On the other hand, an educated guess has a higher EV than an uneducated guess, so a more knowledgable test-taker does better for that reason too. Suppose the question is as follows:
Which of the following federal acts was part of the last to attempt to regulate the issue of slavery to the satisfaction of both the North and the South?
(a) The Wilmot Proviso (b) The Missouri Compromise (c) The Fugitive Slave Act (d) The Hawley-Smoot Tariff
I can cut down the odds to 1/3 if I remember that the Hawley-Smoot Tariff was a Depression-era effort that had nothing to do with slavery. I can cut the odds down further if I remember that the Fugitive Slave Act was passed 30 years after the Missouri Compromise happened, or that the Wilmot Proviso was a unilateral push.
"In the most difficult rest" is perfectly conventional grammar, if a little archaic.
It's also very awkward, rarely-used with the word "rest' in that sense, and, because we are unaccustomed to seeing the word "rest" abused like that, our brains are prone to substitute a couple missing pixels and read it as "the most difficult test", which is a whole other continent of confusion. As for "the best writing breaks the rules"--someone's writing a post on Slashdot relating a personal experience, not creating some innovative work of literature. You clearly didn't try to be Dickens when you wrote that comment, and wisely so.
I applied for a job as an English language teacher
Um...
... and a lady interviewing me said that it is company's policy to test every applicant...
Should be either "company policy" or "the company's policy", but never "company's policy"--that construction only works for proper nouns, not common nouns.
So i was given the test quickly done the 2/3 of it and then discovered that in the most difficult rest all the answers were wrong.
Should be: "So I was given the test,, quickly did 2/3 of it, and then discovered that in the remainder of the test, which was more difficult, all of the answers were wrong." You missed a few commas. Also, "in the most difficult rest" is awkward and confusing.
I noticed that some of the answers were SLIGHTLY INCORRECT, so after correcting them i marked them accordingly I have passed pack the test paper.
You missed another capitalized "I", and I have no idea what "I have passed pack the test paper" even means. If you're teaching the English language, I fear tomorrow.
But that's more of something to select for when you get down to specialties--don't put someone in the OR or ER who can't think on their feet, don't put someone in the courtroom who can't do the same. That's years past the LSAT or MCAT, days or months past the bar exam, and I don't know if doctors have to take a test to graduate medical school. Lots of doctors and lawyers can be as deliberative as they want.
Is there any use of posting this article, kdawson? You already know the exact discussion that's going to happen. It's the same discussion that happens twice a day every other time we discuss piracy.
Unless you're in the hellish, Seattle-esque traffic jam type city where you have to spend 30 minutes going back and forth between first and second to go 5 miles, I don't buy it. City driving is the very situation where the ability to efficiently change gears is important--on the highway, you stay in top gear indefinitely. "Highly unlikely to drive with the discipline to achieve better mileage"? If you're undisciplined about your driving, please don't. It's not hard to learn your optimal RPM and keep an eye on the tach until you can recognize the sound and feel of the right RPM.
That reminds me of my EE final--at the end, we had the option to guess our final score. There was a mathematical formula applied to the absolute value of the difference of the estimated final score and the actual final score. If you were close enough, you'd gain points. If you weren't close enough, you'd lose points. Of course, you could always elect not to do it.
Incorrect. People survive side impacts and head on collisions all the time.
At low speeds. Your odds are marginally smaller in a smaller car, but also, your odds of avoiding an accident are higher because you have greater swerve ability.
You're assuming, of course, that the SUV is also moving at a velocity so that it meets the small car between head-on and perpendicular--and that situation is instant death no matter what's being driven. A rear-end (or even side) collision doesn't translate nearly as much kinetic energy into destruction as a head-on collision. If both cars are moving and one rear-ends the other, for instance, little of that energy becomes destructive, since most of it remains in the motion of the two bodies. Side collisions are somewhere in between, although much of the motion can turn into skid or rolling in that instance.
Didn't see that one, but when you're smashing into a wall you only have to consider the mass of the vehicle you're riding in, not say the mass of an SUV that's 2-3 times heavier.
But you DO have to consider the mass of the wall which is 10-20 times heavier.
