This has been driving me nuts at work lately, too. Someone is complaining about a problem on "Linux 7.2" when what they mean is "Redhat 7.2". I guess that's what happens when the average non-Linux geek learns just enough about Linux to become dangerous. The fact that RedHat is only one distribution of Linux, containing a certain kernel version, seems to be lost on certain folks.
I probably shouldn't be surprised as I used to work with a bunch of teachers who insisted that our MacIntosh computers in the lab were "CD-ROMS".
That said, my advice to the OP would be to make things as easy as possible for the kids to get a taste of computing and learn something usefule without scaring the teachers in the process. Teachers project their feelings to their students. If the teacher thinks something is too hard, the bulk of students will probably think so, too.
I'm not sure the article claimed there was no difference
From the article (Manifesto - section 0): There is no essential difference between the computer scientist and the programmer.
I should have included the quote in my original post.
I disagree that CS does not exist in the wild. I do, however, agree that there is no such thing as CS in its *pure* form in the wild. But, you must admit, there is a big difference in the code produced by someone with no CS training thrown into programming (sometimes against their will), vs. those who know what the "ideal" world is.
I realize I am in an extremely unique situation. It's one of the things that has kept me here for so long. I've managed to move up the ladder without compromising my principles. I believe they call it "Irish diplomacy". It's possible to learn how to tell management to go to hell is such a way that they look forward to the trip. Granted, this means learning to talk the talk. ROI, profitability, concern about the stockholders. The more one seems to care about the bottom line, the more one gets taken seriously. Maintainability is good for the engineer. Reduced cost is good for the bottom line. The two are one and the same. Sometimes it's just a matter of translating it into management-ese. I've had some luck with it here, and have managed to keep my boss from getting too brainwashed by the rest of the management crowd. He doesn't cut code anymore, so he occasionally needs to be reminded what it's like to be in the trenches.
Remember "MATURE" software ? Maintainable, Adaptable, Transparent, User Friendly, Reliable, Efficient. Say that to a manager and you get "BWAHAHA".
That's not entirely true everywhere. At my company, I have been able to argue that doing something correctly now will cost us less than doing it wrong and having to fix it later. But, then again, my boss has a CS degree from MIT, so he understands. We are, however, still under the constraint that the product be shipped on time. However, we are also willing to drop non-priority features in order to deliver, instead of delivering everything and producing crap just to get the product out the door with everything on product management's wish list.
That said, I also frequently read the comp.software-eng newsgroup on UseNet, and realize that, in many ways, my situation is unique.
One of the things that bothered me as I started reading the article was that the authors claim that there is no difference between programming and computer science. That assumption left me so pissed off I didn't continue. You can teach almost anyone how to program, that's just the mechanics. But to have an elegant design, with rock-solid algorithms, and maintainable code, that does what it's supposed to do in an efficient manner, that's computer science.
What was the title of the TV show (Rescue 51, I think?) that introduced many of us to the idea of EMTs saving lives in the field?
That would be Emergency!. I think it still occasionally shows on TVLand. According to a recent video I saw on the birth of EMS, when Emergency! aired there were only six paramedics certified nationwide. I watched the show as a kid. Later on in life, a friend of mine said he was taking an EMT course and asked if I wanted to join him. It was 1985 and I didn't know what an EMT was! Of course, once I did know, I took the course, and later in my career went on to be a paramedic. It's amazing when you think what Emergency! did to educate the public about how rescue personal now had medical training. Prior to 1967, the only thing an ambulance was good for was getting you to the hospital *really fast*. Now, a paramedic can do just about everything a Cardiac Care Unit can do. So if you're having a heart attack, there's much to be done. Major trauma calls, on the other hand, are still just "scoop and screw" or "bag and drag", depending on the area of the US you're in. What this means is that even at the paramedic level, nothing much can be done for the patient other that establishing and maintaining an airway, breathing, circulation (CPR/stop the bleeding) and get the patient to the hospital *really fast*. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but the truth is these patients need surgeons to live. Because of this, many places now have the means to airlift patients to an appropriate trauma center. This is great, and much of it is because of the light that went on in people's (and politician's) minds when they saw Emergency! with Johnny and Roy saving lives.
My 'extreme' sport is sailing a 30 foot catamaran around on Lake Michigan, so I'm interested in advanced first aid stuff
Why not take an EMT course? It's only 110 hours, and doesn't require any previous training other than CPR, which many courses will include. You might want to pick up something in the way of water rescue, too, if that's where you spend most of your time. It's really a lot of fun to take the classes if you have the interest, even if you don't plan on doing it for a living. And who knows? Maybe in a few years the magic potato powder will be standard issue.:-)
I'm imagining extreme sports in the back country. You buddy has a broken leg with the bone sticking out, and it will be an hour or hours until you can get any help.
Yes, in a case like that, something like this may prove useful. If this is shown to be a good adjunct to direct pressure and lots of bandages then it may find its way into such situations. Perhaps even standard issue in first aid kits.
It would not as useful in something like a motor vehicle accident with internal injuries, which can usually only be dealt with by a surgeon.
However, my original post just meant to clarify that it would not be a trauma cureall, and also that medicine changes over time, sometimes quickly.
For instance, in my lifetime I've seen the birth of:
Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation
CPR
Paramedics
trauma centers
clot-busting drugs (thrombolytics) used to treat stroke and heart attacks.
