I'm studying mathematics right now. I'm in abstract algebra, combinatorics, real analysis, and a seminar on math history with proofs, and last quarter I took abstract set theory. It's all good, and all challenging, and all elegant and beautiful and subtle. My classmates sometimes complain about not favoring real analysis or geometry, but I don't really feel the distinctions. I do think Euclid is great, but set theory could be awesome too, if it were presented well. My problem with public math education is the lack of variety and choices. Graph theory and probability (with some proofs) ought to be available alternatives to calc 2 in every high school. I would like to speak to the situation in elementary school, but I don't know enough about it.
I don't know if this is really a funding problem, because teachers are never paid enough. We don't have culture in the USA, so money is the only thing to chase. A person with a bachelors in mathematics could go into training to a variety of careers that pay $50-150K/year, or they could get a teaching certificate and somehow find a way to actually get logical thinking into high schoolers via set theory, and make...$40K? Woohoo! With a culture that respects such behavior, it might be worth it, but there is not much of that here. Better go for the $$$.
Talk to foreigners. People are outraged and disgusted by being searched when they enter the country, by Guantanamo Bay, by many things America does. As much as I love and defend STEM, technical knowledge is only a small part of life. Churning out code monkies who have a mental world map of "Anime comes from Japan, Europe is That Way, Mexico is That Way,..." is generally a really bad idea.
Signing a contract like this without competent legal counsel is not crossing your Ts and dotting your Is. Hopefully the defendant can appeal this ridiculous ruling, but this wouldn't be necessary if he hadn't been so careless with a very important legal matter.
My take: The law is extraordinarily fucked up in this case. The child has nothing to do with the guy, except that he was willing to cross a legal divide. And it's his offspring, but that does not matter if he does not want it to matter. Now a winning move would be for the state to turn around and apologize and tacitly approve of gay marriage because it's the right (and normal) thing to do. I agree that this was a careless, very dumb arrangement overall, but I guess an average fellow might think his society will reward him for decent behavior. But ours is a society that e.g. routinely inspects the bodies of incoming foreigners (behavior that would have started wars pretty frequently in history). So, it is an important legal matter, a very important one, so it needs to be resolved fairly, not pushed aside like a common 'deadbeat dad' ruling. I think that fair punishment for the father's imprudence is paying the lawyers and whatnot. I don't think it's fair to charge him for the child, and a judge ought to say so.
The difference between 1984 and what is happening is duress. We are not economically desperate, despite all the media hype. But everyone is ranked and assessed by their utility. In the name of stopping terrorism, there's some algorithm out there that says how likely I am to make more friends, make more money, how much I am capable of in various capacities, and who knows what else. It's fucking disgusting.
It's also used for:
intimidating leaders,
intimidating civilians,
morale,
patroling,
generally letting others know you belong to an armed cadre.
I would argue that these are all very important uses for AKs.
Red states do use the most social services. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html
But they vote by the supposed moral stances of the parties. Why? Propaganda. There's not 2 parties here, but a junta divided across the public and private sectors. This game's been going on for 20 years where moral stances are pronounced on the supposed 2 parties, and they give and take just enough to keep the elderly vote in balance. It's extremely predictable, so it's easy to keep the people needed by the junta in office, which then gives them the needed credentials to move to the private sector as need be. Gerrymandering helps too.
I always thought the point of seatbelts on planes was to keep people from wandering around on takeoff, when they'd be liable to falling on other passengers and whatnot.
Yeah, for millions of years over millions of square miles the carcasses of creatures and plant matter were piled up in bogs, storing bazillions of joules of solar energy in (relatively rare) carbon compounds...and we're releasing it all now, in ~300 years, and some people are surprised that other people are pretty sure that this flood of carbon has environmental effects.
Bt proteins are highly selective now, but who's to say that they won't start having effects in humans if the genes are altered, say by irradiation...I don't want pesticides to be sprayed or added to the tissues of plants. What concerns me more, would be if a plant with the Bt genes became a common weed, and proceeded to wipe out e.g some rare (or common) kinds of butterflies.
