It is difficult to explain the fact that the changes emerge around age 13 as enculturation. Do societal expectations change around then, to favor more differences between the sexes?
It's not only not impossible, but it's pretty much always possible. You just have to think like someone who chases funding.
Everyone who reviews proposals knows the future is uncertain, so they don't currently expect a proposal to accurately predict, say, how someone's research would benefit math education. The key is to explain how what you're proposing could plausibly help. Doing it well comes down to having a reasonable story, having good salesmanship, and wordsmithing.
The new requirements seem very broadly applicable. For example, I could twist scientific literacy, promotion of scientific progress, and possibly national defense into justifying the grant proposal I'm currently working on. "Scientific progress" in particular would be very easy. I expect it would be similarly easy for any other academic who expects to publish at leat one paper on research that he or she intends to support by an NSF grant.
So this probably wouldn't change anything, except to require another section in every proposal, which would just waste everyone's time. It would save exacly zero dollars, and cost a few for every proposal just by a naive conversion from time to money. There are also one-time costs. The only possible way this could save money is by slowing down the overall process.
While I'm railing, I should also mention that active researchers review other people's NSF proposals. Adding another requirement takes time they could use to, I dunno, do useful research?
Everyone who chases funding knows how to play the game. Adding rules won't keep them from getting money, and it'll cost time.
I absolutely suck at memorization, so what I did was learn the why of the reaction - which generally was just geometry based (which part of the electron cloud was physically easiest to access - ie steric hinderance); charge based (which atom most 'wanted' the electrons') and energy based (which configurations would be energetically stable with minimum strain and best sharing of electrons).
For my O-chem final - my brain almost completely forgot all of the standard reactions, but I was able to reconstruct reactions and what reactants and environments I needed based on what I wanted the molecule to do; and derive what products to expect based on the above method.
I was one of the people that found ochem easy, but pchem quite difficult.
Well, I'm no rocket expert. But there's a diagram in the linked report of the remnants of the 330mm rocket, and it makes a pretty convincing case that the rocket was loaded with chemical weapons and not with explosives.
Jane's did an analysis and basically concluded that the rockets could be chemical, Fuel Air Explosive, or conventional explosive with equal plausibility without any reason to conclude one was more likely than the other. FAE and some conventional explosives can evaporate/dissipate thus the hollow area that humanrights watch is claiming is chemical -can equally likely be the fuel for a fuel air explosive or a conventional explosive.
Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.
The government has limited resources and it is literally impossible to enforce all of the federal laws to the full extent. Therefore the government must prioritize enforcement. If some laws are so low in priority that there is no enforcement, then congress can increase funding for federal law enforcement officials if they really want those enforced.
Ideas are only a dime a dozen if you have obvious ideas.
Why the hell are polygraphs still being used in the 21st century? They aren't admissible in a court of law for a damned good reason. They are junk science and no better than a voodoo board.
Voodoo is a rather apt analogy. The reason they are used is that they help amplify the belief of the individual that they will get caught in a lie. Thus the reason the FBI are angry is that this teaching will negate the belief that you'll get caught and defeats the psychological manipulation.
Ie if the vooodoo man casts a hex on you, and you believe in voodoo - then you might engage in behavior that makes the hex self fulfilling; but if another voodoo man sells you a talisman to ward off the hex - your belief in the second voodoo man cancels the belief in the first voodoo man.
That's capitalism at work.
No, it's not. It's Oracle demonstrating that they fail to grasp the idea of a loss leader. They have no idea how to leverage a free product, can't stand the idea of a transaction without dollars changing hands, and as a result, continually piss everyone off.
I don't know how slow it is so I don't know if this is possible but what I'd love is the ability to defend my own street from zombies, help a team of my friends defend famous places, and stand outside and laugh while I don't defend my exgirlfriend's house.
I'm signed up for almost every coursera MOOC.
I've only officially completed 1, and watched every video for about 30 others, and have downloaded videos 'to watch' for most of the others.
A few things I've found are that
1) Professors seem to like to assign waste of time busy work.
There are lots of classes that require essays or projects where it is essentially a giant waste of the students time. This includes doing videos and presentations for almost any course (a really well taught audio production course wanted every stuent to do a video essentially repeating a subset of the same material he just did. Others have wanted various large scale projects.) Since there would only be 'peer' evaluation of the material, this was all essentially busy work. There are areas where peer evaluation can be useful (some writing with rubrics and such), but mostly it was stuff that wouldn't matter at all from improving learning. Or the amount of learning improved versus the time invested was drastically out of proportion.
The math, science, programming and finance classes tend to 'get it right', only assigning an amount and type of assignment required to understand the material well, not wasting students time.
2) Science, Programming, Finance, Engineering, and Math courses are real courses, courses from Bschool and other sections are often ridiculously simple.
Of course testing and evaluating understanding of computer and science courses is quite easy, but still the quality and type of questions asked in reviews and homework and the type of assignments made sense for the Science/Tech classes; whereas I was sometimes wondering why the other courses had even bother to do a quiz the questions were so ridiculously simple minded.
Any chance this greening will significantly reduce CO2 levels? Or are we seeing an equal or more reduction in green somewhere else?
They're pretty durable too. The kids throw them around, step on them, spill beverages and sometimes throw up on them.
Sometimes? Wait, how many times have your kids thrown up on them?
Maybe you should have them put aside the tablet for a sec and get them a bucket.
Yep, it's feeding an addition.
Caffeine is physiologically addicting, and detoxification takes a long time and is unpleasant. A cup of coffee contains about 2-3 times a reasonable therapeutic dose, which makes addiction really, really easy.
If I were prescribing caffeine to an average, healthy adult male, I'd say 3 cans of Diet Coke (equiv. one cup of coffee) spaced evenly throughout the day, and expect at least two days of hangover-like symptoms after quitting.
The enemy's gate is down.
I don't know about "true Australian" but I'd imagine that Australians would take the most pride in successful Australians who are not just citizens but whose genius could be argued is in part due to having been raised in Australia during most of their formative years. It would be dumb for Americans to point to Einstein's US citizenship as evidence of America's greatness or as an example of what great people America produces.