tip and change calculation is hardly advanced mathmatics, yet people who's job it is to do such math dont know how to do it without the computer (register) doing it for them.
that's the real reason people are bad at it. lack of practice. the more you practice, the more you retain it. most people studied it once, and then never again, which leads to a very quick very large regression. and most teachers cover math in a one concept a week way, with no tie backs to previous lessons. a reliance on calculators to do the previous stuff you already learned so you can focus ont he current lesson doesnt help either. its helpful on one hand to focus on the current lesson, but when the subject matter builds on previous lessons, it becomes a tradeoff, particularly if you then need to go back and demonstrate every piece of the process 2 and 3 or more years later on a comprehensive professional exam. students who do everything by hand, including the "easy, earlier" stuff retain it better and longer, and in my experience have had far less trouble passing those exams (and required fewer/no cram sessions with things like "the EIT for Dummies").
there's a bit of a difference beween stealing food because you're desperate and starving, and stealing a car or tv.
though it should be pointed out that no church or soup kitchen i've -ever- seen or heard of would -ever- turn away someone who wants to eat, and i've never found a town without either one yet.
I'm kinda curious...how many whales do you usually find in your lakes and streams? or If I found a whale in my lake and I needed food, I reckon he'd keep me fed for over a year.
the interpretation of financial/political contributions as unlimited speech is what is broken.
being unlimited means people with more of it effectively have a bigger voice, allowing a few to dominate the entire market.
contributions should go back to being limited, and limited severely. 50$ per person per candidate. no corporate/pac donations. no self-funded millionaires (self-contributions limited to the same amount as everyone else)
Force candidates to get contributions based on merit, and appeal. the risk is going too far the other direction (less oligarchy and corporate bought votes, more tyranny of the fickle, uneducated majority), but we have to do something to start moving the situation back to the middle of the spectrum.
cause you didnt buy it from a licensed dealer. this will also stop person to person cragislist car sales. now you need a dealer for that too. we must close this auto show loophole! and national instant background check to make sure you are of a fit mind and abaility to operate a vehicle * for the children!
(* satire aside, thats actually probably a good idea)
its really simple: the only contributions allowed are individual contributions to specific canidates (not to parties), capped at some low level that puts Shantiqua the Maid on an even contributing field with Rupert Murdoch. Say, $50 per adult person per candidate.
no contributions frm companies. no contributions from superpacs. no public funds spent on campaigns. no personal funds spent on campaigns by millionaires (they can only contribute to themselves the same amount as anyone can contribute)
you dont seem to know much about how food gets on your plate do ya? cooking isnt the cure all you think it is. things still get past cooking. and do you like your steak well done? im guessing you dont. and if you dont, you are at serious risk for illness....except that we developed other means to keep our food chain healthy. things that allow us to consume undrcooked meat, to the point where today we can even enjoy medium rare pork steaks.
its a lot easier to innoculate a single beef cow against common parasites and disease, than it is to test and keep a few million grasshoppers (or bug of your choice), equivalent to the food potential of said cow, similarly parasite and disease free. and then come inspection time (assuming the USDA inspection hasnt been furloughed), its also easier to inspect a single side of beef to determine fitness, than it is to check those said few million bugs. about the only practice that would be as effective and easily applied to bugs as current foods is irradiation.
its also a lot easier to innoculate a single beef cow against common parasites and disease, than it is to test and keep a few million grasshoppers (or bug of your choice), equivalent to the food potential of said cow, similarly parasite and disease free.
and then come inspection time (assuming the USDA inspection hasnt been furloughed), its also easier to inspect a single side of beef to determine fitness, than it is to check those said few million bugs.
more life? based on what scientific research that you are privy to and no one else is? everything does better when its warmer? really? so i guess over the past few million years while the earth was colder evolution jsut stopped, and no one adapted to the colder planet, everyone will be just hunky dory if we jack up the temp 10 or 20 degrees? and the internal temp range of mammals ranges from 50F to over 120F. and just because our internal temperature is X doesnt mean we will function well when the outside temp is also X. in fact thats not true at all. we function best when the external temp is somewhat less than X because it's precisely what allows for heat dissipation to prevent our bodies from overheating.
nothing you said is factual, and has no basis in any science whatsoever.
It may be dumb. we may all disagree with it. But the court made the right decision for the case at hand. the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the laws as written, not write laws themselves or fix them to how they should be. in this case SCOTUS made a limited finding in favor of monsanto. now whether we agree with the farmer that he should have been able to do it or not, is a seperate issue. as the law stands, what he did was against it (the law) and he knew it.
unfortuantely right now patent aw is largely a one size fits all arena. and if we want to fix that, then we need to fix the laws behind it.
not true and not related to the actual facts of the case. while monsanto deserves a lot of bad press, and is an abusive company,/. suffers from too much knee jerk monsanto bashing without regard to the facts.
whether you like them or hate them is irrelevent. you dont get to ignore the facts.
or as a intelligent man once said: you have hte right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
life adapted over a period of several million years. we compressed several million years worth of warming into 300. how confident are you in evolutions ability to adapt on such a short time scale? given enough time, sure...life will recover. the question is will we still be around by then, or will we have starved to death or exterminated our species in a massive global resource war?
