I'd guess that not more than half of Slashdotters have any degree at all, even if you restrict to those who are old enough to have finished one. Of course, the summary just says "went to college for a computer-related degree", so that includes all the CS dropouts, which I'm sure increases the percentage greatly.
No, it's because we know that the uncertainty will go way down in 2023 when it does or does not "pass through the keyhole". If there's a 1 in 625 chance that it passes through the keyhole, then there's a 624 in 625 chance that observations after that will reduce the odds to essentially zero. If it does pass through the keyhole, then the odds go to nearly 1. So the overall distribution hasn't changed, but we'll have a much better idea which part of it we'll be sampling.
There is an event (passing through the "keyhole") that, if it happens in 2023, will pretty much guarantee that the asteroid hits (and conversely). In other words, at this moment in 2023, the uncertainty will be greatly reduced. Either the odds will go way up or way down. Based on what we know now, there's a 624/625 chance that the odds go down.
In other words, "more observations taken then will probably reduce the odds" is precisely correct, and nobody has failed but you.
Woof...that sounds awful. I guess my perspective on this is colored too heavily by my specific field (mathematics). We don't have anything that's true "because that's just how it is". How do you remember all that stuff? I guess your point is that you probably don't.
Still, I stand by my comment in the context of math education.
I would never assign all the exercises in the textbook. But it's good to have a bunch of them in there, in case the student wants some more practice. "Answers to odd-numbered exercises in the back" is pretty helpful IMO.
Bingo. Estimate. Make a simplifying assumption. Extrapolate from a similar problem. Ask for clarification. Work it out under multiple sets of assumptions and see which ones have the greatest effect on the outcome.
It's often good pedagogy to introduce a problem before you introduce the technique of its solution. If you want to understand something, there's really no substitute, no substitute at all, for banging your head against tough problems, inventing and testing your own solutions. Even if you don't come up with one that works, you'll be in a much better position to appreciate the solution when it's shown to you.
I have helped high school kids with math and physics, and usually wind up going back to basic principals so they understand what they are doing and then can solve problems.
They're not too busy running the school to help you with your tutoring?
I'm in the eighth week of an advanced course in topology, and literally the only use we have made of numbers and arithmetic is to describe the dimensions of the various spaces we work with. All we ever do is add and subtract them, and we haven't needed anything with a second digit yet.
Perhaps entities accrediting teaching institutions should begin accrediting textbooks - formalizing the process of textbook selection instead of pushing this crucial decision to the lowest levels.
Interesting to hear this sentiment expressed on Slashdot. In the context of IT, I can't recall seeing anyone claim here that "crucial decisions" (e.g. about hardware, OS, language, development framework, etc.) shouldn't be made at 'the lowest levels". Of course, the "lowest levels" are aren't usually described quite that way, and it's always emphasized (or taken completely for granted) that such decisions rightly belong to the ones actually implementing them. Anyone further up the chain is out of touch and will screw it up by insisting on the latest buzzword-compliant methodology fad.
Wow, it's amazing i) how perfectly analogous the two situations are and ii) how exactly opposite the perspective here is.
TFA says specifically that, although scientists expected something like what you describe, the iron atom is in fact forming a sharp point that mechanically penetrates the membrane.
Another bunch of accidental cable disruptions clustered in space and time? Am I paranoid to wonder if something's going on here? Or is it like how earthquakes get more press when they come in bunches?
and the vessels themselves would be almost impossible to detect - partly because of the distances and partly because of the stealthy designs they would employ. Visual detection methods would be almost obsolete, the only exception being to look out for occultations.
So all the ships would operate at a temperature of 3 Kelvin?
I think this exchange about sums it up. Your great-great-...-great-grandparents could have sat around 150 years ago wondering what air combat would be like. With hindsight we know that the relative strengths of propulsion, maneuvering, aiming, homing, countermeasures, and automation have been constantly changing, with the result that air combat has looked different in each successive war.
There's no reason to think that the qualitative nature of space combat wouldn't change just as drastically as the eternal arms race continued. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not fun to think about or that there's nothing meaningful that can be said. The exercise is to make a few essentially arbitrary assumptions about available tech, and then try to extrapolate consistently to their implications. AKA writing sci-fi, minus the character development. AKA writing sci-fi.
I don't think the smartphone exists that has both a GPS reliable enough for this and a battery that allows it to be on all the time. I will buy that phone when it does exist.
Have you been a parent? You're old enough, judging by your id. I am, and I do appreciate ratings. I honestly don't have time to watch or play every show or game that my son wants to. You know, ratings aren't just a substitute for good parenting--they can be a useful tool. My son has earned the privilege of finding his own appropriate shows on Netflix. He knows which ratings he's allowed to watch. If he wants to see something else, he has to ask.
