You might have heard of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's theory included a small change to the law of conservation of energy. He explained that energy can sometimes be created -- by destroying matter!
Having a new approach to teaching science is great. I actually think that emphasizing how things were discovered and who discovered them would make science more engaging to a middle school student. I know that I'm certainly interested in it - I've read a few books in my free time on the topics.
But while you're doing this, make sure what you say is accurate. The above quote is not accurate. Energy is not created; matter is not destroyed. One is changed into the other. If students have previous knowledge of the subject, this statement would confuse them. I understand what she means, but I wouldn't expect a middle school student to. I think this is a great idea, but I hope she has some people who are in the respective fields edit it.
The author also stated that "they are only warning signs -- even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate."
The idea is that scienctific discoveries that require new physical laws are so rare that a judge should be suspect of anyone claiming such a thing. In Einstein's case, I think people had reason to be suspicious of him. He proposed a very radical change. However, his theories were easily falsifiable. But they weren't falisfied - experiments agreed with his theories.
People like Einstein, however, are exceedingly rare. The chances that a judge will have one in his courtroom are very small. So if someone claims to be in a similar situation, red flags should go off in the judge's head.
That sounds like it has more to do with the underlying data structure than the language itself. Lists: linear time access. Hash table: constant time access (or very close, if you have a minimum of collissions).
I've read everything he has written, save the books on the English language. (Started the one on American English, and it was entertaining and informative to a point, but I lost interest.) Some are better than others, he's a bit more mean spirited in some, but I like them all. I've re-read nearly all of his books at least once over by just picking them up and opening to random pages.
As far as trying to like Australia, I don't get that at all from his book.
A friend of mine is Mormon, and he went on a mission to Australia for two years. He read Bryson's book on Australia before going and loved it. Bryson is a bit more bitter in some of his earlier books, but I didn't find that particular one all that negative.
For those that enjoy Dave Barry's work, I heartily reccomend Bill Bryson. He's a travel author, and except for a short stint after returning to America (which can be found in book form, I'm a Stranger Here Myself), he doesn't do columns. He writes travel books, but they are hands down the funniest books I have ever read.
The first book I bought of his, In a Sunburned Country, I started reading on the bus home. Halfway, I had to stop because I was laughing uncontrollabley, and it was getting embarassing. Bill Bryson is that good.
Have a public, government run legal database that provides similar services as the private ones. I think this might be ideal, but I also don't think it will happen - too expensive.
If the companies give free access to libraries, let them write it off as a tax deduction in some way. I'm not entirely comfortable with this - giving more public money to private corporations - but it seems more plausible than my other solution.
Re:Don't put words in her mouth, please....
on
Democracy in the Dark?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's not fair to let only certain parties have access to this information in electronic format - it's not bomb-making information after all. I would also argue that it's not fair for Lexis and Westlaw to set the prices for these databases beyond the reach of public institutions like libraries.
I agree. However, "not fair" is not the same as "not legal." I think that they have a moral imperative to allow access from public libraries, but I see no way in which they have a legal obligation to do so.
Per my understadning, they are not requesting a patent on any single claim. They are requesting a patent on something that is the sum of all of those claims.
A credit report when you're in a situation where you will have to pay someone makes sense. That doesn't necessarily carry over to an employment situation.
Does habitual mismanagment of finances have a bearing on ability to pay rent? Probably. Does habitual mismanagement of finances have a bearing on ability to work? I really can't say, but I doubt it. I can contrive situations in which it does, but I don't think the connection is strong enough to justify background checks for all employees.
The risk of employment is also less than the risk of renting to someone. An employee can be fired on the spot. Not so with evictions.
First, the XBox name he explained away. Alright, I can buy that.
But that controller on the first scanned page? That's an SNES controller. The NES did not have L and R buttons, nor did any system before it. The combination of these two things makes this smell like a hoax. I might be wrong - I haven't had the change to read much of it - but I have my doubts as to his claim that he wrote this in 1991.
Luckily, 11%, 15% and 11.38% are all covered by the statement "at least 10%" so you've nothing to worry about. That's almost the last thing I'd expect to see someone pick on when it comes to D (only slightly less weird than complaining of him not providing translations into any or all foreign languages).
I think you missed the point I was attemtping to make. The statement is rubbish. The number used is arbitrary. It is not a criticism of D itself, but how the author has presented it.
