The icing on the cake is that the statue is made of real meteorite and that scientists have been able to identify the actual one as the Chinga meteorite that fell in the border region of eastern Siberia and Mongolia about 15,000 years ago."
"The middle school years are critical for students in reaching conclusions regarding their own skills and aptitudes,"
Yes educators should make things understandable, yes we should make learning fun but there is a whole big nasty world of hungry people who would kill for the chance to "reach conclusions about their own skills...".
Where are the parents or schools telling students that engineering, maths and science can make the difference between having a job and not? Because at the end of the day those students need to get the cold hard fact: Do something useful and get paid, or hope somebody else will just give you a living. Presumably they don't expect to be hungry no matter what happens.
N.B. please reread the "Yes educators should make things understandable, yes we should make learning fun" line before replying.
A 95% error bound merely means that the author thinks, based off several (possibly) sound assumptions, that what we are saying could arise by chance in 5% of cases.
If the graph has datapoints that fit within a 95% bounded line then all you can say is "this data didn't arise by chance in 19 out of 20 cases if the datapoints lie within this bounded path". Typically this 95% probability isn't per point, i.e. when you look at the graph you can't take the fact that each point lies within the bound as repeated 95% probabilities correctly turning out which would combine to a much higher confidence.
In the hopes that this helps,
Richard Feynmann has a lot to say about this, and is well worth listening to.
1) Objects must be sitting on a consistent(ish) surface with a low rate of change compared to the object. Desk, Chair, Bathroom, Wall, Hubcap, etc.
2) It doesn't handle strong shadows (or they are not showing us it doing so).
3) It makes the greatest amount of mistakes with the shadows anyway.
Please add anything I missed to future posts.
I would like to see it erase a boat from a choppy sea where there are 5-7 waves for the length of the boat as I expect that to be a pathological case. I would also like to see it erase a discolouration rather than a very different object to see its behaviour. Cool technology though!
Looking at Amdahl's law (golden oldie here) how much time does a PC spend on kernel tasks these days?
No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.