Kid, we don't pay the fortune for fancy college's teaching materials, we pay the fortune for their paper with their stamp on it. Welcome to the real life.
C# info is horrendous, and the reason is because it is hooked up so tightly to Windows. One day, maybe, we can write quality app with C#/.NET, but until then, you'd need to hook up with all the legacy Windows API - Win32, COM, etc.
Java started out as a clean platform. C#/.NET never was..Net interop is whole lot easier to deal with than Java JNI, but that's because it NEEDS to be.
You're so right. If you take up a position like the education director of the Royal Society, you'd better be prepared to fight for what you believe is right. I'm disappointed that he threw in the towel so quickly. I realize the pressure he was under, but come on. You don't establish yourself in the science world by being "polite" and meek.
That's why you want physicist to take up such position. You won't see many physicist taking shit up their ass so easily.:-)
Thanks - I saw that. I do think the Royal Society and those who called for Reiss' dismissal overreacted, but I can understand their rationale. It's a sad commentary on our society, and apparently we (the US) are not alone.
Seems reasonable to me, but I found it objectionable on couple of points:
1. Don't make creationism a special case. There are plenty other widely-held non-scientific beliefs, and they should be treated the same way in science classes.
2. It would take great care to avoid getting swamped by the debate on the differences in the premises of science and various non-scientific beliefs, and not sure it's wise to dump this on secondary school teaching curriculum.
One can argue it's more important for kids to know the basic premise of science than equations of Newton's mechanics. It might have been a good debate for the scientists and educators to have, but I suspect the politics would have hijacked the discourse - like it appears to have done in this case. Maybe the Brits are afraid of becoming a Kansas.
Quick googling of news pieces with Michael Reiss turns up nothing to suggest he was misquoted. Do you have link to any report on what he actually said?
I've heard way back that diesel is left over after gasoline is refined, or probably more accurately, it's much simpler to refine crude into diesel than gasoline. I wonder if it's still the case for the low-sulfur diesels recently mandated. Moot point for us, I guess, with the existing refineries being a sunken costs.
What's so special about creationism that we have to squeeze that into science class? There are plenty of non-science subjects to demonstrate essence of science. If you insists on sticking such a politically motivated topic into science education, we may as well insist on throwing in FSM, Jim Jones and other "cults", and Scientology into class on religions. Let's see what sorta distinction they try to make between these and other "legitimate" religions.
While you're at it, throw in literary theories into science classes. Astrology should be popular also. Maybe we can get the Scientology people to sponsor that in the science class also.
I was ignorant of the Quality Score, but it seems like it's subjective and not entirely clear-cut criteria. Nothing wrong with that, per se, except Google is an effective monopoly, and that gives them the license and appearance of arbitrary power. According to TFA, the sourcetool guy tried to amend his site to accommodate Google's requirements, but Google failed to provide concrete guideline, while supporting a similar competing site which is a Google partner.
Google's market power combined with the nebulous and arbitrary (and therefore subject to abuse) auction criteria makes it an anti-trust concern.
That is a valid way to determine relevance. The more confident you are that customers searching certain keywords are looking for and want to buy your product, the more you are willing to pay for it.
You think so? Then maybe Google should apply the same logic and replace the entire search results with the links from highest bidders.
Slashdot Mirror
Kid, we don't pay the fortune for fancy college's teaching materials, we pay the fortune for their paper with their stamp on it. Welcome to the real life.
FFS, what kinda morons modded this autistic post "insightful"?
Shut the fuck up, dumbass. You're the dumbest AC I ever came across.
My bad...
Hey, bite this, you Eng. Lit. deconstructionist ass!!
C# info is horrendous, and the reason is because it is hooked up so tightly to Windows. One day, maybe, we can write quality app with C#/.NET, but until then, you'd need to hook up with all the legacy Windows API - Win32, COM, etc.
Java started out as a clean platform. C#/.NET never was. .Net interop is whole lot easier to deal with than Java JNI, but that's because it NEEDS to be.
This sorta piece posted on slashdot, no less, makes me realize that a good chunk of the US IT sector *deserves* to get offshored.
Yeah, this is a troll. But I think it's a necessary one.
"editor", eh?! You'll learn soon, grasshopper.
You're so right. If you take up a position like the education director of the Royal Society, you'd better be prepared to fight for what you believe is right. I'm disappointed that he threw in the towel so quickly. I realize the pressure he was under, but come on. You don't establish yourself in the science world by being "polite" and meek.
That's why you want physicist to take up such position. You won't see many physicist taking shit up their ass so easily. :-)
It is sad. To defeat "the enemy", we became the enemy.
Thanks - I saw that. I do think the Royal Society and those who called for Reiss' dismissal overreacted, but I can understand their rationale. It's a sad commentary on our society, and apparently we (the US) are not alone.
Nevermind, posts in this thread already provided it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism
Seems reasonable to me, but I found it objectionable on couple of points:
1. Don't make creationism a special case. There are plenty other widely-held non-scientific beliefs, and they should be treated the same way in science classes.
2. It would take great care to avoid getting swamped by the debate on the differences in the premises of science and various non-scientific beliefs, and not sure it's wise to dump this on secondary school teaching curriculum.
One can argue it's more important for kids to know the basic premise of science than equations of Newton's mechanics. It might have been a good debate for the scientists and educators to have, but I suspect the politics would have hijacked the discourse - like it appears to have done in this case. Maybe the Brits are afraid of becoming a Kansas.
Enough talking to myself now. :-)
Quick googling of news pieces with Michael Reiss turns up nothing to suggest he was misquoted. Do you have link to any report on what he actually said?
Yeah, especially with the new motherboard that fits three of these together...
So right. It's called CD and DVD. Well, maybe not Sony's.
Maybe the creationists have a point. This evolution thing doesn't seem to work too good lately.
That's because the dumbasses there drive on the wrong side of the road.
* It's no joke.
Plus all them cobble stone alleys that can fit two goats at the most.
That's why we should get Brazilian sugar ethanol. Granted, it's not produced in the US, but I rather send my money to Brazil than to the Saudis.
I've heard way back that diesel is left over after gasoline is refined, or probably more accurately, it's much simpler to refine crude into diesel than gasoline. I wonder if it's still the case for the low-sulfur diesels recently mandated. Moot point for us, I guess, with the existing refineries being a sunken costs.
Easy for you to say. You live in Burger King.
What's so special about creationism that we have to squeeze that into science class? There are plenty of non-science subjects to demonstrate essence of science. If you insists on sticking such a politically motivated topic into science education, we may as well insist on throwing in FSM, Jim Jones and other "cults", and Scientology into class on religions. Let's see what sorta distinction they try to make between these and other "legitimate" religions.
While you're at it, throw in literary theories into science classes. Astrology should be popular also. Maybe we can get the Scientology people to sponsor that in the science class also.
I was ignorant of the Quality Score, but it seems like it's subjective and not entirely clear-cut criteria. Nothing wrong with that, per se, except Google is an effective monopoly, and that gives them the license and appearance of arbitrary power. According to TFA, the sourcetool guy tried to amend his site to accommodate Google's requirements, but Google failed to provide concrete guideline, while supporting a similar competing site which is a Google partner.
Google's market power combined with the nebulous and arbitrary (and therefore subject to abuse) auction criteria makes it an anti-trust concern.
You think so? Then maybe Google should apply the same logic and replace the entire search results with the links from highest bidders.
Our accountants don't got no hearts, you insensitive clod.*
* Chill out, man. It's my first time try.