Why to spend power in datacenters when people can use it at home? Other than vendor-lock, is non-sense. Another thing is how scalabe the thing is, etc.
The power cost is passed down to the consumer, so it's not really an issue. If the customer/market will bear the monthly costs, then there are other advantages.
1) The game doesn't have to deal with OS differences. The engine can be built for 1 OS in 1 language, and connect to simple video frame renders on the client system. No more "not available for Mac" or "Mac/OS, not Linux".
2) The game cannot be easily pirated or hacked, since the software resides on the server.
3) The game doesn't have to deal with slow, out-of-date, or sub-optimal systems.
4) The game doesn't have to deal with systems that have foreign applications installed. No driver incompatibilities, for instance.
5) The system avoids some latency issues.
6) The system can dynamically allocate CPU effort as needed. Rather than require the client to have enough power for the most complicated scenario.
7) The players don't have to manage bug fixes, downloadable content, or upgrades. Apply the upgrade to the system, and all users are running the most recent version, automatically.
I wouldn't want centralized software for local single-use (such as text editing), but for some applications it makes sense.
What's the smallest etch resist you've been able to work with?
I don't make boards with my printer, my post was an overview of things other people are doing with the inkjet process. Google "inkjet PCB" will return lots of hobbyist sites that talk about it, such as this one.
I understand that laying down etch resist is a bit harder than my post would imply. The inkjet is accurate enough that the drops form a mosaic of circles with voids between, so the board has to be heated while printing (or after) to get the wax to flow-cover continuously. Also, prepping the board takes some experimentation to find the right method.
I use toner transfer, and can get roughly 8 mil traces, poorly. I haven't yet found the magical incantation to get good, high-quality traces with this method - or maybe I'm the only one looking at the results under a microscope. I suspect it depends heavily on the type of printer used.
My group has been looking into this for a couple of months.
Lots of laboratories have achieved inkjet-built circuits in the past, to the level of "proof of concept". To date, all of them require exotic materials or expensive materials or have relatively high trace resistance, or some combination of the three. None are suitable for low-end hobbyist application yet. The project from the article is a good starting point for interesting research.
The issue with silver ink is cost: silver ink is massively expensive, even by inkjet standards. To date AFAIK, no one has been able to lay down copper traces with good (meaning: low) trace resistance suitable for prototype boards. A lot of people are working on this.
Inkjet printers can be easily modified to accept thicker material by mechanically raising the head transport mechanism. This usually involves cutting something apart and inserting shims and spacers (machine-screw washers work well), but this is not terribly difficult. Then cut away the angled paper feed mechanism (that bends the paper from vertical to horizontal) and add horizontal rails to guide the media through the unit. Also not terribly difficult. You can then print on just about anything: phenolic, glass, plastic, &c.
Inkjet print heads use one of two mechanisms: thermal and ultrasonic. Thermal vaporizes some of the ink to accelerate the droplet, while ultrasonic uses a piezoelectric mechanism to "squeeze" the droplet out. Almost all printers use thermal heads, Epson being the notable exception. Check the specs to see if the unit you're using has the type of head you want & if your ink can withstand being vaporized without clogging the pores.
Clean unfilled cartridges are available from InkSupply.com for experimenting, and you may need a cartridge chip resetter to reset the counter to "full". You can directly lay down etch resist by using a wax-based ink such as Mispro Yellow.
I've got a modified printer next to me. You can use it to print just about any liquid onto any flat, thin material... and not just conductive traces. You can print fluorescent dyes, or solvents that make microchannel arrays in CD-rom disks (place in spinner to force a liquid through the microarray channels). A colleague at MIT claims that they are printing biologicals as well; ie - laying down micro-organisms on patterned nutrients. (NB: I don't know that the microorganisms are inkjet printed, his may be a hybrid system.)
The FCC limits wireless access point RF power to 1 watt.
From the image, I would guess that the metal thingy is 2 feet square, or about 1/3 square meter. I can't tell from the image whether the capture aperture is the profile or the end of the wedge, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt.
Standing 10 meters from a WAP is a sphere with area 4*M_PI*R^2 = 1256 m^2. A 1/3 meter capture aperture would eclipse 0.3/1256 of this, for about 240 microwatts. At 37% efficiency, that's about 80 microwatts. (Am I doing this right?)
Maybe possibly this could power micropower sensors (note: with a 2-foot square antenna on each one).
