1. Bee's are very messy creatures. That several-inch gap between the comb and glass will be filled with new comb built by the bee's, don't plan on being able to see much. Bee's don't like open space, they will build comb until it reaches the glass and they have about a 3/8" space to crawl through.
2. Honey is typically extracted by centripetal force. Frames which contain honey are taken out of the hive, the caps sealing the honey need to be cut off with a heated knife, and the frame is spun to get the honey out. Not all comb is honey, much of it is brood (developing bees), something a human would need to separate out.
3. It mentions there is a place to smoke the bee's if it needs cleaning. Bee's who have been smoked WILL fly all over your house. Bee's react to smoke because in nature it means there is a fire and that the hive is about to be destroyed, so the Bee's gorge on honey in anticipation of having to evacuate. They are heavily distracted from other threats but will continue to fly around.
4. I won't even get started about what would happen if this thing broke.
This device strikes me as completely ridiculous. I would NEVER consider keeping bee's in something like this, it seems apparent the designer has never kept bee's before. It resembles a fish tank, not a bee hive.
What's your point?
You've added more countries that partly use the imperial system, and I'm sure there are more than you haven't listed. Does listing more countries somehow make a case for continuing to use the imperial system? If not, then what was the point of your comment?
You're just upset because your parents never got you a sandbox when you were a kid, I understand.
User generated content can and will go much much further. A simple project like "Accurately label every location of interest in the US" is a big much, even for google. And people benefit from such a map, so why wouldn't they spend a couple minutes to make a correction to their favorite businesses?
This is exactly the kind of combinatorial optimization problem that is superbly well-suited for solution by software and quite possibly the last kind of problem you want to hand to a bunch of humans, unless those humans happen to be programmers with backgrounds in celestial mechanics, heuristics, and genetic algorithms.
As a way of driving public interest in the ESA's space program, it's not a bad idea at all, but if any of its users manage to come up with a better solution than the ESA's software, it's not a triumph for crowdsourcing, it's a sign that the ESA needs to hire new programmers.
Yes yes we get it already, computers will always be better suited for solving these kinds of problems. As such, I would like to point you to the front page of their website which states this-
"The Space Game is a game and a crowdsourcing experiment run by the Advanced Concepts Team of the European Space Agency aimed to improve the methods for designing interplanetary trajectories. We do not claim that computers are not able or are particularly bad at solving such problems. Rather, we think that 'watching' humans design complex interplanetary trajectories can be of help to improve the intelligence of computer algorithms."
I don't know why your post is marked as insightful as they clearly state that beating ESA's software was not the point of the game.
I have to ask, why do you care?
Ok, great, they have all sorts of data that will give them insight on what products you might be interested in and who you associate with. You get to see small ads on the side with relevant products as a result. Why do you care if they have this info?
A bill for a helicopter may not cure stupidity, but it will reduce its ability to afford to go there the next year.
My dad works with Search and Rescue and I asked him the same question, why don't they charge to deter people from making stupid decisions? The reason is if they charge it tends to put people who really do need rescue in more danger. Family members will wait longer before calling for help making them harder to find and putting them in greater danger, or they may not call at all when the realize it's going to cost them $10-20k and hope the person can "self-rescue". Search and Rescue does't want people to wait, chances of survival decrease the longer they put off that phone call.
Obviously this is not true of all search and rescue groups, some do charge, this is just he philosophy of the group here in Arizona just south of the Grand Canyon.
...but if we changed the locations to fake ones and the names of groups like the Taliban to imaginary groups it's no longer profiteering? Everyones trying to make a buck, not sure why this is so surprising.
What's the end game here? You want to build a system that captures vehicale's speed and the repurcussions of speeding. For what purpose? If your government is unwilling to enforce current laws, how will this change anything?
We have speed cameras here in Arizona, they even supply some nice big signs that say "Speed enforcement camera ahead - 1/2 miles". Everyone on the road slows down to the speed limit for the camera and then continues on their way doing 15mph over once they have passed. It's a great way to generate revenue from drivers not familiar with that route, but I doubt it makes the road any safer. In fact, in some cases less safe, I've had people slam on their brakes in front of me to make sure they don't get a ticket.
