He outlined the problem with the *kids*, NOT the problem with schools. Perhaps if the kids didn't have access to all those toys they'd have an attention span beyond that of a chronically depressed lemming and actually be able to learn something while in class.
I remember while (I was a Canadian) living in Berkeley, one of the residents told me of the time they first got an American credit card (he was a foreigner too). Everything was all well and good with the world, except when he took a trip to the East Coast. The credit card was declined can cut up. Why? Because the CC company had only authorized it to be used in the area in which he lived. Why? Because Americans just don't travel enough to make it common enough that such things shouldn't be considered theft right off the hop. And we're not talking about limiting to a local area, we're talking about the USA!
So, why is it that Apple/can/ do these things? Because they can. Because Americans do NOT travel, to the point of rarely leaving within 100 miles of where they live.
Now, I'm not saying that this isn't a dick move on Apple's part. But, at the same time, if Americans were actually well traveled, they wouldn't be able to get away with this. As it sits, barely anyone will even notice.
And btw, it's not that you can't use the iPhone internationally. It's that you'll be charged roaming fees while doing it (yes, there/is/ an international plan - see below). But, I highly doubt that this would be different with any other company.
1) Cross platform support of a variety of computer grammars.
With support being dropped all the time (see above posts).
2) Very simple, highly modular architecture to facilitate building extensions and finding bugs.
You seem to be looking at a very different compiler (http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070915195203&pid=52).
3) The most sophisticated support tools for debugging and optimization of code.
Think again. Intel's compiler (ICC) kicks GCC's ass.
4) A much better license that fosters community contribution and growth without cost.
You're confusing fosters with forcing. Also, whether that happens or not has absolutely nothing to do with the license. It has to do with the project itself and the people that are already contributing to it. Read anything on sociology or how to build an online community and you'll get your reasons why.
5) Multi-threaded huge compilation capabilities with tools to do clustered compilations of massive code trees.
Very, very slowly.
"PCC compiles NetBSD's userland five to ten times faster than GCC" - perry (7046) - above
But, if you're talking about the auto tools, there are alternatives to those that are vastly superior to learn and use as well e.g. SCons.
6) CPU independant code generation and optimization capabilities.
Tell me what "finished" compiler does _not_ have this. But, there are those that would rather have correct code than the optimized (but regularly incorrect) code that GCC produces (see above link).
7) GCC is tried and true and has compiled more code than any compiler EVER has. Beat those stats.
And what does this have to do with whether the compiler is good? i.e. McDonald's has sold billions of hamburgers. Does that make those hamburgers not horrible for you (see Super Size Me)?
With respect to 4, unlike a BSD based license which encourages corporate theft of everyones hard work might I add.
This is total bullshit. Any corporation that might USE such code would have to do so under the BSD license and them using such code IS ALLOWED BY THE LICENSE. Just because it doesn't fit your ideology does NOT make it theft. Get your head out of your ass.
What they are saying is simply impossible.
pcc cannot take over gcc's job because if it did it would be just as large and have the exact same problems as gcc.
A counter example of this is WINE. In fact, many parts of WINE actually run faster than there Windows counter parts. Use google to figure out where and by how much.
But gcc does way way WAY too many things to simply be replaced outright by this little C "and thats it" compiler.
They are talking about gcc as a C compiler and that's pretty much it. Because that's the purpose that it's being used for. This is clear from what is even written in the summary i.e. put away your straw-man, we aren't going to buy it.
If you actually would have even read the summary and many of the previous posts, you wouldn't have made such an profoundly stupid post. Go back and educate yourself.
And what about these bugs that are even referenced in the summary? How could it POSSIBLY supplant GCC if it's that buggy? In fact, how could it have supplanted GCC if it hasn't taken GCC's place AT ALL yet?
Easy. Read the rest of the summary.
and work is being done on it to take on GCC's job.
But modifying, even forking GCC is practical and rational, whereas making your own, new, compiler and supporting it for all eternity is not. I can understand much of the BSD bent on licenses, but in this case...I don't see it.
