Drivers already pay to get bikes out of the way. We pay gas taxes so there can be bike lanes and bike paths.
I hope he got ticketed, at least, for obstruction of traffic. He had no authority to cone off lanes of traffic, and he created a hazard for everyone around him.
There are many more skills that are "easily done by a machine" than just math.
How about CPR? Do you refuse to teach your children how to perform CPR because an AED will solve the problem better? Or a heart-lung machine will do it all. Don't have a heart-lung machine handy, or it's broken? I guess the person whose life you could have saved with CPR is shit out of luck. No skin off your nose, though. Your child hasn't wasted its precious time and energy learning how to do something that is easily done by a machine.
How about something as simple as "open a can of food?" You're golden until the machine that can do it better (an electric can opener) breaks, or you're on a picnic and forgot to bring the can opener or a long enough extension cord to power it.
Changing a tire? The 'easier machine' is the AAA tow truck and driver. Why learn how to change a tire when AAA is just a phone call away. Crap, no cell service! What do you do?
Autopilots can fly a plane more precisely than a person. Why should a pilot learn how to do something that is easily done by a machine? Crap, the AP is going full up trim and we're headed for a stall/spin/death. Too bad I didn't learn how to fly!
Personally, I'm going to laugh my ass off when stories start showing up in the media of people being stranded in the middle of nowhere because their AV had some trivial failure that caused it to pull over and stop, and they have never bothered to learn how to change a tire, or even drive, and they're too far away from cell coverage to call for someone to come do it for them.
I suppose it shows my age, but I remember one night about 2AM on the way home from a friend's house when the clutch cable broke. There were no cell phones then. I didn't have AAA to call even if there were. What to do? What to do?
Well, knowing how to drive a car without a functioning clutch is a valuable skill in such situations, and that is what I did. I knew how to do something manually that a machine could do easily. Drove home, went to the auto parts store the next day, bought and installed a new clutch cable, and none the worse for wear. Well. the clutch was a little worse but not much. It lasted longer than the rest of the car. Perhaps this is lost knowledge, but the only time you really need a clutch is when you want to stop the car without shutting the engine off, or start moving without putting a huge strain on the starter motor. With appropriate use of the gas you can change gears without clutching. (E.g., when upshifting while accelerating, back off the gas just enough to remove the load on the gears and shift out of gear. Back off more until the RPM of the engine matches the RPM of the next higher gear. Rinse, lather, repeat.
There are lots of things that we have machines doing for us "easily", and lots of examples of when the machine fails us and those who know how to do live longer than those who don't.
And why is it good to teach your kid something that can easily be done by a machine?
The machine can be wrong.
Knowing how something works is a good piece of knowledge to have so you can build upon it to create new things.
You may be using the machine incorrectly. Cf. the example I gave earlier of the concentration of hydrogen ion being 1.000.
The machine may be programmed using assumptions that are not valid for the problem you are trying to solve.
I cannot count the number of programs I've seen that make assumptions about things that aren't always true, and thus fail miserably. Sometimes its just the wrong answer. Sometimes it is a crash and burn.
I have one wonderful experience with a very complicated bit of FORTRAN code that assumed that every line in the input parameter file contained a colon as a parameter:value separator. No tests were done to validate this assumption, the lines were processed and the program crashed and burned when a line without a colon was introduced.
It seems that the meaning of "show your work" is different for different level of education. In the lowest level of education, "Show your work" is necessary for kids to prove that they understand. In low level of education, this may not be necessary.
No, it's the same. The difference is what you are showing an understanding of. In a class about transcendental series, "show your work" means you write down the first few elements of the Taylor expansion to show that you understand the concept of that series. In a class about math that includes rotation matrices, you write down "sin(x)" in the correct place for the rotation matrix that solves your problem, but not the entire Taylor series expansion, to show you understand rotation matrices.
"Show your work" is a short way of saying "show me you understand the concepts I taught you and can use them in the right way in the problem that requires them." "The concepts" is dependent on the context of the class.
Dude, if you do it the fast way and get the right answer, you'll get 100% credit in my book.
Of course. Getting the right answer implies that the assumption necessary for doing the fast way holds. But he got the wrong answer using the fast way, and I got the right one. The two answers were significantly different, like a factor of five.
