A major city suffers a blackout for more than 24 hours, and we find hospital delivery rooms overflowing 9 months later. Good luck implementing population control when the unemployable masses have little to do all day but eat, fuck, and sleep. That creative mental and physical outlet has already been proven. At least until the Fuckitron 3000 shows it can do that better than a human too.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but allowing that x/x can be simplified when x=0 allows for strange equalities to emerge, basically that 0=1 or that 1=2. (This also serves as a proof by contradiction to the ability to simplify x/x for x=0)
Consider the following reference:
https://www.math.toronto.edu/m...
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but allowing that x/x can be simplified is dangerous ground because it allows us to prove equalities that are not true. (From another standpoint, then, we can prove by contradiction that x/x does not work for x=0.)
For reference, consider the following site about the proof that 1=2.
https://www.math.toronto.edu/m...
My biggest concerns with the introduction of technology into the classroom are that first, we don't really have any killer-app that justifies the expense,
Not entirely correct: As a math teacher I have found that Desmos (.com or app) is a remarkably good graphing calculator for mid-range algebra 2 students. When the alternative is an $80-120 graphing calculator, it has its appeal. Khanacademy.org has extreme value, when used for extra practice, and digital copies of texts are more prevalent, though current methods of DRM make them often more costly over time than the physical version, if not more up-to-date.
It's extremely easy to get off-task when you have the bulk of the Internet at your disposal, even if there's content filtering. General purpose computers give students almost unlimited choices in what to do, and only one of those choices is the intended one.
This is absolutely true, and the main reason that while I recognize the potential value of cell phones, I generally see greater problems in the classroom with their use.
One thing that hasn't been alluded to yet that I think is VITAL: my students exhibit high levels of technology dependence. Their every spare moment automatically drags them to their device. This is leading to a growing situation where they will entirely ignore a class-wide announcement unless they have been called to attention BY NAME. It's reaching greater levels of absurd every year.
On the contrary: I teach in a public High School. These students most likely learned these habits at public school (or at home):
Don't do your work most of the trimester? Turn it all in at the end!
Don't want to be polite or act like a human being? Trash talk the teacher, they're paid to help you.
This isn't always true: I've had many success stories with lower-level students, but there is no way that making the schools entirely state-funded will magically make it possible to just kick out poorly-behaved students.
That said, there should be a process he should be able to go through. At least at the High School level there are options for the worst-behaved students to go through a behavior review process.
So the CEO of Firefox got fired for voting a certain way (I honestly don't remember the specifics, only that it had to deal with his vote on an sexuality issue), but the CEO of Apple is applauded for taking a stand on the other side of the issue in a way he believes is right. Is the only difference the public's opinion of whether the guy is a bigot or a hero? Or is there more to it than that?
While technically correct in a literal sense, the phrase is colloquially understood to also mean reduced (fractionally) by a factor of 3. When they say three times less, they are in fact trying to communicate a third, and it's generally understood.
You might as well argue the semi-anually vs bi-annually case. the semi and bi prefixes have lost meaning because of continued colloquial use.
Even one textbook I teach from defines semi-monthly as twice a month and semi-weekly as once every two weeks. The terms have less of a literal meaning and more of a context-specific meaning.
Actually, it makes perfect sense he's a language arts teacher:his major focus might have been incorporating large vocabulary words in a written context, rather than trying to make the novel accessible to the reader in an already reader-centric market.
Except that only those in possession of recordings are able to bring the truth to light. This means that bad things can still happen, but only those with the recordings get to do anything about it.
I agree, though, that prisons should have pervasive recordings that are audited by an external source.
Am I the only one worried by the fact that I'm not perfect? That is, the more cameras we have, the more likely someone will have a recording of us doing something that, though maybe not illegal, might be damaging to our reputation. As much as I like the idea of police having record of altercations, what happens when I do make a mistake and someone recorded it? There are so many rules and laws, that if a person is recorded constantly, their imperfections (real or perceived) can be recorded and then selectively used against them.
D) 1. The test is clearly dealing with subtraction and parts missing vs the whole. That said, why they use the vocabulary they chose, not sure. Can't you teach the word 'equation' to first graders:P. #12 is lousy, though, since the solutions are not represented as equations that use subtraction. The test is TRYING to emulate different ways of saying and encountering subtraction, but still has room for improvement.
Oddly enough, the 'human factor' is responsible for most deaths everywhere. Maybe if our machine overlords helped to remove the human factor we could greatly cut down on death and damages to the human race...
. Driverless technology becomes workable when it is better than the average human driver.
The bar has always been set higher than individual responsibility because of liability lawsuits. Traditionally, if someone besides the 'victim' can be even remotely blamed, they will be held jointly responsible. This means that a vehicle that is faulty less often than a human driver will still be subject to numerous lawsuits unless they can prove the catastrophic failure was due completely to the abuse of the system by the driver. The system must either be near-perfect, or have enough failsafes built in that the car cannot be blamed for failures.
