Calculus, taught properly, is incredibly easy and intuitive because it's all geometry - you can teach it visually, with no numbers.
The problem isn't that the students are dumb, but that the teachers aren't allowed to teach to the children in the class. The materal and methods are set for the state, and there's little negotiation available.
So you are saying that you would have trouble completing 100 addition problems right now because it would be "hard" for you?
Yes. I would have trouble completing the 100 assigned problems, as I'd throw the paper in the trash and go do something more interesting. It is "hard" to sit for 10 minutes in a boring mindless repetitive task.
excessive repitition is hard in that it's difficult to stay motivated long enough to finish. Easy to do a problem, hard to do the entire assignment properly.
This study basically says that people get pissy when you prove them wrong, making them dig in their heels even though they may grudgingly agree with you.
Nope. It says that teaching the controvery proves there is a controversy. If there wasn't, why are you trying so hard to tell me what I should do?
No, every race car in the '40s was street legal (or nearly so - lighting about the only questionable item, but Le Mans cars like this one was would have had lighting), so it was a street car. What are you, 12? The rules were much different back then. The 4.9l race engine was street legal and sold in a street car (developed for racing and also raced). When my parents got their first driver's licenses, there were not tests. It was a piece of paper. No background checks, no picture, no testing. That's how car certification was as well.
Sharper Image sold gadgets, and expensive ones at that. The problem with "The Internet" is that you get low prices and unknown quality. Wal-Mart succeeds because they sell low-end junk, but with a good return policy, and internal QA. If Radio Shack would have been a China mart with QA and a return policy, they could charge 2x the Internet price for most things and still steal lots of business from the Internet shops.
You don't try to beat the Internet on price. You try to get close and focus on support and availability (a 5 minute drive, vs a delivery).
They tried to grow the niche, but missed. Rather than being RC & phones (what they were the last time I was in), they could have branched into home automation and other tech items that were not mainstream, but hobbies. And hopefully large enough to support the business. But by the time they went back to roots, I'd already moved on. So they missed their chance. They alienated their "loyal" base, then abandoned their phones & RC model. They were left with nothing.
If both are automated, then there'll be no safety issue. The two can tailgate so closely as to become one vehicle. Automated drivers will communicate to act as one. If wireless communications is a security issue, have them drive so closely as to make a mechanical connection.
A racing car engine was the one "used" for the plane in question, so I don't find it as unsure as you do.
In the 1930s plane engines had 500hp to 5000hp. Car engines roughly 200, likely with a few exceptions.
Car race engines are 1000+ hp. They used one for the airplane before, it'd work again with no more work than needed the first time.
E.g. the Dornier Do 335, one with a relatively low hp per engine, had two engines with 1750hp.
Such an engine would never fit into an ordinary car.
I never claimed that any plane engine would work in a car. I never even claimed that any car engine would work in a plane. I'm just objecting to "If you wanted some 500hp plus engines you have to reinvent / redevelop / reengineer them." There are piles of specialty cars that have that sort of output. And the engine used for the plane in question was a specialty engine from a racing car. With that, the F1 engine would greatly surpass the engine used. No "reengineering" needed. It was from a race car destined for Le Mans. There are plenty of entries in Le Mans that would suffice.
An NDA is a contract. A person can only be held to a contract they were party to. If the daughter knew there was a case, and the details of it, then was told "it's over" that didn't violate the contract, but the other party could assume that the NDA was breached because the daughter talked about things covered in the NDA. It'll take a full trial to figure it all out.
I read TFA. It was a street engine from Bugatti. A 1930s street engine from Bugatti. Why not compare it with a current street engine from Bugatti, since you refuse to accept my word about the thousands of engines that are much better than a 1930s automobile engine. Over 1000 hp in an engine that's smaller, lighter and with the same number of cylendars as the two engines used in the "original" And that's in a current street car. Look up the Bugatti Veyron EB 16.4 if you don't believe me. Well documented. One engine, better than 1930s tech, and the 1930s airplane used a car engine, according to TFA. Why won't you RTFA?