When projects get really big (e.g. gcc), sometimes it's actually more efficient to start from scratch than fix what's already there. I mean seriously, I don't know of one project that is long lived that didn't have to re-write from scratch (or really really should).
Compilers are never "done",
NO piece of software is ever done; there's always something new to do. Whether that actually happens or not is a different story.
and writing one with a license that does not ensure other people's updates make it in is just ensuring that the author is perpetually supporting this himself.
Sophistry! The *BSD's themselves are counter-examples to this absolute nonsense. Also, ever hear of a little project call OpenSSH?
You are also ignoring (or simply don't understand) that people write OSS (partially) because they are scratching an itch and/or just interested in doing something and/or... or for any other number of reasons. I, for instance, have written several things that have had solutions b/c I was interested in doing it and wanted to challenge myself, etc. I also didn't like the way that some of those other projects did them. This also hasn't changed. I have two projects currently going on that already have solutions. One will probably see the light of day, the other one... maybe.
Basically, stop making assumptions about the motivation of developers and whether people will help and whether people want it and whether it'll be helpful and... Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I for one will be keeping an eye on this project.
You completely misunderstand what you've written. That "alternatively" only applies to the GPL PART of the DUEL license. The only thing that what you've quoted means, is that the code can be under the BSD and the GLP v2 or the BSD and any later version of the GPL i.e. one licenses wording does NOT supersede the other.
String theory is the leading contender for a "theory of everything"
Actually, not it's not. For this to be the case, it would have to predict something that is experimentally verifiable. Which has yet to be the case. All it is now is some really messy math. And even that's giving it something b/c most of it is the typical hand-wavy (read: non-rigorous) "math".
Quite frankly, the only good thing that I see here is that there might be an end to String Theory a.k.a. the "theory" that sucks up most of the money for research even though more than 3 DECADES have gone by without/one/ bloody experimentally verifiable prediction. Perhaps after this is all said and done with, we can spend some money on some actually *promising* areas of research.
Yah, because that's different from any politician anywhere in the world.
But, to answer your toll-ish post with another: It's better to not do something because you've never done it, than to continue to bomb the world indiscriminately because that's what you always do (I'm looking at you USA which is where I can tell you come from).
Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean it isn't used. For instance, I knew someone that used Pascal in industry as an Engineer. Can't remember exactly what kind of Engineer though (it's been about 6 years). But, even if it wasn't used in industry at all, these developments would still be *very* useful as it is quite useful as a learning language.
Basically, please remember that there are lands beyond your horizon. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they don't exist nor does it mean that they aren't important.
This mentality is one of the larger reasons why the IT industry is in the shit right now i.e. people don't consider which is the right tool FOR THE PROBLEM. All that largely goes on is people trying to bang square pegs in circle holes getting the expected results.
1. Maturity of solution;
I couldn't care less. As long as it works as advertised and is bug free (as much as it can be).
2. Features;
As long as it has everything that I need, who cares what else is included. Hell, even if it doesn't, one can write it themselves. As long as the list (and complexity of the items) isn't prohibitive... At any rate, I don't expect many languages would be prohibitive in this respect.
3. Size of community of skilled users (to build a team);
If you build it, they will come... sorta. Basically, if what you're building is worth while, and you've shown that you're in it for the long haul, don't worry about building a team of competent programmers. They/will/ show up once things get going. You just have to be picky when it comes to who you give cvs write access to and, for that matter, what contributions you commit yourself (i.e. quality control).
4. Complexity/ease of use (for neophytes to master);
Screw neophytes. All they produce is crap code which/no-one/ wants in there code-base. If they aren't competent enough to write in a given language, then they shouldn't be contributing. And arguably, for these people, the language wouldn't matter when it comes to the quality of the code they produce.
5. Greatest strength of your choice, and the greatest weaknesses of the other two.
The problem domain has yet to be specified. So, this is an unanswerable question.
