Quite possibly. However, for the rest of the world, it's considerably harder to read something that's not written correctly. So yes, I agree with you, it's possible people who can't write well can't read well either.
Sure. But it was considerably more work to read that sentence. It's probably a good mental exercise, but it's not something you want to have to do every time you read something. And if you want to see whether or not language can degenerate into something you CAN'T understand, context or no, find a 13 year old and have a look at what she's texting to her friends.
"So after class... was that integral from 0 to 2*pi, or -pi to +pi, or... ah, let me borrow your notes...."
Who cares. That problem isn't going to be on the test (at least it shouldn't be). You're there to learn how to solve problems, not to memorize how to solve THAT problem.
Legitimate learning theory doesn't say lectures are ineffective, just that lectures (and lecture is used to mean a non-interactive, one-way format) are generally not as good as other methods.
From what you've described, I'd probably call what your professor did more of a non-conventional guided discovery style. He wasn't conveying facts to you, he was, as you said, leading you on a journey, making you think. Guided discovery is one of the more effective strategies in learning theory.
He didn't say to try to learn everything at the same time, but to interleave related skills. For dancing you might learn the ENTIRE sequence of basic steps (in salsa for example, all eight counts, not just the first four, then separately the last four). Maybe you'd also cover cover arm position and leading at the same time.
Sports make for easier examples. Do you learn better if you go out and hit balls at the driving range for a week, then switch to chipping, then to putting, or would you be better off just playing, combining all those skills?
He didn't say don't take notes, he said you'll remember more if you take notes AFTER the lecture, soon enough that you can remember the content but late enough that it's somewhat difficult to remember.
Yes, you should be able to do it in an engineering class. You have a textbook, TA and seminars if you do lose the details. When I teach (graduate level biomedical engineering) I usually give out a set of typed notes covering the entire lecture. Here are your notes. Read them after class. For now, listen, participate and think.
Do the basic concepts of statistics elude you? There were no statistical tests done on that survey, so nobody has claimed the sampling is uniform. No, the survey probably isn't much better than a Slashdot poll, but some of those are interesting too.
"Italy ranks higher than it objectively should, and the US ranks lower than it objectively should."
Wait, you just blasted the survey for not being statically rigorous and now you're going to made statements with no justification at all and call them objective? Yes, your reasoning is definitely eluding my grasp, but I'm not sure it's for intellectual reasons.
Yup. Siri sends a little snipped of audio, highly compressed and gets back some text. In total it probably uses up less bandwidth than downloading all the ads and javascript if you'd just looked up whatever web page yourself.
It's about a second of standard landline audio. I imagine cell phones probably use more compression though.
Either you or Asimov was exaggerating - at the time of Julius Caesar's death in 44 BC the nearest bright star to the pole was Kochab (at the time probably brighter than Polaris although it's a little fainter now). It was about 8 degrees away from the pole. That's a lot more than Polaris's current 0.5, but hardly half the horizon to zenith distance.
The pointer stars in the big dipper you're thinking of are Merak and Dubhe (Dubhe is also one of the common navigational stars). None of the stars in Cassiopeia line up with the pole. Maybe you're thinking of Merak and Dubhe, which, if you follow the line through them through Polaris intersects Cassiopeia.
Incidentally, Kochab in 44 BC would have made a much better guide to true north than naked eye estimation of where the pole is from a pair of pointers.
The reason restaurant servers tell you (they don't correct you) when they don't have Coke is because Coke and Pepsi apparently taste different and some people get very upset at the substitution. I guess you didn't grow up in the 80's hey?
I've never been to a store (or anywhere else) where anyone cared the slightest bit about the difference between actual Band-Aids and other brands, or between Kleenex and other tissues for that matter.
You misspelled "Jesus" and "Christians." Oh, you weren't talking about the last thousand years of Christianity (up until maybe 150 years ago). My mistake.
I'm not involved in terrorism. I do have a common name that I apparently share with someone who's a spectacular international badass. US customs officers swear when they scan my passport. So tell me again how the PATRIOT act and the other stuff that's going on in the US shouldn't matter to anyone not involved with terrorism?
Why can't the summary just say that "super wifi" isn't "wifi" because "wifi" isn't a trademark, and not for any actual meaningful reasons?
Although this quote was well worth skimming the article for:
The term 'Super WiFi' is a verbal tool for conveying a thought or concept in an easy-to-understand way, such as when a child asks for a Band-Aid for a boo-boo, and you give him or her a generic brand plastic adhesive," a Wireless Innovation Alliance spokesperson said in a statement."