So true. Nerds who are not computer nerds often have the highest computing needs. I can do everything I usually want to do with an ancient laptop because I don't do graphic design or record music or make 3D models. Shoot, if I am going to play a video game it's probably Doom or Starcraft. A computer that plays youtube videos reliably will do anything I want in IDLE or Emacs and even runs small VMs okay. The only thing I'd want a modern desktop for would be video format conversion or bloated Processing code.
The point of science ought to be to train you to think deductively, if your intellectual interests lie in the natural world. I am glad that most of the variables in most scientific models are irrelevant, and as others have commented, statisticians make much hay of this fact. But the next time someone comes along and shows why some tiny discrepency in calculated values is actually due to some effect that nobody understood before, there will be tremendous ramifications. The most famous example would be that the actual mass lost in uranium fission is 0.1%. Sure, only a few things matter to make fission happen, but that's not the science, that's engineering. The science is checking all the things we think are true, and then comparing our assumptions to our observations. So maybe, as in the case of a cell, if you want to design drugs *a lot like the ones we already have* you can ignore most of the variables in cell biology and just focus on the relevant ones. But that's not science, that's the application of science. Science comes from applying patterns that nobody even considered before. I'm studying group theory right now, so quantum mechanics comes to mind. New logic==all bets are off. That's it.
I wish more people would listen to the TP and consider joining. If enough GOP re-aligned to TP to make most people consider TP=fiscal conservative vs. GOP=social conservative, then, in our majority-run system, Democrats would be running the show. Then so many people would get pissed off by the astounding number of 'moderate' fakies that the Dems would fracture too, and Socialists like me might finally get a sliver of representation here or there.
So we should behave like their dominant political machine? What makes no sense to me, beside that anyone could be a spy, is that we ought to be overjoyed if they can get something out of our science. That's the point of science! (egos notwithstanding).
Honest question, could creative hackers build any effective counters to camera-guided missiles, drones, or other high-tech devices currently at government disposal? I mean, under duress, I don't think money would be such a constraint, as a few dissident software engineers could amass $$$$$ at least. And maybe hack or jam or DOS remote controls. And necessity is the mother of invention...
I don't mean to imply civil war, just what threats the powers-that-be regard as contingencies. I know it's off-topic, and I haven't read every post in this thread, but I am curious.
I think the problem with this line of reasoning lies in defining a computer. IMO it stands to reason that we can pretend that what we call a 'computer' has many of the theoretic properties of a brain, but somehow, nobody has got anywhere near the functionality. I love the idea of sentience as a solvable problem, but in the context of an article with Feynman diagrams, it feels absurd to me.
In order for socialism to be realized, it appears there must be some organization that takes the longest possible way around it. Perhaps this is just to make sure that all the bushes have been thoroughly whacked.
Influenza does the most damage by prompting a massive immune response. The highest risk group is small children and the very elderly, but the next-highest risk group is thin healthy people in their 20's like me. A big fat person with slow metabolism has much less to fear than me.
Obama is obviously using his powers to get this IPCC 'panel' to confuse everyone with 'leaked' documents. This is to distract leftists from the fascist activities of our government. Those Nazis want to take all of our guns away.
Functions are not named after what they do because what they do is your opinion. Strong rules for a naming convention for functions would require prescient thought.
The reason leadership is important and why they might want to ask those questions is a lack of career development can be indicative of someone who doesn't apply themselves.
Evaluate the work that engineers do. If their work has been par or better, then they have earned it. If you suspect that they are lazy, so what? Are they doing the work, or not?
