Yeah, there are some methods that may lend themselves to this type of situation (relaxation, monte carlo, more?) that are both relatively simple to understand yet can yield very interesting results.
It a relatively simple problem is tackled using a simple numerical method, i think a HS sutdent (yes even an American one) could not only understand it, but could get quite a lot out of it.
These both sound like interesting things to look at, but since I have done neither I wouldn't be in a position to say if they are simple enough for an American high school student.
I was thinking about something simple like a multiple pendulum problem. Unless they had some pretty good high school physics, you'd probably have to just give them the equations and have them take it on faith, but they could see how changing the variables would affect the output.
I was also thinking that a person familiar with functions would appreciate chaos without a physical model (such as by playing with the logistic map).
Just to throw a few out (I know there are a lot more), one could model population growth, projectile motion, or even chaotic systems.
A model of a chaotic system can be fairly simple, while still getting across some of the main ideas, such as the high sensitivity of the outcome of the system to tiny changes in the initial conditions.
That would probably be a pretty neat thing for a high schooler to see, and I think it could be easy enough for them to do it mostly on their own.
True to a point, but as the article said, even though the gravitational force on a pin is due to the mass of the entire earth, a toy magnet's attractive force on the pin is stronger.
I mentioned the electron and proton because it is a sense of scale that makes the force weak.
Protons and electrons are rather fundamental pieces of matter, and looking at how small the effect of gravity is on them is what makes it seem weak.
I agree that we love our cars. I would never get rid of mine - like many people I enjoy the freedom it provides.
However, if taking public transportation was faster and cheaper, rather than slower and more expensive, I would absolutely take it to work every day. And that would cover %80-%90 of my driving. Still a tremendous improvement.
And yes, I agree that there is not a tremendous amount of interest in public transportation. But I feel that a lot of this is due to the overall crappiness of many public transportation systems. Where are our bullet trains damnit?
Trying to convince people to get excited about a crummy system rather than trying to fix the crummy system is silly. People like the original poster should be trying to improve the system to attract people to it.
cot
"I knew you'd be on foot, because you always say public transportation is for losers"
It seems to me that the blame for the continued use of gasoline as a fuel shouldn't fall solely on the general public.
Look, you can never expect people to do what is right only on moral grounds. It doesn't work like that. If it is inconvenient, expensive, and a general pain in the ass, we would prefer to avoid it. And if the only down side is that we need to rationalize away a bit of guilt over doing the wrong thing, we'll do it.
You sound like those people that want everyone to switch to public transportation. Hey, I'd be glad to, if it were more convenient. I'm not going to take more than twice as long to get to work each day, as well as spending MORE money (BARTs overpriced), just to feel all warm and fuzzy about it. The solution to this is not to make driving less attractive (higher gas tax, etc.) but to make public transportation more attractive to people.
And it's the same with alternative fuel usage. Don't try to guilt people into doing it, you're wasting your time. And don't join in with those who feel higher gasoline prices are the answer (-ahem- Gore). MAKE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS MORE ATTRACTIVE AND PEOPLE WILL START TO USE THEM. It's that simple. If it's easy and cheap, people will be all over it.
Well, I highly doubt they'd implement an MD5 checksum. Why? Because it would give them an easy way to stop the trading of music by specific artists. They don't want that level of control, since it will hurt them in court. Right now, they are holding on to the tenuous claim that they have no such control over their network, and that it has legitimate uses. Since we all know that, regardless of what they say, their "business" model is highly dependent on the trade of MP3s without the artist's consent, they would never take an action that would make it easier for the artist to demand that they stop. Something like plausible deniability I think.
Would work on ANY cell phone. As well as my neighbors blaring TV. Dangerous drivers with their fancy electronic ignition. The machine at the grocery store that claims my checks are bad. Those androids that the CIA has used to replace my family members.
Sure, I can see reading the article and having questions about the technology. It is pretty light on technical facts, so if you are a technically minded person, you are likely to have unanswered questions about the feasibility of the devices. However, it is incredibly short sighted to assume, since your question wasn't answered in the Wired article, that the research must therefore be useless and the trials are doomed to fail.
It is quite likely that there are some very intelligent people (maybe even smarter than you! It's possible!) working on this project, who have likely spent a large part of their life working on this type of research.
I don't mind the "I wonder how they will deal with XXX" posts, but who here is so familiar with the REAL journal publications and the actual research that they can say "I doubt this will work due to XXX".
