It echoes an AC post, but I live in Tucson, and in the neighborhoods where you find dollar stores, you will almost certainly have a "carniceria" nearby for cheap perishables. Market forces already settle this. Plus, wanting to feed a large family efficiently with bulk goods, and wanting to purchase unprocessed healthier foods are not really disjoint pursuits.
Again, it is just a bad example. I am a physicist, and the turbines on a car misconception is one of those exceptions that is actually viable for certain conditions, which may be why some people intuitively cling to it.
Consider a car at rest pointing into the wind. The fans generate power while no work is done by the wheels and nothing is lost to drag. Obviously some forward motion is possible before things come to equilibrium. Working it out, that equilibrium happens at a bit faster than the windspeed.
So it won't work on a highway commute (and would in fact be detrimental) but it isn't a totally wrong direction for casual intuition to take you. Sailboats sail into the wind, using the wind speed differential as power in an analogous way.
I had one of these friends too. It's not the best example to use though, because he is stupid but not as wrong as you think.
That can actually work, but the energy comes from a velocity differential between the wind and surface rather than magically excessive drag mitigation. For going downwind, you have to switch to letting the wheels power the fans.
There is a very good reason for a ban. It will obviously fail to prevent development and manufacture. What a ban would realistically prevent is tactical deployment against a lesser than existential threat.
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
-John Adams
I am not sure it really means what you were going for though.
There are also employers who are actively looking for a defendable reason why they should instead hire some comparably qualified oppressed minority, or bring in someone from overseas.
That last sentence that you quoted was certainly improperly worded on my part. I meant that a gun aids in deterring intervention and stopping those who intervene, which is the point of most of your reply and was not meant to trivialize anyone's sacrifice.
My point was that this is event in particular, even with 9 adults and 18 children, when compared to typical mass shootings among peers, had an outcome that was less facilitated by firearms than those other massacres. I did not say that it wasn't a factor, just that it was not appropriate to flag this event as being the one in particular that finally highlights the stupidity of U.S. gun practices.
Focusing on the guns instead of the whole event makes it sound as if there was a guy who sincerely wanted to murder his mother and a bunch of children, did not care about the consequences, and everything was just fine until he found a gun.
And this one is a neon sign two stories high flashing "IT'S THE GUNS!"
Why? It was a grown man in a room with few small exits filled with small children. Anything from history that has ever been called a weapon, baseball bats included, would have resulted in comparable devastation. A gun is just a convenience. Someone with the desire to murder a roomful of children and complete personal removal from the consequences is the problem.
I will concede that the gun may have aided in deterring and stopping other adults from intervening, but that is less significant in this case than in any other mass shooting that I have heard of, considering the high ratio of potential victims to people physically comparable to the shooter.
To call out this one in particular as the event that screams "IT'S THE GUNS" blatantly disregards the more substantial problems.
I am still early on my first child, a daughter, but I wouldn't think a baby boy would be any worse on that front. When my daughter pees at the wrong time during a change, she pees all over herself, every time. I have tile floors and a Swiffer. Peeing nearby would certainly be an improvement.
Replace "economic" with "academic" and water down the list of indefensible practices; you have our modern college admission policies, and the same people furious over studies like these advocate the hell out of practices like that.
It makes much more sense, and is perfectly compatible with the rest of the plot, if you replace his period of muteness with a delay to learn the language. I have a suspicion this is what was originally intended but they did not want subtitles on the whole film.
The lower reciever, for the AR-15, is the only part that bears the serial number. It is "the gun" as far as regulation is concerned. All other parts can be legally purchased anonymously . That is why this is significant.
One of the two who subdued the Tucson shooter was armed, but correctly judged it unnecessary to use his weapon when he got close to the shooter. Simply being armed though, probably played a big role in deciding whether to move toward or away from the sound of spontaneous gunfire. Six were killed.
Most gun massacres in the U.S., such as at Virginia Tech (where 33 were killed) happen in areas where citizens are not legally permitted to be armed. I think that is the point: you can't play god when you are walking among peers.
It benefits everyone for your neighbor's children to grow up to be useful people. Until our society becomes comfortable with people starving to death in the streets, it is much cheaper to educate a child than sustain a useless adult with public resources.
Even if we get comfortable with people starving in the street, they are not just going to starve to death peacefully. Desperate people are understandably capable of committing all sorts of nastiness to preserve their lives, and then you have to pay to incarcerate them.
It's a bit hyperbolic, but the point is that your life is significantly better because you have educated civilized neighbors, and it is not too absurd to expect you to help pay for it.
It seems that a significant portion of people who actually vote see no value in any education...
