I'm a glorified teaching assistant in Japanese schools. They call us Assistant English Teachers.
I'm watching the system here every day. About all we can learn from it is that it's just a variation of the push-everyone-down-to-the-same-level approach.
Oh. And standardized tests are way too one-dimensional.
Letting the smart kids help the kids who don't pick things up as quick helps everyone. (The smart kids learn a lot by teaching, the kids get more points of view, and the teacher can free up some of his/her time to handle the toughest issues.)
If the teacher will let it happen, of course. If not, then, yes, split the classes.
But I do remember the articles about the NexGen, as well, mentioned the predecessor tech. You might try looking for writable microcode processors and such.
How do you consider Thumb in relation to the concept?
I seem to remember early POWER processors having mixed microcoding, and a project for hardware emulating the x86 instruction set on POWER or PPC, through a front end. Not sure if that's close enough to satisfy you.
There would also be similar, but different products, like the 360 emulator that ran on a couple of 68K processors with re-programmed microcode. (I think one processor was for the I/O channel controller and the other emulated a subset of the 360 machine code.)
There are lots of things that are rare that have "objective value" only for those for whom they have "objective value".
Gold? What do I need it for? There is a bit in the electronics around, but that is not really what is driving the price. The primary thing that drives the price of gold is all the people who want it for jewelry, or for stockpiling.
What happens to that gold in twenty-fifty years, as global warming becomes a fact and you and I have trouble finding enough to eat? In the hopefully absurd case, will you pay a pound of gold, or more, for a sack of wheat, if you know that the next available sack of wheat is a hundred miles away and has a thousand people bidding/fighting for it already?
That is, hopefully, an extreme example, but not exactly non-historic.
But we can back away from it and see that, even rare metals have values that are simply not ever going to be objective in the real world.
You want an example of something with true objective value? How about air?
But I don't particularly want to live in any world where air is currency. Space exploration might be fun, but not if it means having to deal with shipmates who are inclined to pervert something rare into artificial value to make themselves rich.
Value is made by people working, and by people assigning (subjective) value to the work. That is all there is. No objective basis for value, and going back to the "gold standard" would just be returning to an old illusion, a rule that, in the past, people were willing to agree on, but a rule that is still just an artificial rule. The "value" in the gold standard was simply that a lot of people were willing to agree to it.
So, isn't what you really want simply some bases of value that we can all agree on? And you hope that gold, being tangible, rare, pretty, and, erm, having some valuable (to some people) uses, is something you can talk me into agreeing on?
Maybe I'd "buy" that, but only if we agree on a couple of things:
One, that we all acknowledge that it's just a conceit. That we are agreeing so that we can agree on something, not because gold has any real objective value. And the coin should have that printed on it, something like: "Redeemable for gold by weight, which has value only as long as we can agree to let it keep it's value." (Except that I'm not sure my grandchildren will understand that letting it keep its value means neither hoarding it nor throwing it away.)
The other, that we agree that we will not attempt to place monetary value on some things, like art and education and health, and just about any other thing of real value.
They can be pretty sleazy at times. They also happen to be the primary funding and personnel source behind the Japanese political party Kohmei-to -- komei.or.jp, unfortunately getting close to being the largest single party in Japan.
Sorry, but there's a reason we went off the gold standard.
Gold is just another metal.
Platinum? One of the rare earths? Some mathematical balance point of a set of linear equations involving several of the limited elements, based on their current demand in the market?
It's getting to be time to recognize that money has no value unless it can represent something useful, like food, or man-hours of labor. But different food is valued differently by different people, and different labor is valued differently by different people.
So we're back to money having no value except as it communicates wants and needs with resources.
Which means that having lots of money is kind of like having lots of air, and not in the sense of clean air for breathing or for manufacturing, but in the sense of air to make noise in. It's time to quit hoarding.
You are aware of the difference between finding a new vulnerability and using existing vulnerabilities not yet dealt with in the most recent set of patches?