I apologize if my earlier post seemed to be emphasizing the negative.
Anyone working in the field would want this in their medical kit if it is really effective and safe.
As a former paramedic who left medicine to pursue a more lucrative career (in software, of course) and is now going back to EMT school as a hobby, I'm seeing how things have changed in prehospital care over the last 10-15 years. If the trend continues, as it has since the inception of EMS in the US, EMTs may be able to use something like this in the field within the next decade, if it's proved to be more effective than simply bandagind wounds until some doctor can suture them. Unfortunately, it still won't help that much, as multi-system trauma can involve just as much internal bleeding as external bleeding, which cannot be handled in a pre-hospital setting. Nonetheless, if the research is good, we may see this on ambulances just like we now have Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) which were only a thought when I left medicine, and are now taught to basic EMTs and even the public because the research showed they saved lives.
You know, I would try that, except that, in order to get the money to watch the movies, I have to go to work. Go figure.
Assuming you can't convince the boss to let you go to the movies during the work day (mine actually takes out the group once in a while), you could always try going to a late night show at the beginning/middle of the week, preferably on a school night. I've done this on more than one occasion, and the theater is pretty empty then. It also helps if you wait until the film has been showing for a few weeks, especially if the film promises to be popular like Spiderman.
I believe that Lamarck was the first to postulate Evolution in the sense that we are familiar with it now.
IIRC, at least one of Lamarck's theories was discredited by anthropologists/biologists because he postulated that if a creature developed a (non-inherited) trait which was beneficial, that trait would be passed on to offspring directly. This is not the case.
Example: If I spend all my time working out and developing my physique, that developed trait is not passed on to my offspring. If my son never lifts a weight, he's not going to be as muscular, because that was a trait I developed during my lifetime, not one with which I was born.
Not sure what other theories Lamarck may have had on the subject.
Hopefully someone more up-to-date on current anthropological thought can back me up.
On the contrary, I've read it with a critical eye and a pencil for note taking.
Very little of it explains anything that science has replaced.
Conversely, science has replace just about everything which is explained in Genesis, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, the first few chapters of Genesis are the Judeo-Christian version of a creation myth. A story that introduces us to God, but is not etched in stone as fact. There are too many inconsistencies. God created Adam and Eve, they have some sons, and then populate the Earth. The daughters are never mentioned. There had to be some at some point. So, after Abel is murdered, we're left with Adam, Eve, and Cain. Cain is exiled. The world still somehow gets populated. There must have been an awful lot of incest going on. Oh yeah, and then incest gets forbidden in Leviticus. It's a *story*. There are parts missing, but it serves a purpose. The discussion of this topic could go on for days, so I'm not going to go any deeper than that.
There are two things every culture has in common. A creation myth and an incest taboo. The first gives us meaning as human beings, no matter which religion we subscribe to. The second prevents us from having unhealthy offspring caused by interbreeding.
I fail to see how the creationists can discount evolution as long as God had a hand in it. I also fail to see how the atheists can discount God when the universe is so vast and beautiful.
Anyhow, I don't want to start a flame war, my karma is too good for that, so let's just agree to disagree.
Shroud of Turin?? How about Christianity? Where'dya think that came from?
What exactly are you driving at here? The shroud is the burial cloth of Christ, IMHO. Christ is where Christianity came from. Science has been unable to prove the cloth to be a hoax, AFAIK. That's good enough for me. I'm a doubting Thomas. Apparently, you're not. So much the better for those that don't require proof. I do. The Shroud is proof (for me) that Jesus existed. Fossil evidence is proof for me that human evolution quite probably occurred.
the Israelites never commited genocide without a direct order from God
The Sept. 11th bombers believed they were following God's commands, too. So did everyone who participated in the Crusades, on both sides. No one then "mistake[d] the Pope for God", but they did believe they were following God's orders. Hence, lots of death ensued in the name of, guess what, the spread of Christianity.
Be nice to each other
Hmmm, there was an awful lot of stoning and smiting going on in the old testament. Oh yeah, and lots of those rules about being nice had to do with how to treat your slaves. If they were *really* nice (according to 21st century morality), they wouldn't have had slaves in the first place!
This even extended to animals in places.
Err, those would be the places where they weren't describing how to sacrifice them for all your multiple sins, right? Honestly, read the old testament without the rose colored glasses next time.
Until there is definitive proof that we evolved from chimps it remains a theory
We did *not* evolve from chimps, no matter which side of the argument you're on. Both chimps and humans evolved from some common ancestor. It's been awhile since receiving my anthropology degree (I'm a software engineer now), so I can't state for fact which was the common ancestor, it was before Australopithecus, but anthropologists have never claimed (IIRC) that humans evolved from chimps.
That said, humans share 99% of their genetic makeup with chimpanzees. Furthermore, how is it the creationists can ignore fossil evidence, which clearly shows that there were humans on Earth millions of years ago which were not Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Evolution aside, at least admit that there were other types of humans on Earth before us.
Finally, the Bible was written when people learned how to write, not from the beginning of time. The Old Testament is mostly myth, explanations of things for which there was no science at the time. The New Testament at least has some basis in fact, and even I'm not going to deny that the Shroud of Turin is a good piece of evidence for it.