It is probably meant as a joke but it is still a good point. Educated people wield power disproportionately in other ways though. Wouldn't you prefer, for example, that engineers for the defense industry have a solid understanding of contemporary history, regardless of whether or not they are sufficiently interested or motivated to study it on their own time?
What is the quote from Jurrassic Park about being too concerned with whether or not you could to stop and think about whether or not you should?
As a scientific programmer, I find it amazing that any significant portion of people in serious IT place no value on math higher than and including trigonometry. Is this actually the case?
And as a citizen in a democracy, I find it amazing and frightening that a significant portion of people who actually vote see no value in general education courses. When I was a kid in the 90's, we used to call someone a "tool" as an insult.
I could certainly stand to lose a bit of the snarkiness; I am about to start a job among engineers. You should probably review basic circuits though, because you are still misunderstanding something:
If you have a 12V battery, and a 12V bulb in series, you have a simple series circuit that works; but adding 3 more bulbs of the same type in parallel won't work (contrary to what the text taught) because now each of the four loads (bulbs) are only seeing 3 volts.
Parallel components have the same voltage difference applied across them. Adding a bulb to another in parallel will not affect the brightness of the original bulb (as long as the current is still low enough to consider the battery ideal). Both bulbs are as bright as the original bulb, and the battery is supplying to each branch the current it supplied to the original lone bulb. Adding 3 bulbs in parallel just adds additional bulbs that draw the same power as the original, and increases the total current (and power) drawn from the battery by 300%.
Adding the bulbs in series does what you describe. Perhaps that is what you are miscommunicating.
I only call this out because you criticize "teach the test" type education, which I do as well for good reason, but then you ironically illustrate one of the largest failures of this type of education. It breeds people who are very confident in an only partial understanding. To stick to my earlier example, it creates the sort of students who might take a lot of pride in correcting you about the start date of the civil war without even knowing what events started it.
Series and parallel circuits are very different, but there are superficial symmetries between the currents of one and the voltage drops of the other, and people often use these to remember the phenomenological behavior. It's the easiest way for most people to get a B on the relevant test. Doing it that way is not understanding; it is rote memorization, and can leave people susceptible to confusing two things that are very different.
I've seen errors in their fancy new books, like teaching that putting a circuit in parallel instead of series increases power, which flat out violates Ohm's law, not to mention several others.
Uh, if you are building a circuit with two resistors and a battery, putting the resistors in parallel does increase the total power dissipated on the circuit. The total effective resistance is less, therefore the current drawn from the battery is higher, and since the battery's voltage will stay relatively constant, more total power is dissipated. This all follows from Ohm's law.
Perhaps you misspoke; your language certainly lacks the precision of someone who has actually worked with circuits. If that is the case though, it is just as likely that you misinterpreted what the book was trying to say.
The problem with modern education is that students memorize a collection of effectively disjoint dry facts that is appropriate for a given multiple choice test, and don't actually learn anything. It's something you may have fallen victim to yourself. Do you really understand the dynamics of current in electrical circuits, or did you see something that you thought contradicted an isolated fact you were once told?
When I teach physics I routinely overhear students talking about how "different" physics is from other classes, because there are not usually well defined directions to follow and it requires more intuitive understanding than they are accustomed to. That probably wouldn't be the case if their history classes had them writing essays about the motivations for the American civil war rather than identifying the start and end dates on a time-line.
If you are Black or Hispanic, this is a static property of your biology. It will never change. If you are religious, odds are that you inherited it from your parents, but it is still a choice. Not necessarily an easy one if it stems from childhood indoctrination, but it is still a choice, and therefore it's socially acceptable to make fun of it.
It's the same mechanism by which people who choose to be religious justify hating homosexuals.
It isn't genetics...at least that is not the mechanism. It's indoctrination. It's being told from the time that you could first parse language that there are infinitely bad consequences for questioning certain things.
It might take a kid five or six years to overcome the virtual threat of no Christmas presents if they do not believe, and acknowledge that Santa Claus is an unreasonable concept that had been passed to them as truth their entire life. Many adults never overcome the virtual threat of eternity in hell.
This is a problem with any vaguely democracy-like system. Your children are going to be biased towards your believes, so that with a larger family, your political influence is ultimately propagated across more votes. Your actual power in a democracy, assuming you do not hold office, is correlated with the number of children you have. Therefore, your capability to influence the nation is negatively correlated with your educational level and positively correlated with your religiosity.
Democratic governments have to be biased towards the politics of those who breed like rabbits.
Slashdot Mirror
It echoes an AC post, but I live in Tucson, and in the neighborhoods where you find dollar stores, you will almost certainly have a "carniceria" nearby for cheap perishables. Market forces already settle this. Plus, wanting to feed a large family efficiently with bulk goods, and wanting to purchase unprocessed healthier foods are not really disjoint pursuits.
