I'm fairly certain that isotopes of carbon with those masses is impossible unless this comet also contains some neat subatomic particles with anti-mass as well.
The original article has it correct with the 2 and 3 as subscripts. Leave isotopic notation to isotopes.
How do you propose science does that, exactly? Do you know what science is or how it works? Were you "educated" in Louisiana?
I'd love to hear your ideas on how to scientifically test something you can't measure. Even better, tell me how science should pursue the unexplainable since, by definition, it's unexplainable (according to you).
Once upon a time people couldn't explain why or how illnesses were passed on, but science came up with the germ theory of disease. Would you prefer that we just continued to think of it as unexplainable or attribute it to demons and hating Jesus?
Right. Your use of the word "PROVEN" shows how little you actually know about science.
I'd love to teach creationism in the science classroom as a way of demonstrating the scientific method. I think it would be wonderful to try to come up with a valid, testable hypothesis with respect to creationism. Maybe I'll teach it that way next year.
Like those undiscovered millions stuffed in my pillows. If I can use simple conjecture to prove they exist and list them as real then surely I can buy a house with my pillows.
Like any other educational tool a computer is what you make of it. I teach mainly computer oriented classes such as Computer Science and Webmastering, but I've also taught several science classes and special education classes as well.
In each one of those classroom environments there was a time and a lesson that was better delivered using computers and technology than with any traditional methods. Of course the technology oriented classes are taught in labs and the need for computers in that environment should be obvious, but there are times that I don't even allow the kids to use them. I have found that, at times, it helps the design and reasoning out process if they don't just sit down and begin trying to work. It's all about how you use them.
Now for the bad news. A computer in every classroom is one of my school's main ideologies, but few teachers know how to correctly utilize them in an educational environment. They are wonderful for interactive science demonstrations that couldn't be done in a lab due to safety or cost issues. They are good for illustrating some difficult concepts in math. They are good for interactive geography lessons. They are a good tool for almost any subject you can think of.
The problem is many educators and administrators want to use them as a replacement for tried and true educational practices. They should be a supplement, not a replacement. I've seen too many otherwise fine educators turn into incompetent ones by placing kids in front of a computer and using it to baby-sit and placate.
Hopefully this will get better in the future as more and more technologically savvy teachers enter the profession. The answer is not to get rid of the computers, but to better train teachers in how to use them as effective tools.
Slashdot Mirror
I fully understand that, but they still use subscripts to denote number of atoms in a compound, not hyphens. Those conventions do not vary.
I'm fairly certain that isotopes of carbon with those masses is impossible unless this comet also contains some neat subatomic particles with anti-mass as well.
The original article has it correct with the 2 and 3 as subscripts. Leave isotopic notation to isotopes.
How do you propose science does that, exactly? Do you know what science is or how it works? Were you "educated" in Louisiana?
I'd love to hear your ideas on how to scientifically test something you can't measure. Even better, tell me how science should pursue the unexplainable since, by definition, it's unexplainable (according to you).
Once upon a time people couldn't explain why or how illnesses were passed on, but science came up with the germ theory of disease. Would you prefer that we just continued to think of it as unexplainable or attribute it to demons and hating Jesus?
You need to read The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. Oh, and I like the way you start with a conclusion and work backwards. It's cute.
Right. Your use of the word "PROVEN" shows how little you actually know about science.
I'd love to teach creationism in the science classroom as a way of demonstrating the scientific method. I think it would be wonderful to try to come up with a valid, testable hypothesis with respect to creationism. Maybe I'll teach it that way next year.
Like those undiscovered millions stuffed in my pillows. If I can use simple conjecture to prove they exist and list them as real then surely I can buy a house with my pillows.
In each one of those classroom environments there was a time and a lesson that was better delivered using computers and technology than with any traditional methods. Of course the technology oriented classes are taught in labs and the need for computers in that environment should be obvious, but there are times that I don't even allow the kids to use them. I have found that, at times, it helps the design and reasoning out process if they don't just sit down and begin trying to work. It's all about how you use them.
Now for the bad news. A computer in every classroom is one of my school's main ideologies, but few teachers know how to correctly utilize them in an educational environment. They are wonderful for interactive science demonstrations that couldn't be done in a lab due to safety or cost issues. They are good for illustrating some difficult concepts in math. They are good for interactive geography lessons. They are a good tool for almost any subject you can think of.
The problem is many educators and administrators want to use them as a replacement for tried and true educational practices. They should be a supplement, not a replacement. I've seen too many otherwise fine educators turn into incompetent ones by placing kids in front of a computer and using it to baby-sit and placate.
Hopefully this will get better in the future as more and more technologically savvy teachers enter the profession. The answer is not to get rid of the computers, but to better train teachers in how to use them as effective tools.