You're either talking about 1) grad courses, which makes your point moot because barely anyone goes into grad studies in math, or 2) upper level math course which is moot for the same reasons as (1). In other words, it's not valid to extrapolate to the general student population what goes on in the courses with some of the lowest enrolment rates.
I also wouldn't say that any public school is motivate by profit. The high schools are motivated to keep the students happy and there "self-esteem" intact. That invariably means that they can't give them the grades that they earned to treat them like they are an adult because that would mean the students couldn't get away with things and the teacher would have to actually fight with the parents and justify there position. The sort of, it's the systems fault not my childs, fallacy.
When it comes to Universities, I wouldn't say that profit is the whole story. That's more ancillary than anything else. It's mostly similar to the above. But, you only get told to "shove it" at increasingly rare University fundamental sciences and mathematics departments (probably engineering as well). And even then, only in the upper level courses. Btw, I do have several stories from a couple Universities (Math departments). Things are sad and getting increasingly so.
This is being reported all over the place. In fact, my wife read an article in Macleans (I think) years ago about this very thing. Overall, the false self-esteem forced upon these kids by our so called "education system" in North America has brought about a new horror in education. As in, most students today are what is commonly referred to as "mark mercenaries." They also have a gross tendency to lie or twist words or... to get what they want. I've seen it used time and time again in attempts to screw over profs, TAs, etc because of a perceived wrong. That perceived wrong typically being not paying enough attention to the student or giving them a bad grade (that they earned). In fact, a recent example is a TA got questioned for not giving help to a student. What actually happened is that this student didn't even as for help. Likely in some twisted reality in this students head, the TA should have constantly come up to this student asking him/her if (s)he needed help. Because, that's what happens in highschool right?
And what makes it worse? TV programs that, including reality TV, that glorify people getting a free ride. So, now with the delusional aspect to the general mentality of todays youth added to there false self-esteem, they actually honestly believe that they deserve what they think they deserve. Regardless of the reality of the situation.
And what makes that worse? Universities/Colleges/etc are indirectly encouraging that. Because, if they did anything to stop that, then the students wouldn't take there (service) courses and the departments would be in big trouble. Both through the lower grades and the complaints that admin would surely get and the lower enrolment rates.
Right now, what we should expect is for this to get worse for a long time to come. Because, the Universities/etc (because they are now run like businesses and NOT educational institutions) have a vested interest in caving to these power drunk students. And those students are the *vast* majority of the student population.
... because the education researchers have a different idea. Namely, that females don't go into Maths or the Sciences because there is a mentality of aggression against the problem(s) that females don't naturally have. Which makes *far* more sense than this one. Well, perhaps not in the small town. But, that is becoming more and more of a special case that need not be considered. Well, that and living in the US. You guys really have an odd culture there.
How exactly is LaTeX is showing its age? Has how to write $x^2$ really changed that much? Is there a better way to write that? Or is it just that the point and click generation are scared of, ooooo, formatting text without clicking? How scary...
Seriously, if someone calling themselves an Academic is adverse to learning something as trivial as LaTeX (seriously, basic usage isn't difficult nor hard to learn) or learning the two or three commands to use SVN/CVS/etc (let's be honest, it really is that few commands for basic usage and the IT department can set-up the repo if need be), then they are NOT an academic.
But, I should point out that only beyond the fundamental sciences (generally speaking) there *might* be enough collaborators to justify such a system. Because, for the fundamental guys, a mailing list would be good enough. And even then, its not really needed.
I think that it should also be pointed out that it is rarely a situation in academic writing where the paper can be written in parallel. What really happens is that the collaborators send there notes to the most junior member of the team and that person writes it up. Then the paper is sent off to the others and people discuss the changes that they think need to happen. Rise, repeat.
It might be a nice thought that the open-source model can be applied to research and/or academic writing. But, the fact of the matter is that it can't. Software can be written in a very modular fashion enabling good parallelism in development. But, academics is very one step after the other. One idea leads to the next and each idea can only really be discussed before the one person writes it up. That's really what happens in real life. Discussions and people working in there own offices. Then someone will figure something out and that will lead to another discussion about its correctness, etc and things then move on from there.
Seriously, real research isn't figure out A, then B, then C and three people go on to figure out there respective parts and combine the results. It's more like, they might (at most) *think*, A, then B, then C. But, it ends up being G, then D, then C. Or C might not be the conclusion at all.
Research cannot be planned and then worked on like software can. Software is a known quantity. One knows the building blocks and generally how to put it together before things are started. That might change in the planning phase, or possibly the development phase as well. But, not significantly, and not materially. Research on the other hand (i.e. academics) is full of unknowns. The best that can be said in the beginning is that there is a *possible* path. But, that is pretty much guaranteed to change as progress is made and the end result(s) might change as well. In fact, a lot (if not most) of the time, the end result isn't known. It's being sought after.