No they aren't. They are trying to force everyone into a "standard" dumbed down method of arithmetic,
You think every test is an arithmetic test and every "show your work" means putting the numbers in a column and putting the carry digits up at the top. They aren't. They're tests like the one I wrote about. Tests where nobody cares HOW you add the numbers or HOW you multiply the numbers, just that you understand where the numbers come from and what you need to do to them to get the answer. Things like how you solve a quadratic equation, which requires no columns of numbers or demonstration of long division, only writing the equation, substituting the correct values, and then showing the numerical answer.
I could not care one fuck whether someone did a square root in his head or with a Cray supercomputer, what I cared about is that he knew that the equation for finding the answer included a square root. If he showed that as part of his work, then even if he got the wrong answer in the end I could see he had partial understanding, and thus give partial credit.
I once had a student who had to calculate the hydrogen ion concentration in a weak acid solution. His final answer was "1.00000". But, lucky for him, he showed his work. I knew what his mistake was immediately. He had borrowed my HP calculator because he had forgotten his TI. He had gotten to the final step and pressed "number enter number enter divide" instead of simply "number enter number divide". Everything up to that point was perfect. I gave him partial credit because he showed he understood the material I had taught but not how to run my calculator. I did, however, dock him for producing an absolutely insane answer.
Even so, when the test is about doing sums (like in fourth grade), teaching one way of doing something as a standard is not forcing anyone to do that for the rest of his life. All it is doing is teaching him a way that is commonly used, so if he needs to teach someone else how to do it (like help his child with his homework) he knows how to. It doesn't kill anyone to learn how to do things another way and demonstrate that you learned how to do it that way.
No wonder the jobs are going overseas.
Yeah, because in the US we've gotten to where teaching students to give correct answers on a test is more important than teaching them the concepts and ideas that are behind getting those answers. If all you evaluate is the correct answer, then that's what you are saying. If, OTH, you evaluate the process the student goes through to get that answer, no matter what it is, you can identify areas he's learned, things he hasn't, and maybe even be a better teacher because you know what you need to emphasize. If all you know is that 64% of your class got the answer to problem 2 wrong, you don't know why or how to teach it better. If you can see that 88% of the wrong answers were because they forgot one step in the solution, you can emphasize that step in the next class.
And I'll point out, seeing the process the students use to solve the problem is EXACTLY the reason why the "Chinese Math" question was asked. It wasn't supposed to see who could get the right answer. There is no right answer. But there is a process of thinking about the problem. Lots of people have demonstrated it in this discussion. "Well, to get a master's license in China...", but the problem didn't say he had a license or was in China. Some people are adding up average weights of animals to get a cargo weight, and then adding "to master a boat with cargoes that heavy". Fascinating lines of thought, even if they never get to a correct answer. But you have to care about how people think and the process behind it, and clearly you don't. The only thing to test is did they get the right answer.
His point is that even if you show your work, ie write down the steps you take to solve the problem, if it's wrong in the end then it isn't acceptable.
It isn't the correct answer. But if you show all the correct steps to get to the correct answer and just flub a calculation at the end, then you've shown you have learned the important part -- how to solve the problem. That merits at least partial credit, if not full.
Why do you not consider it acceptable to get credit for showing your instructor that you understand the concepts and methods that he was trying to teach?
What is the purpose of the test question? Is it for the instructor to see if you can poke the buttons on your calculator correctly and get the right answer to something like sqrt(3.2)? Or is it so he can identify that you understand what it requires to solve the problem and that you understand that taking the square root of some quantity is part of the process?
That just shows that you don't have landlord experience yourself or secondhand from a friend or family member.
No, it shows that I understand that sometimes people can be short a few dollars at the end of the month and it will cost me a LOT more as a landlord to evict someone over 10% of their rent being late than to let them pay it in a week or two.
A landlord who gives rent credit for hard stories isn't going to be a landlord for long,
And a landlord who gets a rep as an ass who evicts people the first time they are a few dollars short will not get many good tenants. He'll get the left-overs.
But you can't argue the analogy, GP is dead right.
I don't need to "argue the analogy" because the initial premise is wrong. I cannot "see his work" if it isn't on the test paper I am grading. Now explain why holes in his boots and calluses on his fingers would show me that he knows how to calculate ionic concentrations in a weak acid solution, even if I could see them as part of "his work".
Eg if you have a matrix operation or trigonometric function, they won't or rarely include a step that shows eg the multiplication of each number or deriving the cos/sin/tan rules;
That's because the paper is not about proving the cos etc. rules or how to do matrix multiplication, it is about something else. On a algebra test where you are demonstrating an understanding of how matrix multiplication works, you show those steps. On a test in a quantum chemistry class where you are using matrix multiplication to get some other result, you don't have to show the multiplication steps. You DO show that "this intermediate result comes from multiplying this matrix by this one".
