Rather than attempting a direct approach like including science or maths related material in your reading list, I would suggest adding in a healthy amount of philosophy and debate to the curriculum.
Both demand understanding the subject matter (whatever it may actually be) and promote critical thinking. They also encourage the development of a larger vocabulary and command of more complex grammatical constructs, as expressing complex ideas necessitates a mastery of whatever medium is being used to convey them. These skills will be invaluable to your students in every aspect of their academic careers, and are fundamental requirements for sciences and maths.
The best part is that the subject matter can be something that they're actually interested in. In fact, the deeper their personal interest, the more likely it is that they'll actually put forth the effort required to develop coherent arguments and care enough to force themselves to learn how to express their personal positions more clearly and effectively.
If you have two heavy vehicles that collide head-on, there's a lot more energy being dissipated in the collision than two light vehicles. Think two train locomotives vs. two bicycles.
Personal safety in a crash is only related to total energy dissipated in that total energy dissipated places a hard cap on total energy dissipated through you. Vehicle safety design is centered entirely around dissipating as much energy through all parts of the vehicle except the passengers as possible. Greater vehicle weight is only an automatic lose if you're strapped to the exterior of the vehicle at the impact point.
A better example that illustrates the above principle in a more intuitive manner is running into a rock face at 25mph strapped into the driver's seat of a hummer vs hitting that same rock face at 25mph strapped into a pair of Nike shoes. Total energy dissipated in the first case more than an order of magnitude greater than the second, yet the first is going to be much safer than the second because less energy will actually be dissipated through the passenger.
Lighter cars can actually be far more dangerous in a head-on—even with other light cars—than two heavy vehicles. The problem is that very light vehicles simply do not generate sufficient forces to crumple the frame of the vehicle unless the frame is deliberately weakened to allow for this to happen. This presents a serious safety dilemma with very light vehicles, as crumpling the frame is one of the best ways to minimize forces exerted on passengers in a crash. Optimize for head-ons with other light vehicles (much weaker/easily crumpled frame) and you will be absolutely destroyed in a collision with a heavier car. Optimize for collisions with heavier vehicles (stronger frame) and you will be more likely to die in collisions with other light vehicles as the frame fails to crumple and your internal organs nearly explode out the front of your body due to the massive deceleration.
The further the weights of the vehicles involved in a head-on diverge, the greater the degree to which someone will be subjected to one of the undesirable scenarios above. Unfortunately for light vehicle enthusiasts, all other things being equal, the guy in the lighter vehicle always gets the shorter end of the stick. An otherwise walk-away accident may have been made lethal because one guy was driving an F350 rather than a light pickup, but it's the guy in the Geo Metro who dies.
You're looking at the classical prisoner's dilemma here. Do you raise overall safety by driving the lightest vehicle that meets your needs, or do you make the roads more dangerous but maximize your personal safety by driving a massive SUV?
All types of accidents considered, light vehicles may be safer overall but they're definitely not safer for anyone except the people in the other vehicle when you're looking at a head-on.
If you are going to strike at all, you have to strike with deadly force for the same reason police always have to shoot to kill. Aiming specifically to subdue/shoot to maim is about as good as a legally binding statement that you were never in mortal danger. This causes you lose the affirmative defense of self-defense, as self-defense can only be invoked if your life is in mortal danger.
This is a topic that is covered by pretty much every modern dojo I've ever been to.
Aside from other things, Betamax suffered from a critical technical flaw: you had to split a significant number of movies across two cartridges, forcing you to get up and swap them out to finish watching, and making recording of longer programs impossible without a very high chance of missing portions of the program (guaranteed if you weren't available to switch disks out at the right time).
Time and time again, the marketplace has shown that user convenience trumps technical quality unless the latter is absolutely overwhelming.
Unfortunately for HD-DVD, Blu-Ray trumps it in convenience, technical quality, and library of available media.
The only way the HD-DVD format can survive is to attempt to foster the belief that the high def format race is still a relatively dead heat. Doing so lowers the perceived risk of entering into an exclusive deal like this, as the studio won't believe that the race will be decided soon enough to leave them with the possibility of having picked the wrong format. Studios entering into such an agreement are basically gambling that the worst case scenario is that the race will be decided in favor of the opposing format after the contract is expired. More deals foster the dead heat perception, which again makes it easier for studios to sign deals, etc., etc., so they are essentially hoping to initiate a feedback loop that will allow them to effectively buy a victory in the format war despite being at a universal technical disadvantage.