America has one of the cheapest fuel prices in the world. Stop complaining. it's about 6-7$ a gallon here.
Cheapest? Hardly.
Venezuela sells gas for 12 cents a gallon, it's cheaper than water. Each country imposes different taxes on fuel, some countries (like Venezuela) will even subsidize it. Just because our fuel is cheaper than yours doesn't mean it's some of the "cheapest in the world", far from it.
Accepting the inevitability of death isn't exactly the same as being suicidal. We all know we're going to die, most of us just ignore that fact in our daily lives. But when someone is directly facing that reality they may choose to want to make it "mean something" as in this guy's case.
"Suicidal" means wanting to die. I doubt this guy wants to die, but he does want his inevitable death to mean something to someone.
That's just the thing though... suicidal people are no different, in many cases they want it to mean something to someone.
The difference is that most people view suicide as a negative, and that any reason involving "Wanting to die" is a bad one. Besides, you are incorrect in thinking that suicide simply means wanting to die, it means intentionally taking your own life. The reason he is doing it doesn't change the fact that it's still suicide, it doesn't matter if he wants it or not, it's the CHOICE of ending your life that makes it suicide. Again, this is not a bad thing, it's just the correct definition.
They recognize that mastery of content is directly correlated with students sitting in a seat at the right time, and that provides success to the student and success to the school's mission.
What study shows that?
You can easily find many studies by googling "class attendance study"
I have yet to see a single one that does not say low attendance results in low performance on exams.
If your lectures are so bad you have to force students to attend, then maybe you should spend more time honing your teaching skills and less time on the Draconian tracking systems
I find it quite rare that every student is interested in the topic, regardless of the professors teaching skills. The next time you teach a class ask your students "Where would you rather be than here" and see if anyone says "nowhere". The difference is some people choose to act on that, even if you are an incredibly interesting and engaging teacher.
Not all technology is useful or worthwhile to implement, saving 30 minutes of the students time and possibly hours of the instructors (having to input everyones names) to avoid manual attendance sheets just might be both useful and worthwhile.
Your idea about letting adults be adults obviously isn't working, hence the reason why a huge portion (30% for most universities) of freshmen don't return the following years. You don't wake up at 18 and instantly become a self sufficient adult. One of NAU's (among many schools) missions is to provide student success, not JUST education. They recognize that mastery of content is directly correlated with students sitting in a seat at the right time, and that provides success to the student and success to the school's mission. This has nothing to do with who deserves what, it's about creating an environment for students to succeed in.
I'm sure they've thought of this, and it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a solution. If you didn't bring your card, write your name on the attendance sheet.
If you're going to have an attendance sheet, why not just have everyone fill it out?
I guarantee that if the prof announces that his approach toward the curve will be to adjust upward based on attendance, students will take the time to fill it out.
Because it's a waste of time. 50-500 people waiting to sign a piece of paper takes a long time, having to cross-check that list with everyone who is suppose to be attending will take even longer. The technology exists to make do this automatically, why not take advantage of that?
Just because I leave my student ID at home doesn't mean I didn't come to class.
It is, quite frankly, not clear to me what a prof would do with this data, but if he were to say, adjust the grades of attending students upward, is he likely to adjust for false negatives -- that is, students who come but don't bring their IDs.
I'm sure they've thought of this, and it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a solution. If you didn't bring your card, write your name on the attendance sheet.
I am also an NAU alum, and I must respectfully disagree. Yes, attendance DOES magically help. It's no secret that schools with higher attendance have students who do better. And schools who have successful students have a better reputation.
"If a lecture adds value to a student, they are there. It's an ultra-simple problem."
Sorry, but it's not so simple. Many students assume they are smart enough to pass classes without showing up, so they skip class to do "fun" things. This plan usually backfires and they become one of the 30% of freshmen who do not return the following year. NOBODY is going to like every class or every professor, no matter how engaging or interesting they make them. They are giving them a reason; it may be negative reinforcement for those who like to skip class, but ultimately it will make students who might have otherwise skipped class more successful (regardless of how interesting they find that class to be) and NAU will be viewed as a school that produces successful students.