FYI: They really just wanted to report you to the IRS. The IRS can connect that old account to all of your newer accounts
Report me for what? Making a total of $10,000 in purchases of radio and electronic gear over a 10 year period is illegal? That's nuts. If it is illegal, they better close the "hamfest loophole" (like the "gunshow loophole"), because I've certainly spent more than $10,000 unreported to the IRS at various hamfests around the country. Thirty years of Xenia (nee Dayton) at about $800 per on average means, umm, wow, $24,000 or so.
The IRS can connect my credit card number to me and to all my newer accounts, too, so why would PayPal bother demanding that they be able to debit my bank account for $0.97 for that purpose?
I show my work. You can see the lines on my face, the callouses on my hands, and the holes in my boots.
No, actually, I can't. When I'm grading your papers I'm sitting in a room, usually alone so I'm not distracted, maybe with some music to drown out outside noise. I can't see the lines on your face or anything else specific to you. And when you took the quiz in a room of 100 students, I'm not seeing the lines on your face or the holes in your boots, either. I probably don't even remember what you look like based on that limited contact.
But when I gave the landlord 9/10 of the rent, he still threw me out.
Ahh. You hate a teacher that will give other people 9/10ths credit for something because your landlord wouldn't give you 9/10ths credit on the money you owed him. Your landlord is an ass.
It's stated that the husband asked everyone else (including his wife) how many hands they shook, and all of them gave a different answer. He didnt ask HIMSELF.
No, the problem as presented here says he "asked each person, including his wife". He is a person, he was present, so according to the problem he did ask himself. It did not say he asked "everyone else".
The answer where "me" shook zero hands is wrong, because for there to be someone who shook 8 hands then that person must have shaken me's hand. Thus "me" cannot be a 0. There are only eight other people besides the person who shook 8 and his wife (who he can't shake hands with). And since the person who shook 8 hands had to shake the hand of every other person except his wife, his wife can be the only 0.
He didn't say it was. The issue is, why was the answer wrong?
Teachers like you are why America is falling behind.
Teachers like him are trying to teach the concepts and measure the success of the student based on concepts and not trivial errors.
Which is more important? Knowing the equations behind equilibrium concentrations and the concept that an equilibrium exists, or the ability to poke numbers into a calculator and get a number that is close enough to be right?
As a TA in college, I graded lots of papers. If a student just wrote down a number and it was wrong, maybe because he made a mistake entering something in his calculator, I had to mark the problem completely wrong. No credit. He demonstrated neither an understanding of the problem nor the solution. He might have been an Einstein in chemistry, but without showing the work his wrong answer didn't show his mastery.
But, if the student showed his work, I could see that he did understand the problem. Maybe his solution was incorrect because he entered the exponent incorrectly and got the wrong number. Maybe he understood half the problem but not the other half. He could get credit for what he did know.
I used chemical equilibria as an example on purpose. Solving concentrations in a weak acid or base solution requires solving a quadratic equation for the full, complete answer. But there is a shortcut that gives "close enough"* answers when the numbers meet a certain criterion (low enough disassociation constant that the concentration of unionized chemical does not change significantly). If a student uses the shortcut when it does not apply, gets the wrong answer, but shows his work, I can properly critique and evaluate his answer, giving him partial credit. If he just has a number, it gets marked wrong.
I learned this the hard way, personal experience. I was taking the class I later TA'd and solved one problem using the full method. I decided it was easy enough to always use the full method so I did. I didn't show my work. The TA marked the answer wrong. What!? At the next discussion session I asked why it was wrong, and showed him step by step why it was right. Woopsies. He had created the answer key using the shortcut and it did not apply for that problem. His mistake. Had I shown my work, it would have saved his embarassment and everyone's time because he could have seen why his answer was wrong and corrected his key before anyone knew he made a mistake.
Is it better to grade "all or nothing" on a problem, or allow for human error in pressing buttons on a calculator and grant credit for what was shown?
* by "close enough" I mean "within the precision of the problem as stated", or "based on the number of significant digits". If you have a starting concentration that is valid to three digits, then an answer that is off in the fourth digit is "close enough".
I've had no problem with PayPal, EXCEPT when they demanded access to my bank account because I'd successfully bought more then $10,000 of stuff through them. They actually told me that because I'd bought that much stuff and paid for it on-time and without issues using a credit card, I must prove my credit worthiness to them by giving them direct access to my bank account, which they must prove works by actually charging me something.