You should keep in mind two things. First, a manual transmission is more fuel-efficient and a pleasure to drive. The only rational reason not to get one is that you don't know how to drive a stick. Second, all auto prices are subject to negotiation--the MSRP is only the dealer's first offer, which is always higher than the offer they're willing to accept.
We know already that morality extends to intangible things. We generally view lying, infidelity, theft as immoral things. Most people would consider blowing up a church or a museum to be immoral, even if there were no people in it.
Yeah, because these things hurt people.
Apparently you, however, would only see this as immoral in that it deprives someone of property, rather than immoral in that it deprives the world of something precious and intangible.
Specifically, it deprives the human race--the only part of the world capable of holding very ideas of "precious" and "intangible". But for humanity, these ideas would not exist. Value itself would not exist.
I doubt you weep very much when "the world" is deprived of large quantities of hydrogen when our sun fuses them into helium every second of every day. Or when "the world" is deprived of carbon-14 due to radioactive decay. Things go away--but in reality, only get changed into different forms--constantly, and it is only the preference of an intelligent being--man--that distinguishes which forms are more valuable than others. Why, then, do you prefer forms that are of little to no benefit to man over forms that are of great, direct benefit to man?
Now I'm not a wacky vegan here to tell you that meat is murder, but the unnecessary destruction of an entire species is beyond the pale.
Straw man.
Life has value (if you don't think so, why are you still here?)
Of course life has value. My life, for instance, has value to me. Value is never intrinsic--the value is always to somebody. There is always a valuer. (If you want to believe that there is a personal god who values his creation, and that furthermore, you are personally capable of determining what parts of creation God values in particular, you should let the rest of us know what a great mystic and servant of the divine you are instead of being cryptic about it.) As a person, I'm valuable to other people, but the reason I am a moral agent and a being deserving of moral consideration lies, not in that I have value, but in that I live in a society of interacting persons.
A whale cannot conceive of itself this way. But do you disagree that the whale has value to the Inuit? Do you find your culture to be of no value? Or your livelihood? Or your food?
To destroy a thing of value for no better reason than because you can, not through a real need for survival...That's not moral.
You are the value-destroyer, not them--unless you are arrogant enough to think that your appreciation of a whale you have never seen or touched is more valuable to you than a tribe's dinner, livelihood, and culture is to them.
And nihilist? You called me a fucking nihilist? Do you even know what it means? The belief that beauty and truth and living things have an intrinsic moral value is nihilism? The belief that nothing has an intrinsic moral value....That would be nihilism.
The only reason we speak of things having "value" is to distinguish them from things that do not have value. For instance, you seem to think that a living whale in the wild has value, but the harvested remains of a whale used for fuel, food, and the preservation of a human culture have no value, or less value. By holding this opinion, you are debasing human existence--and human existence is the single most remarkable and incredible thing that has ever happened as far as you and I know. But you do not value the preservation of a human culture, the enrichment of human lives, and the feeding of human stomachs. Instead, you "value" seeing an unintelligent beast live a little longer simply to suffer and die of different causes, providing no use to any human need. The most charitable thing I could call you is "nihilist".
You have a very nihilistic view of morality, then. I always thought morality was about governing the interactions of people within a society, not about preserving complex things that just happen in nature. I think by "morality" you mean "aesthetics"--you personally find a world with more large mammals in it aesthetically pleasing. It makes no sense to say we have a duty towards the whales, however--they aren't people. And to compare that to mutilating the bodies of little children shows how little you value human life in comparison to other life.
I do mind when they're hunting endangered creatures. Really old, high-animal-intelligence creatures with complex language and societies of their own. That's where I draw the line.
Morality goes both ways. If the whale had the chance, he'd capsize our ships and eat us. You only owe him as much consideration as he's able or willing to give you. Besides, if it's an old whale, he's going to die eventually--better that he suddenly and be of some use, instead of slowly dying of old age like most whales.
My cultural heritage is getting in a long boat, sacking Abbeys and raping villagers - but I don't practice that, mostly because I get seasick. But if I did, would you mind if I skipped out on using the iron axe and just used a gun? And probably a life-preserver. And an outboard motor. I don't like rowing - gives me blisters.
