The problem is not how math is taught in America, but by whom. At most k-12 levels, it is necessary to have a degree in teaching, rather than an understanding of the subject. And how do you get a degree in teaching? Generally by flunking out of every other curriculum that requires you to learn something. I know this does not apply to every teacher, there are some good ones out there, but the system is rigged to reward the incompetents, so it's full of them.
I see several per week, as I watch license plates. Funny that I have NEVER seen one pulled over by a police officer, but Colorado is a 'catch and release' state for illegals, so that might have something to do with it.
Have you seen such things on actual journalist's sites, or only on CNN? For that matter, are there any actual journalists left? It seems most so called journalists can't even read or write English any more.
No, it's like mounting a windmill on a TETHERED blimp. The tethers (or anchor lines) may have to be stronger, but it will produce power as long as they hold.
There is no 30k loss! That's the RETAIL price, which includes the import duty (which they haven't paid) and their profit. Their total loss is probably in the 10k range, and they've been selling these for a while, they're on SparkFun's website, and there are reviews as well. This sounds like an intentional knock-off, and it may have taken Fluke a while to notice it and file a complaint, but they should. The SparkFun version looks like a dangerous piece of junk in their pictures.
Actually, this is a relatively small amount of radiation, a Curie is 3.7 * 10^10 becquerels, or roughly 40 billion becquerels, roughly 1/1000 of this leak. If this were a point source, and you were 1 meter away, your dose would be 1000 rem per hour, which would reach a 50% probability of being lethal (300 rem) in roughly 20 minutes. Since it is a disseminated source, and there's no one anywhere close to that near it, I'd say this is pretty much overblown hype.
I used to work in the radiation measurement industry, and the preceding is pretty much quick and dirty shortcuts (ignoring quality factors and the conversion to rads, for instance,) but it's close enough for government work.
Look at the privacy aspects (and call a lawyer, fast!)
1: A cleaning person observes something in a hotel room (it's set up to demo equipment) and informs the hotel management. Note that this is behavior which happens all the time in Vegas, and is not objectionable.
2: The hotel management reports this (the contents of my hotel room) to a third party (CEA) who then convinces the hotel to act on this information.
Here's where I need a lawyer. I don't know what specific laws they violated, but I feel violated, and I'm going to sue that hotel until I own it.
As an example, assume that a person was having an affair, and the hotel reported the name of the mistress to the wife, leading to a divorce. I'm pretty sure that hotel could be sued successfully for the breach of privacy.
Where I live in Colorado, when you apply for a permit to hold a yard or garage sale, you also get a temporary sales tax license at the same time. I'm not sure if this is state-wide or only in my city, but there it is.
I call BS on your BS:
Firstly, you say there are "plenty" of conservative-leaning newspapers, then go to list all (both) of them. That's not plenty in my book.
Secondly, there have been many studies, even some by the more liberal papers, that show a liberal bias in MUCH more than 5% of "news" reporting. Often the slant is simply by omitting a story that would reflect well on conservatives or conservative positions.
Alas, the journalists come by it honestly, if you have a conservative bias (or even show no bias at all) in journalism school, you will be at least ostracized, and likely flunked out. The liberals (by which I mean well left of center) control our institutes of higher education, and journalism schools are certainly no exception.
Wouldn't that mean that they are charging for legal advice, and can then be prosecuted for practicing law (in every state) without being a member of the Bar?
Hopefully, there's a better company than MBNA for this. I once cancelled a MBNA credit card for the credit card company doing a similar thing. They thought I needed to upgrade my card from a free card to a "gold" card which carried an annual fee of $50.00. SInce I had no intention of paying an annual fee, I repeatedly told them no, and asked them to stop calling me.
Finally, after the third call in a single week AFTER asking them to stop calling me, I carried through on my threat, and cancelled the card. I will never do business with that company again.
For that matter, take a picture of the street sign. It would be much easier to get the computer to read the sign than to recognise every building in a city.
But the only choices should be "Interesting" and "Troll." If each vote added or subtracted a very small amount from the page rank, and steps were taken to prevent stuffing the ballot box, I think this would actually improve the search results for the users.
What we need to do is pass a new law that says it is illegal to buy a product from an email solicitation unless the buyer can demonstrate that they opted in to the mailing list. In addition, require all email solicitations to quote this law, and mention the $500.00 fine associated with buying via spam.
Then we have the government send out some phoney spam which we know nobody opted in for, and voila! a bunch of $500.00 fines. When every internet user knows someone who has been hit by this fine, most of them will stop replying to spam, making it unprofitable for the spammers and the problem will go away.
Why didn't the article mention names of the customers? It seems to me that if we can't discourage the spammers, we should discourage the customers, and embarrasing the h--- out of them seems a good start.
If the story gets around that so-and-so had his name published as a result of buying from a spammer, maybe people will think twice about buying, and we'll make spam less profitable (or hopefully kill it altogether.)