Fortunately I had an old almost unused credit union account from my old credit union that I could give them. It had all of $5 in it, so no big loss if they stole it all. They haven't so far.
Now I'll have to give the same info to Ayden if I want to keep using eBay? Ummm....
Of course you do. The problem says you did. If you "of course" did not ask "me", either you are not a person, in which case you cannot be married to your wife, or you did not ask each person, which contradicts the problem statement. The problem says "asked each person". Had it said "I asked every other person..." then "me" did not ask himself. As written, he had to.
This leaves the question "how many hands did 'me' shake?"
"Me" asked each person (which would include "me" as "me" is also a person) for a number and each person answered with a different number. If all numbers from 0 through 8 are used by other people, and it is impossible to have shaken fewer than 0 or more than 8, how many hands did "me" shake? His answer must have been the same as someone else's.
So is 4-0, 7-1, 6-2, 5-3, 8-me.
Actually, no. For your wife to have shaken 8 hands, she would have had to shaken the hand of every other person present. She cannot shake your hand. But if someone else shook 0 hands, then your wife could not have shaken 8 hands. The only answer possible matches 8 with 0 because that is the only way one person can shake 8 other hands and there still be someone with 0.
A young principal would have got rid of the non-thinkers, but this one has been around enough years that there is some kind of loyalty/blackmail thing going on with those 10 teachers.
It's called "union" and "tenure". A young principal would not realize how time consuming it would be to get rid of a useless teacher and would thus try -- potentially succeeding by accident. A more experienced principal would simply transfer them to empty classrooms until they either resign, retire, or die. Or he does, in which case it isn't his problem anymore.
I expressed an opinion, I am not seeing how that equates to "making my opinion more important".
Because you are defining what they need in terms of your opinion of what they need. Your opinion of what they need is more important than theirs under that definition.
didn't you denigrate me and seek to make your opinion more important?
No. I pointed out that it was your opinion, which is a fact -- that it is your opinion -- and you have actually agreed with that fact that it was your opinion.
And didnt that reply imply that the opinion that there people who sought more than needed was incorrect?
No, I already covered that. It pointed out that your definition was based on your opinion. It did not say that the opinion, when actually stated as such, was wrong. In fact, it implicitly supported the claim that people will seek more than you think they need.
Having to use a sarcasm tag defeats the purpose of encouraging critical thinking. When the topic sentence is so clearly and patently false, maybe rethinking whether the remainder of the argument is meant to be serious or sarcastic before launching into a lecture or modding down is a good idea.
If 2.4 rounds down to 2 then What's 2.4 + 2.4? Why it's 2.8, which clearly rounds up to 3....
Is this another example of Chinese Math? It's not a demonstration of the misunderstanding/misapplication of significant digits, I know that, although I think that's where you wanted to go.
Wouldn't Chinese math be something like "what is the sum of a character that looks like a garden gate over a triangular squiggle and a character that looks like a horse kind of with two small squares over it"? Does it round up or down?
Asking questions for which there is insufficient data to determine the unique correct answer is confusing and a waste of time, because they will never see such questions in real life. Only teach them things they'll need in real life, I say. Don't fill their heads with nonsense. Every question they will need to answer in real life will have a correct answer, and they need to expect that from others.
"We find this practice problematic because it can pressure customers into making unnecessary purchase decisions,"
The irony of this statement in this article combined with the article just above it about Office 2019 not running on anything but Windows 10 (thus forcing an OS upgrade if you upgrade Office) is killing me. How about this for a purchasing decision: I still have a CD with Office 97 on it; one of the last Offices to require activation and keys and phoning home to momma.
However, after the last round of Norton putting up unclosable "Hey, how about installing me on all your other computers?" message windows, even after being told "NO never ask me again" and setting the "don't show promo messages" option in settings, I can see why something needs to be done. I had gotten used to the non-window messages about buying upgraded versions of AVG but Norton wins for obnoxious. AVG draws directly on the screen, creating something that LOOKS like a window, with an X to close it and a button to buy, but it's not actually a window. Whatever is behind the X and buttons are still active. You have to refresh the desktop to remove it. I can't imagine who approved such a marketing tactic.
Slashdot Mirror
Which the drivers should pay for
Drivers already pay to get bikes out of the way. We pay gas taxes so there can be bike lanes and bike paths.
I hope he got ticketed, at least, for obstruction of traffic. He had no authority to cone off lanes of traffic, and he created a hazard for everyone around him.
