Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Two Problems (Score 1) 164

Read again. I think that you're unqualified to teach children about Chemistry if you don't know the basics of Chemistry. Pretty simple concept. And if you're unable to understand such simple concepts, then, yes, I'd severely doubt your teaching abilities in other areas.

I was talking pretty specifically about science. And, yes, your abilities to teach science are hampered if you haven't had contact with the subjects beyond highschool.

Again: Teaching kids the basic stuff like letters and basic arithmetic may work. You have just one kid to worry about. Maybe two.
We have 20+ kids to worry about. That requires a completely different approach and is not an easy job if you want to do it right. Particularly when it comes to the more complicated subjects.

By the way: It's not only "what a term means" but also the concepts behind the term. Not to mention that this solution of "looking online" or "getting a textbook" is laughable. We call that "chalkboard science". It's severely lacking in comparison to actually doing the experiments.

And before you once again go ranting: You yourself brought this on you by painting the whole teaching profession with a broad brush. You're obviously now trying to retract your statement and narrow it to the lower grades, but seriously, you haven't got the faintest clue about the topic. You're willfully ignorant and obviously proud of your stupidity because you're unable to recognize it for what it is. Dunning-Kruger and all that jazz.

You may now continue blabbering, I'm done here.

Comment: Re: Two Problems (Score 1) 164

Try teaching that to a class and you'll see why I picked this example specifically. Believe me, the numbers of pupils who have problems differentiating the two concepts is astounding.
And yes, I tried several approaches. It's not something I picked out of a hat but rather a real world example. Don't forget, the first time you come into contact with those terms is some time around the 7th grade.

Comment: Re: Two Problems (Score 1) 164

Holy Generalization Batman!

Seriously, where does this anti-intellectualism come from? Do you seriously think that you can teach your children, say, Physics or Chemistry without actually having studied Physics or Chemistry? And with that, I don't mean the basic stuff (which, by the way, can be quite a problem later on if you introduce certain topics in the wrong way).

Just one example: Take the chemical term "oxidization". Do you actually introduce that term when it comes to reactions with oxygen? If you do you should be aware that you just invited problems later on in electrochemistry, because the pupils will have committed the definition of "oxidization" as "reaction with oxygen" firmly to mind. And now you have to redefine the term in order to include the transfer of electrons.

There are quite a lot of pitfalls like that. The difference between velocity and acceleration (the latter is not an easy concept!) The difference between weight and mass. And so on and so forth.

In order to properly avoid such problems you need to have a pretty deep understanding of the concepts. That's something I simply don't see for most non-academics, sorry.

Comment: Re:Two Problems (Score 1) 164

And yet, as soon as you go beyond the two-maybe-three-children-in-a-kitchen-setting, you'll find that even way back at the Roman empire, you'd find professional teacher and schools.

It's easy to bash things if you don't know anything about what it actually involves. And, no, attending school doesn't count as experience. Just because you've used a bridge doesn't mean that you know how to actually build one. Yes, you know the basics and what a bridge should look like. But the devil is in the details.

Comment: Re:Space? (Score 1) 204

by Rhywden (#46984313) Attached to: Thorium: The Wonder Fuel That Wasn't

It's not actually difficult, it's expensive. The thing is, because we're not dealing with an inertial system but with a rotating system, we need to cancel the orbital velocity in order to actually hit the Sun. One figure I've seen puts the velocity we need to achieve at 32 km/s. Escape velocity for Earth amounts to 11 km/s, by the way.

That's quite a lot and makes the whole thing a bit impractical (Rockets don't scale well and, according to the calculations I've seen, a Saturn V would only have a payload of ~60 kg of actual radioactive material. Don't forget, you also need to shield the stuff in case the rocket malfunctions inside the atmosphere, aside from the higher fuel requirements).

Coincidentally, shooting something into deep space only requires about 41% of the energy needed to reach the Sun.

All numbers without complicated stuff like slingshot maneuvers.

Comment: Re:Never lecture when you can have a seminar (Score 2) 166

That's nice and all, but you still have a hard-wired limit to your attention span.

It's pretty much standard in teachers' education (at least in Germany) that you have to "switch gears" from time to time or you may as well rhapsodize about the colour blue - nobody will be really listening after a while.

It doesn't mean that lectures don't work. It just means that only doing lectures is not as effective.

Comment: Re:We should use the moon as a hazardous waste dum (Score 4, Insightful) 204

by Rhywden (#46982631) Attached to: Thorium: The Wonder Fuel That Wasn't

Yes. And that solar-collision orbit requires a speed of 31 km/s. You're forgetting that you're on an elliptical orbit around the sun - every nudge towards the sun merely reduces the smaller axis of the elliptical trajectory around the sun.

The "nudge" would work if both objects (target and object to push) were at relative rest. But they aren't at rest. You start out with the Earth's orbital velocity around the Sun.

That, by the way, is also the reason why missions to Mercury are rare - it's quite expensive. By the way: Shooting stuff completely out of the solar system would only require about 41% of the energy you need to get to the Sun. Sounds weird, but that's orbital mechanics for you.

Comment: Re:It's called a safety... (Score 1) 765

by Rhywden (#46982089) Attached to: A Look at Smart Gun Technology

And you always did things the way your parents taught you? My experience with children of all sorts differs somewhat, whether you "discipline" them or not. I mean, if they never did any wrong you wouldn't have to "discipline" them in the first place!

A gun that's locked away in a gun safe is the only gun that's reliably safe for/from children.

Comment: Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun (Score 1) 1374

by Rhywden (#46893791) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention

Right. Equally plausible scenarios:

They beat him up but let him live.
He gets the hell out of their way and the burglars get away

You're forgetting one fact: He already shot two burglars - which choice exactly does the 3rd one have? Surrender and hope for the best? Naw. The situation had already escalated to one involving lethal force which makes a peaceful outcome pretty unlikely. It's pretty rare for violent situations to de-escalate without involving an outside force.

Comment: Re: TCO (Score 1) 341

Um, this is a timespan of more than a decade, we're talking about here. The technological advances in hardware alone should mandate an upgrade.

And last time I looked, a filing cabinet is very different from IT. Unless you're calling yourself a carpenter when replacing a graphics card?

Comment: Re:Cellular doesn't work (Score 2) 449

by Rhywden (#46614013) Attached to: WSJ: Prepare To Hang Up the Phone — Forever

You're forgetting the windows. Chances are that the windows are also coated in a thin metallic film (intended to reflect IR) to either keep heat out or in.

Can see that easily at my parents home - as long as the glass door to the garden is open, their handheld has a connection to the base station. Glass door is shut - connection to the base station is lost.

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.