For starters.
Name your proof.
(Not that I think Mac OS X is invincible. Feature creep certainly erodes the walls, too. But there is a difference, even then.)
Now, when my neighbor downstairs walks close to this billboard, I have to cover my children's eyes.
Cover mine, too, come to think of it.
Until I get close enough that my profile cancels his?
Which begs the question -- How do they determine which profile(s) win(s) when people with diametrically opposed profiles are close to this billboard? Split the billboard? Advertisement for Playboy on the left and bibles.com on the right? And if my good neighbor across the way comes by, where does the ad for islamicity.com go? (Not that he would pay any more attention to that than I would to bibles.com,)
I'd hope that this is a defensive patent, to prevent other companies from doing it either, but Microsoft has a track record of trying to do things with computers that shouldn't really be done, regardless of whether the available tech can actually support doing it, safely, correctly, or otherwise.
Besides, patents were not supposed to be weapons in that war, not that that war should be fought in a country that is supposed to be trying to be free.
but it doesn't alter the fact that setting C to one may hide the exponent, but doesn't make it disappear, doesn't make it anything other than 2.
Nor does the series that more closely models things that have relativistic momentum relative to use make the power any less integral.
It may be true that the beauty one person perceives in physical realities may be proof to that person about the existence of God (positive or negative, depending on the definition that said person has attached to the concept of God, among other things). That may, indeed be true.
It may also be true that said proof is applicable only to the person who perceives it so. But the limit of applicability is not a universal proof of God, either, whether negative or positive.
But to answer your question, making the unit of fuel for your guess tank useful when you set C=1 should point you in the right direction, if it isn't a red herring for you.
For my purposes, I can verify the existence of God. I can also recognize that what I understand of "good" is tightly bound with what I understand of God.
I can also recognize that what I understand is tightly bound to things I am and to things I need.
I can trace this line of reasoning further, but I'm going to state categorically that the conclusion that I must have created God would require that I had created myself, all the way back to either Adam & Eve or to the primordial swamp.
Yes, I have created part of my current state of existence. No, neither my conceptions of good nor of God are free from the biases in my brain. But there is something there that is antecedent to both my choices and my biases.
A tree falling requires something for it to fall towards. The full version of the question hypothesizes a forest. Forests necessarily contain trees. Trees have means to detect and measure sound waves, thus there is no way for a tree to fall in a forest without a "listener" present.
There are absolutes. We can't approach them very closely as long as we are limited by being mortal. Sometimes that makes us think the whole universe is relative (to us).
But we can sure try to approach the absolutes, and we can sure learn a lot from our efforts. And if we are careful, the things we can learn can be useful.
You really think phishing filters work? That the end result is not just a continued escalation of workarounds until the black hats get smart enough to cover their tracks?
It's not that hard to get a certificate, and it's not that hard to get a certificate into a browser, and certificates really aren't very standard about specifying what they're good for, yet.
I think what this guy is saying is that he doesn't want to connect to the bank with the same browser he uses to hang around youtube or facebook or whatever.
And, of course, that would be of no help if both browsers were running as the same user.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a glorified teaching assistant in Japanese schools. They call us Assistant English Teachers.
I'm watching the system here every day. About all we can learn from it is that it's just a variation of the push-everyone-down-to-the-same-level approach.
Oh. And standardized tests are way too one-dimensional.
Violence? I stopped a homosexual rape today.
I'm not sure how I feel about splitting classes.
Letting the smart kids help the kids who don't pick things up as quick helps everyone. (The smart kids learn a lot by teaching, the kids get more points of view, and the teacher can free up some of his/her time to handle the toughest issues.)
If the teacher will let it happen, of course. If not, then, yes, split the classes.
Have we considered the possibility that the lower achievers (if there is such a thing) might be lower achievers simply because they aren't as hungry?
Hmm. Hungry for what is the next question.
And I'm not sure attention is always good for promoting either good grades or getting smarter.
Oh, and there are a couple more questions we might be letting go begging.
But I do remember the articles about the NexGen, as well, mentioned the predecessor tech. You might try looking for writable microcode processors and such.
How do you consider Thumb in relation to the concept?
I seem to remember early POWER processors having mixed microcoding, and a project for hardware emulating the x86 instruction set on POWER or PPC, through a front end. Not sure if that's close enough to satisfy you.
There would also be similar, but different products, like the 360 emulator that ran on a couple of 68K processors with re-programmed microcode. (I think one processor was for the I/O channel controller and the other emulated a subset of the 360 machine code.)
There are lots of things that are rare that have "objective value" only for those for whom they have "objective value".
Gold? What do I need it for? There is a bit in the electronics around, but that is not really what is driving the price. The primary thing that drives the price of gold is all the people who want it for jewelry, or for stockpiling.
What happens to that gold in twenty-fifty years, as global warming becomes a fact and you and I have trouble finding enough to eat? In the hopefully absurd case, will you pay a pound of gold, or more, for a sack of wheat, if you know that the next available sack of wheat is a hundred miles away and has a thousand people bidding/fighting for it already?
That is, hopefully, an extreme example, but not exactly non-historic.
But we can back away from it and see that, even rare metals have values that are simply not ever going to be objective in the real world.
You want an example of something with true objective value? How about air?
But I don't particularly want to live in any world where air is currency. Space exploration might be fun, but not if it means having to deal with shipmates who are inclined to pervert something rare into artificial value to make themselves rich.
Value is made by people working, and by people assigning (subjective) value to the work. That is all there is. No objective basis for value, and going back to the "gold standard" would just be returning to an old illusion, a rule that, in the past, people were willing to agree on, but a rule that is still just an artificial rule. The "value" in the gold standard was simply that a lot of people were willing to agree to it.
So, isn't what you really want simply some bases of value that we can all agree on? And you hope that gold, being tangible, rare, pretty, and, erm, having some valuable (to some people) uses, is something you can talk me into agreeing on?
Maybe I'd "buy" that, but only if we agree on a couple of things:
One, that we all acknowledge that it's just a conceit. That we are agreeing so that we can agree on something, not because gold has any real objective value. And the coin should have that printed on it, something like: "Redeemable for gold by weight, which has value only as long as we can agree to let it keep it's value." (Except that I'm not sure my grandchildren will understand that letting it keep its value means neither hoarding it nor throwing it away.)
The other, that we agree that we will not attempt to place monetary value on some things, like art and education and health, and just about any other thing of real value.
Yes, he means the guys at sgi.org
They can be pretty sleazy at times. They also happen to be the primary funding and personnel source behind the Japanese political party Kohmei-to -- komei.or.jp, unfortunately getting close to being the largest single party in Japan.
the power of gold?
Sorry, but there's a reason we went off the gold standard.
Gold is just another metal.
Platinum? One of the rare earths? Some mathematical balance point of a set of linear equations involving several of the limited elements, based on their current demand in the market?
It's getting to be time to recognize that money has no value unless it can represent something useful, like food, or man-hours of labor. But different food is valued differently by different people, and different labor is valued differently by different people.
So we're back to money having no value except as it communicates wants and needs with resources.
Which means that having lots of money is kind of like having lots of air, and not in the sense of clean air for breathing or for manufacturing, but in the sense of air to make noise in. It's time to quit hoarding.
And, I suppose, whether you surf the web as your default admin privileged user.
You are aware of the difference between finding a new vulnerability and using existing vulnerabilities not yet dealt with in the most recent set of patches?
For starters.
Name your proof.
(Not that I think Mac OS X is invincible. Feature creep certainly erodes the walls, too. But there is a difference, even then.)
Now, when my neighbor downstairs walks close to this billboard, I have to cover my children's eyes.
Cover mine, too, come to think of it.
Until I get close enough that my profile cancels his?
Which begs the question -- How do they determine which profile(s) win(s) when people with diametrically opposed profiles are close to this billboard? Split the billboard? Advertisement for Playboy on the left and bibles.com on the right? And if my good neighbor across the way comes by, where does the ad for islamicity.com go? (Not that he would pay any more attention to that than I would to bibles.com,)
I'd hope that this is a defensive patent, to prevent other companies from doing it either, but Microsoft has a track record of trying to do things with computers that shouldn't really be done, regardless of whether the available tech can actually support doing it, safely, correctly, or otherwise.
Besides, patents were not supposed to be weapons in that war, not that that war should be fought in a country that is supposed to be trying to be free.
Dang. I wish I could.
/.
But either she is gone or she has gone on.
(Probably the latter, and sometimes watching me from over there and trying still to tell me to do something more useful with my time than post to
but it doesn't alter the fact that setting C to one may hide the exponent, but doesn't make it disappear, doesn't make it anything other than 2.
Nor does the series that more closely models things that have relativistic momentum relative to use make the power any less integral.
It may be true that the beauty one person perceives in physical realities may be proof to that person about the existence of God (positive or negative, depending on the definition that said person has attached to the concept of God, among other things). That may, indeed be true.
It may also be true that said proof is applicable only to the person who perceives it so. But the limit of applicability is not a universal proof of God, either, whether negative or positive.
But to answer your question, making the unit of fuel for your guess tank useful when you set C=1 should point you in the right direction, if it isn't a red herring for you.
At least, the integers beyond one.
The integers are an invention that closely (relative to us) models deeper truths about the physical universe.
Woops.
n/t
For my purposes, I can verify the existence of God. I can also recognize that what I understand of "good" is tightly bound with what I understand of God.
I can also recognize that what I understand is tightly bound to things I am and to things I need.
I can trace this line of reasoning further, but I'm going to state categorically that the conclusion that I must have created God would require that I had created myself, all the way back to either Adam & Eve or to the primordial swamp.
Yes, I have created part of my current state of existence. No, neither my conceptions of good nor of God are free from the biases in my brain. But there is something there that is antecedent to both my choices and my biases.
I guess she's bored and gone to sleep? ;-)
I mean, yes. We have other geometries, some of which turn out to have direct application to parts of the known universe.
But a non-plane geometry rarely makes a good fit for problem areas where a plane geometry fits well.
How about this? One winesap apple, one crabapple, one Fuji apple, one Golden Delicious apple. Do I have four apples? Three?
Where does the abstract concept of unity come from?
A tree falling requires something for it to fall towards. The full version of the question hypothesizes a forest. Forests necessarily contain trees. Trees have means to detect and measure sound waves, thus there is no way for a tree to fall in a forest without a "listener" present.
n/t
Well, okay, I'll rant a bit anyway.
There are absolutes. We can't approach them very closely as long as we are limited by being mortal. Sometimes that makes us think the whole universe is relative (to us).
But we can sure try to approach the absolutes, and we can sure learn a lot from our efforts. And if we are careful, the things we can learn can be useful.
Congratulations, you've just "discovered" how to hide exponents.
How does choosing a non-SI system of units alter E=MC^2?
Sure, using stones, and furlongs per fortnight, can make the actual calculation a bit more work, but does it alter the E=MC^2 symbolic representation?
until you consider that in a year it could be you and I that you are talking about.
You really think phishing filters work? That the end result is not just a continued escalation of workarounds until the black hats get smart enough to cover their tracks?
It's not that hard to get a certificate, and it's not that hard to get a certificate into a browser, and certificates really aren't very standard about specifying what they're good for, yet.
I think what this guy is saying is that he doesn't want to connect to the bank with the same browser he uses to hang around youtube or facebook or whatever.
And, of course, that would be of no help if both browsers were running as the same user.
and we'll be back to the devil as the bogeyman.