding money into a machine when you know you are not going to win. Slots and Lady Luck do go together so mix and match free and paying play as you come into and fall out of her favor.

What makes games popular?

Given the history of some games starting in China around 2000 B.C., the question naturally arises as to what makes any game popular. The first games to achieve success were based on dice. It probably all started around the fire in the cave when, having stuffed themselves with dinosaur rib at the bar-b-q, they moved on to a little action with a few carved bones. But, as time progressed and money was developed, the idea of money changing hands based on a throw of the dice caught on. In this, you see all the key elements making any game popular. The concept of gambling is seductive. You place a small wager on the outcome of an event outside your ability to control. If you win, there's a big profit and this is a compelling reason to carry on playing because you believe you will win again. The second feature is the sociable nature of the playing environment. There's a crowd watching. Sometimes it's only other players but, more often, gambling is a spectator sport. This creates a community and it supports and encourages the players. Rich backers appear and bankroll the best players for a share of the expected profits. Add in good customer service from whoever provides the playing environment, and the honey pot nature of the exercise is complete. As to the game itself, it must be fun to play. It must be easy to understand the rules. Everyone must be able to see the skill or luck of the winners. And, the organizers must make realistic attempts to prevent or control cheating.

So where does this leave us? In the modern casino, both online and real world, the most popular games are probably blackjack and poker on the card tables, craps and roulette on the other tables. All four are simple to understand. The cards must add up to 21 or a limited number of card combinations makes you the winner. Or you bet on the throw of dice or the spin of wheel. It takes only a few minutes to explain. You watch for a while and then you feel confident enough to play. It's almost immediately exciting. You handle the dice and throw. You finger the chips and play the cards. All with money riding on the outcome. If your luck is in, you end up a winner and most are hooked. The problem with more complicated games is people do not want to put in the effort to learn. They must see it, see others win and feel confident they can start winning immediately. Any game where it looks easy to win big money is popular.

Now when you transfer the experience on to the small screen of a computer and strip away everything about the experience of being in a casino, the true popularity of online casino games is revealed. Slots are slots. You click on "play", the animated reels spin, and you win or lose. It has a hypnotic quality. Click, spin, win. It's the same with blackjack, craps and roulette where you are betting on the results produced by the random number generator. Poker remains interactive where you bet on the cards and your skill in playing them. In all, it's the belief you will win big that makes casino games popular.

What are the options for betting?

Although there are a number of slot games repeated on some of the sites with shared operations, the reality is an expanding universe of different games. Like the Big Bang which supposedly began our universe, the inventiveness of the different software producers knows no limits. This fuels the competition for players between the sites with the endless rollout of new games. As a result, it would take you years to try them all. Nevertheless, the actual betting choices to be made come down to a few simple steps. The three main variables are the number of paylines to play on each spin, the number of coins to bet on each line, and the value of the coin(s) to bet. The majority of the games allow a free choice on the three variables. But some games restrict the choice on the second or third options (none of the major games eliminate both). So, some fix the value of the coin to be bet or only allow one coin to be bet per payline. This allows us to offer this summary. The amount you decide to bet per payline is the value of the coin multiplied by the number of coins. The total bet on each spin of the reels is the bet per payline multiplied by the number of paylines.

Now we come to an odd truth. The majority of games allow you to choose the number of paylines to play. Where the number of available paylines is great, there can be a real decision to be made. If you are betting one coin of value per payline, one hundred paylines per spin can work out quite expensive. Yet answer this question. What is the point of playing with paylines disabled? With the exception of games permitting scatter wins, you only win on enabled paylines. While this is merely a source of frustration in a conventional game when you see winning combinations on disabled lines, it can be critical on progressive machines. Often the jackpot only pays out when the highest payline has the winning combination. If the total bet looks outside your budget, reduce the value of the coins. If the bet is still too high with the minimum coin size selected, this suggests you should not be playing this game.

