This is sort of an interesting idea, but it's obviously a bit too unstructured, I think. What you need is intervals of self-directed learning punctuated by short periods of guidance from a teacher with a reasonably broad range of knowledge. In sum, I'd bet on Montessori over this any day.
Yes, but you're talking about a blackbody spectrum, whereas the article is implying that this is something else (photons released by chemical reactions, not by the thermal jiggle of charge). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophotons
You people who are saying that people should have known better than to put all this information about themselves online are missing the point, I think. This morning, when I first logged on to the facebook and saw the new changed, one of the first items in my main "feed" was a note saying that one of my closer friends from home (but who doesn't go to my school) had posted a message on one of my sister's friends' wall. I don't really have a problem with this, but I don't care and would have preferred not to know. When learning something like this, it forces me to think about it and wonder what _that's_ all about. That's private; it's between them and knowing about it makes me feel like I'm intruding. Were I in my friend's position, I wouldn't want to necessarily notify me of it.
I think the real issue is that the changes create a very self-conscious atmosphere on the facebook, where I must consider my every move because all my friends will be immediately notified of it. When you're in a room of people socializing (perhaps a difficult position for many on./ ), everyone can hear each other, and that's fine. But you wouldn't want every person in the room to hear every word you say to each person?
First of all, Apocalypse Now is based on "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad, and second of all, the game is quite obviously based on Coppola's characters--what, with Duvall and such doing voices for it. They even have the rights from Paramount, not from whatever publishing company.
These things can't be held back forever. The government fought unionization for a long time because too much money was made exploiting workers, but that's changed--why shouldn't this? There's a Gandhi quote:
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always."
Progress may be slow, but it's still progress.
Sure they put a lot of funding into this game, but come on, Newell and the guys at Valve funded a lot of the early work on their own (like the first few years of it).
"I was able to reasonably come to the conclusion that he had my interests at heart."
No offense, but I kind of feel that this explemplifies the problem with the election. Sure, maybe Bush has your interests at heart, but do you, who told us you make a "pretty decent living" and have degrees from "top engineering universities," need someone looking out for your interests? Not everyone in this country (let alone the world) is as fortunate as you -- born intelligent and most likely into a middle-class household (with social mobility what it is--so much for the rags-to-riches American dream). Now maybe I should have voted Bush since maybe he "has my interests in mind," but at some point I think politics has to transcend this attempt to help people in general--otherwise you're just pitting one group's interests against another's, we all know what group is will be triumph in the end -- the intelligent, ambitious, and relatively well-off group.
Yes, I seem to remember reading somewhere that, at the world's current load, there is only enough nuclear fuel to last about 100 years (that's the world, mind you, so who knows about just the US)
I think it's pretty widely believed that use prohibition ammendment was about as much of an abuse of the constitution as would be a gay marriage ban ammendment. Other drugs don't require an ammendment because the prohibition ammendment was completely unncessary. Look at how pertinent to national affairs and/or broad in scope the other ammendments are. A ban on a specific substance is silly.
That sounds more like a logistics questions. The original question, though it may be loaded as a poster said above, would be more conducive to a discussion of politics.
I think you missed the original poster's point. Plot action in a traditional story climaxes and then has a resolution. This movie had a climax (and what a climax it was), but way too many instances of resolution. He doesn't mean (I think) the explicit credits-roll defition of ending. He means they're just going to toy with our emotions again and give us a sense of closure...then a sense of closure for that sense of closure...and so on.
I don't think it could possibly be psychological or settings. My guitar teacher is a complete audiophile. He's been playing jazz since he was a teenager (he's in his late 40s now, I think), and he has an incredible ear. Also, he knows a lot about stereo equipment, so if there's a setting, I'm sure he knows about it.
Actually, there's actually something behind the "warmth" of tubes. As this wikipedia article states, it has to do with the way tube distortion works. To paraphrase:
Vacuum tubes usually create what' called second harmonic distortion, which is more pleasing to the ear than the distortion caused by solid state amps, which tend to create more odd-order distortion, which doesn't sound as nice. However, the article says that some people have begun producing solid state amps that distort more like tube amps.
There's more, if you click the link, but this is generally considered the main reason tubes have that "warmth."
I'd say that perhaps the problem (and I personally think its more a problem in science than in math) is that science and math sort of require a good teacher if kids are going to do much learning. In more humanities-related subjects, people can read a book and think on their own; a good teacher can make the subject much more interesting and guide students, but its not as important as in science and math. With science and math, first of all, you need a teacher with an understanding that far surpasses that of the students. And, with science especially, you need a teacher who can make the ideas exciting. I'm a high school senior, and I consider myself to be a math-science type, but for the longest time, I found both subjects boring. Math less so, because you can always look at problems as mind game type things, but science was always sort of dull. I've always enjoyed reading about scientific discovery, etc, but when it came down to taking a class, I could have cared less. For example, I find the idea of physics most interesting of the sciences, but the first physics class I ever took in high school was tedious tedious tedious. Same with biology and chemistry. You can blow stuff up and dissect all you want, but a lot of teachers in science especially don't help their students connect the learning with the explosions.
I'd say a non-team sport would be better. When I try to play team sports, I usually sort of stress out when I try to do something like catch a ball because I'm afraid of messing up, and so I usually end up just hoping no one will throw the ball my way. A single-person sport would teach a person to rely on his or her self and to thus have more confidence, which would help in dealing with these "anti-intellectuals."
