"An ATM machine running DSL Linux is connected with a DSL line using ATM mode". Once sentences like this started making perfect sense, it's time to legitimize expanding the last word in an acronym.
No. College students just happen to be a group that in any society is most vulnerable to ideologies that are unpopular in the rest of society, as they still have remnants of teenage rebellion and fad-following, are smart enough to accomplish something as a group, but don't yet have sufficient skepticism to reject crude propaganda. This is why any "revolution" that was entirely based on student organizations is most likely orchestrated by foreign enemies or organized crime, and governments should be always prepared to fight off such "movements" appearing out of nowhere.
Or at least claiming that it's me would be less stupid than accusing Russia in sabotaging Iran, its relatively benign (as far as they are concerned) neighbor just to worsen its relationship with US and Israel, countries whose relationships with Iran is already worst possible that could happen without being at war.
The only difference in the US (Well, we also have no rules like that about notebooks.) is that we learn up to 12x12 instead.
And it's wrong because multipliers 11 and 12 are worthless for "column" multiplication. From what I can tell, USSR school curriculum treated student's capacity for rote memorization as a precious resource, that can be only used only when absolutely necessary or provides significant benefit for the rest of the student's life.
(WRT to the 11 trick, we did need to learn 11x11 and 11x12, although the trick sorta works if you write the other number twice but start it on top of the second digit. I.e., 11x12 is 132, which is what you get if you write 12 on top of 12, and the 2 in the first 12 is on top of the 1 in the second 12, so it makes 3. This is really just a way of multiplying times ten, and then adding the original, when you think about it.)
It is redundant when the next thing taught is "column" addition, multiplication and division that shows exactly that in a graphical way.
Actually, there is another method of learning math (additional, not replacement) that includes learning to "count by" method. As in Count by 2s.. 2, 4, 6, 8..
This is how it was taught. Memorization of tables is always done AFTER students know how they work, the whole idea of education in secondary school is to be descriptive first and [maybe] prescriptive next.
In the US, however, it gets blurry. Most of the liberal arts and social sciences faculty like to argue that the purpose of college is more intrinsic than just academics; that you are gaining life skills and experience not found elsewhere.
Translation: US universities are a breeding ground of idle aristocracy, business crooks, golddigger bitches, and other unproductive categories of people, that US never had enough to get sick of them.
Almost all of my textbooks are primary school had times tables printed in the covers, and many of the notebooks I had for maths did too. My pencil cases also had times tables printed on them, one also had common formulas printed on them.
USSR textbooks only had references relevant to whatever was studied in a given year. Some pencil cases had references printed on them, but most were too small, so their covers could be used as rulers but not much else. The important part about notebooks was that they were all standardized just like textbooks, and other things with references were not. That meant, anything on a notebook is likely to be within reach of a student at all times.
We also had thin notebooks, but they weren't discarded. We had to number them, and keep them for revision purposes (which were used alongside past papers, from many years before as they were much harder, to aid with revision).
We only used textbooks for that purpose -- the curriculum was fixed, so everything was there already, and teachers weren't allowed to skip mandatory chapters (what was nearly all of them) no matter what. Re-reading the textbook while skipping the exercises was a better way to prepare for an exam then going through out-of-context exercises, and teacher could request additional exercises if he deemed that necessary.
My partner is now doing a GCSE in mathematics as a mature student as she feels she didn't learn enough at school, but she's flying through it and is appalled at the attitude of the younger students she's on the course with. None of them see the relevance of basic mathematics (through no fault of the tutor), many of them talk through the lessons, and two that consistently get basic questions wrong were this week listening to music on their phones until the tutor asked them to get out if they didn't want to be there. In the UK, IMO, the problem exists in society in general, and not necessarily in the education - many people don't see the value in an education, and their parents don't either.