If you're going to equate violence against human beings with hunting, I don't think you're someone who can be reasoned with.
If you claim that you need to do something because of "tradition" when you happily alter that tradition willy nilly in lots of other respects, THAT excuse really IS rendered sort of silly.
So I assume you put candles instead of electric lights on your Christmas tree?
If you want to reduce human impact on the natural environment as much as possible, then you should favor human extinction. If you honestly do favor human extinction, I encourage you to kill yourself. I'm not saying this as a troll, I'm just pointing out the logical consequence of that attitude. On the other hand, if you recognize that everything we do has consequences in the natural environment, it is useful to keep those consequences in mind--not with the intention of minimizing them, but with the intention of creating the best possible world for humans to live in. Global warming isn't a crisis because it's a change in the world, it's a crisis because it makes the world less habitable for humans.
Their particular heritage did not invent the explosive harpoon or the outboard motor. That's like saying that Native American culture involved hunting buffalo with a Henry Rifle. So that's where I'd draw the line - once you start using stuff other cultures invented, you're going for convenience, not heritage.
Man, I was going to Oktoberfest to celebrate my Bavarian heritage, but they had things like electric lights and roller coasters that weren't invented in Bavaria, or in Germany for that matter. Oktoberfest is such a crock.
And what's up with haiku? That can't be part of Japanese heritage, because haiku are often written in kanji, which are Chinese characters borrowed by the Japanese!
Then there's the time I celebrated Canada Day. It's amazing that Canada Day is celebrated using fireworks. Fireworks are a Chinese invention!
My point is that you seem to be espousing the idea that the indigenous cultures of North America are necessarily tied to ancient technology they invented themselves, and they shouldn't be allowed to use technology invented by other cultures as they continue living their own. Imagine the irony--a westerner, whose ancestors annihilated the Indians in the largest genocide in world history, turning around and telling Indians they need to pretend to be untouched by western culture if they want to preserve their own. Completely ignoring the fact that every culture changes by contact with other cultures. You say nothing to the white man who drives a Honda (automobiles were invented in Europe), watches Star Wars (derivative of Japanese film), and practices Christianity (a religion invented by Middle Eastern Semitic peoples, not your European ancestors).
Cultural relativism is stupid if you're talking about morals. Footbinding and genital mutiliation (male OR female) are immoral because they cause pointless suffering to people. But whales are not people. Whaling is not a moral issue, it is an ecological issue. There are consequences to whaling--science tells us what those consequences are, and we proceed to decide whether the preservation of a unique human cultural practice is worth the consequences.
If they didn't have to satisfy ignorant whites who care more about the protecting whales from suffering than protecting nearly-annihilated human cultures, they probably wouldn't use rifles.
Bullshit. Measuring error is universal--you will fundamentally never find a situation where 1 old kilogram = 1 new kilogram, because you can't measure something as "1 kilogram" full stop. That's the fundamental reason why this is such a big deal--if we could measure something as "1 kilogram" full stop, we could make hundreds of identical prototype kilograms using the one we have now. However, if the new kilogram is 1 kilogram, plus or minus 0.0000000001 kg, we can probably live with that for all practical purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, an educated guess has a higher EV than an uneducated guess, so a more knowledgable test-taker does better for that reason too. Suppose the question is as follows:
Which of the following federal acts was part of the last to attempt to regulate the issue of slavery to the satisfaction of both the North and the South?
(a) The Wilmot Proviso
(b) The Missouri Compromise
(c) The Fugitive Slave Act
(d) The Hawley-Smoot Tariff
I can cut down the odds to 1/3 if I remember that the Hawley-Smoot Tariff was a Depression-era effort that had nothing to do with slavery. I can cut the odds down further if I remember that the Fugitive Slave Act was passed 30 years after the Missouri Compromise happened, or that the Wilmot Proviso was a unilateral push.
It's also very awkward, rarely-used with the word "rest' in that sense, and, because we are unaccustomed to seeing the word "rest" abused like that, our brains are prone to substitute a couple missing pixels and read it as "the most difficult test", which is a whole other continent of confusion. As for "the best writing breaks the rules"--someone's writing a post on Slashdot relating a personal experience, not creating some innovative work of literature. You clearly didn't try to be Dickens when you wrote that comment, and wisely so.
