. ..having a degree in something...anything, is de rigueur for any sort of social standing, peer acknowledgement, "business" contacts and self-respect/esteem.
Someone who needs a degree to have these things does not have them.
. ..cheaters that are incapable of performing in their field of expertise will be filtered out.
Unfortunately one of the the side effects of this approach is that the real value of a degree is also filtered out. They're supposed to be something more than certification of attendence.
With this notable irony, back in the day when universities still at least professed to be institutes of scholarship attendence often was the most valuable part of the college experience. Nowadays you're better off living off campus and learning to interact with the real world, ignoring the college itself as much as is possible.
. ..today's post-secondary education system is a joke. ..
In the classical tragic sense. There's nothing to laugh about in it, but plenty to cry over.
The real question should be: Is this caused by an increase in cheating students (and the resources to do so), or is it caused by an industry that has become stagnant, boring, and oftimes irrelevant?
The real question should be: What the hell has tertiary higher education got to do with industry?
Excuse me, but I *am* a professor and I fail to see what Wikipedia has to do with cheating.....
You possibly teach a real subject and not one the wishy-washy humanities thingies, graded by how much impressive gibberish you can cram into a four page paper? It's pitifully easy to cut and paste that shit, because it's not only devoid of any real meaning, but of the personality of the author.
Personally I've always found the best way to avoid cheating is to have a one on one relationship with your students sufficient to allow you to directly assess the level of their knowledge, but then I've never worked in one of the student factories whose degrees as knowledge certification are largely illusions (no matter how prestigious the instititution).
You cannot teach a class of 300, only talk at them. Books and videos do a better job of that in the first place.
Not a joke. I have heard reports that when Montcalm's troops complained that they couldn't see the British troops through the trees he ordered them to just "shoot torward the damned noise."
This says absolutely nothing about the power capacity and is a worthless feature for, e.g., mobile electonics. Typical disinformation in order to hype this thing. Also the 500A or so peak current this thing seems to have is needed nowhere, i.e. a basically worthless feature.
Oh I don't know. My own experience is that most mobiles would be improved immeasurably by a second or so of 500A. In fact, haveing them do so spontaneously if on when entering a theater would be a dandy feature.
Much the same way your post is 98% correctly spelled. ..
I think that's better than my average.
. ..since we can measure that we can also increase the degree of spelling surety. =)
Only within the limits of my nuerologcial capabilities, which are below average; and within the limits of my understanding of spelling, which is, in fact, well above average. I deny your authority, but accept both Webster and Chaucer as among the available references.
Newtonian physics is not merely an appoximation error. ..
It's errors are completely quantifiable.
. ..the fundamental set of concepts and intuitions are just completely unhelpful at any scale but mezoscale. ..
Newton himself noted that there were observable limits to his model and that whatever fundamental concepts it provided were also extremely limited, giving no greater understanding of mechanism. They are purely empirical observation.
You will, however, find that if you wish to predict the path of a simple artillary shell or design an automobile they are "correct," they have predictive value, specifically because the phenomenon exist within the limits of the model's significance. Taking Relativity into account does nothing but complicate the math to provide a bogus level of significance and Quantum Theory is completely irrelevant.
There is no equivilent in Newtonian Theory for trying to fix the VCR by shoving food in the slot for the little man to eat.
How can they say anything is 99.95% right, have they never heard of the Cartesian method of doubt. ..
Yes, that's why they said what they said, i.e. that they have only shown the predictive accuracy of Relativity to a margin of error of.05%. They are perfectly aware of the lack of knowledge that could be hiding in that.05%, but that.05% defines the limit of our lack of knowledge.
. ..so all in all I'd say about 1-5% doubt - but you can never know
And this makes no sense whatsover, because you are just pulling numbers out of your ass. Yes, it's true that you can never "know," but you can measure and increase the degree of your surity.
I'm aware that my post was not directly responsive to your point, but I could smell it provoking an attack of the "It's only a theory" people and I wanted do what I could to head them off at the pass.
. ..it just goes to show how far ahead of the game (and of the times) Einstein was.
Nonsense. Everyone else was about 40 years late. Sometimes the expansion of understanding moves slowly even when you have all the necessary pieces in hand.
Only mathematics has proofs, but observations that support a theory demonstrate that the model has predictive value. Observations that do not support a theory demonstrate that the model is, at best, incomplete.
Ignoring the predictive value of a model, whether it is complete or not, demonstrates that you are an idiot. Within its limits of significance Newton's theory of gravitation is still just as "correct" as Relativity.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's gibberish.
Just because you think you understand it doesn't mean it's not gibberish.
KFG
Like when people use the word "ask" instead of "ax"
Ax is archaic English, not a degradation of English. It's a perfectly "correct" Germanic pronunciation of the word.
KFG
. . .having a degree in something...anything, is de rigueur for any sort of social standing, peer acknowledgement, "business" contacts and self-respect/esteem.
Someone who needs a degree to have these things does not have them.
KFG
I understand your point, but consider this:
What is the tensile strength of this steel tube I'm holding?
The answer cannot be found in any reference work.
KFG
. . .cheaters that are incapable of performing in their field of expertise will be filtered out.
Unfortunately one of the the side effects of this approach is that the real value of a degree is also filtered out. They're supposed to be something more than certification of attendence.
