But at the end of the day our tax dollars are paying for education. Should we not then have the ability to chose the education those dollars go towards?
While I agree with this point, the AC post was illustrating that the private school is likely doing better simply because they have $20k per student to work with, and not just the $12k public schools have per student. It may not be the full $20k, but it is surely much more than $8k.
Your argument could be shifted to saying that we should simply spend more per child, but claiming the private schools do more with less money is not backed up by the facts of any studies I am aware of.
my privacy trumps my health and the health of my loved ones.
Fixed that for you. Not that this makes you wrong, but lets not pretend only faceless strangers die because researchers don't have access to information we are already collecting.
Obviously not every cost can be given an exact price; just take the value of customer satisfaction as an example. But it isn't that hard to come out with a rough approximation when it comes to a college degree.
Simply calculate what you could have reasonably made without a college degree to come up with the true cost. For instance, I was making $13 an hour working as a low level network admin in the summer after high school in 1998. This is obviously a very high wage for that level of education, but it goes to show that many highly paid college graduates probably would have been fairly highly paid high school graduates as well.
By leaving for college, I had to leave that job and work for $7/hr part time. If both jobs would have increased in salary by 5% per year (reasonable for low paid positions early in a career), my Bachelor's would have cost me $60k in lost wages. That $60k saved in a mutual fund making 8% above inflation would equal $1.77 million by retirement.
That sounds like a lot, but it would only take $3600 extra per year (with the gap increasing by 2% per year), to equal the same amount of savings for the college student. Of course this doesn't take into account the cost of the degree, but it shows that even a "free" college education isn't really free.
The comparison for a PhD is much harder, because now you are comparing yourself with someone that already has a decent degree. The math usually works out that a PhD will not make you more money in the STEM fields, but you are still making a very good living and probably doing work you love more (or else why did you get the PhD in the first place?).
A significant portion of the cost of any degree is the opportunity cost. Often it is most of the cost. I'm not saying your PhD was not worth it, but it is disingenuous to say it was free.
My dad might also be an example. He went into EE because a scholarship was available for that at the time. He would have preferred studying biology. Although he wasn't at all passionate about EE, he was good at what he did, because he was very sharp. Granted both EE and biology are within the "STEM" umbrella, but it's I think my dad is an example of someone who's good without having been passionate.
To be fair, he only said dispassionate STEM students/workers will become burned out. He never said they would be unsuccessful as long as they were bright, which you claim your father was.
Your example about Asian-Americans becoming physicians just because of their parents also does not argue against anything he said. I know a few very successful Asian-Americans who were probably more successful because their parents pushed them, but I also know even more who became very poor STEM workers because they were pushed into a field where they had no aptitude. The work ethics of many Asian/Indian immigrants gives an inspiring example of what can be achieved if you work hard, but it in no way shows that working hard alone will guarantee success.
The simple fact is that it is much cheaper to produce junk food than good food
Yes that was his point.
No, his point was that subsidies were a large part of why junk food is cheaper than good food. That is the only point I was refuting.
you failed to compare anything. Sugar costs more than HFCS. How much more? What would the end product cost be without that advantage?
How does this discussion have anything to do with the cost of sugar compared to HFCS. The only important fact is that only 1.6% of the price of a can of Coke comes from corn. This means that if the price of corn went to $0, your can of Coke wouldn't even drop a full penny in value. If subsidies ended and the price of corn doubled, the price of a can of Coke would not go up noticeably at all. The price of corn could go up 1000% and the can of coke would only increase by about 5 cents.
What does any of that have to do with your point?
My whole point was that corn subsidies are not a significant reason why junk food is so cheap. It is borderline insignificant.
Let's start by ending subsidies for corn syrup. Maybe use those funds to subsidize fruits and veggies? I would welcome the day when it is cheaper to eat a salad than make a box of Mac&Cheese, or to have an apple cost less than a hershey bar. OJ cheaper than Coke?
People keep parroting the idea that subsidies cause Skittles to be cheaper than grapes, but the reality does not match the hype. A 2009 study by Tufts University found that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) "represents just 3.5% of the total cost of soft drink manufacturing as measured by the value of shipments. Meanwhile, the corn content of HFCS represents only 1.6% of this value. Thus, the impact of corn prices on the final retail price of a food product is not as high as one might think."
If the cost of the corn in your Coca Cola only makes up half a penny of the 30 cents you pay for it at the supermarket, then the subsidies are not making it less expensive than juice. And I assume the same goes for candy versus fruit and vegetables. The simple fact is that it is much cheaper to produce junk food than good food, and government subsidies have nothing to do with it. I would still love to see heavy subsidies for fruit and vegetables though.
I was thinking something similar: why not get a Male Scientist package and just give it another head.
Because kids are no longer expected to be creative with Legos. You are supposed to follow the instructions and build the exact toy you were sold, and then buy a new set.
The reality is, automation has about the same effect as off-shoring on productivity... the jobs go away and don't get replaced.
If your argument is that automation removes jobs, then you are claiming that automation improves productivity. You are simply saying that this productivity has drawbacks, but are not refuting that productivity has increased.
You end up with fewer people working and no new jobs coming in to replace the lost ones. Then you get a bunch of people who have no jobs, and your overall productivity goes down.
The workers are only let go if the net work done by the existing workers is at least as high as it was before the automation was put in place. And that is the worst case scenario. Most of the time the productivity is far higher. Car factories wouldn't spend money on robotics if it meant they spent more to produce less cars.
Good to know. I'm going to study that at university from this September. I suppose I should get in some classes programming etc while I'm there. Thanks!
My wife is in Supply Chain Management as an analyst, and here are some of the ares of IT that she feels would help her do her job better (and once the kids are in school she may have time to work on them).
Databases are by far the most important area of IT for someone working in SCM. Understand how database schemas work. Know basic optimization techniques; you probably won't need to implement it yourself but you may need to intelligently discuss this topic with your DBAs. Know the difference between OLAP and OLTP (and not just the definitions).
Simple programming knowledge will also help immensely. Sometimes you need to manipulate data in a way that your BI tools won't allow. The difference between an SCM analyst/planner that has full control over her data and one that doesn't is immense. You will often be fighting against intuitive solutions with data driven solutions, and usually that will be hard. So far my wife has had to rely on me when she needs something done and can't get developer resources assigned at work. Usually the result is a couple hours of work on my part to allow her to solve a problem that would have literally been impossible for a team of dozens without the use of custom code.
Are you deliberately being obtuse? If I want a book by, say, Charlie Stross, a book by Stephanie Meyer is not going to do. If I want a microware, I don't give a fuck whether it's from Samsung, Panasonic, Sharp or Whirlpool.
Books are not widgets. Each one is a unique, bespoke item.
Unless you are buying bargain bin products, usually the model of appliance you buy can have a big impact. My whole kitchen is GE Cafe series, and I assure you I don't want to replace my microwave with an LG brand unless I am replacing them all. I would much rather buy a random fiction book from the New York Times best sellers list in my favorite genre. Or buy any 4+ star book on CS algorithms / Database Design / etc.
They were more elaborate. Here's the entire paragraph ouf of which' context the sensence was taken
Authors, with whom we at Hachette have been partners for nearly two centuries, engage in a complex and difficult mission to communicate with readers. In addition to royalties, they are concerned with audience, career, culture, education, art, entertainment, and connection. By preventing its customers from connecting with these authors’ books, Amazon indicates that it considers books to be like any other consumer good. They are not.
You may agree of disagree, but do not hide behind lies.
You could come up with any number of reasons why a certain consumer good is unique. Take this for example:
Microwave oven manufacturers, with whom we at [generic distribution company] have been partners for nearly 60 years, engage in a complex and difficult mission to provide food to humanity. They provide a way to reuse food in a way that helps cut down on food waste, thus reducing the amount of land that is necessary to feed to world. By preventing its customers from purchasing these microwaves, Amazon indicates that it considers microwaves to be like any other consumer good. They are not.
Nothing they said backs up their claim that books are not just another consumer good. They are just explaining why this particular consumer good exists.
The only problem with your logic is that if you are immunized then the un-immunized people don't pose a threat against you. That's the point of you being immunized. So your argument is pretty much moot...
Vaccinations are not 100% successful. We rely on everyone having the vaccinations so the chance of ever even being exposed to the pathogens is very remote.
Can the general populace AFFORD to have a device that's a calendar and a phone and a music player and a camera and a game machine?
Those items come bog standard off an assembly line by the millions if not billions, with no individual tuning necessary. Just looking at the basic "augments" like prescription glasses and hearing aids there's tons of personal adjustment. I very much doubt you'll be able to find "one size fits all" cybernetics.
200 years ago the idea of creating billions of similar products is what would have been considered far fetched. Changes to manufacturing allowed for assembly plants to rework society. Changes in manufacturing due to advances in 3D printing could do for the next century what the assembly line did for the 1900s. It is true today that things must be mass producible to be cheap, but that may not be true in the very near future.
Hiring everyone from the same 10 schools (and mostly the same 2 schools) doesn't exactly make for fresh thinking either.
It would still instill 10 times as much fresh thinking as hiring from within though. If you agree with the argument that hiring from other schools introduces fresh thinking that is.
They aren't wrong. Any attempt to mark wrong the student that gets the right answer, just because they didn't show work that was obvious to them, is always wrong.
You have to understand that teachers do not have infinite time to grade assignments and exams. Sometimes they aren't going to notice that your technique was close to the same technique. But they will notice that it is different.
I used to be just as upset when teachers marked me down for not showing my work, but I was wrong. Their job during the unit where they are teaching this method is to ensure the students understand the method. Not all tests are just to show you can find the right answer. Sometimes it is to show you know the concepts. If I am in an intro to object-oriented class, I will be marked wrong if I use functional techniques instead. Even if my program achieves the correct output.
As long as the teacher is clear with the students that he/she is looking for confirmation that the students can perform a certain technique, it is not wrong to mark the student wrong if the student doesn't show they can perform the technique. Regardless of the answer. Once the students demonstrate that they understand all possible techniques, then they can use whichever one works best for them individually.
Some might phone it in, but that's pretty much true of any profession.
Almost everyone phones it in, regardless of profession. I'm just making this number up, but I'd guess about 80% of people are just phoning it in when it comes to their career. Notice I say in their career, not their job. Plenty of people work incredibly hard from 9-5 (a lot harder than I work at this desk), but because they haven't been carefully cultivating their career they end up never really seeing any rewards for their labor.
