Meaning no offense to Slashdotters, but I think you will also get good answers on an online forum for home-schooling parents. Surely some of them have encountered a similar situation.
I don't remember studying chemistry as such when I was 10 years old and in the regular school system. I am not a teacher but I think you will find that instructional materials for chemistry are aimed at high-school age students. Not to put down 10-year-olds, but if memory serves most of them are still a bit shaky on non-integer arithmetic. I can't imagine studying chemistry without a basic grasp of algebra.
That said, there are lots of books of general "science experiments you can do at home!" Some of those experiments count as chemistry.
My advice: go to the public library and talk to the children's librarian.
Trolling for opinions on immigration is not "news for nerds." Believe it or not, I come here to get informed, not to get drawn into pointless flame-wars.
Are there any detailed written astronomical observations from the southern hemisphere from that long ago?
In 775 the Maya were almost certainly making astronomical observations. In the Eastern Hemisphere, I had to Google a bit but the Srivijaya Empire would have had a strong interest in astronomy for navigational purposes. But neither the Maya nor the Srivijaya civilizations have near as many surviving records as do European or Chinese civilizations of the same period.
Since the author of TFA was too lazy to Google for this and paste in a hyperlink, here is the current membership of the House Committee on Appropriations. If one of these jackass^H^H^H^H fine public servants represents your district, you might want to let him/her know what you think of this report.
A move to restrict public visibility into the legislative process seems like a bad idea in an election year. If only the minority party in the House had the balls to exploit this...
I don't live in Virginia. I will say up front I do not the camel's nose to come under a tent in Virginia, nor any other state.
However, let's take a deep breath and ask how, specifically, unmanned aerial vehicles will help the mission of the Virginia police forces. And how and where, specifically, will they operate?
If the people of Virginia don't get a specific answer, then I think it's fair for them to deny the proposal on a variety of grounds. Without a specific mission in mind it is unlikely that drones will save money (they'd be just expensive new equipment with no clear purpose). Without a specific operational plan it is unlikely the drones will operate in a way compatible with FAA regulations and, oh yes, a little thing I call THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
However if one were to object without hearing the specific plan first, one could more easily be dismissed as alarmist.
I would even concede there is a remote possibility that a reasonable and effective police application of drones exists. None has not occurred to me so far.
Did these people never take a chemistry class in college, or know anything at all about combustion? You can't reduce CO2 output without basically shutting the plant down...
You are discussing the costs of reducing CO2 emissions, and you're right, the costs are potentially very high.
The only way it makes sense to make a major societal commitment like cutting CO2 emissions is through a cost-benefit analysis. In the interest of disclosure I am one of the tree-huggers who thinks CO2 emissions are a clear and urgent problem. I think you and I can none the less agree that a cost-benefit analysis is the rational way to make a decision on whether to shut down power plants (and switch to windmills or nuclear plants) or not.
Unfortunately we're at a stage in the debate where people who should know better are still claiming that the cost of the other side's recommended approach is infinite. That's disingenuous and no way to make policy decisions.
So yes, shutting down fossil-fueled power plants would be costly. It may none the less be worth doing. Likewise, doing nothing will anger tree-huggers like myself and undoubtedly will have certain costs (disruption of agriculture, rising sea level, mass extinction of wildlife) but it may be the economically rational choice.
I'd like to see more talk about costs and benefits and less talk to the effect, "I dislike the implications of what you're recommending therefore your analysis is wrong."
Consumers ran screaming from one oligopoly to another.
Yes, but the new oligopoly is less stable. Someone could open a new online music store tomorrow and give artists a bigger cut; in fact that would be a good way to attract lots of artists to the new store.
No, it's applied research to advance the state of manufacturing. It looks like a natural step in the movement toward just-in-time manufacturing and supply-chain efficiency, probably aimed at replacement parts rather than whole vehicles and equipment. They apparently want the ability to retool factories for military production much as was done in WWII, only faster and more selectively hopefully on a much smaller scale. So instead of shutting down car production to make tanks, industry will be able to make tanks on one shift and keep making cars for the other two (for example).
