Klik di sini....

Friday, September 27, 2013

Anak termometer vs anak termostat

Anak Termometer ... Reaktif.
Anak Termostat ... Proaktif

Didik anak yang berpendirian, bukan ikutan sekitaran.
Dia memimpin dirinya, bukan "dipimpin" oleh kawan-kawannya !
Dia tidak mudah ikut mood sekeliling.

Malangnya kekadang, ibubapa pun bersifat TERMOMETER !
Apa buktinya ?

Anak Tahun 4 atau 5 atau 6 minta telefon, dia pun beri.
Kenapa ? Sebab ibu ayah lain pun bagi telefon kat anak,
takkan dia tak bagi. Nanti orang kata pula.
Jangan bertindak atas dasar apa "APA ORANG KATA" !

NANTI mak bapak yang lain ramai-ramai ...
- izinkan anak perempuan mereka bawa boyfriend ke rumah
- izinkan anak mereka ke sekolah, walaupun rumah cuma 1 km
- izinkan anak mereka bergame computer hingga larut malam
- izinkan anak mereka ada boyfriend/girlfriend ...

Ya, bunyi sinis. Bunyi perli. Betul ... apa salahnya untuk kebaikan.

Renung dan fikirlah.

Sumber: Facebook, pekongsian dari Dr Shukri Abdullah

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Maklumat terkini perhubungan KPT

Letak kat blog biar senang nak rujuk....
Perkongsian rakan dari rakan DSG...

ASMK sahabat sekalian,

Share info.. Saya pemegang biasiswa SLAI dan baru sahaja menghubungi KPT..
Sekarang jika hubungi kementerian, semua akan ke Stop Centre Satu Malaysia bernombor tel: 03-8000 8000.

Unit biasiswa SLAI: 03-8888 1616 (jika nak tanya nombor extension, dan tak boleh buat sambunga. Kena matikan talian dan call direct number)...

Laporan Kemajuan hantar pada: cik Raihana.. tel: 03-8870 6443, email: raihana.zawawil.moe.gov.my (better emailkan laporan kemajuan itu)

Tuntutan kewangan samaada claim for conference, attachment oversea, yuran atau apa2 la kewangan yg nak dituntut, sila hubungi: en ajmi... tel: 03-8870 6344

Jika extend study, cik Diana incharge..permohonan online dan melalui majikan masing-masing.. tp jika ada msalah sila contact cik Diana di talian: 03-8870 6334..

Apa-apa urusan sebut KPM.... update info yg baru saya dapat ..TQ

Terima kasih Maziah Marzuki atas perkongsian :)

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Cara mengubah "Default print setting" dalam MacBook

Dekat sejam duk godek cara nak ubah setting printer HP untuk safe toner. Tak macam window, setting Mac agak tersorok. Lepas google sana siniterjumpa link ni yang sangat membantu.....

atau (klik kat sini)

Tapi bila klik pada link pada tutorial, dapat pula error ni....
...The web interface is currently disabled. Run "cupsctl WebInterface=yes"....

Kemudian minta bantuan En google lagi sekali....

Baru tahu yang CUPS adalah Apple's printing system... kena enable dulu baru boleh guna CUPS. Untuk enable CUPS, mudah jer rupanya berdasarkan link ni...


1. Open Finder.
2. Klik Applications.
3. Klik folder Utilities.
4. Klik Terminal dan run:    cupsctl WebInterface=yes

Bila nak ubah setting, kena masukkan username dan password.

Jimat toner lepas ni :)

