You're right. However, I must say that as a public school math teacher I chafe a little at the "inside public schools" comment, only because most of us inside really, really want to change, but it's mostly not inside factors stopping us, but outside influences (things like the math wars in the 1990s).
I have a colleague here who is a veteran top-notch math teacher who did his masters thesis on gender segregating his 5-7th grade math classes at a prestigious secular private school. Not only did the attitudes and engagement of the female student improve, but the male students also showed higher satisfaction and achievement.
The people who didn't like it? The parents. After the study concluded they couldn't keep doing it because parents fought to keep them from segregating the classrooms, facts be damned
I loved hypercard, and am sad that it is gone, especially as an educator. It's sad that most student's interaction with computers these days is web surfing, word and powerpoint. Some people have mentioned the failures of hypercard like software, and I don't think that's fair. When I tried supercard it felt like it was trying to clone hypercard... just as it was years ago, not accounting for advancements in the world.
The thing that feels most like hypercard to me today is game development engines, like Unity3D. Basing navigation around hyperlinking is downplayed (as it is everywhere these days) but the idea that you can have graphic and text elements, in 2D or 3D, and then interactions facilitated through simple scripting (use javascript, C# or Boo) makes it feel like the spiritual successor to hypercard. NASA has done some awesome stuff using Unity. I think Unity might be missing out by calling it a game engine--it can do much more.
Researchers have known for years that there are certain windows of brain development where learning is best supported, and how other activities aren't so helpful. Language acquisition and music have their sweet spot right around 3-6 years of age. It is likely that the skills that using tech best supports are much later in the development of childrens' minds (like logic, problem solving). It shouldn't be surprising that early childhood subjects only use tech as entertainment, and learn little from it. But children, of age 10 or so, can benefit greatly from having exposure to tech in an interactive manner. This is supported by places like Finland, where they don't teach "hard" subjects or tech in early childhood, but rather stress movement, creative play and social interaction at school, leaving other subjects for when they are most appropriate.
Recent work and research seems to indicate that, no, it's not just an issue of thermodynamics through caloric content. Unfortunately, many of the top proponents and researchers are of the sensationalist and inflammatory type. (Like the UCSF dude who proclaims "Sugar is Poison!". 95% of the science and research is exactly correct, and very well done, but I just wish he would shut up because I think he hurts his own cause.)
Think of it this way-- you know what has lots of calories? Petrol. Will drinking hydrocarbons make you fat? So who cares if a burning doughnut changes water temperature the same amount as a crunchy shrimp roll (both around 500 kcal)? Eating each will have a different impact on metabolic reaction, and energy storage.
It's odd... I opt out and when I do the TSA employees are very, very helpful and friendly. I know that they have a strict script to stick to, but I also get the impression that they are not all that happy about the exposure risk, and are happy when others recognize the risks as well.
Re:The big problem was VTOL
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
One thing complicating this is BRAC. There are F-16 wings that are maneuvering to try to get F-15s right now, even though the 15 is older and more difficult to maintain. What the 15 gives a wing is more flexibility. No one wants to be "air superiority and patrol" anymore since there isn't much need for that these days. And since 16s are limited in ground support capabilities, some people see the 15 as the only way to stay in business. Note that this isn't as much of a concern for the regular air force, who will mostly just shuffle people around, but has a massive effect on the air national guard.
So having a single jet that can do it all (ground attack, air attack, stealth, vtol, carrier, you name it) means that you won't be considered obsolete.
The Dept. of Ed typically runs and coordinates special programs, and the funding for them. They are called by their Title # relating to what part of the policy they are under. Like Title 1, better known as No Child Left Behind these days, which is tied to funding for schools with significant low SES students. (Little known: if you don't take title 1 money, then you can tell the feds and the state to fuck off as far as the penalties for not meeting the requirements. Not done often, but I was at a site where we made the choice to refuse the money). There are other decidedly less sexy titles as well. The reality is that most public school do not take much money from the feds, the money they do take usually has restrictions, and often there is some ideological influence that the feds are trying to influence (see NCLB, abstinence only sex ed, etc.).
This is misleading. The library keeps records of what you currently have checked out. My public and school libraries do not keep a record of what I have checked out in the past. Your library may differ, but the ALA officially vigorously defends individuals right to intellectual freedom, and that includes not tracking reading history.
No. Very different situations. The foldit players leveraged persistence and human pattern recognition for a solution to a relatively recent problem. Dr. Wiles aside (I jest...), 150 year old prominent open problems require more than persistence and ambition.