You are all missing the best solution: We need a bill which requires that all opt-ins be in writing and either notarized, or kept with the original postmarked envelope. This would shift the burden of proof for opt-ins squarely to the spammer, and I doubt they'd bother to try to mail themselves opt-ins from thousands of different cities (the advantage of postmarks.)
This does make it difficult to subscribe to email we want, but much of that could be better handled as web pages anyway, where the user has to consciously go to a site to get the information.
This still leaves the possibility of out-of-country spammers not subject to U.S. law, but if the majority of opinions on this subject are correct, most spam originates in America anyway, and as soon as we can prove the origin, a spammer can be put out of business.
To wit: Uy published the business address of a company from public sources. You are suggesting that he should take down this address since it turns out to also be the spammer's home address.
This is a dangerous precedent. Will we allow more protection for home businesses than for normal business-address businesses?
What Niven (IMHO) was trying to say is that there is at least as much evidence for global cooling as for global warming, and that the 'Greens' are going off half-cocked as usual.
It's also a cautionary tale about letting the junk scientists rule the world, a rather disturbing trend that is continuing even now.
Call if sarcasm, parody, or just tongue in cheek, there was nothing wrong with the science in Fallen Angels. We just won't know which side was right for a few (perhaps hundreds of) years yet.
IMHO, the moderation system works pretty well, all things considered. Perhaps we need to add a new moderation category: Bad grammar or spelling (-2.)
OTOH, looking back at the above two sentences, I found 2 errors myself. Maybe we should just encourage people to proofread their own stuff before submitting it.
- It is legal to prevent an auhor form getting revenue as long as no copies are made (by lending or reselling a book)
In this case, the "rights" to the physical copy have transferred from one person to another in the act of lending. Until the borrower returns the book, it is not merely illegal but impossible for the owner of the copy to read it.
- It is illegal to make copies even if it does not hurt the author revenues (out of print works).
But this does (or may) hurt the author's revenues. He and/or a publisher may merely be waiting for demand to increase, and will then print the work again. Out of print does not mean that is will never again be in print, just that it is not currently available.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is not how math is taught in America, but by whom. At most k-12 levels, it is necessary to have a degree in teaching, rather than an understanding of the subject. And how do you get a degree in teaching? Generally by flunking out of every other curriculum that requires you to learn something. I know this does not apply to every teacher, there are some good ones out there, but the system is rigged to reward the incompetents, so it's full of them.
I see several per week, as I watch license plates. Funny that I have NEVER seen one pulled over by a police officer, but Colorado is a 'catch and release' state for illegals, so that might have something to do with it.
The new paradigm in science is 1: Publish your thesis. 2: Never do the tests at all. 3: Deny any wrongdoing. 4: Profit (achieve tenure, et cetera.)
Have you seen such things on actual journalist's sites, or only on CNN? For that matter, are there any actual journalists left? It seems most so called journalists can't even read or write English any more.
And what delivery mechanism do you propose we have ready for those devices? Its not like we have superorbital spacecraft just lying around.
No, it's like mounting a windmill on a TETHERED blimp. The tethers (or anchor lines) may have to be stronger, but it will produce power as long as they hold.
There is no 30k loss! That's the RETAIL price, which includes the import duty (which they haven't paid) and their profit. Their total loss is probably in the 10k range, and they've been selling these for a while, they're on SparkFun's website, and there are reviews as well. This sounds like an intentional knock-off, and it may have taken Fluke a while to notice it and file a complaint, but they should. The SparkFun version looks like a dangerous piece of junk in their pictures.
Actually, this is a relatively small amount of radiation, a Curie is 3.7 * 10^10 becquerels, or roughly 40 billion becquerels, roughly 1/1000 of this leak. If this were a point source, and you were 1 meter away, your dose would be 1000 rem per hour, which would reach a 50% probability of being lethal (300 rem) in roughly 20 minutes. Since it is a disseminated source, and there's no one anywhere close to that near it, I'd say this is pretty much overblown hype. I used to work in the radiation measurement industry, and the preceding is pretty much quick and dirty shortcuts (ignoring quality factors and the conversion to rads, for instance,) but it's close enough for government work.
I'd prefer "Prikazyvat" to "Computer.
Look at the privacy aspects (and call a lawyer, fast!)
1: A cleaning person observes something in a hotel room (it's set up to demo equipment) and informs the hotel management. Note that this is behavior which happens all the time in Vegas, and is not objectionable.
2: The hotel management reports this (the contents of my hotel room) to a third party (CEA) who then convinces the hotel to act on this information.
Here's where I need a lawyer. I don't know what specific laws they violated, but I feel violated, and I'm going to sue that hotel until I own it.
As an example, assume that a person was having an affair, and the hotel reported the name of the mistress to the wife, leading to a divorce. I'm pretty sure that hotel could be sued successfully for the breach of privacy.
