Also, the repositories in Linux take longer to update than the Sun has spent on the main sequence. It's really aggravating to be a year or more behind on software updates via the repository. The alternative is to search a message board and follow some arcane spellbook of instructions where you have to type the exact right thing into the console in order to uninstall the current version, then install the updated version from its rpm. Then, find out that the method isn't working because it's for an older version of the OS. Oh, and while we're at it you have to install these dependencies because the package manager also doesn't have them available.
Oh, and please follow these arcane instructions so that you can add my personal server to your package manager. First, generate an SSH key. Then connect to my server using the key. Then use one of the numerous freely available programs to construct a right triangle in a hyperbolic geometry. When you're finished, be sure to sacrifice a goat to the new moon so that the package installs correctly, otherwise you have to start over again.
If all you're using Linux for is some web browsing and checking of the email, then it's great. But if you want to do anything cool like play games in wine, then be prepared to navigate through the unholy maze of updates, compiling, and make scripts. I liked it up until I realised that I would waste literally hours at a time trying to figure out how to install some package. Then I switched back to windows and had my whole system up and running in the amount of time it took me to install one non-standard program in Linux.
Yeah, except that the difference is that to replace or remove an OS all you have to do is pop a disc in and set it up to format the disk drive. That's about 10 minutes of labor for a really crappy tech. Your car "analogy" is dodgy in the sense that it takes hours or even days of labor to remove those parts. The implied argument that your making is either that it's difficult to remove the OS from the computer, which is patently false, or that a particular OS should be considered a "standard feature" in a computer, which is arguable in the sense that software is not a "standard feature." This is because it doesn't come with the hard drive.
There's a lot of skill required to do well in Solitare. I thought the same as you until I noticed the subtleties introduced by having a spin-up and spin-down version of each color. When you gather your aces and are trying to collect more cards, swapping spin orientation on cards can net you a considerable cavalcade of cascading colored cards. Sometimes you can even advance a game by removing cards from your ace stack and putting them back into play so that you can retrieve more cards from your deck. This all depends on the game, but there are some ways to improve your chances of winning.
I guess in the broadest sense of the word "Chemical," if you completely stripped it of its scientific meaning and left it a void of its former self filled with nothing but the conceited misconceptions of a science journalist who took a year of Biology in college and now thinks he's qualified to take artistic license with a very powerful technical word, then it would most likely be an accurate representation.
You guys are missing the point of the modeling. You don't always model something to make predictions of its actual behavior. In this case modeling serves as an excellent way to test our models against empirical data collected from observations of supernovae. So, we do our best to construct a model, then compare this model to the real system in order to expose holes in our understanding of the phenomenon. This is good science.
But inbox space is not public. I don't appreciate someone effectively stuffing my email inbox with messages that I didn't ask for and have no way of preventing. Would you appreciate someone stuffing a roll of newsprint with gibberish and porn printed all over it in your mailbox every day?
Actually the US Post Office's fee goes exclusively toward paying for the USPS. This is something Ben Franklin came up with, that the post office should be entirely self-sufficient as a service.
I'm not talking about the trucking industry. I'm talking about people in the light construction industry who drive light trucks like the 350 because they need to move lots of very heavy things like lumber and heavy construction equipment on demand and not on a schedule. Unless you're not a huge fan of housing, they still need to be able to move things. So what do you propose they drive? What kind of options are there for construction workers looking to improve their diesel consumption and environmental impact without reducing their ability to do their jobs?
It would be awesome if I could actually afford a Hybrid. I'd drive one if I could. Would you be willing to pay for one since I've got other things to pay for like an education? Or would you prefer that I stop paying for that and instead buy a car?
And if we can't drive trucks anymore, then how will the builders move materials and equipment? Are you proposing that they all buy roof racks for their Geo Metros?
Even if it were an order of magnitude estimate at 500:1, it's still incredibly likely. I wouldn't bank on us surviving past 2036 unless we do something to stop the asteroid. We're at the point techonologically where we could do something about it. And what if you are less than 1/100th the width of a pin off when you shoot a pool cue across the table? How much variation does that introduce into the next 10 seconds of the game?
Planetary orbits are a deterministic system, and don't fool yourself into thinking that we can crunch a few numbers and immediately determine what will happen. To give you an idea of the complexity of the planetary system, it took Physicists about 400 years to develop a working general solution to the differential equations governing a 3-body planetary system.
Essentially, the reason that a small satellite drastically increases the odds that the asteroid will hit us on a second path is the same reason that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Florida.