If the UI is blocking during network I/O then someone either did a poor job writing the application, or you ended up with a beta/proof of concept mock-up that the boss deemed 'good enough' to ship.
Good steak? 15 minutes tops.
Rice? max 5 minutes attended time every other day with a rice cooker/warmer.
Salad? 5 minutes, if that, and can be done while the steak is cooking.
That's a good, solid meal in 20 minutes.
I've also made good pasta pomodoro dishes in under 20 minutes (buy good noodles and make the sauce from scratch). The only thing that might prolong this is if your stove is unable to heat the water quickly enough—and even then the extra time is unattended.
If you have a slow cooker, you can easily make roasts with potatoes, carrots, etc., in under 20 minutes, simply leaving it on low when you step out to work.
There are a lot of other options, and more will continue to open up for you as you get better at cooking quickly and efficiently. You'll also find that the much-maligned microwave can actually be very useful for cooking some surprisingly good dishes, such as, given the right seasoning and settings, whole roasted chicken.
In that case, for the GPLv3 to be a factor, Apple would have to fear the mere existence a GPLv3 version of the code despite not being subject to it itself.
Bingo. The reason is that if a GPLv3 version obtained critical mass, this would screw Apple big time.
Currently, while a GPLv2 fork is still a possibility, such a fork would only be a minor annoyance, as they would still have the option to lock it down Tivo style. In other words, in the worst case scenario they still have absolute control of their OS while still reaping the benefits of an active OSS developer community.
In the case of a GPLv3 fork, on the other hand, they would be faced with either maintaining their private fork of CUPS entirely on their own or tapping the GPLv3 version and giving up control of that aspect of their OS.
Since they bought CUPS they are the only ones with the power to change the license (to GPLv3 or any other), and thus the worst case scenario for them is a GPLv2 fork.
Developing code with the GPL version of QT (note that the code being developed need not itself be GPL'd) and later purchasing the commercial version as a drop-in replacement just before product shipment was explicitly disallowed last time I looked into QT.
It seems likely that Brent's article is a backhanded attempt to get more people to adopt MySQL, as he lists himself as a MySQL user at the end of the article.
There is no shortage of substantial reasons MySQL may not be suitable for any given project, and yet he somehow managed to somehow pick, almost without exception, the most irrelevant issues possible.
No, because the same pinyin can map to many chinese characters. The logic+data that determines the preference of a given mapping over another equally valid mapping is not only complex and substantial, but subjective as well, and therefore definitely constitutes a creative work.
Glaciers help to trap more water during the winter than would otherwise remain in the area, and regulate its dispersal.
To imagine the first part of the above, imagine, for a moment, a bank account. Initialy you are just skimming off the interest on the principal. At some point, however, you start dipping into the principal itself. While a portion of the principal remains, you will be receiving more cash than you were while you were just drawing on the interest. When it runs out, however, you no longer have any principle generating interest
The second part is equally important. Do you want your water supply for the year to come down in regular, year-round melt water or a brief flash flood following each significant precipitation event?
Did the consumption of chemicals rise or fell after the large scale adoption of GM agriculture?
The answer to that question is largely irrelevant, as not all chemicals are equal. E.g., I'd take 100 gallons of glyphosate over 1 gallon of something like 2,4,5-T any day.
20 million tons? Probably flying into the Earth at near light speeds?
Objects travelling at a relative velocity that is a significant fraction of the speed of light do not remain in orbit around an object with as little mass as the sun.
Not to mention the fact that there's really no direct way to translate the accelerometer data from a Wii-Mote into useful, sensical motions for a 3-jointed mechanical arm (or any robot, for that matter.)
You could easily do it in realtime if you had a decent inverse kinematics engine translating Wiimote data to instructions for the robotic arm. There would be some limitations and additional requirements, of course. E.g., either use 2 wiimotes, one attached to your shoulder and one held in your hand, or your shoulder must remain in a relatively fixed position, and you have to calibrate with, at minimum, full extension and retraction values.