That said, you should know that, unlike some others arguing for evolution, I believe in God. I also believe in rational thought. Galilleo was put through the Inquisition for the heresy of saying the Earth revolved around the sun. To say we weren't the center of the universe in 1610 was blasphemy. Now it's scientific fact. Have faith, but don't let it blind you to rational thought.
I'm seriously excited for the next season of Enterprise.
Phlox and T'Pal seem to be decent characters. Phlox is by far my favorite crew member.
I'm a long time Trek fan, all the way back to the orginal series. However, I'm finding even I'm not excited about the next season Enterprise. Scott Bakula's acting on this series is almost as bad as William Shatner's was in TOS. Furthermore, they've got him portrayed as a bleeding-heart, sissy, save the universe type, whereas Kirk was constantly getting in fist-fights with aliens and always hooking up with the hot looking alien chicks. And Kirk's time is supposed to be 100 years *after* Enterprise. Honestly, Janeway from Voyager was more interesting. Captain Archer is a yawn.
Maybe Bakula's character is supposed to be one of the compelling reasons for the Prime Directive, but it's not evident yet. I really hope they do some better character development this season.
I'm not quite sure what you're thinking about is 'whole language'
Okay, you got me on semantics. Although I don't think the students taking a "whole word" approach themselves is necessarily wrong. English, as a whole, is a pretty screwed up language. Take the words through, thorough, rough, and trough, for instance. All end in "ough", but it sounds different in every single word. As a child, I found that I could learn a word and then quickly be able to pronounce it after memorizing its pattern. However, for strange words that have not yet been seen or heard, I believe phonics is the way to go. It's not going to be 100 percent all the time, but it's a good start. My problem stems from when phonics are thrown out the window entirely in favor of "modern" methods.
rather than making it rote
Here I have to disagree. At younger levels, children may not be capable of the abstract thinking which we're giving them credit for. There are certain things that they simply won't figure out either because they are not at a level of mental development where they are able to abstract concepts, or because they don't want to spend the time. So, they have to be taught by rote. From the child's point of view, rote memorization sucks. However, it also gets the point across. Learning is supposed to teach you something; it won't always be fun. That said, we should also be teaching children how to remember things more effectively. Mnemonic aids don't seem to be taught until later grades, if at all. Some kids figure them out for themselves, others never catch on. When I was in high school, I read Harry Lorayne's Page a Minute Memory Book which really helped. I've been using the techniques ever since. Unfortunately, this was something I never would have known about had I not stumbled across it. Other than some of the standard mnemonics, (e.g Every Good Boy Does Fine for the lines of a treble clef music staff), my teachers were of little help other than saying to study more. Learning the 9 times tables would have been easier had I been told that adding the digits of the correct answer would always turn out to be 9 or 18.
the learning has meaning to the kids
Unfortunately, for many of them, learning does not carry the importance it should. TV and the Internet provide them with entertainment and instant gratification, and too many parents use one or both as baby-sitters. The kids only spend 6 hours a day at school. The rest of the time is with family and friends. If those people don't emphasize the importance of learning, it will be meaningless to the child as a value, no matter how hard the school system tries.
you introduce spelling gradually so you achieve the spelling goal without undue criticism.
Sorry, I have to disagree here. I've seen way too many kids learn bad habits that their teachers unsuccessfully tried to unteach in later grades. The point of my original post was that we are spending too much time worrrying about being overly critical and letting kids feel good instead of teaching them effectively.
When I ran the computer lab in an elementary school, I would occasionally correct students' spelling, from grades 2-5. I took great pains to make sure they knew that the spelling they had may have been perfectly logical, but because the language was so old it had changed many times (mainly due to various conquests of and by the British). So they took the correction in stride, and did not permanently learn an incorrect spelling. In the long run, I think this is the better way to go instead of trying to put off until a later grade what can be addressed right now.
The curriculum is not as set as the question makes it sound -- there are constant changes in elementary education
This is part of the problem. Too many people theorizing and not enough reliance on proven methods. Phonics is how to teach reading. Period. Whole language is a failure.
Do you know why grammar school is called that? Because they used to teach grammar in those grades. Not just English, Greek and Latin as well. How many elementary school teachers were even required to learn a second language, let alone teach it?
Show me an average (American) public school teacher and I'll show you someone who's got degrees in Education which emphasize methods and inclusion and other crap, not degrees in his/her subject matter. Granted, there are some people with plenty of knowledge that can't teach to save their lives (tenured college profs come to mind), but that doesn't excuse the fact that many of our teachers have much less knowledge of subject matter than the typical baccalaureate.
I strongly suggest that any opponents of home-schooling, especially teachers, go out and get a copy of Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure of American Public Schools This book shows how public eduaction emphasizes individualization and "feeling good about yourself" over subject matter. Is it any wonder we're nowhere near the top 10 in math and science world-wide?
Before I get flamed, just let me say that I had the opportunity to work in the same school system in which I grew up. I got to see how the curriculum is watered down, the special needs kids are catered to, and the gifted are generally ignored. When the gifted aren't ignored, they usually end up with more work, not more challengin, just more, because their teachers don't know what to do with them.
I've also gone to both public and private schools and definitely got more out of the private school where the teachers' hands weren't tied by unions and administration. I've seen teachers who knew the teaching methods they were required to use were ineffective, but could do nothing about it because the current methods were "policy." Every kid is different, or so we like to tell them, so teachers ought to be able to adapt their methods to individual needs.