How about CPR? Do you refuse to teach your children how to perform CPR because an AED will solve the problem better? Or a heart-lung machine will do it all. Don't have a heart-lung machine handy, or it's broken? I guess the person whose life you could have saved with CPR is shit out of luck. No skin off your nose, though. Your child hasn't wasted its precious time and energy learning how to do something that is easily done by a machine.
How about something as simple as "open a can of food?" You're golden until the machine that can do it better (an electric can opener) breaks, or you're on a picnic and forgot to bring the can opener or a long enough extension cord to power it.
Changing a tire? The 'easier machine' is the AAA tow truck and driver. Why learn how to change a tire when AAA is just a phone call away. Crap, no cell service! What do you do?
Autopilots can fly a plane more precisely than a person. Why should a pilot learn how to do something that is easily done by a machine? Crap, the AP is going full up trim and we're headed for a stall/spin/death. Too bad I didn't learn how to fly!
Personally, I'm going to laugh my ass off when stories start showing up in the media of people being stranded in the middle of nowhere because their AV had some trivial failure that caused it to pull over and stop, and they have never bothered to learn how to change a tire, or even drive, and they're too far away from cell coverage to call for someone to come do it for them.
I suppose it shows my age, but I remember one night about 2AM on the way home from a friend's house when the clutch cable broke. There were no cell phones then. I didn't have AAA to call even if there were. What to do? What to do?
Well, knowing how to drive a car without a functioning clutch is a valuable skill in such situations, and that is what I did. I knew how to do something manually that a machine could do easily. Drove home, went to the auto parts store the next day, bought and installed a new clutch cable, and none the worse for wear. Well. the clutch was a little worse but not much. It lasted longer than the rest of the car. Perhaps this is lost knowledge, but the only time you really need a clutch is when you want to stop the car without shutting the engine off, or start moving without putting a huge strain on the starter motor. With appropriate use of the gas you can change gears without clutching. (E.g., when upshifting while accelerating, back off the gas just enough to remove the load on the gears and shift out of gear. Back off more until the RPM of the engine matches the RPM of the next higher gear. Rinse, lather, repeat.
There are lots of things that we have machines doing for us "easily", and lots of examples of when the machine fails us and those who know how to do live longer than those who don't.
And why is it good to teach your kid something that can easily be done by a machine?
The machine can be wrong.
Knowing how something works is a good piece of knowledge to have so you can build upon it to create new things.
You may be using the machine incorrectly. Cf. the example I gave earlier of the concentration of hydrogen ion being 1.000.
The machine may be programmed using assumptions that are not valid for the problem you are trying to solve. I cannot count the number of programs I've seen that make assumptions about things that aren't always true, and thus fail miserably. Sometimes its just the wrong answer. Sometimes it is a crash and burn.
I have one wonderful experience with a very complicated bit of FORTRAN code that assumed that every line in the input parameter file contained a colon as a parameter:value separator. No tests were done to validate this assumption, the lines were processed and the program crashed and burned when a line without a colon was introduced.
It seems that the meaning of "show your work" is different for different level of education. In the lowest level of education, "Show your work" is necessary for kids to prove that they understand. In low level of education, this may not be necessary.
No, it's the same. The difference is what you are showing an understanding of. In a class about transcendental series, "show your work" means you write down the first few elements of the Taylor expansion to show that you understand the concept of that series. In a class about math that includes rotation matrices, you write down "sin(x)" in the correct place for the rotation matrix that solves your problem, but not the entire Taylor series expansion, to show you understand rotation matrices.
"Show your work" is a short way of saying "show me you understand the concepts I taught you and can use them in the right way in the problem that requires them." "The concepts" is dependent on the context of the class.
Dude, if you do it the fast way and get the right answer, you'll get 100% credit in my book.
Of course. Getting the right answer implies that the assumption necessary for doing the fast way holds. But he got the wrong answer using the fast way, and I got the right one. The two answers were significantly different, like a factor of five.
No they aren't. They are trying to force everyone into a "standard" dumbed down method of arithmetic,
You think every test is an arithmetic test and every "show your work" means putting the numbers in a column and putting the carry digits up at the top. They aren't. They're tests like the one I wrote about. Tests where nobody cares HOW you add the numbers or HOW you multiply the numbers, just that you understand where the numbers come from and what you need to do to them to get the answer. Things like how you solve a quadratic equation, which requires no columns of numbers or demonstration of long division, only writing the equation, substituting the correct values, and then showing the numerical answer.
