Additionally: the focus on girls using more triggers than boys is misleading, the three extra triggers not used by boys were used by girls a combined total of five times, with two only being used once. Hardly the huge creative gap that it's made out to be.
Here are the triggers that were used by girls in the study:
When the player arrives in area
When someone says a line
When someone gets and item
When someone is killed
When something walks into trigger
When something walks out of trigger
Every six seconds
Boys did not use the last three triggers. These results are a little misleading though, as the last two triggers were used by girls exactly once, and the third to last was used only three times. It seems likely that there was just one girl more imaginative than the rest of the bunch who used some different triggers and made headlines because of it.
Girls did score better on average on the computational thinking test before and after the course, but boys had a much larger range. (The top score and bottom scores were both boys).
Fortunately my university provides me with access to the original study, so for those who are interested:
The study was performed on three elementary school classes with a total of 55 students (29 girls, 26 boys). Despite the small sample size, they did perform a statistical analysis and found the results to be significant (p < 0.001), the results being that girls on average scored higher on a computational thinking test before and after the course. The differences in improvement between genders was not significant and it is worth noting that despite having lower average scores before and after the course, the range of scores for boys in post-testing extended higher and lower than those of girls. I wish I could link the boxplot for the data but I'm not sure that's legal.
It is also important to note that the study was not performed in order to measure the difference between boys and girls in programming, but to measure the benefits of using their special programming software over an eight-week course. The software itself is indeed very visual, and the 'programming' is done by dragging around boxes with partial statements and filling in the blanks with object boxes. The software then constructs a text interpretation of the code in a lower box, which is what the computational thinking problems related to.
Please stop making up numbers and posting them all over this story. You're spreading a ridiculous amount of FUD without even attempting to back up your claims. As I've posted elsewhere, the government has spent $74B on non-hydro renewables and $73B on nuclear, including R&D.
To you and the AC above claiming that many trillions have been spent on nuclear energy: are you insane? Seriously, where in the world are you coming up with these figures? At it's peak development in the 1980's the US government was spending $2.4 billion per year on nuclear energy R&D and it's been steadily declining ever since (source). In total, nuclear has received $50 billion in R&D and more in various subsidies that total to $73 billion (source). The Manhattan Project cost the US $20 billion (adjusted for inflation), not the trillions that you somehow came up with. On the other hand, non-hydro renewables have received $74 billion in subsidies.
Yes, nuclear plants cost money, but the government does not own any commercial nuclear plants. These are paid for by private companies and the cost is recouped through the energy that they sell, just like any other energy production. The assertion that we would have no national debt if not for nuclear energy is frankly absurd.
First, deadlier nuclear waste has a shorter lifespan by definition due to a shorter half-life.
Second, in the US renewable energy has received slightly more government subsidies than nuclear ($74B vs $73B).
This. By far the most efficient use for nuclear waste is reprocessing in a fast breeder reactor, but of course that isn't allowed because it produces plutonium.
In my experience valve has done a great job dealing with hackers in TF2. Competitive servers are set to sv_pure 2, which restricts all user content/file modifications and pretty much completely prevents hacking. On public servers this is not the case and you'll sometimes encounter blatantly obvious hackers (they spam chat with advertisements for the hack). It's also much harder to hack discreetly in TF2 due to all the projectile weaponry.
"The hardest challenge was explaining the language of the test to a five-year-old."
Makes you wonder how thorough this 'explaining' was. I may be wrong, but standard applicants probably don't get much in the way of explanation, and understanding the question is a very important part of any problem solving.
There is no reason to expect or even desire a mobile device to hold a charge for a week, much less 6 months of use. I charge my android phone several times per day and I don't consider it an inconvenience at all. When I sit at my desk I empty my pockets so I can sit more comfortably and it takes less than a second to plug in my phone. Likewise at night, it's easy enough to plug it into a charger next to your bed.
Also, I think you mean windows 8, not 9.
So because someone is a straight white male, it's perfectly acceptable to harass them with death threats and dox them? I'm pretty damn sure that more men are victims of online harassment than women, if only because they tend to be more prevalent on internet forums.
I generally browse on my phone, so the comments are simply removed instead of minimized. It can lead to a lot of disconnected comments and people replying to nothing.
If I want to get a quick look at the comments I'll set it to +4, but otherwise I browse at -1.
The summary attributes the low CS enrollment to women being more practical than men. If that's the case then why do we also see a much lower portion of females in engineering fields? Isn't engineering considered to be one of the most practical course of studies available?
In my experience women are in fact more prevalent in "non-practical" fields such as health, humanities, and fitness.
"Without security everyone and their mother would be packing C4 into their underpants."
I know I'm just breathlessly waiting for the day when I can blow up a bunch of people without airline security getting in the way--that stuff is such a hassle.
He's not referring to you, he's addressing the summary. The first paragraph of his first reply was directed at you, and then he went on to argue with the OP. He does the same sort of thing with his second response.
He was pretty vague about it though so I can see how you misunderstood.
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally: the focus on girls using more triggers than boys is misleading, the three extra triggers not used by boys were used by girls a combined total of five times, with two only being used once. Hardly the huge creative gap that it's made out to be.