It's actually reverse of what you think. Apple launched.Mac and offered it as it sits today. Whereas M$ released the services and/afterward/ is now tying things in. So, they really aren't the same, business-wise that is i.e. no shady business practices from Apple this time 'round.
I've used that one too. Better than the two I listed, but still one of "those". Quite frankly, I find all of these things... lacking in there correctness. Mathematica being the worst (from what I've seen). Nothing like getting silent errors with "results" returned.
But, I didn't exactly say to use it/them, merely to investigate what methods are used so the OP could use it/them in his/her own program. After all, Maple/etc do have some serious limitations with speed/memory/etc. And at times, these limitations can be prohibitive. Which is why I use them extremely rarely and why I didn't recommend there actual use.
You're looking at a PDE solver which are rather difficult beasts to solve. Perhaps a look at what methods Maple or Mathematica use would provide some insight. At least it'll be a starting point.
When it comes to display, the programs I've written always dumped the formated output to a text file. I then used gnuplot (http://www.gnuplot.info/) to view the data of interest. It can also dump the graph to a ps for inclusion in a paper is desired.
I do know that there is an insignificant amount of people that can and have used powerpoint effectively. But, an exception to the rule does not disprove it. I'd also *not* say that it/is/ great when teaching a large amount of people, but/could/ be in the hands of someone like that prof you mentioned. But again, people like him are rare (understatement).
In my experience, the effectiveness of powerpoint is the exact opposite of you. The arts, where pretty pictures are prolific, powerpoint would be/far/ more effective. I think that you're one (assumption) good experience in the hard sciences is clouding you to the general problem of powerpoint and related programs i.e. just because it can, does _not_ mean it is: re: studies show to the contrary.
I found this one funny if you haven't seen it before:
You're assuming that people are writing down the ideas and explaining them properly. Are you sure that's a good assumption? Because empirical evidence and many studies say different. Basically, while Plato did explain things, pretty much everyone today doesn't.
IMO, we should be preventing tech from entering the classroom until the high-school teachers actually understand what they're teaching and have the ability to teach it. Only then can we entertain this idea. Because, I know what's entering University today and it certainly tells a tale of a failed education system. If you doubt this, just look at the pass/fail ratio of a Linear Algebra service course. *Very* scary.
I find it stunning (and disturbing) that there is this notion that adding tech to the classroom is by default beneficial. This idea is complete rubbish and the studies are starting to mount that show this (see below). Especially when it comes to the hard sciences and mathematics. We know that 'dead poets society' ruined a generation of english teachers. IMO, technology is ruining a generation (or more) of science/math teachers.
I've seen exactly ZERO tech used in class beyond an overhead that was anywhere near effective whether high-school or beyond. Hell, even when I taught *C++* I used the white-board a significant chunk of the time. Also, in high-school, that cover of darkness can prove to be a bad choice.
Powerpoint (and similar products) are so poorly used (I've actually/never/ seen it used properly) that they actually seriously detract from the class. In fact, people tend to do the exactly same nonsense with powerpoint that they do with the chalkboard i.e. write what they say. Yes, I can read, tell me/write on the board something I can't.
There have also been studies on using tech with kids (look through/. archives for the links). The conclusions were that all this tech actually largely prevents learning because the kids are distracted by all the "shiny objects" rather than actually paying attention to the content.
So, my suggestion is to put away all of you expensive toys (that are proving to be less and less effective as time goes on), pick up a piece of chalk and actually teach them. After all, when it comes to Math and Science, all you need is quick sketches to get the ideas across, now don't you.
""" While many scientists may not be good a making small talk at parties, we are paid lecturers you know. You don't teach to a class of freshmen and present at meetings six times a year without learning a thing or two about public speaking. """
Just because one/can/ speak (well) in one context does NOT mean that one can speak well in another. Nor does it mean that one is inclined to.
Btw, from they way you've worded things here, you're assuming that I haven't done any public speaking nor performed any lectures (i.e. been/am a lecturer); bad assumption.
""" Within the narrow confines of explaining their research, scientists can be very eloquent. """
Can be but rarely are.