That's part of a report that is available to ALA members, but here's a more useful, but not comprehensive, guide with much of the info you would be interested in.
Robots, due to the initial investment, may not turn out to be as cost effective as imagined. When Toyota opened their first plant in Japan in the last 18 years, they went for low cost of building the factory, and fast manufacturing times instead of complex robotics to minimize wages/benefits.
In an age where things like company agility is valued, and start-up capital (including commercial lines of credit) is very limited, I'm not sure that robots are going to beat humans on price any time soon.
The air races have always been risky. Everyone knew that very well. Think about what would happen if every auto racing mishap resulted in sharp acceleration until collision with some other solid object. There have been crashes and deaths in the past, but this is really tragic as most mishaps happen far away from the grandstands.
It may be insensitive, but I'm actually most sad over losing another plane. For years there's been speculation that unlimited class racing's days were numbered. Not enough planes and parts, not enough pilots, not enough mechanics. But the unlimited class is what captures the imagination. Lefty in White Lightning, Hinton in the Red Baron, Tiger in Strega... I connected with the old warbirds and their pilots in ways that I kind of don't have words for right now.
I'm sad for the injured and dead, but I'm devastated over what feels like the end of an era.
As others have said, it's not a show, but a race. Also, unlimited class race planes are not normal planes. They chop the wings and boost the superchargers. Tiger Destifani once said that without a significant amount of thrust, the modified P51s have the aerodynamic capability of a cannonball. As they must for those speeds. One of the most amazing things I've ever seen was a P51 (I think it was the Red Baron, notable for having counter-rotating props) diving into the main straight to do a qualifying lap and see vapor trails coming off the wings at 1000ft. P51s aren't supposed go get anywhere near those speeds.
The point being: these aren't normal planes, and they aren't doing normal activities, and they are always on the edge of the envelope.
I'm participating in the full course online, and am excited to do so. A large part of my motivation is for learning about the challenges that the instructors face, and their design solutions to meet their goals. I emailed Dr. Thrun asking if I could ask some questions, or if there were plans to present their experiences at the end. The response, as I expected for a very, very busy professor, was that they will probably report our generally at the end. Which I'm totally cool with. However, this seems like maybe more information is going to Know Labs to create a product, rather than to the world to create better distance education opportunities (which, I would argue, is more valuable than teaching the world about AI). Still not the worst thing in the world, and I'm not complaining about getting the chance to learn what I can, but private money in education rarely turns out for the better.
I really like it. There are many things that work very well for me, and where I developed an immediate and natural workflow that trips me up when I switch to a different computer. I love that it uses CSS for appearance settings.
That said... it is buggy. I had to make scripts to reset my customizations that get written over every time I update. I'm a Fedora person, so I work with a reasonable expectation of what comes when living in the area between cutting and bleeding edge changes, but it doesn't quite seem ready for primetime in all honesty. But I still like it.
I found it interesting who was on the list and who wasn't.
-Experian is but Fair Issac (who has a couple of offices near here) isn't.
-Amex is but Visa, one of the Bay Area's largest employers, isn't.
-Many insurance companies. I know past behavior is important to these companies, but web tracking? I don't know enough to see why this is worth fighting for on their end.
-California Assoc. of Licensed Investigators. Probably the only honest ones on the list. "We want to be able to track you, because, um, we track people. That's what we do."
So I wonder if some of the companies that aren't on here don't care, weren't asked, or actively don't want to be on a list with PR nightmares like the MPAA.
I believe this is on the right track. I don't know about these systems, but some radio-telescopes require liquid N for cooling the first stages of amplification circuitry. The early stages are super-high gain, and since you can't really change the bandwidth measured too much, and there are practical limits to the resistance of the components used (and you sure as hell can't change Boltzmann's constant) the easiest way to eliminate random noise is to get T as close to 0K as practicable.
Another issue can be calibration. Maybe if it's not active it's not being calibrated and for sensitive equipment, that can mean that it's no longer "trusted" even if it's later brought back within spec.
Manufacturing also. Most pcb etchers require and do business in imperial measurements. Many extrusions and dies are imperial. Just look at cyclists who get their fancy Italian bicycle parts and are all confused about if their 31.8mm handlebars will fit in their 31.7mm stem. Well... they are both the same size: 1.25 inches. Big money is tied up in manufacturing equipment and will dictate what industry uses. Common people are really irrelevant here.
I watched the video, and while I'm not a scientist, I play one in my off hours (I flunked out of my PhD pure math program...)