We should take neither the odds, nor the pronouncement of any probability, lightly. Would you rather be wrong about what will happen, and have life on the Earth as we know it end? This asteroid would cause the end of our epoch and the beginning of a new one. Only a fool would suggest we continue on with business as usual.
Well, if we can't make observations about such physical phenomena as space expanding faster than the speed of light, then isn't it pointless to discuss such phenomena from the standpoint of physics? If we can't make any observations to confirm a model then it's pointless to develop the model except as an exercise in mathematical reasoning.
Oh, and buzzword isn't the same as a precisely-defined technical term. For a good litmus test, compare the precision of the definition of "Web 2.0" to the definition of "Force."
That's basically all the high-stakes tests ask for. Even the tests which supposedly test students' reasoning still provide a stimulus, like a canned experiment with outcome and procedural information, and ask students to do very specific things which all use a fairly standard wording, like "comparing" the results of the experiment. A better test of students' reasoning would be asking for an evaluation of the procedure, but quite honestly nobody expects students to actually evaluate anything critically. The "high standards" that are paraded around are frequently just a student being more specific in his regurgitation of information than another.
And I think that the standardised tests are the death-throes of behaviorism in learning. The school that I'm working toward my certification from pushes the idea of constructivist learning theory, but in the end they don't really do anything that is a good example of constructivism. Most of the certification classes require students to slog through hours of tedious busywork, like recording information from a book verbatim. This, apparently, allows us to meet some type of standard which is supposed to be geared toward making us highly qualified teachers, but more often it turns us off to the idea of studying the theories of teaching and learning, which, if applied, can be quite useful.
Possibly the worst class requires us to complete a 70-100 page "unit plan." How is such a thing feasible in the real world? Are there other ways that the program could be teaching us the skills which this "unit plan" is supposed to give us? All I know is that I learned more about teaching in 16 hours of practicum than I learned in 20 credits of certification courses.
Teaching certification coursework is full of lame little "standards" like understanding copyright law and being able to teach it to students so that they understand that downloading the newest NiN CD is technically stealing. Really, most teachers will not remember 90% of the stuff which they "learn" in those courses. So even though it's unlikely that they would remember the little internet safety tips they would get in their coursework, it's even less likely that they would remember every single little piece of software for net safety that they have ever been exposed to. What makes teaching certification coursework worse is that everyone who drafts standards or makes decisions on how teachers are certified assume that teaching is something which can be learned from the student role. If you think this is possible, then think about how easy it is to learn to program by watching other people write programs. Or think about learning to do research science by doing canned laboratory experiments in a 100-level class.
This isn't a blog, it's a news aggregation site with a message board. The difference is that the aggregator links directly to the source instead of just writing about what's going on. Oh, and they're honest about being an aggregator.
I met someone who did use blogs as a way to get updates in science news at an open forum. I couldn't resist pointing out that blogs typically get their news from other blogs who get their news from other blogs who get their news from legitimate news organizations.
I just wanted to let you know that having a redirect to a smarmy, condescending tirade on how IE is the worst broswer known to man is a very bad way to get people to read your website. Especially if the person reading your website is using a computer which he has no control over. Perhaps, in the future, you will consider letting people choose which browser they use to access your website since it most likely consists of code which will render just fine in IE. Unless you do online banking or some other type of service which requires a lot of intricate security code you come off as arrogant when you place such an arbitrary barrier to entry on your website. I hope you'll consider this as the sarcastic tirade that it is.
Typically, the tarot reading requires the client to give some background information. Then, cards are drawn and their meanings are interpreted according to this background information. The cards seem to "ring true" about the situation because the client wants to believe in the fortune telling.
Still, it's fun in a taboo sort of way to get a fortune told. And you'd be suprised at how many patterns seem to exist in the world where we wouldn't expect them.
I'm not going to dispute this. I just wanted to crack a joke using the set-up from the ridiculous statement.
In fact, I agree with you, that most mal-formed ideas and misunderstandings stem from people not taking the time out of their thinking process to genuinely listen to what someone else is saying and then weigh it. Instead, they listen to the first statement and spend most of the rest of the conversation thinking about how they can dispute the first statement without bothering to listen to the way the speaker is qualifying the statement.
Hey, wasn't it true that Australia was originally a prison colony? So it shouldn't matter that a large number of the population were basically criminals. I mean, that's true of us here in the US too.
Slashdot Mirror
Signed.
Also, the repositories in Linux take longer to update than the Sun has spent on the main sequence. It's really aggravating to be a year or more behind on software updates via the repository. The alternative is to search a message board and follow some arcane spellbook of instructions where you have to type the exact right thing into the console in order to uninstall the current version, then install the updated version from its rpm. Then, find out that the method isn't working because it's for an older version of the OS. Oh, and while we're at it you have to install these dependencies because the package manager also doesn't have them available.