Again, it is just a bad example. I am a physicist, and the turbines on a car misconception is one of those exceptions that is actually viable for certain conditions, which may be why some people intuitively cling to it.
Consider a car at rest pointing into the wind. The fans generate power while no work is done by the wheels and nothing is lost to drag. Obviously some forward motion is possible before things come to equilibrium. Working it out, that equilibrium happens at a bit faster than the windspeed.
So it won't work on a highway commute (and would in fact be detrimental) but it isn't a totally wrong direction for casual intuition to take you. Sailboats sail into the wind, using the wind speed differential as power in an analogous way.
I had one of these friends too. It's not the best example to use though, because he is stupid but not as wrong as you think.
That can actually work, but the energy comes from a velocity differential between the wind and surface rather than magically excessive drag mitigation. For going downwind, you have to switch to letting the wheels power the fans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
There is a very good reason for a ban. It will obviously fail to prevent development and manufacture. What a ban would realistically prevent is tactical deployment against a lesser than existential threat.
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
-John Adams
I am not sure it really means what you were going for though.
There are also employers who are actively looking for a defendable reason why they should instead hire some comparably qualified oppressed minority, or bring in someone from overseas.
That last sentence that you quoted was certainly improperly worded on my part. I meant that a gun aids in deterring intervention and stopping those who intervene, which is the point of most of your reply and was not meant to trivialize anyone's sacrifice.
My point was that this is event in particular, even with 9 adults and 18 children, when compared to typical mass shootings among peers, had an outcome that was less facilitated by firearms than those other massacres. I did not say that it wasn't a factor, just that it was not appropriate to flag this event as being the one in particular that finally highlights the stupidity of U.S. gun practices.
Focusing on the guns instead of the whole event makes it sound as if there was a guy who sincerely wanted to murder his mother and a bunch of children, did not care about the consequences, and everything was just fine until he found a gun.
And this one is a neon sign two stories high flashing "IT'S THE GUNS!"
Why? It was a grown man in a room with few small exits filled with small children. Anything from history that has ever been called a weapon, baseball bats included, would have resulted in comparable devastation. A gun is just a convenience. Someone with the desire to murder a roomful of children and complete personal removal from the consequences is the problem.
I will concede that the gun may have aided in deterring and stopping other adults from intervening, but that is less significant in this case than in any other mass shooting that I have heard of, considering the high ratio of potential victims to people physically comparable to the shooter.
To call out this one in particular as the event that screams "IT'S THE GUNS" blatantly disregards the more substantial problems.
I am still early on my first child, a daughter, but I wouldn't think a baby boy would be any worse on that front. When my daughter pees at the wrong time during a change, she pees all over herself, every time. I have tile floors and a Swiffer. Peeing nearby would certainly be an improvement.
Replace "economic" with "academic" and water down the list of indefensible practices; you have our modern college admission policies, and the same people furious over studies like these advocate the hell out of practices like that.
It probably also depends on his blood type.
It makes much more sense, and is perfectly compatible with the rest of the plot, if you replace his period of muteness with a delay to learn the language. I have a suspicion this is what was originally intended but they did not want subtitles on the whole film.
Have you seen "Hancock"? It's not too far from what you describe.
The lower reciever, for the AR-15, is the only part that bears the serial number. It is "the gun" as far as regulation is concerned. All other parts can be legally purchased anonymously . That is why this is significant.
One of the two who subdued the Tucson shooter was armed, but correctly judged it unnecessary to use his weapon when he got close to the shooter. Simply being armed though, probably played a big role in deciding whether to move toward or away from the sound of spontaneous gunfire. Six were killed.
Most gun massacres in the U.S., such as at Virginia Tech (where 33 were killed) happen in areas where citizens are not legally permitted to be armed. I think that is the point: you can't play god when you are walking among peers.
It benefits everyone for your neighbor's children to grow up to be useful people. Until our society becomes comfortable with people starving to death in the streets, it is much cheaper to educate a child than sustain a useless adult with public resources.
Even if we get comfortable with people starving in the street, they are not just going to starve to death peacefully. Desperate people are understandably capable of committing all sorts of nastiness to preserve their lives, and then you have to pay to incarcerate them.
It's a bit hyperbolic, but the point is that your life is significantly better because you have educated civilized neighbors, and it is not too absurd to expect you to help pay for it.
Have you been following the news lately?
It seems that a significant portion of people who actually vote see no value in any education...
It is probably meant as a joke but it is still a good point. Educated people wield power disproportionately in other ways though. Wouldn't you prefer, for example, that engineers for the defense industry have a solid understanding of contemporary history, regardless of whether or not they are sufficiently interested or motivated to study it on their own time?