You're also assuming that aside from the profound amount of time/work going into a paper, that after the fact, the researcher(s) are willing to put significantly more time/work into developing a proper presentation, doing it, and uploading it and going through yet another review process. I'm going to have to say that given the sheer amount of time between writing the paper and it being published, and the video explanation showing up, the usefulness of this service is profoundly insignificant i.e. by the time the video shows up, the paper will be old news. Must like journals have become because of pre-print servers such as the arXiv.
The only thing that I see this as is a couple "Scientists" getting it into there heads that it'd be a "good idea" to enter the arena of "reality tv." Any self-respecting Scientist will stay away from this service and continue going to the conferences and workshops that do a *much* better job of it i.e. you can't talk to your monitor and expect a reply.
Btw, just to be clear, I'm taking about real Science (i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc) and Mathematics not what/some/ people consider to be science such as Sociology, Economy, etc. Just so there's not confusion on what we're talking about.
I mean, scientists aren't exactly known for there ability to explain things well. So, will having uncomfortable people/attempting/ an explanation help? And how exactly does having a video of someone *speaking* the jargon help with the problem of the jargon in the first place? Quite frankly, I find it asinine to complain about jargon when the target audience is people that will understand it anyway.
Also, there's that nasty question of peer review. I know that there are many papers from crackpots that end up on the arXiv. What exactly is SciVee going to do to ensure that this doesn't happen there as well?
IMO, this service is going to fail if only for the reason that (pretty much all) scientists are hermits.
A quote from your link: """ A rough guide to the ages at which the sub-topics of arithmetics and algebra are taught in the *United States* is as follows """
Two points:
1) This is not a list of what the levels are called, just a list of what age/topics/ are typically taught. Hell, even after that list it goes on to say, "For comparison to American grade levels". So, me posting the grade level still has an obvious level equivalency between the US and Canada.
2) It's/only/ for the US. So, you're really going to have to let me in on how the education system in the US has anything at all to do with the education system in Canada.
In all honesty, the way you're posting and what you're posting, it really looks to me like you're trying to pick a fight rather than have an honest discussion.
As far as I know those terms (and the new one 40[S,G]) are the only ones used in Canada. But, since you didn't do anything remotely helpful to a discussion (e.g. mention a different term), I can't really comment further.
Slashdot Mirror
... though not what he thinks.
He outlined the problem with the *kids*, NOT the problem with schools. Perhaps if the kids didn't have access to all those toys they'd have an attention span beyond that of a chronically depressed lemming and actually be able to learn something while in class.
I remember while (I was a Canadian) living in Berkeley, one of the residents told me of the time they first got an American credit card (he was a foreigner too). Everything was all well and good with the world, except when he took a trip to the East Coast. The credit card was declined can cut up. Why? Because the CC company had only authorized it to be used in the area in which he lived. Why? Because Americans just don't travel enough to make it common enough that such things shouldn't be considered theft right off the hop. And we're not talking about limiting to a local area, we're talking about the USA!
/can/ do these things? Because they can. Because Americans do NOT travel, to the point of rarely leaving within 100 miles of where they live.
/is/ an international plan - see below). But, I highly doubt that this would be different with any other company.
/.?
So, why is it that Apple
Now, I'm not saying that this isn't a dick move on Apple's part. But, at the same time, if Americans were actually well traveled, they wouldn't be able to get away with this. As it sits, barely anyone will even notice.
And btw, it's not that you can't use the iPhone internationally. It's that you'll be charged roaming fees while doing it (yes, there
For that matter, given this story:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/10/1216224&from=rss
It's actually retarded to say that people can't travel internationally with it. Doesn't Wil Shipley read
With support being dropped all the time (see above posts).
You seem to be looking at a very different compiler (http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070915195203&pid=52).
Think again. Intel's compiler (ICC) kicks GCC's ass.
You're confusing fosters with forcing. Also, whether that happens or not has absolutely nothing to do with the license. It has to do with the project itself and the people that are already contributing to it. Read anything on sociology or how to build an online community and you'll get your reasons why.