Oh, and please follow these arcane instructions so that you can add my personal server to your package manager. First, generate an SSH key. Then connect to my server using the key. Then use one of the numerous freely available programs to construct a right triangle in a hyperbolic geometry. When you're finished, be sure to sacrifice a goat to the new moon so that the package installs correctly, otherwise you have to start over again.
If all you're using Linux for is some web browsing and checking of the email, then it's great. But if you want to do anything cool like play games in wine, then be prepared to navigate through the unholy maze of updates, compiling, and make scripts. I liked it up until I realised that I would waste literally hours at a time trying to figure out how to install some package. Then I switched back to windows and had my whole system up and running in the amount of time it took me to install one non-standard program in Linux.
Yeah, except that the difference is that to replace or remove an OS all you have to do is pop a disc in and set it up to format the disk drive. That's about 10 minutes of labor for a really crappy tech. Your car "analogy" is dodgy in the sense that it takes hours or even days of labor to remove those parts. The implied argument that your making is either that it's difficult to remove the OS from the computer, which is patently false, or that a particular OS should be considered a "standard feature" in a computer, which is arguable in the sense that software is not a "standard feature." This is because it doesn't come with the hard drive.
There's a lot of skill required to do well in Solitare. I thought the same as you until I noticed the subtleties introduced by having a spin-up and spin-down version of each color. When you gather your aces and are trying to collect more cards, swapping spin orientation on cards can net you a considerable cavalcade of cascading colored cards. Sometimes you can even advance a game by removing cards from your ace stack and putting them back into play so that you can retrieve more cards from your deck. This all depends on the game, but there are some ways to improve your chances of winning.
Oh wow, that's a lot like the real universe. Kudos for cracking that joke.
The only thing I think I need to point out is that mathematical axioms are variant because they're a product of our mind.
I guess in the broadest sense of the word "Chemical," if you completely stripped it of its scientific meaning and left it a void of its former self filled with nothing but the conceited misconceptions of a science journalist who took a year of Biology in college and now thinks he's qualified to take artistic license with a very powerful technical word, then it would most likely be an accurate representation.
You guys are missing the point of the modeling. You don't always model something to make predictions of its actual behavior. In this case modeling serves as an excellent way to test our models against empirical data collected from observations of supernovae. So, we do our best to construct a model, then compare this model to the real system in order to expose holes in our understanding of the phenomenon. This is good science.
But inbox space is not public. I don't appreciate someone effectively stuffing my email inbox with messages that I didn't ask for and have no way of preventing. Would you appreciate someone stuffing a roll of newsprint with gibberish and porn printed all over it in your mailbox every day?
Actually the US Post Office's fee goes exclusively toward paying for the USPS. This is something Ben Franklin came up with, that the post office should be entirely self-sufficient as a service.
Really? Wow, I need to go see it.
Oh man, that's going in my list of awesome party ideas.
I'm not talking about the trucking industry. I'm talking about people in the light construction industry who drive light trucks like the 350 because they need to move lots of very heavy things like lumber and heavy construction equipment on demand and not on a schedule. Unless you're not a huge fan of housing, they still need to be able to move things. So what do you propose they drive? What kind of options are there for construction workers looking to improve their diesel consumption and environmental impact without reducing their ability to do their jobs?
It would be awesome if I could actually afford a Hybrid. I'd drive one if I could. Would you be willing to pay for one since I've got other things to pay for like an education? Or would you prefer that I stop paying for that and instead buy a car?
And if we can't drive trucks anymore, then how will the builders move materials and equipment? Are you proposing that they all buy roof racks for their Geo Metros?
If you're trying to read and post to something on an English site on the internet, maybe that should be one of the requirements.
Even if it were an order of magnitude estimate at 500:1, it's still incredibly likely. I wouldn't bank on us surviving past 2036 unless we do something to stop the asteroid. We're at the point techonologically where we could do something about it. And what if you are less than 1/100th the width of a pin off when you shoot a pool cue across the table? How much variation does that introduce into the next 10 seconds of the game?
Planetary orbits are a deterministic system, and don't fool yourself into thinking that we can crunch a few numbers and immediately determine what will happen. To give you an idea of the complexity of the planetary system, it took Physicists about 400 years to develop a working general solution to the differential equations governing a 3-body planetary system.
Essentially, the reason that a small satellite drastically increases the odds that the asteroid will hit us on a second path is the same reason that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Florida.
