> First a VIC20, where coding a loop to print "Asshole" was the pinnacle of achievement:)
I did this too.:)
At the time, I was trying to figure out how to spam the screen with random curse words and offensive statements.
> Then moved on to C64, where I became more proficient in Basic and some of the graphics and sound stuff.
I never picked up a C64. I largely stayed with the vic20 with a 16k ram memory expansion card.
At the time, I was attempting to write my own video games on the vic20, largely learning from a book with a title resembling something like " Arcade Games on the Vic 20". (It had a full Basic language listing for a game named "moonraker").
From my many feeble and failed attempts at writing my own video games, I learned a lot about the Basic programing language and algorithms, largely from trial and error.
Are you interested in becoming a particle theorist or experimentalist?
A really nice book on particle physics, is
"Introduction to Elementary Particles" by David Griffiths
It's one of the standard textbooks used for particle physics courses over the last 20 years. It is also one of the more readable and "painless" ones too. (Most books on particle physics have a reputation for being difficult to read). I wish I first read this book when I was younger.
The first two chapters of Griffiths can be read without much extensive background. It's mainly about the history and background of particle physics, using only simple algebra. Do most of the end-of-chapter problems from the first two chapters. (They are fairly simple). If these simple problems keep your interest and/or whet your appetite for more, then it may be worthwhile to learn some special relativity on your own.
The third chapter in Griffiths is a review of special relativity, which is the standard bread-and-butter of particle physics. Griffiths assumes the reader already knows some basic special relativity. Most of the processes studied in particle physics experiments are relativistic collisions, which Griffiths' third chapter is focussed on.
Easier sources for learning special relativity, would be to go to a generic freshman university physics textbook and work out some of the theory and end-of-chapter problems. For example, work out for yourself and understand how E = m c^2 is derived, as well as some of the problems for simple collision for both the relativistic + non-relativistic cases and understand how they differ from one another. (The generic non-relativistic collision problems are frequently based on things like pool balls hitting one another, automobiles crashing into one another, etc...).
The rest of Griffiths may look kind of cryptic and mysterious, especially the last chapter on gauge theories. If you plan on becoming a particle theorist, you will certainly be studying gauge theories in the context of quantum field theory quite extensively. Most major universities have a year long sequence of quantum field theory courses, which most particle theory folks will take at the masters degree or PhD level. (Quantum field theory is not usually covered at the undergraduate level).
To really appreciate the rest of Griffiths' particle book, you will have to know some basic quantum mechanics. It turns out, Griffiths also wrote a nice quantum mechanics textbook which is also quite popular and widely used for undergraduate physics courses on quantum mechanics. (Many quantum mechanics textbooks have a reputation for being difficult to read). Quantum mechanics will generally require some understanding of calculus and simple differential equations.
If you're really "die hard" about particle physics, it may be worthwhile to purchase both the elementary particles and quantum mechanics textbooks by Griffiths. (It may be worthwhile to find second handed copies of the first editions of each book. Later editions are easily over a hundred dollars each for a brand new copies). It will give you something to think about and various calculations to figure out yourself. They are the two easiest books on the subject, without being dumbed down.
These two Griffiths books (elementary particles, and quantum mechanics) will probably determine whether particle physics will keep your interest or not. Hopefully it will keep your interest, despite physics being a hard subject.
I originally thought math was "dumbed down" when I was in high school, back in the 1970's and early 1980's in Ontario. In comparison to today's further dumbed down math curriculum in Ontario, with 20/20 hindsight I can understand your concerns.
When I was in university, first year physics was a complete shocker. Back then it was used as a "weedout" course, to flunk and kick out as many first year engineering majors as possible. Almost everything done in high school physics was largely inadequate, as preparation for university physics. (This seems to be case almost everywhere).
I have no idea what I would do today, if I was my 17 or 18 year old self again. I suppose one could learn all the stuff which has been dropped from the math curriculum over the years, on their own.
I should have also mentioned that back in the 1970's and 1980's, the grade 11 and 12 math courses were arranged such that both courses could be taken simultaneously over a school year. (This was back when many high school courses still ran from September to June, and semestering was not as common).
As you may have noticed, the topics covered in the grade 11 and 12 courses don't have a lot of significant overlap.
The three old grade 13 math courses also didn't have a lot of overlap, where many folks also took all three courses simultaneously.
The same sort of thing happened in the grades 9 and 10 general science courses back then too. One course covered basic physics + chemistry topics, while the other course covered only biology. Some motivated students took both the grade 9 and 10 science courses simultaneously in grade 9, so that they could take the grade 11 and 12 science courses the next year.
In principle it was possible to finish high school in 4 years in Ontario back then, if you arranged your courses strategically enough.
