You can take the course for free, but you won't get credit for it. From the Udacity blog:
"Living up to our promise to always provide a free path to high-quality education, we are also offering these courses free of charge as conventional MOOCs, but this path will not include instructor access, additional support services, or a path to college credit."
I'm genuinely curious to know when and where the trend of naming companies or products by removing the vowels or random letters from a word started from. I've seen it in a number of places. Why? Is it because if they use the full word, it becomes too general and difficult to associate?
I believe the success of flickr.com (registered in 2003, launched in 2004) kicked off the current vogue for these names, though there are earlier examples too:
Misspelled words -- especially shortened ones -- have certain persistent advantages as names for web companies. It's easier to find available domains; it's a unique word for search engines; it's short and therefore quick to type.
Of course there are disadvantages too... Twitter was originally called "Twttr" when it launched in 2006, but later restored the vowels:
From my understanding of the comment, he wasn't blaming the customer. Rather, he's trying to say that people shouldn't rush to buy the revision A (or version 1 or 1st generation or whatever) of an Apple product. Instead, wait for the initial (and what are now expected) flaws to be fixed and then buy them. However, I think this is a problem that is likely to happen with any company, not just Apple.
In most markets, the law does not allow beta products and caveat emptor. Warranties against product flaws are mandatory. Personally, I would consider ghosting as shown by the OP a defect covered by warranty. In addition to that, a premium brand should treat early adopters well, especially those who bought the flagship product. This is the point OP seems to be making. However, due to their own design decisions, they have made this very expensive, which incentivizes them to provide shitty service, which is damaging their brand image.
For an example, see this summary of the baseline for warranties in the EU
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/shopping/shopping-abroa...
I suppose the reason why the software industry gets around this is that you can't buy software but only license it.
AFAIK, as a consumer, you cannot sign away these rights for physical products. For software, which you license, i.e. acquire usage rights, the situation seems to be different.
All Coursera courses are deadline based. Some of the courses remove their material at the end of the course. Others, such as the database one, are later opened up as self-study but do not offer a certificate of completion.
In the case of edX, MIT's 6.00x course is strictly deadline based. CS50x allows you to take the course at your own pace as long as you finish everything before the 13th of April, 2013.
But those aren't the ones you're looking for. Udacity meets all your requirements. They have open enrollment, meaning you can join in at any time. Furthermore, they have no deadlines. As long as you complete all the problem sets and give the final exam, you get a certificate.
Here are some Udacity courses that might interest you:
Right, maybe he doesn't know what everyone wants. But shouldn't the users decide that for themselves? Why put so many restrictions to prevent users from installing 3rd party applications?
I have a similar concern with this. It's too easy for a scammer to just walk away with an object. Invest a small amount, run away with an object of far greater value.
There are communities who do do this. I wish I had actual references to point out, but stuff like only having one or two lawnmowers for a neighborhood does happen. It's a cultural thing more than a business opportunity.
OTOH, what if you looked at this from the perspective of a dating site? The goal isn't merely to collectively own a thing; it's to find and meet people who you could get to know well enough to trust and participate in collective ownership.
If you don't mind, I have a lot of questions about this.
* The idea is to get x unknown people to pool in for an object, correct? Imo, you're relying a lot on people being honest. What's to stop a person from never passing on the object? Furthermore, what about the time slice for which each person gets to keep an object?
* Where does a company coming in to all of this? What else do they do other than facilitate the transfer of the object?
Sorry if that's too many questions. I like the idea and it seems like something that could be beneficial in theory, but I have my doubts about it working in practice.
Sort of like If This Then That but with a wider range of uses, right? Sounds interesting. Also, I don't get the last bit - How would you know if a user is honestly updating the request or not?
Well, maybe not: https://twitter.com/zeeg/status/294305445521268736