science hasnt said that for a long time. the oxygen in the forests stays in the forests; its cunsumed by the rotting comppost in the top layers of the soil.
the oxygen that drives the world comes from the oceans, from plankton (ie, algea and other one celled organisms that make up ~80% of the planets biomass)
many millions of years ago simple duckweed caused a massive planetary cooling. called the Azolla event. all that oil under the arctic ocean they want to free up for fuel use? came from that. so if duckweed locking all that CO2 away caused a massive planetary freeze....just what in the hell do you think is going to happen when its released back into the system ?!
that whole continent could become the only habitable place on the planet, cause the rest of it closer to the equator became arid desert, no longer able to support life.
global warming: you're right. its not necessarily bad. but its not necessarily good either. plants and animals, particularly plants, have limits when it comes to where they can grow. plants, upon which we are dependant for the majority of our food. imagine the lower half of the US no longer able to farm. the current weather patterns that our crops are dependent on, ie rain, exist in our current climate. but make everything warmer, and theres no garuntee the rain will move north with the usable growing area. in fact, weather scientists think that's unlikely given the general nature of the jet stream (the engine that drives the atmophere).
nature adapted before through evolution. but a million years worth of climate change has occurred in the last 300. how confident are you in evolution that the plants and animals on which we rely can keep up on such a short timescale?
Cash has stable value because because of artificial scarcity due to the fact it is controlled (ie, only creatable) by the government. If any was allowed to just print their own dollar bills at home cash would have the same unstable "value" as bitcoins. That why it's illegal and called counterfeiting. That's what gives fiduciary currency it's stable value.
Bitcoin itself has artifical scarcity within itself, but the concept does not because it's not a physical tangible asset; it's software. I can make my own computer program right now and start generating DitCoins, and McCoins, and ZitCoins. There is no limit to the number of virtual currencies we could create. Which bring sup the next point...
Bitcoin trading has more in common with gold selling in MMOs than it does with real currency.
Slashdot Mirror
More interested i the Apple Bottom model
tip and change calculation is hardly advanced mathmatics, yet people who's job it is to do such math dont know how to do it without the computer (register) doing it for them.
that's the real reason people are bad at it. lack of practice. the more you practice, the more you retain it. most people studied it once, and then never again, which leads to a very quick very large regression. and most teachers cover math in a one concept a week way, with no tie backs to previous lessons. a reliance on calculators to do the previous stuff you already learned so you can focus ont he current lesson doesnt help either. its helpful on one hand to focus on the current lesson, but when the subject matter builds on previous lessons, it becomes a tradeoff, particularly if you then need to go back and demonstrate every piece of the process 2 and 3 or more years later on a comprehensive professional exam. students who do everything by hand, including the "easy, earlier" stuff retain it better and longer, and in my experience have had far less trouble passing those exams (and required fewer/no cram sessions with things like "the EIT for Dummies").
there's a bit of a difference beween stealing food because you're desperate and starving, and stealing a car or tv.
though it should be pointed out that no church or soup kitchen i've -ever- seen or heard of would -ever- turn away someone who wants to eat, and i've never found a town without either one yet.
Microsoft complains about Office being illegally downloaded a few hundred million times a year.
I'm kinda curious...how many whales do you usually find in your lakes and streams?
or
If I found a whale in my lake and I needed food, I reckon he'd keep me fed for over a year.
the first amendment is not broken.
the interpretation of financial/political contributions as unlimited speech is what is broken.
being unlimited means people with more of it effectively have a bigger voice, allowing a few to dominate the entire market.
contributions should go back to being limited, and limited severely.
50$ per person per candidate.
no corporate/pac donations.
no self-funded millionaires (self-contributions limited to the same amount as everyone else)
Force candidates to get contributions based on merit, and appeal. the risk is going too far the other direction (less oligarchy and corporate bought votes, more tyranny of the fickle, uneducated majority), but we have to do something to start moving the situation back to the middle of the spectrum.
cause you didnt buy it from a licensed dealer.
this will also stop person to person cragislist car sales.
now you need a dealer for that too.
we must close this auto show loophole!
and national instant background check to make sure you are of a fit mind and abaility to operate a vehicle *
for the children!
(* satire aside, thats actually probably a good idea)
its really simple: the only contributions allowed are individual contributions to specific canidates (not to parties), capped at some low level that puts Shantiqua the Maid on an even contributing field with Rupert Murdoch. Say, $50 per adult person per candidate.
no contributions frm companies.
no contributions from superpacs.
no public funds spent on campaigns.
no personal funds spent on campaigns by millionaires (they can only contribute to themselves the same amount as anyone can contribute)
if the yahoo is worth anything he's no longer a yahoo.
if he isnt, he wont get past the primary.
you dont seem to know much about how food gets on your plate do ya?
cooking isnt the cure all you think it is. things still get past cooking.
