thank you, your point is great, though probably it will go unnoticed as moderators seem to like links as opposed to a logical deduction (if it's on the web, it must be true!). And really, we don't have 3 cycles to base the evidence on. We have two cycles upon which they have based the theory and now a third which only adds to the data, but maybe now a prediction could be made and tested in 50 more years. you simply cannot predict after only two datapoints. And three is not exactly indisputable. There are way too many factors elsewise to consider.
You are right about this being popular sentiment; and you always see these stories about the US being only number 13 (or whatever) in the world in education. Generally these tests are BS since many countries have tracks (Germany comes to mind) where the college track kids take the aptitude tests and the other kids do not, thus inflating that country's scores.
In America we don't necessary offer everyone an equal education, but at least our tests of aptitude are given to all students to measure, giving the results some legitimacy. Personally, I think most of what you learn in school is not found in a book or necessarily in a classroom. When we get into college or the working world, we then learn much of the specific skills we need for that job.
And anyway, if you really want to get technical, we are teaching our kids much more today in school than we ever have before...they just can't retain every bit of data that has been traditionally significant (multiplication tables, presidents, classical literature).
It has actually not been proven that "real, material book[s]" make for more effective learning. I've actually had a very effective college-level course that was strictly online and actually based on a role-playing game. Sounds a bit silly, but it kept me interested.
Let's get books out already. We have the technology to provide students with tablet PCs containing all of the text-information necessary (and then some) for every class they have. AND if those computers could be reused year after year, then you probably have a cheaper solution.
Furthermore, as a soon-to-be science teacher, I don't really feel the use of textbooks to be necessary at all. There is much more accurate and up-to-date information to be found in scientific journals/magazines, and, believe it or not, on the internet. Anyway, learning doesn't occur just by looking at a book, it comes through experience and observation.
It's actually reverse lightning that causes problems, though I can't find a link talking about that right now. Basically, the reverse, or positive, lightning is much more powerful (it feeds sprites and jets in the upper atmosphere) and thus can overcome conventional protection of planes.
The most obvious path is to reduce consumption. Overconsumption, while nice for the wealthy nations of the world, has some very adverse effects for everyone else. Reducing consumption will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce global energy consumption, will reduce pollution, and theoretically, result in a healthier society. And those are just the obvious effects. It's really a pretty simple solution: don't be a freakin pig!
ummmm...sorry, that's not quite true. Those most affected would be on the lower rungs of the global society. Those most responsible have the resources to acquire more resources (i.e. military and financial influence). For instance, while the US would certainly be affected by a changing food supply, it would be able to simply take what ever it needed to support its people (much like it has done recently in the Middle East). Obviously I'm just picking on the US here, but China, India, and even the EU are in the same boat.
Slashdot Mirror
thank you, your point is great, though probably it will go unnoticed as moderators seem to like links as opposed to a logical deduction (if it's on the web, it must be true!). And really, we don't have 3 cycles to base the evidence on. We have two cycles upon which they have based the theory and now a third which only adds to the data, but maybe now a prediction could be made and tested in 50 more years. you simply cannot predict after only two datapoints. And three is not exactly indisputable. There are way too many factors elsewise to consider.
zee
You are right about this being popular sentiment; and you always see these stories about the US being only number 13 (or whatever) in the world in education. Generally these tests are BS since many countries have tracks (Germany comes to mind) where the college track kids take the aptitude tests and the other kids do not, thus inflating that country's scores.
In America we don't necessary offer everyone an equal education, but at least our tests of aptitude are given to all students to measure, giving the results some legitimacy. Personally, I think most of what you learn in school is not found in a book or necessarily in a classroom. When we get into college or the working world, we then learn much of the specific skills we need for that job.
And anyway, if you really want to get technical, we are teaching our kids much more today in school than we ever have before...they just can't retain every bit of data that has been traditionally significant (multiplication tables, presidents, classical literature).
It has actually not been proven that "real, material book[s]" make for more effective learning. I've actually had a very effective college-level course that was strictly online and actually based on a role-playing game. Sounds a bit silly, but it kept me interested.
Let's get books out already. We have the technology to provide students with tablet PCs containing all of the text-information necessary (and then some) for every class they have. AND if those computers could be reused year after year, then you probably have a cheaper solution.
Furthermore, as a soon-to-be science teacher, I don't really feel the use of textbooks to be necessary at all. There is much more accurate and up-to-date information to be found in scientific journals/magazines, and, believe it or not, on the internet. Anyway, learning doesn't occur just by looking at a book, it comes through experience and observation.
Actually, planes are pretty well protected from most lighting as you can see here: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae568 .cfm.
It's actually reverse lightning that causes problems, though I can't find a link talking about that right now. Basically, the reverse, or positive, lightning is much more powerful (it feeds sprites and jets in the upper atmosphere) and thus can overcome conventional protection of planes.
The most obvious path is to reduce consumption. Overconsumption, while nice for the wealthy nations of the world, has some very adverse effects for everyone else. Reducing consumption will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce global energy consumption, will reduce pollution, and theoretically, result in a healthier society. And those are just the obvious effects. It's really a pretty simple solution: don't be a freakin pig!
ummmm...sorry, that's not quite true. Those most affected would be on the lower rungs of the global society. Those most responsible have the resources to acquire more resources (i.e. military and financial influence). For instance, while the US would certainly be affected by a changing food supply, it would be able to simply take what ever it needed to support its people (much like it has done recently in the Middle East). Obviously I'm just picking on the US here, but China, India, and even the EU are in the same boat.