I think most of you are looking at this from the wrong angle, you are looking at it from how it affects the students when you should be looking at it from a school administration point of view.
Their job is to create a successful school, one that graduates a high percentages of it's students. Giving a "we don't give a shit if you show up or not, it's your loss" attitude towards students is not going to help create a successful school, now is it? I wouldn't doubt that the students who attend class do much better than those who do not. From what I gather, the whole point is to create successful students which will give the school a better reputation... everyone wins. If higher attendance correlates with higher pass rates, then of course they want to motivate students to come to class (and it doesn't have to be positive motivation).
So, the 'causual' gamers who spend about 6.8 hours spend 23.4 doing other stuff. And the avid gamers who spend 11+ spend 34.5 doing the other stuff. But when do they reach the threshold of the 3:1 ratio they are talking about? It would seem like the more time you spend on games, the less time you would have doing everything else. It be even more interesting to see what that first group is doing with the other hours not being used to game, exercise, be social, etc.
So while I've been a huge fan of spybot and adaware, I did want to give Microsoft AntiSpyware and it's clever name a chance. I spent all morning downloading P2P programs, visiting casino sites and even clicking the mass of popups saying I had spyware and I should download their spyware program(which effectively put more on). As of this morning this was a fresh install of Windows XP with all the updates installed, by the afternoon it was taking 10 minutes to boot the thing up and almost impossible to navigate the internet without a dozen popups.
I ran both the smart and full scan of Microsoft Anti-Spyware and it came up with around 7,000 items. Just under 6,000 of them being registry keys and just over 1,000 being spyware infected files. I held off on removing them so I could see how spybot and adaware held up against it.
Adaware was not able to finish any type of scan, it would freeze or crash.
Spybot found 170 problems.
I opened the MS program back up and let it clean the spyware. I was then able to do an adaware scan afterwords and found an additional 117 problems.
I'm impressed with the amount that the spyware the microsoft product found. Although buggy(as expected), it seemed to be pretty effective. I don't know what they are doing different, but they are doing it right, even if it IS microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't be serious...
1. Bee's are very messy creatures. That several-inch gap between the comb and glass will be filled with new comb built by the bee's, don't plan on being able to see much. Bee's don't like open space, they will build comb until it reaches the glass and they have about a 3/8" space to crawl through.
2. Honey is typically extracted by centripetal force. Frames which contain honey are taken out of the hive, the caps sealing the honey need to be cut off with a heated knife, and the frame is spun to get the honey out. Not all comb is honey, much of it is brood (developing bees), something a human would need to separate out.
3. It mentions there is a place to smoke the bee's if it needs cleaning. Bee's who have been smoked WILL fly all over your house. Bee's react to smoke because in nature it means there is a fire and that the hive is about to be destroyed, so the Bee's gorge on honey in anticipation of having to evacuate. They are heavily distracted from other threats but will continue to fly around.
4. I won't even get started about what would happen if this thing broke.
This device strikes me as completely ridiculous. I would NEVER consider keeping bee's in something like this, it seems apparent the designer has never kept bee's before. It resembles a fish tank, not a bee hive.
What's your point? You've added more countries that partly use the imperial system, and I'm sure there are more than you haven't listed. Does listing more countries somehow make a case for continuing to use the imperial system? If not, then what was the point of your comment?
You're just upset because your parents never got you a sandbox when you were a kid, I understand. User generated content can and will go much much further. A simple project like "Accurately label every location of interest in the US" is a big much, even for google. And people benefit from such a map, so why wouldn't they spend a couple minutes to make a correction to their favorite businesses?
I can piss twice as far as a troll.
This is exactly the kind of combinatorial optimization problem that is superbly well-suited for solution by software and quite possibly the last kind of problem you want to hand to a bunch of humans, unless those humans happen to be programmers with backgrounds in celestial mechanics, heuristics, and genetic algorithms.
As a way of driving public interest in the ESA's space program, it's not a bad idea at all, but if any of its users manage to come up with a better solution than the ESA's software, it's not a triumph for crowdsourcing, it's a sign that the ESA needs to hire new programmers.