They were clear about it being a "racing engine" and they meant the 50B racing engine. A supercharged 4.9. Car engine in the airplane. Why do you insist that's impossible when the article is clear which engine is used, and it's a car engine?
No, you just can't answer the questions, so you blame the questioner. Using different analogies to highlight different parts of the constant and immutable statement doesn't count as "moving the goalposts".
Nope. I saw them. Daily drivers beating 1930's tech. I'm not sure why you think that's so incredible. After all, it was just a street engine Bugatti used.
You mean other than the fact that it used the car engine, as noted in TFA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... That's the car engine the airplane engine was based on, with no mods noted and nothing to indicate any more changes than what any dry-sump automotive engine today would need. Aside from some lightening probably not necessary today.
The Fine Article agrees with me, and not you. The Bugatti Type 50 engine "used" in the plane was a car engine.
Meanwhile, automotive engines may be fine for a basic airplane, but I'm not so sure how they would work out on a plane like this.
You "don't know" and use that ignorance as proof of the opposite. I can't argue with a fool, you'll drag me down to your level and have more experience being a fool.
You may confirmation-bias yourself to your opinion, but that's not how reality works. Individual workers doing illegal acts are shielded by the fact it was done inside a company.
If they were truely automated, I don't think such behavior would be written in. Target would be happy to tailgate Wal-Mart. Save $100 in fuel at Wal-Mart's expense.
I'm asserting that no single person at Exxon knew the actual magnitude of the total risk prior to the crash.
And I'm asserting that 100 people knew there was a 1% risk. So the choice is to not punish the gulty because they didn't know enough to know it was a "big" risk, or to let everyone get away with everything, so long as they are rich, or work for the rich. Apparently, Cash is King.
Slashdot Mirror
At what point is the neglect of a child the issue of the State?
Calculus, taught properly, is incredibly easy and intuitive because it's all geometry - you can teach it visually, with no numbers.
The problem isn't that the students are dumb, but that the teachers aren't allowed to teach to the children in the class. The materal and methods are set for the state, and there's little negotiation available.
So you are saying that you would have trouble completing 100 addition problems right now because it would be "hard" for you?
Yes. I would have trouble completing the 100 assigned problems, as I'd throw the paper in the trash and go do something more interesting. It is "hard" to sit for 10 minutes in a boring mindless repetitive task.
Repetitive != Hard
excessive repitition is hard in that it's difficult to stay motivated long enough to finish. Easy to do a problem, hard to do the entire assignment properly.
This study basically says that people get pissy when you prove them wrong, making them dig in their heels even though they may grudgingly agree with you.
Nope. It says that teaching the controvery proves there is a controversy. If there wasn't, why are you trying so hard to tell me what I should do?
No, every race car in the '40s was street legal (or nearly so - lighting about the only questionable item, but Le Mans cars like this one was would have had lighting), so it was a street car. What are you, 12? The rules were much different back then. The 4.9l race engine was street legal and sold in a street car (developed for racing and also raced). When my parents got their first driver's licenses, there were not tests. It was a piece of paper. No background checks, no picture, no testing. That's how car certification was as well.
Sharper Image sold gadgets, and expensive ones at that. The problem with "The Internet" is that you get low prices and unknown quality. Wal-Mart succeeds because they sell low-end junk, but with a good return policy, and internal QA. If Radio Shack would have been a China mart with QA and a return policy, they could charge 2x the Internet price for most things and still steal lots of business from the Internet shops.
You don't try to beat the Internet on price. You try to get close and focus on support and availability (a 5 minute drive, vs a delivery).
Radio Shack drove people to the Internet by not carrying the components for 10+ years. Tragedy of the bad business decisions.
And when you find out you are one [piece] short, it's nice to have a place you can get it immediately without having to wait for shipping.
No, that's why he needs someone in Radio Shack to help him.
They tried to grow the niche, but missed. Rather than being RC & phones (what they were the last time I was in), they could have branched into home automation and other tech items that were not mainstream, but hobbies. And hopefully large enough to support the business. But by the time they went back to roots, I'd already moved on. So they missed their chance. They alienated their "loyal" base, then abandoned their phones & RC model. They were left with nothing.
