For college and above there is plenty of improvements to make. The 3D-graph plotting functions that the graphing calculators have are just lacking.
Just enter any 2-variable formula into the google calculator, sin(x)/sqrt(x^2+y^2) for example.
This is what TI-89s are for. (My TI-86 might have done 3d graphs too; I don't remember.)
Either way, an 86 or 89 should be cheap too, these days! (Mine are sitting in a storage bin in my office, replaced by the "Graph 89 Free" Android app.)
Because the goal isn't how to teach kids how to pass a test, it is how to solve problems.
Letting the students write the expression instead of the result would accomplish that better, though -- at least on higher-grade exams, where it's assumed that the student has already learned how to do the computation. (Lower-grade exams designed to test the computation itself shouldn't allow calculators at all.)
I disagree that they are not outdated. Are you seriously going to argue that they couldn't have made any improvements to the interface, power, screen quality, cost, functionality, or performance in the last 20 years? They don't necessarily have to add more functions but there are plenty of improvements that could be made.
Interface and functionality? No, they couldn't improve that. Even if something else is theoretically "better" (like RPN), there's too much inertia behind the status quo. Screen quality? Maybe: color and/or LEDs would be inappropriate, but e-ink might be acceptable if it had the same resolution and refresh rate as the LCD it replaced (ideally, it should also support or emulate the "grayscale mode" accomplished by some TI-8X software by turning the pixels on and off really fast). Cost and performance? Yes, those could be improved -- I said as much in my post! But they don't count as making it outdated IMO.
The TI-8x calculators are not outdated; they do exactly what they need to do -- no more, no less. This is an important fact! If they did much more they wouldn't be allowed to be used; if they did much less they wouldn't be useful.
However, that's not an excuse for them continuing to cost $100+. There should have been an opportunity for some competitor (e.g. Casio or HP) to use 2014 technology to deliver the same capabilities with less manufacturing complexity and thus a cheaper price. Apparently, Casio is trying this, but they're not being aggressive enough: if Casio beat teachers and parents over the head with how cheap calculators should be by selling theirs for $25 or so, then IMO they'd be more successful.
IMO, a worthy "update" to a TI graphing calculator would not be more RAM or a faster CPU, it would be power envelope improvements so it could run on solar (like a 4-function calculator can) and a slimmer, lighter body. (Of course, these days I just use a TI-89 emulator on my Android cellphone instead, so I'm not the target market...)
Incidentally, the other thing I don't understand about this is why anybody picks a TI-84 when they could have a TI-86. TI-89s are prohibited for standardized tests (because they have a Computer Algebra System), but TI-86s aren't and are better than TI-84s in every other way as far as I can tell...
Ok, so you're saying "never launch the Facebook app" is the only responsible choice?
To be honest, that was the case long before this auto-playing video situation (and it goes equally for accessing Facebook via the website or any other means, too).
I encourage you to think carefully about what you care most about and sign up as a steady, long-term donor to a few causes that are really important to you... this is of far more long-term benefit than episodic giving.
And people subscribe to VOD services such as Netflix to view 90 minute toy ads such as The Wizard.
That's specious and you know it. Nobody has to watch The Wizard, the vast majority of Netflix's content doesn't have product placement, and Netflix can't do anything about it anyway (except maybe exclude the show entirely).
Shows on Netflix don't have added, separate ads, and that's the important thing.
Also, my wife thinks a grown man playing computer games is a little bit pathetic, and I can't really argue with her
If one takes care of their responsibilities appropriately and is prudent in their spending, it doesn't really matter if a grown man plays computer games or watch telly tubbies or whatever they like so long as it doesn't screw up other people's lives.
You're not married, are you?
I'm married, and I have no problems with my wife's opinion about pretty much any decision I make. If you can't do things you want because your wife won't approve then maybe that's the real problem.