The biggest opposition is that it was completely legislated without teacher input, and without a clear plan of how any of it would work and whether it would be funded 3 years from now. I'm a teacher who is opposed to it on those grounds, but not entirely opposed to all of the ideas. It just reeked of dirty business (like the way the online classes have to be done).
On a side note: student motivation has always been one of the biggest hurdles for any educational system. If students can be motivated to take online classes, they very well may work, but that's been one of the biggest advantages of in-class lessons, is that the learning time is set aside, and there is someone there to help clarify concepts.
While you are correct, you need to remember that these people truly believe that their skills and abilities make a difference in the lives of the kids they work with. And they find it hard to see that life-changing influence in a computer.
My argument was intentionally excessive. In general, the people who will read the article and understand it in the first place are those that have some experience in the field already, though probably a few who don't. The point is that if it can be weaponized, we at least have to think twice about it before throwing the information out there.
When a government says you can't publish because "someone might use it for bad things" that means you can't publish anything at all. It doesn't matter. A design for a new kind of architectural brick cannot be published because someone might make one and bash someone's head in.
This is different. You're talking about not just harming one or two people, you're talking about working with a virus that could possibly kill 1/10th of the world's population.
From an excessive point of view: If someone developed a way to make a nuclear bomb out of superglue and rubber bands, you think they should publish that, too? The results:
-No more superglue and rubber bands.
and/or
-A whole lot of nuclear weapons.
Those are the two options.
Unfortunately wages today are so low that for most people having only one parent work is just impossible
Is it the low wages? Or is it the fact that people want to spend $600 on a new toy, and have all the great $10+ a month services like Netflix and Hulu, and all the 'necessary' apps, and they feel it is necessary to take vacations that invariably cost $4000+.
I think we expect too much from our meager wage. You want to abandon children to daycare so you can have these things. Fine. Just don't blame it on the 'lousy no-good wages'.
I earn $30,000 a year and support my wife and daughter just fine. We have to cut back and set a budget, but we still save, we still give to charity, and we still go on vacation. But I have accepted that I can't afford the new toys regularly, that I have to be careful about what I buy, how often we eat out. It's a self-inflicted reduction of freedom, but I choose that so my daughter can have a parent at home with her to teach her. Instead of plugging her in to a babysitter.
Slashdot Mirror
A major city suffers a blackout for more than 24 hours, and we find hospital delivery rooms overflowing 9 months later. Good luck implementing population control when the unemployable masses have little to do all day but eat, fuck, and sleep. That creative mental and physical outlet has already been proven. At least until the Fuckitron 3000 shows it can do that better than a human too.
Actually, this is relatively debunked and shouldn't be used to over-generalize the population.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but allowing that x/x can be simplified when x=0 allows for strange equalities to emerge, basically that 0=1 or that 1=2. (This also serves as a proof by contradiction to the ability to simplify x/x for x=0) Consider the following reference: https://www.math.toronto.edu/m...
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but allowing that x/x can be simplified is dangerous ground because it allows us to prove equalities that are not true. (From another standpoint, then, we can prove by contradiction that x/x does not work for x=0.) For reference, consider the following site about the proof that 1=2. https://www.math.toronto.edu/m...
My biggest concerns with the introduction of technology into the classroom are that first, we don't really have any killer-app that justifies the expense,
Not entirely correct: As a math teacher I have found that Desmos (.com or app) is a remarkably good graphing calculator for mid-range algebra 2 students. When the alternative is an $80-120 graphing calculator, it has its appeal. Khanacademy.org has extreme value, when used for extra practice, and digital copies of texts are more prevalent, though current methods of DRM make them often more costly over time than the physical version, if not more up-to-date.
It's extremely easy to get off-task when you have the bulk of the Internet at your disposal, even if there's content filtering. General purpose computers give students almost unlimited choices in what to do, and only one of those choices is the intended one.
This is absolutely true, and the main reason that while I recognize the potential value of cell phones, I generally see greater problems in the classroom with their use.
One thing that hasn't been alluded to yet that I think is VITAL: my students exhibit high levels of technology dependence. Their every spare moment automatically drags them to their device. This is leading to a growing situation where they will entirely ignore a class-wide announcement unless they have been called to attention BY NAME. It's reaching greater levels of absurd every year.
On the contrary: I teach in a public High School. These students most likely learned these habits at public school (or at home): Don't do your work most of the trimester? Turn it all in at the end! Don't want to be polite or act like a human being? Trash talk the teacher, they're paid to help you. This isn't always true: I've had many success stories with lower-level students, but there is no way that making the schools entirely state-funded will magically make it possible to just kick out poorly-behaved students. That said, there should be a process he should be able to go through. At least at the High School level there are options for the worst-behaved students to go through a behavior review process.
So the CEO of Firefox got fired for voting a certain way (I honestly don't remember the specifics, only that it had to deal with his vote on an sexuality issue), but the CEO of Apple is applauded for taking a stand on the other side of the issue in a way he believes is right. Is the only difference the public's opinion of whether the guy is a bigot or a hero? Or is there more to it than that?
While technically correct in a literal sense, the phrase is colloquially understood to also mean reduced (fractionally) by a factor of 3. When they say three times less, they are in fact trying to communicate a third, and it's generally understood.