Please make up your mind, was it a street engine or a racing engine?
Back before the EPA and NHTSA, they were the same. Your ignorance doesn't make a compelling argument.
If both are automated, then there'll be no safety issue. The two can tailgate so closely as to become one vehicle. Automated drivers will communicate to act as one. If wireless communications is a security issue, have them drive so closely as to make a mechanical connection.
So, a racing car engine might work ... not sure.
A racing car engine was the one "used" for the plane in question, so I don't find it as unsure as you do.
In the 1930s plane engines had 500hp to 5000hp. Car engines roughly 200, likely with a few exceptions.
Car race engines are 1000+ hp. They used one for the airplane before, it'd work again with no more work than needed the first time.
E.g. the Dornier Do 335, one with a relatively low hp per engine, had two engines with 1750hp. Such an engine would never fit into an ordinary car.
I never claimed that any plane engine would work in a car. I never even claimed that any car engine would work in a plane. I'm just objecting to "If you wanted some 500hp plus engines you have to reinvent / redevelop / reengineer them." There are piles of specialty cars that have that sort of output. And the engine used for the plane in question was a specialty engine from a racing car. With that, the F1 engine would greatly surpass the engine used. No "reengineering" needed. It was from a race car destined for Le Mans. There are plenty of entries in Le Mans that would suffice.
An NDA is a contract. A person can only be held to a contract they were party to. If the daughter knew there was a case, and the details of it, then was told "it's over" that didn't violate the contract, but the other party could assume that the NDA was breached because the daughter talked about things covered in the NDA. It'll take a full trial to figure it all out.
I read TFA. It was a street engine from Bugatti. A 1930s street engine from Bugatti. Why not compare it with a current street engine from Bugatti, since you refuse to accept my word about the thousands of engines that are much better than a 1930s automobile engine. Over 1000 hp in an engine that's smaller, lighter and with the same number of cylendars as the two engines used in the "original" And that's in a current street car. Look up the Bugatti Veyron EB 16.4 if you don't believe me. Well documented. One engine, better than 1930s tech, and the 1930s airplane used a car engine, according to TFA. Why won't you RTFA?
They were clear about it being a "racing engine" and they meant the 50B racing engine. A supercharged 4.9. Car engine in the airplane. Why do you insist that's impossible when the article is clear which engine is used, and it's a car engine?
You moved the goalposts.
No, you just can't answer the questions, so you blame the questioner. Using different analogies to highlight different parts of the constant and immutable statement doesn't count as "moving the goalposts".
Nope. I saw them. Daily drivers beating 1930's tech. I'm not sure why you think that's so incredible. After all, it was just a street engine Bugatti used.
You mean other than the fact that it used the car engine, as noted in TFA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... That's the car engine the airplane engine was based on, with no mods noted and nothing to indicate any more changes than what any dry-sump automotive engine today would need. Aside from some lightening probably not necessary today.
The Fine Article agrees with me, and not you. The Bugatti Type 50 engine "used" in the plane was a car engine.
Meanwhile, automotive engines may be fine for a basic airplane, but I'm not so sure how they would work out on a plane like this.
You "don't know" and use that ignorance as proof of the opposite. I can't argue with a fool, you'll drag me down to your level and have more experience being a fool.
Exxon made a conscious decision to cause harm. They knew they had a drunk driver at the wheel of a "broken" ship. Yes, that was a conscious decision.
You may confirmation-bias yourself to your opinion, but that's not how reality works. Individual workers doing illegal acts are shielded by the fact it was done inside a company.
If they were truely automated, I don't think such behavior would be written in. Target would be happy to tailgate Wal-Mart. Save $100 in fuel at Wal-Mart's expense.
I'm asserting that no single person at Exxon knew the actual magnitude of the total risk prior to the crash.
And I'm asserting that 100 people knew there was a 1% risk. So the choice is to not punish the gulty because they didn't know enough to know it was a "big" risk, or to let everyone get away with everything, so long as they are rich, or work for the rich. Apparently, Cash is King.
If it ever happened, they'd not pass, but would tailgate each other for efficiency.