There are any number of ways to learn math; most of them involve exploring the relationships between numbers and the physical world. This means teaching someone how to think about things.
Math software does not teach anyone how to think; it is a tool for accomplishing a goal. First the student learns arithmetic, then algebra, geometry, trig, calculus, and so on. Once the concepts are understood, the foundation is sound, and the student *knows* math, then, and only then, does math software become useful. It becomes a shortcut, a means to an end. It is a tool used to solve a problem. You have to know how to use the tool to get to the answer.
You can train someone to input numbers into some piece of software and watch other numbers get spit out, but that person won't *understand* what they are doing.
If the person already understands the math, and is looking for a tool to accomplish some problem solving, then the programs mentioned in this topic become useful.
As far as using software to learn math, I don't think any piece of software, open source or otherwise, can currently take the place of a good math teacher. And by that I don't mean someone who drills you in math problems, but someone who can help you discover for yourself the power and elegance of mathematics.
I don't see anything wrong with showing people what is going on around the world. Grainy images on a small little TV tend to make it less real for most people. Look back a few years; people had seen images of war, but that did not prepare them for the media's coverage of Vietnam. Now people are somewhat desensitized to violence on television; seeing the detail that has been missing may help people realize just how violent war really is.
Actually took closer to 9 years to build... about 8 is the average for a nuke carrier.
Think about this: the Navy spends nearly $4 billion per year to maintain and operate the carriers each year.
The point of a carrier is not necessarily firepower. There's a reason they call it "100,000 tons of diplomacy." True, the Air Force can bomb anywhere in the world with their long-range bombers, but the fear of a plane that could fly over is a lot less than fear of a big ship parked off your coast.
I can't believe there is even an argument over whether a new carrier is needed to replace the aging carriers. The USS Constellation is in really terrible shape, USS Kitty Hawk is almost as bad, USS John F Kennedy is worse, and even USS Enterprise, which was the first nuc carrier, is in really bad shape. I should know, I spend all day on one.
What the Navy is trying to do with their new, automated systems is reduce the manning required. It costs well over half a billion dollars each year to maintain and operate a nuclear carrier. If they can automate systems, they will reduce the manning required to operate those systems, and their preventive maintenance through use of these systems (ICAN) will save A LOT of money.
If it works. The server architecture is archaic, and runs Win2k. I can attest that other ships have had serious problems with the servers running these systems. And still do. They run Windows because the private companies providing a lot of these systems employ software that only runs on Windows. Its not a very good solution, but now that the Navy has started down a path, they are committed.
Maybe the CVN-21 will have a chance...
Actually, the server software is Win2k. Third-party database software (can't say which) does most of the work, though.
The Navy's SmartShip program is behind this (try a Google search); the reason everything else is so old is simple. The Navy is very, very slow to adopt technology. Even on a ship as new as the Reagan, there are components with designs nearly 100 years old. Its just how they think. If the technology isn't proven, and then aged a bit, the Navy simply won't adopt it.
Actually, the first time the Navy named a ship after someone while still alive was USS Carl Vinson, named after the statesman. That ship was the third Nimitz-class ship, commissioned in the early eighties.
Slashdot Mirror
There are any number of ways to learn math; most of them involve exploring the relationships between numbers and the physical world. This means teaching someone how to think about things. Math software does not teach anyone how to think; it is a tool for accomplishing a goal. First the student learns arithmetic, then algebra, geometry, trig, calculus, and so on. Once the concepts are understood, the foundation is sound, and the student *knows* math, then, and only then, does math software become useful. It becomes a shortcut, a means to an end. It is a tool used to solve a problem. You have to know how to use the tool to get to the answer. You can train someone to input numbers into some piece of software and watch other numbers get spit out, but that person won't *understand* what they are doing. If the person already understands the math, and is looking for a tool to accomplish some problem solving, then the programs mentioned in this topic become useful. As far as using software to learn math, I don't think any piece of software, open source or otherwise, can currently take the place of a good math teacher. And by that I don't mean someone who drills you in math problems, but someone who can help you discover for yourself the power and elegance of mathematics.
I don't see anything wrong with showing people what is going on around the world. Grainy images on a small little TV tend to make it less real for most people. Look back a few years; people had seen images of war, but that did not prepare them for the media's coverage of Vietnam. Now people are somewhat desensitized to violence on television; seeing the detail that has been missing may help people realize just how violent war really is.
Actually took closer to 9 years to build... about 8 is the average for a nuke carrier. Think about this: the Navy spends nearly $4 billion per year to maintain and operate the carriers each year.
The point of a carrier is not necessarily firepower. There's a reason they call it "100,000 tons of diplomacy." True, the Air Force can bomb anywhere in the world with their long-range bombers, but the fear of a plane that could fly over is a lot less than fear of a big ship parked off your coast. I can't believe there is even an argument over whether a new carrier is needed to replace the aging carriers. The USS Constellation is in really terrible shape, USS Kitty Hawk is almost as bad, USS John F Kennedy is worse, and even USS Enterprise, which was the first nuc carrier, is in really bad shape. I should know, I spend all day on one. What the Navy is trying to do with their new, automated systems is reduce the manning required. It costs well over half a billion dollars each year to maintain and operate a nuclear carrier. If they can automate systems, they will reduce the manning required to operate those systems, and their preventive maintenance through use of these systems (ICAN) will save A LOT of money. If it works. The server architecture is archaic, and runs Win2k. I can attest that other ships have had serious problems with the servers running these systems. And still do. They run Windows because the private companies providing a lot of these systems employ software that only runs on Windows. Its not a very good solution, but now that the Navy has started down a path, they are committed. Maybe the CVN-21 will have a chance...
Actually, the server software is Win2k. Third-party database software (can't say which) does most of the work, though. The Navy's SmartShip program is behind this (try a Google search); the reason everything else is so old is simple. The Navy is very, very slow to adopt technology. Even on a ship as new as the Reagan, there are components with designs nearly 100 years old. Its just how they think. If the technology isn't proven, and then aged a bit, the Navy simply won't adopt it.
Actually, the first time the Navy named a ship after someone while still alive was USS Carl Vinson, named after the statesman. That ship was the third Nimitz-class ship, commissioned in the early eighties.