One reason to allow graphing calculators for at least part of a course's work is because they will be used in a working environment and thus the student should be aware of their use and proficient.
That said, the same students also need to learn the basic principals underlying their classwork that using a graphing calculator often glosses over. Thus it isn't a matter of to use or not to use, it is a matter of HOW to use.
You are not a customer. You and everyone else who pays for their content is a potential criminal. The only thing keeping you from being a criminal is your regular payments to them for the content you watch, and you have to be careful only to keep and watch content that you have paid for.
The **AAs have a very difficult job of keeping these maybe criminals from becoming real criminals and all they get is flack and complaints from the people they serve; which just goes to show just how criminal those people really are.
The real "match" the other systems have to make is to the Wii's pricetag and ease of use.
The casual gamer is in many ways a very different animal than the more hardcore console gamer. So it isn't a question of "watering down" the experience but making a good, fun, and easy to play game.
Or better yet talk to people who've done it before. I mean seriously there have been organizations managing hundreds of thousands of documents since the Roman Era, its nothing new.
No that's going to be the next Saw film. All the victims are going to be the pieces in a giant tetris machine and have to move themselves into the appropriate slots. Of course they won't realize that finishing a row causes the industrial shredders to move in and remove that row.
The problem is that the paper test to become say an auto mechanic is vastly different than actually disassembling an engine?
Would you let a surgeon work on you who has passed all of his paper tests and never cut into a single body before?
Paper tests, especially standardized ones, give standardized questions. Questions which have formulaic solutions. To be truly innovative means going up against questions which have never been asked before or at least never been solved so formulaic methods to getting to those answers will not work.
Yes tests do work fairly well at certain things, but they are not fool proof and standardized tests introduce many many fools to the equation.
Does your "better" reflect knowledge and skills that will apply to real-world environments and situations?
Or is the "better" more memorization and rote learning without developing any understanding or thinking skills?
While memorization is an important part of learning, and is necessary to a certain extent true skill development comes from thinking skills, and practices that have proven very difficult to show on tests.
If we could make tests that work so well then why would colleges look at anything other than a perspective student's SAT's?
I don't give a shit why they learn, as long as they do it.
Yes but it isn't just that they are learning it is WHAT they are learning?
Are they actually developing good thinking and cognitive skills or are they studying to a test? Will they continue to learn even outside of school? Will what they learn actually stick around?
I suspect that it does help learning some but I also suspect that the learning done is heavily geared towards taking/getting through tests which often does not translate well to real-world performance.
The appeal is to demonstrate that something was wrong in the first trial. Thus while you could argue that evidence was withheld from the first trial in an appeal I don't think you could actually introduce that evidence in appeal...I am not a lawyer.
There is something to be said for a "mediocre" solution that no one else had thought to use and yet proved wildly successful.
Its called good design or elegant design.
In other words, Nintendo used what they NEEDED for a game control system and cut costs so that more people could play, and proved that the formula worked.
Look at biological sciences under the Soviets. Or for a far less sinister view look at the luminiferous ether. It was accepted as fact for a long time that light needed a medium to flow through as a wave; until someone finally did the research and expiriment to "prove" the fact...
Yes, I know how difficult it is to refute a scientific outcome. You say "I'm not too sure about this and would like to see more studies on it." It isn't hard at all to refute a single outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
One reason to allow graphing calculators for at least part of a course's work is because they will be used in a working environment and thus the student should be aware of their use and proficient.
That said, the same students also need to learn the basic principals underlying their classwork that using a graphing calculator often glosses over. Thus it isn't a matter of to use or not to use, it is a matter of HOW to use.
Dude..
Didn't you get the memo? They changed the frequency! Tinfoil and aluminum hats AMPLIFY their signals! You need to switch to a silicone gel filled hat.
You are not a customer. You and everyone else who pays for their content is a potential criminal. The only thing keeping you from being a criminal is your regular payments to them for the content you watch, and you have to be careful only to keep and watch content that you have paid for.
The **AAs have a very difficult job of keeping these maybe criminals from becoming real criminals and all they get is flack and complaints from the people they serve; which just goes to show just how criminal those people really are.
Telescopes don't negate the problem but they do help to lessen it to a certain extent.
The real "match" the other systems have to make is to the Wii's pricetag and ease of use.
The casual gamer is in many ways a very different animal than the more hardcore console gamer. So it isn't a question of "watering down" the experience but making a good, fun, and easy to play game.
Ford invented MASS PRODUCTION of cars but not the car itself. There were many previous example of the "car" before Ford.
Or better yet talk to people who've done it before. I mean seriously there have been organizations managing hundreds of thousands of documents since the Roman Era, its nothing new.
No that's going to be the next Saw film. All the victims are going to be the pieces in a giant tetris machine and have to move themselves into the appropriate slots. Of course they won't realize that finishing a row causes the industrial shredders to move in and remove that row.
Don't worry you quite possibly won't.
Ready to sign up for your strait-2-download account?
Sounds like Disney to me.
I'm not saying that it is a bad idea entirely but I am saying it may have its drawbacks.
The problem is that the paper test to become say an auto mechanic is vastly different than actually disassembling an engine?
Would you let a surgeon work on you who has passed all of his paper tests and never cut into a single body before?
Paper tests, especially standardized ones, give standardized questions. Questions which have formulaic solutions. To be truly innovative means going up against questions which have never been asked before or at least never been solved so formulaic methods to getting to those answers will not work.
Yes tests do work fairly well at certain things, but they are not fool proof and standardized tests introduce many many fools to the equation.
Yes but what IS better?
Does your "better" reflect knowledge and skills that will apply to real-world environments and situations?
Or is the "better" more memorization and rote learning without developing any understanding or thinking skills?
While memorization is an important part of learning, and is necessary to a certain extent true skill development comes from thinking skills, and practices that have proven very difficult to show on tests.
If we could make tests that work so well then why would colleges look at anything other than a perspective student's SAT's?
*Gasps!*
Next you'll tell me that most novels are started and never completed!
Nicely biased article stub.
The learning done and the benefit of the money is taken for granted, the article is merely proof of a fore-gone clonclusion,
Critics are put down directly as people who don't know an obvious fact.
And to top it off we have a nice cut kid smiling with some dollars. Isn't it nice to know that she is worth that much money?
I don't give a shit why they learn, as long as they do it.
Yes but it isn't just that they are learning it is WHAT they are learning?
Are they actually developing good thinking and cognitive skills or are they studying to a test? Will they continue to learn even outside of school? Will what they learn actually stick around?
I suspect that it does help learning some but I also suspect that the learning done is heavily geared towards taking/getting through tests which often does not translate well to real-world performance.
Nice legal theory. Please try to test it out in court. We'll wait.
It is easy to get a bulldog to wear a suit. They don't work for the RIAA on moral principals.
The appeal is to demonstrate that something was wrong in the first trial. Thus while you could argue that evidence was withheld from the first trial in an appeal I don't think you could actually introduce that evidence in appeal...I am not a lawyer.
Must have imported the hemlock.
I know why they were testing it to see how fast the planet was moving in the aether not to test if the aether existed.
Their notes are still available.
There is something to be said for a "mediocre" solution that no one else had thought to use and yet proved wildly successful.
Its called good design or elegant design.
In other words, Nintendo used what they NEEDED for a game control system and cut costs so that more people could play, and proved that the formula worked.
Do you have any idea what might be involved to "give the data" out in some cases? It doesn't always come fitting in nice easy to email pdfs.
No it can hope for a lot longer than 15 minutes.
Look at biological sciences under the Soviets. Or for a far less sinister view look at the luminiferous ether. It was accepted as fact for a long time that light needed a medium to flow through as a wave; until someone finally did the research and expiriment to "prove" the fact...
Yes, I know how difficult it is to refute a scientific outcome. You say "I'm not too sure about this and would like to see more studies on it." It isn't hard at all to refute a single outcome.