But the difference between teachers and most careers is that outside of unions the workers who are phoning it in generally don't get rewarded as much as those who work their ass off. I don't know anyone who complains about the salary of their child's favorite teacher. They complain about the teachers who are just phoning it in. If unions found a way to pay exceptional teachers more for being exceptional, very few people would complain.
In my opinion, most people who work very hard at their careers will have very high salaries by their 40s. For instance: 20% of people make $70k by the time they are 40, and 10% of people make $105k by then. And from my experience, this is pretty close to the percentages of people who work hard at their career. If unions did a better job of rewarding excellence instead of just years in service, you would probably see 10-20% of teachers making over $100k per year by their 40s as well. Actually probably much more, since teachers have an above average level of education.
No one is claiming that the common core is the only way to go. It is just the most intuitive way to do it, in a way that builds "number sense" instead of just an algorithm that has been taught in the past. Your method does remove some of the memorization of past regroupings, but it still requires regrouping. It is basically:
321 221 181 - 100 - 40 - 8
This still requires the same two substitutions. It is still a "trick" or shortcut that we use because we were taught it when young. It is the same thing as using the power rule in calculus. It will give you the correct answer, but it doesn't always work well and learning it does not provide the desired understanding of the concepts of calculus.
In addition to teaching students better, the common core way is simply more reliable. There is a reason cashiers are taught to "count up" when giving change. It is the better way.
Because 320 - 140, along with 1 - 8, and 180 - 7, all require regrouping. And that makes it harder and more error prone. Obviously not impossible, and not even much harder, but still the common core way is more intuitive and less error prone. When I say more intuitive I only mean people who have been taught both ways properly, not for people taught the old way.
The "traditional" method only looks at a single digit at a time, so you only need to know how to add 2 single digit numbers (and carry or borrow). With your method, you need to first know that 48 + X = 100, so X = 52. You're no longer doing arithmetic in your head, now you're doing algebra in your head!
Even though this was at the end of your post, I moved it to the top of my response because it highlights the most important point of why common core math is better. The bolded area that I highlighted precisely illustrates my point about common core teaching higher level math along the way. Which is exactly the point! This method is taught to children so they start to build the framework for thinking about math the proper way, instead of just learning how to do rote math problems in class. Its an insidious plot to not only teach arithmetic, but to prepare children for higher level math as well.
Not really; the steps are (working from the right, of course): 1 1, so 2 - 1 = 1
Answer: 173. Took me all of 10 seconds.
First off, 10 seconds is a long time to do this problem. It may have actually taken you closer to 3-4 seconds and you just typed 10 seconds because it sounds quick, but if it really did take 10 seconds then it would show why the common core way is a little better.
I needed to remember at most 3 pieces of information at once (the fact that I borrowed plus what digits I had already solved). That's well under the 5 - 9 items that people can hold in short-term memory. With this method, I just need to know how to count to 20 really well, and if I'm really stuck, I can use my fingers + toes!. I use this method ALL THE TIME when tipping, to figure out "what tip to I need to make the bill X".
While people can do this in their head if you force it, most give up long before trying to do this kind of math in their head. Most people I know think I am a wizard with math just because I can do basic arithmetic in my head, and most of these are very smart and successful people. You may be very good with math too, but my contention is that you would be better if you didn't still try to do the traditional method instead of the more intuitive method. (not intuitive to someone trained in the old way, just to people trained in both)
When was the last time you NEEDED to add/subtract a 3+ digit number and you didn't have a pen/paper or a calculator with you? I don't even have a smart phone, and I've got a calculator on my cell phone if things get really tricky.
I quite often have to do math in my head and it is helpful that I don't have to take the time to grab my cell phone. When estimating the cost per ounce in the supermarket, doing a quick level of effort estimate while I sales guy is on the phone with a client, making a quick fantasy sports trade during the draft, etc. Most of the time I am doing estimates instead of giving exact figures, but in these cases the common core way excels even more. Honestly if someone asked me 321 - 148 I would probably answer "about 175" (or maybe 170) within a couple seconds.
Where did 52 come from?? There's no 52 in the problem anywhere! And why are we adding 100?
There are 52 numbers between 200 and 148. There are 21 numbers between 321 and 300. There are 100 numbers between 200 and 300.
Like another poster mentioned, it is exactly the same way a teller will count out your change to you. If you pay for a $6.50 purchase with a $20 bill, they will first give you your coins and say "Fifty cents makes seven..." give you your 1s one at a time saying " and eight and nine and ten", give you your $10 bill and say "and ten makes twenty". Or something like that.
What they are doing is turning 20 - 6.5 into 0.5 + 3 + 10. They will never say "multiply the values by 10, borrow a digit from the tens place and subtract 5 from 10 to make 5 in the ones
Here is how I would do it if I had to do it in my head:
321 is close to 300 and 148 is close to 150.
300 - 150 is 150 (aka 30-15). Add in 2 for the 148 and add in 21 more for the 321 and you get 150+23=173.
You may just be agreeing with me, but just in case I want to make sure you know you are doing the exact same thing I did.
You are just doing 2 + 21 + 150 instead of 52 + 21 + 100.
I think common core would initially would teach 2 + 50 + 1 + 20 + 100, which is slightly different than both of us, but the concept is all the same. The only differences is how many steps we don't notice that we are doing automatically in our head.