Um...
Should be either "company policy" or "the company's policy", but never "company's policy"--that construction only works for proper nouns, not common nouns.
Should be: "So I was given the test,, quickly did 2/3 of it, and then discovered that in the remainder of the test, which was more difficult, all of the answers were wrong." You missed a few commas. Also, "in the most difficult rest" is awkward and confusing.
You missed another capitalized "I", and I have no idea what "I have passed pack the test paper" even means. If you're teaching the English language, I fear tomorrow.
But that's more of something to select for when you get down to specialties--don't put someone in the OR or ER who can't think on their feet, don't put someone in the courtroom who can't do the same. That's years past the LSAT or MCAT, days or months past the bar exam, and I don't know if doctors have to take a test to graduate medical school. Lots of doctors and lawyers can be as deliberative as they want.
You just described every relationship I've ever been in.
Is there any use of posting this article, kdawson? You already know the exact discussion that's going to happen. It's the same discussion that happens twice a day every other time we discuss piracy.
Unless you're in the hellish, Seattle-esque traffic jam type city where you have to spend 30 minutes going back and forth between first and second to go 5 miles, I don't buy it. City driving is the very situation where the ability to efficiently change gears is important--on the highway, you stay in top gear indefinitely. "Highly unlikely to drive with the discipline to achieve better mileage"? If you're undisciplined about your driving, please don't. It's not hard to learn your optimal RPM and keep an eye on the tach until you can recognize the sound and feel of the right RPM.
That reminds me of my EE final--at the end, we had the option to guess our final score. There was a mathematical formula applied to the absolute value of the difference of the estimated final score and the actual final score. If you were close enough, you'd gain points. If you weren't close enough, you'd lose points. Of course, you could always elect not to do it.
What the hell gave you that idea?
At low speeds. Your odds are marginally smaller in a smaller car, but also, your odds of avoiding an accident are higher because you have greater swerve ability.
You're assuming, of course, that the SUV is also moving at a velocity so that it meets the small car between head-on and perpendicular--and that situation is instant death no matter what's being driven. A rear-end (or even side) collision doesn't translate nearly as much kinetic energy into destruction as a head-on collision. If both cars are moving and one rear-ends the other, for instance, little of that energy becomes destructive, since most of it remains in the motion of the two bodies. Side collisions are somewhere in between, although much of the motion can turn into skid or rolling in that instance.
Safari supports the use of CSS for ad blocking, here is the stylesheet that I use.
But you DO have to consider the mass of the wall which is 10-20 times heavier.
You should keep in mind two things. First, a manual transmission is more fuel-efficient and a pleasure to drive. The only rational reason not to get one is that you don't know how to drive a stick. Second, all auto prices are subject to negotiation--the MSRP is only the dealer's first offer, which is always higher than the offer they're willing to accept.
Yeah, because these things hurt people.
Specifically, it deprives the human race--the only part of the world capable of holding very ideas of "precious" and "intangible". But for humanity, these ideas would not exist. Value itself would not exist.
I doubt you weep very much when "the world" is deprived of large quantities of hydrogen when our sun fuses them into helium every second of every day. Or when "the world" is deprived of carbon-14 due to radioactive decay. Things go away--but in reality, only get changed into different forms--constantly, and it is only the preference of an intelligent being--man--that distinguishes which forms are more valuable than others. Why, then, do you prefer forms that are of little to no benefit to man over forms that are of great, direct benefit to man?
Straw man.
Of course life has value. My life, for instance, has value to me. Value is never intrinsic--the value is always to somebody. There is always a valuer. (If you want to believe that there is a personal god who values his creation, and that furthermore, you are personally capable of determining what parts of creation God values in particular, you should let the rest of us know what a great mystic and servant of the divine you are instead of being cryptic about it.) As a person, I'm valuable to other people, but the reason I am a moral agent and a being deserving of moral consideration lies, not in that I have value, but in that I live in a society of interacting persons.
A whale cannot conceive of itself this way. But do you disagree that the whale has value to the Inuit? Do you find your culture to be of no value? Or your livelihood? Or your food?
