"Law-enforcement agency" is correct but uncommon. It's an agency for law enforcement, not a law "enforcement agency". "Law enforcement" is a compound modifier, so it gets a hyphen.
If people avoided all childhood vaccinations, that is. The mortality rate of many of the diseases we vaccinate against is higher than 0.7%, and before we started vaccinating against them, they were common diseases.
People don't think about that, though, just like they say that people survived just fine before kids wore bike helmets and ladders had stickers telling you which rung not to go past.
Early philosophers reasoned about the natural world, and were sometimes right, but what they did can't be considered science. The distinction between philosophy and natural philosophy happened before people started really doing what we would call science.
So, are you trying to argue that since it costs money to improve X, then if Y is an improved version of X, then Y is necessarily more expensive than X?
Are you familiar with how citations work? The only citation that would be useful to make is a comparative study of Rand's work with that of other philosophers, which seems a bit overboard, since nobody would read it.
Of course, you could ask him to provide, say, the names of other philosophers, but that's a bit general.
Consider that major pioneering efforts followed in the footsteps of explorers, who had every intention of returning and usually did, reporting back useful information about what was found.
Well, so far all we've sent to Mars is a couple of small robots. Building a vehicle that can launch from Earth, even from parts, is a task that requires well more than one person and enough hardware to fill more spaceships than we've ever launched.
I don't buy that you're tasting that the animal had a good life, per se, but you should definitely do blind trials. Things like slower growth, higher-quality feed, use of breeds with higher fat content, etc. really have an impact on the flavor of meat. Butter and eggs, too.
Correct. You can take a derivative work that's under the GPL and previously publicly-accessible and stop distributing it publicly. You can even sell it and not include the source code. However, you must provide the source code upon a buyer's request (and cannot place further redistribution restrictions on the buyer). You also must include the GPL license, which informs the buyer of this right.
I agree. Some of the questions are also particularly vague or misleading. A number of them still manage to do the job of measuring reasonably well what kind of reasoning students are using.
Surely those silly scientists miss this ingenious answer!
Wait, let's check the paper:
6. a mature maple tree can have a mass of 1 ton or more (dry biomass, after removing the water), yet it starts from a seed that weighs less than 1 gram. Which of the following processes contributes the most to this huge increase in biomass? circle the correct answer. (A) absorption of mineral substances from the soil via the roots (B) absorption of organic substances from the soil via the roots (C) incorporation of CO2
gas from the atmosphere into molecules by green leaves (D) incorporation of H2 o from the soil into molecules by green leaves (E) absorption of solar radiation into the leaf
and
3. the trees in the rain forest contain molecules of chlorophyll (c55H72o5n4Mg). Decide whether each of the following statements is true (t) or false (F) about the atoms in those molecules. Some of the atoms in the chlorophyll came from... T F carbon dioxide in the air T F sunlight that provided energy for photosynthesis T F water in the soil T F nutrients in the soil T F glucose produced by photosynthesis T F the seed that the tree grow from
Actually, the OP is a great example of how applying principle-based reasoning (well, just regular reasoning, in this case) gets you much better results than people using casual reasoning based on their personal experiences.
You can't possibly teach all the "big facts" -- like "plants get their nutrients from the air". If the big facts you teach are basic principles and you require that people apply thought to those facts to adapt them to a particular question, then that's exactly what the article is saying.:p
Slashdot Mirror
"Law-enforcement agency" is correct but uncommon. It's an agency for law enforcement, not a law "enforcement agency". "Law enforcement" is a compound modifier, so it gets a hyphen.
You can't discuss the death rate due to measles in the USA because its only single digits yearly for the entire developed western world.
One might think vaccination had something to do with that.
He made investments based on the result of a study before he performed it, cherry-picked study participants, and then falsified results.
If people avoided all childhood vaccinations, that is. The mortality rate of many of the diseases we vaccinate against is higher than 0.7%, and before we started vaccinating against them, they were common diseases.
People don't think about that, though, just like they say that people survived just fine before kids wore bike helmets and ladders had stickers telling you which rung not to go past.