Here are the triggers that were used by girls in the study:
When the player arrives in area
When someone says a line
When someone gets and item
When someone is killed
When something walks into trigger
When something walks out of trigger
Every six seconds
Boys did not use the last three triggers. These results are a little misleading though, as the last two triggers were used by girls exactly once, and the third to last was used only three times. It seems likely that there was just one girl more imaginative than the rest of the bunch who used some different triggers and made headlines because of it.
Girls did score better on average on the computational thinking test before and after the course, but boys had a much larger range. (The top score and bottom scores were both boys).
Fortunately my university provides me with access to the original study, so for those who are interested:
The study was performed on three elementary school classes with a total of 55 students (29 girls, 26 boys). Despite the small sample size, they did perform a statistical analysis and found the results to be significant (p < 0.001), the results being that girls on average scored higher on a computational thinking test before and after the course. The differences in improvement between genders was not significant and it is worth noting that despite having lower average scores before and after the course, the range of scores for boys in post-testing extended higher and lower than those of girls. I wish I could link the boxplot for the data but I'm not sure that's legal.
It is also important to note that the study was not performed in order to measure the difference between boys and girls in programming, but to measure the benefits of using their special programming software over an eight-week course. The software itself is indeed very visual, and the 'programming' is done by dragging around boxes with partial statements and filling in the blanks with object boxes. The software then constructs a text interpretation of the code in a lower box, which is what the computational thinking problems related to.
Please stop making up numbers and posting them all over this story. You're spreading a ridiculous amount of FUD without even attempting to back up your claims. As I've posted elsewhere, the government has spent $74B on non-hydro renewables and $73B on nuclear, including R&D.
for hundreds of thousands of years this "demands for energy" was an unanswered cry.
You're right, and it was called the dark ages.
To you and the AC above claiming that many trillions have been spent on nuclear energy: are you insane? Seriously, where in the world are you coming up with these figures? At it's peak development in the 1980's the US government was spending $2.4 billion per year on nuclear energy R&D and it's been steadily declining ever since (source). In total, nuclear has received $50 billion in R&D and more in various subsidies that total to $73 billion (source). The Manhattan Project cost the US $20 billion (adjusted for inflation), not the trillions that you somehow came up with. On the other hand, non-hydro renewables have received $74 billion in subsidies. Yes, nuclear plants cost money, but the government does not own any commercial nuclear plants. These are paid for by private companies and the cost is recouped through the energy that they sell, just like any other energy production. The assertion that we would have no national debt if not for nuclear energy is frankly absurd.
Renewables have received more government subsidies than nuclear. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
First, deadlier nuclear waste has a shorter lifespan by definition due to a shorter half-life. Second, in the US renewable energy has received slightly more government subsidies than nuclear ($74B vs $73B).
This. By far the most efficient use for nuclear waste is reprocessing in a fast breeder reactor, but of course that isn't allowed because it produces plutonium.
You mean not sufficient for politicians?
In my experience valve has done a great job dealing with hackers in TF2. Competitive servers are set to sv_pure 2, which restricts all user content/file modifications and pretty much completely prevents hacking. On public servers this is not the case and you'll sometimes encounter blatantly obvious hackers (they spam chat with advertisements for the hack). It's also much harder to hack discreetly in TF2 due to all the projectile weaponry.
Haven't you been on Slashdot before? The truthfulness of a headline is directly proportional to how many people click on it.
"The hardest challenge was explaining the language of the test to a five-year-old." Makes you wonder how thorough this 'explaining' was. I may be wrong, but standard applicants probably don't get much in the way of explanation, and understanding the question is a very important part of any problem solving.
There is no reason to expect or even desire a mobile device to hold a charge for a week, much less 6 months of use. I charge my android phone several times per day and I don't consider it an inconvenience at all. When I sit at my desk I empty my pockets so I can sit more comfortably and it takes less than a second to plug in my phone. Likewise at night, it's easy enough to plug it into a charger next to your bed. Also, I think you mean windows 8, not 9.
I would say religion is due more to upbringing and to a lesser extent personality than anything relating to intelligence.
So because someone is a straight white male, it's perfectly acceptable to harass them with death threats and dox them? I'm pretty damn sure that more men are victims of online harassment than women, if only because they tend to be more prevalent on internet forums.
I generally browse on my phone, so the comments are simply removed instead of minimized. It can lead to a lot of disconnected comments and people replying to nothing. If I want to get a quick look at the comments I'll set it to +4, but otherwise I browse at -1.
I'm not a sock puppet I'm a new user. We do exist you know.
At least Bennet only posts every other week instead of spamming idiotic comments on every article
The summary attributes the low CS enrollment to women being more practical than men. If that's the case then why do we also see a much lower portion of females in engineering fields? Isn't engineering considered to be one of the most practical course of studies available? In my experience women are in fact more prevalent in "non-practical" fields such as health, humanities, and fitness.
"Without security everyone and their mother would be packing C4 into their underpants." I know I'm just breathlessly waiting for the day when I can blow up a bunch of people without airline security getting in the way--that stuff is such a hassle.
You forgot the last part: Texas brought to it's knees as millions succumb to wildly communicable Ebola virus. oh, wait.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
He's not referring to you, he's addressing the summary. The first paragraph of his first reply was directed at you, and then he went on to argue with the OP. He does the same sort of thing with his second response. He was pretty vague about it though so I can see how you misunderstood.
I believe you mean having your eggs in at least two baskets.