Yes yes we get it already, computers will always be better suited for solving these kinds of problems. As such, I would like to point you to the front page of their website which states this-
"The Space Game is a game and a crowdsourcing experiment run by the Advanced Concepts Team of the European Space Agency aimed to improve the methods for designing interplanetary trajectories. We do not claim that computers are not able or are particularly bad at solving such problems. Rather, we think that 'watching' humans design complex interplanetary trajectories can be of help to improve the intelligence of computer algorithms."
I don't know why your post is marked as insightful as they clearly state that beating ESA's software was not the point of the game.
I have to ask, why do you care? Ok, great, they have all sorts of data that will give them insight on what products you might be interested in and who you associate with. You get to see small ads on the side with relevant products as a result. Why do you care if they have this info?
A bill for a helicopter may not cure stupidity, but it will reduce its ability to afford to go there the next year.
My dad works with Search and Rescue and I asked him the same question, why don't they charge to deter people from making stupid decisions? The reason is if they charge it tends to put people who really do need rescue in more danger. Family members will wait longer before calling for help making them harder to find and putting them in greater danger, or they may not call at all when the realize it's going to cost them $10-20k and hope the person can "self-rescue". Search and Rescue does't want people to wait, chances of survival decrease the longer they put off that phone call.
Obviously this is not true of all search and rescue groups, some do charge, this is just he philosophy of the group here in Arizona just south of the Grand Canyon.
...but if we changed the locations to fake ones and the names of groups like the Taliban to imaginary groups it's no longer profiteering? Everyones trying to make a buck, not sure why this is so surprising.
What's the end game here? You want to build a system that captures vehicale's speed and the repurcussions of speeding. For what purpose? If your government is unwilling to enforce current laws, how will this change anything? We have speed cameras here in Arizona, they even supply some nice big signs that say "Speed enforcement camera ahead - 1/2 miles". Everyone on the road slows down to the speed limit for the camera and then continues on their way doing 15mph over once they have passed. It's a great way to generate revenue from drivers not familiar with that route, but I doubt it makes the road any safer. In fact, in some cases less safe, I've had people slam on their brakes in front of me to make sure they don't get a ticket.
America has one of the cheapest fuel prices in the world. Stop complaining. it's about 6-7$ a gallon here.
Cheapest? Hardly. Venezuela sells gas for 12 cents a gallon, it's cheaper than water. Each country imposes different taxes on fuel, some countries (like Venezuela) will even subsidize it. Just because our fuel is cheaper than yours doesn't mean it's some of the "cheapest in the world", far from it.
Ok, I can live with that, global warming is undeniable. The important question is, are we CAUSING global warming?
Accepting the inevitability of death isn't exactly the same as being suicidal. We all know we're going to die, most of us just ignore that fact in our daily lives. But when someone is directly facing that reality they may choose to want to make it "mean something" as in this guy's case. "Suicidal" means wanting to die. I doubt this guy wants to die, but he does want his inevitable death to mean something to someone.
That's just the thing though... suicidal people are no different, in many cases they want it to mean something to someone. The difference is that most people view suicide as a negative, and that any reason involving "Wanting to die" is a bad one. Besides, you are incorrect in thinking that suicide simply means wanting to die, it means intentionally taking your own life. The reason he is doing it doesn't change the fact that it's still suicide, it doesn't matter if he wants it or not, it's the CHOICE of ending your life that makes it suicide. Again, this is not a bad thing, it's just the correct definition.
They recognize that mastery of content is directly correlated with students sitting in a seat at the right time, and that provides success to the student and success to the school's mission.
What study shows that?
You can easily find many studies by googling "class attendance study" I have yet to see a single one that does not say low attendance results in low performance on exams.
If your lectures are so bad you have to force students to attend, then maybe you should spend more time honing your teaching skills and less time on the Draconian tracking systems
I find it quite rare that every student is interested in the topic, regardless of the professors teaching skills. The next time you teach a class ask your students "Where would you rather be than here" and see if anyone says "nowhere". The difference is some people choose to act on that, even if you are an incredibly interesting and engaging teacher.