Take a good look around the tech sector. There are plenty of H1B visa workers where there used to be Americans. Why? Because the education in other countries is focused on the facts, not how the kids "feel" about their performance. The American public school system hardly prepares children for the reality of corporate America, where many of them will likely end up working.
Language is a living thing. It changes over time. English from 1000 years ago looks nothing like English of today. The same can be said for any of the modern languages. Other languages may not have changed so drastically over time, but they have changed. What makes anyone think that any human living 50000 years from now will have even the slightest clue what our messages say? Even if they could read today's languages, the meanings of words change over time. "Computer" a hundred years ago, meant "one who computes", and had nothing to do with the machine on which I am typing now.
Add to that the problem of human evolution. Modern humans have only been around for 20000 years. We may not look or act the same, or even be here 50000 years from now. We're long overdue for an asteroid impact, ice age, or other disaster. Any such event could cause the evolution of species on Earth to change significantly. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I really don't think we'll be here 50000 years from now, unless we get off our butts and colonize space. Then we at least have a chance of surviving long enough to be around to read these messages 50000 years from now.
That said, I'll probably leave a message anyway. Who knows? Maybe some future historian will have remembered the languages of the twenty-first century and will be able to read it. It would be cool to think I might be able to rant that far into the future.
Why does everyone have to assume that other civilizations are more advanced than us?
This is my main problem with mainstream science. It never occurs to them that we might be the first, or maybe the last, intelligent life in the universe.
Considering the distances involved, the danger of space travel, and the natural disasters (hypernovas) which can wipe out entire solar systems, and it is very unlikely that other intelligent life would want to venture far from home. Not to mention, just because life evolved doesn't mean it has to be intelligent. There was life on Earth 65 million years ago, but none of it was intelligent.
The other possibility, of course, is that we're just not interesting enough to talk to. That said, there is a quote I'm fond of, but don't remember who initially said it:
"Once you rule out the impossible, the remainder, no matter how improbable, is still possible" or something like that.
Anyone speculating on extra-terrestrial life should keep that in mind.
I'll read almost anything, but I'm partial to sci-fi/fantasy. However, I found it quite enjoyable to read some of Ken Follett's books, which take place in the past. Pillars of the Earth was set in 1000 A.D. It gives you some perspective on how good we have it now, compared to then.
Ann Rice's Vampire Chronicles books were also a fun read, as they are an escape from reality.
Any other reading I do tends to be science fact rather than sci-fi. I am currently reading books on quantum mechanics, history, and differential equations.
Wizards learned that having a group of "haves" and "have nots" was not good for the long-term success of the game. So they created a new tournament format that didn't use any really old cards. This was called Type II, and eventually called Standard. What the Standard tournament format did was to "ban" hundreds of cards without specifically choosing to do so. Invalidating the early players' purchases.
Maintaining loads of legal tournament cards was not good for the success of WotC sales. While it is true that they stopped printing the power nine after Unlimited it is also true that tournament decks could be built without including the entire power nine, or not including them at all. I started playing in 1994 and some of the cards were definitely broken. Chaos Orb in particular comes to mind. But, the bottom line is, you can get more people, especially kids, to buy cards if they and/or their parents don't have to shell out $100 for a single card to some card shop where Wizards isn't making a profit anymore. It's much easier to convince folks to shell out $50-$100 for a box which will shortly become obsolete. It's what generates repeat business, so that WotC has enough cash to buy TSR and ruin AD in the 3rd edition, while getting gamers who have to have the latest stuff to shell out cash for all the new books. Quality no longer matters to WotC, they've made their money. Now they just care about increasing profits.
$1 - George Washington
$5 - Abraham Lincoln
$10 - Thomas Jefferson
$20 - Andrew Jackson
$50 - Ulysses S. Grant
$100 - Ben Franklin
And so on. The pictures are different. You don't need to read the numbers. Look at the pictures on the bills.
Before anyone asks, no, I didn't have to look at the bills to say who is on what. But that's besides the point. The pictures are different, and on the new 20s, 50s, and 100s, are quite large.
I also have a hard time with currency when traveling. I don't know how much bigger a 10 pound note is supposed to be than a 5 pound note. Tourists are always going to have to double-check the currency if they don't want to get screwed, no matter where they're from.
So, now every time I go to the fridge to get a snack during commercials, I'm a thief? Or the thousands who tape their favorite shows and then hit the Commercial Skip button on the VCR remote? Give me a break. Hollywood needs to grow up.
The best thing to do (IMHO) is to find a good middle ground between the posters who want to comment every little thing (annoying), and the posters who want the code to always be self-commenting, which is also annoying. At some point, you are going to move to a different department, company, or project and someone else is going to have to maintain your code.
The best situation I have found so far is
Obvious, well-named methods/functions and variables are not commented.
Non-standard practice, for which there is a good reason, is commented (i.e. catching Throwable in Java - why?)
Complex algorithms are commented so that maintainers will no what's going on. Sometimes this is as simple as an RFC number.
Source code changes such as bug fixes should be documented with your source control tool. However, I will sometimes put a line in the code that says "fix for bug x" next to a change so that if the code needs changes it's less likely to reintroduce an old bug.
If you're in Java (sorry, I don't do C/C++), use Javadoc's @param, @see, @return, and @exception tags.