No, it has little to do with the fact that being poor means you don't have opportunity. Being poor means your parents probably don't value education, so you probably don't value education, so you probably don't get an education.
Those are both the same thing. The main reason these kids don't have the same opportunities is because of a poor family structure. Without the assistance of society in the form of better schools, children with poor and uneducated parents will often not get the same opportunities that children with middle class parents. It doesn't have to do with the extra spending power of the parents, it has to do with the standard mindset of parents who are poor. (well, it has to do with the money too but no exclusively)
I've always believed that a child who wants to learn will find a way to learn. The hard part isn't teaching them -- it's getting them to want to learn in the first place! And that starts in the home, not in the school
Most people in the educational industry do not want to give up just because a child has inadequate parents. And I am glad when they don't give up. Every child who is ignored because their parents aren't involved enough is an unnecessary opportunity cost to society as a whole. That child will never be as productive and successful as they could have been if society had tried a little harder to balance out the inequalities that persist from generation to generation of lower class families.
The same thinking that scares people away from this "new math" is what makes it so hard for people to do arithmetic in their head. It is also the line of thinking that makes people unable to understand higher level math.
The traditional way of doing subtraction of large numbers is a shortcut that is often only useful when the numbers are small and/or you have paper to write on. Both the traditional way and the common core way are valid ways to come up with the answer. And in most cases, when you are doing subtraction in your head you should be using the common core way since it will usually be easier.
Take a better example, like:
321 - 148.
Doing this in your head the traditional way would be hard. You have to regrouping twice, and you have to remember that you borrowed 10 from the tens place when regrouping the hundreds place. Obviously not impossible, but this is the kind of math that makes people think they can't do it without assistance from paper or a calculator.
But doing 52 + 21 is much easier, and doing 73 + 100 is also quite easy. "Almost" everyone who is good at doing math in their head will do 321 - 148 by adding 52 + 21 + 100 in their head. This is why it is important to teach children this method.
The obstacles here are not the common core curriculum, it is parents and teachers. Parents who complain about this "new" math that they don't understand and aren't willing to learn, and teachers who also don't really understand how this math should be taught. Students should still be taught both methods, and it should be clear on any examinations if the teacher is expecting a certain method to be used. If the student isn't explicitly told to use a certain method, they should not be marked off any points if they get the correct answer. And the students need to be taught the pros and cons of each method, or else the entire purpose of teaching both methods will be lost.
Shut up you apple fanboy. Retina display is marketing speak to fool the sheeple who will buy anything if it has an apple logo
He said Retinal Display, which means a display that is directly implanted into the eye, or perhaps intercepts the communication from the eye to the brain. That has nothing to do with the Apple retina display.
Farmers have increased each the quality and quantity of food harvested, in addition to increasing our ability to store and gather this food.
Have you ever known any farmers? I grew up in a small farming community a few miles outside a town of about 10k people, and I assure you that they change less than any group of people I have yet met. There are plenty of engineers and biologists who have been increasing our ability to store and gather food, but other than buying the new equipment that other professions have created the work of most farmers has not changed in the last 50 years. And before 1800, their work hadn't changed must in the previous 1000 years.
Before the technological advances of the past 200 years there was basically no advancement in society from one generation to the next. From 1300 - 1700 the average yearly growth was about 0.2% compared to the 2-3% yearly growth over the past 100 years. The vast majority of the population does not advance society in any meaningful way. The industrial revolution and later the information revolution are responsible for our society's growth, not the average artisan.
A piece of code dos so much less for society, so stop trying to self grandiose your job. You are not better than a farmer, and I would wager that your job in the grand scheme of things is actually pretty useless to society.
I don't really understand the animosity you are showing. Why do you feel that it is such a negative thing to be a productive and useful member of society? Not everyone needs to be doing groundbreaking work to have value. Like I said before, my dad is the hardest working man I know and his work is very valuable to society. My dad and my childhood neighbors are also some of the best people I know. When he had a heart attack last year, four of his friends did his entire harvest for him and refused to be compensated. I don't know where you got a chip on your shoulder that makes you so defensive when someone points out that the majority of people just want to live their life instead of making technological progress.
Nope, there is a long series in "The Republic" referred to as "The Allegory of the Artisan" and it relates to jobs in society.
Please provide a reference of anyone calling any section of The Republic as The Allegory of the Artisan. I really think that is just a term you used in some college term paper (or perhaps a professor you had used the term). Socrates is my favorite ancient author, so I am pretty sure I know what parts of The Republic you are referring to, but using terms you made up to try and make people feel stupid is very sad.
If you try to google an answer you don't get wisdom, so read the book.
I have read the book. More than once in fact. And I'm not sure why you say Google can't help you gain wisdom, but it surely can help you find definitions of terms used by someone trying to sound smart. The lack of any reference to the term you used outside of Slashdot posts comes pretty close to proving that the term is not in wide use among literary scholars.
and pointed you to Socrates' words twice.
If you have to point someone to the words written by someone else, it is usually because you don't really understand your own argument. One of my physics professors used to say that if you cannot explain a concept to a layperson, you don't really understand the topic yet either. Constantly pointing someone to a literary figure is just an attempt to use their authority when your own argument is weak.
Slashdot Mirror
But at the end of the day our tax dollars are paying for education. Should we not then have the ability to chose the education those dollars go towards?