The precession of the equinoxes and proper motion of stars means we'll have a new north star long before either happens. A series of them, actually.
Not that a pole star is actually necessary anyway. There isn't a decent south polar star currently. For actual navigation rather than just direction finding, it's only slightly easier to use Polaris rather than any other star, it requires a special table, and you need at least one other star for a fix anyway.
"You think any of the existing journals will let you publish without a degree?"
Yes. Most journals don't ask you if you have a degree. The ones that do just ask so they can print it after your name. None of them ever ask for proof.
I think you need to familiarize yourself with scientific publishing a bit more, and scientific practice in general, particularly before you issue blanket statements like you've been doing.
"They want to charge every second to the customer. And every bit of unused bandwidth is lost profit for them."
Are you nuts? They don't want to charge every second. Every bit of unused paid for bandwidth is PURE profit for them. Cell companies want to sell you data packages that you're either going to exceed or never come close to using all of. In the former case they get to charge you insane overage rates, in the latter you're always buying bandwidth you're not using.
The thing they're really afraid of is metered usage with a fair rate.
"The real question is how much does each Siri search use compared to an old-style web search (I suspect the answer is 'a lot more', probably more than 10 times as much)"
If a Siri query averages 63 KB, and a web page averages 965 KB... I wouldn't be so sure.
That's considerably smaller than the average size of a web page today. I wonder how big an average Wolfram Alpha page is... Siri might be an overall bandwidth saver.
There are some advantages to anonymous reviews, but lots of disadvantages. Realistically, if you provide a valid criticism in your review and everything is out in public, it's unlikely that rejecting someone's paper is going to seriously affect your career. It just doesn't happen that one person has that kind of power. On the other hand, with anonymous review, reviewers can (and do) write all kinds of crap and editors are generally too busy to deal with all but the most blatant offenses.
I've criticized leaders in my field, constructively, to their faces. They've always discussed my criticism and accepted it if it turned out to be well founded.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite possibly. However, for the rest of the world, it's considerably harder to read something that's not written correctly. So yes, I agree with you, it's possible people who can't write well can't read well either.
Sure. But it was considerably more work to read that sentence. It's probably a good mental exercise, but it's not something you want to have to do every time you read something. And if you want to see whether or not language can degenerate into something you CAN'T understand, context or no, find a 13 year old and have a look at what she's texting to her friends.
"So after class... was that integral from 0 to 2*pi, or -pi to +pi, or... ah, let me borrow your notes...."
Who cares. That problem isn't going to be on the test (at least it shouldn't be). You're there to learn how to solve problems, not to memorize how to solve THAT problem.
Legitimate learning theory doesn't say lectures are ineffective, just that lectures (and lecture is used to mean a non-interactive, one-way format) are generally not as good as other methods.
From what you've described, I'd probably call what your professor did more of a non-conventional guided discovery style. He wasn't conveying facts to you, he was, as you said, leading you on a journey, making you think. Guided discovery is one of the more effective strategies in learning theory.
He didn't say to try to learn everything at the same time, but to interleave related skills. For dancing you might learn the ENTIRE sequence of basic steps (in salsa for example, all eight counts, not just the first four, then separately the last four). Maybe you'd also cover cover arm position and leading at the same time.
Sports make for easier examples. Do you learn better if you go out and hit balls at the driving range for a week, then switch to chipping, then to putting, or would you be better off just playing, combining all those skills?
He didn't say don't take notes, he said you'll remember more if you take notes AFTER the lecture, soon enough that you can remember the content but late enough that it's somewhat difficult to remember.
Yes, you should be able to do it in an engineering class. You have a textbook, TA and seminars if you do lose the details. When I teach (graduate level biomedical engineering) I usually give out a set of typed notes covering the entire lecture. Here are your notes. Read them after class. For now, listen, participate and think.
Do the basic concepts of statistics elude you? There were no statistical tests done on that survey, so nobody has claimed the sampling is uniform. No, the survey probably isn't much better than a Slashdot poll, but some of those are interesting too.
"Italy ranks higher than it objectively should, and the US ranks lower than it objectively should."
Wait, you just blasted the survey for not being statically rigorous and now you're going to made statements with no justification at all and call them objective? Yes, your reasoning is definitely eluding my grasp, but I'm not sure it's for intellectual reasons.