Thursday, September 5, 2013

10 tips for failing a PhD

If you want failure, this is your road map to getting there.
1. Submit an incomplete, poorly formatted bibliography
Doctoral students need to be told that most examiners start marking from the back of the script. Just as cooks are judged by their ingredients and implements, we judge doctoral students by the calibre of their sources.
The moment examiners see incomplete references or find that key theorists in the topic are absent, they worry. This concern intensifies when in-text citations with no match in the bibliography are located.
If examiners find ten errors, then students are required to perform minor corrections. If there are 20 anomalies, the doctorate will need major corrections. Any referencing issues over that number and examiners question the students’ academic abilities.
If the most basic academic protocols are not in place, the credibility of a script wavers. A bibliography is not just a bibliography: it is a canary in the doctoral mine.
2. Use phrases such as “some academics” or “all the literature” without mitigating statements or references
Generalisations infuriate me in first-year papers, but they are understandable. A 19-year-old student who states that “all women think that Katie Price is a great role model” is making a ridiculous point, but when the primary reading fodder is Heat magazine, the link between Jordan’s plastic surgery and empowered women seems causal. In a PhD, generalisations send me off for a long walk to Beachy Head.
The best doctorates are small. They are tightly constituted and justify students’ choice of one community of scholars over others while demonstrating that they have read enough to make the decision on academic rather than time-management grounds.
Invariably there is a link between a thin bibliography and a high number of generalisations. If a student has not read widely, then the scholars they have referenced become far more important and representative than they actually are.
I make my postgraduates pay for such statements. If they offer a generalisation such as “scholars of the online environment argue that democracy follows participation”, I demand that they find at least 30 separate references to verify their claim. They soon stop making generalisations.
Among my doctoral students, these demands have been nicknamed “Kent footnotes” after one of my great (post-) postgraduates, Mike Kent (now Dr Kent). He relished compiling these enormous footnotes, confirming the evidential base for his arguments. As he would be the first to admit, it was slightly obsessive behaviour, but it certainly confirmed the scale of his reading. In my current supervisory processes, students are punished for generalisations by being forced to assemble a “Kent footnote”.
3. Write an abstract without a sentence starting “my original contribution to knowledge is…”
The way to relax an examiner is to feature a sentence in the first paragraph of a PhD abstract that begins: “My original contribution to knowledge is…” If students cannot compress their argument and research findings into a single statement, then it can signify flabbiness in their method, theory or structure. It is an awful moment for examiners when they – desperately – try to find an original contribution to knowledge through a shapeless methods chapter or loose literature review. If examiners cannot pinpoint the original contribution, they have no choice but to award the script an MPhil.
The key is to make it easy for examiners. In the second sentence of the abstract, ensure that an original contribution is nailed to the page. Then we can relax and look for the scaffolding and verification of this statement.
I once supervised a student investigating a very small area of “queer” theory. It is a specialist field, well worked over by outstanding researchers. I remained concerned throughout the candidature that there was too much restating of other academics’ work. The scholarship is of high quality and does not leave much space for new interpretations.
Finally, we located a clear section in one chapter that was original. He signalled it in the abstract. He highlighted it in the introduction. He stressed the importance of this insight in the chapter itself and restated it in the conclusion. Needless to say, every examiner noted the original contribution to knowledge that had been highlighted for them, based on a careful and methodical understanding of the field. He passed without corrections.
4. Fill the bibliography with references to blogs, online journalism and textbooks
This is a new problem I have seen in doctorates over the past six months. Throughout the noughties, online sources were used in PhDs. However, the first cycle of PhD candidates who have studied in the web 2.0 environment are submitting their doctorates this year. The impact on the theses I have examined recently is clear to see. Students do not differentiate between refereed and non-refereed or primary and secondary sources. The Google Effect – the creation of a culture of equivalence between blogs and academic articles – is in full force. When questioned in an oral examination, the candidates do not display that they have the capacity to differentiate between the calibre and quality of references.
This bibliographical flattening and reduction in quality sources unexpectedly affects candidates’ writing styles. I am not drawing a causal link here: major research would need to be undertaken to probe this relationship. But because the students are not reading difficult scholarship, they are unaware of the specificities of academic writing. The doctorates are pitched too low, filled with informalities, conversational language, generalisations, opinion and unreflexive leaps between their personal “journeys” (yes, it is like an episode of The X Factor) and research protocols.
I asked one of these postgraduates in their oral examination to offer a defence of their informal writing style, hoping that the student would pull out a passable justification through the “Aca-Fan”, disintermediation, participatory culture or organic intellectual arguments. Instead, the student replied: “I am proud of how the thesis is written. It is important to write how we speak.”
Actually, no. A PhD must be written to ensure that it can be examined within the regulations of a specific university and in keeping with international standards of doctoral education. A doctorate may be described in many ways, but it has no connection with everyday modes of communication.
5. Use discourse, ideology, signifier, signified, interpellation, postmodernism, structuralism, post-structuralism or deconstruction without reading the complete works of Foucault, Althusser, Saussure, Baudrillard or Derrida
How to upset an examiner in under 60 seconds: throw basic semiotic phrases into a sentence as if they are punctuation. Often this problem emerges in theses where “semiotics” is cited as a/the method. When a student uses words such as “discourse” and “ideology” as if they were neutral nouns, it is often a signal for the start of a pantomime of naivety throughout the script. Instead of an “analysis”, postgraduates describe their work as “deconstruction”. It is not deconstruction. They describe their approach as “structuralist”. It is not structuralist. Simply because they study structures does not mean it is structuralist. Conversely, simply because they do not study structures does not mean it is poststructuralist.
The number of students who fling names around as if they are fashion labels (“Dior”, “Derrida”, “Givenchy”, “Gramsci”) is becoming a problem. I also feel sorry for the students who are attempting a deep engagement with these theorists.
I am working with a postgraduate at the moment who has spent three months mapping Michel Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge over media-policy theories of self-regulation. It has been frustrating and tough, creating – at this stage – only six pages of work from her efforts. Every week, I see the perspiration on the page and the strain in the footnotes. If a student is not prepared to undertake this scale of effort, they must edit the thesis and remove all these words. They leave themselves vulnerable to an examiner who knows their ideological state apparatuses from their repressive state apparatuses.
6. Assume something you are doing is new because you have not read enough to know that an academic wrote a book on it 20 years ago