So, how exactly is that supposed to be parallelised again? You know, when the solution and its path isn't known?
Set-up account registration such that you can only get an account if you were referred by an existing user. You know, since you already have a good sized user base (you do, yes?). It isn't unreasonable as long as you're keeping things local. Most people should know one another, or know someone who knows someone.
But, honestly, why are you even explaining yourself to these people. An email solely with RTFM in it with a link to the page the explains what the site is about is more than enough. Seriously, stop feeding the help vampires.
I don't think that researchers understand the difference between causation and correlation.
I'll buy that watching a lot of tv can lead to someone being overweight. After all, how many of use use a treadmill while watching our "stories." I'll buy that not exercising can have other outcomes such as (stretching it) asthma. Not working those lunges may indeed lead to problems for kids. But, this is hardly a conclusive study. Where's all the testing on the tissues themselves. Where ruling out other factors such as diet, air quality, etc? I know we got some of that tissue around that the lab guys can do tests on and while following people around for over a decade, it's hard to believe that they couldn't have noticed living conditions.
But, obesity, diabetes, smoking and (especially) promiscuity?!?!? Bullshit. One must be susceptible to get diabetes and the TV cannot make one not exercise and smoke. And promiscuity?!?! PROMISCUITY?!?!? Perhaps these guys should get out of the lab and see just how many parents are NOT parenting there kids.
Jesus christ. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
3. You really pay a lot more for the parts with Apple....
No you don't. The problem with what you're saying is that people compare the *possibility* of getting a cheap PC with the cheapest model that Apple offers. This is an apples and oranges comparison. Apple just doesn't offer low end computers.
The fact of the matter is that when one compares equivalent hardware in the PC v.s. Mac, then they are about the same price. And I say about the same as there rarely are two equivalent models to compare directly. There's always some difference.
Oh, and I should point out that naturopathic web sites mention Lithium Orotate pretty much exclusively. THAT one can ZERO credence to it as there has been only two (I believe) serious studies where one can't make any reasonable conclusions from. They just weren't done right (I believe links to those studies are on its wikipedia page). I'd really lend to what you're saying if you'd get which Lithium you're taking about right.
Btw, here's a review of many studies/etc, where some patients were able to get away with low dose: J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59 Suppl 5:32-9; discussion 40-1. Here's a case report with low dose working just dandy: Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1995 May;19(3):515-7. Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) works really well when you know it's there doesn't it.
By the way, from that first one: The optimal dose and the most effective blood levels of lithium are unclear, but a reasonable strategy would be to start with low doses (600-900 mg/day) and, if necessary, to increase the doses to obtain a level in accordance with the usual therapeutic range of blood levels.
However, 600mg/day can get some people into the current therapeutic range (min 0.5 or 0.6 depending on who you talk to). So, starting even lower than that (i.e. 150-300mg/day) would probably be better. An example of that would be someone that I saw on a forum saying that at 200mg/day, they were at 0.15. So, given a linear progression (I know that's not necessarily reasonable), would given him 0.45 at 600mg/day. Something that is *very* close to the therapeutic range if you consider 0.5 the lower bound. But, if started at 900mg/day that would yield ~0.7 straight off. It should also be mentioned that starting off like this can give undesirable side-effects which is why competent (p)docs are starting people very low and working up. That is assuming they aren't crawling up the walls or about to plunge off a balcony. This so that side-effects are less common as experience states that starting low and working up slowly largely prevents this.
If you have any more questions, then I'd suggest that YOU go through Pubmed yourself. You know, now that you know it's there.
I did say REFRACTORY depression now didn't I. Or are you intentionally missing that because it would mean that you couldn't get on your high horse? For those that don't know, refractory depression equals treatment resistant depression. So, that whole going through standard therapy IS A GIVEN because, YOU WON'T KNOW THAT IS IT REFRACTORY DEPRESSION WITHOUT GOING THROUGH STANDARD TREATMENTS.
As for your "keep up" type comments. You don't represent the majority. So, while it's great that YOU might, you can*not* expand that to the whole. It just isn't reasonable. Then again, if you docs understood even a iota of Maths/Stats, you'd already know that. Because, if what you were saying was true, then I would have run into at least/one/ doc that knew what they were doing instead of groping around in the dark. And that includes specialists. More opinion that fact/research in EVERY bit of my experience. And that experience comes from two countries including one state and three provinces.
Oh, and it'd probably be more helpful for people who might want to listen to you if you read what people wrote and didn't come off as a condescending asshole. Might want to take that one to heart. Because, IF you are indeed a doc, your patients would probably appreciate you not be a complete prick.
I'm *really* getting sick of people saying that programming language X is inherently insecure. It's total bullshit. EVERY language has its pros and cons and unless the INTERPRETER has an issue, then it's NOT the languages fault. And since EVERY INTERPRETER has had flaws in it, that can_not_ be the criteria for whether a *language* is secure or not.