You might as well argue the semi-anually vs bi-annually case. the semi and bi prefixes have lost meaning because of continued colloquial use.
Even one textbook I teach from defines semi-monthly as twice a month and semi-weekly as once every two weeks. The terms have less of a literal meaning and more of a context-specific meaning.
Actually, it makes perfect sense he's a language arts teacher:his major focus might have been incorporating large vocabulary words in a written context, rather than trying to make the novel accessible to the reader in an already reader-centric market.
Except that only those in possession of recordings are able to bring the truth to light. This means that bad things can still happen, but only those with the recordings get to do anything about it. I agree, though, that prisons should have pervasive recordings that are audited by an external source.
Am I the only one worried by the fact that I'm not perfect? That is, the more cameras we have, the more likely someone will have a recording of us doing something that, though maybe not illegal, might be damaging to our reputation. As much as I like the idea of police having record of altercations, what happens when I do make a mistake and someone recorded it? There are so many rules and laws, that if a person is recorded constantly, their imperfections (real or perceived) can be recorded and then selectively used against them.
If you are confused because it can't travel further, it's the end result of wind resistance on the projectile.
I've recently tried out World of Tanks. It's fairly simple, but has some strategy to it. Been enjoying it.
Thank you for your response, I feel it summed up an important part of the issue fairly well!
99.28% of visitors arrive directly at the site, and only 7.7% arrived from Google
But what about the other -6.98% ?
They're from the future! The data will zero out again once we find those people who traveled back in time to Facebook...
D) 1. The test is clearly dealing with subtraction and parts missing vs the whole. That said, why they use the vocabulary they chose, not sure. Can't you teach the word 'equation' to first graders :P. #12 is lousy, though, since the solutions are not represented as equations that use subtraction. The test is TRYING to emulate different ways of saying and encountering subtraction, but still has room for improvement.
Oddly enough, the 'human factor' is responsible for most deaths everywhere. Maybe if our machine overlords helped to remove the human factor we could greatly cut down on death and damages to the human race...
. Driverless technology becomes workable when it is better than the average human driver.
The bar has always been set higher than individual responsibility because of liability lawsuits. Traditionally, if someone besides the 'victim' can be even remotely blamed, they will be held jointly responsible. This means that a vehicle that is faulty less often than a human driver will still be subject to numerous lawsuits unless they can prove the catastrophic failure was due completely to the abuse of the system by the driver. The system must either be near-perfect, or have enough failsafes built in that the car cannot be blamed for failures.
What is a starting salary of $30,000? Is that fantastic?
The biggest opposition is that it was completely legislated without teacher input, and without a clear plan of how any of it would work and whether it would be funded 3 years from now. I'm a teacher who is opposed to it on those grounds, but not entirely opposed to all of the ideas. It just reeked of dirty business (like the way the online classes have to be done). On a side note: student motivation has always been one of the biggest hurdles for any educational system. If students can be motivated to take online classes, they very well may work, but that's been one of the biggest advantages of in-class lessons, is that the learning time is set aside, and there is someone there to help clarify concepts.
While you are correct, you need to remember that these people truly believe that their skills and abilities make a difference in the lives of the kids they work with. And they find it hard to see that life-changing influence in a computer.
I'm a teacher in Idaho, I'm only making $31,000, and have only had 1 raise in my 3 years of teaching.
My argument was intentionally excessive. In general, the people who will read the article and understand it in the first place are those that have some experience in the field already, though probably a few who don't. The point is that if it can be weaponized, we at least have to think twice about it before throwing the information out there.
When a government says you can't publish because "someone might use it for bad things" that means you can't publish anything at all. It doesn't matter. A design for a new kind of architectural brick cannot be published because someone might make one and bash someone's head in.
This is different. You're talking about not just harming one or two people, you're talking about working with a virus that could possibly kill 1/10th of the world's population. From an excessive point of view: If someone developed a way to make a nuclear bomb out of superglue and rubber bands, you think they should publish that, too? The results: -No more superglue and rubber bands. and/or -A whole lot of nuclear weapons. Those are the two options.
Unfortunately wages today are so low that for most people having only one parent work is just impossible
Is it the low wages? Or is it the fact that people want to spend $600 on a new toy, and have all the great $10+ a month services like Netflix and Hulu, and all the 'necessary' apps, and they feel it is necessary to take vacations that invariably cost $4000+ .
I think we expect too much from our meager wage. You want to abandon children to daycare so you can have these things. Fine. Just don't blame it on the 'lousy no-good wages'.
I earn $30,000 a year and support my wife and daughter just fine. We have to cut back and set a budget, but we still save, we still give to charity, and we still go on vacation. But I have accepted that I can't afford the new toys regularly, that I have to be careful about what I buy, how often we eat out. It's a self-inflicted reduction of freedom, but I choose that so my daughter can have a parent at home with her to teach her. Instead of plugging her in to a babysitter.
Are you sure? There were no Albert Einsteins back then.
No, but there was Leonardo DaVinci, and other great innovators.