Here are more in-depth details of the 1970's math curriculum in Ontario, which I didn't mention previously.
- Grade 9 math use to be basic algebra, simple polynomial factoring (ie. stuff like kx+ky+kz = k(x+y+z) ), basic geometry proofs (ie. congruence of triangles), ruler/compass constructions and their proofs, basic statistics (ie. mean, median, mode), etc...
- Grade 10 math use to be systems of linear equations beaten to death, more polynomial factoring (ie. "nice" trinomials), more geometry proofs (ie. more congruence of triangles, parallel lines, etc...), geometric transformations (ie. translation, rotation, dilation, etc...), basic vectors + matrices, basic trigonometry (ie. definitions of sin + cos + tan, and simple problems), etc...
- Grade 11 math use to be ratio + proportion, doing more geometry proofs (ie. similarity proofs of triangles, areas, etc...), more polynomial factoring (ie. division of polynomials, factor theorem, synthetic division, etc...), more trigonometry (ie. sine and cosine laws), etc...
- Grade 12 math use to be doing more geometry proofs (ie. geometry proofs involving circles + chords + tangents), quadratic functions/equations beaten to death, inverse functions, exponential + logarithmic functions/equations, trig functions/equations, sequences/series, etc...
In hindsight, the teaching philosophy of math in those days was analogous to a "spiral staircase", where the same topics are repeated each year with new stuff being gradually introduced each year.
Awhile back I came across various official Ontario provincial government documents for the high school math curriculum (and other subjects) over the years, at the education library at the University of Ottawa. It makes interesting reading, if you are ever bored one afternoon. The math curriculum has been permuted so much over the last 60+ years.
The math curriculum in Ontario was quite different back in the 1970's.
- Geometry proofs use to be covered in grade 9 and 10. - Vectors and matrices used to be covered in grade 10.
- Grade 13 calculus use to cover stuff up to power series and integration methods (ie. trig substitution, integration by parts, partial fractions, etc...). - Grade 13 functions use to cover analytic geometry (ie. conic sections), combinatorics (ie. permutations + combinations), basic probability + statistics. - Grade 13 algebra use to be a slightly watered down version of first year university linear algebra (ie. vectors, dot product, cross product, gaussian elimination, complex numbers, etc...) and other stuff like mathematical logic, set theory, probability, mathematical induction, etc....
Anybody who wants to check the watering down process in education, check out the old New York state regents math exams dating back in the 1950's.
http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/regentsexams.htm
In general, almost everybody in Canada and Europe likes to moan and bitch about the system and government. It's a very popular pastime and topic of discussion.
Only folks who actually like the system and/or are patriotic about America, Canada, Britain, France, Spain, Italy, the German states (ie. Bavaria, Brandenburg, etc...) generally tend to be people who are naive and haven't much, if any, extensive experiences with the government system. It seems like the system in most places tends to harden people into cynics as they get older.
Everybody knows that the government will resort to issuing tons more federal debt and/or just plain outright printing up money to pay the bills. Nobody ever trusted the Deutsche Bundesbank, nor the more recent European Central Bank. Just have to look at the history of Bundesbank's predecessor, the notorious Reichsbank, to know why.
Even hardcore Social Democrats (ie. moderate left-wing types) eventually figure out the system is a joke.
America is just as socialist as Canada or any European country.
Only difference is that most of the American style "socialism" is more towards the military and defense sector (ie. Halliburton, Bechtel, etc...). In Canada and most European countries, the socialism is more towards things like a health care system, welfare state, etc...
America has all kinds of socialistic institutions like:
The Federal Reserve Bank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security, The US Postal Service, Pension Benefit Guarnaty Corporation, Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrak, etc...
The attracting of skilled workers to Canada is a bit of a scam. It turns out the only credentials which "count" in practice are ones mainly of Canadian and/or American sources. Sometimes credentials of British, Australian or Western European sources may get by. Otherwise you're shit out of luck. Many folks with credentials from other places, are relegated to working at McDonalds or other minimum wage type jobs. Some are willing to tough it out by going back to school to get Canadian approved credentials.
Main reason why immigration to Canada isn't very popular for "skilled workers" is because it's harder to find work in comparison to the United States. If you don't have Canadian and/or American experience and credentials, most employers will just delete your resume.
I highly discourage any skilled workers from immigrating to Canada, unless you're willing to work blue collar jobs and/or are willing to go back to school to get Canadian approved credentials.
Attracting "skilled" foreign workers and then relegating them to blue collar or minimum wage jobs is largely a waste of resources and time.
Slashdot Mirror
> First a VIC20, where coding a loop to print "Asshole" was the pinnacle of achievement :)
I did this too. :)
At the time, I was trying to figure out how to spam the screen with random curse words and offensive statements.