In other words, STOP BLAMING THE LANGUAGE FOR THE FOLLY OF THE PROGRAMMER. Just because PHP has been used by some idiots does _not_ make it an "inherently insecure" language. Those idiots would make an insecure site regardless of language.
Yes, we all know that (arguably) most docs don't keep up with the literature. Or they choose a treatment and stick with that because it worked the best at one point and they like it because they trust it. Problem is, that research is ongoing and new things are found all the time. In fact, on one of my clicking adventures on-line, I found out that Lithium Carbonate was being used to treat refractory depression (as an adjunct), OCD, cluster headaches and even ALS (the one that Stephen Hawkins has) to name a few. All that in *low* doses. Yet, most docs still consider this a horrid drug refusing to realise that in low doses Lithium Carbonate does _not_ require close monitoring.
So, this sort of study could be very beneficial.
HOWEVER, it's things like this that HMO's really *really* like. They'll probably use it to force doctors into treatments that are cheaper alternatives regardless of that particular patient. Because, as with many things, certain disorders, etc, have different drugs to treat them. Different drugs for different sets of symptoms, different severity of symptoms, etc, etc, etc. So, patients will likely get cheated out of drugs that would be more effective for them simply because there HMO won't pay for the one that is best for them and the one that is best for them isn't in there price range. Especially, for the more complicated disorders.
And what happens when next week happens and this changes. How often is this list going to be updated? How often are the HMO's going to be updating from the research?
Quite frankly, while I fully believe that this thing is undertaken with the best of intentions, it is ripe for abuse. In the end, it is my opinion, that it'll likely lead to more harm than good.
You need to re-read the summary then. Because, it doesn't say what you think it does. Also, if you would have RTFA, you would have seen this, "Behold the new Classic Controller PRO from Nintendo". So, hardly a replacement.
Define quality. Is Apple (or any other company for that matter) able to tell what people will like/dislike? Because, I for one have disagreed with *many* reviews for *many* games that I've played. And that goes both ways. Some reviews said the game sucked when I thought it was great and vis versa.
Excluding experimental data, those fields don't really have the problem that this guy is talking about. Perhaps someone should give him/her a lesson in the Scientific Method. Then maybe his/her words would reflect some rigour. Well, that and a link to the ArXive (http://arxiv.org/).
Why is this so? Because, these communities are so small, that just about everyone knows or knows of everyone else('s work). Of course, that's a slight hyperbole. BUT,/just/ a *slight* one.
This sort of project only really applies to the non-fundamental sciences. Not that it's not useful. Of course it'd be a good thing to get this going. But, we just have to be honest about its true scope. And of course it'd be nice if this guy would tone down the rhetoric. Coming off that naively idealistic only works against things.
Treading new ground... not so much. I had a friend do this in the late 90's/2000. And unlike someone else said higher up on this page, you most certainly DO need a license. It will be a separate and different license from the one the original authors hold (obviously). But, it most certainly is necessary.
To the "asker": I'd recommend looking at the GPL and other restrictive licences to look through things that you both want and don't want. Once complete, take a look and see if you want anything else in that list. Then *after* that, go to a lawyer, consult and get something drawn up. You're going to want to make sure to explicitly state that the licensee will get the code, be able to make modifications, BUT those modifications will not be supported by your company and doing so will also limit your ability to provide help otherwise. It should also be explicitly stated that they cannot create derivative works or otherwise sell or use your product (directly or indirectly) in any part of a product that they may sell beyond the original agreement.
But, you DO need a lawyer. So, stop being a dumbass asking slashdot about legal advise and go get one.
You're assuming that they are in it to make games. Are you sure that's a good assumption? Because, from where I sit, they seem to be more in the business of making game engines and licensing them, using DOOM to show it off rather than anything else.
Well, just from the summery, it doesn't seem as though the player necessarily has a choice. It's like a randomised mission that gets assigned rather than chosen.
I'd recommend a blackboard as well as pencil and paper. Why? You ever wonder why people can't add or even understand fractions when they graduate from high school? It's because they've never really had to learn it. Similarly with algebra, English or any other number of topics. Why learn it when a program will do it for you.
Seriously, do yourself a favour and only get a (or a couple of) computer lab(s) for use for writing essays (ones with*out* spelling/grammar checkers), etc. Because, otherwise, your just feeding into the laziness of today's students allowing them to learn and understand as little as possible.
In other words, make them do some real work instead of continuing to destroy the education system with that "self-esteem" nonsense. Computers can fit in that. But, it has to be very *very* carefully.