A lot of the comments in the Overview I find to be either unverifiable conjecture, or just plain silly. A sampling:
C++ programmers tend to program in particular islands of the language, i.e. getting very proficient using certain features while avoiding other feature sets.
A great strength of C++ is that it can support many radically different styles of programming - but in long term use, the overlapping and contradictory styles are a hindrance.
It doesn't come with a VM, a religion, or an overriding philosophy.
D aims to reduce software development costs by at least 10% by adding in proven productivity enhancing features and by adjusting language features so that common, time-consuming bugs are eliminated from the start.
The first two I am not able to counter at all - I simply don't have the experience. I don't know if he does, either, so I don't buy it. The last... why 10%? Why not 11%, 15%, or 11.38%? It just seems silly.
As for philosophy, every language has a philosophy. D adheres to the object oriented paradigm - that's a philosophy. Beyond that, it seems to me that it tries to attain simplicity in use while trying to force good programming standards. That's most definitely a philosopy.
I've read a bit about the language itself, and I am interested in the unittest and contracts in particular. Those features would be great additions to any language, I think.
But I don't see a need for the language itself. It seems like Walter Bright looked at the current OO languages and decided they weren't adequate for his needs. So he designed and implemented his own. This is commendable, but I don't see the result as being different enough from the other available OO languages to make any sort of switch or adoption advantageous.
I think that languages get adopted widely when they offer something that other languages can't do, or do very poorly. Fortran allowed an abstraction higher than assembley. C++ allowed object oriented design using notation many people were familiar with and at high speeds. Perl allowed easy text manipulation. Java allowed platform independence (yeah, yeah, with the JVM, but that I think is what sold it). All of the feature additions and deletions are nice (well, not all of them, I like some of the things he decided against including), but I don't think they add up to something that people really need. And if you can't produce that, I don't think the language is going to catch on.
Sure they do: they have the academic records of their admits.
That's not what I define "first hand knowledge" to be. To me, first hand knowledge is knowledge gained from personally being exposed to the cirriculum at that school. Academic records are indirect. Academic papers are indirect. Probably important, however, and here's to hoping that Virginia Tech graduates have done well at Purdue. (And everywhere else I've applied.)
My point is that popular prestige misleads people into thinking that these ultra-selective schools are better than they really are, and conversely that the best teaching colleges are worse than they really are.
What is "popular prestige"? What kind of an agreement is there on it? The schools I hold in a high regard, I do so because they have an academic reputation. I don't know what popular prestige is. That comment just seems like a strawman to me.
Note that they don't say the prestige of the institution.
They're going by reputation - few, if any, of the admissions people will have first hand knowledge of the quality any given school. So they go by the reputation of the school, gained through various ways (colleagues, students, academic papers, etc.). I consider that the same as prestige.
But that's just a matter of definition. The point I wanted to make was that where you go to school does matter to graduate programs. The word you use to describe this - prestige, quality of institution, reputation - doesn't matter.
Anyways, I got deferred at MIT, which essentially means rejected. Why?
No, it means deferred. I think you're assuming and awful lot about what the admissions people care about, over-estimating your own credentials, and under-estimating your peer's. MIT is one of the preeminent technology schools in the world. You are probably a great student, but the number of applicants to a school like MIT is enormous. Out of a pool this large, there are bound to be people better qualified than you. Them's the breaks. I don't think MIT gives cares about if you played a sport or not.
I'm applying there for grad school (among many other places). I will graduate from Virginia Tech this May with a 3.6 in-major GPA and about the same for my cumulative GPA. I'm doing undergraduate research next semester. I'm a computer science major with a minor in math and a minor in physics. And I think my chances of getting into MIT are slim.
Things like President of National Honor Society club, etc. There was a kid at my school who got in early at Princeton with a 1250 SAT (thats not good) because he played water polo. Last year, one of my friends won the National Merit Scholarship to attend Johns Hopkins....and they wouldnt even admit him!
An SAT score of 1250 is just fine. SAT scores are bunk. They demonstrate one thing: your ability to take the SATs. You don't know why these people were accepted and rejected, so stop pretending.
Please. I think striving to communicate clearly is a realistic goal.
Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten?
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 2
Cattle farms are not rat-mink operations, but vast consumers of plant resources that could be used to feed many starving people.
