I notice that most of Slashdot appears to be anti-McMillan, and not anti-Amazon (surprise). For a different perspective on the issue, everyone should read the post by Tobias Buckell on the matter. In short, he is a midlist author, and he talks about his experience with the eBook market. He has seen negligible differences when his books are given away from free versus when they are charged for, and the lower price points are not enough to cover the costs (which he outlines) to go to market.
Agree, disagree, it is helpful to read a perspective from the other side.
The economics blogs have been talking about this issue for a while. All of the blogs that saw this coming for years (like CalculatedRisk) are very anti-quant.
What we are seeing is a push for the study of behavioral economics, as seen in the popular new book Animal Spirits. This book is being heavily quoted by Obama's Budget Director Peter Orszag.
Point 1: You do research on the federal doll, you do the work you were asked to do not choose your research to vent your personal opinions and unrelated suppositions.
Correct. That means you do the research topic you were asked to do, not come up with the research conclusions you were asked to. One is government funding priorities in science, the other is an abuse of the scientific process. If you are following these hearings, you would know that it is the latter that is in question here, not the former.
Point 2: Scientists (especially climatologists) have been predicting that the sky will fall pretty regularly for the last half-century and most of their predictions have been incorrect.
The mini ice age claims of the 1970s were sensationalized by the press, and not by the scientists themselves; the scientific claims were much more conservative. Do you have examples of such claims by scientists, and not the media, that support this assertion?
Point 3: (related to 2). Using the specific buzzwords/phrases that were censored is appropriate when they convey a meaning other than intended. Proving that human interference may directly cause changes to the environment does not mean that the Earth is going to dry up into a tsunami ridden dustbowl tomorrow
I have no idea what point you are arguing here. Scientists are trying to do two thing: model the future affects of global warming, and determine if it is the result of human influence. If the latter is not the case, then we cannot make policy at all; there is nothing we can do about the warming as we are not causing it. This is separate from the former study which is used to determine what types of policies need to be undertaken and how swift and drastic they must be. Your claim that evidence of one (human influence) does not affect the other (models of future affects) makes no sense.
I am sitting here reading the Slashdot comments and noting that not one person is noting that these nuclear documents are from 1991. No one has ever denied that Saddam had a nuclear program before the first Gulf War. The actions of Bush I shut that down.
This has nothing to with whether Saddam had WMDs when we went to war in this decade. All the intelligence that we have suggests that he was as close to nuclear weapons as a good university (i.e. the know-how but not the infrastructure).
Re:It's not "What's New" without Phil & Dixie
on
Best of What's New 2005
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Phil Foglio is too busy with his Girl Genius web comic.
This is a new technology. The mainstream users won't pick it up until there is enough content product and there is a compelling reason to abandon their current DVD players. For that to happen, the product needs a sufficient number of early adopters. But early adopters are technically savy and won't put up with this type of stuff. So will this product ever take off if they do this?
Todd Oppenheimer's book should be required reading for anyone interested in this topic. While there is some anecdotal evidence that technology can help students, the statistical research on this has shown that these are either (a) temporary gains from encountering a new teaching style, or (b) dog-and-pony shows devoted to gifted students that could learn just as well from other sources.
The cost-benefit ratio of technology in schools, at least as it is used now, is highly questionable.
A lot of people are trying to come up with data mining tools for intrusion detection. Just check out all the forward links to this paper from citeseer. The problem is that they are currently reliable as bad motion detectors... too many false positives. Which makes them useless.
At the time I thought it would be humorous to do my own IPO calld $2Bob.com*. There would be no business plan save that all of the money invested would be spent.
Somebody already did something like this this, in the South Sea buble of the 1700s. Scroll down for the famous business plan:
For carrying on an undertaking of great advantage; but nobody to know what it is.
And I remember what was happening when the Cold War was declared "over": the lab funding started to dry up. K-25 was shut down while X-10 (aka ORNL) and Y-12 were scaled back a lot. So these labs were forced to re-examine what they do for better funding opportunities.
X-10 (ORNL) has branched out into a lot of helpful areas. Some of its projects include environmental cleanup and alternative energy production. It also spends a lot of resources on testing how to safely store and transport dangerous waste (a friend's dad was one of those people that drops containers all day). Any of these could be candidates for this computer.
