Let's start with the non-sentence "part I know". What the FUCK is that supposed to tell us? That I know 5 pennies? That I know what a penny is? That I know there are 5 pennies? Is that a statement or a question, does it mean I know 5 pennies, or does it mean that I want to know 5 pennies? And what the hell does a cup have to do with pennies? A cup with a 6 on it is "whole". So is "part" supposed to have a meaning in the context of "whole vs. part"? A cup of 6 is "whole" while 5 single pennies is "part I know". Why the "I know"?
Apparently they are attempting to teach or test the idea of minuend/subtrahend/difference by using child-accessible language. The minuend is "the whole", the subtrahend is "the part I know", and so the difference is "the missing part". The test isn't about whether they can do the actual subtraction, but whether they can convert the symbolism of the coin/cup into minuend/subtrahend and therefore difference.
It's clear from the language of the test that this isn't a general purpose maths literacy test, it uses specific methods and language that must be taught by the school in order for the test to be understood by the student. Therefore it tests only how well the school has taught the specific method and language, not how well the kid knows maths.
I guarantee that no book a normal parent uses to teach their kids to read will use terms like "Subtraction story" or "Number sentence", nor are those phrases used in a way where even a full understanding of the words (say, "number" and "sentence") allows you to deduce the meaning of the phrase (which in these tests is, "equation") from the words alone.
The point is to teach the little buggers how to USE math. Applied mathematics.
Except it is not. It wears a cloak of applied learning, but actually requires purely rote learning. You aren't being tested on your general ability, but on your exposure to these particular questions. The test requires the kids to decode a single arbitrary iconography created for one question, which doesn't represent an application of subtraction, but rather represents the specific nomenclature ("the whole/the part from the whole/the missing part, subtraction story, number sentence") which itself was apparently created just for these tests and will never be used again. That is, the question primarily tests the ability of kids to identify the elements that are translated to the nomenclature they were taught, which they were only taught because it's the form used in the test.
That forces teachers to spend class-time teaching not only the test nomenclature, but also the nonsensical ways that the standardised tests might then hide it behind. How much time is that going to leave for actual "applied mathematics"? Neither the nomenclature, not any of the forms used in the questions have anything to do with helping the kids understand a basic number theory. What they teach doesn't generalise.
For the record, I'm not opposed to standardised tests, or even rote learning. I'm opposed to fake "applied learning" language being used to hide mere rote learning. If all you are going to teach is rote learning, then teach rote learning and stop pretending otherwise.
I knew what they meant
Awesome. Then you know what the cup was for in question one? I mean I know it was "6", but why? Was it a price, a volume, what? What "applied" situation was the question describing?
Maybe the text book introduces that iconography during the lessons, and makes perfect sense to the kid.
Apparently not, since even the principle and the assistant principle for mathematics were apparently confused by it. By a question meant for 6yr olds.
But even if the kids were introduced to this specific iconography in the classroom, how is that teaching maths, or abstract thinking? It's teaching that specific iconography. If you are going to do that, why not teach a most standard form: 6-5=? Or 6=5+?
If your question makes no sense to anyone who hasn't encountered the specific form before, then your question is surely not suitable for a first grader. And if the specific nomenclature (such as "subtraction sentence") is used nowhere else except that test, then it's worthless to force them to learn it.
The WHOLE is 6. You see 5 from the whole. This method of thinking through the problem is taught in the classroom instruction that goes along with it.
Then the test is teaching a very narrow form of maths where you have to know their specific non-standard language (The whole/The part I know from the whole/The missing part) for simple subtraction. If the desire is to teach the ability to do "word problems" in general, then the test (and the teaching behind it) clearly fails. You have to already have been shown with the precise problem-type used to be able to understand what they are asking. That isn't teaching "word problems", it's teaching a specific language that excludes anyone not familiar with it. And if you are going to do that, why not just teach the form "6-5=?" ?
[Even knowing the question, I still don't understand what situation the "word problem" it is trying to describe. What is the cup for? Is the cup supposed to contain 6 coins? Have I taken the five coins out of the 6-coin cup, or am I putting them in? Or is it a price? Am I buying a 6-coin cup, and so far I have 5 coins on the counter, how many additional coins do I need to buy the cup?]