I really don't understand this. When I studied, education was mandatory -- no one was allowed to work anywhere without completing at least 8 years, and students would have to take the same year again if they failed, however I only heard about rare cases when it came to such extreme measures. It never occurred to the students that there may be an alternative to studying, so they studied.
It had interesting consequences. You could talk to any random person of any random profession, refer to something in the first 8 years of the school curriculum, and he would immediately recognize it, even if he didn't remember it well enough to be able to apply. It wouldn't matter if he is a musician or a truck driver, you can safely expect that he knows how to calculate the area of a circle, determine the sine of an angle, list major characters in "War and Peace" (though he may add some from a certain movie, thanks to some crossover fanfiction), name the source of carbon in plants, etc. You can also expect an industrial worker to know power factor as "cos(phi)", but have very foggy idea of what it is beyond the fact that higher is better even if he deals with motors every day -- AC circuits are not explained in such details in the secondary school curriculum, so engineer would know the theory but worker likely would not.
Now, if beef were $50 per pound, what would the burger need to cost? What happens if that $50 were actually $10 1980 dollars and $40 inflation, and the $5 became $10 because the demand increased internationally or, as you point out, there would be massive changes to eating if people couldn't afford burgers, so perhaps the beef makers changed crops, sold out, or collapsed, affecting supply.
Inflation does not add anything to cost, it multiplies everything by approximately the same coefficient, so the ratio between average salary and cost of common locally produced and locally consumed product will stay the same. By itself, inflation causes harm by devaluing cash in reserves and in transactions, and reducing effective buying power of population because prices adjust faster than salaries. It is harmful but not THAT harmful for the consumer. If this process went so ridiculously that commonly consumed product became unaffordable, there wouldn't be any "adjustment" of supply -- the product and all its producers will be completely wiped out because their ability to produce is dependent on economy of scale.
It's about 1/100th monthly wage in China for a burger meal now.
That reflects the fact that it's not a commonly consumed product in China.
I was making the point that the livability in the US will be worse than China once the inflation hits.
Actually it would be far worse than in China, however crappy food will be still affordable (as crappy Chinese food is very much affordable in China, and was affordable in far worse times).
It would be like saying, "Because you are serving on a jury, you cannot use the phone, send any email, or login to Facebook during the trial. I'm sorry if you will be fired because you can't respond to your boss's emails or calls." A judge cannot deny you your basic rights entirely.
Why not? Formally, you act on the behalf of the whole population of the country, so if it is not compatible with exercising your rights, rights have to lose. Practically, if you are in a position when being on a jury has such severe consequences for your life, just tell the lawyers something they really hate to hear when they choose a jury.
P.S. It taken me hours to find that photo. The notebook on it is the original USSR version, as seen by the fixed price of 3 kopecks for 2 notebooks, printed at the bottom. That would be an equivalent of about 2 cents per notebook at the time using the official exchange rate and 1/4 of a cent using unofficial one.
When I studied in USSR, at the age of 8 (year 2, later 3) we learned multiplication tables from 2 to 9, and a table was always printed (in the form of a matrix -- ex: http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4517/17743163.28/0_54108_6ffd7748_XXL.jpg ) on the back cover of every "math" (5mm square-ruled as opposed to "language" wide-ruled) student's "thin" notebook (I think, each "thin" notebook had 24 or 36 pages but I may be wrong about the exact numbers). "Thin" notebook was always single-subject, supposed to be used for classroom and homework exercise only, it was graded after every assignment and discarded after being filled, so students wouldn't lug around old dirty notebooks with obsolete content. Same style of notebook was used in all years from 1 to 10 (later 11), so that table at the back of the notebook was constantly present in the student's life until graduation.
Multiplication by 0, 1 and 10 was studied as a special case, and multiplication by numbers higher than 10 was supposed to be calculated and never memorized.
I honestly don't know how it works in US, but apparently it's different.
Depends on the school, as most of the best ones are not known for excessive partying. However in any case athletes don't party any less than the rest of the students at any given school, so it's not the party time that they end up sacrificing.