> Then moved on to C64, where I became more proficient in Basic and some of the graphics and sound stuff.
I never picked up a C64. I largely stayed with the vic20 with a 16k ram memory expansion card.
At the time, I was attempting to write my own video games on the vic20, largely learning from a book with a title resembling something like " Arcade Games on the Vic 20". (It had a full Basic language listing for a game named "moonraker").
From my many feeble and failed attempts at writing my own video games, I learned a lot about the Basic programing language and algorithms, largely from trial and error.
Are you interested in becoming a particle theorist or experimentalist?
...).
A really nice book on particle physics, is
"Introduction to Elementary Particles"
by David Griffiths
It's one of the standard textbooks used for particle physics courses over the last 20 years. It is also one of the more readable and "painless" ones too. (Most books on particle physics have a reputation for being difficult to read). I wish I first read this book when I was younger.
The first two chapters of Griffiths can be read without much extensive background. It's mainly about the history and background of particle physics, using only simple algebra. Do most of the end-of-chapter problems from the first two chapters. (They are fairly simple). If these simple problems keep your interest and/or whet your appetite for more, then it may be worthwhile to learn some special relativity on your own.
The third chapter in Griffiths is a review of special relativity, which is the standard bread-and-butter of particle physics. Griffiths assumes the reader already knows some basic special relativity. Most of the processes studied in particle physics experiments are relativistic collisions, which Griffiths' third chapter is focussed on.
Easier sources for learning special relativity, would be to go to a generic freshman university physics textbook and work out some of the theory and end-of-chapter problems. For example, work out for yourself and understand how E = m c^2 is derived, as well as some of the problems for simple collision for both the relativistic + non-relativistic cases and understand how they differ from one another. (The generic non-relativistic collision problems are frequently based on things like pool balls hitting one another, automobiles crashing into one another, etc
The rest of Griffiths may look kind of cryptic and mysterious, especially the last chapter on gauge theories. If you plan on becoming a particle theorist, you will certainly be studying gauge theories in the context of quantum field theory quite extensively. Most major universities have a year long sequence of quantum field theory courses, which most particle theory folks will take at the masters degree or PhD level. (Quantum field theory is not usually covered at the undergraduate level).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
To really appreciate the rest of Griffiths' particle book, you will have to know some basic quantum mechanics. It turns out, Griffiths also wrote a nice quantum mechanics textbook which is also quite popular and widely used for undergraduate physics courses on quantum mechanics. (Many quantum mechanics textbooks have a reputation for being difficult to read). Quantum mechanics will generally require some understanding of calculus and simple differential equations.
If you're really "die hard" about particle physics, it may be worthwhile to purchase both the elementary particles and quantum mechanics textbooks by Griffiths. (It may be worthwhile to find second handed copies of the first editions of each book. Later editions are easily over a hundred dollars each for a brand new copies). It will give you something to think about and various calculations to figure out yourself. They are the two easiest books on the subject, without being dumbed down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Griffiths_(physicist)
These two Griffiths books (elementary particles, and quantum mechanics) will probably determine whether particle physics will keep your interest or not. Hopefully it will keep your interest, despite physics being a hard subject.
I originally thought math was "dumbed down" when I was in high school, back in the 1970's and early 1980's in Ontario. In comparison to today's further dumbed down math curriculum in Ontario, with 20/20 hindsight I can understand your concerns.
When I was in university, first year physics was a complete shocker. Back then it was used as a "weedout" course, to flunk and kick out as many first year engineering majors as possible. Almost everything done in high school physics was largely inadequate, as preparation for university physics. (This seems to be case almost everywhere).
I have no idea what I would do today, if I was my 17 or 18 year old self again. I suppose one could learn all the stuff which has been dropped from the math curriculum over the years, on their own.
What are you planning to do yourself?
I should have also mentioned that back in the 1970's and 1980's, the grade 11 and 12 math courses were arranged such that both courses could be taken simultaneously over a school year. (This was back when many high school courses still ran from September to June, and semestering was not as common).
As you may have noticed, the topics covered in the grade 11 and 12 courses don't have a lot of significant overlap.
The three old grade 13 math courses also didn't have a lot of overlap, where many folks also took all three courses simultaneously.
The same sort of thing happened in the grades 9 and 10 general science courses back then too. One course covered basic physics + chemistry topics, while the other course covered only biology. Some motivated students took both the grade 9 and 10 science courses simultaneously in grade 9, so that they could take the grade 11 and 12 science courses the next year.
In principle it was possible to finish high school in 4 years in Ontario back then, if you arranged your courses strategically enough.
Interesting.
...
...), geometric transformations (ie. translation, rotation, dilation, etc ...), basic vectors + matrices, basic trigonometry (ie. definitions of sin + cos + tan, and simple problems), etc ...