I'm happy (indeed - eager!) to examine a better analysis. If I can't find flaws, it'll inform my opinions and I'll include it in future postings on the issue.
Please include references of statistics so that I can fully analyze the arguments of both sides. There is just so much disinformation out there that the first step can only be tossing out all anecdotes and un-cited facts.
Here's an example (posted above) of what doesn't serve to inform the debate (it's ad-hominem, anecdotal, and un-falsifiable):
The American Thinker article is worthless. It just gives more of the false comparisons that you're complaining about. (Yeah, if you remove a whole bunch of poor people from the crime stats for any nation, their murder rate will look way better.) The author also attempts to profit from the audience's ignorance by comparing with nations like Jamaica and Brazil and hoping the reader doesn't know that those are some of the most crime-ridden, gang-infested countries on earth, where gangs rule neighborhoods and police fight pitched battles with criminals.
I've been trying to sort out the "guns" issue from a scientific point of view. After some extended searching, I believe the answer is "more guns is better".
This is made enormously difficult by the vast ocean of misinformation put forth by advocates on both sides of the issue. It's an interesting exercise in clear thinking just to sort through the claims to come up with an opinion unfettered by bad logic. I've included some examples below.
In summary, the best measurable statistic appears to be "chance of death from all causes" at the national level. This statistic avoids most of the bad math and bad thinking, and it's easy to measure and verify. The US does not have good health care, and this [national] attribute has a large effect on the mortality rate unrelated to gun-related deaths, so you can't use the US for comparison purposes at the national level. A better comparison is made between two countries with similar national health care and different gun policies. England and Switzerland, for example.
Comparing England and Switzerland indicates that "more guns" is associated with "less mortality". This echoes comparisons made within the US at the local level, where areas with public access to guns have less crime and mortality.
It's pointless to debate the issues in this forum due to the enormous and convoluted "poor statistics" cited by people on both sides of the issue, and virtually everyone is cognitively dissonant and emotionally invested in the answer.
Below are just a few examples of popular claims, and how they mislead the reader into one side or the other. There are misleading claims on both sides, so don't read too much into the choice of examples.
Example 1: "Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare." (source) (False comparison: when gun ownership goes down, deaths due to other causes rises.)
Example 2: England has fewer gun-related murders, but a much higher rate of beating murders. (Undecidable: In the US, a non-suicide gunshot victim is automatically a murder, in England it's not a murder unless there's a trial and conviction.)
Example 3: If you have a gun in the house, you're more likely to accidentally shoot a family member than a burglar. (Wrong statistic: Having a gun depresses the chance of crime for your neighbors, the overall gain in safety for the community may be more than the loss of safety for the individual. See Polio vaccine.)
Why is it that every single time some big entity's password database is breached, it turns out that they're not following best practices for password storage? Maybe I just don't remember the times when it hasn't been this way...
I've lost my copy of "The Big Book of Best Practices" and would like to purchase a new copy.
It's not on Amazon or eBay - would you sell me your copy?
(Or alternately, point me to the content for chapter 6: "Best Practices for Security in IT".)
Home school children probably succeed more so because of parent involvement than homeschooling itself. Comparing home schooled children to all of public schools is disingenuous, the demographics won't even come close to aligning.
You're guessing.
We (scientists, that is) have two situations completely described, with strong objective evidence that one is better.
You (anonymous coward on the internet) suggest that it "might" be due to something that furthers your own beliefs.
Cite some studies or shut up. If you think "more studies need to happen", then that's a weak argument: since the original study included almost 12,000 test cases, you'll need a much larger study to show that your assertion is valid, but wasn't shown in the original study due to random chance. Let us know when you're done.
In the mean time, feel free to send your kid to public school. Mine is home-schooled and I want to give him as much of an edge as possible.
No, really: send your kid to public school, do us all a favor. This problem will sort itself out in a generation or two.
.) "A study conducted in 2008 found that 11,739 home schooled students, on average, scored 37 percentile points above public school students on standardized achievement tests."
This quote, with references, is cited among many studies that note essentially the same thing.
What's that? Did you say something about socialization? From the same article:
.)"[The researchers] later found, using the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, "while half of the conventionally schooled children scored at or below the 50th percentile (in self-concept), only 10.3% of the home-schooling children did so."
