I remember reading somewhere, and, after much thinking, agreeing with it, that science is currently taught in backward order.
That is, instead of biology-chemistry-physics, we should teach physics-chemistry-biology. The reason for this is that to really get chemistry, you need a strong grounding in why all those little particles do what they do. To really understand biology, you need to have a strong grasp of chem.
Students today have a very hard time with math - and that's crazy. They shouldn't.
One way to make math more "real" to students is to apply it to science - perhaps if they aren't math-nuts, they'll be science nerds, and the connection will draw them into both. The problem with this, of course, is that physics is classically taught as a calculus-based course, (although it's perfectly possible to do it with trig and algebra - my AP test 5 can vouch for that)
Chemistry "needs" algebra - at least it works a lot better with it.
Biology (at least at the high- and middle-school level) needs very little math at all.
Therefore, we teach them in reverse order.
As to not teaching algebra, there is no excuse. I explained the basic principle behind algebra to a bunch of fifth-graders and had them doing "x+59 = 226" in about fifteen minutes. Everything else is derivitive of that - if the textbooks can't get that across, blame them. (Note - I would not suggest blaming teachers in the slightest - teaching from books works, even bad books, and teachers, at least in my district, are required to teach from a book - they were good teachers with bad material)
So damn the torpedoes and shut down Houghton-Mifflin!
Dean Kamen & Woodie Flowers have their heads attached correctly - FIRST is the only way to go. People tend to ask me "So that's like battlebots, right?" when I tell them I'm a robotics nerd. I explain "No, battlebots has a serious flaw - it's easy to armor a robot, and very hard to build effective weapons within the rules. With FIRST, you have a goal - much a) harder and b) more useful in real life - problem solving and all that jazz.
So, Viva FIRST - we'll have a team in every High School in the US (and in several other countries - Brazil & Canada, for example) for many years after battlebots is off the air and forgotten.
Well, I've been saying this for years. When I finally realized how A) irrational religion is and B) that the pledge acknowledged it, I stopped reciting it. When they put it into High Schools (this year) I refused to even stand up, but for reasons of constitutionality, not personal ones. Note that "One nation, under flag" as the original pledge (pre-McCarthy/Eisenhower) reasds doesn't bother me in the slightest. This, however, is just the easiest step in the hard time that the US will have actually truly seperating church and state - the national motto, "In God We Trust" needs to go, which means re-minting all the money. Also, the prayer at the start of every congressional session needs to go, too. I am very glad that my little two-man (a friend did it with me) sit-down was well-reasoned. (according to the court) I hope it goes further.
And no, I don't read them either. But this EULA business is pretty important - after all, isn't the GPL just a EULA, in a certain sense? Granted, it's a lot less restrictive (requiring you to follow rules only for one kind of use - change - and not all the others) but it'll probably come down to roughly the same thing in the eyes of the law.
So actual, serious enforcement of EULAs is probably in the best interest of software period. It will certainly have two effects: 1. keeping the GPL even more court-defensible, and 2. if people think that the agreement will be enforced, they will tend not to agree to ones that they don't like - enforcing EULAs will make them reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
Pardon if this is a repeat.
I remember reading somewhere, and, after much thinking, agreeing with it, that science is currently taught in backward order.
That is, instead of biology-chemistry-physics, we should teach physics-chemistry-biology.
The reason for this is that to really get chemistry, you need a strong grounding in why all those little particles do what they do. To really understand biology, you need to have a strong grasp of chem.
Students today have a very hard time with math - and that's crazy. They shouldn't.
One way to make math more "real" to students is to apply it to science - perhaps if they aren't math-nuts, they'll be science nerds, and the connection will draw them into both.
The problem with this, of course, is that physics is classically taught as a calculus-based course, (although it's perfectly possible to do it with trig and algebra - my AP test 5 can vouch for that)
Chemistry "needs" algebra - at least it works a lot better with it.
Biology (at least at the high- and middle-school level) needs very little math at all.
Therefore, we teach them in reverse order.
As to not teaching algebra, there is no excuse.
I explained the basic principle behind algebra to a bunch of fifth-graders and had them doing "x+59 = 226" in about fifteen minutes.
Everything else is derivitive of that - if the textbooks can't get that across, blame them.
(Note - I would not suggest blaming teachers in the slightest - teaching from books works, even bad books, and teachers, at least in my district, are required to teach from a book - they were good teachers with bad material)
So damn the torpedoes and shut down Houghton-Mifflin!
~Mac~
Dean Kamen & Woodie Flowers have their heads attached correctly - FIRST is the only way to go.
People tend to ask me "So that's like battlebots, right?" when I tell them I'm a robotics nerd. I explain "No, battlebots has a serious flaw - it's easy to armor a robot, and very hard to build effective weapons within the rules. With FIRST, you have a goal - much a) harder and b) more useful in real life - problem solving and all that jazz.
So, Viva FIRST - we'll have a team in every High School in the US (and in several other countries - Brazil & Canada, for example) for many years after battlebots is off the air and forgotten.
~Mac~
Well, I've been saying this for years.
When I finally realized how A) irrational religion is and B) that the pledge acknowledged it, I stopped reciting it.
When they put it into High Schools (this year) I refused to even stand up, but for reasons of constitutionality, not personal ones.
Note that "One nation, under flag" as the original pledge (pre-McCarthy/Eisenhower) reasds doesn't bother me in the slightest.
This, however, is just the easiest step in the hard time that the US will have actually truly seperating church and state - the national motto, "In God We Trust" needs to go, which means re-minting all the money.
Also, the prayer at the start of every congressional session needs to go, too.
I am very glad that my little two-man (a friend did it with me) sit-down was well-reasoned. (according to the court) I hope it goes further.
~Mac~
And no, I don't read them either.
But this EULA business is pretty important - after all, isn't the GPL just a EULA, in a certain sense?
Granted, it's a lot less restrictive (requiring you to follow rules only for one kind of use - change - and not all the others) but it'll probably come down to roughly the same thing in the eyes of the law.
So actual, serious enforcement of EULAs is probably in the best interest of software period. It will certainly have two effects: 1. keeping the GPL even more court-defensible, and 2. if people think that the agreement will be enforced, they will tend not to agree to ones that they don't like - enforcing EULAs will make them reasonable.
Right?
~Mac~