While he is certainly known for not breaking his consistency to please voters, I have always been curious how many of his official stances on topics like abortion are and always have been essentially mandated by his job as a politician representing Texans.
To be fair, I don't think you would find many students who are frustrated by additional interactivity, but it can certainly hinder them.
My experience teaching physics implies that this can be a terrible thing. Even having answers in the back of the book is devastating. When students get instant feedback, especially when an intermediate mistake goes without consequence, they do not bother understanding anything, but are happy as long as they can "do" it. They will engage in trial and error until they get the right answer, and then feel that they learned something. In the absence of instant feedback, if a student does not know what to do next, they would be forced to recognize that they do not understand the problem, they would spend some more time with the materials, and they would continue when they could do so confidently.
With instant feedback, students just try the first thing that comes into their head. Often, it is correct just because the student had seen a similar example somewhere and blindly applied a procedure they did not understand. Why not? There is no consequence if it is wrong, and it saves you the trouble of serious study. Without these mechanisms, the student would more heavily weigh their confidence in their understanding, regurgitating a similar example would more likely fall below the threshold, and they would probably develop their understanding further.
I think that would be better served by arguments with peers. A teacher is an authority figure, and when they disagree with a child, there is an implication (if not an explicit assertion) that the child is wrong. If a teacher is going to teach evolution as a "theory" (quotes indicate the colloquial usage), they are not likely to acknowledge the validity or strengths of a student's argument. This is not a good environment in which to learn critical thinking.
A good conclusion to my second paragraph would have been that the idea of being wrong about my imaginary zombie friend was literally inconceivable, in that there were actually psychological mechanisms that prevented the formulation of that complete thought.
Arguing with someone who chooses to disregard science is not a skill indicative of scientific aptitude. You can apply all of the logic and evidence with the best imaginable skill, but it still doesn't work when the teacher dismisses all of the evidence as a ruse by Satan, and finds no logical fault in an omnipotent and heavy-handed God whose existence is impossible to verify. You can't argue science with these people until after you convince them that they are crazy.
My entire family is crazy. I was raised as a southern baptist, and seriously indoctrinated. I can still remember when I was twelve and I was overwhelmed in guilt every single time the idea that this was all bullshit even entered into the back of my mind. At that time, such thoughts never came forward for serious evaluation. The only thing bearable was just to go along with it, never questioning anything, not even to yourself, under penalty of extreme psychological discomfort. Any debates over the issue were accompanied by unbearable guilt for even tolerating an internal acknowledgment that the other person might have a point.
There's no healthy arguing with people like that. I am not quite sure how I got over that and turned out to be physicist.
I think you missed my point. If they detected some contraband in the air as you whizzed through the checkpoint and subsequently pulled you over and subjected you to increased scrutiny, I would not have much of an objection. They stop, inconvenience, hassle, and attempt intimidation indiscriminately, i.e.WITH NO REASONABLE CAUSE. I didn't say anything about a warrant.
Cops can't ask you for your papers on the street without cause, but you would probably argue that they can take a picture of your face with a smart phone and detain you "for a reasonable amount of time" while the picture is uploaded and checked against their databases to their heart's content, all without violating your rights.
I probably shouldn't have responded anyway. The name, the sig, the senseless insults, and the attitude all scream troll.
I have said something similar already, but it is not like the dog is sniffing your parked car while you are at a store. They stop you and detain you (though briefly) in order to let the dog sniff your car. They are hassling and inconveniencing you in order to acquire evidence against you. That is exactly what the fourth amendment is meant to prohibit.
It is not a strictly passive search. They stop you for several minutes while a dog circles your car five or six times and four agents peer through all of your windows. Then the dog allegedly signals, and they assert that they now have probable cause to perform a search. I live in Tucson and drive through these damn things all the time. The first part happens to me about 15% of the time, though the dog has only signaled once. There has never been any pot in that truck in the four years that I have owned it.
This can be done passively by building a Faraday cage into the walls of the theater. You would almost have to do that anyway to containing the jamming signal. The only reasons for active jamming are subversive or oppressive.
In the context of physics, 'rate' on its own almost always means 'first time derivative.' Also, a constant acceleration implies quadratic growth. The irony in the GP is that, of the the many interpretations of rate, he fixes on one that is inapplicable in the current context and can only be considered correct through the abuse of semantics, while accusing others of being unable to apply their own knowledge.
We can probably debate the meaning of the word 'irony' now.
Ah, we didn't have that one. We also had no math requirement senior year, but that was not the world's best school district. That is an easy question for google though, so perhaps I should have checked that before posting.