I could not care one fuck whether someone did a square root in his head or with a Cray supercomputer, what I cared about is that he knew that the equation for finding the answer included a square root. If he showed that as part of his work, then even if he got the wrong answer in the end I could see he had partial understanding, and thus give partial credit.
I once had a student who had to calculate the hydrogen ion concentration in a weak acid solution. His final answer was "1.00000". But, lucky for him, he showed his work. I knew what his mistake was immediately. He had borrowed my HP calculator because he had forgotten his TI. He had gotten to the final step and pressed "number enter number enter divide" instead of simply "number enter number divide". Everything up to that point was perfect. I gave him partial credit because he showed he understood the material I had taught but not how to run my calculator. I did, however, dock him for producing an absolutely insane answer.
Even so, when the test is about doing sums (like in fourth grade), teaching one way of doing something as a standard is not forcing anyone to do that for the rest of his life. All it is doing is teaching him a way that is commonly used, so if he needs to teach someone else how to do it (like help his child with his homework) he knows how to. It doesn't kill anyone to learn how to do things another way and demonstrate that you learned how to do it that way.
No wonder the jobs are going overseas.
Yeah, because in the US we've gotten to where teaching students to give correct answers on a test is more important than teaching them the concepts and ideas that are behind getting those answers. If all you evaluate is the correct answer, then that's what you are saying. If, OTH, you evaluate the process the student goes through to get that answer, no matter what it is, you can identify areas he's learned, things he hasn't, and maybe even be a better teacher because you know what you need to emphasize. If all you know is that 64% of your class got the answer to problem 2 wrong, you don't know why or how to teach it better. If you can see that 88% of the wrong answers were because they forgot one step in the solution, you can emphasize that step in the next class.
And I'll point out, seeing the process the students use to solve the problem is EXACTLY the reason why the "Chinese Math" question was asked. It wasn't supposed to see who could get the right answer. There is no right answer. But there is a process of thinking about the problem. Lots of people have demonstrated it in this discussion. "Well, to get a master's license in China ...", but the problem didn't say he had a license or was in China. Some people are adding up average weights of animals to get a cargo weight, and then adding "to master a boat with cargoes that heavy". Fascinating lines of thought, even if they never get to a correct answer. But you have to care about how people think and the process behind it, and clearly you don't. The only thing to test is did they get the right answer.
His point is that even if you show your work, ie write down the steps you take to solve the problem, if it's wrong in the end then it isn't acceptable.
It isn't the correct answer. But if you show all the correct steps to get to the correct answer and just flub a calculation at the end, then you've shown you have learned the important part -- how to solve the problem. That merits at least partial credit, if not full.
Why do you not consider it acceptable to get credit for showing your instructor that you understand the concepts and methods that he was trying to teach? What is the purpose of the test question? Is it for the instructor to see if you can poke the buttons on your calculator correctly and get the right answer to something like sqrt(3.2)? Or is it so he can identify that you understand what it requires to solve the problem and that you understand that taking the square root of some quantity is part of the process?
That just shows that you don't have landlord experience yourself or secondhand from a friend or family member.
No, it shows that I understand that sometimes people can be short a few dollars at the end of the month and it will cost me a LOT more as a landlord to evict someone over 10% of their rent being late than to let them pay it in a week or two.
A landlord who gives rent credit for hard stories isn't going to be a landlord for long,
And a landlord who gets a rep as an ass who evicts people the first time they are a few dollars short will not get many good tenants. He'll get the left-overs.
But you can't argue the analogy, GP is dead right.
I don't need to "argue the analogy" because the initial premise is wrong. I cannot "see his work" if it isn't on the test paper I am grading. Now explain why holes in his boots and calluses on his fingers would show me that he knows how to calculate ionic concentrations in a weak acid solution, even if I could see them as part of "his work".
Eg if you have a matrix operation or trigonometric function, they won't or rarely include a step that shows eg the multiplication of each number or deriving the cos/sin/tan rules;
That's because the paper is not about proving the cos etc. rules or how to do matrix multiplication, it is about something else. On a algebra test where you are demonstrating an understanding of how matrix multiplication works, you show those steps. On a test in a quantum chemistry class where you are using matrix multiplication to get some other result, you don't have to show the multiplication steps. You DO show that "this intermediate result comes from multiplying this matrix by this one".