Any tin-foil hats should be directed at Y-12. That's the DOD plant; X-10 is just DOE.
I am a math and computer science professor; I teach both types of classes. And I feel very strongly that computer science majors must learn to do proofs. And not fakey set identity proofs that they teach in Discrete. I mean real proofs from an axiom system like graph theory, abstract algebra, or analysis (pick one).
Why? Because in my experience, exposure to axiomatic systems greatly improves abstraction and critical reasoning. I teach a "bridge class" (what we call them these days since high schoolers are typically unprepared for math beyond calculus these days) which presents an axiomatic approach to linear orders and the topology on that line. Many students take this class before Data Structures and they remark that it makes the distinction between Interface and Implementation much easier for them (especially since search algorithms are all on various linear orders). They also know how to design APIs cleanly without having to write the program first.
The point I am trying to make is that you should not just take math because of the techniques you learn from it. (This is anecdotal, but) When I was at graduate school at Cornell, almost every math major I met who started programming after taking a lot of math classes was a stronger programmer than anyone who started programming first.
Before I begin this rant, I should mention that Texas Instruments does not actually make these things anymore. They sold off their calculator division long ago. Hence these things are TI's, not Texas Instrument calculators.
The company that does make them makes a good deal of their total revenue of these things. And in order to keep this revenue coming in, they have made themselves the official Calculator of Calculus (TM). Every major textbook is geared for this calculator, and even the AP exam requires it (or something very much like it) these days. I get students in Calculus straight out of high school who ask me to tell them what the "official calculator for the course" is.
Now, there are some really useful things you can do with a calculator in a Calculus class. The problem is 90% of all high school calculus teachers are not trained enough to use them properly. And using them improperly is worse than not using them at all.
I use to be head proctor for the placement exams for the Engineering school at Cornell. The year calculators were added to the Calculus AP, we saw a statistically significant drop in scores. However, when I complain about these problems, I get called a technophobe.
God, how I hate these things.
The research community is well aware of this
on
Guilty By Association
·
· Score: 2, Informative
One of the major topics at SIGKDD this year will be privacy preserving data mining (it has been a hot topic for a couple of years now). The current research is quit promising for anything in which all we need is a statistical aggregate. So preference mining, such as what Amazon does, can certainly be done while preserving a high degree of privacy.
No one knows how to do link-mining (find a terrorist cell in a group of people), while preserving privacy, however. Personally, I am not convinced that that type of stuff is possible.
That is not an adequate example. C&G closed their doors before going bankrupt (they intentionally avoided bankruptcy). That allowed them to actively return the rights of all their software to the authors. Which they did.
This is not a general precedent. C&G were just nice guys to the end.
In many (but certainly not all), Internet traffic is similar to automobile traffic. Packets are discrete objects, like cars, and not continuous like a river or radio signal. Analysis on automobile traffic has already discovered properties like this. There are many simulations that show if we all ensured 3 car lengths between us and the next car, we would avoid the accordion and get to work significantly faster.
The problem with Motorola's chips is that the front side bus (FSB) only runs at 167 Mhz. This means that Macs cannot truly take advantage of DDR RAM so long as they use the current line of chips, even though Intel machines have had this for two years now.
Back when the G4 was designed, things were looking bad for Apple, so Motorola retrenched into the embedded market. These processors need low power, not high bandwidth. That is why Apple laptops are so nice and Apple desktops are so lousy right now.
Furthermore, the focus on the embedded market is why Motorola does no deep instruction analysis (Again not needed in this market). Intel's investment in this area is what has helped their SPEC score over the years, not the clock speed.
There are rumors flying about a new IBM chip that fixes all of these problems, but that is all they are right now -- rumors.
Professor with Mixed Feelings About This
on
Hacking as Scholarship
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I have sat on committees at my university talking about this very subject. I teach math and CS, so they bring me in for the "technical perspective" (whatever that means). The debates have been very heated.
In some cases I support this. Scholarship is a very broad concept at small liberal arts colleges (unlike tier one research schools). If you write a textbook that has no new ideas of your own, but which can help students learn the material better, that counts as scholarship. If that is acceptable, then why shouldn't some computer tool that you created (i.e. language teaching tool, a chip simulator for a C.S. class, etc...) count?