A quantity that grows at a constant rate grows linearly. A quantity that grows at a rate proportional to its value (which is necessarily not constant, unless it is zero) grows exponentially. What you describe is something like x-dot = c, which is linear growth. Something like x-dot= c x is exponential. (if you are familiar with the symbols from calculus). I wouldn't go as a far as calling you a "stupid fuck", but what you are saying about constant rates is incorrect.
Maybe, but not in the first 30. Ten years ago there were two classes that qualified as AP math at my school, and they were meant to be equivalent to Calc I and II in college. Perhaps he is confusing the common course "college algebra," taken by those that do not go the calculus route, as an AP class.
Why should you tip that much for a bottle or even draft beer? Do you also tip for a cup of drip coffee? Save the tips for something that requires time, effort, or skill and isn't something you could do yourself in four seconds if there weren't a counter in the way. I'll tip if I get a bloody-mary or my wife demands some sort of blended mocha thing.
You missed his point about the opening. It equalizes the internal air pressure to the water pressure at the bottom of the structure. There is still a relatively small pressure differential due to the varying water pressure along the height of the structure. The ceiling would have to tolerate expansive forces. Since the water pressure is linear with the depth though, the effect would be a property of the structure itself, not dependent on the depth at which the structure was placed.
It is true that you need a minimum critical mass to initiate the chain reaction, but no law guarantees that all of that material has to fission before the device blows itself apart, into a several sub-critical pieces.
I don't reveal it anymore. I have learned the hard way that, in Tucson, when you get stopped around midnight for a wide left turn sobriety check, and you let the cop know that you are armed, you get ticketed for the wide turn. Declaring it is thankfully voluntary in AZ.
Not quite. Where was the sensor located? The front fender would have decelerated much, much, faster than anything in the cabin, behind the crumple zone. The acceleration of a component/occupant is roughly inversely proportional to the distance it travels after impact. The cabin might get three feet closer to the object of the collision, but something mounted far forward of the firewall might move inches.
Glowing is indicative only of temperature; no combustion is necessary. Look up Planck's Law. Red-hot steel is not undergoing combustion as it is being worked.
Slashdot Mirror
While he is certainly known for not breaking his consistency to please voters, I have always been curious how many of his official stances on topics like abortion are and always have been essentially mandated by his job as a politician representing Texans.
To be fair, I don't think you would find many students who are frustrated by additional interactivity, but it can certainly hinder them.
My experience teaching physics implies that this can be a terrible thing. Even having answers in the back of the book is devastating. When students get instant feedback, especially when an intermediate mistake goes without consequence, they do not bother understanding anything, but are happy as long as they can "do" it. They will engage in trial and error until they get the right answer, and then feel that they learned something. In the absence of instant feedback, if a student does not know what to do next, they would be forced to recognize that they do not understand the problem, they would spend some more time with the materials, and they would continue when they could do so confidently.
With instant feedback, students just try the first thing that comes into their head. Often, it is correct just because the student had seen a similar example somewhere and blindly applied a procedure they did not understand. Why not? There is no consequence if it is wrong, and it saves you the trouble of serious study. Without these mechanisms, the student would more heavily weigh their confidence in their understanding, regurgitating a similar example would more likely fall below the threshold, and they would probably develop their understanding further.
Because natural selection chose attributes that increased the chances of survival.
You should be especially careful to avoid anthropomorphizing the physical processes in these sorts of discussions.
I think that would be better served by arguments with peers. A teacher is an authority figure, and when they disagree with a child, there is an implication (if not an explicit assertion) that the child is wrong. If a teacher is going to teach evolution as a "theory" (quotes indicate the colloquial usage), they are not likely to acknowledge the validity or strengths of a student's argument. This is not a good environment in which to learn critical thinking.
A good conclusion to my second paragraph would have been that the idea of being wrong about my imaginary zombie friend was literally inconceivable, in that there were actually psychological mechanisms that prevented the formulation of that complete thought.
(Didn't mean to post as AC)
Arguing with someone who chooses to disregard science is not a skill indicative of scientific aptitude. You can apply all of the logic and evidence with the best imaginable skill, but it still doesn't work when the teacher dismisses all of the evidence as a ruse by Satan, and finds no logical fault in an omnipotent and heavy-handed God whose existence is impossible to verify. You can't argue science with these people until after you convince them that they are crazy.
My entire family is crazy. I was raised as a southern baptist, and seriously indoctrinated. I can still remember when I was twelve and I was overwhelmed in guilt every single time the idea that this was all bullshit even entered into the back of my mind. At that time, such thoughts never came forward for serious evaluation. The only thing bearable was just to go along with it, never questioning anything, not even to yourself, under penalty of extreme psychological discomfort. Any debates over the issue were accompanied by unbearable guilt for even tolerating an internal acknowledgment that the other person might have a point.
