I think the point is that nature will only take about 20,000 years to even things out, which is only 2e5/1.5e9 ~.01% of the years the planet will have before its atmosphere is stripped.
You're also forgetting that man himself only needed ~50,000 years to mature from animals to advanced civilization...who's to say that nature won't create another creature who will be as advanced as we were in the time the Earth has left?
I think the difference is time: It takes a while for a group of people to reach a good consensus on an issue. The question is: How much time is required before the group consensus is better than the individual ideas? Perhaps if a group just hacked at an idea for a longer period of time, they would produce more positive results.
True to an extent, but organizing your brain so that you can call up the knowledge necessary to solve a particular problem is something that is very difficult for some people. This is mostly a problem on math tests, where not only do you need to know what to do, you need to be able to follow the steps quickly enough to complete the test on time. It's just something that some people are not naturally very good at.
What I think this fails to take into account is both the severity and frequency of cheating. Someone looks over the shoulder of a fellow student on a multiple-choice test and directly copies their answers. Definitely cheating. Now, someone includes a line from another person's paper, and forgets to cite it. Cheating as well, but definitely not the same level of cheating. This second form can be accidental, if someone just forgets to add the proper citation.
Also, the study fails to determine how often people are cheating. Does this mean that 56% of business students have cheated ONCE in grad school? Or that 56% are consistent cheaters?
Question for you: These Type 1a Supernova are used as one step on the distance ladder, correct? So if we no longer believe they all have the same brightness, that means the distance we have on record for many objects is now wrong?
I'm pissed that there's so much animosity towards people who choose to spend most of their studying. I admit, I know some self-hating schoolaholics (those who study all day just because they can't think of anything better to do). However, a lot of the people who "waste their lives" studying most of the day end up being people who submit dozens of patents every year, publish influential papers, and greatly expand the sphere of human knowledge and understanding.
I don't think it's fair to say "it's not worth it," because to a lot of people, contributing something meaningful to society is far more important than self-gratification. Just because 95% of the people going to college think it is for their personal benefit does not mean the remaining 5% should share the same view.
And hey, for the most part, I'm in your boat. I waste a lot of time playing video games, watching TV, and hanging out with friends. But I greatly admire those who choose to sacrifice all of that to come up with all of the innovations that allow us to live such a life of leisure. Those people deserve our respect, not our pity.
...that *everyone* entering college should be taking AP classes. That way, you wouldn't have remedial courses that students would just opt out of, and you can jump right into the nasty stuff. Beginning college English and Math should be for a small minority who don't pass the proper AP classes. Since high schools seem to be doing a lot of what colleges used to do, doesn't it make sense that colleges should start at a higher level? Wouldn't it be nice to accelerate learning a bit?
If I want instant access to information, the web is my only choice.
If I want to talk to someone, I can use this fancy technology that I like to call a "phone."
The only people who I could see picking e-mail over the web are those who are either deaf or mute, or are so socially inept that they can't talk to people over the phone.
No kidding! Just imagine the kind of dough they'd have to burn just to construct the ringworld...not to mention the energy requirements to keep it gravitationally stable...everyone would have to see the movie 1e12 times just to make it economically viable!
Slashdot Mirror
H1 = T_h * e^-re; 1 = R_e / (SPE)^c * t * f(u) + l^2 / y; |d|i s_a / g^2 * (r_e)^e; I(h, a) = v ~ e; e^x * c_e * l^2 / (e^n * t) + s^(-oci) / a^l + |s_k|i * l^2 / s!
I think the point is that nature will only take about 20,000 years to even things out, which is only 2e5/1.5e9 ~ .01% of the years the planet will have before its atmosphere is stripped.
You're also forgetting that man himself only needed ~50,000 years to mature from animals to advanced civilization...who's to say that nature won't create another creature who will be as advanced as we were in the time the Earth has left?
Everything was going great at the Sun's news conference, until he had a bout of indigestion and scorched the attendees with a solar flare...