When you first approach a game, look carefully at the choices you can make. The critical differences lie in the coin sizes and the gaps between each coin. The best games have a big range of coin sizes with even gaps between them at the lower end and gently scaled gaps at the high end. This allows you the maximum flexibility to fit the line and total bet per spin to your budget. In calculating your budget, factor in the length of time you prefer to play. Slots is a game meant to be fun. If you burn your budget in ten minutes, this is not fun. Always remember to set a loss limit before you start playing. Decide the point at which you will stop. Slots is only fun so long as you are not digging yourself out of debt for the next six months. If you win, as everyone does from time to time, you should also stop. These winnings can buy you a drink and a meal. They can pay for your next session of play.

Paying For ISP Internet Access

Have you ever wondered if what you know about hosting is accurate? Consider the following paragraphs and compare what you know to the latest info on hosting.

Choosing ISP services can be real tricky and the order of thumb is to pay for those services that you unequaled need. Instead of plunking down change for all the bells and whistles. The typical small business web - site, four to seven pages, could choose a virtual hosting service with multiple email addresses, cgi - bin access and a T3 connection from the Internet for $19 to $27 per month.

Most small businesses pick the managed server hosting packages which could range from $3. 95 a month to $20 a month. As stated before, these hosting packages have unbroken the administrative support that you need and all you have to worry about is the development of your web - site. You are given an FTP client to load your site to the internet.

Socket Security Certificates cost extra for secure transactions of the financial type through your web page and you expect to pay at least $40 to $80 per month.

See how much you can learn about hosting when you take a little time to read a well-researched article? Don't miss out on the rest of this great information.

The setup fees onus equal expensive and cost as much as $55, and sometimes more if you order special features. Large companies and high volume web sites pay more for certain types of services.

Shop around and get the best deal for your business. You can get web hosting through the internet from anywhere but you have to really study the ISP’s and see what they offer.

A big concern in choosing an ISP should be the response time in plight a server goes down. How does the server respond during high traffic times on the server? You would have to demand the ISP individualizing what their percentage ranking is as immersed as server downtime.

You can find some of these rankings on the internet by going to cnet. com or use the Google search engine to rate the top ten ISP providers that have the best percentage of what the industry calls, “up” time according to their servers.

Is there really any information about hosting that is nonessential? We all see things from different angles, so something relatively insignificant to one may be crucial to another.

Stat(s) of the Day

Stat of the Day: According to analysis of global Internet statistics by Miniwatts Marketing, the number of folks in Africa using the Internet grew from 4.5 million to about 66 million between the years 2000 and 2009.

That's a 1360% growth rate.

And yet that only touches less than 7% of the population of the continent.

What would the Net look like if we were able to reach those other 92% of the pop?

***

Oh, and another thought...

There are now more users of Facebook than there were users of the entire Internet worldwide nine years ago.

Shift.

The Safety Net

Sorry to be coy (or weirdly hyperbolic) in my last post. 'Twas written in the heat of the moment.

Without going into detail, let's just say that I've got a student whose academic career may have been saved precisely because he was using social media.

This is so diametrically opposed to what all the naysayers told us back in the days of fear.

What's that you say? Your school's still afraid of social tech?

Well, I promise you things are changing.

This thing that came up yesterday was the third case I've heard of in the last three weeks from two different schools about the transparent nature of social tech saving a kid's hide.

I'm starting to think of the Net as a 'Safety Net'.

An example from a teacher at nearby school: student writes self-destructive comment on FB that two peers screenshot and send to guidance office. The student winds up getting help.

I remember the days when some folks were talking about disciplinary action for kids caught using social media. The days when we were afraid of what sorts of pictures our kids might post and what kinds of things they might say about us.

The days before we started to teach them digital health and the days before we started to expect them to uphold standards of digital citizenship.

What's that you say? Your school's not there yet?

Well, I promise you: it will be. Because it will have to be. We can't allow students to live in a digital world and fail to teach them how to treat one another in it.