While I agree with this point, the AC post was illustrating that the private school is likely doing better simply because they have $20k per student to work with, and not just the $12k public schools have per student. It may not be the full $20k, but it is surely much more than $8k.
Your argument could be shifted to saying that we should simply spend more per child, but claiming the private schools do more with less money is not backed up by the facts of any studies I am aware of.
my privacy trumps my health and the health of my loved ones.
Fixed that for you. Not that this makes you wrong, but lets not pretend only faceless strangers die because researchers don't have access to information we are already collecting.
Obviously not every cost can be given an exact price; just take the value of customer satisfaction as an example. But it isn't that hard to come out with a rough approximation when it comes to a college degree.
Simply calculate what you could have reasonably made without a college degree to come up with the true cost. For instance, I was making $13 an hour working as a low level network admin in the summer after high school in 1998. This is obviously a very high wage for that level of education, but it goes to show that many highly paid college graduates probably would have been fairly highly paid high school graduates as well.
By leaving for college, I had to leave that job and work for $7/hr part time. If both jobs would have increased in salary by 5% per year (reasonable for low paid positions early in a career), my Bachelor's would have cost me $60k in lost wages. That $60k saved in a mutual fund making 8% above inflation would equal $1.77 million by retirement.
That sounds like a lot, but it would only take $3600 extra per year (with the gap increasing by 2% per year), to equal the same amount of savings for the college student. Of course this doesn't take into account the cost of the degree, but it shows that even a "free" college education isn't really free.
The comparison for a PhD is much harder, because now you are comparing yourself with someone that already has a decent degree. The math usually works out that a PhD will not make you more money in the STEM fields, but you are still making a very good living and probably doing work you love more (or else why did you get the PhD in the first place?).
A significant portion of the cost of any degree is the opportunity cost. Often it is most of the cost. I'm not saying your PhD was not worth it, but it is disingenuous to say it was free.
My dad might also be an example. He went into EE because a scholarship was available for that at the time. He would have preferred studying biology. Although he wasn't at all passionate about EE, he was good at what he did, because he was very sharp. Granted both EE and biology are within the "STEM" umbrella, but it's I think my dad is an example of someone who's good without having been passionate.
To be fair, he only said dispassionate STEM students/workers will become burned out. He never said they would be unsuccessful as long as they were bright, which you claim your father was.
Your example about Asian-Americans becoming physicians just because of their parents also does not argue against anything he said. I know a few very successful Asian-Americans who were probably more successful because their parents pushed them, but I also know even more who became very poor STEM workers because they were pushed into a field where they had no aptitude. The work ethics of many Asian/Indian immigrants gives an inspiring example of what can be achieved if you work hard, but it in no way shows that working hard alone will guarantee success.
The simple fact is that it is much cheaper to produce junk food than good food
Yes that was his point.
No, his point was that subsidies were a large part of why junk food is cheaper than good food. That is the only point I was refuting.
you failed to compare anything. Sugar costs more than HFCS. How much more? What would the end product cost be without that advantage?
How does this discussion have anything to do with the cost of sugar compared to HFCS. The only important fact is that only 1.6% of the price of a can of Coke comes from corn. This means that if the price of corn went to $0, your can of Coke wouldn't even drop a full penny in value. If subsidies ended and the price of corn doubled, the price of a can of Coke would not go up noticeably at all. The price of corn could go up 1000% and the can of coke would only increase by about 5 cents.
What does any of that have to do with your point?
My whole point was that corn subsidies are not a significant reason why junk food is so cheap. It is borderline insignificant.
Let's start by ending subsidies for corn syrup. Maybe use those funds to subsidize fruits and veggies? I would welcome the day when it is cheaper to eat a salad than make a box of Mac&Cheese, or to have an apple cost less than a hershey bar. OJ cheaper than Coke?
People keep parroting the idea that subsidies cause Skittles to be cheaper than grapes, but the reality does not match the hype. A 2009 study by Tufts University found that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) "represents just 3.5% of the total cost of soft drink manufacturing as measured by the value of shipments. Meanwhile, the corn content of HFCS represents only 1.6% of this value. Thus, the impact of corn prices on the final retail price of a food product is not as high as one might think."
If the cost of the corn in your Coca Cola only makes up half a penny of the 30 cents you pay for it at the supermarket, then the subsidies are not making it less expensive than juice. And I assume the same goes for candy versus fruit and vegetables. The simple fact is that it is much cheaper to produce junk food than good food, and government subsidies have nothing to do with it. I would still love to see heavy subsidies for fruit and vegetables though.
I was thinking something similar: why not get a Male Scientist package and just give it another head.
Because kids are no longer expected to be creative with Legos. You are supposed to follow the instructions and build the exact toy you were sold, and then buy a new set.
Prove it.
The reality is, automation has about the same effect as off-shoring on productivity ... the jobs go away and don't get replaced.
If your argument is that automation removes jobs, then you are claiming that automation improves productivity. You are simply saying that this productivity has drawbacks, but are not refuting that productivity has increased.
You end up with fewer people working and no new jobs coming in to replace the lost ones. Then you get a bunch of people who have no jobs, and your overall productivity goes down.
The workers are only let go if the net work done by the existing workers is at least as high as it was before the automation was put in place. And that is the worst case scenario. Most of the time the productivity is far higher. Car factories wouldn't spend money on robotics if it meant they spent more to produce less cars.