Also, why do people keep complaining about the low pixel count? This is the FIRST time this sort of thing has been tried. Are 3500 pixels better than 0? Maybe we should start knocking artificial limbs, since they obviously pale in comparison to the real ones. And get rid of those stupid wheelchairs, they're nowhere near as good as walking.
I, for one, am very excited by this sort of progress.
'Is it only me who has problems parsing a red check mark and a green cross into "correct"/"incorrect"? '
No, but if you look at the page source, you will see that the name of one of the pictures has "right" in it and the name of the other contains "wrong".
Note my use of the word many. Perhaps I should have used significant. I imagine that the number is much larger than one but is still a very small fraction of their total number of sales.
I really think that this is the sort of thing 99% of computer buyers don't even know about. It got virtually no mainstream press.
Realistically, I highly doubt that they lost many sales due to the serial number. Especially since most motherboard companies are using BIOSes that can disable it.
So I wonder if internally some intel employees were citing the serial number as part of the cause of their slowly slipping stranglehold on the x86 processor market. If that's the case, some person or people are going to be left looking pretty foolish when AMD continues to thrive even after the elimination of that pesky serial number.
If it followed Quake's footsteps, it would "go GPL" several years after release. It IS nice of JC to GPL the Quake source, but it's not as if the QuakeIII Arena source is being GPLed any time soon.
If this game's source is included on the CD when it hits the shelves, under ANY license, it will be groundbreaking. (Or for that matter, if it's d/l able, or whatever. I just mean while the tech is current)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, there are some methods that may lend themselves to this type of situation (relaxation, monte carlo, more?) that are both relatively simple to understand yet can yield very interesting results.
It a relatively simple problem is tackled using a simple numerical method, i think a HS sutdent (yes even an American one) could not only understand it, but could get quite a lot out of it.
"... there is something very wrong in the education system."
:(
This I can't argue with.
These both sound like interesting things to look at, but since I have done neither I wouldn't be in a position to say if they are simple enough for an American high school student.
I was thinking about something simple like a multiple pendulum problem. Unless they had some pretty good high school physics, you'd probably have to just give them the equations and have them take it on faith, but they could see how changing the variables would affect the output.
I was also thinking that a person familiar with functions would appreciate chaos without a physical model (such as by playing with the logistic map).
cot
Just to throw a few out (I know there are a lot more), one could model population growth, projectile motion, or even chaotic systems.
A model of a chaotic system can be fairly simple, while still getting across some of the main ideas, such as the high sensitivity of the outcome of the system to tiny changes in the initial conditions.
That would probably be a pretty neat thing for a high schooler to see, and I think it could be easy enough for them to do it mostly on their own.
Maybe some modeling of physical systems would be interesting?
There are many systems in biology and physics that are not too difficult to describe using a computer program.
One could argue that any flavor of Christianity is merely one interpretation of shaky evidence.
And it would be a better arguement than yours.
True to a point, but as the article said, even though the gravitational force on a pin is due to the mass of the entire earth, a toy magnet's attractive force on the pin is stronger.
I mentioned the electron and proton because it is a sense of scale that makes the force weak.
Protons and electrons are rather fundamental pieces of matter, and looking at how small the effect of gravity is on them is what makes it seem weak.
I think it is in comparison to the other forces (Strong, Weak, and electromagnetic) that gravity is weak.
If you take a proton and an electron, the force between them is going to be completely dominated by the electromagnetic force.
I forget the ratio of the two, but the gravitational attraction is MUCH weaker than the electromagnetic.
I agree that we love our cars. I would never get rid of mine - like many people I enjoy the freedom it provides.
However, if taking public transportation was faster and cheaper, rather than slower and more expensive, I would absolutely take it to work every day. And that would cover %80-%90 of my driving. Still a tremendous improvement.
And yes, I agree that there is not a tremendous amount of interest in public transportation. But I feel that a lot of this is due to the overall crappiness of many public transportation systems. Where are our bullet trains damnit?
Trying to convince people to get excited about a crummy system rather than trying to fix the crummy system is silly. People like the original poster should be trying to improve the system to attract people to it.
cot
"I knew you'd be on foot, because you always say public transportation is for losers"
It seems to me that the blame for the continued use of gasoline as a fuel shouldn't fall solely on the general public.
Look, you can never expect people to do what is right only on moral grounds. It doesn't work like that. If it is inconvenient, expensive, and a general pain in the ass, we would prefer to avoid it. And if the only down side is that we need to rationalize away a bit of guilt over doing the wrong thing, we'll do it.