Typing brief comments while coding is much more efficient than re-reading the code several times to remember what I was doing six months (or more) ago. Many of the programmers I know can't type to save their lives, so there is a lot of tendency to use short variable names and sparse comments. Which is fine, but make them meaningful, or learn how to type 50 wpm or more. Just don't give me code where nothing's commented and your variable names are oaa and oca.
Large block comments at the top of a class or method tend to be useless after the first release of a product, because bug fixes and new features will change the code, while not all programmers will take care to change the comments. So keep your variables and method names meaningful, document why the code may break standard coding practice, and let me know what other modules/classes I need to look at (Javadoc's @see tag is very useful for this) to understand how this code interacts with the rest of the system.
At least the above suggestions have worked well for our team. Your mileage may vary.
...if you're looking for a less expensive book, I'm a big fan of the WROX series
Having learned VB and Java first, and having read many books on computer architecture, I would suggest that the only book you need to learn C is K&R. The Wrox books have too much fluff for someone who just wants to get down to what's important.
In addition to K&R, The C Standard Library by Plauger is also quite useful. If you're not the type of programmer that can pick up language basics in a few days with a good reference, then, by all means, get something with less substance and more hand-holding. I also managed to find a book on nothing but pointers in C, but, unfortunately, do not have it close by to pass on the title. It's somewhat old, and may be out of print, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I probably shouldn't be surprised as I used to work with a bunch of teachers who insisted that our MacIntosh computers in the lab were "CD-ROMS".
That said, my advice to the OP would be to make things as easy as possible for the kids to get a taste of computing and learn something usefule without scaring the teachers in the process. Teachers project their feelings to their students. If the teacher thinks something is too hard, the bulk of students will probably think so, too.
From the article (Manifesto - section 0):
There is no essential difference between the computer scientist and the programmer.
I should have included the quote in my original post.
I disagree that CS does not exist in the wild. I do, however, agree that there is no such thing as CS in its *pure* form in the wild. But, you must admit, there is a big difference in the code produced by someone with no CS training thrown into programming (sometimes against their will), vs. those who know what the "ideal" world is.
I realize I am in an extremely unique situation. It's one of the things that has kept me here for so long. I've managed to move up the ladder without compromising my principles. I believe they call it "Irish diplomacy". It's possible to learn how to tell management to go to hell is such a way that they look forward to the trip. Granted, this means learning to talk the talk. ROI, profitability, concern about the stockholders. The more one seems to care about the bottom line, the more one gets taken seriously. Maintainability is good for the engineer. Reduced cost is good for the bottom line. The two are one and the same. Sometimes it's just a matter of translating it into management-ese. I've had some luck with it here, and have managed to keep my boss from getting too brainwashed by the rest of the management crowd. He doesn't cut code anymore, so he occasionally needs to be reminded what it's like to be in the trenches.
Bland British Food (TM) - Patent Pending :-)
That's not entirely true everywhere. At my company, I have been able to argue that doing something correctly now will cost us less than doing it wrong and having to fix it later. But, then again, my boss has a CS degree from MIT, so he understands. We are, however, still under the constraint that the product be shipped on time. However, we are also willing to drop non-priority features in order to deliver, instead of delivering everything and producing crap just to get the product out the door with everything on product management's wish list.
That said, I also frequently read the comp.software-eng newsgroup on UseNet, and realize that, in many ways, my situation is unique.
One of the things that bothered me as I started reading the article was that the authors claim that there is no difference between programming and computer science. That assumption left me so pissed off I didn't continue. You can teach almost anyone how to program, that's just the mechanics. But to have an elegant design, with rock-solid algorithms, and maintainable code, that does what it's supposed to do in an efficient manner, that's computer science.
That would be Emergency!. I think it still occasionally shows on TVLand. According to a recent video I saw on the birth of EMS, when Emergency! aired there were only six paramedics certified nationwide. I watched the show as a kid. Later on in life, a friend of mine said he was taking an EMT course and asked if I wanted to join him. It was 1985 and I didn't know what an EMT was! Of course, once I did know, I took the course, and later in my career went on to be a paramedic. It's amazing when you think what Emergency! did to educate the public about how rescue personal now had medical training. Prior to 1967, the only thing an ambulance was good for was getting you to the hospital *really fast*. Now, a paramedic can do just about everything a Cardiac Care Unit can do. So if you're having a heart attack, there's much to be done. Major trauma calls, on the other hand, are still just "scoop and screw" or "bag and drag", depending on the area of the US you're in. What this means is that even at the paramedic level, nothing much can be done for the patient other that establishing and maintaining an airway, breathing, circulation (CPR/stop the bleeding) and get the patient to the hospital *really fast*. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but the truth is these patients need surgeons to live. Because of this, many places now have the means to airlift patients to an appropriate trauma center. This is great, and much of it is because of the light that went on in people's (and politician's) minds when they saw Emergency! with Johnny and Roy saving lives.
My 'extreme' sport is sailing a 30 foot catamaran around on Lake Michigan, so I'm interested in advanced first aid stuff
Why not take an EMT course? It's only 110 hours, and doesn't require any previous training other than CPR, which many courses will include. You might want to pick up something in the way of water rescue, too, if that's where you spend most of your time. It's really a lot of fun to take the classes if you have the interest, even if you don't plan on doing it for a living. And who knows? Maybe in a few years the magic potato powder will be standard issue. :-)
Yes, in a case like that, something like this may prove useful. If this is shown to be a good adjunct to direct pressure and lots of bandages then it may find its way into such situations. Perhaps even standard issue in first aid kits.