Good to know. I'm going to study that at university from this September. I suppose I should get in some classes programming etc while I'm there. Thanks!
My wife is in Supply Chain Management as an analyst, and here are some of the ares of IT that she feels would help her do her job better (and once the kids are in school she may have time to work on them).
Databases are by far the most important area of IT for someone working in SCM. Understand how database schemas work. Know basic optimization techniques; you probably won't need to implement it yourself but you may need to intelligently discuss this topic with your DBAs. Know the difference between OLAP and OLTP (and not just the definitions).
Simple programming knowledge will also help immensely. Sometimes you need to manipulate data in a way that your BI tools won't allow. The difference between an SCM analyst/planner that has full control over her data and one that doesn't is immense. You will often be fighting against intuitive solutions with data driven solutions, and usually that will be hard. So far my wife has had to rely on me when she needs something done and can't get developer resources assigned at work. Usually the result is a couple hours of work on my part to allow her to solve a problem that would have literally been impossible for a team of dozens without the use of custom code.
Are you deliberately being obtuse? If I want a book by, say, Charlie Stross, a book by Stephanie Meyer is not going to do. If I want a microware, I don't give a fuck whether it's from Samsung, Panasonic, Sharp or Whirlpool.
Books are not widgets. Each one is a unique, bespoke item.
Unless you are buying bargain bin products, usually the model of appliance you buy can have a big impact. My whole kitchen is GE Cafe series, and I assure you I don't want to replace my microwave with an LG brand unless I am replacing them all. I would much rather buy a random fiction book from the New York Times best sellers list in my favorite genre. Or buy any 4+ star book on CS algorithms / Database Design / etc.
They were more elaborate. Here's the entire paragraph ouf of which' context the sensence was taken
Authors, with whom we at Hachette have been partners for nearly two centuries, engage in a complex and difficult mission to communicate with readers. In addition to royalties, they are concerned with audience, career, culture, education, art, entertainment, and connection. By preventing its customers from connecting with these authors’ books, Amazon indicates that it considers books to be like any other consumer good. They are not.
You may agree of disagree, but do not hide behind lies.
You could come up with any number of reasons why a certain consumer good is unique. Take this for example:
Microwave oven manufacturers, with whom we at [generic distribution company] have been partners for nearly 60 years, engage in a complex and difficult mission to provide food to humanity. They provide a way to reuse food in a way that helps cut down on food waste, thus reducing the amount of land that is necessary to feed to world. By preventing its customers from purchasing these microwaves, Amazon indicates that it considers microwaves to be like any other consumer good. They are not.
Nothing they said backs up their claim that books are not just another consumer good. They are just explaining why this particular consumer good exists.
The only problem with your logic is that if you are immunized then the un-immunized people don't pose a threat against you. That's the point of you being immunized. So your argument is pretty much moot...
Vaccinations are not 100% successful. We rely on everyone having the vaccinations so the chance of ever even being exposed to the pathogens is very remote.
Can the general populace AFFORD to have a device that's a calendar and a phone and a music player and a camera and a game machine?
Those items come bog standard off an assembly line by the millions if not billions, with no individual tuning necessary. Just looking at the basic "augments" like prescription glasses and hearing aids there's tons of personal adjustment. I very much doubt you'll be able to find "one size fits all" cybernetics.
200 years ago the idea of creating billions of similar products is what would have been considered far fetched. Changes to manufacturing allowed for assembly plants to rework society. Changes in manufacturing due to advances in 3D printing could do for the next century what the assembly line did for the 1900s. It is true today that things must be mass producible to be cheap, but that may not be true in the very near future.
Hiring everyone from the same 10 schools (and mostly the same 2 schools) doesn't exactly make for fresh thinking either.
It would still instill 10 times as much fresh thinking as hiring from within though. If you agree with the argument that hiring from other schools introduces fresh thinking that is.
They aren't wrong. Any attempt to mark wrong the student that gets the right answer, just because they didn't show work that was obvious to them, is always wrong.
You have to understand that teachers do not have infinite time to grade assignments and exams. Sometimes they aren't going to notice that your technique was close to the same technique. But they will notice that it is different.
I used to be just as upset when teachers marked me down for not showing my work, but I was wrong. Their job during the unit where they are teaching this method is to ensure the students understand the method. Not all tests are just to show you can find the right answer. Sometimes it is to show you know the concepts. If I am in an intro to object-oriented class, I will be marked wrong if I use functional techniques instead. Even if my program achieves the correct output.
As long as the teacher is clear with the students that he/she is looking for confirmation that the students can perform a certain technique, it is not wrong to mark the student wrong if the student doesn't show they can perform the technique. Regardless of the answer. Once the students demonstrate that they understand all possible techniques, then they can use whichever one works best for them individually.
Some might phone it in, but that's pretty much true of any profession.
Almost everyone phones it in, regardless of profession. I'm just making this number up, but I'd guess about 80% of people are just phoning it in when it comes to their career. Notice I say in their career, not their job. Plenty of people work incredibly hard from 9-5 (a lot harder than I work at this desk), but because they haven't been carefully cultivating their career they end up never really seeing any rewards for their labor.