Again, this is another new problem I have seen in the past couple of years. Lazy students, who may be more kindly described as “inexperienced researchers”, state that they have invented the wheel because they have not looked under their car to see the rolling objects under it. After minimal reading, it is easy to find original contributions to knowledge in every idea that emerges from the jarring effect of a bitter espresso.
More frequently, my problem as a supervisor has been the incredibly hardworking students who read so much that they cannot control all the scholarly balls they have thrown into the air. I supervise an inspirational scholar who is trying to map Zygmunt Bauman’s “liquid” research over neoconservative theory. This is difficult research, particularly since she is also trying to punctuate this study with Stan Aronowitz’s investigations of post-work and Henry Giroux’s research into working-class education. For such students, supervisors have to prune the students’ arguments to ensure that all the branches are necessary and rooted in their original contributions to knowledge.
The over-readers present their own challenges. For our under-readers, the world is filled with their own brilliance because they do not realise that every single sentence they write has been explored, extended, tested and applied by other scholars in the past. Intriguingly, these are always the confident students, arriving at the viva voce brimming with pride in their achievements. They are the hardest ones to assess (and help) through an oral exam because they do not know enough to know how little they know.
Helpful handball questions about the most significant theorists in their research area are pointless, because they have invented all the material in this field. The only way to create an often-debilitating moment of self-awareness is by directly questioning the script: “On p57, you state that the academic literature has not addressed this argument. Yet in 1974, Philippa Philistine published a book and a series of articles on that topic. Why did you decide not to cite that material?”
Invariably, the answer to this question – often after much stuttering and stammering – is that the candidate had not read the analysis. I leave the question hanging at that point. We could get into why they have not read it, or the consequences of leaving out key theorists. But one moment of glimpsing into the abyss of failure is enough to summon doubt that their “originality” is original.
7. Leave spelling mistakes in the script
Spelling errors among my own PhD students leave me seething. I correct spelling errors. They appear in the next draft. I correct spelling errors. They appear in the next draft. The night before they bind their theses, I stare at the ceiling, summoning the doctoral gods and praying that they have removed the spelling errors.
Most examiners will accept a few spelling or typographical mistakes, but in a word-processing age, this tolerance is receding. I know plenty of examiners who gain great pleasure in constructing a table and listing all the typographical and spelling errors in a script. Occasionally I do it and then I know I need to get out more.
Spelling mistakes horrify students. They render supervisors in need of oxygen. Postgraduates may not fail doctorates because of them, but such errors end any chance of passing quickly and without corrections. These simple mistakes also create doubt in the examiner’s mind. If superficial errors exist, it may be necessary to drill more deeply into the interpretation, methods or structure chosen to present the findings.
8. Make the topic of the thesis too large
The best PhDs are small. They investigate a circumscribed area, rather than over-egging the originality or expertise. The most satisfying theses – and they are rare – emerge when students find small gaps in saturated research areas and offer innovative interpretations or new applications of old ideas.
The nightmare PhD for examiners is the candidate who tries to compress a life’s work into 100,000 words. They take on the history of Marxism, or more commonly these days, feminism. They attempt to distil 100 years of history, theory, dissent and debate into a literature review and end up applying these complex ideas to Beyoncé’s video for Single Ladies.
The best theses not only state their original contribution to knowledge but also confirm in the introduction what they do not address. I know that many supervisors disagree with me on this point. Nevertheless, the best way to protect candidates and ensure that examiners understand the boundaries and limits of the research is to state what is not being discussed. Students may be asked why they made those determinations, and there must be scholarly and strategic answers to such questions.
The easiest way to trim and hem the ragged edges of a doctorate is historically or geographically. The student can base the work on Belgium, Brazil or the Bahamas, or a particular decade, governmental term or after a significant event such as 11 September 2001. Another way to contain a project is theoretically, to state there is a focus on Henry Giroux’s model of popular culture and education rather than Henry Jenkins’ configurations of new media and literacy. Such a decision can be justified through the availability of sources, or the desire to monitor one scholar’s pathway through analogue and digital media. Examiners will feel more comfortable if they know that students have made considered choices about their area of research and understand the limits of their findings.
9. Write a short, rushed, basic exegesis
An unfair – but occasionally accurate – cliché of practice-led doctorates is that students take three and a half years to make a film, installation or soundscape and spend three and a half weeks writing the exegesis. Doctoral candidates seem unaware that examiners often read exegeses first and engage with the artefacts after assessing if candidates have read enough in the field.
Indeed, one of my students recommended an order of reading and watching for her examiners, moving between four chapters and films. The examiner responded in her report – bristling – that she would not be told how to evaluate a thesis: she always read the full exegesis and then decided whether or not to bother seeing the films. My student – thankfully – passed with ease, but this examiner told a truth that few acknowledge.
Most postgraduates I talk with assume that the examiners rush with enthusiasm to the packaged DVD or CD, or that they will not read a word of the doctorate until they have seen the exhibition. This is the same assumption that inhibits these students in viva voces. They think that they will be able to talk about “art” and “process” for two hours. I have never seen that happen. Instead, the emphasis is placed on the exegesis and how it articulates the artefact.
Postgraduates entering a doctoral programme to make a film or create a sonic installation subject themselves to a time-consuming and difficult process. If the student neglects the exegesis until the end of the candidature and constructs a rushed document about “how” rather than “why” it was made, there will be problems.
The best students find a way to create “bonsai” exegeses. They prepare perfectly formed engagements with theory, method and scholarship, but in miniature. They note word limits, demonstrate the precise dialogue between the exegesis and artefact, and show through a carefully edited script that they hold knowledge equivalent to the “traditional” doctoral level.
10. Submit a PhD with a short introduction or conclusion
A quick way to move from a good doctoral thesis to one requiring major corrections is to write a short introduction and/or conclusion. It is frustrating for examiners. We are poised to tick the minor corrections box, and then we turn to a one- or two-page conclusion.
After reading thousands of words, students must be able to present effective, convincing conclusions, restating the original contribution to knowledge, the significance of the research, the problems and flaws and further areas of scholarship. Short conclusions are created by tired doctoral students. They run out of words.
Short introductions signify the start of deeper problems: candidates are unaware of the research area or the theoretical framework. In the case of introductions and conclusions in doctoral theses, size does matter.
Hope washes over the start of a PhD candidature, but desperation and fear often mark its conclusion. There are (at least) ten simple indicators that prompt examiners to recommend re-examination, major corrections or – with some dismay – failure. If postgraduates utilise these guidelines, they will be able to make choices and realise the consequences of their decisions.

