In conclusion, I don't think the AngryMath blogger is correct in the assumption that live, in-person instruction is needed. In fact, I'd say the opposite was shown: the closer you get to the style of live instruction, the worse it seems to be to me, and more so when it's online. Of course, I have specific needs from education, and others may prefer different styles.
Reading TFA, I thought that the Angrymath blogger was making different points - that the free MMO course suffers from serious problems unless it is a) properly prepared b) well-presented with a text narrative c) has proper feedback and d) has mechanisms to prevent cheating and properly measure learning achievement. So I think you're correct in general terms about online courses and Prof Collins is correct about the failures of the course he took in its entirety.
But you are correct about style. The question is given the choice, you'd rather have live instruction or the broken model of MMO that AngryMath criticizes?
Mod this one up!
If Walter Lewin of MIT were to do an online physics course, you'd bet it would be fun, complete and rigorously tested and anyone who passed it would be justifiably proud of the achievement.
I'd have to say that it looks nothing like a meteor crater and a lot like a sinkhole caused by an underground collapse. Meteor craters that size would be very round and would cause circular deformation of the surrounding area.
Siderite found in the depression would exactly match what was shown on the website.
"Bill Clinton passed on Bin Laden after the first trade center attacks."
No he didn't. In 1996 Clinton authorized the use of a Cruise missile aimed at Bin Laden's satellite phone signal. Clinton was then lambasted for wasting money by the Republican Congress, especially Trent Lott (remember him?). And it was GWB just a year after 9/11 who said that he didn't know where bin Laden was and wasn't interested. It was Obama who finished the job.
"Obama re-signed the Patriot Act and the NDAA" - that doesn't absolve the Republicans any.
"Obama has deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB" - that doesn't absolve the Republicans any either.
"The 2008 economic decline was from......the housing bust." - and the housing bust was caused by the Housing Boom caused by the securitization of mortgages on GWB's watch while the Glass-Siegel act was gutted into uselessness
There is a lot of blame for both parties, but to absolve the Republicans and just blame the Democrats is just pathetic. And twisting history to fit your political beliefs is beneath contempt.
Seems legit to me. After all it wasn't the Republicans who missed the 9/11 threat, passed the Patriot Act, created the Dept of Homeland Security, created an enormous deficit, greatly increased the size of Government and sleepwalked the economy into the greatest clusterfuck since the 1930s...that was obviously the Democrats.
Am I the only person who thinks Chrome OS, iOS and others are simply balkanizing the consumer market and making it twice as difficult for people to pick up different OS environments?
Never mind the OS, what about the applications? Can I run OpenOffice/LibreOffice/MS Office? Can I run Mathematica/Maple/Mathcad/Sage?
Why are we constantly pandering for crappy hardware like Atom processors and limited RAM?
That effect happens on coral atolls as well. It's caused by over extraction of ground water. Definitely manmade but nothing to do with climate change.
Also deltas sink over time. An entirely natural process.
No, we must always be looking for strange new shit that violates the laws of physics as we know them. New particles, new types of matter, dark energy, broken symmetry, anything unusual.
Isn't that kind of, you know, what drives science forward? Questioning the accepted laws as they are and seeking ways to expand upon them, generalize them, or all around uproot them to explain some currently inexplicable observation we've made?
Not in climate science you don't. If you apply such skepticism to something like the Greenhiuse effect or the utility of climte models, you grt called a Denier and worse.
In the last 100 years, Tokyo has experienced a relative sea level rise of 19 feet. Strangely I am not aware of any climate refugees from Japan. Why not?
So much so, that it costs less to buy off a decent (even Nobel prize level) scientist to say what they want said, right out in public.
OK. Tell us all which scientists (even Nobel Prize level) have been bought off, by whom and how much was transacted.I want to see invoices, cashed checks, luxury homes or boats, supercars or Rolls Royces
"It seems to me that anthropogenic climate change deniers always start with "you can't prove climate is changing" then when you do, they fall back on "you can't prove that humans are causing it" and finally on "it'll be a good thing anyway with the better weather up North, etc.""