and do you like your steak well done? im guessing you dont. and if you dont, you are at serious risk for illness....except that we developed other means to keep our food chain healthy. things that allow us to consume undrcooked meat, to the point where today we can even enjoy medium rare pork steaks.
its a lot easier to innoculate a single beef cow against common parasites and disease, than it is to test and keep a few million grasshoppers (or bug of your choice), equivalent to the food potential of said cow, similarly parasite and disease free. and then come inspection time (assuming the USDA inspection hasnt been furloughed), its also easier to inspect a single side of beef to determine fitness, than it is to check those said few million bugs. about the only practice that would be as effective and easily applied to bugs as current foods is irradiation.
its also a lot easier to innoculate a single beef cow against common parasites and disease, than it is to test and keep a few million grasshoppers (or bug of your choice), equivalent to the food potential of said cow, similarly parasite and disease free.
and then come inspection time (assuming the USDA inspection hasnt been furloughed), its also easier to inspect a single side of beef to determine fitness, than it is to check those said few million bugs.
and there it is. you cant argue with him so you bring out one of your typical bashes. this is why you're nothing but a troll.
when you open up a rice beetle, inside you find lots of undigested rice (its why theya re eaten...its what you scoop out and eat)
now...imagine opening up a bug that been fed on sludge. and consider that your eating undigested sludge.
ya. disgusting as hell.
ya but usually its fried.
and anything tastes good fried.
you didnt even read the article.
the farmer knew exactly what he was doing.
more life? based on what scientific research that you are privy to and no one else is?
everything does better when its warmer? really? so i guess over the past few million years while the earth was colder evolution jsut stopped, and no one adapted to the colder planet, everyone will be just hunky dory if we jack up the temp 10 or 20 degrees?
and the internal temp range of mammals ranges from 50F to over 120F. and just because our internal temperature is X doesnt mean we will function well when the outside temp is also X. in fact thats not true at all. we function best when the external temp is somewhat less than X because it's precisely what allows for heat dissipation to prevent our bodies from overheating.
nothing you said is factual, and has no basis in any science whatsoever.
you are ignorant and know not of what you speak.
another /. troll pretending to know anything about libertarian view points.
So change the law.
It may be dumb. we may all disagree with it. But the court made the right decision for the case at hand. the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the laws as written, not write laws themselves or fix them to how they should be. in this case SCOTUS made a limited finding in favor of monsanto. now whether we agree with the farmer that he should have been able to do it or not, is a seperate issue. as the law stands, what he did was against it (the law) and he knew it.
unfortuantely right now patent aw is largely a one size fits all arena. and if we want to fix that, then we need to fix the laws behind it.
not true and not related to the actual facts of the case. while monsanto deserves a lot of bad press, and is an abusive company, /. suffers from too much knee jerk monsanto bashing without regard to the facts.
whether you like them or hate them is irrelevent. you dont get to ignore the facts.
or as a intelligent man once said: you have hte right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
life adapted over a period of several million years.
we compressed several million years worth of warming into 300.
how confident are you in evolutions ability to adapt on such a short time scale? given enough time, sure...life will recover. the question is will we still be around by then, or will we have starved to death or exterminated our species in a massive global resource war?
science hasnt said that for a long time. the oxygen in the forests stays in the forests; its cunsumed by the rotting comppost in the top layers of the soil.
the oxygen that drives the world comes from the oceans, from plankton (ie, algea and other one celled organisms that make up ~80% of the planets biomass)
also, you're just plain ignorant of the past.
many millions of years ago simple duckweed caused a massive planetary cooling. called the Azolla event. all that oil under the arctic ocean they want to free up for fuel use? came from that. so if duckweed locking all that CO2 away caused a massive planetary freeze.. ..just what in the hell do you think is going to happen when its released back into the system ?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
that whole continent could become the only habitable place on the planet, cause the rest of it closer to the equator became arid desert, no longer able to support life.
global warming: you're right. its not necessarily bad. but its not necessarily good either. plants and animals, particularly plants, have limits when it comes to where they can grow. plants, upon which we are dependant for the majority of our food. imagine the lower half of the US no longer able to farm. the current weather patterns that our crops are dependent on, ie rain, exist in our current climate. but make everything warmer, and theres no garuntee the rain will move north with the usable growing area. in fact, weather scientists think that's unlikely given the general nature of the jet stream (the engine that drives the atmophere).
nature adapted before through evolution. but a million years worth of climate change has occurred in the last 300.
how confident are you in evolution that the plants and animals on which we rely can keep up on such a short timescale?
Cash has stable value because because of artificial scarcity due to the fact it is controlled (ie, only creatable) by the government.
If any was allowed to just print their own dollar bills at home cash would have the same unstable "value" as bitcoins.
That why it's illegal and called counterfeiting.
That's what gives fiduciary currency it's stable value.
Bitcoin itself has artifical scarcity within itself, but the concept does not because it's not a physical tangible asset; it's software. I can make my own computer program right now and start generating DitCoins, and McCoins, and ZitCoins. There is no limit to the number of virtual currencies we could create. Which bring sup the next point...
Bitcoin trading has more in common with gold selling in MMOs than it does with real currency.
That's how it's different.