You make an excellent point re: commercial music versus expert knob-twiddling. Ghosts has demonstrated demand for something at its price point. The perceived value seems, to me, more in brand image than a product which may as well be the collected works of John Cage.
As usual the resultant clamor about piracy and the media distribution revolution is overstated. We are willing to pay a celebrity for things we wouldn't buy from anyone else. In this sense Ghosts is analogous to KISS Fragrance for Men or Leonard Nimoy Sings.
It still takes an industry to create personality cults on the scale of Trent Reznor and Radiohead, as opposed to Tay Zonday and Ronald Jenkees. The underground -- labels and the stores that carry them -- is part of that industry, even if it only catches the Big 5's table scraps. It makes me sad to see megastars cash out altogether.
Until Amazon writes an algorithm that can replace the High Fidelity guys at my neighborhood record shop recommending artists I'll like, I don't think it's wise to put them out of a job. I like stadium acts too. The number of money-grubbing garbage salesman involved hasn't convinced me the baby is worth throwing out with the bathwater.
For specialized scientific and mathematical work, virtually everything I do is based on peer-reviewed publications, and I don't have expensive access to the online versions.
The online versions shouldn't be expensive. Elsevier (the publisher of the lion's share of physical science journals, I'm told) has downright bastardly negotiating practices because their university customers don't have a choice. Imagine the precise opposite of a "buy one, get one free" sale and you'll have a rough idea how their strongarm subscription packages work.
Considering our federal taxes paid for the NIH / NSF / NSA / etc. grants funding the research, it seems awfully screwy the public is locked out of mathscinet. This issue's never received much airtime because the professors and grad students who can digest (much less need) modern research already have a uni login. It's an old-guard academic presumption, I think: by the time you need to know who's who, you've probably had coffee with them. It does serve a purpose insulating the professional thinking class from armchair researchers who know enough to be dangerous. I can't guess whether a more open model (and its accompanying SNR) would be a categorical improvement, but it's certainly frustrating to leave academia and hear the door slam shut behind you.
Copyright law (real right-to-copy; the "IP," being science, is public domain) has a nasty catch-22 whereby material that's made it online is often too new to be free. Material old enough to be free often hasn't been digitized. The practical side effect is that the collected best of cutting-edge knowledge, worldwide, is owned by a gatekeeping jerk with a printing press, and he charges $40 a peek.
A scientific "Project Gutenberg" is an effort worth funding. The content is indexed already, we just have to hoof it to a research I library, He-Man open an unabridged atlas of Narnia, and break its spine with the lid of a Xerox machine to get it.
Because you could make, like, tens of dollars bootlegging J. Topological Needlepoint, 1986-94. What if the proletariat found out how to knit Weierstrass p-function mittens? Bedlam, that's what.
Quick! Using Google Images, find me a picture of a sheep facing left at sunset.
Are you lost? This is Slashdot. Everyone on Earth hosting a sheep picture will be out of bandwidth inside the hour.
The papers will blame a mysterious worm coined the Sunset Virus. The Taleban and Kim Jong Il will claim responsibility, the president will scramble fighters, and this time next week there'll be nothing left of the planet but concrete and the smoldering remains of a first edition Winnie the Pooh.
What the eff does free software have to do with the entertainment industry using Congress to bludgeon college students? I'd like to discuss the merits and shortcomings of your minifesto, it's just not relevant here.
Maybe you're suggesting universities find a F/OSS solution to crack down on P2P traffic? A part of me would die if such a thing existed.
Disney's an outstanding example of source material from the public domain being critical to "new" art. Financial incentives probably help, but they can't explain why the internet produced creative works, or why they still shoot films in countries with a thriving bootleg industry. Exposure is the artist's hurdle to financial sustainability, not being ripped off. In the rare case of commercial idea-stealing, public outcry tends to be swift and career-wrecking. I think it's absurd the Congressional mandate to promote progress now extends to protecting any multinational business's brand image.
I'm in the entertainment industry. I'm one of those corporate media whores who "hasn't come up with an original story in decades" and "keeps shoveling sellout pop shit down (your) throats" and "wouldn't know real talent if it walked up and kicked (me) in the balls." I'm part of the complex, epic machinery that creates the media that all of you "share" because it's all shit and worthless and you wouldn't bother downloading it if you weren't "sticking it to teh mang"
In that case, can we have more Summer Glau in her underwear?