Oh really? I call bullshit
I have never seen or met an "anthropogenic climate change denier" who has ever said that climate is not changing. Quite the reverse, because I've seen many AGW alarmists and trolls make the claim based on frauds like the Mann Hockey Stick that the earth's temperature (whatever that means) barely changed or varied prior in the last few thousand years to the modern industrial age. Using bad statistical analysis of non-linear proxies like tree ring widths, these antiscientists make claim to fantastical claims that today's climate conditions are "unprecedented in X thousand years":
In order to prove that humans are causing global climate change, first you have to establish the true range of natural climate change, not wave them away as irrelevant because you've built a climate model that mimics the past but cannot predict future climate change on any testable timescale.
But then I've become used to climate alarmists reversing the burden of proof: "Climate is changing (well duh!) and you've got to prove that it ISN'T caused by rising carbon dioxide levels"
Crap.
Even more crap is caused by the "ocean acidification" scare based on the difference between a globally averaged pH value (again whatever that means) and an estimate of global ocean pH from the 18th Century! O RLY?
If the oceans warm, then more carbon dioxide is forced out of the oceans than is absorbed, so how can the oceans be acidifying because of carbon dioxide? (insert bullshit pseudoscientific answer right here).
Those of us who are not living in mom's basement can recognize that climate always changes, that public scares and media panics happen all the time and that these panics are always different from last time. And there's usually a BS computer model which somehow proves it.
Greenland isn't melting. The icesheet is ablating. Just because its average temp during the summer is 3C above "normal" (whatever that is) does not mean that the average temp is not 20-30C below freezing.
Slashdot Mirror
Who gets to decide what is, and is not, trolling? Will trolling be a crime, and under what statute? How much will the "troll patrol" cost?
+100 Insightful. That's better isn't it?
It seems that most /.ers think that that's all you do is "just stand up and say stuff". But it ain't so.
In conclusion, I don't think the AngryMath blogger is correct in the assumption that live, in-person instruction is needed. In fact, I'd say the opposite was shown: the closer you get to the style of live instruction, the worse it seems to be to me, and more so when it's online. Of course, I have specific needs from education, and others may prefer different styles.
Reading TFA, I thought that the Angrymath blogger was making different points - that the free MMO course suffers from serious problems unless it is a) properly prepared b) well-presented with a text narrative c) has proper feedback and d) has mechanisms to prevent cheating and properly measure learning achievement. So I think you're correct in general terms about online courses and Prof Collins is correct about the failures of the course he took in its entirety.
But you are correct about style. The question is given the choice, you'd rather have live instruction or the broken model of MMO that AngryMath criticizes?
+10 Insight. No mod points - sorry.
You didn't read it, did you?
Because the entire point of this particular course is to stroke the egos of students with short attention spans. Who won't read a book either.
By the way, kudos to you on cracking the books and not blaming someone else. That's rare in these parts...
Of course, because expertise is biased - towards excellence.
Mod this one up! If Walter Lewin of MIT were to do an online physics course, you'd bet it would be fun, complete and rigorously tested and anyone who passed it would be justifiably proud of the achievement.
I find it ironically amusing that a lot of comments on /. are the result of short attention spans and tl;dr mentalities.
You win for now...nerd
..it's at this link http://goo.gl/maps/Oe78J
I'd have to say that it looks nothing like a meteor crater and a lot like a sinkhole caused by an underground collapse. Meteor craters that size would be very round and would cause circular deformation of the surrounding area.
Siderite found in the depression would exactly match what was shown on the website.
You're welcome.
"Bill Clinton passed on Bin Laden after the first trade center attacks."
No he didn't. In 1996 Clinton authorized the use of a Cruise missile aimed at Bin Laden's satellite phone signal. Clinton was then lambasted for wasting money by the Republican Congress, especially Trent Lott (remember him?). And it was GWB just a year after 9/11 who said that he didn't know where bin Laden was and wasn't interested. It was Obama who finished the job.
"Obama re-signed the Patriot Act and the NDAA" - that doesn't absolve the Republicans any.
"Obama has deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB" - that doesn't absolve the Republicans any either.