Also lepton number conservation.
No, it generates electron-positron pairs. If the positron escapes into space, the Earth is less massive by the mass of one positron.
Despite being called "antimatter", antiparticles have positive energies and positive masses, just like regular particles.
Early philosophers reasoned about the natural world, and were sometimes right, but what they did can't be considered science. The distinction between philosophy and natural philosophy happened before people started really doing what we would call science.
Carbon dioxide? Probably, but not nearly as much as a bunch of methane.
Much better!
So you think things get improved for free then?
So, are you trying to argue that since it costs money to improve X, then if Y is an improved version of X, then Y is necessarily more expensive than X?
The problem is that a heavily regulated system like this raises prices
It also tries to make arguments on blind assertions.
Newton was a natural philosopher. Despite the name, a natural philosopher isn't a philosopher.
Are you familiar with how citations work? The only citation that would be useful to make is a comparative study of Rand's work with that of other philosophers, which seems a bit overboard, since nobody would read it.
Of course, you could ask him to provide, say, the names of other philosophers, but that's a bit general.
Consider that major pioneering efforts followed in the footsteps of explorers, who had every intention of returning and usually did, reporting back useful information about what was found.
Well, so far all we've sent to Mars is a couple of small robots. Building a vehicle that can launch from Earth, even from parts, is a task that requires well more than one person and enough hardware to fill more spaceships than we've ever launched.
So yes, virtually impossible.
Living humans for the most part seem to agree that being alive beats the alternative.
I don't buy that you're tasting that the animal had a good life, per se, but you should definitely do blind trials. Things like slower growth, higher-quality feed, use of breeds with higher fat content, etc. really have an impact on the flavor of meat. Butter and eggs, too.
So because we disagree with the laws in Islamic countries, we should ignore the rights of Muslim citizens of the U.S.?
It seems the same argument could be applied to support Japanese internment camps. Or hunting down and persecuting Communists and socialists.
Correct. You can take a derivative work that's under the GPL and previously publicly-accessible and stop distributing it publicly. You can even sell it and not include the source code. However, you must provide the source code upon a buyer's request (and cannot place further redistribution restrictions on the buyer). You also must include the GPL license, which informs the buyer of this right.
It's the fact that Twitter (and its servers) are in the U.S. that gives them the ability to do this.
All that would get you is a hefty fine for deliberately misinterpreting the subpoena to waste the state's time.
I agree. Some of the questions are also particularly vague or misleading. A number of them still manage to do the job of measuring reasonably well what kind of reasoning students are using.
Surely those silly scientists miss this ingenious answer!
Wait, let's check the paper:
6. a mature maple tree can have a mass of 1 ton or more (dry biomass, after
removing the water), yet it starts from a seed that weighs less than 1 gram. Which
of the following processes contributes the most to this huge increase in biomass?
circle the correct answer.
(A) absorption of mineral substances from the soil via the roots
(B) absorption of organic substances from the soil via the roots
(C) incorporation of CO2
gas from the atmosphere into molecules by green leaves
(D) incorporation of H2
o from the soil into molecules by green leaves
(E) absorption of solar radiation into the leaf
and
3. the trees in the rain forest contain molecules of chlorophyll (c55H72o5n4Mg).
Decide whether each of the following statements is true (t) or false (F) about
the atoms in those molecules. Some of the atoms in the chlorophyll came from...
T F carbon dioxide in the air
T F sunlight that provided energy for photosynthesis
T F water in the soil
T F nutrients in the soil
T F glucose produced by photosynthesis
T F the seed that the tree grow from
Actually, the OP is a great example of how applying principle-based reasoning (well, just regular reasoning, in this case) gets you much better results than people using casual reasoning based on their personal experiences.
You can't possibly teach all the "big facts" -- like "plants get their nutrients from the air". If the big facts you teach are basic principles and you require that people apply thought to those facts to adapt them to a particular question, then that's exactly what the article is saying. :p
It's actually noo-klee-er, rather than nook-lee-er, but it's still three syllables.