In my opinion, it should, provided that it goes through the same rigid requirements other stuff does. It is not enough to write a textbook and force your students to use it -- you must demonstrate that it is good enough that other people use it as well (otherwise you are just pawning crap off on your students). That is the difference between scholarship and class preparation.
And this is also where the debate gets nasty. Many (but not all!) of the people who are trying to get credit for their hacking as scholarship are trying to get it with just their class prep and not subjecting it to higher standards. Sure, they want a review process, but the people often reviewing are other people who want credit for hacking, not the academic community at large. This is very bad; I am reminded of a card from the game "Survival of the Witless" (a satire of tenure politics) called "New York Times reviews of each others books".
As a result many of them have hurt their credibility badly. And therefore, even though I would like to support them, it has been very difficult.
What are you referring to as your input size n in O(n)? The number p? The correct size n is the number of digits of p. That algorithm is definitely non-polynomial for that (correct) n.
I collect 1st edition modules and use this site extensively to guide my bids on e-Bay (Which is an excellent place to get fair to very good modules, but not mint/near mint). Unfortunately, the prices are a bit old and are guided by the auctions at conventions (Which I cannot always get to). The prices on e-Bay these days are much higher, most likely because of the resurgence of D&D with 3rd edition. For example, it is rare to see a good copy of "Egg of the Pheonix" go for less than $100 on e-Bay these days.
I just went to the education Apple Store online. You can preorder 10.2 and the price is listed as $69. As I haven't paid since 10.0 (And got a huge discount because of the Public Beta/Education double dip) I am not complaining much.
With that said, giving a $20 upgrade only from people ordering today is not enough time for an OS that ships in a month. Any software vendor that ships an upgrade gives upgrade pricing to everyone that bought within the last 3-4 months. Apple should at least follow that model.
I am a math professor at a liberal arts university and we have a "non-traditional" student (he hates it when I call him that) who went back to school for reasons like the one you mention. However, he has is doing it full time; he was a fairly successful consultant/businessman and took early retirement. Sounds like you don't have that option.
If you have a fairly week background in mathematics, you are going to need to "go to school". By this I do not mean that you have to register for a class. I mean that you need to be around people who are learning mathematics and talk with them - a lot. Students will typically tell you that they learn most of their mathematics not from the classroom setting, but talking with other students. Especially at the early levels, learning mathematics is very similar to learning a foreign language; to really learn it you must surround yourself with people who speak the language.
Our non-traditional student has learned this lesson well. For all intents and purposes, he lives in the math lounge across from the department. He even does non-math homework there just so he can be around when someone comes in to study math. He also gets the bonus the faculty come in and talk to him when they need a break. We don't always talk about the material he his studying; sometimes we talk about something that was in the news or something we are working on. But whatever we talk about increases his math vocabulary and exposes him to the important concepts in mathematics.
If all you do is night classes, you will not get this, even if you go to some of the best teaching schools in the country. And you certainly won't get this from reading books. So what is there to do? Many good liberal arts universities have math clubs that are intended to "popularize mathematics" and draw in new majors to the department.
A lot of times, these clubs pull in speakers to talk about jobs in mathematics. However, these clubs also farm for Putnam contestants (the big undergraduate mathematics competition) and hence sometimes work on problems. Putnam problems can often be understood with very little mathematics (though their solution is far from simple).
So, if you have a liberal arts university in your area, you might want to check if they have a math club (And whether it actually does math, or is just a social club). These typically meet in the evening and would give yourself an opportunity to surround yourself with other people learning math. This is not a substitute for learning math, however. You will still need to start either reading or taking night courses in order to learn the basic "grammar".
I wonder about this, seeing as I have been quite unimpressed by digital cable. True, the picture is extremely clear when it is working perfectly. However, it is not very fault tolerant. A bad analog signal might give me a little snow; I can still enjoy the program. Even a slightly bad digital signal causes massive pixelation; when that happens you cannot make out anything on the screen at all. The Moral: digital is better when it works, but worse when it does not.
As a mathematics and computer science professor, I understand this policy. It all has to do with what you define "learning" to be.
Is learning the acquisition of information (I hope not - or else I will soon be out of a job)? Is learning developing a certain skill set? Is learning understanding how to solve problems? Is learning understanding how to ask the right questions? In the mathematics (and to some degree in CS), the latter is the most important.
If learning is just acquiring information, then this policy is, of course, ludicrous. How do you help a sutdy gather information by cutting down on his available sources?