It would not as useful in something like a motor vehicle accident with internal injuries, which can usually only be dealt with by a surgeon.
However, my original post just meant to clarify that it would not be a trauma cureall, and also that medicine changes over time, sometimes quickly. For instance, in my lifetime I've seen the birth of:
Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation
CPR
Paramedics
trauma centers
clot-busting drugs (thrombolytics) used to treat stroke and heart attacks.
I apologize if my earlier post seemed to be emphasizing the negative.
As a former paramedic who left medicine to pursue a more lucrative career (in software, of course) and is now going back to EMT school as a hobby, I'm seeing how things have changed in prehospital care over the last 10-15 years. If the trend continues, as it has since the inception of EMS in the US, EMTs may be able to use something like this in the field within the next decade, if it's proved to be more effective than simply bandagind wounds until some doctor can suture them. Unfortunately, it still won't help that much, as multi-system trauma can involve just as much internal bleeding as external bleeding, which cannot be handled in a pre-hospital setting. Nonetheless, if the research is good, we may see this on ambulances just like we now have Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) which were only a thought when I left medicine, and are now taught to basic EMTs and even the public because the research showed they saved lives.
Assuming you can't convince the boss to let you go to the movies during the work day (mine actually takes out the group once in a while), you could always try going to a late night show at the beginning/middle of the week, preferably on a school night. I've done this on more than one occasion, and the theater is pretty empty then. It also helps if you wait until the film has been showing for a few weeks, especially if the film promises to be popular like Spiderman.
IIRC, at least one of Lamarck's theories was discredited by anthropologists/biologists because he postulated that if a creature developed a (non-inherited) trait which was beneficial, that trait would be passed on to offspring directly. This is not the case.
Example: If I spend all my time working out and developing my physique, that developed trait is not passed on to my offspring. If my son never lifts a weight, he's not going to be as muscular, because that was a trait I developed during my lifetime, not one with which I was born.
Not sure what other theories Lamarck may have had on the subject.
Hopefully someone more up-to-date on current anthropological thought can back me up.
On the contrary, I've read it with a critical eye and a pencil for note taking.
Very little of it explains anything that science has replaced.
Conversely, science has replace just about everything which is explained in Genesis, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, the first few chapters of Genesis are the Judeo-Christian version of a creation myth. A story that introduces us to God, but is not etched in stone as fact. There are too many inconsistencies. God created Adam and Eve, they have some sons, and then populate the Earth. The daughters are never mentioned. There had to be some at some point. So, after Abel is murdered, we're left with Adam, Eve, and Cain. Cain is exiled. The world still somehow gets populated. There must have been an awful lot of incest going on. Oh yeah, and then incest gets forbidden in Leviticus. It's a *story*. There are parts missing, but it serves a purpose. The discussion of this topic could go on for days, so I'm not going to go any deeper than that.
There are two things every culture has in common. A creation myth and an incest taboo. The first gives us meaning as human beings, no matter which religion we subscribe to. The second prevents us from having unhealthy offspring caused by interbreeding.
I fail to see how the creationists can discount evolution as long as God had a hand in it. I also fail to see how the atheists can discount God when the universe is so vast and beautiful.
Anyhow, I don't want to start a flame war, my karma is too good for that, so let's just agree to disagree.
Shroud of Turin?? How about Christianity? Where'dya think that came from?
What exactly are you driving at here? The shroud is the burial cloth of Christ, IMHO. Christ is where Christianity came from. Science has been unable to prove the cloth to be a hoax, AFAIK. That's good enough for me. I'm a doubting Thomas. Apparently, you're not. So much the better for those that don't require proof. I do. The Shroud is proof (for me) that Jesus existed. Fossil evidence is proof for me that human evolution quite probably occurred.
The Sept. 11th bombers believed they were following God's commands, too. So did everyone who participated in the Crusades, on both sides. No one then "mistake[d] the Pope for God", but they did believe they were following God's orders. Hence, lots of death ensued in the name of, guess what, the spread of Christianity.
Be nice to each other
Hmmm, there was an awful lot of stoning and smiting going on in the old testament. Oh yeah, and lots of those rules about being nice had to do with how to treat your slaves. If they were *really* nice (according to 21st century morality), they wouldn't have had slaves in the first place!
This even extended to animals in places.
Err, those would be the places where they weren't describing how to sacrifice them for all your multiple sins, right? Honestly, read the old testament without the rose colored glasses next time.
We did *not* evolve from chimps, no matter which side of the argument you're on. Both chimps and humans evolved from some common ancestor. It's been awhile since receiving my anthropology degree (I'm a software engineer now), so I can't state for fact which was the common ancestor, it was before Australopithecus, but anthropologists have never claimed (IIRC) that humans evolved from chimps.
That said, humans share 99% of their genetic makeup with chimpanzees. Furthermore, how is it the creationists can ignore fossil evidence, which clearly shows that there were humans on Earth millions of years ago which were not Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Evolution aside, at least admit that there were other types of humans on Earth before us.