But the difference between teachers and most careers is that outside of unions the workers who are phoning it in generally don't get rewarded as much as those who work their ass off. I don't know anyone who complains about the salary of their child's favorite teacher. They complain about the teachers who are just phoning it in. If unions found a way to pay exceptional teachers more for being exceptional, very few people would complain.
In my opinion, most people who work very hard at their careers will have very high salaries by their 40s. For instance: 20% of people make $70k by the time they are 40, and 10% of people make $105k by then. And from my experience, this is pretty close to the percentages of people who work hard at their career. If unions did a better job of rewarding excellence instead of just years in service, you would probably see 10-20% of teachers making over $100k per year by their 40s as well. Actually probably much more, since teachers have an above average level of education.
Huh. 321 - 100 - 40 - 8 seems obvious. 221 ... 181 ... 173.
No one is claiming that the common core is the only way to go. It is just the most intuitive way to do it, in a way that builds "number sense" instead of just an algorithm that has been taught in the past. Your method does remove some of the memorization of past regroupings, but it still requires regrouping. It is basically:
321 221 181
- 100 - 40 - 8
This still requires the same two substitutions. It is still a "trick" or shortcut that we use because we were taught it when young. It is the same thing as using the power rule in calculus. It will give you the correct answer, but it doesn't always work well and learning it does not provide the desired understanding of the concepts of calculus.
In addition to teaching students better, the common core way is simply more reliable. There is a reason cashiers are taught to "count up" when giving change. It is the better way.
Why not (320 - 140 = 180) + (1-8 = -7) = 180 - 7 = 173 ? >_>
Because 320 - 140, along with 1 - 8, and 180 - 7, all require regrouping. And that makes it harder and more error prone. Obviously not impossible, and not even much harder, but still the common core way is more intuitive and less error prone. When I say more intuitive I only mean people who have been taught both ways properly, not for people taught the old way.
The "traditional" method only looks at a single digit at a time, so you only need to know how to add 2 single digit numbers (and carry or borrow). With your method, you need to first know that 48 + X = 100, so X = 52. You're no longer doing arithmetic in your head, now you're doing algebra in your head!
Even though this was at the end of your post, I moved it to the top of my response because it highlights the most important point of why common core math is better. The bolded area that I highlighted precisely illustrates my point about common core teaching higher level math along the way. Which is exactly the point! This method is taught to children so they start to build the framework for thinking about math the proper way, instead of just learning how to do rote math problems in class. Its an insidious plot to not only teach arithmetic, but to prepare children for higher level math as well.
Not really; the steps are (working from the right, of course):
1 1, so 2 - 1 = 1
Answer: 173. Took me all of 10 seconds.
First off, 10 seconds is a long time to do this problem. It may have actually taken you closer to 3-4 seconds and you just typed 10 seconds because it sounds quick, but if it really did take 10 seconds then it would show why the common core way is a little better.
I needed to remember at most 3 pieces of information at once (the fact that I borrowed plus what digits I had already solved). That's well under the 5 - 9 items that people can hold in short-term memory. With this method, I just need to know how to count to 20 really well, and if I'm really stuck, I can use my fingers + toes!. I use this method ALL THE TIME when tipping, to figure out "what tip to I need to make the bill X".
While people can do this in their head if you force it, most give up long before trying to do this kind of math in their head. Most people I know think I am a wizard with math just because I can do basic arithmetic in my head, and most of these are very smart and successful people. You may be very good with math too, but my contention is that you would be better if you didn't still try to do the traditional method instead of the more intuitive method. (not intuitive to someone trained in the old way, just to people trained in both)
When was the last time you NEEDED to add/subtract a 3+ digit number and you didn't have a pen/paper or a calculator with you? I don't even have a smart phone, and I've got a calculator on my cell phone if things get really tricky.
I quite often have to do math in my head and it is helpful that I don't have to take the time to grab my cell phone. When estimating the cost per ounce in the supermarket, doing a quick level of effort estimate while I sales guy is on the phone with a client, making a quick fantasy sports trade during the draft, etc. Most of the time I am doing estimates instead of giving exact figures, but in these cases the common core way excels even more. Honestly if someone asked me 321 - 148 I would probably answer "about 175" (or maybe 170) within a couple seconds.
Where did 52 come from?? There's no 52 in the problem anywhere! And why are we adding 100?
There are 52 numbers between 200 and 148. There are 21 numbers between 321 and 300. There are 100 numbers between 200 and 300.
Like another poster mentioned, it is exactly the same way a teller will count out your change to you. If you pay for a $6.50 purchase with a $20 bill, they will first give you your coins and say "Fifty cents makes seven ..." give you your 1s one at a time saying " and eight and nine and ten", give you your $10 bill and say "and ten makes twenty". Or something like that.
What they are doing is turning 20 - 6.5 into 0.5 + 3 + 10. They will never say "multiply the values by 10, borrow a digit from the tens place and subtract 5 from 10 to make 5 in the ones
321
- 148
Here is how I would do it if I had to do it in my head:
321 is close to 300 and 148 is close to 150.
300 - 150 is 150 (aka 30-15). Add in 2 for the 148 and add in 21 more for the 321 and you get 150+23=173.
You may just be agreeing with me, but just in case I want to make sure you know you are doing the exact same thing I did.
You are just doing 2 + 21 + 150 instead of 52 + 21 + 100.