I have to say that I was really disappointed with the lecture. Now I know this is a "bring the research to the people" lecture which tries to give a more causal audience a view into cutting edge research, but there were a number of significant problems with both the tenor, style and some with the content. It might sound like nit-picking, but if you are taping a lecture for wide distribution and giving it an sensational title you might want to make sure that you have your details right. Don't attribute a Mozart opera to Rossini. Don't accept the audience response of "false premise" and then mumble something about it not being transitive, no wait, only the contrapositive is transitive when talking about logical conclusions. Don't hand-wave multiple times "...and this happens for entirely different reasons" and leave it when it sure looks significant.
And above all, leave all non-pertinent politics out of your scientific discussion. I'll accept that you hate Nixon, and that may even have a place in the discussion. But the "HFCS is Japan's revenge for WWII?" and "A hole bigger than the one in the USS Cole" among other polemic statements? Not even remotely defensible in an academic discussion.
I learned a couple of things, but much of it really isn't new to people who have been following nutrition research even casually. However, the tone really turned me off, and makes me thing that Dr. Lustig want to inflame more than he wants to inform, which is poor practice for a doctor (to teach, in this case being a physician at a research university) or a scientist.
I nearly stopped listening to the Dr. Lustig after he said "Rossini, you know, La Gazza Ladra, The Marriage of Figaro..." It's being pedantic, but, UGH.
I'm curious if you have the source for the "optic nerve refreshes at approx. 100Hz". It sounds about right, but I went looking around for details and it appears that not everyone is able to observe stroboscopic events under continuous illumination. This was a huge surprise to me, because I have always seen car and bicycle wheels start to "turn backwards" at a certain frequency in daylight conditions. I didn't realize that some people don't. Now I'm confused and am probably going to waste the rest of the week reading up on visual perception theories and research.
When I was doing some stuff at Lawrence Livermore Labs in the mid 1990s there was a very active group working on radiation and harsh environment resistant robots. They were boring, but highly functional, which is why no one paid any attention from the outside. While I haven't kept up on their work, I am confident that there are few labs in the world that have robots for this job better and more advanced than the DOE devices. They do, of course, have to plan for not only power reactor problems but also our aging weapons stockpile.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. However, I must say that as a public school math teacher I chafe a little at the "inside public schools" comment, only because most of us inside really, really want to change, but it's mostly not inside factors stopping us, but outside influences (things like the math wars in the 1990s).
I have a colleague here who is a veteran top-notch math teacher who did his masters thesis on gender segregating his 5-7th grade math classes at a prestigious secular private school. Not only did the attitudes and engagement of the female student improve, but the male students also showed higher satisfaction and achievement.
The people who didn't like it? The parents. After the study concluded they couldn't keep doing it because parents fought to keep them from segregating the classrooms, facts be damned
I loved hypercard, and am sad that it is gone, especially as an educator. It's sad that most student's interaction with computers these days is web surfing, word and powerpoint. Some people have mentioned the failures of hypercard like software, and I don't think that's fair. When I tried supercard it felt like it was trying to clone hypercard... just as it was years ago, not accounting for advancements in the world.
The thing that feels most like hypercard to me today is game development engines, like Unity3D. Basing navigation around hyperlinking is downplayed (as it is everywhere these days) but the idea that you can have graphic and text elements, in 2D or 3D, and then interactions facilitated through simple scripting (use javascript, C# or Boo) makes it feel like the spiritual successor to hypercard. NASA has done some awesome stuff using Unity. I think Unity might be missing out by calling it a game engine--it can do much more.
Researchers have known for years that there are certain windows of brain development where learning is best supported, and how other activities aren't so helpful. Language acquisition and music have their sweet spot right around 3-6 years of age. It is likely that the skills that using tech best supports are much later in the development of childrens' minds (like logic, problem solving). It shouldn't be surprising that early childhood subjects only use tech as entertainment, and learn little from it. But children, of age 10 or so, can benefit greatly from having exposure to tech in an interactive manner. This is supported by places like Finland, where they don't teach "hard" subjects or tech in early childhood, but rather stress movement, creative play and social interaction at school, leaving other subjects for when they are most appropriate.
Recent work and research seems to indicate that, no, it's not just an issue of thermodynamics through caloric content. Unfortunately, many of the top proponents and researchers are of the sensationalist and inflammatory type. (Like the UCSF dude who proclaims "Sugar is Poison!". 95% of the science and research is exactly correct, and very well done, but I just wish he would shut up because I think he hurts his own cause.)
