Chopping off the man's jewels would make more sense (wait no it wouldn't, but it would be funnier), then it wouldn't matter if he went to a chatroom or not.
That is awesome. I just wonder how the book publishers will respond? Imagine being able to read any textbook without paying for it? How will those textbook publishers who keep raising prices and reprinting books with "new" editions make money... I'm imagining an RIAA-like attack on online books. Watch out Google!
Education should be free. Especially now that information can be distributed so cheaply and so efficiently
On a side note, I believe the government should create some standardized books. For example, calculus. It's the same equations and theorems that each school teaches and it hasn't changed much in a long, long time. Teachers can dictate which parts to emphasize. We can have a committee of well-established professors write the book in the same way that any other calc book is written. The book can undergo revision every 10 years or more. Think of the money that can be saved for students!!! It can even be available online! Of course some books can't be standardized like history, where different viewpoints produce different versions of history./P
I was refering to schools spending millions to have computers in classes from comp. sci. to spanish. Obviously, comp. sci. requires a computer, but spanish? Waste of money. Scores aren't going up, yet millions are spent.
Let me tell you something else. US ranks very low in academics especially in Math and Science, considering our GDP. Many countries that are much poorer are producing students much more knowledgable at the same age. That just shows how unnecessary computers are to learning. They may help, but they definitely aren't neccessary.
I don't know why everyone keeps defending Moore's law. In time, it'll be broken. Just like the curse of the Bambino. Then, what will those people say about Moore's law?
Boyle's law, Hooke's law, Avogadro's law, Newton's law of gravity, Ohm's law, Arrhenius' law, and so on and so on. All of these laws were derived essentially the same way: By fitting a curve to experimental data.
Boyle and Avogadro didn't know what a gas was made up of. Arrhenius did not understand statistical thermodynamics, Newton did not understand gravity.
The difference here lies in the fact that those laws are based on physical properties of the universe! Moore's law is dependent on humans to develop technology. We could, in theory, stop advancing technology thus stopping Moore's law. We can't, however, prevent gas from being related inversely between pressure and volume.
That is true. I agree that putting his name in front does signify the "law" is merely his observation. However, considering the amount of "non-science" people in the community, I doubt they would see it that way.
That is a big problem between science and non-science people. Sometimes, I see people mocking or emphasizing that Evolution is a THEORY (usually religious people), not a fact. I have to explain to them that a theory is actually a powerful statement in science, backed up with a lot of evidence.
There is so much wrong with the phrase "Moore's Law". First of all, it's not a LAW! As members of the science and engineering community, we understand that a Law is one of the highest designations we can give a phenomena. It implies that there exists consistent empirical evidence for the phenomena. Evolution and Relativity have far more evidence yet they are still theories. Second, why is Moore getting so much credit for what the engineers and scientists at Intel and AMD are doing? The scientists and engineers are the one that are developing new technology and advancing the speed of the CPU. Moore did nothing more than point out an interesting statistic. Maybe they should credit Newton for inventing gravity. "Newton's Law of Gravity."
Sorry for my rant. I dont' know why "Moore's Law" bothers me, but it does.
Patent reform will NEVER occur before Political reform. Political reform will NEVER occur without Citizens strongly voicing protests...
and frankly, I don't feel like getting up from my computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Chopping off the man's jewels would make more sense (wait no it wouldn't, but it would be funnier), then it wouldn't matter if he went to a chatroom or not.
That is awesome. I just wonder how the book publishers will respond? Imagine being able to read any textbook without paying for it? How will those textbook publishers who keep raising prices and reprinting books with "new" editions make money... I'm imagining an RIAA-like attack on online books. Watch out Google!
Education should be free. Especially now that information can be distributed so cheaply and so efficiently
On a side note, I believe the government should create some standardized books. For example, calculus. It's the same equations and theorems that each school teaches and it hasn't changed much in a long, long time. Teachers can dictate which parts to emphasize. We can have a committee of well-established professors write the book in the same way that any other calc book is written. The book can undergo revision every 10 years or more. Think of the money that can be saved for students!!! It can even be available online! Of course some books can't be standardized like history, where different viewpoints produce different versions of history. /P
I was refering to schools spending millions to have computers in classes from comp. sci. to spanish. Obviously, comp. sci. requires a computer, but spanish? Waste of money. Scores aren't going up, yet millions are spent.
Let me tell you something else. US ranks very low in academics especially in Math and Science, considering our GDP. Many countries that are much poorer are producing students much more knowledgable at the same age. That just shows how unnecessary computers are to learning. They may help, but they definitely aren't neccessary.
The whole technology upgrade the schools have been getting doesn't seem to be making learning more efficient. It seems like a big waste of money.
If a kid doesn't spend time studying his books, why would he start studying his software?
That fact of the matter is that I was ranting and I admitted it so. You trying to prove your point is becoming silly.
me: I don't like the name Moore's law because it's not a law. btw, this is a rant.
you: Not all laws are true laws. They are approximations.
me: The laws you mentioned are based on the universe, not man-made. Still don't like the name.
you: Not all laws are true laws. They are approximations with limits.
STILL DON'T LIKE THE NAME!!!Yes, the designation "law" is being overused
I don't know why everyone keeps defending Moore's law. In time, it'll be broken. Just like the curse of the Bambino. Then, what will those people say about Moore's law?
Boyle's law, Hooke's law, Avogadro's law, Newton's law of gravity, Ohm's law, Arrhenius' law, and so on and so on. All of these laws were derived essentially the same way: By fitting a curve to experimental data. Boyle and Avogadro didn't know what a gas was made up of. Arrhenius did not understand statistical thermodynamics, Newton did not understand gravity. The difference here lies in the fact that those laws are based on physical properties of the universe! Moore's law is dependent on humans to develop technology. We could, in theory, stop advancing technology thus stopping Moore's law. We can't, however, prevent gas from being related inversely between pressure and volume.
That is true. I agree that putting his name in front does signify the "law" is merely his observation. However, considering the amount of "non-science" people in the community, I doubt they would see it that way. That is a big problem between science and non-science people. Sometimes, I see people mocking or emphasizing that Evolution is a THEORY (usually religious people), not a fact. I have to explain to them that a theory is actually a powerful statement in science, backed up with a lot of evidence.
There is so much wrong with the phrase "Moore's Law". First of all, it's not a LAW! As members of the science and engineering community, we understand that a Law is one of the highest designations we can give a phenomena. It implies that there exists consistent empirical evidence for the phenomena. Evolution and Relativity have far more evidence yet they are still theories. Second, why is Moore getting so much credit for what the engineers and scientists at Intel and AMD are doing? The scientists and engineers are the one that are developing new technology and advancing the speed of the CPU. Moore did nothing more than point out an interesting statistic. Maybe they should credit Newton for inventing gravity. "Newton's Law of Gravity." Sorry for my rant. I dont' know why "Moore's Law" bothers me, but it does.
Patent reform will NEVER occur before Political reform. Political reform will NEVER occur without Citizens strongly voicing protests... and frankly, I don't feel like getting up from my computer.