...does Apple release their 5TB iPod to help make my porn collection mobile? Or am I going to have to carry around a backpack full of them?
This is even better than performing an operation on them to prevent them from reproducing! I think we should spade all lawyers immediately.
I think the difference is time: It takes a while for a group of people to reach a good consensus on an issue. The question is: How much time is required before the group consensus is better than the individual ideas? Perhaps if a group just hacked at an idea for a longer period of time, they would produce more positive results.
I already make plenty of that myself, thanks.
How are they going to build a tube that high?
1. Duke Nukem Forever
2. Daikatana
3. Superman 64
4. ET
5. Extreme Paintbrawl
Whenever I'm feeling down, I can say: "At least I don't develop video games for a living!"
True to an extent, but organizing your brain so that you can call up the knowledge necessary to solve a particular problem is something that is very difficult for some people. This is mostly a problem on math tests, where not only do you need to know what to do, you need to be able to follow the steps quickly enough to complete the test on time. It's just something that some people are not naturally very good at.
...it will hopefully free lots of people who have been falsely accused of crimes they didn't commit.
I don't want to see "The Butterfly Effect" either.
Well, I think it antimatters...
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week!
I think I've heard this joke 640 times, and that's definitely enough for me...
That's the sound of 5 million geeks ejaculating simultaneously...
...well, at least for websites: Spreading the fricken article over several pages, e.g., this article...
56% of business students are cheaters! OMG!!1!
What I think this fails to take into account is both the severity and frequency of cheating. Someone looks over the shoulder of a fellow student on a multiple-choice test and directly copies their answers. Definitely cheating. Now, someone includes a line from another person's paper, and forgets to cite it. Cheating as well, but definitely not the same level of cheating. This second form can be accidental, if someone just forgets to add the proper citation.
Also, the study fails to determine how often people are cheating. Does this mean that 56% of business students have cheated ONCE in grad school? Or that 56% are consistent cheaters?
Question for you: These Type 1a Supernova are used as one step on the distance ladder, correct? So if we no longer believe they all have the same brightness, that means the distance we have on record for many objects is now wrong?
I'm pissed that there's so much animosity towards people who choose to spend most of their studying. I admit, I know some self-hating schoolaholics (those who study all day just because they can't think of anything better to do). However, a lot of the people who "waste their lives" studying most of the day end up being people who submit dozens of patents every year, publish influential papers, and greatly expand the sphere of human knowledge and understanding.
I don't think it's fair to say "it's not worth it," because to a lot of people, contributing something meaningful to society is far more important than self-gratification. Just because 95% of the people going to college think it is for their personal benefit does not mean the remaining 5% should share the same view.
And hey, for the most part, I'm in your boat. I waste a lot of time playing video games, watching TV, and hanging out with friends. But I greatly admire those who choose to sacrifice all of that to come up with all of the innovations that allow us to live such a life of leisure. Those people deserve our respect, not our pity.
...that *everyone* entering college should be taking AP classes. That way, you wouldn't have remedial courses that students would just opt out of, and you can jump right into the nasty stuff. Beginning college English and Math should be for a small minority who don't pass the proper AP classes. Since high schools seem to be doing a lot of what colleges used to do, doesn't it make sense that colleges should start at a higher level? Wouldn't it be nice to accelerate learning a bit?
I hope so...I can't wait for Tupac's new album in 2080!
If I want instant access to information, the web is my only choice.
If I want to talk to someone, I can use this fancy technology that I like to call a "phone."
The only people who I could see picking e-mail over the web are those who are either deaf or mute, or are so socially inept that they can't talk to people over the phone.
No kidding! Just imagine the kind of dough they'd have to burn just to construct the ringworld...not to mention the energy requirements to keep it gravitationally stable...everyone would have to see the movie 1e12 times just to make it economically viable!
I'm lowly member with a normal account, and I've been able to view the new comment system for like 2 months. Just a minor clarification...