By your measure people programming in C and C++ should be producing high quality near bug free code.
That should be s/programming/capable of programming/.
The videogames industry would like to have a conversation with you on this topic.
Most videogame developers are not good programmers in the first place, some are outright incompetent, and all work in conditions not conducive for effective development (please note that "cost" I have mentioned also proportional to the time allocated for development). If they could use "easier" languages, games would be just as buggy.
If you think being a model precludes you from getting a good education, then you also think it's impossible to get a good education and have any other job, and that means you're an idiot because it's plainly wrong.
No, that means that I have seen how things work when people don't have to waste massive amount of time while they are supposed to be studying, and compared it with situation when they had to.
On my D1 track team, there were seven of us who graduated the same year I did. I don't remember all of our undergrad majors, but 3 of us are now PhD students, 1 is a medical doctor (orthopedist), 1 is a dentist,
And very likely they are worse at their chosen fields than people who spent their time and effort studying instead of training.
and two more are economic policy analysts in Washington.
I was pointing out that if McDonald's-quality hamburgers had a price equal to 1/10 of average monthly salary, literally no one would buy them, so either there will be no hamburgers or their prices will be lower. Inflation can go to ridiculous levels, but the given proportion can't happen.
The cost of development mostly depends on quality expected. "Easier" languages merely enable incompetent people to write software, so worse software can be developed with them, and incompetent people usually work for peanuts.
Slashdot Mirror
"An ATM machine running DSL Linux is connected with a DSL line using ATM mode".
Once sentences like this started making perfect sense, it's time to legitimize expanding the last word in an acronym.
sitting on a time-bomb of youngsters
No.
College students just happen to be a group that in any society is most vulnerable to ideologies that are unpopular in the rest of society, as they still have remnants of teenage rebellion and fad-following, are smart enough to accomplish something as a group, but don't yet have sufficient skepticism to reject crude propaganda. This is why any "revolution" that was entirely based on student organizations is most likely orchestrated by foreign enemies or organized crime, and governments should be always prepared to fight off such "movements" appearing out of nowhere.
I live in Russia
No, you don't.
No, that's actually me.
Or at least claiming that it's me would be less stupid than accusing Russia in sabotaging Iran, its relatively benign (as far as they are concerned) neighbor just to worsen its relationship with US and Israel, countries whose relationships with Iran is already worst possible that could happen without being at war.
The only difference in the US (Well, we also have no rules like that about notebooks.) is that we learn up to 12x12 instead.
And it's wrong because multipliers 11 and 12 are worthless for "column" multiplication. From what I can tell, USSR school curriculum treated student's capacity for rote memorization as a precious resource, that can be only used only when absolutely necessary or provides significant benefit for the rest of the student's life.
(WRT to the 11 trick, we did need to learn 11x11 and 11x12, although the trick sorta works if you write the other number twice but start it on top of the second digit. I.e., 11x12 is 132, which is what you get if you write 12 on top of 12, and the 2 in the first 12 is on top of the 1 in the second 12, so it makes 3. This is really just a way of multiplying times ten, and then adding the original, when you think about it.)
It is redundant when the next thing taught is "column" addition, multiplication and division that shows exactly that in a graphical way.
Actually, there is another method of learning math (additional, not replacement) that includes learning to "count by" method. As in Count by 2s .. 2, 4, 6, 8 ..
This is how it was taught. Memorization of tables is always done AFTER students know how they work, the whole idea of education in secondary school is to be descriptive first and [maybe] prescriptive next.
Thanks for putting that first so I could dismiss everything else you said without even having to read it. Inflation devalues the currency inflated.
That's multiplication, not addition.
In the US, however, it gets blurry. Most of the liberal arts and social sciences faculty like to argue that the purpose of college is more intrinsic than just academics; that you are gaining life skills and experience not found elsewhere.