Very, very slowly.
"PCC compiles NetBSD's userland five to ten times faster than GCC"
- perry (7046)
- above
But, if you're talking about the auto tools, there are alternatives to those that are vastly superior to learn and use as well e.g. SCons.
Tell me what "finished" compiler does _not_ have this. But, there are those that would rather have correct code than the optimized (but regularly incorrect) code that GCC produces (see above link).
And what does this have to do with whether the compiler is good? i.e. McDonald's has sold billions of hamburgers. Does that make those hamburgers not horrible for you (see Super Size Me)?
This is total bullshit. Any corporation that might USE such code would have to do so under the BSD license and them using such code IS ALLOWED BY THE LICENSE. Just because it doesn't fit your ideology does NOT make it theft. Get your head out of your ass.
A counter example of this is WINE. In fact, many parts of WINE actually run faster than there Windows counter parts. Use google to figure out where and by how much.
They are talking about gcc as a C compiler and that's pretty much it. Because that's the purpose that it's being used for. This is clear from what is even written in the summary i.e. put away your straw-man, we aren't going to buy it.
If you actually would have even read the summary and many of the previous posts, you wouldn't have made such an profoundly stupid post. Go back and educate yourself.
If it is "leaner, lighter, and faster" does the motivation really matter? i.e. being as asinine in the opposite direction is hardly helpful.
When did Linux come into play? The summary only stated [Open,Net]BSD.
But, since you asked, diversity == good.
Perhaps, a different opinion? Or is yours the only one that matters?
When projects get really big (e.g. gcc), sometimes it's actually more efficient to start from scratch than fix what's already there. I mean seriously, I don't know of one project that is long lived that didn't have to re-write from scratch (or really really should).
NO piece of software is ever done; there's always something new to do. Whether that actually happens or not is a different story.
Sophistry! The *BSD's themselves are counter-examples to this absolute nonsense. Also, ever hear of a little project call OpenSSH?
You are also ignoring (or simply don't understand) that people write OSS (partially) because they are scratching an itch and/or just interested in doing something and/or... or for any other number of reasons. I, for instance, have written several things that have had solutions b/c I was interested in doing it and wanted to challenge myself, etc. I also didn't like the way that some of those other projects did them. This also hasn't changed. I have two projects currently going on that already have solutions. One will probably see the light of day, the other one... maybe.
Basically, stop making assumptions about the motivation of developers and whether people will help and whether people want it and whether it'll be helpful and... Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I for one will be keeping an eye on this project.
You completely misunderstand what you've written. That "alternatively" only applies to the GPL PART of the DUEL license. The only thing that what you've quoted means, is that the code can be under the BSD and the GLP v2 or the BSD and any later version of the GPL i.e. one licenses wording does NOT supersede the other.
String theory is the leading contender for a "theory of everything"
Actually, not it's not. For this to be the case, it would have to predict something that is experimentally verifiable. Which has yet to be the case. All it is now is some really messy math. And even that's giving it something b/c most of it is the typical hand-wavy (read: non-rigorous) "math".
Quite frankly, the only good thing that I see here is that there might be an end to String Theory a.k.a. the "theory" that sucks up most of the money for research even though more than 3 DECADES have gone by without /one/ bloody experimentally verifiable prediction. Perhaps after this is all said and done with, we can spend some money on some actually *promising* areas of research.
Yah, because that's different from any politician anywhere in the world.
But, to answer your toll-ish post with another: It's better to not do something because you've never done it, than to continue to bomb the world indiscriminately because that's what you always do (I'm looking at you USA which is where I can tell you come from).
Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean it isn't used. For instance, I knew someone that used Pascal in industry as an Engineer. Can't remember exactly what kind of Engineer though (it's been about 6 years). But, even if it wasn't used in industry at all, these developments would still be *very* useful as it is quite useful as a learning language.
Basically, please remember that there are lands beyond your horizon. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they don't exist nor does it mean that they aren't important.