...), more polynomial factoring (ie. division of polynomials, factor theorem, synthetic division, etc ...), more trigonometry (ie. sine and cosine laws), etc ...
...
Here are more in-depth details of the 1970's math curriculum in Ontario, which I didn't mention previously.
- Grade 9 math use to be basic algebra, simple polynomial factoring (ie. stuff like kx+ky+kz = k(x+y+z) ), basic geometry proofs (ie. congruence of triangles), ruler/compass constructions and their proofs, basic statistics (ie. mean, median, mode), etc
- Grade 10 math use to be systems of linear equations beaten to death, more polynomial factoring (ie. "nice" trinomials), more geometry proofs (ie. more congruence of triangles, parallel lines, etc
- Grade 11 math use to be ratio + proportion, doing more geometry proofs (ie. similarity proofs of triangles, areas, etc
- Grade 12 math use to be doing more geometry proofs (ie. geometry proofs involving circles + chords + tangents), quadratic functions/equations beaten to death, inverse functions, exponential + logarithmic functions/equations, trig functions/equations, sequences/series, etc
In hindsight, the teaching philosophy of math in those days was analogous to a "spiral staircase", where the same topics are repeated each year with new stuff being gradually introduced each year.
Awhile back I came across various official Ontario provincial government documents for the high school math curriculum (and other subjects) over the years, at the education library at the University of Ottawa. It makes interesting reading, if you are ever bored one afternoon. The math curriculum has been permuted so much over the last 60+ years.
The math curriculum in Ontario was quite different back in the 1970's.
...). ...) and other stuff like mathematical logic, set theory, probability, mathematical induction, etc ....
- Geometry proofs use to be covered in grade 9 and 10.
- Vectors and matrices used to be covered in grade 10.
- Grade 13 calculus use to cover stuff up to power series and integration methods (ie. trig substitution, integration by parts, partial fractions, etc
- Grade 13 functions use to cover analytic geometry (ie. conic sections), combinatorics (ie. permutations + combinations), basic probability + statistics.
- Grade 13 algebra use to be a slightly watered down version of first year university linear algebra (ie. vectors, dot product, cross product, gaussian elimination, complex numbers, etc
Anybody who wants to check the watering down process in education, check out the old New York state regents math exams dating back in the 1950's. http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/regentsexams.htm
Politics is the ultimate form of cynical low comedy.
In general, almost everybody in Canada and Europe likes to moan and bitch about the system and government. It's a very popular pastime and topic of discussion.
...) generally tend to be people who are naive and haven't much, if any, extensive experiences with the government system. It seems like the system in most places tends to harden people into cynics as they get older.
Only folks who actually like the system and/or are patriotic about America, Canada, Britain, France, Spain, Italy, the German states (ie. Bavaria, Brandenburg, etc
Everybody knows that the government will resort to issuing tons more federal debt and/or just plain outright printing up money to pay the bills. Nobody ever trusted the Deutsche Bundesbank, nor the more recent European Central Bank. Just have to look at the history of Bundesbank's predecessor, the notorious Reichsbank, to know why.
Even hardcore Social Democrats (ie. moderate left-wing types) eventually figure out the system is a joke.
Almost any country or town will start to "suck" if you live there long enough.
America is just as socialist as Canada or any European country.
...). In Canada and most European countries, the socialism is more towards things like a health care system, welfare state, etc ...
...
Only difference is that most of the American style "socialism" is more towards the military and defense sector (ie. Halliburton, Bechtel, etc
America has all kinds of socialistic institutions like:
The Federal Reserve Bank,
Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac,
Social Security,
The US Postal Service,
Pension Benefit Guarnaty Corporation,
Medicare,
Medicaid,
Amtrak,
etc
The attracting of skilled workers to Canada is a bit of a scam. It turns out the only credentials which "count" in practice are ones mainly of Canadian and/or American sources. Sometimes credentials of British, Australian or Western European sources may get by. Otherwise you're shit out of luck. Many folks with credentials from other places, are relegated to working at McDonalds or other minimum wage type jobs. Some are willing to tough it out by going back to school to get Canadian approved credentials.
Main reason why immigration to Canada isn't very popular for "skilled workers" is because it's harder to find work in comparison to the United States. If you don't have Canadian and/or American experience and credentials, most employers will just delete your resume.
I highly discourage any skilled workers from immigrating to Canada, unless you're willing to work blue collar jobs and/or are willing to go back to school to get Canadian approved credentials.
Attracting "skilled" foreign workers and then relegating them to blue collar or minimum wage jobs is largely a waste of resources and time.
"Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises. The entire text is online at http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp
The best economics book I have come across is "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises. The entire book is online at http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp