20% on the bottom 15%, just because they are exempt from the rules doesn't mean you don't have to hire piles of nurses to change their bedpans when they shit themselves in math class when they'll never be able to tie their own shoes.
I had homework in kindergarten, but not first grade. I remember building a pinhole camera in kindergarten to watch an eclipse (probably Oct 12, 1977). I had homework, but I think it was voluntary (I asked for it, they didn't want to let me have it, but I demanded it). No homework in 1st grade. Or second. I liked school until second. I was beat for finishing before others, and locked in a closet over lunch. After that, I was pulled from public school and sent to private, did better and ended up in one of the top ranked public schools in the nation. Lots of homework in private schools, all grades.
An "internal threat" that has airpower is what? Military revolt? Then why wouldn't the military coup take the radar too? Or a guy in a Cesna packed with C4? Miliraty radar won't pick that up if he knows military radar is looking for it. Fly at 50 foot or lower, treetop. Of course, you can carry more on a motorbike than in a Cessna, but nobody said those internal threats were smart.
They did the same with my nephews. The homework would be done by the parents. I moved school zones (outside the US) to get to a place with higher rated schools. The work is much more age appropriate and without an obvious eye on some upcoming standardized test.
The problem is that it takes wisdom to know what one doesn't know. And most people don't have that wisdom. They over-estimate their skills in everything (driving being a big one).
Not for my first grader. His homework was writing the letters and numbers, and not much else. He didn't need any help to know that he should copy "c" on the page marked "c". He couldn't read instructions yet, but didn't need to. It was repetition practice of what was already covered that day.
The answer is 15 - 5 - 2. The "answer" on the paper shows 15 - 5 = 10 and 10 - 2 = 7, so it shows the intermediate step. 15 - 7 = (15 - 5) - 2 = 10 - 2 = 8 may be "more correct" but the answer given in the test is easier.
The steps are right, they just show a step that someone using that method would hold in their head, not write out as an independent mathematical equation. Though that's done in the test to illustrate the method.
That's an easy way of finding the answer. It's essentially a base-5 version of math. The problem is that it might help some of the lower-end of average students to learn, but won't help the lowest learn, and will be an impediment for the upper students (but they'll figure it out on their own). So something like this is the natural result of NCLB where the 15th to 50th percentiles get 80% of the focus, and the top 50% get no attention, unless they drop, and the bottom 15% are exempted from the rules (special needs).
Then why would they need any radar at all? It's there only to look for suicide planes attacking the government buildings? They why lie to the international crowd about their international capabilities?
They use donated ex-US systems apparently, so don't run it down too much, you'd be critisizing your own country:)
Then my point stands, they have systems fully capable of tracking commercial flights, why would they have deliberately sabotaged their own equipment to not look at most of the sky? Or are you asserting that the old US systems can't track commercial flights?
Why pay millions for a system that can track a U2 then configure it so that it can not detect a U2? All the military systems available would track a commercial plane, and you'd be asserting that they bought a commercial system, then disabled it. Or built their own, costing more than the commercial systems, and built it "worse" than the commercial systems.
Much more likely, they have expensive systems that they don't know how to work, and they spend most of their time off or broken, and they feel too embarrassed about it to explain why they didn't have coverage.
Sort of like why Saddam had a "chemical weapons" program. If everyone knew he didn't have it, then he expected a revolt or invasion. So he pretends to have one (apparently so well that he fools the President who can't be fooled again). Indonesia may be doing the same with their military capability.
They use a shared TDMA return to best allocate bandwidth. The timing is measured in microseconds (and no, not millions of them). The time to the GEO satellite can be learned and used to deduce distance, thus an arc. It's pretty accurate.
Planes aren't obviously non-military. Most aircraft are dual-purpose. The US AWACS are 707-based, and so on. If it's so obvious, why have there been issues with commercial planes at cruise? If they don't look that high, who saw the U2 that was shot down?
They're required to be paid the going rate for the job. The problem is that the program doesn't check to see if the company is legitimately unable to find somebody to do the job before allowing them to hire through the program.
Nobody is checking to see it's market rate, either.
And if they aren't free to move around, then they aren't being paid a competitive wage. They are being paid a slave wage, even if $150,000. They will be a criminal if they don't work for that wage while in the US. The current H1-B system goes against the spirit of why they are allowed in in the first place. They are here to be paid a market wage for a skill gap that can't be filled by an American. But, in practice, they are used to avoid hiring Americans who demand more money.
your reply suggests that you were trying to contradict a point I didn't make.
Right back at you.
while a fly, dog, or person may not be engaged in calculus, they are engaged in some primitive computation, else they wouldn't be able to move to the right place or respond to a change in their environment,
I said nothing to contradict that. Humans have a well-studied "muscle memory", and this sounds a lot more like that than any conscious computation.
Again, this does not mean that they are "doing calculus", and to say that they are would indeed be a misstatement, as you and I both agree
Yup. I think they intentionally used inflamatory language to make it sound more interesting. My point is that they were "lying".
It's likely a feedback loop. There are many that have been examined and proven in nature (dogs catching things, for example). This doesn't look like anything new, just (maybe) faster or more accurate than seen before.
Is it calculus? No. The results are similar, but the methods are vastly different. Is it as widely applicable as calculus? No.
I don't think you'll get a clear definition of "calculus" here, either. if you use algebraic approximations for the area under the curve, is that "calculus"? Or do you have to take the limit as the block size approaches zero? Or an you just take the numerical transformation of the curve equation changing it to an area equation(x^2 ->2x)? After all, most of the common ones had geometrical proofs before calculus was "invented".
Someone else pointed out the article says they doubt calculus is being done, but that if a human built an artificial bug to do it, we'd use calculus.
Tere's no evidence calculus is being done beyond an apple doing addition when it falls from a tree onto other apples. Just because addition happens, and that's how we'd describe it, doesn't mean that's what the apple is doing.
No, you wouldn't necessarily. An algebraic approximation could be quicker to calculate and sufficiently accurate for the need. A feedback loop with an algebraic approximation could be faster to calculate and sufficiently precise. The trick with nature, is that it often evolves the most efficient way of doing an inefficient thing.
As someone else put it, that's like saying an apple falling off a tree is "doing addition". The apple doesn't do it. It's doing something we have given a name to, but isn't doing the thing described by that name.
Feedback isn't calculus. The dog getting muscle memory for catches isn't doing calculus. So why would we assume the fly is "doing calculus"? Is it actually sensing force and calculating a response or just reacting with muscle memory? Yes, muscle memory and reactions are interesting phenomena, but it certainly isn't "flies doing calculus with their wings".
That's like saying that a dog catching a ball or frisbee is doing calculus. Nope, it's experience. Push me this hard, and I push back that hard. It goes that way about that fast, and I'll go this way. Turbulence pushes me here, I'll twitch back. That doesn't mean calculus, that just means quick feedback.
A human-built bug might have to do the calculus, but the natural bugs don't.
It isn't a dichotomy, legal punishment is part vengeance by proxy, part rehabilitation, part keeping the criminals off the streets, and part deterrent.
What id punishment/vengeance is opposed to rehabilitation? Wouldn't that turn it into a dichotomy? You can do one or the other, but not both.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did the other 20% of the focus go?
20% on the bottom 15%, just because they are exempt from the rules doesn't mean you don't have to hire piles of nurses to change their bedpans when they shit themselves in math class when they'll never be able to tie their own shoes.
I had homework in kindergarten, but not first grade. I remember building a pinhole camera in kindergarten to watch an eclipse (probably Oct 12, 1977). I had homework, but I think it was voluntary (I asked for it, they didn't want to let me have it, but I demanded it). No homework in 1st grade. Or second. I liked school until second. I was beat for finishing before others, and locked in a closet over lunch. After that, I was pulled from public school and sent to private, did better and ended up in one of the top ranked public schools in the nation. Lots of homework in private schools, all grades.
The idea that they spent a bunch of money on a fancy radar, and are just too embarrassed to purchase training, well... that is farcical.
And your argument that they spent a bunch of money on a fancy radar and are too cheap to turn it on (or mostly on) is more reasonable?
An "internal threat" that has airpower is what? Military revolt? Then why wouldn't the military coup take the radar too? Or a guy in a Cesna packed with C4? Miliraty radar won't pick that up if he knows military radar is looking for it. Fly at 50 foot or lower, treetop. Of course, you can carry more on a motorbike than in a Cessna, but nobody said those internal threats were smart.
Indonesian indicated an explicit coverage area. The current thought is that they passed through without Indonesia detecting them. Why?
They did the same with my nephews. The homework would be done by the parents. I moved school zones (outside the US) to get to a place with higher rated schools. The work is much more age appropriate and without an obvious eye on some upcoming standardized test.
The problem is that it takes wisdom to know what one doesn't know. And most people don't have that wisdom. They over-estimate their skills in everything (driving being a big one).
Not for my first grader. His homework was writing the letters and numbers, and not much else. He didn't need any help to know that he should copy "c" on the page marked "c". He couldn't read instructions yet, but didn't need to. It was repetition practice of what was already covered that day.
The answer is 15 - 5 - 2. The "answer" on the paper shows 15 - 5 = 10 and 10 - 2 = 7, so it shows the intermediate step. 15 - 7 = (15 - 5) - 2 = 10 - 2 = 8 may be "more correct" but the answer given in the test is easier.
The steps are right, they just show a step that someone using that method would hold in their head, not write out as an independent mathematical equation. Though that's done in the test to illustrate the method.
That's an easy way of finding the answer. It's essentially a base-5 version of math. The problem is that it might help some of the lower-end of average students to learn, but won't help the lowest learn, and will be an impediment for the upper students (but they'll figure it out on their own). So something like this is the natural result of NCLB where the 15th to 50th percentiles get 80% of the focus, and the top 50% get no attention, unless they drop, and the bottom 15% are exempted from the rules (special needs).
Go NCLB. It's like help, without the help.
Their military is to deal with internal threats.