What is the quote from Jurrassic Park about being too concerned with whether or not you could to stop and think about whether or not you should?
As a scientific programmer, I find it amazing that any significant portion of people in serious IT place no value on math higher than and including trigonometry. Is this actually the case?
And as a citizen in a democracy, I find it amazing and frightening that a significant portion of people who actually vote see no value in general education courses. When I was a kid in the 90's, we used to call someone a "tool" as an insult.
I could certainly stand to lose a bit of the snarkiness; I am about to start a job among engineers. You should probably review basic circuits though, because you are still misunderstanding something:
If you have a 12V battery, and a 12V bulb in series, you have a simple series circuit that works; but adding 3 more bulbs of the same type in parallel won't work (contrary to what the text taught) because now each of the four loads (bulbs) are only seeing 3 volts.
Parallel components have the same voltage difference applied across them. Adding a bulb to another in parallel will not affect the brightness of the original bulb (as long as the current is still low enough to consider the battery ideal). Both bulbs are as bright as the original bulb, and the battery is supplying to each branch the current it supplied to the original lone bulb. Adding 3 bulbs in parallel just adds additional bulbs that draw the same power as the original, and increases the total current (and power) drawn from the battery by 300%.
Adding the bulbs in series does what you describe. Perhaps that is what you are miscommunicating.
I checked through the first couple of google results until I found a good reference for you. Everything here is correct.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circuits/u9l4b.cfm
I only call this out because you criticize "teach the test" type education, which I do as well for good reason, but then you ironically illustrate one of the largest failures of this type of education. It breeds people who are very confident in an only partial understanding. To stick to my earlier example, it creates the sort of students who might take a lot of pride in correcting you about the start date of the civil war without even knowing what events started it.
Series and parallel circuits are very different, but there are superficial symmetries between the currents of one and the voltage drops of the other, and people often use these to remember the phenomenological behavior. It's the easiest way for most people to get a B on the relevant test. Doing it that way is not understanding; it is rote memorization, and can leave people susceptible to confusing two things that are very different.
I've seen errors in their fancy new books, like teaching that putting a circuit in parallel instead of series increases power, which flat out violates Ohm's law, not to mention several others.
Uh, if you are building a circuit with two resistors and a battery, putting the resistors in parallel does increase the total power dissipated on the circuit. The total effective resistance is less, therefore the current drawn from the battery is higher, and since the battery's voltage will stay relatively constant, more total power is dissipated. This all follows from Ohm's law.
Perhaps you misspoke; your language certainly lacks the precision of someone who has actually worked with circuits. If that is the case though, it is just as likely that you misinterpreted what the book was trying to say.
The problem with modern education is that students memorize a collection of effectively disjoint dry facts that is appropriate for a given multiple choice test, and don't actually learn anything. It's something you may have fallen victim to yourself. Do you really understand the dynamics of current in electrical circuits, or did you see something that you thought contradicted an isolated fact you were once told?
When I teach physics I routinely overhear students talking about how "different" physics is from other classes, because there are not usually well defined directions to follow and it requires more intuitive understanding than they are accustomed to. That probably wouldn't be the case if their history classes had them writing essays about the motivations for the American civil war rather than identifying the start and end dates on a time-line.
There are already recorded instances of natural parrots communicating these things. Look up Alex the grey parrot.
If you are Black or Hispanic, this is a static property of your biology. It will never change. If you are religious, odds are that you inherited it from your parents, but it is still a choice. Not necessarily an easy one if it stems from childhood indoctrination, but it is still a choice, and therefore it's socially acceptable to make fun of it.
It's the same mechanism by which people who choose to be religious justify hating homosexuals.
It isn't genetics...at least that is not the mechanism. It's indoctrination. It's being told from the time that you could first parse language that there are infinitely bad consequences for questioning certain things.
Here is a relevant post from the past: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2738993&cid=39431381
It might take a kid five or six years to overcome the virtual threat of no Christmas presents if they do not believe, and acknowledge that Santa Claus is an unreasonable concept that had been passed to them as truth their entire life. Many adults never overcome the virtual threat of eternity in hell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism
This is a problem with any vaguely democracy-like system. Your children are going to be biased towards your believes, so that with a larger family, your political influence is ultimately propagated across more votes. Your actual power in a democracy, assuming you do not hold office, is correlated with the number of children you have. Therefore, your capability to influence the nation is negatively correlated with your educational level and positively correlated with your religiosity.
Democratic governments have to be biased towards the politics of those who breed like rabbits.
Actually, it sounds a lot like the cost of a college education after about 18 years. I guess people have their priorities though.