You're kidding, right? Kids at boarding school have far more access to porn than those who are not.
No, you learn *some* by rote memorization (and even then you're pushing the definition of rote memorization) but rote memorization is hardly the whole picture.
For instance, I'm just about halfway through Calculus 1. Now I don't want to have to derive from first principles how to differentiate something, so I do have to memorize some rules. But I've not just rote memorized (for example) the chain rule as a procedure, I've also studied the proof of this so understand why the chain rule actually works. This makes the chain rule easier to remember and apply correctly than just memorizing the chain rule by rote without understanding how it actually works.
Similarly, you can rote memorize what the sin and cosine functions do, but if you understand how the values sin and cos return come about, they aren't just mysterious functions that generate magic numbers and have a whole bunch of identities you have to remember. You can actually do something useful with these things.
At the end of the day to take some real world problem and model it with mathematics, you can't just merely rote memorize a bunch of stuff, you have to understand it too so you can actually construct something useful with what you've learned.
The thing is it will get ugly whatever you do. Let's imagine a scenario.
Russia decides that since the rest of the world hasn't done an awful lot, it will invade eastern Ukraine on the pretext that there are ethnic Russians being threatened. It turns out that the Ukrainian army isn't quite as crap as Russia imagined, in reality the Ukrainian army is mostly professional whereas the Russian army is mostly conscript. Additionally, the Ukrainians are defending their territory so their army is more "committed" to the cause. The Polish, being friends of Ukraine and still never having forgiven Russia over what went on with the Soviet Union start providing some support, too. Inevitably, just through sheer force of numbers and the bullheadedness of Putin, the Russians begin to overrun the Ukrainians, and their posture is that Ukraine is fighting back so they have the right to keep going until Ukraine stops. As the Russians move west, Poland starts providing actual troops who are now in combat with Russian troops.
Russia manages to push this back though, and decides to give Poland a bloody nose under the justification that they sent troops. Since the west imposed more sanctions, seizing assets of Russian oligarchs, the Russian economy is starting to falter and Putin thinks that the west won't do anything militarily despite Poland being a NATO member, and he feels he doesn't have an awful lot to lose but a lot to gain if he can make Poland fear Russia, so he continues with the intent of crippling the Polish military but not actually permanently invading Poland. However, he's miscalculated, and NATO lives up to its treaty obligations. The US, UK, France, Germany and various other countries mobilize to defend the Polish. The Russian army at the Polish border is rather war-weary by now and is facing well equipped NATO troops and gets pushed back into Ukraine. NATO intends to finish the job and reset the borders to their pre-war conditions, with Ukraine no longer under occupation. They don't have any intent of pushing into Russia. However, Putin is now facing the ignominy of his miscalculation, and decides that defeat isn't acceptable and attacks NATO forces with tactical battlefield nuclear weapons. Many NATO troops are lost, and there are serious civilian casualties in areas caught by the blast on the Polish/Ukrainian border. Now the nuclear taboo has been broken, NATO needs to make sure the Russians can't come back, so destroys a few key strategic targets in the supply chain for Russian troops with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia now feels very vulnerable, and Putin in an effort to scare NATO from fighting further attacks a few strategic targets in the west with strategic nuclear weapons...and NATO replies in kind.
Fortunately a cease fire is hastily brokered before it gets completely out of control, and only a few strategic nuclear weapons are used. But in the meantime, the United States has lost most of its Gulf Coast refining capacity to nuclear strikes (amongst other strategic targets), there are millions dead and a humanitarian crisis in the United States and Europe of catastrophic proportions. Just the injured in the Gulf Coast alone are more than all the resources of the entire healthcare system in the United States can deal with, so the injured are left to fend for themselves. To make matters worse, the Russians detonated a high altitude burst destroying all electronics and communications over a large proportion of North America and Europe meaning just keeping the uninjured supplied with food becomes a challenge due to the loss of working vehicles of all types and the destruction of the electricity grid and communication systems. On top of that, the soot injected into the stratosphere causes a "decade without a summer", leading to poor crop yields to add to the problems of food distribution. Progress of industrial society in Europe, the US and Russia is set back by decades.