Then why would they need any radar at all? It's there only to look for suicide planes attacking the government buildings? They why lie to the international crowd about their international capabilities?
They use donated ex-US systems apparently, so don't run it down too much, you'd be critisizing your own country :)
Then my point stands, they have systems fully capable of tracking commercial flights, why would they have deliberately sabotaged their own equipment to not look at most of the sky? Or are you asserting that the old US systems can't track commercial flights?
Why pay millions for a system that can track a U2 then configure it so that it can not detect a U2? All the military systems available would track a commercial plane, and you'd be asserting that they bought a commercial system, then disabled it. Or built their own, costing more than the commercial systems, and built it "worse" than the commercial systems.
Much more likely, they have expensive systems that they don't know how to work, and they spend most of their time off or broken, and they feel too embarrassed about it to explain why they didn't have coverage.
Sort of like why Saddam had a "chemical weapons" program. If everyone knew he didn't have it, then he expected a revolt or invasion. So he pretends to have one (apparently so well that he fools the President who can't be fooled again). Indonesia may be doing the same with their military capability.
Yes, tone is lost in writing, and with near-anonymity, no real history would reveal the author's general tone.
They use a shared TDMA return to best allocate bandwidth. The timing is measured in microseconds (and no, not millions of them). The time to the GEO satellite can be learned and used to deduce distance, thus an arc. It's pretty accurate.
Planes aren't obviously non-military. Most aircraft are dual-purpose. The US AWACS are 707-based, and so on. If it's so obvious, why have there been issues with commercial planes at cruise? If they don't look that high, who saw the U2 that was shot down?
The best current thought is that they went south. The fact that Indonesia didn't see them pass right through the monitored airspace is fact enough.
They're required to be paid the going rate for the job. The problem is that the program doesn't check to see if the company is legitimately unable to find somebody to do the job before allowing them to hire through the program.
Nobody is checking to see it's market rate, either.
And if they aren't free to move around, then they aren't being paid a competitive wage. They are being paid a slave wage, even if $150,000. They will be a criminal if they don't work for that wage while in the US. The current H1-B system goes against the spirit of why they are allowed in in the first place. They are here to be paid a market wage for a skill gap that can't be filled by an American. But, in practice, they are used to avoid hiring Americans who demand more money.
your reply suggests that you were trying to contradict a point I didn't make.
Right back at you.
while a fly, dog, or person may not be engaged in calculus, they are engaged in some primitive computation, else they wouldn't be able to move to the right place or respond to a change in their environment,
I said nothing to contradict that. Humans have a well-studied "muscle memory", and this sounds a lot more like that than any conscious computation.
Again, this does not mean that they are "doing calculus", and to say that they are would indeed be a misstatement, as you and I both agree
Yup. I think they intentionally used inflamatory language to make it sound more interesting. My point is that they were "lying".
It's likely a feedback loop. There are many that have been examined and proven in nature (dogs catching things, for example). This doesn't look like anything new, just (maybe) faster or more accurate than seen before.
Is it calculus? No. The results are similar, but the methods are vastly different. Is it as widely applicable as calculus? No.
I don't think you'll get a clear definition of "calculus" here, either. if you use algebraic approximations for the area under the curve, is that "calculus"? Or do you have to take the limit as the block size approaches zero? Or an you just take the numerical transformation of the curve equation changing it to an area equation(x^2 ->2x)? After all, most of the common ones had geometrical proofs before calculus was "invented".
Someone else pointed out the article says they doubt calculus is being done, but that if a human built an artificial bug to do it, we'd use calculus.
Tere's no evidence calculus is being done beyond an apple doing addition when it falls from a tree onto other apples. Just because addition happens, and that's how we'd describe it, doesn't mean that's what the apple is doing.
No, you wouldn't necessarily. An algebraic approximation could be quicker to calculate and sufficiently accurate for the need. A feedback loop with an algebraic approximation could be faster to calculate and sufficiently precise. The trick with nature, is that it often evolves the most efficient way of doing an inefficient thing.
As someone else put it, that's like saying an apple falling off a tree is "doing addition". The apple doesn't do it. It's doing something we have given a name to, but isn't doing the thing described by that name.
Feedback isn't calculus. The dog getting muscle memory for catches isn't doing calculus. So why would we assume the fly is "doing calculus"? Is it actually sensing force and calculating a response or just reacting with muscle memory? Yes, muscle memory and reactions are interesting phenomena, but it certainly isn't "flies doing calculus with their wings".
That's like saying that a dog catching a ball or frisbee is doing calculus. Nope, it's experience. Push me this hard, and I push back that hard. It goes that way about that fast, and I'll go this way. Turbulence pushes me here, I'll twitch back. That doesn't mean calculus, that just means quick feedback.
A human-built bug might have to do the calculus, but the natural bugs don't.
It isn't a dichotomy, legal punishment is part vengeance by proxy, part rehabilitation, part keeping the criminals off the streets, and part deterrent.
What id punishment/vengeance is opposed to rehabilitation? Wouldn't that turn it into a dichotomy? You can do one or the other, but not both.