... I was eating candy while reading. The librarian came up and demanded that I stop eating in the library and to give her the candy. I said no. She tried to take it away but I grabbed it, said I would put it away and proceeded to put it in my backpack. She tried to grab it from my backpack and I slapped her hand. She looked shocked and walked away. I was 16 or 17 at the time. I suffered zero repercussions due to my actions.
In essence, get a spine. Someone cannot just take your property just because they want it. It doesn't matter if they are in a perceived position of authority. They don't have the right. That is unless you've entered into contract that states that they can. Which you haven't mentioned is the case and is *far* from standard practice at high schools in North America. Not to mention that minors can't enter into contract.
But, at this point, I'd suggest going to the Principle *with your parents* to get this resolved. If they don't budge, then local news outlets are *always* looking for stories. I'm sure they'd be interested in this.
I say that because, although I dislike huge lecture halls, the likely alternative isn't going to fair much better, perhaps worse.
Lecture halls are primarily bad because the voice of the instructor might not be able to reach everyone, and more importantly, what is being written on the black/white-board isn't going to be visible to everyone. The former can be solved by using a microphone and speakers. But, the latter is a critical issue. The only real solution is to reduce the room size. Unfortunately, this comes with its own issues.
So, what do we do with all those students? After all, there are only so many people that can fit into one room and only so many Profs that can teach so many sections. Some common solutions are video taping the lecture or putting it on a cable channel live/alternate times or having different rooms viewing the one Prof in the other room. Unfortunately, all these have critical issues.
The first and second are similar. The problem being lack of access to the Prof. I've had peers that have taken such a class and they hated them. For one, being surrounded by all that equipment and people with cameras, etc, is irritating and distracting. Secondly, you have to wait to ask your questions while some guy with a shoulder-camera comes to video you asking it. Thirdly, to get what is written in the video, one must use a special tool which isn't good at displaying what is written and can also fail from time to time. Well, those are the common ones that I remember. But, they did bitch a lot about it. So, I'm certainly not giving a complete list. Needless to say, student don't like this.
The last one has many of the same features of the first two if one is in the room where the Prof actually is. If one isn't in that room, then Prof-student interaction is a problem. Of course, there is that button that one can push to ask a question, but that ruins it. I for one (among *every* other student I've known) like the ability to instantly engage in discourse with a Prof when the issue comes up. Having to do this by pushing a button and waiting destroys the flow of the classroom. There is also the problem of the Prof just not acknowledging when a student pushes the button. Yes, this happens. And yes, I know of someone who does this pathalogically. In fact, he does this on purpose and has stated so explicitly. I could go on.
The only real solution is to convert those 1000 student massive lecture halls to several smaller ones that will fit about 100 or so students. No that's not big. I've had much of my academic career in such rooms and even in the back one can see the board clearly enough as long as the Prof doesn't write/really/ small. And if (s)he does and you don't say anything, it's NOT the Profs fault, it's yours.
But, to do this, the University is going to have to do something that it doesn't want to do: spend money. That is spending money on renovations and hiring more Profs. That latter one being something that Universities *really* hate doing. Why? Because, they cost *a lot* of money.
So, what the Universities do is hire stipends. For those that don't know what that is, a stipend is a Prof that doesn't work for the University, but rather they just teach that one class. So, the University doesn't have to pay them full wage, nor do they have to pay out benefits of any kind. They are very cheap. So, much so, that about or over 50% of the Profs teaching a Universities (at least in North America) are not actually Profs, but rather stipends. This is the type that will likely be teaching these new sections.
Why is this a bad thing? Well, for one, because of the increase in spending to teach a section for a course, the tuition fees will likely be increased. But, that's hardly a surprise. The main and more painful problem is that since stipends will be teaching it, the quality of instruction will be lower. I'm not saying that these people are incompetent or any such thing. It's just that these jobs will either
There are an infinite number of primes. Any elementary book on number theory will have the proof of that in it.
There's *a lot* of literature out there on how to factor integers. If you want something more readable, then look up the quadratic sieve. It's the second fastest algorithm out there. That being said, it *is* a general algorithm so its speed will likely be improved by making some modifications due to crypto using almost primes. But, that gets somewhat convoluted. Just stick to the quadratic sieve for now.
Also, it's considered a hard thing to do because thousands of years have gone by without anyone solving the problem of the quickness. Yes, it goes back that far. You also don't seem to understand the shear magnitude of the numbers that are being dealt with. Check out the RSA challenge numbers. Your opinion will change after you see the size of them.
Just because something might look simple, doesn't mean it is.
Slashdot Mirror
You're either talking about 1) grad courses, which makes your point moot because barely anyone goes into grad studies in math, or 2) upper level math course which is moot for the same reasons as (1). In other words, it's not valid to extrapolate to the general student population what goes on in the courses with some of the lowest enrolment rates.