This is not correct with regards to the GPL, since what the GP claims is explicitly part of the v2 license.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Unfortunately, that site is totally bogus. Interesting, but it's entirely unrelated to string theory, which the author seems to mention just to lend his ideas some credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstood your parent post. To clarify, he meant that Vista -> 7 would be analogous to ME -> 2000.
In other words, total ass -> surprisingly good.
Rather than attempting a direct approach like including science or maths related material in your reading list, I would suggest adding in a healthy amount of philosophy and debate to the curriculum.
Both demand understanding the subject matter (whatever it may actually be) and promote critical thinking. They also encourage the development of a larger vocabulary and command of more complex grammatical constructs, as expressing complex ideas necessitates a mastery of whatever medium is being used to convey them. These skills will be invaluable to your students in every aspect of their academic careers, and are fundamental requirements for sciences and maths.
The best part is that the subject matter can be something that they're actually interested in. In fact, the deeper their personal interest, the more likely it is that they'll actually put forth the effort required to develop coherent arguments and care enough to force themselves to learn how to express their personal positions more clearly and effectively.
Personal safety in a crash is only related to total energy dissipated in that total energy dissipated places a hard cap on total energy dissipated through you. Vehicle safety design is centered entirely around dissipating as much energy through all parts of the vehicle except the passengers as possible. Greater vehicle weight is only an automatic lose if you're strapped to the exterior of the vehicle at the impact point.
A better example that illustrates the above principle in a more intuitive manner is running into a rock face at 25mph strapped into the driver's seat of a hummer vs hitting that same rock face at 25mph strapped into a pair of Nike shoes. Total energy dissipated in the first case more than an order of magnitude greater than the second, yet the first is going to be much safer than the second because less energy will actually be dissipated through the passenger.
Lighter cars can actually be far more dangerous in a head-on—even with other light cars—than two heavy vehicles. The problem is that very light vehicles simply do not generate sufficient forces to crumple the frame of the vehicle unless the frame is deliberately weakened to allow for this to happen. This presents a serious safety dilemma with very light vehicles, as crumpling the frame is one of the best ways to minimize forces exerted on passengers in a crash. Optimize for head-ons with other light vehicles (much weaker/easily crumpled frame) and you will be absolutely destroyed in a collision with a heavier car. Optimize for collisions with heavier vehicles (stronger frame) and you will be more likely to die in collisions with other light vehicles as the frame fails to crumple and your internal organs nearly explode out the front of your body due to the massive deceleration.
The further the weights of the vehicles involved in a head-on diverge, the greater the degree to which someone will be subjected to one of the undesirable scenarios above. Unfortunately for light vehicle enthusiasts, all other things being equal, the guy in the lighter vehicle always gets the shorter end of the stick. An otherwise walk-away accident may have been made lethal because one guy was driving an F350 rather than a light pickup, but it's the guy in the Geo Metro who dies.
You're looking at the classical prisoner's dilemma here. Do you raise overall safety by driving the lightest vehicle that meets your needs, or do you make the roads more dangerous but maximize your personal safety by driving a massive SUV?
All types of accidents considered, light vehicles may be safer overall but they're definitely not safer for anyone except the people in the other vehicle when you're looking at a head-on.
He was downmodded because the need to nuke Celine Dion is most certainly not a laughing matter.
If you are going to strike at all, you have to strike with deadly force for the same reason police always have to shoot to kill. Aiming specifically to subdue/shoot to maim is about as good as a legally binding statement that you were never in mortal danger. This causes you lose the affirmative defense of self-defense, as self-defense can only be invoked if your life is in mortal danger.
This is a topic that is covered by pretty much every modern dojo I've ever been to.
Aside from other things, Betamax suffered from a critical technical flaw: you had to split a significant number of movies across two cartridges, forcing you to get up and swap them out to finish watching, and making recording of longer programs impossible without a very high chance of missing portions of the program (guaranteed if you weren't available to switch disks out at the right time).
Time and time again, the marketplace has shown that user convenience trumps technical quality unless the latter is absolutely overwhelming.
Unfortunately for HD-DVD, Blu-Ray trumps it in convenience, technical quality, and library of available media.