If iearning is acquiring a basic skill set, it becomes a little less clear. Perhaps they need someone to explain something they did not understand from the professor. We get a little concerned here, because we do not want someone doing the student's work for them. And how do we do this without a complete lockdown? So in this regard, the honor policy is more a quality control mechanism than a principal. Flawed yes, but what do you do?
If this is all you think education is, then these honor codes probably make no sense to you. And the greatest crisis our schools are facing today is the that so many people believe this is all education is.
In mathematics and in CS design, learning is all about problem solving. What can you do with the resources at hand? There is no single right answer to learn. There is no unique proof, no unique computer program. What matters is figuring out how to get there with what you do know. If someone shows you how to do it, you learned nothing. It is for these type of assignments that these honor codes are written.
Yes, sometimes it is useful to learn how to solve problems with other people. We create special assignments for those situtations and let you know when it is okay to work with others.
Slashdot Mirror
I notice that most of Slashdot appears to be anti-McMillan, and not anti-Amazon (surprise). For a different perspective on the issue, everyone should read the post by Tobias Buckell on the matter. In short, he is a midlist author, and he talks about his experience with the eBook market. He has seen negligible differences when his books are given away from free versus when they are charged for, and the lower price points are not enough to cover the costs (which he outlines) to go to market.
Agree, disagree, it is helpful to read a perspective from the other side.
The economics blogs have been talking about this issue for a while. All of the blogs that saw this coming for years (like CalculatedRisk) are very anti-quant.
What we are seeing is a push for the study of behavioral economics, as seen in the popular new book Animal Spirits. This book is being heavily quoted by Obama's Budget Director Peter Orszag.
I am sitting here reading the Slashdot comments and noting that not one person is noting that these nuclear documents are from 1991. No one has ever denied that Saddam had a nuclear program before the first Gulf War. The actions of Bush I shut that down.
This has nothing to with whether Saddam had WMDs when we went to war in this decade. All the intelligence that we have suggests that he was as close to nuclear weapons as a good university (i.e. the know-how but not the infrastructure).
Phil Foglio is too busy with his Girl Genius web comic.
This is a new technology. The mainstream users won't pick it up until there is enough content product and there is a compelling reason to abandon their current DVD players. For that to happen, the product needs a sufficient number of early adopters. But early adopters are technically savy and won't put up with this type of stuff. So will this product ever take off if they do this?
Todd Oppenheimer's book should be required reading for anyone interested in this topic. While there is some anecdotal evidence that technology can help students, the statistical research on this has shown that these are either (a) temporary gains from encountering a new teaching style, or (b) dog-and-pony shows devoted to gifted students that could learn just as well from other sources.
The cost-benefit ratio of technology in schools, at least as it is used now, is highly questionable.
A lot of people are trying to come up with data mining tools for intrusion detection. Just check out all the forward links to this paper from citeseer. The problem is that they are currently reliable as bad motion detectors ... too many false positives. Which makes them useless.
At the time I thought it would be humorous to do my own IPO calld $2Bob.com*. There would be no business plan save that all of the money invested would be spent.
Somebody already did something like this this, in the South Sea buble of the 1700s. Scroll down for the famous business plan:
For carrying on an undertaking of great advantage; but nobody to know what it is.The security for X-10 is substantially less than Y-12. Y-12 is where all the serious work of that type is done.
And I remember what was happening when the Cold War was declared "over": the lab funding started to dry up. K-25 was shut down while X-10 (aka ORNL) and Y-12 were scaled back a lot. So these labs were forced to re-examine what they do for better funding opportunities.
X-10 (ORNL) has branched out into a lot of helpful areas. Some of its projects include environmental cleanup and alternative energy production. It also spends a lot of resources on testing how to safely store and transport dangerous waste (a friend's dad was one of those people that drops containers all day). Any of these could be candidates for this computer.
Any tin-foil hats should be directed at Y-12. That's the DOD plant; X-10 is just DOE.
I am a math and computer science professor; I teach both types of classes. And I feel very strongly that computer science majors must learn to do proofs. And not fakey set identity proofs that they teach in Discrete. I mean real proofs from an axiom system like graph theory, abstract algebra, or analysis (pick one).
