It's a shortcut, I agree. But no shortcut should be taken if you don't know the real way it gets done. That's one of the points I was trying to get at. The other is that I'll know my tables better, for a longer period, by learning them over time, on my own, than someone forced to memorize them over a week. It becomes indoctrinated when you learn yourself, unlike when you're forced to learn.
Also, as I said in another post, I'll do math faster than you even though I don't have all of those numbers memorized. It's a matter of using your brain more often for actual thinking than memorization, which in actuality leads to stronger performances overall. Rote memorization is for people to solve equations. Thinking is for people to create, change, and use equations effectively in ways that are original. If you want to just solve equations that people gave you, by plugging in, rote memorization is your type of learning.
Not true. I didn't know multiplication tables, and still don't know every slot in said tables, and I finished every test faster, and mostly with a better grade.
Also, it's funny that you bring up phonics, but that's also how I learned how to spell. I write essays that are among the highest in every class I have, and I spend less time actually writing them than most.
Now, having multiplication tables and knowing how to spell a subset of words is fine and dandy, but the moment you get to anything that requires more work than straight recall, my times will be a tenth of yours. If you go just by the tables, the moment you have anything past 10x10, the moment you have to solve by quadratic formula, the moment you have to figure out how to spell "antidisestablishmentarianism" you'll lose a great deal of time, while I'll chug away at a steady pace consistently. I'm also saying that my steady pace will be faster than many peoples bursts of recall, because I've done everything this way my entire life. It's better to train in one highly versatile method so extensively it becomes a part of you, than to train in two and become a master of neither.
Fortunately, my high school pretty much did this, by offering all maths (and other subjects) to students who had the prerequisite classes. You could take from Algebra 1 part 2, anything up to AP Calc, as a senior. Most other classes were arranged similarly, the most notable exception being English. Unfortunately, they didn't do this for many of the grades before.
Spend all day tinkering with equations, however, and you get a better engineer.
The point is, you can tinker with anything to learn how it works. Math is no different. Of course, some guidance is necessary in math, but given the age we live in, with information accessible everywhere, there's no reason for it to be a barrier.
The real advantage to this approach isn't quite what you learn, it's the way you learn. You learn this way by the force of your own curiosity, instead of being told what you need to know. You're bound to live a more satisfied life, because you chose what you enjoyed most to work on, instead of being pushed and pulled in every direction at once.
I say Child A doesn't need to learn his multiplication tables. I submit that it's better for him to learn how to multiply instead, and eventually, once he uses his method many times, he starts to memorize without actually trying to memorize.
If there were no competitors keeping companies from having a monopoly over technologies, there would be no reason for them to innovate to begin with. Open source happens to be the best way to keep a stable competitor at all times to a given standard.
There's 2 fields that thrive without IP: service and agriculture. There are none that involve direct creation of any level of technology that would even survive.
Big Pharma wouldn't have invented X drug at a cost of US $200 million when it needs to go through $20 million of testing (which it has a 1 in 5 chance of passing) and the moment it's out on the market everyone else can make it without having to recoup those R&D and testing costs. They would be at an enormous disadvantage compared to the generic companies.
I wasn't trying to get at the fact that Hungary is smaller thus it's directly easier-I was trying to get at the fact that since Hungary's smaller, it has smaller companies working on providing service. These companies are going to be much more efficient than some behemoth company like Comcast or AT&T, not only because of their ability to respond to the market, but also because they have much, much more to lose when 100k customers leave their service for another.
I'd imagine South Korea does too, for that very reason. I wasn't trying to get at the fact that Hungary is smaller thus it's easier-I was trying to get at the fact that since Hungary's smaller, it has smaller companies working on providing service. These companies are going to be much more efficient than some behemoth company like Comcast or AT&T, not only because of their ability to respond to the market, but also because they have much, much more to lose when 100k customers leave their service for another.
How, again, is the cost of going to mars gonna be 4 times the cost of going to the moon, assuming it's a one-way trip on each? I'd imagine the act of getting to Mars isn't much different than the moon, as once you're in space, you've got all the momentum you need. It would take more calculation, and maybe a bit more course correction, but not anything much more in terms of equipment. As for food and water, that would be a limiting factor, but you can send unmanned rockets there with those supplies and others (new equipment for tests, etc.) once/as astronauts land.
Letting you know right now, Hungary is smaller than Indiana in size, and has 4M more people. Why does nobody get that it's much easier to cover a much smaller country???
Slashdot Mirror
They printed a given number of CD's, with the intent to sell every last one of them. They have time to wait for them to be sold, too.
That fits their diet of ramen perfectly!
while(marketing > quality){
quality--
}
It would be great if you started with something more than just office. Especially since his point was about games.
It's a shortcut, I agree. But no shortcut should be taken if you don't know the real way it gets done. That's one of the points I was trying to get at. The other is that I'll know my tables better, for a longer period, by learning them over time, on my own, than someone forced to memorize them over a week. It becomes indoctrinated when you learn yourself, unlike when you're forced to learn.