The only way the HD-DVD format can survive is to attempt to foster the belief that the high def format race is still a relatively dead heat. Doing so lowers the perceived risk of entering into an exclusive deal like this, as the studio won't believe that the race will be decided soon enough to leave them with the possibility of having picked the wrong format. Studios entering into such an agreement are basically gambling that the worst case scenario is that the race will be decided in favor of the opposing format after the contract is expired. More deals foster the dead heat perception, which again makes it easier for studios to sign deals, etc., etc., so they are essentially hoping to initiate a feedback loop that will allow them to effectively buy a victory in the format war despite being at a universal technical disadvantage.
Perhaps not basic, but OcaML or lisp wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
3 words: Xenogears, 2nd disc.
Yes? Scary, I know.
If the UI is blocking during network I/O then someone either did a poor job writing the application, or you ended up with a beta/proof of concept mock-up that the boss deemed 'good enough' to ship.
They cost more because organic production methods consume more resources per unit of product and make it difficult to leverage economies of scale.
Good steak? 15 minutes tops.
Rice? max 5 minutes attended time every other day with a rice cooker/warmer.
Salad? 5 minutes, if that, and can be done while the steak is cooking.
That's a good, solid meal in 20 minutes.
I've also made good pasta pomodoro dishes in under 20 minutes (buy good noodles and make the sauce from scratch). The only thing that might prolong this is if your stove is unable to heat the water quickly enough—and even then the extra time is unattended.
If you have a slow cooker, you can easily make roasts with potatoes, carrots, etc., in under 20 minutes, simply leaving it on low when you step out to work.
There are a lot of other options, and more will continue to open up for you as you get better at cooking quickly and efficiently. You'll also find that the much-maligned microwave can actually be very useful for cooking some surprisingly good dishes, such as, given the right seasoning and settings, whole roasted chicken.
Currently, while a GPLv2 fork is still a possibility, such a fork would only be a minor annoyance, as they would still have the option to lock it down Tivo style. In other words, in the worst case scenario they still have absolute control of their OS while still reaping the benefits of an active OSS developer community.
In the case of a GPLv3 fork, on the other hand, they would be faced with either maintaining their private fork of CUPS entirely on their own or tapping the GPLv3 version and giving up control of that aspect of their OS.
Since they bought CUPS they are the only ones with the power to change the license (to GPLv3 or any other), and thus the worst case scenario for them is a GPLv2 fork.
Developing code with the GPL version of QT (note that the code being developed need not itself be GPL'd) and later purchasing the commercial version as a drop-in replacement just before product shipment was explicitly disallowed last time I looked into QT.
Any software that is certified for Windows Vista must be tested for and support the 64 bit edition of Vista.
It seems likely that Brent's article is a backhanded attempt to get more people to adopt MySQL, as he lists himself as a MySQL user at the end of the article.
There is no shortage of substantial reasons MySQL may not be suitable for any given project, and yet he somehow managed to somehow pick, almost without exception, the most irrelevant issues possible.
It's the biosphere that tops out at 10 miles. The atmosphere is still detectable near 100 miles.
No, because the same pinyin can map to many chinese characters. The logic+data that determines the preference of a given mapping over another equally valid mapping is not only complex and substantial, but subjective as well, and therefore definitely constitutes a creative work.
Glaciers help to trap more water during the winter than would otherwise remain in the area, and regulate its dispersal.
To imagine the first part of the above, imagine, for a moment, a bank account. Initialy you are just skimming off the interest on the principal. At some point, however, you start dipping into the principal itself. While a portion of the principal remains, you will be receiving more cash than you were while you were just drawing on the interest. When it runs out, however, you no longer have any principle generating interest
The second part is equally important. Do you want your water supply for the year to come down in regular, year-round melt water or a brief flash flood following each significant precipitation event?
Lol?
You could easily do it in realtime if you had a decent inverse kinematics engine translating Wiimote data to instructions for the robotic arm. There would be some limitations and additional requirements, of course. E.g., either use 2 wiimotes, one attached to your shoulder and one held in your hand, or your shoulder must remain in a relatively fixed position, and you have to calibrate with, at minimum, full extension and retraction values.
Unfortunately, that site is totally bogus. Interesting, but it's entirely unrelated to string theory, which the author seems to mention just to lend his ideas some credibility.