This mentality is one of the larger reasons why the IT industry is in the shit right now i.e. people don't consider which is the right tool FOR THE PROBLEM. All that largely goes on is people trying to bang square pegs in circle holes getting the expected results.
/will/ show up once things get going. You just have to be picky when it comes to who you give cvs write access to and, for that matter, what contributions you commit yourself (i.e. quality control).
/no-one/ wants in there code-base. If they aren't competent enough to write in a given language, then they shouldn't be contributing. And arguably, for these people, the language wouldn't matter when it comes to the quality of the code they produce.
1. Maturity of solution;
I couldn't care less. As long as it works as advertised and is bug free (as much as it can be).
2. Features;
As long as it has everything that I need, who cares what else is included. Hell, even if it doesn't, one can write it themselves. As long as the list (and complexity of the items) isn't prohibitive... At any rate, I don't expect many languages would be prohibitive in this respect.
3. Size of community of skilled users (to build a team);
If you build it, they will come... sorta. Basically, if what you're building is worth while, and you've shown that you're in it for the long haul, don't worry about building a team of competent programmers. They
4. Complexity/ease of use (for neophytes to master);
Screw neophytes. All they produce is crap code which
5. Greatest strength of your choice, and the greatest weaknesses of the other two.
The problem domain has yet to be specified. So, this is an unanswerable question.
It's actually reverse of what you think. Apple launched .Mac and offered it as it sits today. Whereas M$ released the services and /afterward/ is now tying things in. So, they really aren't the same, business-wise that is i.e. no shady business practices from Apple this time 'round.
I've used that one too. Better than the two I listed, but still one of "those". Quite frankly, I find all of these things... lacking in there correctness. Mathematica being the worst (from what I've seen). Nothing like getting silent errors with "results" returned.
But, I didn't exactly say to use it/them, merely to investigate what methods are used so the OP could use it/them in his/her own program. After all, Maple/etc do have some serious limitations with speed/memory/etc. And at times, these limitations can be prohibitive. Which is why I use them extremely rarely and why I didn't recommend there actual use.
You're looking at a PDE solver which are rather difficult beasts to solve. Perhaps a look at what methods Maple or Mathematica use would provide some insight. At least it'll be a starting point.
When it comes to display, the programs I've written always dumped the formated output to a text file. I then used gnuplot (http://www.gnuplot.info/) to view the data of interest. It can also dump the graph to a ps for inclusion in a paper is desired.
Hope that was helpful.
I do know that there is an insignificant amount of people that can and have used powerpoint effectively. But, an exception to the rule does not disprove it. I'd also *not* say that it /is/ great when teaching a large amount of people, but /could/ be in the hands of someone like that prof you mentioned. But again, people like him are rare (understatement).
/far/ more effective. I think that you're one (assumption) good experience in the hard sciences is clouding you to the general problem of powerpoint and related programs i.e. just because it can, does _not_ mean it is: re: studies show to the contrary.
In my experience, the effectiveness of powerpoint is the exact opposite of you. The arts, where pretty pictures are prolific, powerpoint would be
I found this one funny if you haven't seen it before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLpjrHzgSRM
You're assuming that people are writing down the ideas and explaining them properly. Are you sure that's a good assumption? Because empirical evidence and many studies say different. Basically, while Plato did explain things, pretty much everyone today doesn't.
IMO, we should be preventing tech from entering the classroom until the high-school teachers actually understand what they're teaching and have the ability to teach it. Only then can we entertain this idea. Because, I know what's entering University today and it certainly tells a tale of a failed education system. If you doubt this, just look at the pass/fail ratio of a Linear Algebra service course. *Very* scary.
I find it stunning (and disturbing) that there is this notion that adding tech to the classroom is by default beneficial. This idea is complete rubbish and the studies are starting to mount that show this (see below). Especially when it comes to the hard sciences and mathematics. We know that 'dead poets society' ruined a generation of english teachers. IMO, technology is ruining a generation (or more) of science/math teachers.