Besides, as far as I can tell the only reason older generations didn't play computer games as adults is that they didn't grow up with them, so they never realized what they were missing. Computer games are no more childish than board games...
...All I did was slap in a $100 HD7750 to replace my aging HD4850 (which frankly still played the newer games just fine, it was just a heat monster) and everything plays great, with more bling than I can pay attention to in the heat of battle.
...I ran a log for a couple weeks on his home and office systems just to see how hard they were being slammed...the result? That Phenom I quad was maxing out at 35% and the Pentium Dual at work was maxing out at just 45%!
So there really isn't any reason to upgrade any longer, systems went from "good enough, but just barely" to "fire breathing funny cars that spend more time idling than working". This is also why I have no problem remaining an AMD exclusive shop, as it really doesn't matter if AMD releases on the smallest nm or even comes out with new chips as the ones they have is so overpowered it just isn't funny, and my customers just love how much power I can give them for very little $$$.
Yep. I actually am thinking about "upgrading" my 3-year-old Phenom II x4 840 / Radeon HD 4850 system... not because I need or want anything faster, but because I want the same speed, but quieter and lower-power (and maybe in a smaller box)!
It looks like the A10-7800 (Kaveri) would be an acceptably-equivalent replacement to my current setup, and at 45 watts it could almost be passively-cooled! I just wonder if I should pull the trigger on it (and a mini-ITX motherboard, and a new case) or if I should hold out for a 65-watt APU that can drive a 4k display...
(By the way, I also noticed that you appear to be following AMD hardware much more closely than I have -- is there any other option I should consider, either for the computer I mentioned above, or a minimum cost/power AMD setup for a transcoding/commercial-removing MythTV HTPC? I've been an AMD fan since the K6-2 -- I like rooting for the underdog -- but I keep hearing that low-end Intels are better for that sort of thing.)
Not to mention, the entire point of the AMD APUs (including the Jaguar-core ones the GP disparages) is that the GPU and CPU are the same damn chip, so they use the same damn memory. At this point, if it's slow then it's not even the fault of the hardware; it's the fault of the driver or API. If you're trying to get data from host to device using an APU and it's actually moving bits around, then you're doing it wrong.
Life is so hard there's zero chance you're getting out alive.
There have been 107 billion humans who ever lived, and about 7 billion of them are still alive. Therefore, the odds of death are actually only about 94%.
Mine didn't do that when it was running Windows 7... but then again I never updated the graphics driver either (unless Windows Update did it by itself).
Does Debian count as solid and robust? I installed it on my HTPC the other day, and (after installing the non-free Radeon firmware and then changing the sound output from speakers to HDMI in settings), the sound works for the non-root user I created during installation, but not for the other non-root user I created afterward.
I've used Linux (on and off) for a long time. I'm a sustaining member of both the EFF and FSF. I'm a really big fan of Free Software in general. But I still have to admit that my immediate thought was "WTF, Windows wouldn't screw up this kind of thing."
Um, they are doing all they can: making their own mobile platform out of their product. What else can they do? Any bright ideas?
They could fix the bloat, bugs and crashes instead of trying to add new features that nobody wants (except maybe Chrome users, but they'd just use Chrome anyway).
As a Firefox user since way back when it was called Phoenix, all I really want is Phoenix 0.5 with complete and optimized support for modern HTML/CSS/etc.
All of those places require that supplies like food get shipped in from less extreme environments. If you're not self-sustaining, then you're "visiting" there, not "living" there.
the kind of emulation bugs still getting reported are literally "on the Super Game Boy player for the SNES..."
What kind of lunatic plays his Game Boy games on an emulated adapter for a different console entirely instead of just using a Game Boy emulator?!
For more recent systems, yeah, I haven't found any truly good low-level emulators, but those are also not the ones you'd be breaking out the CRT display for.
I don't know about that; I think anything up to and including the PS2, GameCube/Wii and (for all I know) Xbox probably looks better on a CRT.