Translation: US universities are a breeding ground of idle aristocracy, business crooks, golddigger bitches, and other unproductive categories of people, that US never had enough to get sick of them.
Almost all of my textbooks are primary school had times tables printed in the covers, and many of the notebooks I had for maths did too. My pencil cases also had times tables printed on them, one also had common formulas printed on them.
USSR textbooks only had references relevant to whatever was studied in a given year. Some pencil cases had references printed on them, but most were too small, so their covers could be used as rulers but not much else. The important part about notebooks was that they were all standardized just like textbooks, and other things with references were not. That meant, anything on a notebook is likely to be within reach of a student at all times.
We also had thin notebooks, but they weren't discarded. We had to number them, and keep them for revision purposes (which were used alongside past papers, from many years before as they were much harder, to aid with revision).
We only used textbooks for that purpose -- the curriculum was fixed, so everything was there already, and teachers weren't allowed to skip mandatory chapters (what was nearly all of them) no matter what. Re-reading the textbook while skipping the exercises was a better way to prepare for an exam then going through out-of-context exercises, and teacher could request additional exercises if he deemed that necessary.
My partner is now doing a GCSE in mathematics as a mature student as she feels she didn't learn enough at school, but she's flying through it and is appalled at the attitude of the younger students she's on the course with. None of them see the relevance of basic mathematics (through no fault of the tutor), many of them talk through the lessons, and two that consistently get basic questions wrong were this week listening to music on their phones until the tutor asked them to get out if they didn't want to be there. In the UK, IMO, the problem exists in society in general, and not necessarily in the education - many people don't see the value in an education, and their parents don't either.
I really don't understand this. When I studied, education was mandatory -- no one was allowed to work anywhere without completing at least 8 years, and students would have to take the same year again if they failed, however I only heard about rare cases when it came to such extreme measures. It never occurred to the students that there may be an alternative to studying, so they studied.
It had interesting consequences. You could talk to any random person of any random profession, refer to something in the first 8 years of the school curriculum, and he would immediately recognize it, even if he didn't remember it well enough to be able to apply. It wouldn't matter if he is a musician or a truck driver, you can safely expect that he knows how to calculate the area of a circle, determine the sine of an angle, list major characters in "War and Peace" (though he may add some from a certain movie, thanks to some crossover fanfiction), name the source of carbon in plants, etc. You can also expect an industrial worker to know power factor as "cos(phi)", but have very foggy idea of what it is beyond the fact that higher is better even if he deals with motors every day -- AC circuits are not explained in such details in the secondary school curriculum, so engineer would know the theory but worker likely would not.
Now, if beef were $50 per pound, what would the burger need to cost? What happens if that $50 were actually $10 1980 dollars and $40 inflation, and the $5 became $10 because the demand increased internationally or, as you point out, there would be massive changes to eating if people couldn't afford burgers, so perhaps the beef makers changed crops, sold out, or collapsed, affecting supply.
Inflation does not add anything to cost, it multiplies everything by approximately the same coefficient, so the ratio between average salary and cost of common locally produced and locally consumed product will stay the same. By itself, inflation causes harm by devaluing cash in reserves and in transactions, and reducing effective buying power of population because prices adjust faster than salaries. It is harmful but not THAT harmful for the consumer. If this process went so ridiculously that commonly consumed product became unaffordable, there wouldn't be any "adjustment" of supply -- the product and all its producers will be completely wiped out because their ability to produce is dependent on economy of scale.
It's about 1/100th monthly wage in China for a burger meal now.
That reflects the fact that it's not a commonly consumed product in China.
I was making the point that the livability in the US will be worse than China once the inflation hits.
Actually it would be far worse than in China, however crappy food will be still affordable (as crappy Chinese food is very much affordable in China, and was affordable in far worse times).
It would be like saying, "Because you are serving on a jury, you cannot use the phone, send any email, or login to Facebook during the trial. I'm sorry if you will be fired because you can't respond to your boss's emails or calls." A judge cannot deny you your basic rights entirely.
Why not? Formally, you act on the behalf of the whole population of the country, so if it is not compatible with exercising your rights, rights have to lose.
Practically, if you are in a position when being on a jury has such severe consequences for your life, just tell the lawyers something they really hate to hear when they choose a jury.
P.S. It taken me hours to find that photo. The notebook on it is the original USSR version, as seen by the fixed price of 3 kopecks for 2 notebooks, printed at the bottom. That would be an equivalent of about 2 cents per notebook at the time using the official exchange rate and 1/4 of a cent using unofficial one.
When I studied in USSR, at the age of 8 (year 2, later 3) we learned multiplication tables from 2 to 9, and a table was always printed (in the form of a matrix -- ex: http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4517/17743163.28/0_54108_6ffd7748_XXL.jpg ) on the back cover of every "math" (5mm square-ruled as opposed to "language" wide-ruled) student's "thin" notebook (I think, each "thin" notebook had 24 or 36 pages but I may be wrong about the exact numbers). "Thin" notebook was always single-subject, supposed to be used for classroom and homework exercise only, it was graded after every assignment and discarded after being filled, so students wouldn't lug around old dirty notebooks with obsolete content. Same style of notebook was used in all years from 1 to 10 (later 11), so that table at the back of the notebook was constantly present in the student's life until graduation.
Multiplication by 0, 1 and 10 was studied as a special case, and multiplication by numbers higher than 10 was supposed to be calculated and never memorized.
I honestly don't know how it works in US, but apparently it's different.
You mean when everyone else is partying?
Depends on the school, as most of the best ones are not known for excessive partying. However in any case athletes don't party any less than the rest of the students at any given school, so it's not the party time that they end up sacrificing.
You're going to have to demonstrate that significantly more athletes require curriculum adjustment than the average non-athlete.
Curriculum can't be adjusted for someone specifically -- one retard that has to pass causes the rest of the students to study retard-level curriculum.
By your measure people programming in C and C++ should be producing high quality near bug free code.
That should be s/programming/capable of programming/ .
The videogames industry would like to have a conversation with you on this topic.
Most videogame developers are not good programmers in the first place, some are outright incompetent, and all work in conditions not conducive for effective development (please note that "cost" I have mentioned also proportional to the time allocated for development). If they could use "easier" languages, games would be just as buggy.
My beef is with incompetent people shitting up every aspect of society that can be shit up.
If you think being a model precludes you from getting a good education, then you also think it's impossible to get a good education and have any other job, and that means you're an idiot because it's plainly wrong.
No, that means that I have seen how things work when people don't have to waste massive amount of time while they are supposed to be studying, and compared it with situation when they had to.
On my D1 track team, there were seven of us who graduated the same year I did. I don't remember all of our undergrad majors, but 3 of us are now PhD students, 1 is a medical doctor (orthopedist), 1 is a dentist,
And very likely they are worse at their chosen fields than people who spent their time and effort studying instead of training.
and two more are economic policy analysts in Washington.
That is not even funny.
(my heartfelt wishes to everyone involved in development, promotion and use of this abomination).
I was pointing out that if McDonald's-quality hamburgers had a price equal to 1/10 of average monthly salary, literally no one would buy them, so either there will be no hamburgers or their prices will be lower. Inflation can go to ridiculous levels, but the given proportion can't happen.
The job a person has at 18 is a reflection of society's neglect of that person's education.
I'm just curious how you're coming to this conclusion. How are athletes "shitting up" education? Are they somehow bringing everyone else down?
They waste space in the classroom, and curriculum has to be adjusted to accommodate their lack of talent, interest, preparation and effort.
The cost of development mostly depends on quality expected. "Easier" languages merely enable incompetent people to write software, so worse software can be developed with them, and incompetent people usually work for peanuts.
Too bad, two generations of Americans and at least one generation of Russians (briefly) were convinced that it was a true historical record.