Because social media is what you make it. It can be a place full of meanness and rants. Or it can be a place of community where our goal is to help one another out.

Judging by comparing my Twitter PLN to the posts that come through via some of the trending topics, it's obvious that the good and bad exist side-to-side. It's up to us as teachers to start tipping the scale in the direction of the good.

And we do that by teaching.

Because, fundamentally, the future starts in our classrooms.

Hate seeing offensive trash on the Net? Well, then teach your kids to treat one another with respect. Teach them that only weak souls trash the opinions of others whilst wearing the veil of anonymity.

I'm not completely naive. I'm a high school teacher; I've seen my fair share of what we might consider 'poor decisions' with regard to social tech. But I've also seen the good. And whether it's the case of my student getting the chance to get back on track and not ruin his hopes of going to college or that other student getting the help needed to deal with some serious issues, it was social media that worked as the conduit for the intervention.

After all, social media is just a reflection of us. If we are considerate and compassionate folks, then the social media landscape will be that much more compelling. Whereas if we deny it or walk away from it, the social media landscape will become far worse than YouTube's flame wars already portray it as.

Social media. It's what you make it. It can even be a safety net.

Qwest to upgrade business Internet network

Wow, there are many news about it on internet, well Qwest Communications International Inc. will upgrade its Internet network for businesses over the next 16 months to make it fast enough to transmit 90 mammograms per second or a two-hour movie in nine seconds.

The Denver-based telecom plans to be able to offer 100 gigabits-per-second broadband speeds to businesses and governments using Ethernet services.

The upgrades will benefit the overall Qwest network by reducing the pressure on it created by steadily increasing bandwidth consumption of businesses and individual customers.

The project should also reduce the amount of power necessary for the network, making Qwest’s network not only faster but greener, the company said.

Qwest has already started the work. The upgrades are part of an overall deeper relationship with Paris-based Alcatel-Lucent, a major supplier of network technology.

Qwest is not disclosing how much the network upgrades will cost.

Source: Bizjournals.com

JOURNALISM STARTUPS ARE HELPFUL, BUT NO PANACEA FOR NEWS PROBLEMS

One of the most exciting developments in journalism is the widespread appearance of online news startups. These are taking a variety of not-for-profit and commercial forms and are typically designed to provide reporting of under-covered communities and neighborhoods or to cover topics or employ journalistic techniques that have been reduced in traditional media because of their expense.

These initiatives should be lauded and supported. However, we have to be careful that the optimism and idealism surrounding these efforts not be imbued with naïveté and unbridled expectation. All these initiatives face significant challenges that require pragmatism in their organization and sober reflection about their potential to solve the fundamental problems in the news industry today.

We need to recognize that these online initiatives are not without precedent. We can learn a great deal about their potential from other community- and public affairs-oriented media endeavors. Community radio, local public service radio and television, public access television, and not-for-profit news and public affairs magazines have existed for decades and provide some evidence about the potential of the startups. Most rely heavily on the same types of foundation, community support, and membership financial models that startups are employing and this gives them a head start in the competition of those resources.

Despite sharing fundamental objectives and goals, these existing news and public affairs enterprises exhibit wide differences in the services they provide and their effectiveness in offering them. Many suffer from precarious financial conditions.

For the most part, such initiatives are highly dependent upon volunteer labor, individuals with the best of intentions who contribute time and effort. Those who manage the operations must expend a great deal of effort to train, coordinate, motivate and support these volunteers. This incurs cost and takes time from other activities.

Most of the organizations operate with highly limited staffs of regularly employed personnel and this is especially true in news operations. Professional journalists working in these organizations tend to be poorly paid; few have health and retirement benefits; most do not have libel insurance that protects aggressive and investigative reporting; few have access to resources to invest time and money in significant journalistic research. The consequence of these challenges is that there tends to be high turnover because the operations typically rely on young journalists who use the organizations to gain professional experience and then move on to better funded or commercial firms.