Most of what you said is so full of weasel words "essentially, close enough" that I think you realize how weak that line of argument is.
I thought about that as I was writing them, and I apologize. Let me clarify:
First, on the use of "essentially:"
My claim that science is the opposite of religion depends on the context, which I explained in my previous posts (and which I go into further detail about below). In some other context, perhaps atheism would be the opposite of religion (but not in this context -- when comparing to science as I'm doing, atheism is every bit as religious as Christianity).
These things are complicated concepts, and if you're going to make a claim that complicated concepts are opposites of each other then you have to clarify what aspect of them, or in what sense, they are opposite. I'd like to think I've done a decent job of that, but I included the word "essentially" to try to prevent the rebuttal that science and religion weren't opposite in some context other than the one to which I was referring.
Second, on the use of "close enough:"
If a law prohibits teaching the Scientific Method, then it establishes religion. Absolutely. No weasel words about it.
However, this law doesn't quite do that. Instead it "merely" removes the "focus" on the Scientific Method -- it uses weasel words itself to attempt to effectively prohibit teaching the Scientific Method without explicitly doing so; i.e., it's "close enough."
You said "the Scientific Method (P) is (essentially) the opposite of religion (Q): P". From my perspective, such an idea indicates a rather bizarre understanding of either science or religion. Let's look at each. [Followed by a list of bible quotes]
You seem to think that just because an idea happens to be written in the Bible, that that makes it a "religious idea." That is a fallacy. If an idea is similar to that of the Scientific Method, then it is scientific, even if it as a quote by Jesus.
I liked that quote about "false prophets," by the way -- I would expect it to surprise and upset creationists (or at least the less well-read ones, who haven't already incorporated it into their cognitive dissonance). If "Intelligent Design" were able to produce "fruits" (i.e., falsifiable hypotheses), then it would become legitimately scientific. But it doesn't, so it isn't.
The way I see and use religion is very, very similar to any science. Chemistry tries to figure out how atoms and molecules work, in order to build good molecules for important purposes. Biology tries to figure out how cells and organisms work, to do things like build replacement organs. Religion tries to figure how how relationships and lifestyles work, to build good relationships and fulfilling lives.
Those things aren't similar at all. The differences are the tools that are allowed to be used to evaluate and accomplish those goals, and indeed what kinds of goals are valid.
Science is concerned with understanding how and why things do work (using rigorous logical and mathematical models). In contrast, your statement about what religion tries to do is all about making rules to enforce how things should work. Science is strictly objective and descriptive; religion is inherently subjective and prescriptive.
If you're a chemist, for example, and you decide to disregard the results of your experiment because they aren't "good," then you are no longer practicing proper science.
Incidentally, it's possible for an idea to become more or less scientific over time. Who knows; maybe some Babylonian sociologist did a comprehensive, well-researched study of adultery and that passage you quoted ("Wisdom will save you also from the adulterous woman...") was the conclusion of his scholarly journal. That would be scientific! (Well, sort of, anyway -- s
The Atlanta metro area is certainly different. I never went to school in rural Georgia, but I would never expect that that anecdote represented the norm even there.
Slashdot Mirror
I just checked out Tinfoil. It's still a way to access Facebook, therefore it still fails.
I think you must have missed my point: using Facebook at all is irresponsible.
This is what TI-89s are for. (My TI-86 might have done 3d graphs too; I don't remember.)
Either way, an 86 or 89 should be cheap too, these days! (Mine are sitting in a storage bin in my office, replaced by the "Graph 89 Free" Android app.)
Letting the students write the expression instead of the result would accomplish that better, though -- at least on higher-grade exams, where it's assumed that the student has already learned how to do the computation. (Lower-grade exams designed to test the computation itself shouldn't allow calculators at all.)
I wonder if the TI-84 is enough of a standard that an argument could be made that copying is necessary for the sake of interoperability?