I also wouldn't say that any public school is motivate by profit. The high schools are motivated to keep the students happy and there "self-esteem" intact. That invariably means that they can't give them the grades that they earned to treat them like they are an adult because that would mean the students couldn't get away with things and the teacher would have to actually fight with the parents and justify there position. The sort of, it's the systems fault not my childs, fallacy.
When it comes to Universities, I wouldn't say that profit is the whole story. That's more ancillary than anything else. It's mostly similar to the above. But, you only get told to "shove it" at increasingly rare University fundamental sciences and mathematics departments (probably engineering as well). And even then, only in the upper level courses. Btw, I do have several stories from a couple Universities (Math departments). Things are sad and getting increasingly so.
This is being reported all over the place. In fact, my wife read an article in Macleans (I think) years ago about this very thing. Overall, the false self-esteem forced upon these kids by our so called "education system" in North America has brought about a new horror in education. As in, most students today are what is commonly referred to as "mark mercenaries." They also have a gross tendency to lie or twist words or ... to get what they want. I've seen it used time and time again in attempts to screw over profs, TAs, etc because of a perceived wrong. That perceived wrong typically being not paying enough attention to the student or giving them a bad grade (that they earned). In fact, a recent example is a TA got questioned for not giving help to a student. What actually happened is that this student didn't even as for help. Likely in some twisted reality in this students head, the TA should have constantly come up to this student asking him/her if (s)he needed help. Because, that's what happens in highschool right?
And what makes it worse? TV programs that, including reality TV, that glorify people getting a free ride. So, now with the delusional aspect to the general mentality of todays youth added to there false self-esteem, they actually honestly believe that they deserve what they think they deserve. Regardless of the reality of the situation.
And what makes that worse? Universities/Colleges/etc are indirectly encouraging that. Because, if they did anything to stop that, then the students wouldn't take there (service) courses and the departments would be in big trouble. Both through the lower grades and the complaints that admin would surely get and the lower enrolment rates.
Right now, what we should expect is for this to get worse for a long time to come. Because, the Universities/etc (because they are now run like businesses and NOT educational institutions) have a vested interest in caving to these power drunk students. And those students are the *vast* majority of the student population.
I quake for our future...
... because the education researchers have a different idea. Namely, that females don't go into Maths or the Sciences because there is a mentality of aggression against the problem(s) that females don't naturally have. Which makes *far* more sense than this one. Well, perhaps not in the small town. But, that is becoming more and more of a special case that need not be considered. Well, that and living in the US. You guys really have an odd culture there.
Are you saying that such situations are common enough to be statistically relevant? Because, I'm calling bullshit on that.
How exactly is LaTeX is showing its age? Has how to write $x^2$ really changed that much? Is there a better way to write that? Or is it just that the point and click generation are scared of, ooooo, formatting text without clicking? How scary...
Seriously, if someone calling themselves an Academic is adverse to learning something as trivial as LaTeX (seriously, basic usage isn't difficult nor hard to learn) or learning the two or three commands to use SVN/CVS/etc (let's be honest, it really is that few commands for basic usage and the IT department can set-up the repo if need be), then they are NOT an academic.
But, I should point out that only beyond the fundamental sciences (generally speaking) there *might* be enough collaborators to justify such a system. Because, for the fundamental guys, a mailing list would be good enough. And even then, its not really needed.
I think that it should also be pointed out that it is rarely a situation in academic writing where the paper can be written in parallel. What really happens is that the collaborators send there notes to the most junior member of the team and that person writes it up. Then the paper is sent off to the others and people discuss the changes that they think need to happen. Rise, repeat.
It might be a nice thought that the open-source model can be applied to research and/or academic writing. But, the fact of the matter is that it can't. Software can be written in a very modular fashion enabling good parallelism in development. But, academics is very one step after the other. One idea leads to the next and each idea can only really be discussed before the one person writes it up. That's really what happens in real life. Discussions and people working in there own offices. Then someone will figure something out and that will lead to another discussion about its correctness, etc and things then move on from there.
Seriously, real research isn't figure out A, then B, then C and three people go on to figure out there respective parts and combine the results. It's more like, they might (at most) *think*, A, then B, then C. But, it ends up being G, then D, then C. Or C might not be the conclusion at all.
Research cannot be planned and then worked on like software can. Software is a known quantity. One knows the building blocks and generally how to put it together before things are started. That might change in the planning phase, or possibly the development phase as well. But, not significantly, and not materially. Research on the other hand (i.e. academics) is full of unknowns. The best that can be said in the beginning is that there is a *possible* path. But, that is pretty much guaranteed to change as progress is made and the end result(s) might change as well. In fact, a lot (if not most) of the time, the end result isn't known. It's being sought after.
So, how exactly is that supposed to be parallelised again? You know, when the solution and its path isn't known?