Define "keep." With the vast majority of enertainment, I get all the value I'm going to in the first pass. Handy, since the oxymoron of "licensed property" has evolved to mean I don't get to keep stuff I do buy.
Anyone else's brain go, "SHUT UP! SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!!" when they hear this?
God / Nature / Cthulhu doesn't have a dictionary of prorated truth terms. Empirical models seem to work until they don't. To insist "theory becomes law becomes fact" is an affront to scientific thought; they're childish pigeonholes with no relevance to understanding anything. Indeed, they reinforce the idea reality is a committee decision us peons have no business questioning.
"The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200. (Conventional home brewers heat water until it boils up to coffee basket.)"
Your argument from authority is a coffee machine advertisement. Another claims the brew is better-tasting long and cold.
I worked for McDonald's in the 90's. If you don't mind my saying, the suggestion their coffee came fresh off the drip after 5:45 AM is as ludicrous as debating its quality (at any temperature).
Google third-degree burns. As I understand the case, legal action was justified, even if I weren't politically inclined to hope an old lady with crotch blisters can have her day in court with a billion-dollar international business.
Did your source not seem reputable enough to link?
"National Coffee Association" my achin' ass. Anyone claiming no liquid that won't burn your skin is worth putting in your mouth is, by definition, a tit.
another article suggests industry standard is 160 to 185 degrees...in the early 1990's home coffeemakers only brewed up to 130-140 degrees...Stella Liebeck suffered terrible third-degree burns
Whether or not you have teflon lips that allow you to drink liquids at the "expert-recommended" just-shy-of-boiling, only an idiot would suggest McDonald's coffee and proper brew temperature have anything to do with each other.
McDonald's took responsibility when one of its employees spilled coffee on a customer and settled cases of burns from such spills
Either this guy is the clumsiest burger-flipper in world history, or the article's authors have an axe to grind.
"Overconsumption" is akin to "overspending". If you have an income of $2000 and $100K in the bank, and you're spending $10000 a month, you're overspending.
In the analogy, "externalities" mean your actual monthly spending is $50K, and it only looks like $10K because of poor bookkeeping.
Either way you need a lifestyle adjustment. One answer is to live cheaper. Another is to supplement your income.
It was unclear you'd be okay with unlimited consumption of renewable energy. To the extent its costs are internalized (so renewable means 100%), you should be.
In the late 1970s when digital recording was born, 44 k samples per second was the best the equipment of the time could do. It was deemed "good enough," since the labels "golden ears" (humans with hearing well above average) didn't hear any noise and the sound of aliasing was something they had never encountered. They knew what hiss sounded like. They knew what a "muddy" recording sounded like. They knew what harmonic distortion sounded like. They knew what clipping sounded like. But aliasing was new, and they didn't hear it- because they could not possibly listen for it, as they listened for the above mentioned distortions they knew.
At a CD's 44 ksps sample rate, the very highest frequency it can reproduce at all is 22 khz. This is well above human hearing- but here, the model fails. Because its 22 khz frequency response is not an undistorted response.
I've kept up with Obama and I'm still on the fence about him (disclosure: bleeding liberal for Ron Paul). Part 1 of the Google Q&A hasn't helped -- I don't find anything advanced or insightful here. Granted he's more together than I'm used to. Watching part 2 now.
One point irks me after teaching Research I university math for six years: we don't need more college students. Student quality is in the toilet. "Show me you understand" is a question undergrads don't even know what to do with. This drags curriculum quality down, and Obama said something telling: he equates lifelong education with retraining.
A degree program should be a process whereby a college graduate can retrain himself. You learn how to learn. Instead it's a prerequisite for corporate hiring. A consequence is that 50% of students don't care 50% of the time. They emerge and join the workforce with problem-solving "skills" limited to social engineering. Handy, I guess, but not our role.
And with the war my #1 issue this go-round, Obama's record isn't as staunch as we're asked to believe.
Suppose I create a machine that makes a million widgets, and I sell each one for $1. How can people say that my work was not worth $1 million?
