Never in high school was a calculator allowed on any math tests. All problems were written to be solvable without a calculator, and they were plenty challenging. And this way, the students were pretty confident when they were going astray on an answer, since most everything wound up being a whole number, basic fraction, or one of the more common irrationals. I graduated High School is 2001 from a public school as well.
Whats more important is that they taught is math, not how to use a calculator. How to use a calculator changes with the calculator, and isn't a particularly valuable skill to learn compared to the fundamentals of calculus and the other higher math. Yes, I almost never do math anymore by hand, I write a program for it, but learning all those fundamental rules about the quadratic equation, even those weird trig substitution formulas come in handy once in a while when solving a weird problem.
Calculators aren't necessary in high school mathematics, and should not be used.
Now for chemistry and physics I can't see no calculator simply because the numbers are so unwieldy most of the time, but I think there is a way to write a test that does not require a calculator.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
"I fear the Greeks, even though they bear gifts." I believe is the line.
It could also be rendered as "I fear the Greeks, especially because they bear gifts," as well.
Either way.
I mean the oversight which is necessary, not that oversight is always necessary. So its not that all oversight is always necessary, but, there are necessary oversight functions for the various levels of government. For the most part I would prefer to be regulated by state and local agencies, but the Federal government has some legitimate oversight functions. The main point is that the issue with oversight isn't the fact of oversight; its the way in which the rules are made an enforced, and especially how there are simply an unmanageable amount of rules to follow which never seem to expire.
This is a very good sign on the whole as it shows that out-innovating the regulatory state is not only possible, but actually happening right now. Our regulatory regime is stuck in the 19th century centralized command-and-control model, and it will stay there. Better to let it fail so that a useful and effective method of necessary oversight can come to replace our gilded age government with an information age government.
Lawyers work on a contingency basis all the time. There would likely be a market for a contingency-based lawyer in the loser-pays paradigm where the less-moneyed party can get a lawyer who is willing to bet his fee on the outcome of the case. Sure, the fee would probably be high under that model, but that's still a fair bit better than risking financial ruin for losing a case you ought to win because you're outclassed in the legal department.
At least in a loser pays system there is an actual incentive to win the case, instead of wear the other side down with endless legalese. There are obviously no perfect solutions in the legal arena, but a loser-pays system is certainly the least bad when it comes to patent trolling and other litigious litigation. Then there is some hazard to reckless litigation, where currently the side with the most money nearly always wins. Under a loser-pays paradigm the side with the better case would have a much better chance of winning, and bad-faith actors in the legal system would have an incentive to act in bad faith less often.
At least in America, "the press" means "the printing press" and by extension any technology which accomplishes the same purpose as the printing press, i.e. the dissemination of information. Blogs would certainly fall into this category. You can either believe me or read this very convincing paper by Eugene Volokh: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
So sorry, "media," you aren't "the press." The protection is for the medium, not a particular type of messenger.
If a product appears to be free, you are the product. People write down data in documents, and Google is in the data business. Google docs is far from free, you just pay them different.
Slashdot Mirror
Never in high school was a calculator allowed on any math tests. All problems were written to be solvable without a calculator, and they were plenty challenging. And this way, the students were pretty confident when they were going astray on an answer, since most everything wound up being a whole number, basic fraction, or one of the more common irrationals. I graduated High School is 2001 from a public school as well.
Whats more important is that they taught is math, not how to use a calculator. How to use a calculator changes with the calculator, and isn't a particularly valuable skill to learn compared to the fundamentals of calculus and the other higher math. Yes, I almost never do math anymore by hand, I write a program for it, but learning all those fundamental rules about the quadratic equation, even those weird trig substitution formulas come in handy once in a while when solving a weird problem.
Calculators aren't necessary in high school mathematics, and should not be used.
Now for chemistry and physics I can't see no calculator simply because the numbers are so unwieldy most of the time, but I think there is a way to write a test that does not require a calculator.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. "I fear the Greeks, even though they bear gifts." I believe is the line. It could also be rendered as "I fear the Greeks, especially because they bear gifts," as well. Either way.
Write up those kinds of posts in a word processor in the future. That way a broken plugin or accidental reload won't hose your progress.
This is probably why it's more difficult to exploit; it's a simpler program.
I mean the oversight which is necessary, not that oversight is always necessary. So its not that all oversight is always necessary, but, there are necessary oversight functions for the various levels of government. For the most part I would prefer to be regulated by state and local agencies, but the Federal government has some legitimate oversight functions. The main point is that the issue with oversight isn't the fact of oversight; its the way in which the rules are made an enforced, and especially how there are simply an unmanageable amount of rules to follow which never seem to expire.
This is a very good sign on the whole as it shows that out-innovating the regulatory state is not only possible, but actually happening right now. Our regulatory regime is stuck in the 19th century centralized command-and-control model, and it will stay there. Better to let it fail so that a useful and effective method of necessary oversight can come to replace our gilded age government with an information age government.
Lawyers work on a contingency basis all the time. There would likely be a market for a contingency-based lawyer in the loser-pays paradigm where the less-moneyed party can get a lawyer who is willing to bet his fee on the outcome of the case. Sure, the fee would probably be high under that model, but that's still a fair bit better than risking financial ruin for losing a case you ought to win because you're outclassed in the legal department. At least in a loser pays system there is an actual incentive to win the case, instead of wear the other side down with endless legalese. There are obviously no perfect solutions in the legal arena, but a loser-pays system is certainly the least bad when it comes to patent trolling and other litigious litigation. Then there is some hazard to reckless litigation, where currently the side with the most money nearly always wins. Under a loser-pays paradigm the side with the better case would have a much better chance of winning, and bad-faith actors in the legal system would have an incentive to act in bad faith less often.
At least in America, "the press" means "the printing press" and by extension any technology which accomplishes the same purpose as the printing press, i.e. the dissemination of information. Blogs would certainly fall into this category. You can either believe me or read this very convincing paper by Eugene Volokh: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa... So sorry, "media," you aren't "the press." The protection is for the medium, not a particular type of messenger.
If a product appears to be free, you are the product. People write down data in documents, and Google is in the data business. Google docs is far from free, you just pay them different.