Comment Re:News on the BBC is not free (if you live in UK) (Score -1) 246
Of course, our national tv channel funded by the licence payer is full of ads and they pay far too high salaries for complete rubbish.
While it might get slightly better results then just showing ye old wacky error message I predict you'll get the "the what now icon in the corner? I didn't see any icon in the corner" response.
Ain't that the truth. Anyone suggesting the funny icon idea has never seen the responses to the "count how many people are throwing the basketball" video. What do you mean big gorilla running around the screen, what gorilla?!
People in Canada spend, on average, $3,895 per year on health care. Meanwhile, Americans spend $7,290. The United States has about 2.4 doctors per thousand people. Canada has 2.2. The United States has 10.6 nurses per thousand people, while Canada only has 9. Clearly, our system is better.
That's a bit mad isn't it?
Ireland spends on average EURO2,463 against the US EURO5,240; ireland has 3 docs/1000, 15.5 nurses/1000
I think on the wiki tables our life exp was only marginally higher than USA though
I like our system best, combo of public and private
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
My health insurance premiums have been rising by $1000 a year for a long time. The average health care plan costs $14,000 a year for a family
Every time I hear USA prices, I'm in disbelief. Mine's 600euro for the year for me alone, and it's definitely not the bare minimum of coverage...
Evolution is still considered a theory
So is gravity.
Seriously, if you don't know what the word "theory" means in a scientific sense, go read up on it instead of running your mouth off.
A theory is as solid as it gets, it's not magically going to grow up one day into a law. It's a theory and a fact, simple as that.
Now, the purpose of the oral examination was simple - to establish whether the homeworks were actually done by that student or not. In my experience, if someone was cheating, he didn't have a clue whatsoever what the code he has handed in does. At best, he could memorize some superficial stuff and do some hand-waving over it. One or two targeted questions over the details of the assignment has always uncovered this. No need for any computerized code comparison tool
This was basically how our assignments were corrected. The lab assistants would go around each person and ask to be taken through the program the student had written. They'd ask a couple random questions about what a few random lines did.
Would be pretty obvious if you were cheating. It worked very well, but then we weren't in one of those universities where you're not likely to ever meet half your class - it was small enough and got progressively smaller. I imagine for huge classes it might be impractical.
I got away with it once by mostly just renaming variables (and got marked down for bad variable naming practice
I remember the other obvious way the lab assistants noted cheaters - on one occasion in particular our assignment was something easily googled and copied. People who could barely manage "hello world" the week before suddenly turned in fairly complex and good code
To all those mentioning group work and not reinventing the wheel, that's fine beyond a certain level, but if you're in an intro course you'd want to understand exactly what does what, before you can build on it in any meaningful way. It's almost like skipping all lessons in basic maths, adding and subtracting, just because a calculator does all those functions. Sure it does, but if you don't know any basic operations at all or understand how they work, you're going to be crippled later on in more advanced maths.
Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms. You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want.
If you put your search term in quotation marks, it'll search the exact term
no need for constant +
No, my position has been clear throughout: no generation is somehow more intellectual or significantly more educated than the others. I never said "no philosopher kings," but simply that if you were to essentially put a 15 year old kid now against a 15 year old kid from the 80s, 70s, 60s, etc. you are, on average, not going to notice that extreme a difference. In every generation you are going to have a small yet not insignificant number of people who are smart and well-educated. It's unfair to the current generation to somehow portray them as ignorant savages.
Might be slightly off from your discussion, but academic standards (in Ireland at least) are certainly dropping. That may not mean they're less "intellectual" these days, but probably not so well educated.
College degrees mean less than they used to, and the leaving cert has certainly become a lot easier over time.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh