It baffles me that anybody thinks it worth the time to write a complaint about a blog like this. OK, you don't like the complaint about xkcd? Don't respond to it. There is a whole web out there, people. There are probably more complaints alone than any one person can read. Move along, leave this one behind. For me, it is funny enough often enough to justify the energy spent in clicking on the link to it. Which is not the highest of praise.
You might laugh at this, but this is part of what made the metric system fail in the US. Instead of putting new signs at point like 10Km from a destination they would put a metric sign at the same location as the imperial sign. So a lot of signs had "16.09 Kilometers to destination". This led people to believe that metric is complicated with the obvious result.
In my experience as a professor I found that there are two types of students. Those who get the material without much supporting information, and those who will never get it no matter how many different techniques you use. Bloating textbooks has just made it harder for those interested in the subject to wade through the crap.
Adding more to already bloated textbooks won't help. I should start a movement for smaller books.
A prevailing assumption is that the number of scientists needed is proportional to the population. I think this is what has caused the glut of scientists (trust me I'm an ex-scientist and I know)
My guessis that the number required is of the order log(population), or even possibly a fixed constant after a certain population size.
I RTFA but there is nothing in the article. Only talk of 75 years...
I remember one way to get an upper limit on frequency is using the equation E=hf, the Planck-Einstein relation. For a given amount of energy you can only get so much frequency. But this was a million years ago in my physics class.
I would think that even the behavioral information out of the data is especially tainted. People react to situations partly based on how they understand the system. The more they play with it the more they are able to game the system. It's going to take some very sophisticated analysis to be able to differentiate between gaming the system subject to the constraints they are given, and how people would otherwise react in real life.
Also, another critical problem is that the people who play these games are self selecting. I do not think you are going to find the 'movers and shakers' of industry because (even pretending to) move and shake the real world takes so damn much time. You won't have any time to actually play. More likely the people who play are naive to the way of the world.
The problem with that idea is that the game economy is built with assumptions in mind. These assumptions will generally be based on theoretical economic models. So generally all you achieve with such experiments is confirm your built in beliefs. Chicken, egg anyone?
A similar claim was made about SimCity when it was big, that it would teach about urban planning, but it had so many assumptions built in to be worse than useless.
Does this complement "Code Complete"
on
Coders At Work
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
How does the info in this book compare to Code Complete (2)?
Slashdot Mirror
There aren't that many buttons to click on anyway.
I cannot find from the site whether it is one internal 3.5 inch drive (which is news) or two (which is not news).
Quite frankly external drives are not technologically that interesting (to me).
When I am evil overlord:
http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html
Did they predict their own success?
The best link I can find for the article is
http://www.marinetech.org/OSTO/documents/Job%20Prospects%20for%20Science%20Grads%20CHE%2021Sep07.pdf
The original article is behind a paywall unfortunately
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Real-Science-Crisis-Bleak/29178
I still want a volume control to shut the web up. But still want to be able to listen to my music.
Why do people keep using idioms which don't mean anything in the modern language any more?
On naive reading it would sound like IE9 is giving up.
From the holy book: So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day.
Is AI just seeking revenge?
Perhaps this might lead to finally finding a cure for http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
It baffles me that anybody thinks it worth the time to write a complaint about a blog like this. OK, you don't like the complaint about xkcd? Don't respond to it. There is a whole web out there, people. There are probably more complaints alone than any one person can read. Move along, leave this one behind. For me, it is funny enough often enough to justify the energy spent in clicking on the link to it. Which is not the highest of praise.
"The Green 1.6 Kilometres"
You might laugh at this, but this is part of what made the metric system fail in the US. Instead of putting new signs at point like 10Km from a destination they would put a metric sign at the same location as the imperial sign. So a lot of signs had "16.09 Kilometers to destination". This led people to believe that metric is complicated with the obvious result.
If you just wanted an atomic wristwatch here is the first real atomic wristwatch. Not those fakes which use radio reception
http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-bill/
Because the USPTO has all the power, they can decide on anything to cut down on the number of applicants.
The same thing is also happening in the job market with all the power in the hands of employers.
Fantastic!
Much like the short story "They're made of meat" by Terry Bisson.
http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html
No, Logic and Reason are superior to Cubase.
It's a music joke, laugh.
This is the sort fuckheaded comment and thought process which perpetuates the racism in the USA.
What does it mean for a bricklayer to be 10x productive? How many bricks they lay per hour? Are they straight etc etc ....
The main problem is that there is no good/easy metric to measure productivity (except perhaps for salesmen)
In my experience as a professor I found that there are two types of students. Those who get the material without much supporting information, and those who will never get it no matter how many different techniques you use. Bloating textbooks has just made it harder for those interested in the subject to wade through the crap.
Adding more to already bloated textbooks won't help. I should start a movement for smaller books.
Life is a game and money is how we keep score.
A prevailing assumption is that the number of scientists needed is proportional to the population. I think this is what has caused the glut of scientists (trust me I'm an ex-scientist and I know)
My guessis that the number required is of the order log(population), or even possibly a fixed constant after a certain population size.
I RTFA but there is nothing in the article. Only talk of 75 years...
I remember one way to get an upper limit on frequency is using the equation E=hf, the Planck-Einstein relation. For a given amount of energy you can only get so much frequency. But this was a million years ago in my physics class.
I would think that even the behavioral information out of the data is especially tainted. People react to situations partly based on how they understand the system. The more they play with it the more they are able to game the system. It's going to take some very sophisticated analysis to be able to differentiate between gaming the system subject to the constraints they are given, and how people would otherwise react in real life.
Also, another critical problem is that the people who play these games are self selecting. I do not think you are going to find the 'movers and shakers' of industry because (even pretending to) move and shake the real world takes so damn much time. You won't have any time to actually play. More likely the people who play are naive to the way of the world.
The problem with that idea is that the game economy is built with assumptions in mind. These assumptions will generally be based on theoretical economic models. So generally all you achieve with such experiments is confirm your built in beliefs. Chicken, egg anyone?
A similar claim was made about SimCity when it was big, that it would teach about urban planning, but it had so many assumptions built in to be worse than useless.
How does the info in this book compare to Code Complete (2)?
Never mind.