I think I remember a teacher saying it can all be broken down to addition; because subtraction is just reverse addition, multiplication is just shorthand addition, and division is shorthand subtraction. There may have been more to the explanation but that was 10 years ago.
This is true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense.
On one hand, the entire real number line can be derived from the peano axioms, which are essentially just addition (actually more basic than addition, because they are the rules for adding 1). On the other hand, addition the operation doesn't do everything by itself. For example: you can't get the rational numbers from addition without first developing multiplication, so multiplication is on some level more than just shorthand addition.
Living with Asperger's is not something you should aspire to.
I agree with this.
You can be logical, antisocial, good with computers and suffer panic attacks and still not be Asperger's or anywhere on the autistic spectrum.
I also possibly agree with this. However:
Diagnoses are binary. Reality is often continuous.
There's absolutely nothing impossible about someone having a degree of autism or Aspergers that is less than a formal diagnosis. I would expect such a person to show some symptoms but be mostly functional, with variations depending on where they fall on a continuous scale, much as these "self-diagnosed" people describe. Of course, it is also possible that some of these self-diagnosis people are completely wrong.
Actually, if you continue this line of reasoning, many mental disorders are continuous. As a classic example, clinical depression (the best example) ranges from just-feeling-a-little-down-all-the-time to catatonia. Professionals have no difficulty talking about someone having mild, low-level, or severe depression.
If people knew what caused autism and Aspergers, then I might support a binary diagnosis. Until then, using fuzzy logic makes more sense to me.
Or to put it more simply: Just because you know someone with a more advanced case (and believe me, I sympathize with you for it) doesn't mean that lesser cases do not exist or that claims of lesser cases trivialize what you're going through.
People don't learn how to play basketball well by watching basketball. They learn how to play basketball well by playing basketball. Just because it's not a professional level game doesn't mean that it's not a valid activity.
The same applies in science. Undergraduates learn how to think about science by doing scientific research. It's not research at a level that will ever get published, but it is real science. The entire industry of REUs is based on this. Graduate students become scientists by doing even more advanced research. Some of that research is at a publishable (professional) level, some of it isn't. But they learn from all of it.
I would submit that you can't learn science without doing science. I'm not saying that kids have to do science at a professional level to learn science, but rather that they need to be active participants in scientific thinking.
If students just listen to scientific reports, at best they can learn science facts, but that's not the same thing as learning how to think scientifically. As long as students are only learning science facts and not scientific thought, what they are being taught (from their point of view) is just dogma, and it is no different from an authority figure telling them that Hell is real.
If science only occurs in peer-reviewed journals, then the more than 90% of the population that doesn't read peer-reviewed journals will never learn what it means to think scientifically.
That's how you get situations like the Kansas School board.
I remmember The Manhattan Project. I still cringe every time I think about a kid wandering around with a ball of movie plutonium in one hand.
Real plutonium is heavy.
I maintain that the problem is not the controls, but the screen. On a 2D televsion screen, there is no true depth perception. Judging 3d distances becomes a lot more difficult without binocular vision, and most of platforming is judging distances. In 2D platforming, depth doesn't play a role, so judging distance is much easier.
Personally, I want to see a 3d platformer that uses Red & Blue glasses. Red & Blue glasses are cool.
I would maintain that a website is fundamentally different than a buddy icon.
In the minds of people, a website is by default public. It is meant to be seen and essentially constitutes a broadcast.
On the other hand, a buddy icon (regardless of the actually security measures implemented) carries semi-private conotations. The icon is meant only for your friends -- those you talk to with your messaging client.
I'm sure the student did not want the teacher to see his buddy icon. And if there was an intent to keep it secret, I don't see how it could constitute a threat. It might still be some other sort of crime, but not a threat.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I remember a teacher saying it can all be broken down to addition; because subtraction is just reverse addition, multiplication is just shorthand addition, and division is shorthand subtraction. There may have been more to the explanation but that was 10 years ago.
This is true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense.