Brilliant -- but suppose your raw materials come from a brutal fundamentalist regime, your assembly line is a sweatshop, and/or the waste products are dumped in some poor bastard's backyard. Realistic, I think, but still moral?
Most of us choose to work for someone else; the fact that it would be absurd to do anything else shows how much we benefit from our relationship with our employer.
It's a mistake to declare this rational behavior. Note, our employer benefits more than we do, by virtue of earning profit with our time.
Demand for menial work far outstrips the market's demand for competent labor. Thank marketing -- without stuff, you'll never get laid, and all those hardworking rich guys, they work too hard to ever get laid. So I'll just pay you $8/hr. You won't have to think; you'll barely have time, with all the getting laid you'll be doing.
But that does not entitle you to take another man's work.
I find it strange when people invoke ethics in defense of dog-eat-dog business. Salesmanship and turning a profit are euphemisms for manipulation and scamming people. Who takes whose work, where your crocodile tears stuck "cruel Nature" with the bill for injustice -- the guy eating caviar, or the guy mopping his floor?
At the risk of being read sockpuppetty, "nut job" is a hatchet job. From Bill Maher to Sean Hannity, everyone on TV is a jerk -- yes? -- supporting one party's lizard so the other party's lizard won't win. I don't hear crazy from Ron Paul. I hear it from them.
Drugs, taxes, and Iraq are all in the Ron Paul platform, aren't they? Questioning the system? Right? And from a guy genuinely more interested in policy than his political career?
Can I ask why your image of the ideal presidential candidate, then, is a guy who (1) found celebrity lifting weights, (2) has conventional ties to a "side you're fed up with," (3) isn't running and (4) legally can't?
Directly: which Republican candidate do you want on the ballot? It's not an abstract choice.
I did process of elimination, and once I crossed out guys who remind me of Bush and guys who deny evolution, the guy left was the one whose contrasts I like. That Fox News seems to hate him is gravy.
Eighth grade is prime time for bright kids (girls especially, I hear) to get their first B grade and rationalize the disappointment as "I'm not good at math." The defeat sails right through college as other subjects continue to be more rewarding, when the fact is they're simply less prone to errors of haste ("careless" mistakes).
I have a soapbox about math teaching, but that's another thread. Maybe the best thing you can do is make sure there are right and wrong answers in your class too, so math and science aren't always playing bad cop?
TFA, right up front: Any sensible culture would know what to do with Annalisee Brasil. The 14-year-old not only has the looks of a South American model but is also...
If people want an expert resource, use Google Scholar and look up actual journal pieces.
Since you're an admin, I beg you to appreciate that actual journal articles require a subscriber login that makes the RIAA look like Mother Teresa. It mostly works, because actual journal articles are bleeding edge, and so topically narrow two professionals in the same field might not be able to casually read each others' work.
Just for perspective, high school calculus is 17th century math most people consider completely intractible. An average math major won't touch on any math from the last hundred years before he graduates. It belongs on Wikipedia, no matter how nasty those LaTeX proofs look.
I have a good resource. Please don't kill it for the angry mob.
Having an article written this way will turn away people who would otherwise learn something.
So will saying the immune system is a {insert dumb metaphor}. When I was growing up, Britannica was harder to read than World Book, but I realized the extra information was geared to a different audience.
Leave your elitist "learn everything or you're inadequate" shit at your graduate research lab. Not everyone is willing, or has the time, to wade through what is otherwise white noise to get to the relevant info.
What's "necessary" in an encyclopedia is anything you, the reader, don't know. Leave your populist "big words are hard" shit next to the keg cups. If you want to learn biology but not really, there are plenty of other sites for you. Wikipedia has emerged, to my complete surprise, as a better math resource than Wolfram, or Planetmath, or five others I could name, and I don't want to see that screwed up because most people are incapable of adding fractions.
The second paragraph uses technical terms that I would have to look up for them to mean enough to be informative.
Well, Christ, it's a preamble for a large, nonspecific branch of "algebra" -- also jargon. If you don't know what music is, do you read the page for music theory? Click the blue words until you recognize one, and start there.