Where I live in Colorado, when you apply for a permit to hold a yard or garage sale, you also get a temporary sales tax license at the same time. I'm not sure if this is state-wide or only in my city, but there it is.
I call BS on your BS: Firstly, you say there are "plenty" of conservative-leaning newspapers, then go to list all (both) of them. That's not plenty in my book.
Secondly, there have been many studies, even some by the more liberal papers, that show a liberal bias in MUCH more than 5% of "news" reporting. Often the slant is simply by omitting a story that would reflect well on conservatives or conservative positions.
Alas, the journalists come by it honestly, if you have a conservative bias (or even show no bias at all) in journalism school, you will be at least ostracized, and likely flunked out. The liberals (by which I mean well left of center) control our institutes of higher education, and journalism schools are certainly no exception.
"... understood the basic mechanics of the Earth."
?
The whole point of this article is that we don't yet understand the basic mechanics of the Earth.
Wouldn't that mean that they are charging for legal advice, and can then be prosecuted for practicing law (in every state) without being a member of the Bar?
Hopefully, there's a better company than MBNA for this. I once cancelled a MBNA credit card for the credit card company doing a similar thing. They thought I needed to upgrade my card from a free card to a "gold" card which carried an annual fee of $50.00. SInce I had no intention of paying an annual fee, I repeatedly told them no, and asked them to stop calling me. Finally, after the third call in a single week AFTER asking them to stop calling me, I carried through on my threat, and cancelled the card. I will never do business with that company again.
For that matter, take a picture of the street sign. It would be much easier to get the computer to read the sign than to recognise every building in a city.
But the only choices should be "Interesting" and "Troll." If each vote added or subtracted a very small amount from the page rank, and steps were taken to prevent stuffing the ballot box, I think this would actually improve the search results for the users.
What we need to do is pass a new law that says it is illegal to buy a product from an email solicitation unless the buyer can demonstrate that they opted in to the mailing list. In addition, require all email solicitations to quote this law, and mention the $500.00 fine associated with buying via spam.
Then we have the government send out some phoney spam which we know nobody opted in for, and voila! a bunch of $500.00 fines. When every internet user knows someone who has been hit by this fine, most of them will stop replying to spam, making it unprofitable for the spammers and the problem will go away.
Why didn't the article mention names of the customers? It seems to me that if we can't discourage the spammers, we should discourage the customers, and embarrasing the h--- out of them seems a good start.
If the story gets around that so-and-so had his name published as a result of buying from a spammer, maybe people will think twice about buying, and we'll make spam less profitable (or hopefully kill it altogether.)
You are all missing the best solution: We need a bill which requires that all opt-ins be in writing and either notarized, or kept with the original postmarked envelope. This would shift the burden of proof for opt-ins squarely to the spammer, and I doubt they'd bother to try to mail themselves opt-ins from thousands of different cities (the advantage of postmarks.)
This does make it difficult to subscribe to email we want, but much of that could be better handled as web pages anyway, where the user has to consciously go to a site to get the information.
This still leaves the possibility of out-of-country spammers not subject to U.S. law, but if the majority of opinions on this subject are correct, most spam originates in America anyway, and as soon as we can prove the origin, a spammer can be put out of business.
The real point is that they are charging the punter $2.56 american (1.60 Pounds, I just looked it up) for just hailing the cab!
Then you can look forward to at least another pound for engaging the taxi, and then you can finally start paying by the mile.
I'll wave my arms, it's free.
But drawing the line there is patently dangerous.
To wit: Uy published the business address of a company from public sources. You are suggesting that he should take down this address since it turns out to also be the spammer's home address.
This is a dangerous precedent. Will we allow more protection for home businesses than for normal business-address businesses?
I vote no!
You missed the whole message of Fallen Angels.
What Niven (IMHO) was trying to say is that there is at least as much evidence for global cooling as for global warming, and that the 'Greens' are going off half-cocked as usual.
It's also a cautionary tale about letting the junk scientists rule the world, a rather disturbing trend that is continuing even now.
Call if sarcasm, parody, or just tongue in cheek, there was nothing wrong with the science in Fallen Angels. We just won't know which side was right for a few (perhaps hundreds of) years yet.
IMHO, the moderation system works pretty well, all things considered. Perhaps we need to add a new moderation category: Bad grammar or spelling (-2.) OTOH, looking back at the above two sentences, I found 2 errors myself. Maybe we should just encourage people to proofread their own stuff before submitting it.
- It is legal to prevent an auhor form getting revenue as long as no copies are made (by lending or reselling a book)
In this case, the "rights" to the physical copy have transferred from one person to another in the act of lending. Until the borrower returns the book, it is not merely illegal but impossible for the owner of the copy to read it.
- It is illegal to make copies even if it does not hurt the author revenues (out of print works).
But this does (or may) hurt the author's revenues. He and/or a publisher may merely be waiting for demand to increase, and will then print the work again. Out of print does not mean that is will never again be in print, just that it is not currently available.