Yup. Siri sends a little snipped of audio, highly compressed and gets back some text. In total it probably uses up less bandwidth than downloading all the ads and javascript if you'd just looked up whatever web page yourself.
It's about a second of standard landline audio. I imagine cell phones probably use more compression though.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/12/22/2015231/average-web-page-approaches-1mb
Javascript seems to be the culprit.
Either you or Asimov was exaggerating - at the time of Julius Caesar's death in 44 BC the nearest bright star to the pole was Kochab (at the time probably brighter than Polaris although it's a little fainter now). It was about 8 degrees away from the pole. That's a lot more than Polaris's current 0.5, but hardly half the horizon to zenith distance.
The pointer stars in the big dipper you're thinking of are Merak and Dubhe (Dubhe is also one of the common navigational stars). None of the stars in Cassiopeia line up with the pole. Maybe you're thinking of Merak and Dubhe, which, if you follow the line through them through Polaris intersects Cassiopeia.
Incidentally, Kochab in 44 BC would have made a much better guide to true north than naked eye estimation of where the pole is from a pair of pointers.
The reason restaurant servers tell you (they don't correct you) when they don't have Coke is because Coke and Pepsi apparently taste different and some people get very upset at the substitution. I guess you didn't grow up in the 80's hey?
I've never been to a store (or anywhere else) where anyone cared the slightest bit about the difference between actual Band-Aids and other brands, or between Kleenex and other tissues for that matter.
You misspelled "Jesus" and "Christians." Oh, you weren't talking about the last thousand years of Christianity (up until maybe 150 years ago). My mistake.
I'm not involved in terrorism. I do have a common name that I apparently share with someone who's a spectacular international badass. US customs officers swear when they scan my passport. So tell me again how the PATRIOT act and the other stuff that's going on in the US shouldn't matter to anyone not involved with terrorism?
Why can't the summary just say that "super wifi" isn't "wifi" because "wifi" isn't a trademark, and not for any actual meaningful reasons?
Although this quote was well worth skimming the article for:
I once saw the cab of a pickup entirely stuffed full of them....
Funny, since Polaris wasn't the north star 2000 years ago. Perhaps you've been worshipping the wrong star all this time?
The precession of the equinoxes and proper motion of stars means we'll have a new north star long before either happens. A series of them, actually.
Not that a pole star is actually necessary anyway. There isn't a decent south polar star currently. For actual navigation rather than just direction finding, it's only slightly easier to use Polaris rather than any other star, it requires a special table, and you need at least one other star for a fix anyway.
Don't worry, in a couple thousand years we'll have a new north star.
"You think any of the existing journals will let you publish without a degree?"
Yes. Most journals don't ask you if you have a degree. The ones that do just ask so they can print it after your name. None of them ever ask for proof.
I think you need to familiarize yourself with scientific publishing a bit more, and scientific practice in general, particularly before you issue blanket statements like you've been doing.
"You can back up your iPhone and even install iOS updates wirelessly"
Via wifi only.
"They want to charge every second to the customer. And every bit of unused bandwidth is lost profit for them."
Are you nuts? They don't want to charge every second. Every bit of unused paid for bandwidth is PURE profit for them. Cell companies want to sell you data packages that you're either going to exceed or never come close to using all of. In the former case they get to charge you insane overage rates, in the latter you're always buying bandwidth you're not using.
The thing they're really afraid of is metered usage with a fair rate.
"The real question is how much does each Siri search use compared to an old-style web search (I suspect the answer is 'a lot more', probably more than 10 times as much)"
If a Siri query averages 63 KB, and a web page averages 965 KB... I wouldn't be so sure.
That's considerably smaller than the average size of a web page today. I wonder how big an average Wolfram Alpha page is... Siri might be an overall bandwidth saver.
"I think the real problem with Apple users is how clueless they are about technology."
iCloud backups occur only over wifi, only if the phone is plugged in.
Should have Googled that one first hey?
There are some advantages to anonymous reviews, but lots of disadvantages. Realistically, if you provide a valid criticism in your review and everything is out in public, it's unlikely that rejecting someone's paper is going to seriously affect your career. It just doesn't happen that one person has that kind of power. On the other hand, with anonymous review, reviewers can (and do) write all kinds of crap and editors are generally too busy to deal with all but the most blatant offenses.
I've criticized leaders in my field, constructively, to their faces. They've always discussed my criticism and accepted it if it turned out to be well founded.