However, there is a problem with this solution to the very complex existing in less than infinite time: the monkey should be handing us a large number of copies of the the works of Shakespeare, not just one
That presupposes something about how many copies the monkeys are apt to produce. I could sign on to them handing us zero or infinity copies under an infinite time scenario, whereas any "large number" would be arbitrary. The "infinite copies" outcome is not a problem because the mean time between deliveries is sufficient for us to burn them.
I made what might be an erroneous assumption that you were familiar with the New Math which was taught in the USA.
The wiki article says it was a 60s phenomenon, but based on my experience at least some of these concepts lived on in mutated form well into the 70s. There were a lot of educational experiments tried in the 60s and 70s. Perhaps even worse than "new math" was "open classrooms" which is like "open offices" for kids.
So, the idea of "teaching calculus to 5 year olds" is not new to me. It's "new math" all over again. Hopefully they don't throw out the A-B-Cs this time in the rush to teach great literature.
I don't know about "brainwashing," but I sure think that rote memorization is inappropriate 99% of the time and that it ruins educations.
At least you're not saying "never". I think 99% is a bit harsh. The link was long; but I skimmed it. The music analogy is interesting. You obviously wouldn't want a musician to be all reading/writing scores. OTOH, a music teacher that ignored notation and sight-reading would be doing a grave disservice to students.
My childhood gives me a comparative case study: grades K-3 with public school and some "new math". Grades 4-6 in private school with traditional everything. Grades 7-12 in public school then a BSEE.
The "new math" tried to teach us long division with a really klutzy version of division by successive subtraction. Working a problem such as 9354935793578 / 7656 was not realistic. We were making little check-boxes and guesses. Their method for long division was absolutely horrible for large numbers, and working ONE long division problem took half an hour.
I the traditional private school I learned long division using the classic decimal place subtraction method where you gradually accumulate your result at the top of the paper and get a long train of carefully prescribed subtractions trailing down the page. Much, much better. Homework might involve 5 long division problems that could be worked in 15 minutes if you were good.
Then in high school when I got into computing I understood what "new math" was trying to do. They were trying to show us how to figure things out ourselves, how division relates to subtraction. In grade school though, it was just frustrating.
I don't think we should throw out "new math" entirely either; but we shouldn't use it to the exclusion of tried and true algorithms. Some of the bright students are going to ask questions like, "why does this work". New math is good for those students; but the "repetitive and boring" aspect of rote learning is too easily replaced by "frustrating, useless and slow" in new math curricula.
You're telling me I need an exchange if I want to purchase/barter something for bitcoins? You're assuming you have to "convert" currency to/from bitcoin to be useful.
OK, I wasn't going after "data science" specifically, but ad algos and how my twitter feed has become a cesspool of mental masturbation for ad algorithm people, which is the "killer app" for "big data":
1. PhD invents fantastic ad algo. 2. Guy sees ad on iPhone, takes EBT card there. 1. PhD applies for EBT card. #OneTwoPunch
Wow, I can't believe I just typed that many buzzwords in a Slashdot post; but at least I had a reason and put most of them in quotes... dammit. "algos". Anyway, I wonder if everybody's twitter feed is as bad as mine lately. I think it might have to do with a former co-worker who now works in that field. Thus, I get a lot of improperly targeted ads for people who are in the data-mining/ad biz. Of course I'll never buy their product--I'm not a CxO who's looking to proactively synergize my paradigms.... but it's an interesting "fly on the wall" view of how that world works, so I'm not entirely sure if I should find a way to stop it.
"you spend 60 hours a day"
It isn't too often I genuinely laugh at my own expense. Thanks for pointing that out. Free editorial essays on the intertubs. You get what you pay for.
Focusing on diet for human lifespan is like focusing on gasoline for car lifespan.
Studies have been done of places where people tend to live longer. Some common threads are: genetics, happiness, close community ties, everyday physical labor, low stress, diet and maybe a few other things.
Yeah sure, diet is in there; but if your Daddy died at 40, you're pissed off all the time, you don't know your neighbors and you spend 60 hours a day stressing in a cube-farm then the quinoa salad you ate probably won't help much. Go ahead though. It probably won't hurt; just don't expect miracles. Look at *all* the factors.
Even if they don't get it the first time, continued exposure is good. I can think of a lot of things in math that didn't "click" until I'd heard it the umpteenth time. For example, how to count to umpteen.
I think a little bit of "modern" math is good but the old stuff still needs to be taught. Rote memorization gets a bad rap; but IMHO the 10X10 multiplication table should be committed to memory just like the alphabet. All else equal, a student with the table in his head will be able to work more quickly and confidently than one without. Notice I said 10X10 table. An odd thing is that they taught us 12X12. I think it's a tradition held over from the English system, where you had 12 inches in a foot. 12*12 even has the name "gross". There's nothing wrong with teaching the traditional table; but it would be nice if they put a red line or something around the 10X10 portion of it so that students understood the significance of that--that 10X10 is the key to unlocking virtually unlimited multiplication abilities with pen, paper, and the simple algorithm that "old math" taught us.
I really can't think of a technical reason - the only things that come to mind are political in nature (eg protocol licensing) or other such BS.
HAMs bounce signals off of the freakin' moon's surface with only a few hundred dollars worth of equipment. The only way "expensive" comes in here is if there's some hairbrained software patent in the way?
It's funny how they want it both ways, eh? No regulation, but then they want dependable banks.
Choose one or the other. You do not need to use an exchange, just like you don't need to use a bank.
We're talking about enforcement.
You have to find it to enforce against it. You don't just know that Joe is a drug dealer. Fortunately it's not a crime to see a drug, or to look at it, or to know that it (that specific instance, not the concept) exists. This is not really the case with CP; but that said police generally don't get hung up on that. It would be stupid if they were.
Now in this case, it's even less the case with "enforcements" like filtering - someone has to program the filters. AI might be making large strides recently, but it's nowhere near advanced enough to make such subjective judgements without a human operator feeding in data - data which is Verboten in this case. These human operators won't have such flexibility like the police enjoy - not unless it is granted. So, unless they are explicitly protected, they cannot perform their duty without violating laws.
It's not easier?
Place cup, insert cartridge, push button.
It can't get much easier than that.
SDR is a thing, and it's not that expensive these days.
The expensive part would be the amplifiers and antennas, and those just spew the signal you feed to them. Generating the signal is cheap.