Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Good code rarely needs commenting though. Too many comments are often an indicator of poorly organized code.
Dear person who thinks that "good code rarely needs commenting": the entire world wants to beat you senseless with a nine iron.
And, yes, this is how my boys are learning to do math.
My daughter is not in the Common Core yet, but this is how she is learning to do math at home. Last weekend, we worked on prime numbers and factorization with Legos.
Take a stack of twelve legos:
"Can you divide twelve legos into twos?" Kid pulls the stack of twelve into piles of two, with none left over: "YES!"
"Can you divide twelve legos into threes?" Kid pulls stacks of two apart to make stacks of three, with none left over: "YES!"
"Can you divide twelve legos into fours?" Kid pulls four stacks of three apart to make three stacks of four, none left over. "YES!"
"Can you divide twelve legos into fives?" Kid makes two stacks of five, with two blocks left over. "NO!"
Now try eleven legos...
Really, invisibleserfscollar.com is ground zero for info on what is happening in the schools. Put up with the complex sentence structure there and read!
I'm sorry: did I say that Right Wing conspiracy nuts think Common Core is an attempt by the Feds to take over the schools? I stand corrected. They think it's a conspiracy by the United Nations to take over the schools.
I'm surprised that web site didn't mention chemtrails.
Story problems certainly have their place, but teach students how to do the actual math first. And keep things relevant, don't confuse first graders by comparing pennies to cups of coffee http://roundtheinkwell.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/the-math-test.pdf
Not sure what you mean by actual math: calculating with numerals? As I understand it, one of the main points of common core is to get away from doing calculations by applying memorized tables of addition/subtraction/multiplication, because that's memorizing, not math. The story problems are the math.
The pennies-to-coffee cups thing in that over-hyped sample test is a little weird, for sure, but the rest of the test appeared entirely reasonable to me. Even though the terminology and notation were unfamiliar to me, I was able to quickly figure out the system and understand how to construct correct answers to the problems. Because I understand math, not just how to calculate.
Her's a few mor typos to mak you hapy.
But seriously, have you actrually read the standardds. There's nothing especially objectionable in them, and there is a lot to like. Implementation, particularly an over-emphasis on standardized testing, could well present a problem, but the standards themselves are pretty clearly positive.
I know it's heinously non-politically-correct to suggest
Lost me right there.
I've found over my life that as soon as somebody starts their argument by complaining about "political correctness", it's a virtual certainty that the remainder of their argument is going to be a lame attempt to rationalize an odious bias. It's the politically correct way to start an argument by saying I'm not an X, but...
If Fleming maintained correct use of an autoclave... If Spencer hadn't walked in front of that unshielded magnetron... If Goodyear had a proper hood over his stove...
Serendipity will still happen in labs if you wear safety glasses.
According to the physics we know the chance of the Higgs boson having the mass is does is about one in 10^30.
Only if you know the measure on the space of parameters for the Higgs. Which you don't.
The question isn't "is there SUSY or not?" That question cannot be answered, because you can always push the SUSY breaking scale up to a little higher than the energy of your collider. SUSY will be a part of quantum gravity for the foreseeable future, since String Theory is not consistent without it as far as anybody can tell.
The real question is: "Does SUSY make useful predictions for detecting physics beyond the Standard Model?" The answer to that seems to be tending very strongly toward "No."
but.... but... the market fixes everything! If consumers just vote with their wallets we do not need regulation in order to have dependable banks, right?
Whoops. Wallet is now empty. No vote for you.
Seriously, you expect us to believe that you got tutored by Feynman in quantum mechanics for the double slit experiment, but that you can't figure out that the orientation of mirror reversal is due to the horizontal alignment of binocular vision (a trivial optics problem)? Bad troll.
So you think that if you close one eye and hold a book up to a mirror, you'll suddenly be able to read it?