As I understand it, that is a non-issue. There's no shortage of food to feed the world, the problem is that it is not distributed to those who need it.
Slashdot Mirror
But while you're doing this, make sure what you say is accurate. The above quote is not accurate. Energy is not created; matter is not destroyed. One is changed into the other. If students have previous knowledge of the subject, this statement would confuse them. I understand what she means, but I wouldn't expect a middle school student to. I think this is a great idea, but I hope she has some people who are in the respective fields edit it.
There was lots of speculation, but there was no confirmation. Earth is still the only place we have seen direct evidence of life.
The author also stated that "they are only warning signs -- even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate."
The idea is that scienctific discoveries that require new physical laws are so rare that a judge should be suspect of anyone claiming such a thing. In Einstein's case, I think people had reason to be suspicious of him. He proposed a very radical change. However, his theories were easily falsifiable. But they weren't falisfied - experiments agreed with his theories.
People like Einstein, however, are exceedingly rare. The chances that a judge will have one in his courtroom are very small. So if someone claims to be in a similar situation, red flags should go off in the judge's head.
That sounds like it has more to do with the underlying data structure than the language itself. Lists: linear time access. Hash table: constant time access (or very close, if you have a minimum of collissions).
She just disappeared into smoke the next night?
Moore's Corollary: Moore's Law is not a law, and people will act like this is news.
I've read everything he has written, save the books on the English language. (Started the one on American English, and it was entertaining and informative to a point, but I lost interest.) Some are better than others, he's a bit more mean spirited in some, but I like them all. I've re-read nearly all of his books at least once over by just picking them up and opening to random pages.
As far as trying to like Australia, I don't get that at all from his book.
A friend of mine is Mormon, and he went on a mission to Australia for two years. He read Bryson's book on Australia before going and loved it. Bryson is a bit more bitter in some of his earlier books, but I didn't find that particular one all that negative.
For those that enjoy Dave Barry's work, I heartily reccomend Bill Bryson. He's a travel author, and except for a short stint after returning to America (which can be found in book form, I'm a Stranger Here Myself), he doesn't do columns. He writes travel books, but they are hands down the funniest books I have ever read.
The first book I bought of his, In a Sunburned Country, I started reading on the bus home. Halfway, I had to stop because I was laughing uncontrollabley, and it was getting embarassing. Bill Bryson is that good.
It's not fair to let only certain parties have access to this information in electronic format - it's not bomb-making information after all. I would also argue that it's not fair for Lexis and Westlaw to set the prices for these databases beyond the reach of public institutions like libraries.
I agree. However, "not fair" is not the same as "not legal." I think that they have a moral imperative to allow access from public libraries, but I see no way in which they have a legal obligation to do so.
I don't see how this is extortion.
Except your "theory" is not based on anything but "common sense." With no data to support it, you sound like just another armchair physicist.
Per my understadning, they are not requesting a patent on any single claim. They are requesting a patent on something that is the sum of all of those claims.
A credit report when you're in a situation where you will have to pay someone makes sense. That doesn't necessarily carry over to an employment situation.
Does habitual mismanagment of finances have a bearing on ability to pay rent? Probably. Does habitual mismanagement of finances have a bearing on ability to work? I really can't say, but I doubt it. I can contrive situations in which it does, but I don't think the connection is strong enough to justify background checks for all employees.
The risk of employment is also less than the risk of renting to someone. An employee can be fired on the spot. Not so with evictions.
First, the XBox name he explained away. Alright, I can buy that.
But that controller on the first scanned page? That's an SNES controller. The NES did not have L and R buttons, nor did any system before it. The combination of these two things makes this smell like a hoax. I might be wrong - I haven't had the change to read much of it - but I have my doubts as to his claim that he wrote this in 1991.
I don't get your sig - Socrates was executed.
Luckily, 11%, 15% and 11.38% are all covered by the statement "at least 10%" so you've nothing to worry about. That's almost the last thing I'd expect to see someone pick on when it comes to D (only slightly less weird than complaining of him not providing translations into any or all foreign languages).
I think you missed the point I was attemtping to make. The statement is rubbish. The number used is arbitrary. It is not a criticism of D itself, but how the author has presented it.
- C++ programmers tend to program in particular islands of the language, i.e. getting very proficient using certain features while avoiding other feature sets.