I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear your next question: are you talking about costs? From the same article:
)."[...] home educators expend only an average of $500–$600 a year on each student, in comparison to $9,000-$10,000 for each public school student in the United States, which suggests home-educated students would be especially dominant on tests if afforded access to an equal commitment of tax-funded educational resources."
The take-away is that home schooling will give your kids a better chance of having a successful life. Much, *much* better, based on the scores. Another way to think about it is that public schooling impedes and retards your child's development, and makes them less fit to compete in the arena of life.
(Pro tip: ten seconds of research will save you 5 minutes of posting, and as a side-effect prevent you from putting your foot in your mouth.)
For $150 million, a proper QA team could point out problems like this. Passing it by people with other perspectives and different experience would be very useful. Kid-testing would also be useful (meaning: ask the kids what they think the question means).
It's hard because the people writing the test have no experience writing for an audience.
When you write for an audience, you quickly come to understand that things you think are obvious aren't obvious to everyone, and that any loose or fuzzy choice of words adds ambiguity. It's the problem of self anchoring and illusion of transparency.
Specifically in the case of the test:
Test modes are introduced with only a brief explanation and no worked examples for clarity.
"Find the missing part for exercises 1 and 2" is weak, non-specific, and ambiguous. "Part" has connotations of a physical piece that completes a whole (like a puzzle piece, or the broken handle of a cup), but is used to describe a grouping. The presentation uses two disparate representations of a group: 5 pennies, versus a cup labelled "6". The captions "part I know" and "whole" seem to have nothing to do with the pictures - the 5 pennies isn't a "part", and the cup is a "whole" object, but why is it labelled 6? The cup is non-sequitur to the question, and cups hold fungible materials while the pennies are enumerated. And to drive that last part home, the cup is shown "filled" with liquid. Or is it partially filled? And is the fact that it's partially filled somehow related to the question?
Here's a reworked example that's a little better. (Could be better - I didn't give spend a lot of time.)
For the next two questions, we will show you something on the left and something on the right. Choose the answer which, when added to the thing on the left, makes it the same as the thing on the right.
Example: [left: Square containing 3 circles] [right: Square containing 4 circles] [list of answers, with circle marked correct].
Question 1:
Show 5 smaller cups (shot-glass sized) filled with a dark liquid. Show a measuring cup with lines labelled 1-7, and filled to level 6 with a dark liquid.
Question: How much more ink is needed on the left to make the amount of ink on the right?
I chose the term "communism" on purpose because that's how the MSM sways groupthink - by linking things to hated concepts so that people will reject an idea out of habit without thinking. I'm experimenting with message delivery. Like you say, people equate communism with socialism, and I was trying for a knee-jerk reaction. (Your post wasn't one, BTW.)
I'm actually *for* helping the poor, and to a greater extent than we currently do. More than mainstream democrats, I think. I'm a big fan of doing it more effectively, though.
I'm not on the side of conservatives or liberals, mostly I'm on the side of insight. If this seems anti-liberal, that's only because they are in power ATM and government is a hive of incompetence. I was against the previous conservative government as well.
To sway public opinion, we should learn from the techniques that others use. That's my current focus.
Not increasing the monetary base, and just using appreciation leaves open a huge hole for a deflationary spiral that stops any exchanges from happening.
Heavens, what will we do? (Now grasping at pearls and frantically trying to fan my face.)
It's almost as if... dare I say it... the economy would be based on value instead of money!
No, that can't possibly happen. We have to do exactly what we've been doing - anything else would be unthinkable.
(What you've been taught to believe is not logically consistent. Think it through.)
Because it puts an excessive burden on the poor, who are least able to afford it.
So which is better: adjusting the tax rate, or subsidizing the poor?
Adjusting the tax rate is communism: it relies on the perfect wisdom and incorruptibility of the ruling class to set the right rates. It's subject to personal bias, extrapolation from incomplete knowledge, and outright malfeasance.
It's also an indirect solution, which leads many people (myself included) to suspect ulterior motives. If your purpose is to help the poor, then why adjust the tax rate? A better solution is to identify and subsidize the poor through grants: food coupons, rent assistance, and so on.
The targeted solution is straightforward, and lends itself to measurable goals with oversight and efficiency. For example, legislators can define a measure for poverty and the amount of assistance warranted. The effects can be measured from case studies and adjusted as needed. Specific requirements (food, medicine, particular circumstances) can be directly addressed with specific remedies.