I'm honestly curious: are you a parent, and if so, then how would/do you solve the problem of inappropriate content without ratings?
UFO's have been using the "disk" design for decades, now engineers are looking at scorpions. Clearly, "black flap" technology is the logical next step.
'My hope is that family data plans come soon, to all carriers, just like we have for family voice and messaging plans.'
The family plan will come to your carrier just as soon as they've worked out the necessary details, i.e. made sure you'll end up paying just a little more than you do now.
In this day and age, if you want to get through college in 4 -5 years, you need loans or rich parents - and that going to a cheap state school.
Not necessarily. I was getting paid pretty well as a code monkey in the late 90s/early 00s, but without a degree I knew my prospects were limited (and I just didn't want to do it anymore, either). I swallowed my pride and moved back in with my (not rich) parents and spent two years at the local CC taking gen-ed classes. With Pell grants and, after the first year, a merit-based SMART grant, I was able to afford books, tuition, a modest contribution to the household, and some spending money, without borrowing a dime. (I had not saved money during my previous employment--not something to be proud of, but relevant to my anecdote.)
I did borrow some after I transferred to the flagship state university to finish my BS, but we're talking maybe $10k over two years. I had a work-study position that didn't quite make ends meet, but essentially I was paid to sit behind a counter and spent 90% of that time studying. I made the choice to take on that debt rather than find a part-time job, but if it had been important to me not to borrow anything, I know I could have made that work.
From 2005 to present, I've done a BS, MS, and am about two years from a PhD, borrowing a total of $10k (the graduate work was all funded, including a stipend). I did get (crucial!) support from my parents when I was getting started, but it was room and board, not a huge wad of cash. I had to be willing to do my first years at the CC (since my parents don't live near a university), and I had to get my BS from an in-state public university (luckily mine was pretty good). And I am fortunate to be in a STEM field, which let me get that SMART grant and good funding for my graduate work.
Having said this, I feel like I need to add that I am 100% for student loans and especially grants. I'm just pointing out that if you're willing to work and compromise a bit, it's by no means impossible to get a degree (or several) without burying yourself in debt.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and those people have PhD's and publications.
I'd guess that not more than half of Slashdotters have any degree at all, even if you restrict to those who are old enough to have finished one. Of course, the summary just says "went to college for a computer-related degree", so that includes all the CS dropouts, which I'm sure increases the percentage greatly.
No, it's because we know that the uncertainty will go way down in 2023 when it does or does not "pass through the keyhole". If there's a 1 in 625 chance that it passes through the keyhole, then there's a 624 in 625 chance that observations after that will reduce the odds to essentially zero. If it does pass through the keyhole, then the odds go to nearly 1. So the overall distribution hasn't changed, but we'll have a much better idea which part of it we'll be sampling.
Uh...no.
There is an event (passing through the "keyhole") that, if it happens in 2023, will pretty much guarantee that the asteroid hits (and conversely). In other words, at this moment in 2023, the uncertainty will be greatly reduced. Either the odds will go way up or way down. Based on what we know now, there's a 624/625 chance that the odds go down.
In other words, "more observations taken then will probably reduce the odds" is precisely correct, and nobody has failed but you.
Sadly, no, you aren't.
I suggest possibly covering as well.
Woof...that sounds awful. I guess my perspective on this is colored too heavily by my specific field (mathematics). We don't have anything that's true "because that's just how it is". How do you remember all that stuff? I guess your point is that you probably don't.
Still, I stand by my comment in the context of math education.
I would never assign all the exercises in the textbook. But it's good to have a bunch of them in there, in case the student wants some more practice. "Answers to odd-numbered exercises in the back" is pretty helpful IMO.
Bingo. Estimate. Make a simplifying assumption. Extrapolate from a similar problem. Ask for clarification. Work it out under multiple sets of assumptions and see which ones have the greatest effect on the outcome.
Think about it.
It's often good pedagogy to introduce a problem before you introduce the technique of its solution. If you want to understand something, there's really no substitute, no substitute at all, for banging your head against tough problems, inventing and testing your own solutions. Even if you don't come up with one that works, you'll be in a much better position to appreciate the solution when it's shown to you.
I have helped high school kids with math and physics, and usually wind up going back to basic principals so they understand what they are doing and then can solve problems.
They're not too busy running the school to help you with your tutoring?
Exactly...I was thinking, "one of these things is not like the others" upon reading that post, too.
I'm in the eighth week of an advanced course in topology, and literally the only use we have made of numbers and arithmetic is to describe the dimensions of the various spaces we work with. All we ever do is add and subtract them, and we haven't needed anything with a second digit yet.