Slashdot Mirror
This is sort of an interesting idea, but it's obviously a bit too unstructured, I think. What you need is intervals of self-directed learning punctuated by short periods of guidance from a teacher with a reasonably broad range of knowledge. In sum, I'd bet on Montessori over this any day.
If external forces were at work, the iPhones would be getting crushed. Come on, Apple, it's physics. (jklol)
Yes, but you're talking about a blackbody spectrum, whereas the article is implying that this is something else (photons released by chemical reactions, not by the thermal jiggle of charge). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophotons
I think the real issue is that the changes create a very self-conscious atmosphere on the facebook, where I must consider my every move because all my friends will be immediately notified of it. When you're in a room of people socializing (perhaps a difficult position for many on ./ ), everyone can hear each other, and that's fine. But you wouldn't want every person in the room to hear every word you say to each person?
Infidels! It's à la, not a là.
First of all, Apocalypse Now is based on "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad, and second of all, the game is quite obviously based on Coppola's characters--what, with Duvall and such doing voices for it. They even have the rights from Paramount, not from whatever publishing company.
Liger. It's pretty much my favorite animal...bred for its skills in magic...
You'd think with something like the hubble telescope at their disposal, they'd not be so short sighted...
I think what you really want is some damped oscillations, man.
Not that kind of tool! But yes, you need a tool!
These things can't be held back forever. The government fought unionization for a long time because too much money was made exploiting workers, but that's changed--why shouldn't this? There's a Gandhi quote: "When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always." Progress may be slow, but it's still progress.
Sure they put a lot of funding into this game, but come on, Newell and the guys at Valve funded a lot of the early work on their own (like the first few years of it).
Exactly! My question is why should supply and demand determine who makes more money?
No offense, but I kind of feel that this explemplifies the problem with the election. Sure, maybe Bush has your interests at heart, but do you, who told us you make a "pretty decent living" and have degrees from "top engineering universities," need someone looking out for your interests? Not everyone in this country (let alone the world) is as fortunate as you -- born intelligent and most likely into a middle-class household (with social mobility what it is--so much for the rags-to-riches American dream). Now maybe I should have voted Bush since maybe he "has my interests in mind," but at some point I think politics has to transcend this attempt to help people in general--otherwise you're just pitting one group's interests against another's, we all know what group is will be triumph in the end -- the intelligent, ambitious, and relatively well-off group.
Yes, I seem to remember reading somewhere that, at the world's current load, there is only enough nuclear fuel to last about 100 years (that's the world, mind you, so who knows about just the US)
I know there's a VCD version out there
I think it's pretty widely believed that use prohibition ammendment was about as much of an abuse of the constitution as would be a gay marriage ban ammendment. Other drugs don't require an ammendment because the prohibition ammendment was completely unncessary. Look at how pertinent to national affairs and/or broad in scope the other ammendments are. A ban on a specific substance is silly.
That sounds more like a logistics questions. The original question, though it may be loaded as a poster said above, would be more conducive to a discussion of politics.
I think you missed the original poster's point. Plot action in a traditional story climaxes and then has a resolution. This movie had a climax (and what a climax it was), but way too many instances of resolution. He doesn't mean (I think) the explicit credits-roll defition of ending. He means they're just going to toy with our emotions again and give us a sense of closure...then a sense of closure for that sense of closure...and so on.
I don't think it could possibly be psychological or settings. My guitar teacher is a complete audiophile. He's been playing jazz since he was a teenager (he's in his late 40s now, I think), and he has an incredible ear. Also, he knows a lot about stereo equipment, so if there's a setting, I'm sure he knows about it. Actually, there's actually something behind the "warmth" of tubes. As this wikipedia article states, it has to do with the way tube distortion works. To paraphrase: Vacuum tubes usually create what' called second harmonic distortion, which is more pleasing to the ear than the distortion caused by solid state amps, which tend to create more odd-order distortion, which doesn't sound as nice. However, the article says that some people have begun producing solid state amps that distort more like tube amps. There's more, if you click the link, but this is generally considered the main reason tubes have that "warmth."
Funny, considering this year was the GREEK Olympics...only one letter off.
I'd say that perhaps the problem (and I personally think its more a problem in science than in math) is that science and math sort of require a good teacher if kids are going to do much learning. In more humanities-related subjects, people can read a book and think on their own; a good teacher can make the subject much more interesting and guide students, but its not as important as in science and math.
With science and math, first of all, you need a teacher with an understanding that far surpasses that of the students. And, with science especially, you need a teacher who can make the ideas exciting.
I'm a high school senior, and I consider myself to be a math-science type, but for the longest time, I found both subjects boring. Math less so, because you can always look at problems as mind game type things, but science was always sort of dull. I've always enjoyed reading about scientific discovery, etc, but when it came down to taking a class, I could have cared less. For example, I find the idea of physics most interesting of the sciences, but the first physics class I ever took in high school was tedious tedious tedious. Same with biology and chemistry. You can blow stuff up and dissect all you want, but a lot of teachers in science especially don't help their students connect the learning with the explosions.
Mod the parent back at least to 0, for the love of god.
Well that's good. you could build a dam, and then use this "heat" you speak of to power a turbine, and voila! power!
I'd say a non-team sport would be better. When I try to play team sports, I usually sort of stress out when I try to do something like catch a ball because I'm afraid of messing up, and so I usually end up just hoping no one will throw the ball my way. A single-person sport would teach a person to rely on his or her self and to thus have more confidence, which would help in dealing with these "anti-intellectuals."