- A great strength of C++ is that it can support many radically different styles of programming - but in long term use, the overlapping and contradictory styles are a hindrance.
- It doesn't come with a VM, a religion, or an overriding philosophy.
- D aims to reduce software development costs by at least 10% by adding in proven productivity enhancing features and by adjusting language features so that common, time-consuming bugs are eliminated from the start.
The first two I am not able to counter at all - I simply don't have the experience. I don't know if he does, either, so I don't buy it. The last... why 10%? Why not 11%, 15%, or 11.38%? It just seems silly.As for philosophy, every language has a philosophy. D adheres to the object oriented paradigm - that's a philosophy. Beyond that, it seems to me that it tries to attain simplicity in use while trying to force good programming standards. That's most definitely a philosopy.
I've read a bit about the language itself, and I am interested in the unittest and contracts in particular. Those features would be great additions to any language, I think.
But I don't see a need for the language itself. It seems like Walter Bright looked at the current OO languages and decided they weren't adequate for his needs. So he designed and implemented his own. This is commendable, but I don't see the result as being different enough from the other available OO languages to make any sort of switch or adoption advantageous.
I think that languages get adopted widely when they offer something that other languages can't do, or do very poorly. Fortran allowed an abstraction higher than assembley. C++ allowed object oriented design using notation many people were familiar with and at high speeds. Perl allowed easy text manipulation. Java allowed platform independence (yeah, yeah, with the JVM, but that I think is what sold it). All of the feature additions and deletions are nice (well, not all of them, I like some of the things he decided against including), but I don't think they add up to something that people really need. And if you can't produce that, I don't think the language is going to catch on.
Sure they do: they have the academic records of their admits.
That's not what I define "first hand knowledge" to be. To me, first hand knowledge is knowledge gained from personally being exposed to the cirriculum at that school. Academic records are indirect. Academic papers are indirect. Probably important, however, and here's to hoping that Virginia Tech graduates have done well at Purdue. (And everywhere else I've applied.)
My point is that popular prestige misleads people into thinking that these ultra-selective schools are better than they really are, and conversely that the best teaching colleges are worse than they really are.
What is "popular prestige"? What kind of an agreement is there on it? The schools I hold in a high regard, I do so because they have an academic reputation. I don't know what popular prestige is. That comment just seems like a strawman to me.
Note that they don't say the prestige of the institution.
They're going by reputation - few, if any, of the admissions people will have first hand knowledge of the quality any given school. So they go by the reputation of the school, gained through various ways (colleagues, students, academic papers, etc.). I consider that the same as prestige.
But that's just a matter of definition. The point I wanted to make was that where you go to school does matter to graduate programs. The word you use to describe this - prestige, quality of institution, reputation - doesn't matter.
Sure. I'm the process of applying to graduate school. Purdue was the most upfront about admissions out of all of the schools I've applied to:Other schools I've looked at have said similar things; we take into account where you got your degree from, essentially.
Anyways, I got deferred at MIT, which essentially means rejected. Why?
No, it means deferred. I think you're assuming and awful lot about what the admissions people care about, over-estimating your own credentials, and under-estimating your peer's. MIT is one of the preeminent technology schools in the world. You are probably a great student, but the number of applicants to a school like MIT is enormous. Out of a pool this large, there are bound to be people better qualified than you. Them's the breaks. I don't think MIT gives cares about if you played a sport or not.
I'm applying there for grad school (among many other places). I will graduate from Virginia Tech this May with a 3.6 in-major GPA and about the same for my cumulative GPA. I'm doing undergraduate research next semester. I'm a computer science major with a minor in math and a minor in physics. And I think my chances of getting into MIT are slim.
Things like President of National Honor Society club, etc. There was a kid at my school who got in early at Princeton with a 1250 SAT (thats not good) because he played water polo. Last year, one of my friends won the National Merit Scholarship to attend Johns Hopkins....and they wouldnt even admit him!
An SAT score of 1250 is just fine. SAT scores are bunk. They demonstrate one thing: your ability to take the SATs. You don't know why these people were accepted and rejected, so stop pretending.
Please. I think striving to communicate clearly is a realistic goal.
Cattle farms are not rat-mink operations, but vast consumers of plant resources that could be used to feed many starving people.
As I understand it, that is a non-issue. There's no shortage of food to feed the world, the problem is that it is not distributed to those who need it.