He doesn't need to argue that he obeyed the speed limit across the whole trip (or his half), just when he was passing through the county in which he is being prosecuted. Without the GPS data, no particular county can prove he sped there.
That said, if only takes one county judge to demand he turn over the GPS data and then it's on the public record for all of them.
Oh would you people give this crap a rest. There is nowhere, in any country in the world, where outside of the military, the term "assault rifle" is used to mean a full-auto. Nowhere. Just stop regurgitating the same bullshit every single fucking time this subject comes up.
I'm not thinking in business terms. I'm thinking in terms of how effective it would be at destabilising the US economy. The answer is, not very. It's a bad strategy.
It would have no real negative effect on the US, probably break the US out of its economic downturn; while it would reduce the value of China's wealth, reduce exports, and pretty much be a one-shot deal with no follow-up beyond a shooting war. And this kind of attempt at economic warfare wouldn't just piss off the US, it would unite the whole developed world against China, due to their attempt at undermining the bond/currency markets. Plus it would fail, which would make China look foolish, costing it further influence, and possibly increasing unrest at home.
OTOH, taking advantage of the power vacuum created by the US's entirely self-inflicted economic failures...
If Sun Tzu didn't say "When your enemy is fighting himself, you might as well sit back, laugh, and grow your rice", I'm sure he would if he was looking at the US and China today.
I'd dump all of my Treasury bonds on the market all at once, use my US currency to buy Euros, Pounds Sterling, Yen and various other currencies, and lastly, cut the prices for all home grown tech (like Lenovo computers) to the bone and crush US companies. Economic warfare baby!
What effect do you think that would have on the US?
Perhaps you think that dumping the bonds would harm the dollar and raise US Treasury rates (the cost of borrowing)? Then the dollar would fall in value against the Euro and GBP, and maybe against the Renminbi itself. That makes US manufactured good cheaper compared to other nations. That reduces imports into the US, while increasing both exports and import-replacement. That slashes US spending on Chinese goods, which would be compounded by an aggressive boycott of Chinese goods by angry US consumers. It would also reduce the effective value of existing bonds (since they are paid only in USD at a fixed yield) to foreign investors, while the higher yields of new bonds would make them more desirable to domestic institutional investors (about 70% of Treasury bond buyers).
These effects would reduce the value of China's one-shot mass sell-off, both in absolute dollar terms and in those dollars' buying power against other currencies, effectively reducing China's real wealth. And that would reduce the size of the effect on the markets.
Frankly I doubt the Chinese leadership is anywhere near that stupid.
They are trying to displace the USD as a reserve currency, while building themselves up. It's a slow long term plan, not a pointless idiotic one-shot spasm.
you're going to create a temporary lake for a few hours or days, until it freezes back over.
Unlikely. Even on Earth, within an atmosphere and only modestly cold ice, explosives don't melt ice. It's a sharp blast, not a slow heater. Debris carries away most of the energy, the rest dissipates as a shockwave through the ice, rather than focusing heat on the surface layers. You're not going to see much meltwater created, even with a nuke.
Additionally, cracks in the impact zone and channels between the neighbouring penitentes would allow any liquid water to run off within seconds. And in a vacuum, any remaining liquid water will boil away quickly, the boiling lowering the temperature of what's left, causing it to quickly freeze.
High latitude landings are energetically more demanding. Eats into your payload allowance, which means fewer instruments, which makes it harder to justify your mission against another Mars mission (for example.)
Which means there are likely already fresh craters. So all you really need is high resolution image of the Europan surface. Which is something that both planetary scientists and lander designers would probably like having anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's start with the non-sentence "part I know". What the FUCK is that supposed to tell us? That I know 5 pennies? That I know what a penny is? That I know there are 5 pennies? Is that a statement or a question, does it mean I know 5 pennies, or does it mean that I want to know 5 pennies? And what the hell does a cup have to do with pennies? A cup with a 6 on it is "whole". So is "part" supposed to have a meaning in the context of "whole vs. part"? A cup of 6 is "whole" while 5 single pennies is "part I know". Why the "I know"?
Apparently they are attempting to teach or test the idea of minuend/subtrahend/difference by using child-accessible language. The minuend is "the whole", the subtrahend is "the part I know", and so the difference is "the missing part". The test isn't about whether they can do the actual subtraction, but whether they can convert the symbolism of the coin/cup into minuend/subtrahend and therefore difference.
I'm sure you now feel much better about it all.
It's clear from the language of the test that this isn't a general purpose maths literacy test, it uses specific methods and language that must be taught by the school in order for the test to be understood by the student. Therefore it tests only how well the school has taught the specific method and language, not how well the kid knows maths.
I guarantee that no book a normal parent uses to teach their kids to read will use terms like "Subtraction story" or "Number sentence", nor are those phrases used in a way where even a full understanding of the words (say, "number" and "sentence") allows you to deduce the meaning of the phrase (which in these tests is, "equation") from the words alone.
The point is to teach the little buggers how to USE math. Applied mathematics.
Except it is not. It wears a cloak of applied learning, but actually requires purely rote learning. You aren't being tested on your general ability, but on your exposure to these particular questions. The test requires the kids to decode a single arbitrary iconography created for one question, which doesn't represent an application of subtraction, but rather represents the specific nomenclature ("the whole/the part from the whole/the missing part, subtraction story, number sentence") which itself was apparently created just for these tests and will never be used again. That is, the question primarily tests the ability of kids to identify the elements that are translated to the nomenclature they were taught, which they were only taught because it's the form used in the test.
That forces teachers to spend class-time teaching not only the test nomenclature, but also the nonsensical ways that the standardised tests might then hide it behind. How much time is that going to leave for actual "applied mathematics"? Neither the nomenclature, not any of the forms used in the questions have anything to do with helping the kids understand a basic number theory. What they teach doesn't generalise.
For the record, I'm not opposed to standardised tests, or even rote learning. I'm opposed to fake "applied learning" language being used to hide mere rote learning. If all you are going to teach is rote learning, then teach rote learning and stop pretending otherwise.
I knew what they meant
Awesome. Then you know what the cup was for in question one? I mean I know it was "6", but why? Was it a price, a volume, what? What "applied" situation was the question describing?
(I'll cop to "principal".)
Maybe the text book introduces that iconography during the lessons, and makes perfect sense to the kid.
Apparently not, since even the principle and the assistant principle for mathematics were apparently confused by it. By a question meant for 6yr olds.
But even if the kids were introduced to this specific iconography in the classroom, how is that teaching maths, or abstract thinking? It's teaching that specific iconography. If you are going to do that, why not teach a most standard form: 6-5=? Or 6=5+?
If your question makes no sense to anyone who hasn't encountered the specific form before, then your question is surely not suitable for a first grader. And if the specific nomenclature (such as "subtraction sentence") is used nowhere else except that test, then it's worthless to force them to learn it.
The entire test: http://roundtheinkwell.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/the-math-test.pdf
The WHOLE is 6. You see 5 from the whole.
This method of thinking through the problem is taught in the classroom instruction that goes along with it.
Then the test is teaching a very narrow form of maths where you have to know their specific non-standard language (The whole/The part I know from the whole/The missing part) for simple subtraction. If the desire is to teach the ability to do "word problems" in general, then the test (and the teaching behind it) clearly fails. You have to already have been shown with the precise problem-type used to be able to understand what they are asking. That isn't teaching "word problems", it's teaching a specific language that excludes anyone not familiar with it. And if you are going to do that, why not just teach the form "6-5=?" ?
[Even knowing the question, I still don't understand what situation the "word problem" it is trying to describe. What is the cup for? Is the cup supposed to contain 6 coins? Have I taken the five coins out of the 6-coin cup, or am I putting them in? Or is it a price? Am I buying a 6-coin cup, and so far I have 5 coins on the counter, how many additional coins do I need to buy the cup?]
What about all of your "lookouts" complicit in enabling your activities what is their risk of being held liable by some overzealous prosecutor?
"Conspiracy to commit traffic violation"? You can only be charged with things that are actually listed as crimes. (Well, usually.)
it seems to be a clear case of reckless driving.
Given the preparation involved, this seems to be quite deliberate and thoughtful driving.
The car reeked of gas, that meant it had a leek.
Or the tanks had air vents. Which most do.
Read the subject line.
He doesn't need to argue that he obeyed the speed limit across the whole trip (or his half), just when he was passing through the county in which he is being prosecuted. Without the GPS data, no particular county can prove he sped there.
That said, if only takes one county judge to demand he turn over the GPS data and then it's on the public record for all of them.
Everything in moderation. Including moderation itself. There's a reason we have feast-days.
An assault rifle, by definition is a machine gun.
Oh would you people give this crap a rest. There is nowhere, in any country in the world, where outside of the military, the term "assault rifle" is used to mean a full-auto. Nowhere. Just stop regurgitating the same bullshit every single fucking time this subject comes up.
Australia banned such weapons and mass shootings dropped from 1 every 18 months to 1 (arguable) in 17 years. The strategy does indeed work.
(The total number of firearms is higher than ever. It's the types that matter.)
I'm not thinking in business terms. I'm thinking in terms of how effective it would be at destabilising the US economy. The answer is, not very. It's a bad strategy.
It would have no real negative effect on the US, probably break the US out of its economic downturn; while it would reduce the value of China's wealth, reduce exports, and pretty much be a one-shot deal with no follow-up beyond a shooting war. And this kind of attempt at economic warfare wouldn't just piss off the US, it would unite the whole developed world against China, due to their attempt at undermining the bond/currency markets. Plus it would fail, which would make China look foolish, costing it further influence, and possibly increasing unrest at home.
OTOH, taking advantage of the power vacuum created by the US's entirely self-inflicted economic failures...
If Sun Tzu didn't say "When your enemy is fighting himself, you might as well sit back, laugh, and grow your rice", I'm sure he would if he was looking at the US and China today.
It's just been that sort of century.
What effect do you think that would have on the US?
Perhaps you think that dumping the bonds would harm the dollar and raise US Treasury rates (the cost of borrowing)? Then the dollar would fall in value against the Euro and GBP, and maybe against the Renminbi itself. That makes US manufactured good cheaper compared to other nations. That reduces imports into the US, while increasing both exports and import-replacement. That slashes US spending on Chinese goods, which would be compounded by an aggressive boycott of Chinese goods by angry US consumers. It would also reduce the effective value of existing bonds (since they are paid only in USD at a fixed yield) to foreign investors, while the higher yields of new bonds would make them more desirable to domestic institutional investors (about 70% of Treasury bond buyers).
These effects would reduce the value of China's one-shot mass sell-off, both in absolute dollar terms and in those dollars' buying power against other currencies, effectively reducing China's real wealth. And that would reduce the size of the effect on the markets.
Frankly I doubt the Chinese leadership is anywhere near that stupid.
They are trying to displace the USD as a reserve currency, while building themselves up. It's a slow long term plan, not a pointless idiotic one-shot spasm.
Maybe their wi-fi doesn't work.
where he warned of the dangers of a "lah-di-dah, airy-fairy view"
Well, I'm glad we can at least have an intelligent debate about the issue.
you're going to create a temporary lake for a few hours or days, until it freezes back over.
Unlikely. Even on Earth, within an atmosphere and only modestly cold ice, explosives don't melt ice. It's a sharp blast, not a slow heater. Debris carries away most of the energy, the rest dissipates as a shockwave through the ice, rather than focusing heat on the surface layers. You're not going to see much meltwater created, even with a nuke.
Additionally, cracks in the impact zone and channels between the neighbouring penitentes would allow any liquid water to run off within seconds. And in a vacuum, any remaining liquid water will boil away quickly, the boiling lowering the temperature of what's left, causing it to quickly freeze.
High latitude landings are energetically more demanding. Eats into your payload allowance, which means fewer instruments, which makes it harder to justify your mission against another Mars mission (for example.)
Which means there are likely already fresh craters. So all you really need is high resolution image of the Europan surface. Which is something that both planetary scientists and lander designers would probably like having anyway.
No need for an actual nuke, any impactor would do the job.
Which, in a dirty solar system, means there are already fresh craters available.
Buy a box of Estes rocket motors, a knife and a spoon.