Source: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/how-not-to-write-a-phd-thesis/410208.article

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Pergerakan harga minyak di M'sia 1990-2013


Sebelum 90 - RM 0.89
Tahun 1990 - RM 1.10 (kenaikan RM 0.21)
01/10/2000 - RM 1.20 (kenaikan RM 0.10)
20/10/2001 - RM 1.30 (kenaikan RM 0.10)
01/05/2002 - RM 1.32 (kenaikan RM 0.02)
31/10/2002 - RM 1.33 (kenaikan RM 0.01)
01/03/2003 - RM 1.35 (kenaikan RM 0.02)
01/05/2004 - RM 1.37 (kenaikan RM 0.02)
01/10/2004 - RM 1.42 (kenaikan RM 0.05)
05/05/2005 - RM 1.52 (kenaikan RM 0.10)
31/07/2005 - RM 1.62 (kenaikan RM 0.10)
28/02/2006 - RM 1.92 (kenaikan RM 0.30)
04/06/2008 - RM 2.70 (kenaikan RM 0.78) 
01/09/2009 - RM 1.80 (Turun RM 0.90)
16/07/2010 - RM 1.85
04/12/2010 - RM 1.90
03/09/2013 - RM 2.10 (kenaikan RM 0.20)

Era Dr Mahathir:- (1990-2003) 13 tahun Kenaikan sebanyak 46sen.