Not all technology is useful or worthwhile to implement, saving 30 minutes of the students time and possibly hours of the instructors (having to input everyones names) to avoid manual attendance sheets just might be both useful and worthwhile. Your idea about letting adults be adults obviously isn't working, hence the reason why a huge portion (30% for most universities) of freshmen don't return the following years. You don't wake up at 18 and instantly become a self sufficient adult. One of NAU's (among many schools) missions is to provide student success, not JUST education. They recognize that mastery of content is directly correlated with students sitting in a seat at the right time, and that provides success to the student and success to the school's mission. This has nothing to do with who deserves what, it's about creating an environment for students to succeed in.
I'm sure they've thought of this, and it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a solution. If you didn't bring your card, write your name on the attendance sheet.
If you're going to have an attendance sheet, why not just have everyone fill it out?
I guarantee that if the prof announces that his approach toward the curve will be to adjust upward based on attendance, students will take the time to fill it out.
Because it's a waste of time. 50-500 people waiting to sign a piece of paper takes a long time, having to cross-check that list with everyone who is suppose to be attending will take even longer. The technology exists to make do this automatically, why not take advantage of that?
Just because I leave my student ID at home doesn't mean I didn't come to class.
It is, quite frankly, not clear to me what a prof would do with this data, but if he were to say, adjust the grades of attending students upward, is he likely to adjust for false negatives -- that is, students who come but don't bring their IDs.
I'm sure they've thought of this, and it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a solution. If you didn't bring your card, write your name on the attendance sheet.
I am also an NAU alum, and I must respectfully disagree. Yes, attendance DOES magically help. It's no secret that schools with higher attendance have students who do better. And schools who have successful students have a better reputation. "If a lecture adds value to a student, they are there. It's an ultra-simple problem." Sorry, but it's not so simple. Many students assume they are smart enough to pass classes without showing up, so they skip class to do "fun" things. This plan usually backfires and they become one of the 30% of freshmen who do not return the following year. NOBODY is going to like every class or every professor, no matter how engaging or interesting they make them. They are giving them a reason; it may be negative reinforcement for those who like to skip class, but ultimately it will make students who might have otherwise skipped class more successful (regardless of how interesting they find that class to be) and NAU will be viewed as a school that produces successful students.
I think most of you are looking at this from the wrong angle, you are looking at it from how it affects the students when you should be looking at it from a school administration point of view. Their job is to create a successful school, one that graduates a high percentages of it's students. Giving a "we don't give a shit if you show up or not, it's your loss" attitude towards students is not going to help create a successful school, now is it? I wouldn't doubt that the students who attend class do much better than those who do not. From what I gather, the whole point is to create successful students which will give the school a better reputation... everyone wins. If higher attendance correlates with higher pass rates, then of course they want to motivate students to come to class (and it doesn't have to be positive motivation).
So, the 'causual' gamers who spend about 6.8 hours spend 23.4 doing other stuff. And the avid gamers who spend 11+ spend 34.5 doing the other stuff. But when do they reach the threshold of the 3:1 ratio they are talking about? It would seem like the more time you spend on games, the less time you would have doing everything else. It be even more interesting to see what that first group is doing with the other hours not being used to game, exercise, be social, etc.
So while I've been a huge fan of spybot and adaware, I did want to give Microsoft AntiSpyware and it's clever name a chance. I spent all morning downloading P2P programs, visiting casino sites and even clicking the mass of popups saying I had spyware and I should download their spyware program(which effectively put more on). As of this morning this was a fresh install of Windows XP with all the updates installed, by the afternoon it was taking 10 minutes to boot the thing up and almost impossible to navigate the internet without a dozen popups. I ran both the smart and full scan of Microsoft Anti-Spyware and it came up with around 7,000 items. Just under 6,000 of them being registry keys and just over 1,000 being spyware infected files. I held off on removing them so I could see how spybot and adaware held up against it. Adaware was not able to finish any type of scan, it would freeze or crash. Spybot found 170 problems. I opened the MS program back up and let it clean the spyware. I was then able to do an adaware scan afterwords and found an additional 117 problems. I'm impressed with the amount that the spyware the microsoft product found. Although buggy(as expected), it seemed to be pretty effective. I don't know what they are doing different, but they are doing it right, even if it IS microsoft.