The community and public affairs operations also exhibit widely disparate size and quality in their journalistic activities. Even most affiliates of National Public Radio—which is generally considered the most successful of non-commercial news operations—tend to have small and relatively undistinguished news operations. Most rely upon the exceptional content of the national organization, large metropolitan affiliates, and the best of the content collectively produced by other local affiliates. Affiliates with larger news staffs and quality tend to be limited to those linked to university journalism programs or in the best-funded metropolitan operations.

The challenges faced in these organizations should not deter the establishment of new online initiatives or keep the rest of us from supporting them. We need to be realistic about their potential, however. In the foreseeable future these startups will tend to supplement rather than to replace traditional news organizations. They may be part of the solution to the problem of news provision, but they alone are not the remedy.

Quest Atlantis at NECC: Using Virtual Worlds to Teach Net Citizenship

Comment came from the panel at the Quest Atlantis session this afternoon with regard to something that came up during one of the leadership sessions at NECC 2009.

One of the members there suggested that we just get beyond fear.

Start acting like educators and stop being afraid of making mistakes.

Allow mistakes to produce innovation.

And that's so right on. Maybe we should ask the folks who demand we live by the rules of their fear exactly what it is that they've innovated recently.

None of us want kids to be put in harms' way. I've got three elementary aged kids of my own. I want them to be safe online.

But in the same way that you need to go through the somewhat dangerous practice of driver's ed in order to teach a kid how to drive safely, you need to teach kids how to exist in the virtual realm in order to teach them how to be a responsible Web citizen.

Quest Atlantis is exactly the type of virtual world to allow this sense of play and learning about virtual worlds among schoolkids.

***

In the same session, the question of strangers and meeting people online came up.

Quest Atlantis itself is a very safe virtual environment for kids. Second Life it is not. It's more of a practice world where students get to take in all different sorts of lessons.

But there's really an even bigger reason we need kids to learn to manage their online lives as young people. Because, the world that they will enter into as young adults will be a world where they can NOT hide from strangers and the unknown. It is a world in which -- if they are going to be successful -- they will have to be prepared to ENGAGE strangers and the unknown.

Rather than hide from strangers, the panel threw down the real gauntlet:

"We should be TRYING to meet other people".

What it comes down to is this: we need to teach kids how to become citizens of the world. This doesn't mean we want to throw them into some imaginary nest of Internet perverts in a Second Life whorehouse. It means we want them to understand that 'being connected' means being connected to everyone; and that with connection comes responsibility.

And - most of all -- it means that you are not the center of, but rather a vital part of that world. You and billions of other people.

Student-centered virtual worlds such as Quest Atlantis are precisely the type of place where this education in digital citizenship can start.

***

Get beyond fear.

No fear of technology. No fear of one another.

Idealistic? Yes.

Necessary? Absolutely.

Possible? If you want it.

Owning Knowledge: thoughts about the 'Ethic of the Link'

Great interview with Jay Rosen on social media and journalism that I think bears a lot of importance for educators.

Pay close attention to the comments made concerning the "Ethic of the Link" around 4:27:

"You don't just use the web to tell people stuff, you send them to where they can learn more.... to connect people with sources of knowledge that they can use themselves so that they're not dependent on you all the time to tell them something else."

That's what we want to happen in the classroom. As we discussed concerning the Pappas article from a couple of days ago, if a student is always looking for teacher validation, that student will be lost once they leave the classroom.

We need students to validate themselves.

So, we shouldn't be giving information to the students. We should be giving students links to the information and then we should hold them responsible for following and searching the links. Classtime itself should be a conversation, a debriefing, a discussion based on what the students found.