Anonymous political discourse was absolutely instrumental in creating the United States.
And that is why the legislators feel we must never let it happen again: anonymous speech overthrew one government (English colonial government) already and it could threaten the United States government today!
We don't have laws like this now. It's only a proposal; it will fail, for a variety of reasons.
As much as I hate the idea of this law, it is probably a positive thing to raise the subject for public discussion. That way we can remind ourselves and our legislators that free speech still matters, and we still care.
Be honest; connectivity costs have been unsustainably low for at least a decade now.
I certainly don't feel I am being undercharged for bandwidth here in the Northeastern US; particularly not in comparison to European or East Asian countries.
What's left is looking more like a cartel in all but name every day, and you know what happens with cartels and pricing, right?
My point exactly; I guess the difference in our opinions is that I think the cartel scenario is already here.
Give me what I want to watch...when I want to watch it, otherwise...your business model sucks...
I think you're right, lack of driver support is one of the big reasons Linux never gained traction for non-programmers.
A big part of the reason drivers on Linux are so flaky is that hardware manufacturers are withholding the technical information necessary to write good drivers. It's not that Linux has a bad business model; it's that the makers of sound and video cards (and motherboards, and network cards, etc.) are actively blocking Linux from working smoothly on their products. Why this remains true, I can only speculate.
Don't you have employment rights in the US? If a UK company did that you could take them to a tribunal on the grounds that they made your job impossible to do well and then blamed you for it.
Making your job impossible and then blaming you for failure is standard operating procedure in the U.S. as far as I can tell. It happened to my father and it happened to me twice so far. I believe the only people who have protection are those who belong to a labor union. (I Am Not a Lawyer) The "conservatives" have very successfully eviscerated the labor unions over the past 30 years so it is nigh impossible to get a union job.
you'll need to remove all influence from the religious types first
While I agree that we'd be better off without "religous types" such as Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum, I'd like to remind you that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi were also "religious types."
Slashdot Mirror
As a frequent pedestrian and occasional driver, I can say: as much as you want a self-driving car for yourself, I want it more for others.
All you need is a five-minute conversation with a bad school administrator and you will never ask "why isn't this child in school?" again. :-)
Meaning no offense to Slashdotters, but I think you will also get good answers on an online forum for home-schooling parents. Surely some of them have encountered a similar situation.
I don't remember studying chemistry as such when I was 10 years old and in the regular school system. I am not a teacher but I think you will find that instructional materials for chemistry are aimed at high-school age students. Not to put down 10-year-olds, but if memory serves most of them are still a bit shaky on non-integer arithmetic. I can't imagine studying chemistry without a basic grasp of algebra.
That said, there are lots of books of general "science experiments you can do at home!" Some of those experiments count as chemistry.
My advice: go to the public library and talk to the children's librarian.
Measuring only the users who sought out games meant to improve cognitive functions is a massive selection bias.
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
Trolling for opinions on immigration is not "news for nerds." Believe it or not, I come here to get informed, not to get drawn into pointless flame-wars.
Well for one thing, local politicians are not interested in diverting my tax dollars to another state.
In 775 the Maya were almost certainly making astronomical observations. In the Eastern Hemisphere, I had to Google a bit but the Srivijaya Empire would have had a strong interest in astronomy for navigational purposes. But neither the Maya nor the Srivijaya civilizations have near as many surviving records as do European or Chinese civilizations of the same period.
Since the author of TFA was too lazy to Google for this and paste in a hyperlink, here is the current membership of the House Committee on Appropriations. If one of these jackass^H^H^H^H fine public servants represents your district, you might want to let him/her know what you think of this report.
I am pretty sure I could write a script to do that in one day, and many Slashdotters could do it quicker.
A move to restrict public visibility into the legislative process seems like a bad idea in an election year. If only the minority party in the House had the balls to exploit this...
And how, exactly, does Lifesquare make money? TFA does not say. Until that's clear, "privacy concerns" is an understatement.
I don't live in Virginia. I will say up front I do not the camel's nose to come under a tent in Virginia, nor any other state.
However, let's take a deep breath and ask how, specifically, unmanned aerial vehicles will help the mission of the Virginia police forces. And how and where, specifically, will they operate?
If the people of Virginia don't get a specific answer, then I think it's fair for them to deny the proposal on a variety of grounds. Without a specific mission in mind it is unlikely that drones will save money (they'd be just expensive new equipment with no clear purpose). Without a specific operational plan it is unlikely the drones will operate in a way compatible with FAA regulations and, oh yes, a little thing I call THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
However if one were to object without hearing the specific plan first, one could more easily be dismissed as alarmist.
I would even concede there is a remote possibility that a reasonable and effective police application of drones exists. None has not occurred to me so far.
You are discussing the costs of reducing CO2 emissions, and you're right, the costs are potentially very high.
The only way it makes sense to make a major societal commitment like cutting CO2 emissions is through a cost-benefit analysis. In the interest of disclosure I am one of the tree-huggers who thinks CO2 emissions are a clear and urgent problem. I think you and I can none the less agree that a cost-benefit analysis is the rational way to make a decision on whether to shut down power plants (and switch to windmills or nuclear plants) or not.
Unfortunately we're at a stage in the debate where people who should know better are still claiming that the cost of the other side's recommended approach is infinite. That's disingenuous and no way to make policy decisions.
So yes, shutting down fossil-fueled power plants would be costly. It may none the less be worth doing. Likewise, doing nothing will anger tree-huggers like myself and undoubtedly will have certain costs (disruption of agriculture, rising sea level, mass extinction of wildlife) but it may be the economically rational choice.
I'd like to see more talk about costs and benefits and less talk to the effect, "I dislike the implications of what you're recommending therefore your analysis is wrong."
Yes, but the new oligopoly is less stable. Someone could open a new online music store tomorrow and give artists a bigger cut; in fact that would be a good way to attract lots of artists to the new store.
Based on the amount of money US companies invest in R&D, I think the answer is self-evident: no, no one else thinks that.
Exception: Google does spend a metric shitload of money on R&D, but since their main business is spying on you and stealing intellectual property they didn't produce, that kind of calls into question the public benefit of their "research".
No, it's applied research to advance the state of manufacturing. It looks like a natural step in the movement toward just-in-time manufacturing and supply-chain efficiency, probably aimed at replacement parts rather than whole vehicles and equipment. They apparently want the ability to retool factories for military production much as was done in WWII, only faster and more selectively hopefully on a much smaller scale. So instead of shutting down car production to make tanks, industry will be able to make tanks on one shift and keep making cars for the other two (for example).
And that is why the legislators feel we must never let it happen again: anonymous speech overthrew one government (English colonial government) already and it could threaten the United States government today!
We don't have laws like this now. It's only a proposal; it will fail, for a variety of reasons.
As much as I hate the idea of this law, it is probably a positive thing to raise the subject for public discussion. That way we can remind ourselves and our legislators that free speech still matters, and we still care.
I certainly don't feel I am being undercharged for bandwidth here in the Northeastern US; particularly not in comparison to European or East Asian countries.
My point exactly; I guess the difference in our opinions is that I think the cartel scenario is already here.
I think you're right, lack of driver support is one of the big reasons Linux never gained traction for non-programmers. A big part of the reason drivers on Linux are so flaky is that hardware manufacturers are withholding the technical information necessary to write good drivers. It's not that Linux has a bad business model; it's that the makers of sound and video cards (and motherboards, and network cards, etc.) are actively blocking Linux from working smoothly on their products. Why this remains true, I can only speculate.
I wish I had mod points, because this is the funniest comment I have read in weeks!
Making your job impossible and then blaming you for failure is standard operating procedure in the U.S. as far as I can tell. It happened to my father and it happened to me twice so far. I believe the only people who have protection are those who belong to a labor union. (I Am Not a Lawyer) The "conservatives" have very successfully eviscerated the labor unions over the past 30 years so it is nigh impossible to get a union job.
While I agree that we'd be better off without "religous types" such as Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum, I'd like to remind you that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi were also "religious types."