Finally, the Bible was written when people learned how to write, not from the beginning of time. The Old Testament is mostly myth, explanations of things for which there was no science at the time. The New Testament at least has some basis in fact, and even I'm not going to deny that the Shroud of Turin is a good piece of evidence for it.
That said, you should know that, unlike some others arguing for evolution, I believe in God. I also believe in rational thought. Galilleo was put through the Inquisition for the heresy of saying the Earth revolved around the sun. To say we weren't the center of the universe in 1610 was blasphemy. Now it's scientific fact. Have faith, but don't let it blind you to rational thought.
<nitpick> No, actually, it was last century. :-)</nitpick>
Phlox and T'Pal seem to be decent characters. Phlox is by far my favorite crew member.
I'm a long time Trek fan, all the way back to the orginal series. However, I'm finding even I'm not excited about the next season Enterprise. Scott Bakula's acting on this series is almost as bad as William Shatner's was in TOS. Furthermore, they've got him portrayed as a bleeding-heart, sissy, save the universe type, whereas Kirk was constantly getting in fist-fights with aliens and always hooking up with the hot looking alien chicks. And Kirk's time is supposed to be 100 years *after* Enterprise. Honestly, Janeway from Voyager was more interesting. Captain Archer is a yawn.
Maybe Bakula's character is supposed to be one of the compelling reasons for the Prime Directive, but it's not evident yet. I really hope they do some better character development this season.
Okay, you got me on semantics. Although I don't think the students taking a "whole word" approach themselves is necessarily wrong. English, as a whole, is a pretty screwed up language. Take the words through, thorough, rough, and trough, for instance. All end in "ough", but it sounds different in every single word. As a child, I found that I could learn a word and then quickly be able to pronounce it after memorizing its pattern. However, for strange words that have not yet been seen or heard, I believe phonics is the way to go. It's not going to be 100 percent all the time, but it's a good start. My problem stems from when phonics are thrown out the window entirely in favor of "modern" methods.
rather than making it rote
Here I have to disagree. At younger levels, children may not be capable of the abstract thinking which we're giving them credit for. There are certain things that they simply won't figure out either because they are not at a level of mental development where they are able to abstract concepts, or because they don't want to spend the time. So, they have to be taught by rote. From the child's point of view, rote memorization sucks. However, it also gets the point across. Learning is supposed to teach you something; it won't always be fun. That said, we should also be teaching children how to remember things more effectively. Mnemonic aids don't seem to be taught until later grades, if at all. Some kids figure them out for themselves, others never catch on. When I was in high school, I read Harry Lorayne's Page a Minute Memory Book which really helped. I've been using the techniques ever since. Unfortunately, this was something I never would have known about had I not stumbled across it. Other than some of the standard mnemonics, (e.g Every Good Boy Does Fine for the lines of a treble clef music staff), my teachers were of little help other than saying to study more. Learning the 9 times tables would have been easier had I been told that adding the digits of the correct answer would always turn out to be 9 or 18.
the learning has meaning to the kids
Unfortunately, for many of them, learning does not carry the importance it should. TV and the Internet provide them with entertainment and instant gratification, and too many parents use one or both as baby-sitters. The kids only spend 6 hours a day at school. The rest of the time is with family and friends. If those people don't emphasize the importance of learning, it will be meaningless to the child as a value, no matter how hard the school system tries.
you introduce spelling gradually so you achieve the spelling goal without undue criticism.
Sorry, I have to disagree here. I've seen way too many kids learn bad habits that their teachers unsuccessfully tried to unteach in later grades. The point of my original post was that we are spending too much time worrrying about being overly critical and letting kids feel good instead of teaching them effectively.
When I ran the computer lab in an elementary school, I would occasionally correct students' spelling, from grades 2-5. I took great pains to make sure they knew that the spelling they had may have been perfectly logical, but because the language was so old it had changed many times (mainly due to various conquests of and by the British). So they took the correction in stride, and did not permanently learn an incorrect spelling. In the long run, I think this is the better way to go instead of trying to put off until a later grade what can be addressed right now.
This is part of the problem. Too many people theorizing and not enough reliance on proven methods. Phonics is how to teach reading. Period. Whole language is a failure.
Do you know why grammar school is called that? Because they used to teach grammar in those grades. Not just English, Greek and Latin as well. How many elementary school teachers were even required to learn a second language, let alone teach it?
Show me an average (American) public school teacher and I'll show you someone who's got degrees in Education which emphasize methods and inclusion and other crap, not degrees in his/her subject matter. Granted, there are some people with plenty of knowledge that can't teach to save their lives (tenured college profs come to mind), but that doesn't excuse the fact that many of our teachers have much less knowledge of subject matter than the typical baccalaureate.
I strongly suggest that any opponents of home-schooling, especially teachers, go out and get a copy of Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure of American Public Schools This book shows how public eduaction emphasizes individualization and "feeling good about yourself" over subject matter. Is it any wonder we're nowhere near the top 10 in math and science world-wide?
Before I get flamed, just let me say that I had the opportunity to work in the same school system in which I grew up. I got to see how the curriculum is watered down, the special needs kids are catered to, and the gifted are generally ignored. When the gifted aren't ignored, they usually end up with more work, not more challengin, just more, because their teachers don't know what to do with them.