You might have problems with an employee for being incompetent or not caring about the real meaning of their work. Seeing that they switch to management is a funny way to make sure they are good, seeing that it's a different job than what they came in the door to do.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm studying mathematics right now. I'm in abstract algebra, combinatorics, real analysis, and a seminar on math history with proofs, and last quarter I took abstract set theory. It's all good, and all challenging, and all elegant and beautiful and subtle. My classmates sometimes complain about not favoring real analysis or geometry, but I don't really feel the distinctions. I do think Euclid is great, but set theory could be awesome too, if it were presented well. My problem with public math education is the lack of variety and choices. Graph theory and probability (with some proofs) ought to be available alternatives to calc 2 in every high school. I would like to speak to the situation in elementary school, but I don't know enough about it. I don't know if this is really a funding problem, because teachers are never paid enough. We don't have culture in the USA, so money is the only thing to chase. A person with a bachelors in mathematics could go into training to a variety of careers that pay $50-150K/year, or they could get a teaching certificate and somehow find a way to actually get logical thinking into high schoolers via set theory, and make...$40K? Woohoo! With a culture that respects such behavior, it might be worth it, but there is not much of that here. Better go for the $$$.
Talk to foreigners. People are outraged and disgusted by being searched when they enter the country, by Guantanamo Bay, by many things America does. As much as I love and defend STEM, technical knowledge is only a small part of life. Churning out code monkies who have a mental world map of "Anime comes from Japan, Europe is That Way, Mexico is That Way,..." is generally a really bad idea.
Signing a contract like this without competent legal counsel is not crossing your Ts and dotting your Is. Hopefully the defendant can appeal this ridiculous ruling, but this wouldn't be necessary if he hadn't been so careless with a very important legal matter.
My take: The law is extraordinarily fucked up in this case. The child has nothing to do with the guy, except that he was willing to cross a legal divide. And it's his offspring, but that does not matter if he does not want it to matter. Now a winning move would be for the state to turn around and apologize and tacitly approve of gay marriage because it's the right (and normal) thing to do. I agree that this was a careless, very dumb arrangement overall, but I guess an average fellow might think his society will reward him for decent behavior. But ours is a society that e.g. routinely inspects the bodies of incoming foreigners (behavior that would have started wars pretty frequently in history). So, it is an important legal matter, a very important one, so it needs to be resolved fairly, not pushed aside like a common 'deadbeat dad' ruling. I think that fair punishment for the father's imprudence is paying the lawyers and whatnot. I don't think it's fair to charge him for the child, and a judge ought to say so.
The difference between 1984 and what is happening is duress. We are not economically desperate, despite all the media hype. But everyone is ranked and assessed by their utility. In the name of stopping terrorism, there's some algorithm out there that says how likely I am to make more friends, make more money, how much I am capable of in various capacities, and who knows what else. It's fucking disgusting.
It's also used for:
intimidating leaders,
intimidating civilians,
morale,
patroling,
generally letting others know you belong to an armed cadre.
I would argue that these are all very important uses for AKs.
Red states do use the most social services. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html But they vote by the supposed moral stances of the parties. Why? Propaganda. There's not 2 parties here, but a junta divided across the public and private sectors. This game's been going on for 20 years where moral stances are pronounced on the supposed 2 parties, and they give and take just enough to keep the elderly vote in balance. It's extremely predictable, so it's easy to keep the people needed by the junta in office, which then gives them the needed credentials to move to the private sector as need be. Gerrymandering helps too.
I felt cool when I was learning Dvorak and I knew that typos in the subtitles to a live presidential address were Dvorak typos.
I always thought the point of seatbelts on planes was to keep people from wandering around on takeoff, when they'd be liable to falling on other passengers and whatnot.
When I say inertia I mean what you described. When I say perpetual motion I mean "pseudoscientific bullshit". I feel like my definitions are common.
Yeah, for millions of years over millions of square miles the carcasses of creatures and plant matter were piled up in bogs, storing bazillions of joules of solar energy in (relatively rare) carbon compounds...and we're releasing it all now, in ~300 years, and some people are surprised that other people are pretty sure that this flood of carbon has environmental effects.
Bt proteins are highly selective now, but who's to say that they won't start having effects in humans if the genes are altered, say by irradiation...I don't want pesticides to be sprayed or added to the tissues of plants. What concerns me more, would be if a plant with the Bt genes became a common weed, and proceeded to wipe out e.g some rare (or common) kinds of butterflies.