No undue offense, but I have a PhD in mathematics and I find wiki incredibly useful. There's a pervasive online delusion that actual textbooks and professors don't have this accessibility problem. You and I know a group is a set with an associative operation, inverses, and an identity -- some people will find that description illuminating; some prefer to memorize the defining equations.
Pedagogical learning is something people spend their careers trying to do better. There is no universal "obvious." It might be the big bull-goose realization of higher education that some explanations don't make sense to you, and your job is to keep looking until one does. I've tried to find a decent description of physics for five years.
There's no royal road, but Penrose's Road to Reality ain't a bad place to start, and if your BS got you a solid tour of the mathematical landscape, I like Gannon's Moonshine Beyond the Monster an awful lot.
And how, pray tell, does that differ in any way from being prime?
Glad to be worshipped. Thou Shalt say "prime" when a thing dividing a product Shalt divide one of its factors. Lo, these notions Shalt Not be equivalent, and it was Good.
Let thou considerst a factorization of 6. 6 Shalt equal the product of 2 and 3, and the product of 2 and 3 Shalt be 6. Likewise Shalt the product of -2 and -3 be 6. Verily, Thou Shalt Not care if factors of 1 Shalt appear.
And I say unto you, 6 Shalt equal the product of (1+sqrt(-5)) with (1-sqrt(-5)). Lo, 2 Shalt not divide either of these, nor Shalt 3, and thereby Shalt 2 and 3 be nonprime.
And let it be written, where the integers Shalt be taken modulo 6, that 2 Shalt be congruent to 8, and that 2 Shalt equal the product of 2 and 4; I say unto you, that 2 shalt be prime, and yet 2 Shalt Not be irreducible.
Slashdot Mirror
You make an excellent point re: commercial music versus expert knob-twiddling. Ghosts has demonstrated demand for something at its price point. The perceived value seems, to me, more in brand image than a product which may as well be the collected works of John Cage.
As usual the resultant clamor about piracy and the media distribution revolution is overstated. We are willing to pay a celebrity for things we wouldn't buy from anyone else. In this sense Ghosts is analogous to KISS Fragrance for Men or Leonard Nimoy Sings.
It still takes an industry to create personality cults on the scale of Trent Reznor and Radiohead, as opposed to Tay Zonday and Ronald Jenkees. The underground -- labels and the stores that carry them -- is part of that industry, even if it only catches the Big 5's table scraps. It makes me sad to see megastars cash out altogether.
Until Amazon writes an algorithm that can replace the High Fidelity guys at my neighborhood record shop recommending artists I'll like, I don't think it's wise to put them out of a job. I like stadium acts too. The number of money-grubbing garbage salesman involved hasn't convinced me the baby is worth throwing out with the bathwater.
-- Astroturfing RIAA Corporate Sycophant
For specialized scientific and mathematical work, virtually everything I do is based on peer-reviewed publications, and I don't have expensive access to the online versions.
The online versions shouldn't be expensive. Elsevier (the publisher of the lion's share of physical science journals, I'm told) has downright bastardly negotiating practices because their university customers don't have a choice. Imagine the precise opposite of a "buy one, get one free" sale and you'll have a rough idea how their strongarm subscription packages work.
Considering our federal taxes paid for the NIH / NSF / NSA / etc. grants funding the research, it seems awfully screwy the public is locked out of mathscinet. This issue's never received much airtime because the professors and grad students who can digest (much less need) modern research already have a uni login. It's an old-guard academic presumption, I think: by the time you need to know who's who, you've probably had coffee with them. It does serve a purpose insulating the professional thinking class from armchair researchers who know enough to be dangerous. I can't guess whether a more open model (and its accompanying SNR) would be a categorical improvement, but it's certainly frustrating to leave academia and hear the door slam shut behind you.
Copyright law (real right-to-copy; the "IP," being science, is public domain) has a nasty catch-22 whereby material that's made it online is often too new to be free. Material old enough to be free often hasn't been digitized. The practical side effect is that the collected best of cutting-edge knowledge, worldwide, is owned by a gatekeeping jerk with a printing press, and he charges $40 a peek.
A scientific "Project Gutenberg" is an effort worth funding. The content is indexed already, we just have to hoof it to a research I library, He-Man open an unabridged atlas of Narnia, and break its spine with the lid of a Xerox machine to get it.