Just needed to change the delimiter to get around the tag block
<sarcasm>Really?</sarcasm>
FYI: They really just wanted to report you to the IRS. The IRS can connect that old account to all of your newer accounts
Report me for what? Making a total of $10,000 in purchases of radio and electronic gear over a 10 year period is illegal? That's nuts. If it is illegal, they better close the "hamfest loophole" (like the "gunshow loophole"), because I've certainly spent more than $10,000 unreported to the IRS at various hamfests around the country. Thirty years of Xenia (nee Dayton) at about $800 per on average means, umm, wow, $24,000 or so.
The IRS can connect my credit card number to me and to all my newer accounts, too, so why would PayPal bother demanding that they be able to debit my bank account for $0.97 for that purpose?
I dislike teachers like you. Why?
I think you answer this later.
I show my work. You can see the lines on my face, the callouses on my hands, and the holes in my boots.
No, actually, I can't. When I'm grading your papers I'm sitting in a room, usually alone so I'm not distracted, maybe with some music to drown out outside noise. I can't see the lines on your face or anything else specific to you. And when you took the quiz in a room of 100 students, I'm not seeing the lines on your face or the holes in your boots, either. I probably don't even remember what you look like based on that limited contact.
But when I gave the landlord 9/10 of the rent, he still threw me out.
Ahh. You hate a teacher that will give other people 9/10ths credit for something because your landlord wouldn't give you 9/10ths credit on the money you owed him. Your landlord is an ass.
It's stated that the husband asked everyone else (including his wife) how many hands they shook, and all of them gave a different answer. He didnt ask HIMSELF.
No, the problem as presented here says he "asked each person, including his wife". He is a person, he was present, so according to the problem he did ask himself. It did not say he asked "everyone else".
The answer where "me" shook zero hands is wrong, because for there to be someone who shook 8 hands then that person must have shaken me's hand. Thus "me" cannot be a 0. There are only eight other people besides the person who shook 8 and his wife (who he can't shake hands with). And since the person who shook 8 hands had to shake the hand of every other person except his wife, his wife can be the only 0.
"Trying hard" is no excuse for wrong answers.
He didn't say it was. The issue is, why was the answer wrong?
Teachers like you are why America is falling behind.
Teachers like him are trying to teach the concepts and measure the success of the student based on concepts and not trivial errors.
Which is more important? Knowing the equations behind equilibrium concentrations and the concept that an equilibrium exists, or the ability to poke numbers into a calculator and get a number that is close enough to be right?
As a TA in college, I graded lots of papers. If a student just wrote down a number and it was wrong, maybe because he made a mistake entering something in his calculator, I had to mark the problem completely wrong. No credit. He demonstrated neither an understanding of the problem nor the solution. He might have been an Einstein in chemistry, but without showing the work his wrong answer didn't show his mastery.
But, if the student showed his work, I could see that he did understand the problem. Maybe his solution was incorrect because he entered the exponent incorrectly and got the wrong number. Maybe he understood half the problem but not the other half. He could get credit for what he did know.
I used chemical equilibria as an example on purpose. Solving concentrations in a weak acid or base solution requires solving a quadratic equation for the full, complete answer. But there is a shortcut that gives "close enough"* answers when the numbers meet a certain criterion (low enough disassociation constant that the concentration of unionized chemical does not change significantly). If a student uses the shortcut when it does not apply, gets the wrong answer, but shows his work, I can properly critique and evaluate his answer, giving him partial credit. If he just has a number, it gets marked wrong.
I learned this the hard way, personal experience. I was taking the class I later TA'd and solved one problem using the full method. I decided it was easy enough to always use the full method so I did. I didn't show my work. The TA marked the answer wrong. What!? At the next discussion session I asked why it was wrong, and showed him step by step why it was right. Woopsies. He had created the answer key using the shortcut and it did not apply for that problem. His mistake. Had I shown my work, it would have saved his embarassment and everyone's time because he could have seen why his answer was wrong and corrected his key before anyone knew he made a mistake.
Is it better to grade "all or nothing" on a problem, or allow for human error in pressing buttons on a calculator and grant credit for what was shown?
* by "close enough" I mean "within the precision of the problem as stated", or "based on the number of significant digits". If you have a starting concentration that is valid to three digits, then an answer that is off in the fourth digit is "close enough".
And eBay will buy both.
Will they pay using PayPal or Ayden?
I've had no problem with PayPal, EXCEPT when they demanded access to my bank account because I'd successfully bought more then $10,000 of stuff through them. They actually told me that because I'd bought that much stuff and paid for it on-time and without issues using a credit card, I must prove my credit worthiness to them by giving them direct access to my bank account, which they must prove works by actually charging me something.