I've also gone to both public and private schools and definitely got more out of the private school where the teachers' hands weren't tied by unions and administration. I've seen teachers who knew the teaching methods they were required to use were ineffective, but could do nothing about it because the current methods were "policy." Every kid is different, or so we like to tell them, so teachers ought to be able to adapt their methods to individual needs.
Take a good look around the tech sector. There are plenty of H1B visa workers where there used to be Americans. Why? Because the education in other countries is focused on the facts, not how the kids "feel" about their performance. The American public school system hardly prepares children for the reality of corporate America, where many of them will likely end up working.
Add to that the problem of human evolution. Modern humans have only been around for 20000 years. We may not look or act the same, or even be here 50000 years from now. We're long overdue for an asteroid impact, ice age, or other disaster. Any such event could cause the evolution of species on Earth to change significantly. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I really don't think we'll be here 50000 years from now, unless we get off our butts and colonize space. Then we at least have a chance of surviving long enough to be around to read these messages 50000 years from now.
That said, I'll probably leave a message anyway. Who knows? Maybe some future historian will have remembered the languages of the twenty-first century and will be able to read it. It would be cool to think I might be able to rant that far into the future.
This is my main problem with mainstream science. It never occurs to them that we might be the first, or maybe the last, intelligent life in the universe.
Considering the distances involved, the danger of space travel, and the natural disasters (hypernovas) which can wipe out entire solar systems, and it is very unlikely that other intelligent life would want to venture far from home. Not to mention, just because life evolved doesn't mean it has to be intelligent. There was life on Earth 65 million years ago, but none of it was intelligent.
The other possibility, of course, is that we're just not interesting enough to talk to. That said, there is a quote I'm fond of, but don't remember who initially said it:
"Once you rule out the impossible, the remainder, no matter how improbable, is still possible" or something like that.
Anyone speculating on extra-terrestrial life should keep that in mind.
Ann Rice's Vampire Chronicles books were also a fun read, as they are an escape from reality.
Any other reading I do tends to be science fact rather than sci-fi. I am currently reading books on quantum mechanics, history, and differential equations.
Maintaining loads of legal tournament cards was not good for the success of WotC sales. While it is true that they stopped printing the power nine after Unlimited it is also true that tournament decks could be built without including the entire power nine, or not including them at all. I started playing in 1994 and some of the cards were definitely broken. Chaos Orb in particular comes to mind. But, the bottom line is, you can get more people, especially kids, to buy cards if they and/or their parents don't have to shell out $100 for a single card to some card shop where Wizards isn't making a profit anymore. It's much easier to convince folks to shell out $50-$100 for a box which will shortly become obsolete. It's what generates repeat business, so that WotC has enough cash to buy TSR and ruin AD in the 3rd edition, while getting gamers who have to have the latest stuff to shell out cash for all the new books. Quality no longer matters to WotC, they've made their money. Now they just care about increasing profits.
Yes, I'm bitter. I see through the scam.
$5 - Abraham Lincoln
$10 - Thomas Jefferson
$20 - Andrew Jackson
$50 - Ulysses S. Grant
$100 - Ben Franklin
And so on. The pictures are different. You don't need to read the numbers. Look at the pictures on the bills.
Before anyone asks, no, I didn't have to look at the bills to say who is on what. But that's besides the point. The pictures are different, and on the new 20s, 50s, and 100s, are quite large.
I also have a hard time with currency when traveling. I don't know how much bigger a 10 pound note is supposed to be than a 5 pound note. Tourists are always going to have to double-check the currency if they don't want to get screwed, no matter where they're from.
So, now every time I go to the fridge to get a snack during commercials, I'm a thief? Or the thousands who tape their favorite shows and then hit the Commercial Skip button on the VCR remote? Give me a break. Hollywood needs to grow up.
The best situation I have found so far is
Typing brief comments while coding is much more efficient than re-reading the code several times to remember what I was doing six months (or more) ago. Many of the programmers I know can't type to save their lives, so there is a lot of tendency to use short variable names and sparse comments. Which is fine, but make them meaningful, or learn how to type 50 wpm or more. Just don't give me code where nothing's commented and your variable names are oaa and oca.
Large block comments at the top of a class or method tend to be useless after the first release of a product, because bug fixes and new features will change the code, while not all programmers will take care to change the comments. So keep your variables and method names meaningful, document why the code may break standard coding practice, and let me know what other modules/classes I need to look at (Javadoc's @see tag is very useful for this) to understand how this code interacts with the rest of the system.
At least the above suggestions have worked well for our team. Your mileage may vary.
Those who remember coming home from school and ignoring our homework to see how many times we could flip Asteroids before supper.
Those who remember having to mow two lawns to afford to buy Missile Command
Those who despise today's multi-function "game controllers" and long for the day of a one button joystick
Those who now have the cash to buy all the games they could never afford as kids.
That, IMHO, is who will buy it.
Having learned VB and Java first, and having read many books on computer architecture, I would suggest that the only book you need to learn C is K&R. The Wrox books have too much fluff for someone who just wants to get down to what's important.
In addition to K&R, The C Standard Library by Plauger is also quite useful. If you're not the type of programmer that can pick up language basics in a few days with a good reference, then, by all means, get something with less substance and more hand-holding. I also managed to find a book on nothing but pointers in C, but, unfortunately, do not have it close by to pass on the title. It's somewhat old, and may be out of print, anyway.