Now, this is not unlike asking a student to go read an article so that we can discuss it tomorrow. Except in that few students are going to read a piece of paper and then, autodidactically, go off and try to find out more information. But via links, the student enters into a Web of information navigable in an inviting way; personal interest and self-motivation is cued by curiosity and made accessible by simple access to more links. And, of course in the fluid and social world of links available via Twitter, Diigo, and the like, the student actually becomes part of the process of the creation of knowledge itself. The result is ultimately one of activating ownership.

The process of actively accessing sources of knowledge rather than expecting the passive reception culled from the distribution of knowledge is the defining feature of a successful academic mindset.

We want the student to own knowledge, not lease it until the exam is through.

Debate at NECC 2009: Ask Them About Blocking in a Post-#IranElection World

Interested in hearing what the ISTE sponsored NECC 2009 Oxford Debate has to say about Internet and Social Media Blocking post-#IranElection?

Me too.

They are currently collecting ideas for questions to be asked at the debate. Click here to support their asking a question regarding blocking.

It's too important an issue to let slide.

Think about it: this is all about making authentic connections. And so long as Web 2.0 is blocked to students and teachers, we will never be able to give the kids an authentic 21st century education.

And what would that mean to our future?

Holy Crap (Never Mind)

California to replace textbooks with online textbooks.

From the beginning of the next school year in August, maths and science students in California's high schools will have access to online texts that have passed an academic standards review.

My emphasis.

So in other words, CA replaces paper with computer screens put to the same purpose.

Holy Crap

California to abandon textbooks.

Blocking Internet Access: the Conversation

The conversation about what Internet blocking suggests to students continues at the ISTE Connects blog. I urge you to contribute to the discussion: we want to hear your opinions!

Most recent comment, from Anthony Della Rosa:

I understand the need to block per CIPA compliance but that needs to be amended. I believe children 13 and over should be allowed the web with little or no restrictions. The problem is then we have to police what they do and teach them how to be socially responsible. Things haven't changed only the medium has. 3 years ago we taught students social responsibility but the Internet didn't exist. You didn't just go to school to learn how to read and write but how to act and behave and become an adult. Somewhere along the line that changed in and that why now we just block stuff, instead of teaching them responsibility, acceptable behavior and appropriateness. What will they do when they get to college or the real world???

What Does Internet Blocking Suggest to Students?

Did a little guest blogging at ISTE CONNECTS this afternoon.

Topic: What Does Internet Blocking Suggest to Students?

The idea for the post came to me after a student emailed me this morning about the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. In the subject line of the email: Looks like schools aren’t the only place Facebook is blocked.

Don't Be Scared of the Stream

NPR has published yet another ridiculous essay about how we should fear the Internet.

In this one, Eyder Peralta compares the rise of the 'stream' paradigm online to the plight of Edmund Andrews, the guy whose story about losing his house to love (and lack of financial tact) was published in the New York Times Magazine.

As Peralta writes:

In the near past, in my parents' time, Americans toiled in the now to save enough to buy a house in the future. In the New York Times Magazine this weekend, Edmund Andrews, wrote that his personal financial disaster started when he wanted a house now to make his marriage better, to make his family better -- now.

But, Edmund Andrews is a TERRIBLE example. Most Americans did NOT do what he did. Most Americans have been relatively responsible through this financial and housing crisis. The case of Edmund Andrews hardly amounts to a symbol of how the 'stream' paradigm is ruining our ability to deal with life in responsible ways.

What's really going on is that the democratizing aspect of the Web -- the use of social and participatory media, for example -- is finally being uncovered/discovered by the masses (and by the mass media). Some of us (ok, a few tens of millions) have been using this stuff for years and haven't fallen into a state of disaster on account of it yet.

Stop with the scary-business already.

The Challenges of Online News Micropayments and Subscriptions

The impetus toward subscriptions for access and micropayments for single use of online news is growing because online advertising alone cannot sustain the news organizations necessary to provide high quality and broad coverage.