Fortunately I had an old almost unused credit union account from my old credit union that I could give them. It had all of $5 in it, so no big loss if they stole it all. They haven't so far.
Now I'll have to give the same info to Ayden if I want to keep using eBay? Ummm....
I do not ask me, of course,
Of course you do. The problem says you did. If you "of course" did not ask "me", either you are not a person, in which case you cannot be married to your wife, or you did not ask each person, which contradicts the problem statement. The problem says "asked each person". Had it said "I asked every other person ..." then "me" did not ask himself. As written, he had to.
"Me" asked each person (which would include "me" as "me" is also a person) for a number and each person answered with a different number. If all numbers from 0 through 8 are used by other people, and it is impossible to have shaken fewer than 0 or more than 8, how many hands did "me" shake? His answer must have been the same as someone else's.
So is 4-0, 7-1, 6-2, 5-3, 8-me.
Actually, no. For your wife to have shaken 8 hands, she would have had to shaken the hand of every other person present. She cannot shake your hand. But if someone else shook 0 hands, then your wife could not have shaken 8 hands. The only answer possible matches 8 with 0 because that is the only way one person can shake 8 other hands and there still be someone with 0.
A young principal would have got rid of the non-thinkers, but this one has been around enough years that there is some kind of loyalty/blackmail thing going on with those 10 teachers.
It's called "union" and "tenure". A young principal would not realize how time consuming it would be to get rid of a useless teacher and would thus try -- potentially succeeding by accident. A more experienced principal would simply transfer them to empty classrooms until they either resign, retire, or die. Or he does, in which case it isn't his problem anymore.
I expressed an opinion, I am not seeing how that equates to "making my opinion more important".
Because you are defining what they need in terms of your opinion of what they need. Your opinion of what they need is more important than theirs under that definition.
didn't you denigrate me and seek to make your opinion more important?
No. I pointed out that it was your opinion, which is a fact -- that it is your opinion -- and you have actually agreed with that fact that it was your opinion.
And didnt that reply imply that the opinion that there people who sought more than needed was incorrect?
No, I already covered that. It pointed out that your definition was based on your opinion. It did not say that the opinion, when actually stated as such, was wrong. In fact, it implicitly supported the claim that people will seek more than you think they need.
Hoist by my own petard. I'm now stuck trying to figure out if you were using or not. You win the point.
But I see a lot of people didn't get it. Oh well.
My guess is you aren't great with critical thinking simply based off your post here.
My guess is that you wouldn't know sarcasm if it bit you on the ass. I don't know how I could have made it any more obvious.
If 2.4 rounds down to 2 then What's 2.4 + 2.4? Why it's 2.8, which clearly rounds up to 3....
Is this another example of Chinese Math? It's not a demonstration of the misunderstanding/misapplication of significant digits, I know that, although I think that's where you wanted to go.
Wouldn't Chinese math be something like "what is the sum of a character that looks like a garden gate over a triangular squiggle and a character that looks like a horse kind of with two small squares over it"? Does it round up or down?
Asking questions for which there is insufficient data to determine the unique correct answer is confusing and a waste of time, because they will never see such questions in real life. Only teach them things they'll need in real life, I say. Don't fill their heads with nonsense. Every question they will need to answer in real life will have a correct answer, and they need to expect that from others.
If it doesn't give you the option of closing the window can't you kill the process with the process manager or whatever Microsoft calls it
Which process? Why should I have to do that in the first place? And when I tell it to never come back, it comes back.
As for Office, you don't have to upgrade right away.
And you don't have to buy the things that nagware nags you about. It seems that Microsoft is being hypocritical here, doesn't it?
"We find this practice problematic because it can pressure customers into making unnecessary purchase decisions,"
The irony of this statement in this article combined with the article just above it about Office 2019 not running on anything but Windows 10 (thus forcing an OS upgrade if you upgrade Office) is killing me. How about this for a purchasing decision: I still have a CD with Office 97 on it; one of the last Offices to require activation and keys and phoning home to momma.
However, after the last round of Norton putting up unclosable "Hey, how about installing me on all your other computers?" message windows, even after being told "NO never ask me again" and setting the "don't show promo messages" option in settings, I can see why something needs to be done. I had gotten used to the non-window messages about buying upgraded versions of AVG but Norton wins for obnoxious. AVG draws directly on the screen, creating something that LOOKS like a window, with an X to close it and a button to buy, but it's not actually a window. Whatever is behind the X and buttons are still active. You have to refresh the desktop to remove it. I can't imagine who approved such a marketing tactic.