Think of it this way-- you know what has lots of calories? Petrol. Will drinking hydrocarbons make you fat? So who cares if a burning doughnut changes water temperature the same amount as a crunchy shrimp roll (both around 500 kcal)? Eating each will have a different impact on metabolic reaction, and energy storage.
It's odd... I opt out and when I do the TSA employees are very, very helpful and friendly. I know that they have a strict script to stick to, but I also get the impression that they are not all that happy about the exposure risk, and are happy when others recognize the risks as well.
One thing complicating this is BRAC. There are F-16 wings that are maneuvering to try to get F-15s right now, even though the 15 is older and more difficult to maintain. What the 15 gives a wing is more flexibility. No one wants to be "air superiority and patrol" anymore since there isn't much need for that these days. And since 16s are limited in ground support capabilities, some people see the 15 as the only way to stay in business. Note that this isn't as much of a concern for the regular air force, who will mostly just shuffle people around, but has a massive effect on the air national guard.
So having a single jet that can do it all (ground attack, air attack, stealth, vtol, carrier, you name it) means that you won't be considered obsolete.
So, in other words, not cut at all. Just a shell game then.
The Dept. of Ed typically runs and coordinates special programs, and the funding for them. They are called by their Title # relating to what part of the policy they are under. Like Title 1, better known as No Child Left Behind these days, which is tied to funding for schools with significant low SES students. (Little known: if you don't take title 1 money, then you can tell the feds and the state to fuck off as far as the penalties for not meeting the requirements. Not done often, but I was at a site where we made the choice to refuse the money). There are other decidedly less sexy titles as well. The reality is that most public school do not take much money from the feds, the money they do take usually has restrictions, and often there is some ideological influence that the feds are trying to influence (see NCLB, abstinence only sex ed, etc.).
This is misleading. The library keeps records of what you currently have checked out. My public and school libraries do not keep a record of what I have checked out in the past. Your library may differ, but the ALA officially vigorously defends individuals right to intellectual freedom, and that includes not tracking reading history.
Uh... what do you think the Dept. of Energy does?
Hint: The Nova laser and NIF are not about power generation.
No. Very different situations. The foldit players leveraged persistence and human pattern recognition for a solution to a relatively recent problem. Dr. Wiles aside (I jest...), 150 year old prominent open problems require more than persistence and ambition.
That's part of a report that is available to ALA members, but here's a more useful, but not comprehensive, guide with much of the info you would be interested in.
Robots, due to the initial investment, may not turn out to be as cost effective as imagined. When Toyota opened their first plant in Japan in the last 18 years, they went for low cost of building the factory, and fast manufacturing times instead of complex robotics to minimize wages/benefits.
In an age where things like company agility is valued, and start-up capital (including commercial lines of credit) is very limited, I'm not sure that robots are going to beat humans on price any time soon.
The air races have always been risky. Everyone knew that very well. Think about what would happen if every auto racing mishap resulted in sharp acceleration until collision with some other solid object. There have been crashes and deaths in the past, but this is really tragic as most mishaps happen far away from the grandstands.
It may be insensitive, but I'm actually most sad over losing another plane. For years there's been speculation that unlimited class racing's days were numbered. Not enough planes and parts, not enough pilots, not enough mechanics. But the unlimited class is what captures the imagination. Lefty in White Lightning, Hinton in the Red Baron, Tiger in Strega... I connected with the old warbirds and their pilots in ways that I kind of don't have words for right now.
I'm sad for the injured and dead, but I'm devastated over what feels like the end of an era.
As others have said, it's not a show, but a race. Also, unlimited class race planes are not normal planes. They chop the wings and boost the superchargers. Tiger Destifani once said that without a significant amount of thrust, the modified P51s have the aerodynamic capability of a cannonball. As they must for those speeds. One of the most amazing things I've ever seen was a P51 (I think it was the Red Baron, notable for having counter-rotating props) diving into the main straight to do a qualifying lap and see vapor trails coming off the wings at 1000ft. P51s aren't supposed go get anywhere near those speeds. The point being: these aren't normal planes, and they aren't doing normal activities, and they are always on the edge of the envelope.
I'm participating in the full course online, and am excited to do so. A large part of my motivation is for learning about the challenges that the instructors face, and their design solutions to meet their goals. I emailed Dr. Thrun asking if I could ask some questions, or if there were plans to present their experiences at the end. The response, as I expected for a very, very busy professor, was that they will probably report our generally at the end. Which I'm totally cool with. However, this seems like maybe more information is going to Know Labs to create a product, rather than to the world to create better distance education opportunities (which, I would argue, is more valuable than teaching the world about AI). Still not the worst thing in the world, and I'm not complaining about getting the chance to learn what I can, but private money in education rarely turns out for the better.