Set-up account registration such that you can only get an account if you were referred by an existing user. You know, since you already have a good sized user base (you do, yes?). It isn't unreasonable as long as you're keeping things local. Most people should know one another, or know someone who knows someone.
But, honestly, why are you even explaining yourself to these people. An email solely with RTFM in it with a link to the page the explains what the site is about is more than enough. Seriously, stop feeding the help vampires.
I don't think that researchers understand the difference between causation and correlation.
I'll buy that watching a lot of tv can lead to someone being overweight. After all, how many of use use a treadmill while watching our "stories." I'll buy that not exercising can have other outcomes such as (stretching it) asthma. Not working those lunges may indeed lead to problems for kids. But, this is hardly a conclusive study. Where's all the testing on the tissues themselves. Where ruling out other factors such as diet, air quality, etc? I know we got some of that tissue around that the lab guys can do tests on and while following people around for over a decade, it's hard to believe that they couldn't have noticed living conditions.
But, obesity, diabetes, smoking and (especially) promiscuity?!?!? Bullshit. One must be susceptible to get diabetes and the TV cannot make one not exercise and smoke. And promiscuity?!?! PROMISCUITY?!?!? Perhaps these guys should get out of the lab and see just how many parents are NOT parenting there kids.
Jesus christ. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
2. Too dangerous to work on inside. ...
Then get a Mac Pro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/
3. You really pay a lot more for the parts with Apple. ...
No you don't. The problem with what you're saying is that people compare the *possibility* of getting a cheap PC with the cheapest model that Apple offers. This is an apples and oranges comparison. Apple just doesn't offer low end computers.
The fact of the matter is that when one compares equivalent hardware in the PC v.s. Mac, then they are about the same price. And I say about the same as there rarely are two equivalent models to compare directly. There's always some difference.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=macintosh_os&articleId=9023959&taxonomyId=123&intsrc=kc_feat
Oh, and I should point out that naturopathic web sites mention Lithium Orotate pretty much exclusively. THAT one can ZERO credence to it as there has been only two (I believe) serious studies where one can't make any reasonable conclusions from. They just weren't done right (I believe links to those studies are on its wikipedia page). I'd really lend to what you're saying if you'd get which Lithium you're taking about right.
Btw, here's a review of many studies/etc, where some patients were able to get away with low dose: J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59 Suppl 5:32-9; discussion 40-1. Here's a case report with low dose working just dandy: Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1995 May;19(3):515-7. Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) works really well when you know it's there doesn't it.
By the way, from that first one: The optimal dose and the most effective blood levels of lithium are unclear, but a reasonable strategy would be to start with low doses (600-900 mg/day) and, if necessary, to increase the doses to obtain a level in accordance with the usual therapeutic range of blood levels.
However, 600mg/day can get some people into the current therapeutic range (min 0.5 or 0.6 depending on who you talk to). So, starting even lower than that (i.e. 150-300mg/day) would probably be better. An example of that would be someone that I saw on a forum saying that at 200mg/day, they were at 0.15. So, given a linear progression (I know that's not necessarily reasonable), would given him 0.45 at 600mg/day. Something that is *very* close to the therapeutic range if you consider 0.5 the lower bound. But, if started at 900mg/day that would yield ~0.7 straight off. It should also be mentioned that starting off like this can give undesirable side-effects which is why competent (p)docs are starting people very low and working up. That is assuming they aren't crawling up the walls or about to plunge off a balcony. This so that side-effects are less common as experience states that starting low and working up slowly largely prevents this.
If you have any more questions, then I'd suggest that YOU go through Pubmed yourself. You know, now that you know it's there.
I did say REFRACTORY depression now didn't I. Or are you intentionally missing that because it would mean that you couldn't get on your high horse? For those that don't know, refractory depression equals treatment resistant depression. So, that whole going through standard therapy IS A GIVEN because, YOU WON'T KNOW THAT IS IT REFRACTORY DEPRESSION WITHOUT GOING THROUGH STANDARD TREATMENTS.
Here's a link for you FROM A SHRINK: http://www.psycheducation.com/2007/12/value-of-low-dose-lithium.html
Do your own homework on the rest.
As for your "keep up" type comments. You don't represent the majority. So, while it's great that YOU might, you can*not* expand that to the whole. It just isn't reasonable. Then again, if you docs understood even a iota of Maths/Stats, you'd already know that. Because, if what you were saying was true, then I would have run into at least /one/ doc that knew what they were doing instead of groping around in the dark. And that includes specialists. More opinion that fact/research in EVERY bit of my experience. And that experience comes from two countries including one state and three provinces.
Oh, and it'd probably be more helpful for people who might want to listen to you if you read what people wrote and didn't come off as a condescending asshole. Might want to take that one to heart. Because, IF you are indeed a doc, your patients would probably appreciate you not be a complete prick.
