This is a lot different that college majors. This is a general career path despite the terminology of the article. I don't see anything that indicates you cannot change your mind, though I imagine there would be some catching up to do.
I think this is more like "mechanic" versus "engineer" versus "artist". There would be a different emphasis on the types of classes being taken. The engineer would have heavier math than the mechanic than the artist.
On one hand, I hate the idea of anything that "pigeon holes" students.
On the other hand, I hate the concept that all students must be prepared for college. A lot of people just aren't cut out for it. Some are looking for blue collar careers, and would be better served by programs that prepare them for this vocation.
Combine this with kids who are at risk of dropping out of school. I see a lot of this. Some areas have a higher than 50% drop out rates. If you can take these kids and show them that when they are done with high school, they will be ready for a job as an electrician, a plumber or a mechanic, they'd be more likely to stay in. Tell them that they need to have 4 semesters of English, two of history, and they will be required to take some arts classes, and their reward will be two years of post-secondary trade school, and then they might get a job... well, some back grounds just don't value the education enough.
I see downsides to the "track" approach, but I see upsides as well.
Is this even worth being on Slashdot? Employee screws up, causes problems. International news?
Crap, several of our T1 lines were cut last week by a government employee who "forgot" to get a map of buried cables before digging. It cost us a heck of a lot more than a house (OT and moving of computer equipment from one location to another)... and that is just our business. I am not even sure it got local coverage.
You laugh. But the Intelligent Designers were telling us that there is no way life could have originated on Earth by chance. The odds were too great for it to be all chance, they argued. And many here laughed at that.
Yet some scientists argue the same thing and many here are eager to believe it.
You can come to your own conclusions on what this means.
I'm sorry... but I am not seeing that part. Can you please quote me the part of the article where you read this? I am only seeing something about a 1-2% correction in global temperatures.
Numbers used in the debate about global warming were never questioned. The person who put together the algorithm never made the workings of the algorithm public (why not?). Yet there was no questioning the numbers.
Someone goes to the trouble of reverse engineering the algorithm, and finds a pretty obvious error. Yet you are picking on one sentence? Sheesh. I'd think you'd be jumping on the closed-sourced original scientist instead.
In other words, some random blogger claiming that climatologists have been using screwed up figures about global warming due to a "year 2000" bug is pretty miraculous. I find it more believable that there's more to the story here than what's being posted. I read some of the logic chopping in the blog post's comments, but I didn't see any climatologists speaking there. Just some random people who seemed like they were playing detective.
I'd like to see some additional corroboration on this.
RTFA. There is a link to NASA posting the new numbers. Need more corroboration?
I looked quickly at the numbers. This impacts U.S. air surface temperatures, not global. It almost seems like the U.S. is experiencing a somewhat lesser global warming effect than the rest of the world. Is this possibly due to the post-industrialized economy and tighter environmental regulations? This would mean we are still being impacted by global warming, but it is being countered by less heat-trapping smog and other pollutants?
I am curious as to what fundamental math is being quested here.
Mine apparently.
Here is what is even more funny: I scored a perfect Math SAT as a Senior.
Here is what is even more funny: As a Junior I took the test, and paid to have the answers I got wrong explained to me (several weeks after test, mailed to me). I missed two questions.. both were addition problems.
Yup. though I would argue that now we are past the point of "living beyond our means". As a society we are far enough in debt that the interest we are paying is outweighing the additional amount we are borrowing. We are slowly drowning in debt.
Two generations ago, the average mortgage was aroun 10 years in length. Now many folks NEVER pay off a mortgage. On average, a person will pay twice as much interest as principle on a house... and that is for the "prime" market.
While it is a sad situation, there is little I can do as an individual to stop it. I can, however, use it to my advantage. I pack away close to 20% of gross salary in savings, and paid my house off in under six years. I am living a lot more modestly than my friends with similar income, but I really don't mind not having a Lexus. As more folks are in over their head, credit gets tighter and rates go up. Those of us with money put away will be able to demand a higher rate for it. Those who don't have it will have to continue to work until they physically cannot.
I try to tell people this, but not too many listen. While I see the U.S. slowly going down the tubes, the consolation is I will probably be on the top of the garbage heap.
But there is almost nothing to conduct the heat. You can survive a long time in 40F degree air. Now just in 40F degree water and see how long it takes before hypothermia sets in. The difference is conduction. There would be (almost) nothing to carry away your body heat in space.
"Every single person working in the media today who experienced the dot-com bubble in 1999 to 2000 believes that we are going through the exact same process and can expect the exact same results--a bust."
The first sentence of the article and the first blatantly incorrect statement. Is it worth reading on?
Slashdot Mirror
its a good R&D will be expect good stuff
All your base are belong to us.
I was in AV Club and Glee Club and even the Chess Team.
This is a lot different that college majors. This is a general career path despite the terminology of the article. I don't see anything that indicates you cannot change your mind, though I imagine there would be some catching up to do.
I think this is more like "mechanic" versus "engineer" versus "artist". There would be a different emphasis on the types of classes being taken. The engineer would have heavier math than the mechanic than the artist.
On one hand, I hate the idea of anything that "pigeon holes" students.
On the other hand, I hate the concept that all students must be prepared for college. A lot of people just aren't cut out for it. Some are looking for blue collar careers, and would be better served by programs that prepare them for this vocation.
Combine this with kids who are at risk of dropping out of school. I see a lot of this. Some areas have a higher than 50% drop out rates. If you can take these kids and show them that when they are done with high school, they will be ready for a job as an electrician, a plumber or a mechanic, they'd be more likely to stay in. Tell them that they need to have 4 semesters of English, two of history, and they will be required to take some arts classes, and their reward will be two years of post-secondary trade school, and then they might get a job... well, some back grounds just don't value the education enough.
I see downsides to the "track" approach, but I see upsides as well.
I know this is true -- for the longest time I had a license for XP, but ran 2000. All legal... or should I say "all license agreement compliant".
Is this even worth being on Slashdot? Employee screws up, causes problems. International news?
Crap, several of our T1 lines were cut last week by a government employee who "forgot" to get a map of buried cables before digging. It cost us a heck of a lot more than a house (OT and moving of computer equipment from one location to another)... and that is just our business. I am not even sure it got local coverage.
You laugh. But the Intelligent Designers were telling us that there is no way life could have originated on Earth by chance. The odds were too great for it to be all chance, they argued. And many here laughed at that.
Yet some scientists argue the same thing and many here are eager to believe it.
You can come to your own conclusions on what this means.
On the heels of this announcement, climateaudit.org gets hit with a Distributed Denial of Service attack. Interesting.
I'm sorry... but I am not seeing that part. Can you please quote me the part of the article where you read this? I am only seeing something about a 1-2% correction in global temperatures.
Thanks.
Numbers used in the debate about global warming were never questioned. The person who put together the algorithm never made the workings of the algorithm public (why not?). Yet there was no questioning the numbers.
Someone goes to the trouble of reverse engineering the algorithm, and finds a pretty obvious error. Yet you are picking on one sentence? Sheesh. I'd think you'd be jumping on the closed-sourced original scientist instead.
In other words, some random blogger claiming that climatologists have been using screwed up figures about global warming due to a "year 2000" bug is pretty miraculous. I find it more believable that there's more to the story here than what's being posted. I read some of the logic chopping in the blog post's comments, but I didn't see any climatologists speaking there. Just some random people who seemed like they were playing detective.
I'd like to see some additional corroboration on this.
RTFA. There is a link to NASA posting the new numbers. Need more corroboration?
So does Africa. And Australia. And South America. And with the air flow patterns, Europe should be as well.
I looked quickly at the numbers. This impacts U.S. air surface temperatures, not global. It almost seems like the U.S. is experiencing a somewhat lesser global warming effect than the rest of the world. Is this possibly due to the post-industrialized economy and tighter environmental regulations? This would mean we are still being impacted by global warming, but it is being countered by less heat-trapping smog and other pollutants?
P.S. Quite sad that I have to use bold tags to keep the spelling nazis away
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Plus, the grammar Nazi insists that you must capitalize the "N".
I am curious as to what fundamental math is being quested here.
Mine apparently.
Here is what is even more funny: I scored a perfect Math SAT as a Senior.
Here is what is even more funny: As a Junior I took the test, and paid to have the answers I got wrong explained to me (several weeks after test, mailed to me). I missed two questions.. both were addition problems.
I am indeed the idiot. I ran the number through in my head and got 0.8%. I thought a decimal had been slipped. Please mod OP to -1 Moron.
Apparently the chances of being taught good fundamental math is lower than the chance of meeting IRL a freak that you chatted with on the internet.
Public education -- a series of tubes down the drain.
Yup. though I would argue that now we are past the point of "living beyond our means". As a society we are far enough in debt that the interest we are paying is outweighing the additional amount we are borrowing. We are slowly drowning in debt.
Two generations ago, the average mortgage was aroun 10 years in length. Now many folks NEVER pay off a mortgage. On average, a person will pay twice as much interest as principle on a house... and that is for the "prime" market.
While it is a sad situation, there is little I can do as an individual to stop it. I can, however, use it to my advantage. I pack away close to 20% of gross salary in savings, and paid my house off in under six years. I am living a lot more modestly than my friends with similar income, but I really don't mind not having a Lexus. As more folks are in over their head, credit gets tighter and rates go up. Those of us with money put away will be able to demand a higher rate for it. Those who don't have it will have to continue to work until they physically cannot.
I try to tell people this, but not too many listen. While I see the U.S. slowly going down the tubes, the consolation is I will probably be on the top of the garbage heap.
Ummm... no, you wouldn't. You would be long dead before radiation would lower your body temperature significantly.
But there is almost nothing to conduct the heat. You can survive a long time in 40F degree air. Now just in 40F degree water and see how long it takes before hypothermia sets in. The difference is conduction. There would be (almost) nothing to carry away your body heat in space.
Ever hear of the inverse square law?
"Spider-pig, Spider-pig,
Does whatever a Spider-pig does."
"Can he fly from a web?
No he can't 'cause he's a pig"
"Look out! He isn't paper trained....."
More research on the subject. Very interesting stuff.
Next time don't go to McDonald's Playland.
"Every single person working in the media today who experienced the dot-com bubble in 1999 to 2000 believes that we are going through the exact same process and can expect the exact same results--a bust."
The first sentence of the article and the first blatantly incorrect statement. Is it worth reading on?