On one hand, the entire real number line can be derived from the peano axioms, which are essentially just addition (actually more basic than addition, because they are the rules for adding 1). On the other hand, addition the operation doesn't do everything by itself. For example: you can't get the rational numbers from addition without first developing multiplication, so multiplication is on some level more than just shorthand addition.
Living with Asperger's is not something you should aspire to.
I agree with this.
You can be logical, antisocial, good with computers and suffer panic attacks and still not be Asperger's or anywhere on the autistic spectrum.
I also possibly agree with this. However:
Diagnoses are binary. Reality is often continuous.
There's absolutely nothing impossible about someone having a degree of autism or Aspergers that is less than a formal diagnosis. I would expect such a person to show some symptoms but be mostly functional, with variations depending on where they fall on a continuous scale, much as these "self-diagnosed" people describe. Of course, it is also possible that some of these self-diagnosis people are completely wrong.
Actually, if you continue this line of reasoning, many mental disorders are continuous. As a classic example, clinical depression (the best example) ranges from just-feeling-a-little-down-all-the-time to catatonia. Professionals have no difficulty talking about someone having mild, low-level, or severe depression.
If people knew what caused autism and Aspergers, then I might support a binary diagnosis. Until then, using fuzzy logic makes more sense to me.
Or to put it more simply: Just because you know someone with a more advanced case (and believe me, I sympathize with you for it) doesn't mean that lesser cases do not exist or that claims of lesser cases trivialize what you're going through.
The girl (Japanese, pharamcist) has the following to say:
"[matcha] has more caffeine than [sencha]. [matcha] is 32mg/100ml, [sencha] is 20mg/100ml,"
For some reason, slashdot preview doesn't seem to like unicode.
People don't learn how to play basketball well by watching basketball. They learn how to play basketball well by playing basketball. Just because it's not a professional level game doesn't mean that it's not a valid activity.
The same applies in science. Undergraduates learn how to think about science by doing scientific research. It's not research at a level that will ever get published, but it is real science. The entire industry of REUs is based on this. Graduate students become scientists by doing even more advanced research. Some of that research is at a publishable (professional) level, some of it isn't. But they learn from all of it.
I would submit that you can't learn science without doing science. I'm not saying that kids have to do science at a professional level to learn science, but rather that they need to be active participants in scientific thinking.
If students just listen to scientific reports, at best they can learn science facts, but that's not the same thing as learning how to think scientifically. As long as students are only learning science facts and not scientific thought, what they are being taught (from their point of view) is just dogma, and it is no different from an authority figure telling them that Hell is real.
If science only occurs in peer-reviewed journals, then the more than 90% of the population that doesn't read peer-reviewed journals will never learn what it means to think scientifically. That's how you get situations like the Kansas School board.
I remmember The Manhattan Project. I still cringe every time I think about a kid wandering around with a ball of movie plutonium in one hand. Real plutonium is heavy.
I maintain that the problem is not the controls, but the screen. On a 2D televsion screen, there is no true depth perception. Judging 3d distances becomes a lot more difficult without binocular vision, and most of platforming is judging distances. In 2D platforming, depth doesn't play a role, so judging distance is much easier. Personally, I want to see a 3d platformer that uses Red & Blue glasses. Red & Blue glasses are cool.
I agree. This is why I say that although I don't consider it to be a threat, it may still be some other sort of crime.
I would maintain that a website is fundamentally different than a buddy icon.
In the minds of people, a website is by default public. It is meant to be seen and essentially constitutes a broadcast.
On the other hand, a buddy icon (regardless of the actually security measures implemented) carries semi-private conotations. The icon is meant only for your friends -- those you talk to with your messaging client.
I'm sure the student did not want the teacher to see his buddy icon. And if there was an intent to keep it secret, I don't see how it could constitute a threat. It might still be some other sort of crime, but not a threat.
We could call the control system "Skynet."
First, the President has rights and responsibilities under Article 2 that gives him broad powers in times of conflict and war.
Last I checked, Congress hadn't declared war on anybody.
Mother Very Easily Made a Jam Sandwich Using No Peanuts, Mayonnaise, or Glue