I think common core would initially would teach 2 + 50 + 1 + 20 + 100, which is slightly different than both of us, but the concept is all the same. The only differences is how many steps we don't notice that we are doing automatically in our head.
No, it has little to do with the fact that being poor means you don't have opportunity. Being poor means your parents probably don't value education, so you probably don't value education, so you probably don't get an education.
Those are both the same thing. The main reason these kids don't have the same opportunities is because of a poor family structure. Without the assistance of society in the form of better schools, children with poor and uneducated parents will often not get the same opportunities that children with middle class parents. It doesn't have to do with the extra spending power of the parents, it has to do with the standard mindset of parents who are poor. (well, it has to do with the money too but no exclusively)
I've always believed that a child who wants to learn will find a way to learn. The hard part isn't teaching them -- it's getting them to want to learn in the first place! And that starts in the home, not in the school
Most people in the educational industry do not want to give up just because a child has inadequate parents. And I am glad when they don't give up. Every child who is ignored because their parents aren't involved enough is an unnecessary opportunity cost to society as a whole. That child will never be as productive and successful as they could have been if society had tried a little harder to balance out the inequalities that persist from generation to generation of lower class families.
The same thinking that scares people away from this "new math" is what makes it so hard for people to do arithmetic in their head. It is also the line of thinking that makes people unable to understand higher level math.
The traditional way of doing subtraction of large numbers is a shortcut that is often only useful when the numbers are small and/or you have paper to write on. Both the traditional way and the common core way are valid ways to come up with the answer. And in most cases, when you are doing subtraction in your head you should be using the common core way since it will usually be easier.
Take a better example, like:
321
- 148.
Doing this in your head the traditional way would be hard. You have to regrouping twice, and you have to remember that you borrowed 10 from the tens place when regrouping the hundreds place. Obviously not impossible, but this is the kind of math that makes people think they can't do it without assistance from paper or a calculator.
But doing 52 + 21 is much easier, and doing 73 + 100 is also quite easy. "Almost" everyone who is good at doing math in their head will do 321 - 148 by adding 52 + 21 + 100 in their head. This is why it is important to teach children this method.
The obstacles here are not the common core curriculum, it is parents and teachers. Parents who complain about this "new" math that they don't understand and aren't willing to learn, and teachers who also don't really understand how this math should be taught. Students should still be taught both methods, and it should be clear on any examinations if the teacher is expecting a certain method to be used. If the student isn't explicitly told to use a certain method, they should not be marked off any points if they get the correct answer. And the students need to be taught the pros and cons of each method, or else the entire purpose of teaching both methods will be lost.
Shut up you apple fanboy. Retina display is marketing speak to fool the sheeple who will buy anything if it has an apple logo
He said Retinal Display, which means a display that is directly implanted into the eye, or perhaps intercepts the communication from the eye to the brain. That has nothing to do with the Apple retina display.
Farmers have increased each the quality and quantity of food harvested, in addition to increasing our ability to store and gather this food.
Have you ever known any farmers? I grew up in a small farming community a few miles outside a town of about 10k people, and I assure you that they change less than any group of people I have yet met. There are plenty of engineers and biologists who have been increasing our ability to store and gather food, but other than buying the new equipment that other professions have created the work of most farmers has not changed in the last 50 years. And before 1800, their work hadn't changed must in the previous 1000 years.
Before the technological advances of the past 200 years there was basically no advancement in society from one generation to the next. From 1300 - 1700 the average yearly growth was about 0.2% compared to the 2-3% yearly growth over the past 100 years. The vast majority of the population does not advance society in any meaningful way. The industrial revolution and later the information revolution are responsible for our society's growth, not the average artisan.
A piece of code dos so much less for society, so stop trying to self grandiose your job. You are not better than a farmer, and I would wager that your job in the grand scheme of things is actually pretty useless to society.
I don't really understand the animosity you are showing. Why do you feel that it is such a negative thing to be a productive and useful member of society? Not everyone needs to be doing groundbreaking work to have value. Like I said before, my dad is the hardest working man I know and his work is very valuable to society. My dad and my childhood neighbors are also some of the best people I know. When he had a heart attack last year, four of his friends did his entire harvest for him and refused to be compensated. I don't know where you got a chip on your shoulder that makes you so defensive when someone points out that the majority of people just want to live their life instead of making technological progress.
Nope, there is a long series in "The Republic" referred to as "The Allegory of the Artisan" and it relates to jobs in society.
Please provide a reference of anyone calling any section of The Republic as The Allegory of the Artisan. I really think that is just a term you used in some college term paper (or perhaps a professor you had used the term). Socrates is my favorite ancient author, so I am pretty sure I know what parts of The Republic you are referring to, but using terms you made up to try and make people feel stupid is very sad.
If you try to google an answer you don't get wisdom, so read the book.
I have read the book. More than once in fact. And I'm not sure why you say Google can't help you gain wisdom, but it surely can help you find definitions of terms used by someone trying to sound smart. The lack of any reference to the term you used outside of Slashdot posts comes pretty close to proving that the term is not in wide use among literary scholars.
and pointed you to Socrates' words twice.
If you have to point someone to the words written by someone else, it is usually because you don't really understand your own argument. One of my physics professors used to say that if you cannot explain a concept to a layperson, you don't really understand the topic yet either. Constantly pointing someone to a literary figure is just an attempt to use their authority when your own argument is weak.