That's quite surprising. The UK is absolutely plastered with rides, but France not so much. I thought it would be the other way around, I've always thought of the French being much more cycle friendly (the UK seems very cycle hostile most of the time).
Don't be quite so complacent in what you think students CAN'T do, especially saying "far beyond what students can do". When I was 16 I was writing assembly language competently, if I were 16 now, I would be (successfully) finding ways to tunnel stuff through normal HTTP traffic via a machine outside the network (it's not hard, certainly easier than learning asm). In a school of any appreciable size you'll have at least one student with the capability to do this.
Do other people genuinely hear ringing (like the repeated sound of a bell?) or is it just a figure of speech?
Mine doesn't sound like a ring, it's a continuous tone at what seems about the frequency of a CRT TV flyback (about 15kHz or so. I went to the effort of putting my signal generator through headphones and turning the knob until it matched the constant tone I always hear). It never goes away. I can ignore it though, but it never goes away regardless of whether I'm in silence or a lot of noise.
If he does it commercially, yes.
It's an FAA matter because the FAA regulates the National Airspace System in which this RC aircraft was flying. No one else regulates airspace in the United States, not cities, not states, airspace is a federal matter and many cases have settled this (for example when cities try to enact their own overflight rules, the FAA slaps them down, and has been doing for a long time). It doesn't matter what you're flying, you are still subject to 14CFR if you fly something. It doesn't matter how small or light it is.
The FAA doesn't regulate cars, RC or otherwise so the RC car example is not relevant.
Change is only constant if the degree of the leading term is 1
Anyone have any examples of the "rarefied vocabulary" used by the SAT?
On a point of pedantry, there was powered heavier than air flight over 100 years ago (the Wrights flew 110 years ago).
There are a lot of "coulds" in this article.
Saying it would be a match for the Spitfire is probably wishful thinking - just because it can go fast in a race doesn't mean you can mount weapons on it and still have it go as fast. It also may have handling issues that requires very high pilot skill to land and take off - and you have to remember that in WWII pilots were let loose on Spitfires and the like with relatively low hours. There may also be other problems that would surface (which is possibly why they don't want to go over 200 mph with the replica) such as it may suffer from flutter at high speeds; flutter will destroy an airframe in seconds.
My personal experience with IBM says no, they don't abuse L1. I used to work for IBM and went to the US for a while on an L1 visa. I was *more* expensive to IBM than a local worker because they paid a pretty sweet per-diem rate to me for the full duration I was there (in IBM, an international assignment works like this - you still work and are paid by your home country, and it is treated like a very long business trip effectively - so you get an International Service Allowance).
To give you an idea of how much I cost IBM, my international service allowance was good enough that I didn't spend my salary - I lived entirely off the ISA. That included learning to fly then running a private aeroplane (albeit a modest one). The salary I banked means when I got back I could buy quite a nice house with a very small mortgage. By the way, I live in a part of western Europe where property prices are stupidly high (similar to prices in the SF bay) not some 3rd world country where the money goes a long way.
They were constantly trying to replace me with a local person because I was too expensive, but I had specialist knowledge (the reason I was on assignment) which kept me out there.
The chip is open source because you can study the source code (actually it's more akin to Free because you not only can study the source code, but you can redistribute it, modify it etc.)
Open source has nothing to do with the amount of money you need to spend to build a functional machine out of it.
In any case as what's already been pointed out, you can synthesise this on an FPGA. FPGA development boards with a suitable sized FPGA (see the Pipistrello) can be had for less than $100.
No. That's not the point. If there were an alien world with the same conditions as earth (gravity, available substances, available energy) it is likely that while the actual species on this planet would be entirely different, they would be "life as we know it", in other words, similar biochemical processes.
Life but not as we know it means life based on fundamentally different biochemical processes, for example, silicon based instead of carbon based.