Perhaps entities accrediting teaching institutions should begin accrediting textbooks - formalizing the process of textbook selection instead of pushing this crucial decision to the lowest levels.
Interesting to hear this sentiment expressed on Slashdot. In the context of IT, I can't recall seeing anyone claim here that "crucial decisions" (e.g. about hardware, OS, language, development framework, etc.) shouldn't be made at 'the lowest levels". Of course, the "lowest levels" are aren't usually described quite that way, and it's always emphasized (or taken completely for granted) that such decisions rightly belong to the ones actually implementing them. Anyone further up the chain is out of touch and will screw it up by insisting on the latest buzzword-compliant methodology fad.
Wow, it's amazing i) how perfectly analogous the two situations are and ii) how exactly opposite the perspective here is.
IAAMT (university).
Their browser crashed before they could finish the puzzle.
TFA says specifically that, although scientists expected something like what you describe, the iron atom is in fact forming a sharp point that mechanically penetrates the membrane.
Another bunch of accidental cable disruptions clustered in space and time? Am I paranoid to wonder if something's going on here? Or is it like how earthquakes get more press when they come in bunches?
and the vessels themselves would be almost impossible to detect - partly because of the distances and partly because of the stealthy designs they would employ. Visual detection methods would be almost obsolete, the only exception being to look out for occultations.
So all the ships would operate at a temperature of 3 Kelvin?
Laser Beams.
That's all.
my mirror shields will take the day
I think this exchange about sums it up. Your great-great-...-great-grandparents could have sat around 150 years ago wondering what air combat would be like. With hindsight we know that the relative strengths of propulsion, maneuvering, aiming, homing, countermeasures, and automation have been constantly changing, with the result that air combat has looked different in each successive war.
There's no reason to think that the qualitative nature of space combat wouldn't change just as drastically as the eternal arms race continued. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not fun to think about or that there's nothing meaningful that can be said. The exercise is to make a few essentially arbitrary assumptions about available tech, and then try to extrapolate consistently to their implications. AKA writing sci-fi, minus the character development. AKA writing sci-fi.
I don't think the smartphone exists that has both a GPS reliable enough for this and a battery that allows it to be on all the time. I will buy that phone when it does exist.
Have you been a parent? You're old enough, judging by your id. I am, and I do appreciate ratings. I honestly don't have time to watch or play every show or game that my son wants to. You know, ratings aren't just a substitute for good parenting--they can be a useful tool. My son has earned the privilege of finding his own appropriate shows on Netflix. He knows which ratings he's allowed to watch. If he wants to see something else, he has to ask.
I'm honestly curious: are you a parent, and if so, then how would/do you solve the problem of inappropriate content without ratings?
I'm all for simple answers, but I think this P vs NP problem is trickier than you suspect.
UFO's have been using the "disk" design for decades, now engineers are looking at scorpions. Clearly, "black flap" technology is the logical next step.
The family plan will come to your carrier just as soon as they've worked out the necessary details, i.e. made sure you'll end up paying just a little more than you do now.
Not necessarily. I was getting paid pretty well as a code monkey in the late 90s/early 00s, but without a degree I knew my prospects were limited (and I just didn't want to do it anymore, either). I swallowed my pride and moved back in with my (not rich) parents and spent two years at the local CC taking gen-ed classes. With Pell grants and, after the first year, a merit-based SMART grant, I was able to afford books, tuition, a modest contribution to the household, and some spending money, without borrowing a dime. (I had not saved money during my previous employment--not something to be proud of, but relevant to my anecdote.)
I did borrow some after I transferred to the flagship state university to finish my BS, but we're talking maybe $10k over two years. I had a work-study position that didn't quite make ends meet, but essentially I was paid to sit behind a counter and spent 90% of that time studying. I made the choice to take on that debt rather than find a part-time job, but if it had been important to me not to borrow anything, I know I could have made that work.
From 2005 to present, I've done a BS, MS, and am about two years from a PhD, borrowing a total of $10k (the graduate work was all funded, including a stipend). I did get (crucial!) support from my parents when I was getting started, but it was room and board, not a huge wad of cash. I had to be willing to do my first years at the CC (since my parents don't live near a university), and I had to get my BS from an in-state public university (luckily mine was pretty good). And I am fortunate to be in a STEM field, which let me get that SMART grant and good funding for my graduate work.
Having said this, I feel like I need to add that I am 100% for student loans and especially grants. I'm just pointing out that if you're willing to work and compromise a bit, it's by no means impossible to get a degree (or several) without burying yourself in debt.