Because you could make, like, tens of dollars bootlegging J. Topological Needlepoint, 1986-94. What if the proletariat found out how to knit Weierstrass p-function mittens? Bedlam, that's what.
Quick! Using Google Images, find me a picture of a sheep facing left at sunset.
Are you lost? This is Slashdot. Everyone on Earth hosting a sheep picture will be out of bandwidth inside the hour.
The papers will blame a mysterious worm coined the Sunset Virus. The Taleban and Kim Jong Il will claim responsibility, the president will scramble fighters, and this time next week there'll be nothing left of the planet but concrete and the smoldering remains of a first edition Winnie the Pooh.
Thanks a heap.
What the eff does free software have to do with the entertainment industry using Congress to bludgeon college students? I'd like to discuss the merits and shortcomings of your minifesto, it's just not relevant here.
Maybe you're suggesting universities find a F/OSS solution to crack down on P2P traffic? A part of me would die if such a thing existed.
If Gone With The Wind or Cinderella were not created by their respective authors, then those works are just simply not there at all
Huh?
Disney's an outstanding example of source material from the public domain being critical to "new" art. Financial incentives probably help, but they can't explain why the internet produced creative works, or why they still shoot films in countries with a thriving bootleg industry. Exposure is the artist's hurdle to financial sustainability, not being ripped off. In the rare case of commercial idea-stealing, public outcry tends to be swift and career-wrecking. I think it's absurd the Congressional mandate to promote progress now extends to protecting any multinational business's brand image.
I'm watching now, and if the TIMECUBE guy doesn't show up I'm'a be mighty disappointed.
I'm in the entertainment industry. I'm one of those corporate media whores who "hasn't come up with an original story in decades" and "keeps shoveling sellout pop shit down (your) throats" and "wouldn't know real talent if it walked up and kicked (me) in the balls." I'm part of the complex, epic machinery that creates the media that all of you "share" because it's all shit and worthless and you wouldn't bother downloading it if you weren't "sticking it to teh mang"
In that case, can we have more Summer Glau in her underwear?
Define "keep." With the vast majority of enertainment, I get all the value I'm going to in the first pass. Handy, since the oxymoron of "licensed property" has evolved to mean I don't get to keep stuff I do buy.
Regardless, evolution is still just a theory
Anyone else's brain go, "SHUT UP! SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!!" when they hear this?
God / Nature / Cthulhu doesn't have a dictionary of prorated truth terms. Empirical models seem to work until they don't. To insist "theory becomes law becomes fact" is an affront to scientific thought; they're childish pigeonholes with no relevance to understanding anything. Indeed, they reinforce the idea reality is a committee decision us peons have no business questioning.
We have been able to quantify gravity
Actually, that's precisely the trouble with it.
"The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200. (Conventional home brewers heat water until it boils up to coffee basket.)"
Your argument from authority is a coffee machine advertisement. Another claims the brew is better-tasting long and cold.
I worked for McDonald's in the 90's. If you don't mind my saying, the suggestion their coffee came fresh off the drip after 5:45 AM is as ludicrous as debating its quality (at any temperature).
Google third-degree burns. As I understand the case, legal action was justified, even if I weren't politically inclined to hope an old lady with crotch blisters can have her day in court with a billion-dollar international business.
Did your source not seem reputable enough to link?
"National Coffee Association" my achin' ass. Anyone claiming no liquid that won't burn your skin is worth putting in your mouth is, by definition, a tit.
another article suggests industry standard is 160 to 185 degrees...in the early 1990's home coffeemakers only brewed up to 130-140 degrees...Stella Liebeck suffered terrible third-degree burns
Whether or not you have teflon lips that allow you to drink liquids at the "expert-recommended" just-shy-of-boiling, only an idiot would suggest McDonald's coffee and proper brew temperature have anything to do with each other.
McDonald's took responsibility when one of its employees spilled coffee on a customer and settled cases of burns from such spills
Either this guy is the clumsiest burger-flipper in world history, or the article's authors have an axe to grind.
"Overconsumption" is akin to "overspending". If you have an income of $2000 and $100K in the bank, and you're spending $10000 a month, you're overspending.