/never/ seen it used properly) that they actually seriously detract from the class. In fact, people tend to do the exactly same nonsense with powerpoint that they do with the chalkboard i.e. write what they say. Yes, I can read, tell me/write on the board something I can't.
/. archives for the links). The conclusions were that all this tech actually largely prevents learning because the kids are distracted by all the "shiny objects" rather than actually paying attention to the content.
I've seen exactly ZERO tech used in class beyond an overhead that was anywhere near effective whether high-school or beyond. Hell, even when I taught *C++* I used the white-board a significant chunk of the time. Also, in high-school, that cover of darkness can prove to be a bad choice.
Powerpoint (and similar products) are so poorly used (I've actually
There have also been studies on using tech with kids (look through
So, my suggestion is to put away all of you expensive toys (that are proving to be less and less effective as time goes on), pick up a piece of chalk and actually teach them. After all, when it comes to Math and Science, all you need is quick sketches to get the ideas across, now don't you.
"""
/can/ speak (well) in one context does NOT mean that one can speak well in another. Nor does it mean that one is inclined to.
/some/ people consider to be science such as Sociology, Economy, etc. Just so there's not confusion on what we're talking about.
While many scientists may not be good a making small talk at parties, we are paid lecturers you know. You don't teach to a class of freshmen and present at meetings six times a year without learning a thing or two about public speaking.
"""
Just because one
Btw, from they way you've worded things here, you're assuming that I haven't done any public speaking nor performed any lectures (i.e. been/am a lecturer); bad assumption.
"""
Within the narrow confines of explaining their research, scientists can be very eloquent.
"""
Can be but rarely are.
You're also assuming that aside from the profound amount of time/work going into a paper, that after the fact, the researcher(s) are willing to put significantly more time/work into developing a proper presentation, doing it, and uploading it and going through yet another review process. I'm going to have to say that given the sheer amount of time between writing the paper and it being published, and the video explanation showing up, the usefulness of this service is profoundly insignificant i.e. by the time the video shows up, the paper will be old news. Must like journals have become because of pre-print servers such as the arXiv.
The only thing that I see this as is a couple "Scientists" getting it into there heads that it'd be a "good idea" to enter the arena of "reality tv." Any self-respecting Scientist will stay away from this service and continue going to the conferences and workshops that do a *much* better job of it i.e. you can't talk to your monitor and expect a reply.
Btw, just to be clear, I'm taking about real Science (i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc) and Mathematics not what
I mean, scientists aren't exactly known for there ability to explain things well. So, will having uncomfortable people /attempting/ an explanation help? And how exactly does having a video of someone *speaking* the jargon help with the problem of the jargon in the first place? Quite frankly, I find it asinine to complain about jargon when the target audience is people that will understand it anyway.
Also, there's that nasty question of peer review. I know that there are many papers from crackpots that end up on the arXiv. What exactly is SciVee going to do to ensure that this doesn't happen there as well?
IMO, this service is going to fail if only for the reason that (pretty much all) scientists are hermits.
"""
;)
300 math is a fan flick remake of that movie from last year about, um, about 2 hours too long.
"""
300 math (as I was using it) is grade 12 level mathematics in MB up until the mid 90's. But, perhaps that before your time and I'm dating myself
A quote from your link:
/topics/ are typically taught. Hell, even after that list it goes on to say, "For comparison to American grade levels". So, me posting the grade level still has an obvious level equivalency between the US and Canada.
/only/ for the US. So, you're really going to have to let me in on how the education system in the US has anything at all to do with the education system in Canada.
"""
A rough guide to the ages at which the sub-topics of arithmetics and algebra are taught in the *United States* is as follows
"""
Two points:
1) This is not a list of what the levels are called, just a list of what age
2) It's
In all honesty, the way you're posting and what you're posting, it really looks to me like you're trying to pick a fight rather than have an honest discussion.
As far as I know those terms (and the new one 40[S,G]) are the only ones used in Canada. But, since you didn't do anything remotely helpful to a discussion (e.g. mention a different term), I can't really comment further.