The majority of the population here is all in favor of education and healthcare, we just don't believe that a state income tax is the way to fund them.
Or that we should fund them at all, given how politics in Washington seem to go. This PDF illustrates some of the recent declines in state funding for the University of Washington, but I think the declines have been going on for longer than that.
It's hard to reconcile the legislature's funding for colleges and universities with the idea that we "are all in favor of education."
From TFA: "He’s also barred from opening a Facebook account."
Please stay away from Arizona. I like the law here a lot, why do you want to protect the intruder?
Also look at gun control stats and you will find that anywhere in the US that has increased gun control there is an increase in criminal behavior and places with less gun control usually have much lower rates of crime
(Phoenix is number 2 in the WORLD for kidnappings, Mexico City is the only other city in the world with more)
I don't understand: if the law is so great in Arizona, why are there so many kidnappings there?
There are just 3 good reasons for comments in code: (a) to refer to a published paper describing an (obscure) algorithm, eg '[fast graph traversal algorithm, M. M. Balakrishnarajan and P. Venuvanalingam
A fourth reason: if you use something like Sphinx to autogenerate documentation from your code, then you should probably include at least a one-liner saying what each function or method does, and maybe you want to describe the parameters and the return values. (If you're using a language like Python, then of course you don't have the types of the parameters or the return values in the function definition, so you should document them.)
One thing I have never been able to figure out is how you can repeat experiments on origins (of matter, of forces, etc).
You form a hypothesis about the big bang happening, and you deduce that if it had happened, then you would be able to observe certain phenomena now, if only your measurements could be made precisely enough. (I'm not a physicist or an astronomer, but maybe the phenomena would involve the residual energy in the vacuum of deep space, or the distribution of certain elements in stars, or something about general relativity, or I don't know what.) When technology has improved enough, or when you have designed a careful enough experiment, you carry out your experiments and see if you observe those phenomena. If you don't see what you should, then you have to say that your hypothesized account of the big bang must be wrong.
As an example, the heart of his "more sex is safer sex" argument used in the title is that overall risk is reduced if *certain* *people*, those with lower odds of having disease, have more sex. Then the people they have sex with are having safer sex than if with someone else. Alas, it rests on the contention that if the "safer" people have more sex, every act *displaces* another sexual interaction - the possibility that simply more sex will occur, the added interactions being safer, but *not* displacing a less-safe one, is not allowed for.
I haven't read this book, but if you start with n sexual interactions, k of which are unsafe, and then you add m more, all of which are safe, then the fraction of unsafe sexual interactions has decreased: it's gone from k/n to k/(n+m). Therefore the risk in any particular interaction is less.
(A similar computation works even if the new interactions aren't all safe, but just more likely to be safe than the old ones.)
The same fallacy applies to your post about what RIAA is doing. While what the RIAA curriculum is teaching might be counter to your moral beliefs (i.e. you may believe that all information should be free and copyright laws are an abomination), unless it is factually inaccurate it doesn't matter.
Of course it matters. Schools don't have an infinite amount of time: even if they follow your "fact-based" approach (whatever that means when it comes to writing or indeed any sort of art), they still need to make decisions about which facts to include. If the facts are wrong, it's easy to discount them. But if the RIAA (for example) comes up with lesson plans based on (let's assume) an accurate description of copyright law, then I would say that it's still not worth the time. Work on math, science, history, writing, music, any number of things before spending time on this.
the Socorro large radio telecope array (the staple of almost many scifi movies)
Actually, it's only been in nearly some scifi movies.
I believe the ability to check your work is crucial.
So learn how to check your work. First, look at your answer and try to determine whether it makes sense, and then see if you made any silly algebra mistakes. Then if you're learning integration, for example, take the derivative and see if you get the original function back again. If you're learning differential equations, plug your purported solution in and see if it is actually a solution. In many situations, you have more than one method available to solve a problem, so try both and see if they produce the same thing.
In the real world you don't have a solution manual, so it's a valuable skill to be able to check your work without one. Furthermore, some students use solution manuals badly: if they don't get the right answer, they tinker with their work until their answer matches the right one, with no understanding of what they did wrong or what they did to correct it. It's a good idea to not have all of the answers available; for calculus, half seems about the right proportion.
This, of course, is precisely backwards of how math is taught. They try to teach the mathematic principles, and then from that you are supposed to deduce how to do the problems. This has never worked for me.
I'm not sure what you're talking about -- mathematics is taught lots of different ways: there is no single, monolithic, method for "how math is taught."
You left out the relevant part:
People that post comments designed to get more karma, for example mirroring a linked article or presenting a banal groupthink opinion or lame joke, are often referred to as karma whores.
On another note, I think this is where Amazon really missed the market for the Kindle. If it had wifi, and had a web browser,
The Kindle has a web browser, albeit a primitive one.
Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.