In the analogy, "externalities" mean your actual monthly spending is $50K, and it only looks like $10K because of poor bookkeeping.
Either way you need a lifestyle adjustment. One answer is to live cheaper. Another is to supplement your income.
It was unclear you'd be okay with unlimited consumption of renewable energy. To the extent its costs are internalized (so renewable means 100%), you should be.
Original != optimal. Is this theoretically ultimate format DVD-A? 'Cause I, for one, am tired of buying the damned White Album.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/10/8/134958/152
In the late 1970s when digital recording was born, 44 k samples per second was the best the equipment of the time could do. It was deemed "good enough," since the labels "golden ears" (humans with hearing well above average) didn't hear any noise and the sound of aliasing was something they had never encountered. They knew what hiss sounded like. They knew what a "muddy" recording sounded like. They knew what harmonic distortion sounded like. They knew what clipping sounded like. But aliasing was new, and they didn't hear it- because they could not possibly listen for it, as they listened for the above mentioned distortions they knew.
At a CD's 44 ksps sample rate, the very highest frequency it can reproduce at all is 22 khz. This is well above human hearing- but here, the model fails. Because its 22 khz frequency response is not an undistorted response.
They've had my dollar a few years now, and my mailbox hasn't seen any difference.
Just this morning I was pondering an amazing coupon for two $0.79 Taco Bell tacos for only $1.59. Or ten for $7.99!
I've kept up with Obama and I'm still on the fence about him (disclosure: bleeding liberal for Ron Paul). Part 1 of the Google Q&A hasn't helped -- I don't find anything advanced or insightful here. Granted he's more together than I'm used to. Watching part 2 now.
One point irks me after teaching Research I university math for six years: we don't need more college students. Student quality is in the toilet. "Show me you understand" is a question undergrads don't even know what to do with. This drags curriculum quality down, and Obama said something telling: he equates lifelong education with retraining.
A degree program should be a process whereby a college graduate can retrain himself. You learn how to learn. Instead it's a prerequisite for corporate hiring. A consequence is that 50% of students don't care 50% of the time. They emerge and join the workforce with problem-solving "skills" limited to social engineering. Handy, I guess, but not our role.
And with the war my #1 issue this go-round, Obama's record isn't as staunch as we're asked to believe.
Suppose I create a machine that makes a million widgets, and I sell each one for $1. How can people say that my work was not worth $1 million?
Brilliant -- but suppose your raw materials come from a brutal fundamentalist regime, your assembly line is a sweatshop, and/or the waste products are dumped in some poor bastard's backyard. Realistic, I think, but still moral?
Most of us choose to work for someone else; the fact that it would be absurd to do anything else shows how much we benefit from our relationship with our employer.
It's a mistake to declare this rational behavior. Note, our employer benefits more than we do, by virtue of earning profit with our time.
Demand for menial work far outstrips the market's demand for competent labor. Thank marketing -- without stuff, you'll never get laid, and all those hardworking rich guys, they work too hard to ever get laid. So I'll just pay you $8/hr. You won't have to think; you'll barely have time, with all the getting laid you'll be doing.
But that does not entitle you to take another man's work.
I find it strange when people invoke ethics in defense of dog-eat-dog business. Salesmanship and turning a profit are euphemisms for manipulation and scamming people. Who takes whose work, where your crocodile tears stuck "cruel Nature" with the bill for injustice -- the guy eating caviar, or the guy mopping his floor?
At the risk of being read sockpuppetty, "nut job" is a hatchet job. From Bill Maher to Sean Hannity, everyone on TV is a jerk -- yes? -- supporting one party's lizard so the other party's lizard won't win. I don't hear crazy from Ron Paul. I hear it from them.
Drugs, taxes, and Iraq are all in the Ron Paul platform, aren't they? Questioning the system? Right? And from a guy genuinely more interested in policy than his political career?
Can I ask why your image of the ideal presidential candidate, then, is a guy who (1) found celebrity lifting weights, (2) has conventional ties to a "side you're fed up with," (3) isn't running and (4) legally can't?
Directly: which Republican candidate do you want on the ballot? It's not an abstract choice.
I did process of elimination, and once I crossed out guys who remind me of Bush and guys who deny evolution, the guy left was the one whose contrasts I like. That Fox News seems to hate him is gravy.