Era Abdullah Ahmad Badawi:- (2003 - 2009) 5 1/2 tahun - kenaikan sebanyak 1.38sen & penurunan sebanyak 90sen.

Era Mohd Najib Abdul Razak (2009 - 2013) 4 tahun - kenaikan sebanyak 25 sen

Fenomena kenaikan harga barang pernah terjadi di zaman Rasul saw dan sahabat-sahabat r.a. bertanyakan kepada Baginda saw:-
“Wahai Rasulullah, harga-harga barang banyak yang naik, maka tetapkan keputusan yang mengatur harga barang.”

Jawab Baginda saw; 
"Sesungguhnya Allah adalah Dzat yang menetapkan harga, yang menyempitkan dan melapangkan rezeki, Maha Pemberi rezeki. Sementara aku berharap dapat berjumpa dengan Allah dalam keadaan tidak ada seorang pun dari kalian yang menuntutku disebabkan kezalimanku dalam urusan darah maupun harta.”
(Riwayat Ahmad, Abu Daud, Turmudzi, Ibnu Majah)

(1) Sesungguhnya Allah Dzat Yang Mentakdirkan Semua Harga. (Tauhid Af'al)

(2) Sesungguhnya Kenaikan Harga Tidak Mempengaruhi Rezeki Seseorang.

Rezeki, ajal maut & jodoh pertemuan adalah rahsia ALLAH. Yakinlah, rezeki yang Allah tetapkan tidak akan bertambah maupun berkurang. Meskipun harga barang meningkat, itu sama sekali tidak akan mengganggu rezeki kita yang telah ditetapkan.

Firman Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala :

“Dan kalaulah Allah memewahkan rezeki bagi setiap hambaNya, nescaya mereka akan melampaui batas di bumi (dengan perbuatan-perbuatan liar durjana); akan tetapi Allah menurunkan (rezekiNya itu) menurut kadar yang tertentu sebagaimana yang dikehendakiNya. Sesungguhnya Ia Mengetahui dengan mendalam akan segala keadaan hambaNya, lagi Melihat dengan nyata.
(Surah Asy-Syuura, ayat 27)

والله أعلم بالصواب

C&P dari facebook

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Himpunan soalan viva

Top 40 potential viva questions

1. Can you start by summarising your thesis?
2. Now, can you summarise it in one sentence?
3. What is the idea that binds your thesis together?
4. What motivated and inspired you to carry out this research?
5. What are the main issues and debates in this subject area?
6. Which of these does your research address?
7. Why is the problem you have tackled worth tackling?
8. Who has had the strongest influence in the development of your subject area in theory and practice?
9. Which are the three most important papers that relate to your thesis?
10. What published work is closest to yours? How is your work different?
11. What do you know about the history of [insert something relevant]?
12. How does your work relate to [insert something relevant]?
13. What are the most recent major developments in your area?
14. How did your research questions emerge?
15. What were the crucial research decisions you made?
16. Why did you use this research methodology? What did you gain from it?
17. What were the alternatives to this methodology?
18. What would you have gained by using another approach?
19. How did you deal with the ethical implications of your work?
20. How has your view of your research topic changed?
21. How have you evaluated your work?
22. How do you know that your findings are correct?
23. What are the strongest/weakest parts of your work?
24. What would have improved your work?
25. To what extent do your contributions generalise?
26. Who will be most interested in your work?
27. What is the relevance of your work to other researchers?
28. What is the relevance of your work to practitioners?
29. Which aspects of your work do you intend to publish – and where?
30. Summarise your key findings.
31. Which of these findings are the most interesting to you? Why?
32. How do your findings relate to literature in your field?
33. What are the contributions to knowledge of your thesis?
34. How long-term are these contributions?
35. What are the main achievements of your research?
36. What have you learned from the process of doing your PhD?
37. What advice would you give to a research student entering this area?
38. You propose future research. How would you start this?
39. What would be the difficulties?
40. And, finally… What have you done that merits a PhD?

Source: http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ResearchEssentials/?p=156