I'm *really* getting sick of people saying that programming language X is inherently insecure. It's total bullshit. EVERY language has its pros and cons and unless the INTERPRETER has an issue, then it's NOT the languages fault. And since EVERY INTERPRETER has had flaws in it, that can_not_ be the criteria for whether a *language* is secure or not.
In other words, STOP BLAMING THE LANGUAGE FOR THE FOLLY OF THE PROGRAMMER. Just because PHP has been used by some idiots does _not_ make it an "inherently insecure" language. Those idiots would make an insecure site regardless of language.
Yes, we all know that (arguably) most docs don't keep up with the literature. Or they choose a treatment and stick with that because it worked the best at one point and they like it because they trust it. Problem is, that research is ongoing and new things are found all the time. In fact, on one of my clicking adventures on-line, I found out that Lithium Carbonate was being used to treat refractory depression (as an adjunct), OCD, cluster headaches and even ALS (the one that Stephen Hawkins has) to name a few. All that in *low* doses. Yet, most docs still consider this a horrid drug refusing to realise that in low doses Lithium Carbonate does _not_ require close monitoring.
So, this sort of study could be very beneficial.
HOWEVER, it's things like this that HMO's really *really* like. They'll probably use it to force doctors into treatments that are cheaper alternatives regardless of that particular patient. Because, as with many things, certain disorders, etc, have different drugs to treat them. Different drugs for different sets of symptoms, different severity of symptoms, etc, etc, etc. So, patients will likely get cheated out of drugs that would be more effective for them simply because there HMO won't pay for the one that is best for them and the one that is best for them isn't in there price range. Especially, for the more complicated disorders.
And what happens when next week happens and this changes. How often is this list going to be updated? How often are the HMO's going to be updating from the research?
Quite frankly, while I fully believe that this thing is undertaken with the best of intentions, it is ripe for abuse. In the end, it is my opinion, that it'll likely lead to more harm than good.
You need to re-read the summary then. Because, it doesn't say what you think it does. Also, if you would have RTFA, you would have seen this, "Behold the new Classic Controller PRO from Nintendo". So, hardly a replacement.
Define quality. Is Apple (or any other company for that matter) able to tell what people will like/dislike? Because, I for one have disagreed with *many* reviews for *many* games that I've played. And that goes both ways. Some reviews said the game sucked when I thought it was great and vis versa.
Excluding experimental data, those fields don't really have the problem that this guy is talking about. Perhaps someone should give him/her a lesson in the Scientific Method. Then maybe his/her words would reflect some rigour. Well, that and a link to the ArXive (http://arxiv.org/).
Why is this so? Because, these communities are so small, that just about everyone knows or knows of everyone else('s work). Of course, that's a slight hyperbole. BUT, /just/ a *slight* one.
This sort of project only really applies to the non-fundamental sciences. Not that it's not useful. Of course it'd be a good thing to get this going. But, we just have to be honest about its true scope. And of course it'd be nice if this guy would tone down the rhetoric. Coming off that naively idealistic only works against things.
"""
After 2-1/2 years, Citizendium has a few tenths of a percent as many articles as Wikipedia.
"""
It's not about quantity, it's about quality.
Treading new ground... not so much. I had a friend do this in the late 90's/2000. And unlike someone else said higher up on this page, you most certainly DO need a license. It will be a separate and different license from the one the original authors hold (obviously). But, it most certainly is necessary.
To the "asker": I'd recommend looking at the GPL and other restrictive licences to look through things that you both want and don't want. Once complete, take a look and see if you want anything else in that list. Then *after* that, go to a lawyer, consult and get something drawn up. You're going to want to make sure to explicitly state that the licensee will get the code, be able to make modifications, BUT those modifications will not be supported by your company and doing so will also limit your ability to provide help otherwise. It should also be explicitly stated that they cannot create derivative works or otherwise sell or use your product (directly or indirectly) in any part of a product that they may sell beyond the original agreement.
But, you DO need a lawyer. So, stop being a dumbass asking slashdot about legal advise and go get one.
You're assuming that they are in it to make games. Are you sure that's a good assumption? Because, from where I sit, they seem to be more in the business of making game engines and licensing them, using DOOM to show it off rather than anything else.
There is a difference between such nonsense gaining traction in Canada and a couple business people in power. A BIG difference.
Well, just from the summery, it doesn't seem as though the player necessarily has a choice. It's like a randomised mission that gets assigned rather than chosen.
Twenty-two people is hardly statistically significant. Call me when these people start doing real research.
I'd recommend a blackboard as well as pencil and paper. Why? You ever wonder why people can't add or even understand fractions when they graduate from high school? It's because they've never really had to learn it. Similarly with algebra, English or any other number of topics. Why learn it when a program will do it for you.
Seriously, do yourself a favour and only get a (or a couple of) computer lab(s) for use for writing essays (ones with*out* spelling/grammar checkers), etc. Because, otherwise, your just feeding into the laziness of today's students allowing them to learn and understand as little as possible.