We should take neither the odds, nor the pronouncement of any probability, lightly. Would you rather be wrong about what will happen, and have life on the Earth as we know it end? This asteroid would cause the end of our epoch and the beginning of a new one. Only a fool would suggest we continue on with business as usual.
Well, if we can't make observations about such physical phenomena as space expanding faster than the speed of light, then isn't it pointless to discuss such phenomena from the standpoint of physics? If we can't make any observations to confirm a model then it's pointless to develop the model except as an exercise in mathematical reasoning.
Oh, and buzzword isn't the same as a precisely-defined technical term. For a good litmus test, compare the precision of the definition of "Web 2.0" to the definition of "Force."
That's basically all the high-stakes tests ask for. Even the tests which supposedly test students' reasoning still provide a stimulus, like a canned experiment with outcome and procedural information, and ask students to do very specific things which all use a fairly standard wording, like "comparing" the results of the experiment. A better test of students' reasoning would be asking for an evaluation of the procedure, but quite honestly nobody expects students to actually evaluate anything critically. The "high standards" that are paraded around are frequently just a student being more specific in his regurgitation of information than another.
And I think that the standardised tests are the death-throes of behaviorism in learning. The school that I'm working toward my certification from pushes the idea of constructivist learning theory, but in the end they don't really do anything that is a good example of constructivism. Most of the certification classes require students to slog through hours of tedious busywork, like recording information from a book verbatim. This, apparently, allows us to meet some type of standard which is supposed to be geared toward making us highly qualified teachers, but more often it turns us off to the idea of studying the theories of teaching and learning, which, if applied, can be quite useful.
Possibly the worst class requires us to complete a 70-100 page "unit plan." How is such a thing feasible in the real world? Are there other ways that the program could be teaching us the skills which this "unit plan" is supposed to give us? All I know is that I learned more about teaching in 16 hours of practicum than I learned in 20 credits of certification courses.
You forgot to ask us if we wanted toast.
Teaching certification coursework is full of lame little "standards" like understanding copyright law and being able to teach it to students so that they understand that downloading the newest NiN CD is technically stealing. Really, most teachers will not remember 90% of the stuff which they "learn" in those courses. So even though it's unlikely that they would remember the little internet safety tips they would get in their coursework, it's even less likely that they would remember every single little piece of software for net safety that they have ever been exposed to. What makes teaching certification coursework worse is that everyone who drafts standards or makes decisions on how teachers are certified assume that teaching is something which can be learned from the student role. If you think this is possible, then think about how easy it is to learn to program by watching other people write programs. Or think about learning to do research science by doing canned laboratory experiments in a 100-level class.
This isn't a blog, it's a news aggregation site with a message board. The difference is that the aggregator links directly to the source instead of just writing about what's going on. Oh, and they're honest about being an aggregator.
I met someone who did use blogs as a way to get updates in science news at an open forum. I couldn't resist pointing out that blogs typically get their news from other blogs who get their news from other blogs who get their news from legitimate news organizations.
I just wanted to let you know that having a redirect to a smarmy, condescending tirade on how IE is the worst broswer known to man is a very bad way to get people to read your website. Especially if the person reading your website is using a computer which he has no control over. Perhaps, in the future, you will consider letting people choose which browser they use to access your website since it most likely consists of code which will render just fine in IE. Unless you do online banking or some other type of service which requires a lot of intricate security code you come off as arrogant when you place such an arbitrary barrier to entry on your website. I hope you'll consider this as the sarcastic tirade that it is.
Yours truly.
Translation:
"I'm very very jealous that an 11 year-old has the knowledge and skills to land a network administration job and I'm still stuck at the helpdesk."
Typically, the tarot reading requires the client to give some background information. Then, cards are drawn and their meanings are interpreted according to this background information. The cards seem to "ring true" about the situation because the client wants to believe in the fortune telling.
Still, it's fun in a taboo sort of way to get a fortune told. And you'd be suprised at how many patterns seem to exist in the world where we wouldn't expect them.
I'm not going to dispute this. I just wanted to crack a joke using the set-up from the ridiculous statement.
In fact, I agree with you, that most mal-formed ideas and misunderstandings stem from people not taking the time out of their thinking process to genuinely listen to what someone else is saying and then weigh it. Instead, they listen to the first statement and spend most of the rest of the conversation thinking about how they can dispute the first statement without bothering to listen to the way the speaker is qualifying the statement.
Hey, wasn't it true that Australia was originally a prison colony? So it shouldn't matter that a large number of the population were basically criminals. I mean, that's true of us here in the US too.