Changing the tax rate allows no such insight or specificity. You might infer general trends from population studies, but it's not as efficient or immediate or specific as a targeted approach.
Identify your goals and implement a direct solution which can be measured. It's the best way.
Yet another reason to live in New Hampshire: No sales tax.
In further praise of New Hampshire note that we also don't have an income tax and, unlike California, we're not bankrupt. Also, the unemployment rate is pretty low - currently 5%.
(We have high property taxes, but one of the lowest overall tax burdens, so having high property taxes isn't as important as you might think.)
My question is "how is this research more useful than a phone sanitizer?"
I can't speak of the article because it's paywalled, but if you like I can answer your question from my impression of the abstract.
Scientific theories are ultimately about data compression: they allow us to represent a sea of experiential data in a small space. For example, to predict the travel of a cannonball you don't need an almanac cross-referencing all the cannon angles, all the possible gunpowder charges, and all the cannonball masses. There's an equation that lets you relate measured numbers to the arc of the cannonball, and it fits on half a page.
Scientific models are the same: they allow us to predict results from a simplified description. The brain contains an id, an ego, and a superego which have their own goals and weaknesses, and from this we can predict the general behaviour of people.
The problem is that we don't have any way to measure how good a theory is, or even whether it is any good at all; viz, the second example above. This, and our society's desperate motivation to publish, has led to a situation where we cannot always tell whether some science finding is significant or even true.
Some specific problems with science:
.) There's no way to determine which observations are outliers that should be discarded: It's done "by eye" of the researcher. .) There's no way to determine whether the results are significant. Thresholds like "p<0.5" are arbitrary, and 5% of those results will be due to random chance. .) There's no way to determine whether the data is linear or polynomial. It's currently done "by eye" of the researcher. .) Linear and polynomial regression are based on minimizing least-squared error, which was chosen arbitrarily (by Laplace, IIRC) for no compelling reason. LSE regression is "approximately" right, but is frequently off and can be skewed by outliers &c.
(Of course, there are "proposed" and "this seems right" answers to each of these problems above. A comprehensive "theory of theories" would be able to show *why* something is right by compelling argument without arbitrary human choice.)
To date, pretty much all scientific research is done using "this seems right" methods of correlation and discovery. This is not a bad thing, it has served us well for 450 years and we've made a lot of progress this way.
If we could tack down the arbitrary choices to a computable algorithm, it would greatly enhance and streamline the process of science.
Damn! That article might be centrally relevant to my research right now, but I can't tell from the abstract (it might also be an unrelated specific corner of physics).
It's behind a paywall, they want money just to find out.
Can anyone find a free copy that we can examine?
(I'm wondering how useful it is to post news articles about papers that the public can't read. We could, as a group [i.e. - Slashdot], help promote open science by not publicizing closed-source articles.)
I used to write software for aircraft instruments.
What's surprising to me is that single-function devices can have their functions changed. The speedometer has one function: to report the vehicle's speed. What requirement is satisfied by allowing this to change? Why would you even need to upgrade it?
I would have thought that certain features of the car would be fixed program/unchangeable, at the very least to simplify the design.
Not a bad movie for its time. The movie is a spoof of James Bond movies featuring a completely tricked-out Rolls Royce. (You can watch the trailer here.)
Yes, yes - it's a "natural monopoly", we get it, you studied economics in college.
This whole thing could be fixed by changing the model from "pay to access" to "pay to use".
The US considers the infrastructure a fixed resource - fixed radio bandwidth allocated to certain players, fixed easements given to certain players, and so on. When you have a fixed resource, you have high access fees and discouraged use: multi-year contracts, high monthly bills, data caps, throttled access, poor/no connectivity with no guarantee, and so on.
In a "pay to use" model, the government would mandate a fixed maximum charge per gigabyte of usage. Companies with a fixed resource could increase profits only by encouraging more usage: deploy newer and faster technology, connecting more people, encouraging high data-transfer activities (netflix, et al.), and so on.
Such a change wouldn't even affect the existing players: take the total cost of internet access and divide by total internet usage to come up with a fee per-gigabyte that would give the same income next year as they get with the current system.
The difference being, now they have an incentive for service, instead of an incentive for rent-seeking.
Slashdot Mirror
Why to spend power in datacenters when people can use it at home? Other than vendor-lock, is non-sense. Another thing is how scalabe the thing is, etc.
The power cost is passed down to the consumer, so it's not really an issue. If the customer/market will bear the monthly costs, then there are other advantages.
1) The game doesn't have to deal with OS differences. The engine can be built for 1 OS in 1 language, and connect to simple video frame renders on the client system. No more "not available for Mac" or "Mac/OS, not Linux".
2) The game cannot be easily pirated or hacked, since the software resides on the server.
3) The game doesn't have to deal with slow, out-of-date, or sub-optimal systems.
4) The game doesn't have to deal with systems that have foreign applications installed. No driver incompatibilities, for instance.
5) The system avoids some latency issues.
6) The system can dynamically allocate CPU effort as needed. Rather than require the client to have enough power for the most complicated scenario.
7) The players don't have to manage bug fixes, downloadable content, or upgrades. Apply the upgrade to the system, and all users are running the most recent version, automatically.
I wouldn't want centralized software for local single-use (such as text editing), but for some applications it makes sense.
What's the smallest etch resist you've been able to work with?
I don't make boards with my printer, my post was an overview of things other people are doing with the inkjet process. Google "inkjet PCB" will return lots of hobbyist sites that talk about it, such as this one.
I understand that laying down etch resist is a bit harder than my post would imply. The inkjet is accurate enough that the drops form a mosaic of circles with voids between, so the board has to be heated while printing (or after) to get the wax to flow-cover continuously. Also, prepping the board takes some experimentation to find the right method.
I use toner transfer, and can get roughly 8 mil traces, poorly. I haven't yet found the magical incantation to get good, high-quality traces with this method - or maybe I'm the only one looking at the results under a microscope. I suspect it depends heavily on the type of printer used.
My group has been looking into this for a couple of months.
Lots of laboratories have achieved inkjet-built circuits in the past, to the level of "proof of concept". To date, all of them require exotic materials or expensive materials or have relatively high trace resistance, or some combination of the three. None are suitable for low-end hobbyist application yet. The project from the article is a good starting point for interesting research.
The issue with silver ink is cost: silver ink is massively expensive, even by inkjet standards. To date AFAIK, no one has been able to lay down copper traces with good (meaning: low) trace resistance suitable for prototype boards. A lot of people are working on this.
Inkjet printers can be easily modified to accept thicker material by mechanically raising the head transport mechanism. This usually involves cutting something apart and inserting shims and spacers (machine-screw washers work well), but this is not terribly difficult. Then cut away the angled paper feed mechanism (that bends the paper from vertical to horizontal) and add horizontal rails to guide the media through the unit. Also not terribly difficult. You can then print on just about anything: phenolic, glass, plastic, &c.
Inkjet print heads use one of two mechanisms: thermal and ultrasonic. Thermal vaporizes some of the ink to accelerate the droplet, while ultrasonic uses a piezoelectric mechanism to "squeeze" the droplet out. Almost all printers use thermal heads, Epson being the notable exception. Check the specs to see if the unit you're using has the type of head you want & if your ink can withstand being vaporized without clogging the pores.
Clean unfilled cartridges are available from InkSupply.com for experimenting, and you may need a cartridge chip resetter to reset the counter to "full". You can directly lay down etch resist by using a wax-based ink such as Mispro Yellow.
I've got a modified printer next to me. You can use it to print just about any liquid onto any flat, thin material... and not just conductive traces. You can print fluorescent dyes, or solvents that make microchannel arrays in CD-rom disks (place in spinner to force a liquid through the microarray channels). A colleague at MIT claims that they are printing biologicals as well; ie - laying down micro-organisms on patterned nutrients. (NB: I don't know that the microorganisms are inkjet printed, his may be a hybrid system.)
Lots of potential for interesting research here.
The FCC limits wireless access point RF power to 1 watt.
From the image, I would guess that the metal thingy is 2 feet square, or about 1/3 square meter. I can't tell from the image whether the capture aperture is the profile or the end of the wedge, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt.
Standing 10 meters from a WAP is a sphere with area 4*M_PI*R^2 = 1256 m^2. A 1/3 meter capture aperture would eclipse 0.3/1256 of this, for about 240 microwatts. At 37% efficiency, that's about 80 microwatts. (Am I doing this right?)
Maybe possibly this could power micropower sensors (note: with a 2-foot square antenna on each one).
But a cell phone?
It means that people can be amazed by just about anything.
I'm happy (indeed - eager!) to examine a better analysis. If I can't find flaws, it'll inform my opinions and I'll include it in future postings on the issue.
Please include references of statistics so that I can fully analyze the arguments of both sides. There is just so much disinformation out there that the first step can only be tossing out all anecdotes and un-cited facts.
Here's an example (posted above) of what doesn't serve to inform the debate (it's ad-hominem, anecdotal, and un-falsifiable):
The American Thinker article is worthless. It just gives more of the false comparisons that you're complaining about. (Yeah, if you remove a whole bunch of poor people from the crime stats for any nation, their murder rate will look way better.) The author also attempts to profit from the audience's ignorance by comparing with nations like Jamaica and Brazil and hoping the reader doesn't know that those are some of the most crime-ridden, gang-infested countries on earth, where gangs rule neighborhoods and police fight pitched battles with criminals.
I've been trying to sort out the "guns" issue from a scientific point of view. After some extended searching, I believe the answer is "more guns is better".
This is made enormously difficult by the vast ocean of misinformation put forth by advocates on both sides of the issue. It's an interesting exercise in clear thinking just to sort through the claims to come up with an opinion unfettered by bad logic. I've included some examples below.
In summary, the best measurable statistic appears to be "chance of death from all causes" at the national level. This statistic avoids most of the bad math and bad thinking, and it's easy to measure and verify. The US does not have good health care, and this [national] attribute has a large effect on the mortality rate unrelated to gun-related deaths, so you can't use the US for comparison purposes at the national level. A better comparison is made between two countries with similar national health care and different gun policies. England and Switzerland, for example.
Comparing England and Switzerland indicates that "more guns" is associated with "less mortality". This echoes comparisons made within the US at the local level, where areas with public access to guns have less crime and mortality.
It's pointless to debate the issues in this forum due to the enormous and convoluted "poor statistics" cited by people on both sides of the issue, and virtually everyone is cognitively dissonant and emotionally invested in the answer.
A good analysis of the issues can be found here.
Below are just a few examples of popular claims, and how they mislead the reader into one side or the other. There are misleading claims on both sides, so don't read too much into the choice of examples.
Example 1: "Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare." (source) (False comparison: when gun ownership goes down, deaths due to other causes rises.)
Example 2: England has fewer gun-related murders, but a much higher rate of beating murders. (Undecidable: In the US, a non-suicide gunshot victim is automatically a murder, in England it's not a murder unless there's a trial and conviction.)
Example 3: If you have a gun in the house, you're more likely to accidentally shoot a family member than a burglar. (Wrong statistic: Having a gun depresses the chance of crime for your neighbors, the overall gain in safety for the community may be more than the loss of safety for the individual. See Polio vaccine.)
Why is it that every single time some big entity's password database is breached, it turns out that they're not following best practices for password storage? Maybe I just don't remember the times when it hasn't been this way...
I've lost my copy of "The Big Book of Best Practices" and would like to purchase a new copy.
It's not on Amazon or eBay - would you sell me your copy?
(Or alternately, point me to the content for chapter 6: "Best Practices for Security in IT".)
Home school children probably succeed more so because of parent involvement than homeschooling itself. Comparing home schooled children to all of public schools is disingenuous, the demographics won't even come close to aligning.
You're guessing.
We (scientists, that is) have two situations completely described, with strong objective evidence that one is better.
You (anonymous coward on the internet) suggest that it "might" be due to something that furthers your own beliefs.
Cite some studies or shut up. If you think "more studies need to happen", then that's a weak argument: since the original study included almost 12,000 test cases, you'll need a much larger study to show that your assertion is valid, but wasn't shown in the original study due to random chance. Let us know when you're done.
In the mean time, feel free to send your kid to public school. Mine is home-schooled and I want to give him as much of an edge as possible.
No, really: send your kid to public school, do us all a favor. This problem will sort itself out in a generation or two.
From the Wikipedia article on Home Schooling:
This quote, with references, is cited among many studies that note essentially the same thing.
What's that? Did you say something about socialization? From the same article:
I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear your next question: are you talking about costs? From the same article:
)."[...] home educators expend only an average of $500–$600 a year on each student, in comparison to $9,000-$10,000 for each public school student in the United States, which suggests home-educated students would be especially dominant on tests if afforded access to an equal commitment of tax-funded educational resources."
The take-away is that home schooling will give your kids a better chance of having a successful life. Much, *much* better, based on the scores. Another way to think about it is that public schooling impedes and retards your child's development, and makes them less fit to compete in the arena of life.
(Pro tip: ten seconds of research will save you 5 minutes of posting, and as a side-effect prevent you from putting your foot in your mouth.)
To "get in front of a problem" is slang, meaning to take steps to mitigate a predicted problem before it happens.
I've only heard it in use recently, so it's probably a recent addition. It's the "ounce of prevention" that is worth the "pound of cure".
(With gratitude to all the UK people who take the time to explain British slang. :-)
Until at least age 7 or 8, and usually later, kids have a very poor grasp of conservation of volumes.
Good catch, I hadn't thought of that.
For $150 million, a proper QA team could point out problems like this. Passing it by people with other perspectives and different experience would be very useful. Kid-testing would also be useful (meaning: ask the kids what they think the question means).
It's hard because the people writing the test have no experience writing for an audience.
When you write for an audience, you quickly come to understand that things you think are obvious aren't obvious to everyone, and that any loose or fuzzy choice of words adds ambiguity. It's the problem of self anchoring and illusion of transparency.
Specifically in the case of the test:
Test modes are introduced with only a brief explanation and no worked examples for clarity.
"Find the missing part for exercises 1 and 2" is weak, non-specific, and ambiguous. "Part" has connotations of a physical piece that completes a whole (like a puzzle piece, or the broken handle of a cup), but is used to describe a grouping. The presentation uses two disparate representations of a group: 5 pennies, versus a cup labelled "6". The captions "part I know" and "whole" seem to have nothing to do with the pictures - the 5 pennies isn't a "part", and the cup is a "whole" object, but why is it labelled 6? The cup is non-sequitur to the question, and cups hold fungible materials while the pennies are enumerated. And to drive that last part home, the cup is shown "filled" with liquid. Or is it partially filled? And is the fact that it's partially filled somehow related to the question?
Here's a reworked example that's a little better. (Could be better - I didn't give spend a lot of time.)
For the next two questions, we will show you something on the left and something on the right. Choose the answer which, when added to the thing on the left, makes it the same as the thing on the right.
Example: [left: Square containing 3 circles] [right: Square containing 4 circles]
[list of answers, with circle marked correct].
Question 1:
Show 5 smaller cups (shot-glass sized) filled with a dark liquid. Show a measuring cup with lines labelled 1-7, and filled to level 6 with a dark liquid.
Question: How much more ink is needed on the left to make the amount of ink on the right?
I chose the term "communism" on purpose because that's how the MSM sways groupthink - by linking things to hated concepts so that people will reject an idea out of habit without thinking. I'm experimenting with message delivery. Like you say, people equate communism with socialism, and I was trying for a knee-jerk reaction. (Your post wasn't one, BTW.)
I'm actually *for* helping the poor, and to a greater extent than we currently do. More than mainstream democrats, I think. I'm a big fan of doing it more effectively, though.
I'm not on the side of conservatives or liberals, mostly I'm on the side of insight. If this seems anti-liberal, that's only because they are in power ATM and government is a hive of incompetence. I was against the previous conservative government as well.
To sway public opinion, we should learn from the techniques that others use. That's my current focus.
(P.S. - Nice likeable reply. Kudos.)
Not increasing the monetary base, and just using appreciation leaves open a huge hole for a deflationary spiral that stops any exchanges from happening.
Heavens, what will we do? (Now grasping at pearls and frantically trying to fan my face.)
It's almost as if... dare I say it... the economy would be based on value instead of money!
No, that can't possibly happen. We have to do exactly what we've been doing - anything else would be unthinkable.
(What you've been taught to believe is not logically consistent. Think it through.)
Good insight, thanks!
Because it puts an excessive burden on the poor, who are least able to afford it.
So which is better: adjusting the tax rate, or subsidizing the poor?
Adjusting the tax rate is communism: it relies on the perfect wisdom and incorruptibility of the ruling class to set the right rates. It's subject to personal bias, extrapolation from incomplete knowledge, and outright malfeasance.
It's also an indirect solution, which leads many people (myself included) to suspect ulterior motives. If your purpose is to help the poor, then why adjust the tax rate? A better solution is to identify and subsidize the poor through grants: food coupons, rent assistance, and so on.
The targeted solution is straightforward, and lends itself to measurable goals with oversight and efficiency. For example, legislators can define a measure for poverty and the amount of assistance warranted. The effects can be measured from case studies and adjusted as needed. Specific requirements (food, medicine, particular circumstances) can be directly addressed with specific remedies.
Changing the tax rate allows no such insight or specificity. You might infer general trends from population studies, but it's not as efficient or immediate or specific as a targeted approach.
Identify your goals and implement a direct solution which can be measured. It's the best way.
Flat tax is better for the poor.
Yet another reason to live in New Hampshire: No sales tax.
In further praise of New Hampshire note that we also don't have an income tax and, unlike California, we're not bankrupt. Also, the unemployment rate is pretty low - currently 5%.
(We have high property taxes, but one of the lowest overall tax burdens, so having high property taxes isn't as important as you might think.)
I did search Arxiv before posting, but somehow missed it.
Thanks a lot!!!
My question is "how is this research more useful than a phone sanitizer?"
I can't speak of the article because it's paywalled, but if you like I can answer your question from my impression of the abstract.
Scientific theories are ultimately about data compression: they allow us to represent a sea of experiential data in a small space. For example, to predict the travel of a cannonball you don't need an almanac cross-referencing all the cannon angles, all the possible gunpowder charges, and all the cannonball masses. There's an equation that lets you relate measured numbers to the arc of the cannonball, and it fits on half a page.
Scientific models are the same: they allow us to predict results from a simplified description. The brain contains an id, an ego, and a superego which have their own goals and weaknesses, and from this we can predict the general behaviour of people.
The problem is that we don't have any way to measure how good a theory is, or even whether it is any good at all; viz, the second example above. This, and our society's desperate motivation to publish, has led to a situation where we cannot always tell whether some science finding is significant or even true.
Some specific problems with science:
(Of course, there are "proposed" and "this seems right" answers to each of these problems above. A comprehensive "theory of theories" would be able to show *why* something is right by compelling argument without arbitrary human choice.)
To date, pretty much all scientific research is done using "this seems right" methods of correlation and discovery. This is not a bad thing, it has served us well for 450 years and we've made a lot of progress this way.
If we could tack down the arbitrary choices to a computable algorithm, it would greatly enhance and streamline the process of science.
Damn! That article might be centrally relevant to my research right now, but I can't tell from the abstract (it might also be an unrelated specific corner of physics).
It's behind a paywall, they want money just to find out.
Can anyone find a free copy that we can examine?
(I'm wondering how useful it is to post news articles about papers that the public can't read. We could, as a group [i.e. - Slashdot], help promote open science by not publicizing closed-source articles.)
I walk around with an (unloaded) pistol on my hip.
Scaring little kids is easy, I go for scaring the adults.
I used to write software for aircraft instruments.
What's surprising to me is that single-function devices can have their functions changed. The speedometer has one function: to report the vehicle's speed. What requirement is satisfied by allowing this to change? Why would you even need to upgrade it?
I would have thought that certain features of the car would be fixed program/unchangeable, at the very least to simplify the design.
Even earlier than that: The movie Kiss the Girls and Make Them Die" (1966) had one.
Not a bad movie for its time. The movie is a spoof of James Bond movies featuring a completely tricked-out Rolls Royce. (You can watch the trailer here.)
Yes, yes - it's a "natural monopoly", we get it, you studied economics in college.
This whole thing could be fixed by changing the model from "pay to access" to "pay to use".
The US considers the infrastructure a fixed resource - fixed radio bandwidth allocated to certain players, fixed easements given to certain players, and so on. When you have a fixed resource, you have high access fees and discouraged use: multi-year contracts, high monthly bills, data caps, throttled access, poor/no connectivity with no guarantee, and so on.
In a "pay to use" model, the government would mandate a fixed maximum charge per gigabyte of usage. Companies with a fixed resource could increase profits only by encouraging more usage: deploy newer and faster technology, connecting more people, encouraging high data-transfer activities (netflix, et al.), and so on.
Such a change wouldn't even affect the existing players: take the total cost of internet access and divide by total internet usage to come up with a fee per-gigabyte that would give the same income next year as they get with the current system.
The difference being, now they have an incentive for service, instead of an incentive for rent-seeking.