I really like it. There are many things that work very well for me, and where I developed an immediate and natural workflow that trips me up when I switch to a different computer. I love that it uses CSS for appearance settings.
That said... it is buggy. I had to make scripts to reset my customizations that get written over every time I update. I'm a Fedora person, so I work with a reasonable expectation of what comes when living in the area between cutting and bleeding edge changes, but it doesn't quite seem ready for primetime in all honesty. But I still like it.
...thanks. We don't have many allies these days outside the profession. I appreciate those who are.
I found it interesting who was on the list and who wasn't.
-Experian is but Fair Issac (who has a couple of offices near here) isn't.
-Amex is but Visa, one of the Bay Area's largest employers, isn't.
-Many insurance companies. I know past behavior is important to these companies, but web tracking? I don't know enough to see why this is worth fighting for on their end.
-California Assoc. of Licensed Investigators. Probably the only honest ones on the list. "We want to be able to track you, because, um, we track people. That's what we do."
So I wonder if some of the companies that aren't on here don't care, weren't asked, or actively don't want to be on a list with PR nightmares like the MPAA.
I believe this is on the right track. I don't know about these systems, but some radio-telescopes require liquid N for cooling the first stages of amplification circuitry. The early stages are super-high gain, and since you can't really change the bandwidth measured too much, and there are practical limits to the resistance of the components used (and you sure as hell can't change Boltzmann's constant) the easiest way to eliminate random noise is to get T as close to 0K as practicable.
Another issue can be calibration. Maybe if it's not active it's not being calibrated and for sensitive equipment, that can mean that it's no longer "trusted" even if it's later brought back within spec.
Manufacturing also. Most pcb etchers require and do business in imperial measurements. Many extrusions and dies are imperial. Just look at cyclists who get their fancy Italian bicycle parts and are all confused about if their 31.8mm handlebars will fit in their 31.7mm stem. Well... they are both the same size: 1.25 inches. Big money is tied up in manufacturing equipment and will dictate what industry uses. Common people are really irrelevant here.
I watched the video, and while I'm not a scientist, I play one in my off hours (I flunked out of my PhD pure math program...)
I have to say that I was really disappointed with the lecture. Now I know this is a "bring the research to the people" lecture which tries to give a more causal audience a view into cutting edge research, but there were a number of significant problems with both the tenor, style and some with the content. It might sound like nit-picking, but if you are taping a lecture for wide distribution and giving it an sensational title you might want to make sure that you have your details right. Don't attribute a Mozart opera to Rossini. Don't accept the audience response of "false premise" and then mumble something about it not being transitive, no wait, only the contrapositive is transitive when talking about logical conclusions. Don't hand-wave multiple times "...and this happens for entirely different reasons" and leave it when it sure looks significant.
And above all, leave all non-pertinent politics out of your scientific discussion. I'll accept that you hate Nixon, and that may even have a place in the discussion. But the "HFCS is Japan's revenge for WWII?" and "A hole bigger than the one in the USS Cole" among other polemic statements? Not even remotely defensible in an academic discussion.
I learned a couple of things, but much of it really isn't new to people who have been following nutrition research even casually. However, the tone really turned me off, and makes me thing that Dr. Lustig want to inflame more than he wants to inform, which is poor practice for a doctor (to teach, in this case being a physician at a research university) or a scientist.
I nearly stopped listening to the Dr. Lustig after he said "Rossini, you know, La Gazza Ladra, The Marriage of Figaro..." It's being pedantic, but, UGH.
I'm curious if you have the source for the "optic nerve refreshes at approx. 100Hz". It sounds about right, but I went looking around for details and it appears that not everyone is able to observe stroboscopic events under continuous illumination. This was a huge surprise to me, because I have always seen car and bicycle wheels start to "turn backwards" at a certain frequency in daylight conditions. I didn't realize that some people don't. Now I'm confused and am probably going to waste the rest of the week reading up on visual perception theories and research.
When I was doing some stuff at Lawrence Livermore Labs in the mid 1990s there was a very active group working on radiation and harsh environment resistant robots. They were boring, but highly functional, which is why no one paid any attention from the outside. While I haven't kept up on their work, I am confident that there are few labs in the world that have robots for this job better and more advanced than the DOE devices. They do, of course, have to plan for not only power reactor problems but also our aging weapons stockpile.