Interface and functionality? No, they couldn't improve that. Even if something else is theoretically "better" (like RPN), there's too much inertia behind the status quo. Screen quality? Maybe: color and/or LEDs would be inappropriate, but e-ink might be acceptable if it had the same resolution and refresh rate as the LCD it replaced (ideally, it should also support or emulate the "grayscale mode" accomplished by some TI-8X software by turning the pixels on and off really fast). Cost and performance? Yes, those could be improved -- I said as much in my post! But they don't count as making it outdated IMO.
The TI-8x calculators are not outdated; they do exactly what they need to do -- no more, no less. This is an important fact! If they did much more they wouldn't be allowed to be used; if they did much less they wouldn't be useful.
However, that's not an excuse for them continuing to cost $100+. There should have been an opportunity for some competitor (e.g. Casio or HP) to use 2014 technology to deliver the same capabilities with less manufacturing complexity and thus a cheaper price. Apparently, Casio is trying this, but they're not being aggressive enough: if Casio beat teachers and parents over the head with how cheap calculators should be by selling theirs for $25 or so, then IMO they'd be more successful.
IMO, a worthy "update" to a TI graphing calculator would not be more RAM or a faster CPU, it would be power envelope improvements so it could run on solar (like a 4-function calculator can) and a slimmer, lighter body. (Of course, these days I just use a TI-89 emulator on my Android cellphone instead, so I'm not the target market...)
Incidentally, the other thing I don't understand about this is why anybody picks a TI-84 when they could have a TI-86. TI-89s are prohibited for standardized tests (because they have a Computer Algebra System), but TI-86s aren't and are better than TI-84s in every other way as far as I can tell...
To be honest, that was the case long before this auto-playing video situation (and it goes equally for accessing Facebook via the website or any other means, too).
I recommend the Free Software Foundation.
That's specious and you know it. Nobody has to watch The Wizard, the vast majority of Netflix's content doesn't have product placement, and Netflix can't do anything about it anyway (except maybe exclude the show entirely).
Shows on Netflix don't have added, separate ads, and that's the important thing.
Maybe what we need is a distributed (and Free) replacement server browser.
Name one that hasn't been repealed.
I'm married, and I have no problems with my wife's opinion about pretty much any decision I make. If you can't do things you want because your wife won't approve then maybe that's the real problem.
Besides, as far as I can tell the only reason older generations didn't play computer games as adults is that they didn't grow up with them, so they never realized what they were missing. Computer games are no more childish than board games...
Yep. I actually am thinking about "upgrading" my 3-year-old Phenom II x4 840 / Radeon HD 4850 system... not because I need or want anything faster, but because I want the same speed, but quieter and lower-power (and maybe in a smaller box)!
It looks like the A10-7800 (Kaveri) would be an acceptably-equivalent replacement to my current setup, and at 45 watts it could almost be passively-cooled! I just wonder if I should pull the trigger on it (and a mini-ITX motherboard, and a new case) or if I should hold out for a 65-watt APU that can drive a 4k display...
(By the way, I also noticed that you appear to be following AMD hardware much more closely than I have -- is there any other option I should consider, either for the computer I mentioned above, or a minimum cost/power AMD setup for a transcoding/commercial-removing MythTV HTPC? I've been an AMD fan since the K6-2 -- I like rooting for the underdog -- but I keep hearing that low-end Intels are better for that sort of thing.)
Not to mention, the entire point of the AMD APUs (including the Jaguar-core ones the GP disparages) is that the GPU and CPU are the same damn chip, so they use the same damn memory. At this point, if it's slow then it's not even the fault of the hardware; it's the fault of the driver or API. If you're trying to get data from host to device using an APU and it's actually moving bits around, then you're doing it wrong.
Cyclists might, since he was run down while cycling.
There have been 107 billion humans who ever lived, and about 7 billion of them are still alive. Therefore, the odds of death are actually only about 94%.
; )
Mine didn't do that when it was running Windows 7... but then again I never updated the graphics driver either (unless Windows Update did it by itself).
