Besides learning about his project online, I don't have any use of or interest in Khan Academy. There's no religion on my part, just a little disgust that a for-profit company would try to smear KA over minutia.
It would be like if Khan Academy was giving out free meals to homeless people and McDonalds fabricated reports on how the food was unhealthy and used their influence to get the Washington Post to carry the smear and add to it.
wrong and obtrusive concepts
Now who is showing a religious level of bias?
I'm a pragmatist. If something is free that I need, I use it. If something is for-pay that I need and the price is justifiable, I use it. My commercial software architectures often mix proprietary and open source solutions and I don't make excuses for either business model.
One thing about free, you can always get a refund on your investment and you have to really suspect the motives and the character of someone who attacks "free". Not real surprising that the attacker in this case was a for-profit competitor, was it?
I don't know if we are talking about the same article, I'm talking about this one "How well does Khan Academy teach?" by the Michigan University math prof who outlines, in detail, basic concepts like adding decimals and multiplication that are taught at Khan Academy in a way that goes against research.
There is no religious bias, its a difference between a ineffective and wrong way vs. an effective right way. The professor performed no smear against Khan Academy, but the fact he only saw two videos that cause confusion in basic math concepts, it should make one skeptical, especially when someone like you justifies it on the basis of popularity, pragmatism and "minutia".
It seems like you read one article from the Washington Post that wasn't written very well and from that one article, deduce that WP is on some smear campaign. Absurdity of the highest order.
It would be like if Khan Academy was giving out free meals to homeless people and McDonalds fabricated reports on how the food was unhealthy and used their influence to get the Washington Post to carry the smear and add to it.
wrong and obtrusive concepts
Now who is showing a religious level of bias?
I'm a pragmatist. If something is free that I need, I use it. If something is for-pay that I need and the price is justifiable, I use it. My commercial software architectures often mix proprietary and open source solutions and I don't make excuses for either business model.
One thing about free, you can always get a refund on your investment and you have to really suspect the motives and the character of someone who attacks "free". Not real surprising that the attacker in this case was a for-profit competitor, was it?