You are the value-destroyer, not them--unless you are arrogant enough to think that your appreciation of a whale you have never seen or touched is more valuable to you than a tribe's dinner, livelihood, and culture is to them.
The only reason we speak of things having "value" is to distinguish them from things that do not have value. For instance, you seem to think that a living whale in the wild has value, but the harvested remains of a whale used for fuel, food, and the preservation of a human culture have no value, or less value. By holding this opinion, you are debasing human existence--and human existence is the single most remarkable and incredible thing that has ever happened as far as you and I know. But you do not value the preservation of a human culture, the enrichment of human lives, and the feeding of human stomachs. Instead, you "value" seeing an unintelligent beast live a little longer simply to suffer and die of different causes, providing no use to any human need. The most charitable thing I could call you is "nihilist".
You have a very nihilistic view of morality, then. I always thought morality was about governing the interactions of people within a society, not about preserving complex things that just happen in nature. I think by "morality" you mean "aesthetics"--you personally find a world with more large mammals in it aesthetically pleasing. It makes no sense to say we have a duty towards the whales, however--they aren't people. And to compare that to mutilating the bodies of little children shows how little you value human life in comparison to other life.
Morality goes both ways. If the whale had the chance, he'd capsize our ships and eat us. You only owe him as much consideration as he's able or willing to give you. Besides, if it's an old whale, he's going to die eventually--better that he suddenly and be of some use, instead of slowly dying of old age like most whales.
The only polls that matter start in January, fool.
If you're going to equate violence against human beings with hunting, I don't think you're someone who can be reasoned with.
So I assume you put candles instead of electric lights on your Christmas tree?
If you want to reduce human impact on the natural environment as much as possible, then you should favor human extinction. If you honestly do favor human extinction, I encourage you to kill yourself. I'm not saying this as a troll, I'm just pointing out the logical consequence of that attitude. On the other hand, if you recognize that everything we do has consequences in the natural environment, it is useful to keep those consequences in mind--not with the intention of minimizing them, but with the intention of creating the best possible world for humans to live in. Global warming isn't a crisis because it's a change in the world, it's a crisis because it makes the world less habitable for humans.
Man, I was going to Oktoberfest to celebrate my Bavarian heritage, but they had things like electric lights and roller coasters that weren't invented in Bavaria, or in Germany for that matter. Oktoberfest is such a crock.
And what's up with haiku? That can't be part of Japanese heritage, because haiku are often written in kanji, which are Chinese characters borrowed by the Japanese!
Then there's the time I celebrated Canada Day. It's amazing that Canada Day is celebrated using fireworks. Fireworks are a Chinese invention!
My point is that you seem to be espousing the idea that the indigenous cultures of North America are necessarily tied to ancient technology they invented themselves, and they shouldn't be allowed to use technology invented by other cultures as they continue living their own. Imagine the irony--a westerner, whose ancestors annihilated the Indians in the largest genocide in world history, turning around and telling Indians they need to pretend to be untouched by western culture if they want to preserve their own. Completely ignoring the fact that every culture changes by contact with other cultures. You say nothing to the white man who drives a Honda (automobiles were invented in Europe), watches Star Wars (derivative of Japanese film), and practices Christianity (a religion invented by Middle Eastern Semitic peoples, not your European ancestors).
Cultural relativism is stupid if you're talking about morals. Footbinding and genital mutiliation (male OR female) are immoral because they cause pointless suffering to people. But whales are not people. Whaling is not a moral issue, it is an ecological issue. There are consequences to whaling--science tells us what those consequences are, and we proceed to decide whether the preservation of a unique human cultural practice is worth the consequences.
If they didn't have to satisfy ignorant whites who care more about the protecting whales from suffering than protecting nearly-annihilated human cultures, they probably wouldn't use rifles.
Bullshit. Measuring error is universal--you will fundamentally never find a situation where 1 old kilogram = 1 new kilogram, because you can't measure something as "1 kilogram" full stop. That's the fundamental reason why this is such a big deal--if we could measure something as "1 kilogram" full stop, we could make hundreds of identical prototype kilograms using the one we have now. However, if the new kilogram is 1 kilogram, plus or minus 0.0000000001 kg, we can probably live with that for all practical purposes.