Why? Because in my experience, exposure to axiomatic systems greatly improves abstraction and critical reasoning. I teach a "bridge class" (what we call them these days since high schoolers are typically unprepared for math beyond calculus these days) which presents an axiomatic approach to linear orders and the topology on that line. Many students take this class before Data Structures and they remark that it makes the distinction between Interface and Implementation much easier for them (especially since search algorithms are all on various linear orders). They also know how to design APIs cleanly without having to write the program first.
The point I am trying to make is that you should not just take math because of the techniques you learn from it. (This is anecdotal, but) When I was at graduate school at Cornell, almost every math major I met who started programming after taking a lot of math classes was a stronger programmer than anyone who started programming first.
Before I begin this rant, I should mention that Texas Instruments does not actually make these things anymore. They sold off their calculator division long ago. Hence these things are TI's, not Texas Instrument calculators.
The company that does make them makes a good deal of their total revenue of these things. And in order to keep this revenue coming in, they have made themselves the official Calculator of Calculus (TM). Every major textbook is geared for this calculator, and even the AP exam requires it (or something very much like it) these days. I get students in Calculus straight out of high school who ask me to tell them what the "official calculator for the course" is.
Now, there are some really useful things you can do with a calculator in a Calculus class. The problem is 90% of all high school calculus teachers are not trained enough to use them properly. And using them improperly is worse than not using them at all.
I use to be head proctor for the placement exams for the Engineering school at Cornell. The year calculators were added to the Calculus AP, we saw a statistically significant drop in scores. However, when I complain about these problems, I get called a technophobe.
God, how I hate these things.
One of the major topics at SIGKDD this year will be privacy preserving data mining (it has been a hot topic for a couple of years now). The current research is quit promising for anything in which all we need is a statistical aggregate. So preference mining, such as what Amazon does, can certainly be done while preserving a high degree of privacy.
No one knows how to do link-mining (find a terrorist cell in a group of people), while preserving privacy, however. Personally, I am not convinced that that type of stuff is possible.
That is not an adequate example. C&G closed their doors before going bankrupt (they intentionally avoided bankruptcy). That allowed them to actively return the rights of all their software to the authors. Which they did.
This is not a general precedent. C&G were just nice guys to the end.
In many (but certainly not all), Internet traffic is similar to automobile traffic. Packets are discrete objects, like cars, and not continuous like a river or radio signal. Analysis on automobile traffic has already discovered properties like this. There are many simulations that show if we all ensured 3 car lengths between us and the next car, we would avoid the accordion and get to work significantly faster.
The problem with Motorola's chips is that the front side bus (FSB) only runs at 167 Mhz. This means that Macs cannot truly take advantage of DDR RAM so long as they use the current line of chips, even though Intel machines have had this for two years now.
Back when the G4 was designed, things were looking bad for Apple, so Motorola retrenched into the embedded market. These processors need low power, not high bandwidth. That is why Apple laptops are so nice and Apple desktops are so lousy right now.
Furthermore, the focus on the embedded market is why Motorola does no deep instruction analysis (Again not needed in this market). Intel's investment in this area is what has helped their SPEC score over the years, not the clock speed.
There are rumors flying about a new IBM chip that fixes all of these problems, but that is all they are right now -- rumors.
before drawing any conclusions from this article.
In some cases I support this. Scholarship is a very broad concept at small liberal arts colleges (unlike tier one research schools). If you write a textbook that has no new ideas of your own, but which can help students learn the material better, that counts as scholarship. If that is acceptable, then why shouldn't some computer tool that you created (i.e. language teaching tool, a chip simulator for a C.S. class, etc...) count?
In my opinion, it should, provided that it goes through the same rigid requirements other stuff does. It is not enough to write a textbook and force your students to use it -- you must demonstrate that it is good enough that other people use it as well (otherwise you are just pawning crap off on your students). That is the difference between scholarship and class preparation.
And this is also where the debate gets nasty. Many (but not all!) of the people who are trying to get credit for their hacking as scholarship are trying to get it with just their class prep and not subjecting it to higher standards. Sure, they want a review process, but the people often reviewing are other people who want credit for hacking, not the academic community at large. This is very bad; I am reminded of a card from the game "Survival of the Witless" (a satire of tenure politics) called "New York Times reviews of each others books".
As a result many of them have hurt their credibility badly. And therefore, even though I would like to support them, it has been very difficult.