Also, as I said in another post, I'll do math faster than you even though I don't have all of those numbers memorized. It's a matter of using your brain more often for actual thinking than memorization, which in actuality leads to stronger performances overall. Rote memorization is for people to solve equations. Thinking is for people to create, change, and use equations effectively in ways that are original. If you want to just solve equations that people gave you, by plugging in, rote memorization is your type of learning.
Not true. I didn't know multiplication tables, and still don't know every slot in said tables, and I finished every test faster, and mostly with a better grade.
Also, it's funny that you bring up phonics, but that's also how I learned how to spell. I write essays that are among the highest in every class I have, and I spend less time actually writing them than most.
Now, having multiplication tables and knowing how to spell a subset of words is fine and dandy, but the moment you get to anything that requires more work than straight recall, my times will be a tenth of yours. If you go just by the tables, the moment you have anything past 10x10, the moment you have to solve by quadratic formula, the moment you have to figure out how to spell "antidisestablishmentarianism" you'll lose a great deal of time, while I'll chug away at a steady pace consistently. I'm also saying that my steady pace will be faster than many peoples bursts of recall, because I've done everything this way my entire life. It's better to train in one highly versatile method so extensively it becomes a part of you, than to train in two and become a master of neither.
Engineering data entry as a necessity would be an engineering foresight issue.
One would hope they wouldn't even go that far, and have a jumper. BIOSes fail many times when jumpers will still work.
Fortunately, my high school pretty much did this, by offering all maths (and other subjects) to students who had the prerequisite classes. You could take from Algebra 1 part 2, anything up to AP Calc, as a senior. Most other classes were arranged similarly, the most notable exception being English. Unfortunately, they didn't do this for many of the grades before.
Spend all day tinkering with equations, however, and you get a better engineer.
The point is, you can tinker with anything to learn how it works. Math is no different. Of course, some guidance is necessary in math, but given the age we live in, with information accessible everywhere, there's no reason for it to be a barrier.
The real advantage to this approach isn't quite what you learn, it's the way you learn. You learn this way by the force of your own curiosity, instead of being told what you need to know. You're bound to live a more satisfied life, because you chose what you enjoyed most to work on, instead of being pushed and pulled in every direction at once.
I say Child A doesn't need to learn his multiplication tables. I submit that it's better for him to learn how to multiply instead, and eventually, once he uses his method many times, he starts to memorize without actually trying to memorize.
EU: 27 Countries
US: 1 Country
If there were no competitors keeping companies from having a monopoly over technologies, there would be no reason for them to innovate to begin with. Open source happens to be the best way to keep a stable competitor at all times to a given standard.
There's 2 fields that thrive without IP: service and agriculture. There are none that involve direct creation of any level of technology that would even survive.
Big Pharma wouldn't have invented X drug at a cost of US $200 million when it needs to go through $20 million of testing (which it has a 1 in 5 chance of passing) and the moment it's out on the market everyone else can make it without having to recoup those R&D and testing costs. They would be at an enormous disadvantage compared to the generic companies.
I wasn't trying to get at the fact that Hungary is smaller thus it's directly easier-I was trying to get at the fact that since Hungary's smaller, it has smaller companies working on providing service. These companies are going to be much more efficient than some behemoth company like Comcast or AT&T, not only because of their ability to respond to the market, but also because they have much, much more to lose when 100k customers leave their service for another.
I'd imagine South Korea does too, for that very reason. I wasn't trying to get at the fact that Hungary is smaller thus it's easier-I was trying to get at the fact that since Hungary's smaller, it has smaller companies working on providing service. These companies are going to be much more efficient than some behemoth company like Comcast or AT&T, not only because of their ability to respond to the market, but also because they have much, much more to lose when 100k customers leave their service for another.
How, again, is the cost of going to mars gonna be 4 times the cost of going to the moon, assuming it's a one-way trip on each? I'd imagine the act of getting to Mars isn't much different than the moon, as once you're in space, you've got all the momentum you need. It would take more calculation, and maybe a bit more course correction, but not anything much more in terms of equipment. As for food and water, that would be a limiting factor, but you can send unmanned rockets there with those supplies and others (new equipment for tests, etc.) once/as astronauts land.
...why does it seem like every nightmare I have relating to patents and copyrights comes true?
Doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Microsoft trying at nearly anything results in some sort of failure, which is probably what happened with Zune.
Letting you know right now, Hungary is smaller than Indiana in size, and has 4M more people. Why does nobody get that it's much easier to cover a much smaller country???
The problem is the radio. Only good radios are loud enough to overcome the tire roar on shitty roads.
Redefining? I think they're actually just making up words....
Yeah, alot of people don't realize that the "x Mbits/sec" number is like how big of a SUV you're moving the data in.
In any given market in the US, there's 2 options for internet: phone line or cable line.