What do I listen to now? Christian radio.
RIAA members, F*** you.
You know people are pissed off when...
Eighth grade is prime time for bright kids (girls especially, I hear) to get their first B grade and rationalize the disappointment as "I'm not good at math." The defeat sails right through college as other subjects continue to be more rewarding, when the fact is they're simply less prone to errors of haste ("careless" mistakes).
I have a soapbox about math teaching, but that's another thread. Maybe the best thing you can do is make sure there are right and wrong answers in your class too, so math and science aren't always playing bad cop?
TFA, right up front: Any sensible culture would know what to do with Annalisee Brasil. The 14-year-old not only has the looks of a South American model but is also...
The online OED allegedly has the use as a transitive verb marked (obs).
e s/002222.html
Word nerds:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archiv
Sadly, the primary source (oed.com) is not available through bugmenot.
If people want an expert resource, use Google Scholar and look up actual journal pieces.
Since you're an admin, I beg you to appreciate that actual journal articles require a subscriber login that makes the RIAA look like Mother Teresa. It mostly works, because actual journal articles are bleeding edge, and so topically narrow two professionals in the same field might not be able to casually read each others' work.
Just for perspective, high school calculus is 17th century math most people consider completely intractible. An average math major won't touch on any math from the last hundred years before he graduates. It belongs on Wikipedia, no matter how nasty those LaTeX proofs look.
I have a good resource. Please don't kill it for the angry mob.
Having an article written this way will turn away people who would otherwise learn something.
So will saying the immune system is a {insert dumb metaphor}. When I was growing up, Britannica was harder to read than World Book, but I realized the extra information was geared to a different audience.
Leave your elitist "learn everything or you're inadequate" shit at your graduate research lab. Not everyone is willing, or has the time, to wade through what is otherwise white noise to get to the relevant info.
What's "necessary" in an encyclopedia is anything you, the reader, don't know. Leave your populist "big words are hard" shit next to the keg cups. If you want to learn biology but not really, there are plenty of other sites for you. Wikipedia has emerged, to my complete surprise, as a better math resource than Wolfram, or Planetmath, or five others I could name, and I don't want to see that screwed up because most people are incapable of adding fractions.
The second paragraph uses technical terms that I would have to look up for them to mean enough to be informative.
Well, Christ, it's a preamble for a large, nonspecific branch of "algebra" -- also jargon. If you don't know what music is, do you read the page for music theory? Click the blue words until you recognize one, and start there.
No undue offense, but I have a PhD in mathematics and I find wiki incredibly useful. There's a pervasive online delusion that actual textbooks and professors don't have this accessibility problem. You and I know a group is a set with an associative operation, inverses, and an identity -- some people will find that description illuminating; some prefer to memorize the defining equations.
Pedagogical learning is something people spend their careers trying to do better. There is no universal "obvious." It might be the big bull-goose realization of higher education that some explanations don't make sense to you, and your job is to keep looking until one does. I've tried to find a decent description of physics for five years.
There's no royal road, but Penrose's Road to Reality ain't a bad place to start, and if your BS got you a solid tour of the mathematical landscape, I like Gannon's Moonshine Beyond the Monster an awful lot.
And how, pray tell, does that differ in any way from being prime?
Glad to be worshipped. Thou Shalt say "prime" when a thing dividing a product Shalt divide one of its factors. Lo, these notions Shalt Not be equivalent, and it was Good.
Let thou considerst a factorization of 6. 6 Shalt equal the product of 2 and 3, and the product of 2 and 3 Shalt be 6. Likewise Shalt the product of -2 and -3 be 6. Verily, Thou Shalt Not care if factors of 1 Shalt appear.
And I say unto you, 6 Shalt equal the product of (1+sqrt(-5)) with (1-sqrt(-5)). Lo, 2 Shalt not divide either of these, nor Shalt 3, and thereby Shalt 2 and 3 be nonprime.
And let it be written, where the integers Shalt be taken modulo 6, that 2 Shalt be congruent to 8, and that 2 Shalt equal the product of 2 and 4; I say unto you, that 2 shalt be prime, and yet 2 Shalt Not be irreducible.
So it be written, My will be done.