In recent weeks Rupert Murdoch announced News Corp. will begin shifting its newspapers to an online paid model in the next 12 months, starting with Wall Street Journal and then progressively shifting papers such as the New York Post, The Times of London, the Sun and The Australian to a paid model. Dean Singleton followed by indicating MediaNews Group will begin doing the same for its papers, including Denver Post, San Jose Mercury News, Detroit News, St. Paul Pioneer Press, and Salt Lake city Tribune.

Clearly charging for online news is likely to reduce online consumption because of elasticity of demand, but—setting aside the extent to which demand for online news will fall if a price is imposed—moving to a paid model will also creates two common, industrywide challenges.

First, it forces each publisher to bear costs of setting up their own payment system. Secondly, it imposes a heavy burden on consumers. The latter burden results not from having to pay for news, but from the fact that online readers typically do not use only one online news source—unlike the market for print newspapers in which readers typically subscribe to only one paper.

It currently appears that each online newspaper or their corporate parent will set up their own payment systems. The options being most discussed are subscriptions for use or electronic wallets from which to make micropayments for occasional use.

These factors will have a particularly negative affect on the heaviest online news users—voracious and promiscuous readers who seek news from multiple news organizations. If each newspaper sets up its own payment system, for example, these readers will have to have separate payment accounts for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, and dozens of other publications they wish to visit.

To deal with this challenge the newspaper industry should seek to create a joint venture or cooperative to solve the problem. Companies should work together to developing a single system that is usable across sites and one that can be extended to handle payments for other types of online content. Such a system would simplify and encourage payment for content, but also develop a new revenue stream by turning the payment system from a cost center to profit center by charging companies for its use.

Free is clearly not the right price for news, but the movement to a paid model will not be as simple as transferring the existing subscription and single copy payment models for print newspapers to their online counterparts. Seeking payment online creates new challenges and opportunities that will require new thinking about how payments are made and more cooperation across the industry.

The Internet for Educators

We've got a lot of new readers here at TeachPaperless! Welcome!

Don't forget, we've also got some digital presence at Facebook as well as on Classroom 2.0, which in my opinion is the best community site for teachers on the Internet.

Tweet TeachPaperless and join the EdTech Twibe while you are at it.

See the Internet through the eyes of an educator!

Kids, the Internet, and the Recession

There are now only three abandoned houses on my street.

This is going to be a rambling post, but I've been thinking about the Recession. Thinking about how it is having an effect on our students. Just Google 'recession children' and you'll find tons of discussion on the matter.

Here's one of the more interesting things I found: and article published by the NY Times almost exactly twenty-five years ago today [Ed. -- first draft in RSS read 'twenty'... my bad]. It's titled 'Unicef Cites Impact of Recession on Children'.

...the world recession has had its most severe impact on the children of the poorest people...

It's always the kids who feel the brunt of it. Something to keep in mind before we get mad that Lucy didn't do her homework last night.

Particularly in times like these, we should be thankful for the Internet. Because the Net refuses to allow us to claim ignorance. And it offers a space to share stories with and from communities around the world. Communities that on the surface may seem so different from your own and yet, at the heart of it all, communities comprised of folks going through the same problems and suffering the same heartaches that people have suffered since the beginning of time. Communities that demonstrably lay manifest the reality that one action leads to another and that we are all connected.

And all that cliche stuff.

All that true stuff.

You can't claim ignorance. And neither can your students. The connection is a click away. Use the Internet to connect your students to the world. Don't be afraid of it. Because every class you spend lecturing and handing out worksheets and passing on the opportunity to connect your kids to the world beyond your classroom walls is a class where you have stressed only one lesson: the 'real world' is something that can wait.

It can't wait. And it's not going to wait for your kids. Your students are standing in the middle of the street and the real world would just as quickly run them over.

Like the Recession is running over kids on a daily basis.

So teach the past, teach the present, imagine the future. Be a part of the real world. But don't fear.

We're teachers. We don't have time for fear. We ain't afraid of anything.