"The 2008 economic decline was from......the housing bust." - and the housing bust was caused by the Housing Boom caused by the securitization of mortgages on GWB's watch while the Glass-Siegel act was gutted into uselessness
There is a lot of blame for both parties, but to absolve the Republicans and just blame the Democrats is just pathetic. And twisting history to fit your political beliefs is beneath contempt.
Seems legit to me. After all it wasn't the Republicans who missed the 9/11 threat, passed the Patriot Act, created the Dept of Homeland Security, created an enormous deficit, greatly increased the size of Government and sleepwalked the economy into the greatest clusterfuck since the 1930s...that was obviously the Democrats.
Not.
So I'm not the only one. I predict Chromebooks will join Buzz on the digital scrapheap
Am I the only person who thinks Chrome OS, iOS and others are simply balkanizing the consumer market and making it twice as difficult for people to pick up different OS environments?
Never mind the OS, what about the applications? Can I run OpenOffice/LibreOffice/MS Office? Can I run Mathematica/Maple/Mathcad/Sage?
Why are we constantly pandering for crappy hardware like Atom processors and limited RAM?
That effect happens on coral atolls as well. It's caused by over extraction of ground water. Definitely manmade but nothing to do with climate change. Also deltas sink over time. An entirely natural process.
I laughed, which means I'm really old...
That was just written on an iPad. I'm a bad one-finger typist.
No, we must always be looking for strange new shit that violates the laws of physics as we know them. New particles, new types of matter, dark energy, broken symmetry, anything unusual.
Isn't that kind of, you know, what drives science forward? Questioning the accepted laws as they are and seeking ways to expand upon them, generalize them, or all around uproot them to explain some currently inexplicable observation we've made?
Not in climate science you don't. If you apply such skepticism to something like the Greenhiuse effect or the utility of climte models, you grt called a Denier and worse.
In the last 100 years, Tokyo has experienced a relative sea level rise of 19 feet. Strangely I am not aware of any climate refugees from Japan. Why not?
So much so, that it costs less to buy off a decent (even Nobel prize level) scientist to say what they want said, right out in public.
OK. Tell us all which scientists (even Nobel Prize level) have been bought off, by whom and how much was transacted.I want to see invoices, cashed checks, luxury homes or boats, supercars or Rolls Royces
Come on. Give us the names.
"It seems to me that anthropogenic climate change deniers always start with "you can't prove climate is changing" then when you do, they fall back on "you can't prove that humans are causing it" and finally on "it'll be a good thing anyway with the better weather up North, etc.""
Oh really? I call bullshit
I have never seen or met an "anthropogenic climate change denier" who has ever said that climate is not changing. Quite the reverse, because I've seen many AGW alarmists and trolls make the claim based on frauds like the Mann Hockey Stick that the earth's temperature (whatever that means) barely changed or varied prior in the last few thousand years to the modern industrial age. Using bad statistical analysis of non-linear proxies like tree ring widths, these antiscientists make claim to fantastical claims that today's climate conditions are "unprecedented in X thousand years":
In order to prove that humans are causing global climate change, first you have to establish the true range of natural climate change, not wave them away as irrelevant because you've built a climate model that mimics the past but cannot predict future climate change on any testable timescale.
But then I've become used to climate alarmists reversing the burden of proof: "Climate is changing (well duh!) and you've got to prove that it ISN'T caused by rising carbon dioxide levels"
Crap.
Even more crap is caused by the "ocean acidification" scare based on the difference between a globally averaged pH value (again whatever that means) and an estimate of global ocean pH from the 18th Century! O RLY?
If the oceans warm, then more carbon dioxide is forced out of the oceans than is absorbed, so how can the oceans be acidifying because of carbon dioxide? (insert bullshit pseudoscientific answer right here).
Those of us who are not living in mom's basement can recognize that climate always changes, that public scares and media panics happen all the time and that these panics are always different from last time. And there's usually a BS computer model which somehow proves it.
Greenland isn't melting. The icesheet is ablating. Just because its average temp during the summer is 3C above "normal" (whatever that is) does not mean that the average temp is not 20-30C below freezing.
97% of all carbon dioxide is entirely natural in origin. Now what was your argument again?