There's no healthy arguing with people like that. I am not quite sure how I got over that and turned out to be physicist.
I think you missed my point. If they detected some contraband in the air as you whizzed through the checkpoint and subsequently pulled you over and subjected you to increased scrutiny, I would not have much of an objection. They stop, inconvenience, hassle, and attempt intimidation indiscriminately, i.e.WITH NO REASONABLE CAUSE. I didn't say anything about a warrant.
Cops can't ask you for your papers on the street without cause, but you would probably argue that they can take a picture of your face with a smart phone and detain you "for a reasonable amount of time" while the picture is uploaded and checked against their databases to their heart's content, all without violating your rights.
I probably shouldn't have responded anyway. The name, the sig, the senseless insults, and the attitude all scream troll.
*in order to acquire evidence against you when there was no previous suspicion of wrongdoing.
I have said something similar already, but it is not like the dog is sniffing your parked car while you are at a store. They stop you and detain you (though briefly) in order to let the dog sniff your car. They are hassling and inconveniencing you in order to acquire evidence against you. That is exactly what the fourth amendment is meant to prohibit.
It is not a strictly passive search. They stop you for several minutes while a dog circles your car five or six times and four agents peer through all of your windows. Then the dog allegedly signals, and they assert that they now have probable cause to perform a search. I live in Tucson and drive through these damn things all the time. The first part happens to me about 15% of the time, though the dog has only signaled once. There has never been any pot in that truck in the four years that I have owned it.
This can be done passively by building a Faraday cage into the walls of the theater. You would almost have to do that anyway to containing the jamming signal. The only reasons for active jamming are subversive or oppressive.
In the context of physics, 'rate' on its own almost always means 'first time derivative.' Also, a constant acceleration implies quadratic growth. The irony in the GP is that, of the the many interpretations of rate, he fixes on one that is inapplicable in the current context and can only be considered correct through the abuse of semantics, while accusing others of being unable to apply their own knowledge.
We can probably debate the meaning of the word 'irony' now.
Ah, we didn't have that one. We also had no math requirement senior year, but that was not the world's best school district. That is an easy question for google though, so perhaps I should have checked that before posting.
A quantity that grows at a constant rate grows linearly. A quantity that grows at a rate proportional to its value (which is necessarily not constant, unless it is zero) grows exponentially. What you describe is something like x-dot = c, which is linear growth. Something like x-dot= c x is exponential. (if you are familiar with the symbols from calculus). I wouldn't go as a far as calling you a "stupid fuck", but what you are saying about constant rates is incorrect.
Perhaps that's changed in the last 40 years.
Maybe, but not in the first 30. Ten years ago there were two classes that qualified as AP math at my school, and they were meant to be equivalent to Calc I and II in college. Perhaps he is confusing the common course "college algebra," taken by those that do not go the calculus route, as an AP class.
Why should you tip that much for a bottle or even draft beer? Do you also tip for a cup of drip coffee? Save the tips for something that requires time, effort, or skill and isn't something you could do yourself in four seconds if there weren't a counter in the way. I'll tip if I get a bloody-mary or my wife demands some sort of blended mocha thing.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c65_1291178670
They may think that you are trying to distract them, and suspect you of aiding terrorism. You don't even get a trial for that anymore.
LMGTFY: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/what-are-carbon-credits
You missed his point about the opening. It equalizes the internal air pressure to the water pressure at the bottom of the structure. There is still a relatively small pressure differential due to the varying water pressure along the height of the structure. The ceiling would have to tolerate expansive forces. Since the water pressure is linear with the depth though, the effect would be a property of the structure itself, not dependent on the depth at which the structure was placed.
It is true that you need a minimum critical mass to initiate the chain reaction, but no law guarantees that all of that material has to fission before the device blows itself apart, into a several sub-critical pieces.
I don't reveal it anymore. I have learned the hard way that, in Tucson, when you get stopped around midnight for a wide left turn sobriety check, and you let the cop know that you are armed, you get ticketed for the wide turn. Declaring it is thankfully voluntary in AZ.
If having stored equations on a calculator made that much difference on a physics exam, your instructor was doing it wrong.
Being able to go to court isn't even a guarantee anymore.
Not quite. Where was the sensor located? The front fender would have decelerated much, much, faster than anything in the cabin, behind the crumple zone. The acceleration of a component/occupant is roughly inversely proportional to the distance it travels after impact. The cabin might get three feet closer to the object of the collision, but something mounted far forward of the firewall might move inches.
Glowing is indicative only of temperature; no combustion is necessary. Look up Planck's Law. Red-hot steel is not undergoing combustion as it is being worked.