Does Debian count as solid and robust? I installed it on my HTPC the other day, and (after installing the non-free Radeon firmware and then changing the sound output from speakers to HDMI in settings), the sound works for the non-root user I created during installation, but not for the other non-root user I created afterward.
I've used Linux (on and off) for a long time. I'm a sustaining member of both the EFF and FSF. I'm a really big fan of Free Software in general. But I still have to admit that my immediate thought was "WTF, Windows wouldn't screw up this kind of thing."
slimshady76 thought it was relevant to compare to Italy or France; I was merely refuting his argument. Complain about it to him.
"The Netherlands" is a country and it's correct to include the "The" (when naming it in English, at least).
They could fix the bloat, bugs and crashes instead of trying to add new features that nobody wants (except maybe Chrome users, but they'd just use Chrome anyway).
As a Firefox user since way back when it was called Phoenix, all I really want is Phoenix 0.5 with complete and optimized support for modern HTML/CSS/etc.
All of those places require that supplies like food get shipped in from less extreme environments. If you're not self-sustaining, then you're "visiting" there, not "living" there.
What kind of lunatic plays his Game Boy games on an emulated adapter for a different console entirely instead of just using a Game Boy emulator?!
I don't know about that; I think anything up to and including the PS2, GameCube/Wii and (for all I know) Xbox probably looks better on a CRT.
I thought about that as I was writing them, and I apologize. Let me clarify:
First, on the use of "essentially:"
My claim that science is the opposite of religion depends on the context, which I explained in my previous posts (and which I go into further detail about below). In some other context, perhaps atheism would be the opposite of religion (but not in this context -- when comparing to science as I'm doing, atheism is every bit as religious as Christianity).
These things are complicated concepts, and if you're going to make a claim that complicated concepts are opposites of each other then you have to clarify what aspect of them, or in what sense, they are opposite. I'd like to think I've done a decent job of that, but I included the word "essentially" to try to prevent the rebuttal that science and religion weren't opposite in some context other than the one to which I was referring.
Second, on the use of "close enough:"
If a law prohibits teaching the Scientific Method, then it establishes religion. Absolutely. No weasel words about it.
However, this law doesn't quite do that. Instead it "merely" removes the "focus" on the Scientific Method -- it uses weasel words itself to attempt to effectively prohibit teaching the Scientific Method without explicitly doing so; i.e., it's "close enough."
You seem to think that just because an idea happens to be written in the Bible, that that makes it a "religious idea." That is a fallacy. If an idea is similar to that of the Scientific Method, then it is scientific, even if it as a quote by Jesus.
I liked that quote about "false prophets," by the way -- I would expect it to surprise and upset creationists (or at least the less well-read ones, who haven't already incorporated it into their cognitive dissonance). If "Intelligent Design" were able to produce "fruits" (i.e., falsifiable hypotheses), then it would become legitimately scientific. But it doesn't, so it isn't.
Those things aren't similar at all. The differences are the tools that are allowed to be used to evaluate and accomplish those goals, and indeed what kinds of goals are valid.
Science is concerned with understanding how and why things do work (using rigorous logical and mathematical models). In contrast, your statement about what religion tries to do is all about making rules to enforce how things should work. Science is strictly objective and descriptive; religion is inherently subjective and prescriptive.
If you're a chemist, for example, and you decide to disregard the results of your experiment because they aren't "good," then you are no longer practicing proper science.
Incidentally, it's possible for an idea to become more or less scientific over time. Who knows; maybe some Babylonian sociologist did a comprehensive, well-researched study of adultery and that passage you quoted ("Wisdom will save you also from the adulterous woman...") was the conclusion of his scholarly journal. That would be scientific! (Well, sort of, anyway -- s
The Atlanta metro area is certainly different. I never went to school in rural Georgia, but I would never expect that that anecdote represented the norm even there.