So true. Nerds who are not computer nerds often have the highest computing needs. I can do everything I usually want to do with an ancient laptop because I don't do graphic design or record music or make 3D models. Shoot, if I am going to play a video game it's probably Doom or Starcraft. A computer that plays youtube videos reliably will do anything I want in IDLE or Emacs and even runs small VMs okay. The only thing I'd want a modern desktop for would be video format conversion or bloated Processing code.
The point of science ought to be to train you to think deductively, if your intellectual interests lie in the natural world. I am glad that most of the variables in most scientific models are irrelevant, and as others have commented, statisticians make much hay of this fact. But the next time someone comes along and shows why some tiny discrepency in calculated values is actually due to some effect that nobody understood before, there will be tremendous ramifications. The most famous example would be that the actual mass lost in uranium fission is 0.1%. Sure, only a few things matter to make fission happen, but that's not the science, that's engineering. The science is checking all the things we think are true, and then comparing our assumptions to our observations. So maybe, as in the case of a cell, if you want to design drugs *a lot like the ones we already have* you can ignore most of the variables in cell biology and just focus on the relevant ones. But that's not science, that's the application of science. Science comes from applying patterns that nobody even considered before. I'm studying group theory right now, so quantum mechanics comes to mind. New logic==all bets are off. That's it.
I wish more people would listen to the TP and consider joining. If enough GOP re-aligned to TP to make most people consider TP=fiscal conservative vs. GOP=social conservative, then, in our majority-run system, Democrats would be running the show. Then so many people would get pissed off by the astounding number of 'moderate' fakies that the Dems would fracture too, and Socialists like me might finally get a sliver of representation here or there.
I wish behavior like this could be outlawed, but sadly, banning them would just make them harder to detect.
So we should behave like their dominant political machine?
What makes no sense to me, beside that anyone could be a spy, is that we ought to be overjoyed if they can get something out of our science. That's the point of science! (egos notwithstanding).
Honest question, could creative hackers build any effective counters to camera-guided missiles, drones, or other high-tech devices currently at government disposal? I mean, under duress, I don't think money would be such a constraint, as a few dissident software engineers could amass $$$$$ at least. And maybe hack or jam or DOS remote controls. And necessity is the mother of invention...
I don't mean to imply civil war, just what threats the powers-that-be regard as contingencies. I know it's off-topic, and I haven't read every post in this thread, but I am curious.
I think the problem with this line of reasoning lies in defining a computer. IMO it stands to reason that we can pretend that what we call a 'computer' has many of the theoretic properties of a brain, but somehow, nobody has got anywhere near the functionality. I love the idea of sentience as a solvable problem, but in the context of an article with Feynman diagrams, it feels absurd to me.
In order for socialism to be realized, it appears there must be some organization that takes the longest possible way around it. Perhaps this is just to make sure that all the bushes have been thoroughly whacked.
Influenza does the most damage by prompting a massive immune response. The highest risk group is small children and the very elderly, but the next-highest risk group is thin healthy people in their 20's like me. A big fat person with slow metabolism has much less to fear than me.
Came to post this. These can be made from sheet metal and cheap insulation. The designs have become so simple that it's mostly a matter of initiative.
Obama is obviously using his powers to get this IPCC 'panel' to confuse everyone with 'leaked' documents. This is to distract leftists from the fascist activities of our government. Those Nazis want to take all of our guns away.
The fundamental flaw is FISA, IMHO
Functions are not named after what they do because what they do is your opinion. Strong rules for a naming convention for functions would require prescient thought.
The reason leadership is important and why they might want to ask those questions is a lack of career development can be indicative of someone who doesn't apply themselves.
Evaluate the work that engineers do. If their work has been par or better, then they have earned it. If you suspect that they are lazy, so what? Are they doing the work, or not?
You might have problems with an employee for being incompetent or not caring about the real meaning of their work. Seeing that they switch to management is a funny way to make sure they are good, seeing that it's a different job than what they came in the door to do.