With this notable irony, back in the day when universities still at least professed to be institutes of scholarship attendence often was the most valuable part of the college experience. Nowadays you're better off living off campus and learning to interact with the real world, ignoring the college itself as much as is possible.
KFG
. . .today's post-secondary education system is a joke. . .
In the classical tragic sense. There's nothing to laugh about in it, but plenty to cry over.
The real question should be: Is this caused by an increase in cheating students (and the resources to do so), or is it caused by an industry that has become stagnant, boring, and oftimes irrelevant?
The real question should be: What the hell has tertiary higher education got to do with industry?
KFG
Excuse me, but I *am* a professor and I fail to see what Wikipedia has to do with cheating.....
You possibly teach a real subject and not one the wishy-washy humanities thingies, graded by how much impressive gibberish you can cram into a four page paper? It's pitifully easy to cut and paste that shit, because it's not only devoid of any real meaning, but of the personality of the author.
Personally I've always found the best way to avoid cheating is to have a one on one relationship with your students sufficient to allow you to directly assess the level of their knowledge, but then I've never worked in one of the student factories whose degrees as knowledge certification are largely illusions (no matter how prestigious the instititution).
You cannot teach a class of 300, only talk at them. Books and videos do a better job of that in the first place.
KFG
Not a joke. I have heard reports that when Montcalm's troops complained that they couldn't see the British troops through the trees he ordered them to just "shoot torward the damned noise."
KFG
Tilt at windmills in your spare time, do you?
That was last week.
KFG
This says absolutely nothing about the power capacity and is a worthless feature for, e.g., mobile electonics. Typical disinformation in order to hype this thing. Also the 500A or so peak current this thing seems to have is needed nowhere, i.e. a basically worthless feature.
Oh I don't know. My own experience is that most mobiles would be improved immeasurably by a second or so of 500A. In fact, haveing them do so spontaneously if on when entering a theater would be a dandy feature.
KFG
There is no known rational explanation for Welsh.
KFG
First demonstrate that the data is not experimental error, then quantify it.
KFG
. . .who would seriously take their ipod into a combat situation?
You would prefer fifes, drums and bagpipes?
KFG
Perfectly cromulent word. :)
.English.
Vowel shifts do not create cromulence. Empirical observation suggests they create . .
KFG
. . .there could be a non-linear effect. "99.95% right" is a very stupid way to represent this result. . .
How long is your ten foot pole?
KFG
Much the same way your post is 98% correctly spelled. . .
.since we can measure that we can also increase the degree of spelling surety. =)
I think that's better than my average.
. .
Only within the limits of my nuerologcial capabilities, which are below average; and within the limits of my understanding of spelling, which is, in fact, well above average. I deny your authority, but accept both Webster and Chaucer as among the available references.
KFG
. . .we really shouldn't pretend his theories are anything more than a bunch of mathematical approximations. . .
.that reference intuitive concepts. . .
That's what I said. In fact, it's what Newton said as well.
. .
They reference only observable phenomenon and are valid only within the limits of those observations.
KFG
Newtonian physics is not merely an appoximation error. . .
.the fundamental set of concepts and intuitions are just completely unhelpful at any scale but mezoscale. . .
It's errors are completely quantifiable.
. .
Newton himself noted that there were observable limits to his model and that whatever fundamental concepts it provided were also extremely limited, giving no greater understanding of mechanism. They are purely empirical observation.
You will, however, find that if you wish to predict the path of a simple artillary shell or design an automobile they are "correct," they have predictive value, specifically because the phenomenon exist within the limits of the model's significance. Taking Relativity into account does nothing but complicate the math to provide a bogus level of significance and Quantum Theory is completely irrelevant.
There is no equivilent in Newtonian Theory for trying to fix the VCR by shoving food in the slot for the little man to eat.
KFG
How can they say anything is 99.95% right, have they never heard of the Cartesian method of doubt. . .
.05%. They are perfectly aware of the lack of knowledge that could be hiding in that .05%, but that .05% defines the limit of our lack of knowledge.
.so all in all I'd say about 1-5% doubt - but you can never know
Yes, that's why they said what they said, i.e. that they have only shown the predictive accuracy of Relativity to a margin of error of
. .
And this makes no sense whatsover, because you are just pulling numbers out of your ass. Yes, it's true that you can never "know," but you can measure and increase the degree of your surity.
KFG
I'm aware that my post was not directly responsive to your point, but I could smell it provoking an attack of the "It's only a theory" people and I wanted do what I could to head them off at the pass.
KFG
. . .it just goes to show how far ahead of the game (and of the times) Einstein was.
Nonsense. Everyone else was about 40 years late. Sometimes the expansion of understanding moves slowly even when you have all the necessary pieces in hand.
KFG
. . .they are not a proof.
Only mathematics has proofs, but observations that support a theory demonstrate that the model has predictive value. Observations that do not support a theory demonstrate that the model is, at best, incomplete.
Ignoring the predictive value of a model, whether it is complete or not, demonstrates that you are an idiot. Within its limits of significance Newton's theory of gravitation is still just as "correct" as Relativity.
Facts are not proofs, but they are facts.
KFG
I guess I would have to ask Microsoft if she fucks on first dates.
No, but her lawyers will screw you all you want; and more!
KFG
"Is there an alternative to this "Brain Exercise" game for the PC?"
Gee Grandson, it's a Wurlitzer!
KFG
oh why .. is this news to anyone?
They're selling something. The aging brain is a sucker.
KFG