What are you referring to as your input size n in O(n)? The number p? The correct size n is the number of digits of p. That algorithm is definitely non-polynomial for that (correct) n.
I collect 1st edition modules and use this site extensively to guide my bids on e-Bay (Which is an excellent place to get fair to very good modules, but not mint/near mint). Unfortunately, the prices are a bit old and are guided by the auctions at conventions (Which I cannot always get to). The prices on e-Bay these days are much higher, most likely because of the resurgence of D&D with 3rd edition. For example, it is rare to see a good copy of "Egg of the Pheonix" go for less than $100 on e-Bay these days.
With that said, giving a $20 upgrade only from people ordering today is not enough time for an OS that ships in a month. Any software vendor that ships an upgrade gives upgrade pricing to everyone that bought within the last 3-4 months. Apple should at least follow that model.
I am a math professor at a liberal arts university and we have a "non-traditional" student (he hates it when I call him that) who went back to school for reasons like the one you mention. However, he has is doing it full time; he was a fairly successful consultant/businessman and took early retirement. Sounds like you don't have that option.
If you have a fairly week background in mathematics, you are going to need to "go to school". By this I do not mean that you have to register for a class. I mean that you need to be around people who are learning mathematics and talk with them - a lot. Students will typically tell you that they learn most of their mathematics not from the classroom setting, but talking with other students. Especially at the early levels, learning mathematics is very similar to learning a foreign language; to really learn it you must surround yourself with people who speak the language.
Our non-traditional student has learned this lesson well. For all intents and purposes, he lives in the math lounge across from the department. He even does non-math homework there just so he can be around when someone comes in to study math. He also gets the bonus the faculty come in and talk to him when they need a break. We don't always talk about the material he his studying; sometimes we talk about something that was in the news or something we are working on. But whatever we talk about increases his math vocabulary and exposes him to the important concepts in mathematics.
If all you do is night classes, you will not get this, even if you go to some of the best teaching schools in the country. And you certainly won't get this from reading books. So what is there to do? Many good liberal arts universities have math clubs that are intended to "popularize mathematics" and draw in new majors to the department.
A lot of times, these clubs pull in speakers to talk about jobs in mathematics. However, these clubs also farm for Putnam contestants (the big undergraduate mathematics competition) and hence sometimes work on problems. Putnam problems can often be understood with very little mathematics (though their solution is far from simple).
So, if you have a liberal arts university in your area, you might want to check if they have a math club (And whether it actually does math, or is just a social club). These typically meet in the evening and would give yourself an opportunity to surround yourself with other people learning math. This is not a substitute for learning math, however. You will still need to start either reading or taking night courses in order to learn the basic "grammar".
I wonder about this, seeing as I have been quite unimpressed by digital cable. True, the picture is extremely clear when it is working perfectly. However, it is not very fault tolerant. A bad analog signal might give me a little snow; I can still enjoy the program. Even a slightly bad digital signal causes massive pixelation; when that happens you cannot make out anything on the screen at all. The Moral: digital is better when it works, but worse when it does not.
As a mathematics and computer science professor, I understand this policy. It all has to do with what you define "learning" to be. Is learning the acquisition of information (I hope not - or else I will soon be out of a job)? Is learning developing a certain skill set? Is learning understanding how to solve problems? Is learning understanding how to ask the right questions? In the mathematics (and to some degree in CS), the latter is the most important.
If learning is just acquiring information, then this policy is, of course, ludicrous. How do you help a sutdy gather information by cutting down on his available sources?
If iearning is acquiring a basic skill set, it becomes a little less clear. Perhaps they need someone to explain something they did not understand from the professor. We get a little concerned here, because we do not want someone doing the student's work for them. And how do we do this without a complete lockdown? So in this regard, the honor policy is more a quality control mechanism than a principal. Flawed yes, but what do you do?
If this is all you think education is, then these honor codes probably make no sense to you. And the greatest crisis our schools are facing today is the that so many people believe this is all education is.
In mathematics and in CS design, learning is all about problem solving. What can you do with the resources at hand? There is no single right answer to learn. There is no unique proof, no unique computer program. What matters is figuring out how to get there with what you do know. If someone shows you how to do it, you learned nothing. It is for these type of assignments that these honor codes are written.
Yes, sometimes it is useful to learn how to solve problems with other people. We create special assignments for those situtations and let you know when it is okay to work with others.