In other words, make them do some real work instead of continuing to destroy the education system with that "self-esteem" nonsense. Computers can fit in that. But, it has to be very *very* carefully.
... I was eating candy while reading. The librarian came up and demanded that I stop eating in the library and to give her the candy. I said no. She tried to take it away but I grabbed it, said I would put it away and proceeded to put it in my backpack. She tried to grab it from my backpack and I slapped her hand. She looked shocked and walked away. I was 16 or 17 at the time. I suffered zero repercussions due to my actions.
In essence, get a spine. Someone cannot just take your property just because they want it. It doesn't matter if they are in a perceived position of authority. They don't have the right. That is unless you've entered into contract that states that they can. Which you haven't mentioned is the case and is *far* from standard practice at high schools in North America. Not to mention that minors can't enter into contract.
But, at this point, I'd suggest going to the Principle *with your parents* to get this resolved. If they don't budge, then local news outlets are *always* looking for stories. I'm sure they'd be interested in this.
I say that because, although I dislike huge lecture halls, the likely alternative isn't going to fair much better, perhaps worse.
Lecture halls are primarily bad because the voice of the instructor might not be able to reach everyone, and more importantly, what is being written on the black/white-board isn't going to be visible to everyone. The former can be solved by using a microphone and speakers. But, the latter is a critical issue. The only real solution is to reduce the room size. Unfortunately, this comes with its own issues.
So, what do we do with all those students? After all, there are only so many people that can fit into one room and only so many Profs that can teach so many sections. Some common solutions are video taping the lecture or putting it on a cable channel live/alternate times or having different rooms viewing the one Prof in the other room. Unfortunately, all these have critical issues.
The first and second are similar. The problem being lack of access to the Prof. I've had peers that have taken such a class and they hated them. For one, being surrounded by all that equipment and people with cameras, etc, is irritating and distracting. Secondly, you have to wait to ask your questions while some guy with a shoulder-camera comes to video you asking it. Thirdly, to get what is written in the video, one must use a special tool which isn't good at displaying what is written and can also fail from time to time. Well, those are the common ones that I remember. But, they did bitch a lot about it. So, I'm certainly not giving a complete list. Needless to say, student don't like this.
The last one has many of the same features of the first two if one is in the room where the Prof actually is. If one isn't in that room, then Prof-student interaction is a problem. Of course, there is that button that one can push to ask a question, but that ruins it. I for one (among *every* other student I've known) like the ability to instantly engage in discourse with a Prof when the issue comes up. Having to do this by pushing a button and waiting destroys the flow of the classroom. There is also the problem of the Prof just not acknowledging when a student pushes the button. Yes, this happens. And yes, I know of someone who does this pathalogically. In fact, he does this on purpose and has stated so explicitly. I could go on.
The only real solution is to convert those 1000 student massive lecture halls to several smaller ones that will fit about 100 or so students. No that's not big. I've had much of my academic career in such rooms and even in the back one can see the board clearly enough as long as the Prof doesn't write /really/ small. And if (s)he does and you don't say anything, it's NOT the Profs fault, it's yours.
But, to do this, the University is going to have to do something that it doesn't want to do: spend money. That is spending money on renovations and hiring more Profs. That latter one being something that Universities *really* hate doing. Why? Because, they cost *a lot* of money.
So, what the Universities do is hire stipends. For those that don't know what that is, a stipend is a Prof that doesn't work for the University, but rather they just teach that one class. So, the University doesn't have to pay them full wage, nor do they have to pay out benefits of any kind. They are very cheap. So, much so, that about or over 50% of the Profs teaching a Universities (at least in North America) are not actually Profs, but rather stipends. This is the type that will likely be teaching these new sections.
Why is this a bad thing? Well, for one, because of the increase in spending to teach a section for a course, the tuition fees will likely be increased. But, that's hardly a surprise. The main and more painful problem is that since stipends will be teaching it, the quality of instruction will be lower. I'm not saying that these people are incompetent or any such thing. It's just that these jobs will either
There are an infinite number of primes. Any elementary book on number theory will have the proof of that in it.
There's *a lot* of literature out there on how to factor integers. If you want something more readable, then look up the quadratic sieve. It's the second fastest algorithm out there. That being said, it *is* a general algorithm so its speed will likely be improved by making some modifications due to crypto using almost primes. But, that gets somewhat convoluted. Just stick to the quadratic sieve for now.
Also, it's considered a hard thing to do because thousands of years have gone by without anyone solving the problem of the quickness. Yes, it goes back that far. You also don't seem to understand the shear magnitude of the numbers that are being dealt with. Check out the RSA challenge numbers. Your opinion will change after you see the size of them.
Just because something might look simple, doesn't mean it is.