You sound like those people that want everyone to switch to public transportation. Hey, I'd be glad to, if it were more convenient. I'm not going to take more than twice as long to get to work each day, as well as spending MORE money (BARTs overpriced), just to feel all warm and fuzzy about it. The solution to this is not to make driving less attractive (higher gas tax, etc.) but to make public transportation more attractive to people.
And it's the same with alternative fuel usage. Don't try to guilt people into doing it, you're wasting your time. And don't join in with those who feel higher gasoline prices are the answer (-ahem- Gore). MAKE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS MORE ATTRACTIVE AND PEOPLE WILL START TO USE THEM. It's that simple. If it's easy and cheap, people will be all over it.
Well, I highly doubt they'd implement an MD5 checksum. Why? Because it would give them an easy way to stop the trading of music by specific artists. They don't want that level of control, since it will hurt them in court. Right now, they are holding on to the tenuous claim that they have no such control over their network, and that it has legitimate uses. Since we all know that, regardless of what they say, their "business" model is highly dependent on the trade of MP3s without the artist's consent, they would never take an action that would make it easier for the artist to demand that they stop. Something like plausible deniability I think.
A handheld EMP generator might be more effective.
Would work on ANY cell phone. As well as my neighbors blaring TV. Dangerous drivers with their fancy electronic ignition. The machine at the grocery store that claims my checks are bad. Those androids that the CIA has used to replace my family members.
All kinds of useful things.
He doesn't have to. He has IPO money.
That's why he's so much better than us Linuserfs who post here.
Why is this modded down? Seems reasonable to me.
What is up with you people?
Sure, I can see reading the article and having questions about the technology. It is pretty light on technical facts, so if you are a technically minded person, you are likely to have unanswered questions about the feasibility of the devices. However, it is incredibly short sighted to assume, since your question wasn't answered in the Wired article, that the research must therefore be useless and the trials are doomed to fail.
It is quite likely that there are some very intelligent people (maybe even smarter than you! It's possible!) working on this project, who have likely spent a large part of their life working on this type of research.
I don't mind the "I wonder how they will deal with XXX" posts, but who here is so familiar with the REAL journal publications and the actual research that they can say "I doubt this will work due to XXX".
Also, why do people keep complaining about the low pixel count? This is the FIRST time this sort of thing has been tried. Are 3500 pixels better than 0? Maybe we should start knocking artificial limbs, since they obviously pale in comparison to the real ones. And get rid of those stupid wheelchairs, they're nowhere near as good as walking.
I, for one, am very excited by this sort of progress.
> "scruntous"? Define please.
What do you mean? It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Maybe with the language barrier they thought you were accusing them of overclocking their processors (without telling the customers).
That would make more sense to me.
'Is it only me who has problems parsing a red check mark and a green cross into "correct"/"incorrect"? '
No, but if you look at the page source, you will see that the name of one of the pictures has "right" in it and the name of the other contains "wrong".
cot.
Note my use of the word many. Perhaps I should have used significant. I imagine that the number is much larger than one but is still a very small fraction of their total number of sales.
I really think that this is the sort of thing 99% of computer buyers don't even know about. It got virtually no mainstream press.
Realistically, I highly doubt that they lost many sales due to the serial number. Especially since most motherboard companies are using BIOSes that can disable it.
So I wonder if internally some intel employees were citing the serial number as part of the cause of their slowly slipping stranglehold on the x86 processor market. If that's the case, some person or people are going to be left looking pretty foolish when AMD continues to thrive even after the elimination of that pesky serial number.
cot.
If it followed Quake's footsteps, it would "go GPL" several years after release. It IS nice of JC to GPL the Quake source, but it's not as if the QuakeIII Arena source is being GPLed any time soon.
If this game's source is included on the CD when it hits the shelves, under ANY license, it will be groundbreaking. (Or for that matter, if it's d/l able, or whatever. I just mean while the tech is current)
cot
People, this is a subtle(?) troll. Tink about it.
I always thought people referred to the playstation as "PSX" for some reason. Now people are calling it the "PS2" rather than the "PSX2".
I guess somehow three letter acronyms are sexier than two (PS) or four (PSX2).
Now we really know why BSD is better than LINUX. Five letters, and it isn't ever really an acronym! Yuck...
This should be obvious to even the most dimwitted individual who holds a degree in advanced hyperbolic topology.
cot