|
baka kaba posted:Is this about floating-point arithmetic? That's a good example of people needing to know what they're doing if they're programming computers. They don't get the calculations wrong, the rounding approximations just aren't what you'd expect - the programmer isn't telling the computer to do what they think they're telling it to do, basically. Probably, I know floating-point came up and I can't remember anything else mentioned (although it has been 6 years since my first year). They might not be getting it wrong and it might be a user error, but that's why trusting computers isn't always a great idea. We've got thousands of years of global stories warning of the dangers of deals with demons, genies and such being literal, now we have soulless machines we rely on that do exactly this 
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Labour wants to make it a specific criminal offence to assault one of  ARE BHOYS A threadtitle about being indistinguishable from the US becomes ever more relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:I don't know when you went to primary school, but when I went in the early eighties, maths teaching was appalling. It was literally being given workbooks to work through of sums with larger and larger numbers. We didn't get taught anything but the four basic operations until secondary school. Yeah, same, but we had it a little better - maybe because I was a few years later. We did some stuff with sets (pushing counters around), messing with a trundle wheel outside... But I'm also going off other people's experiences (some younger, mostly older though) about the general approach to a maths education, where they come out of it thinking they can't do maths, but really they were done a disservice. That's what worries me about people like Gove saying they want more rigour, they usually mean they want things pushed back to the old ways with more drilling and rulers on desks, and if you can't keep up you're just No Good. It's good to know more advanced stuff is being covered, but are they actually getting into the general concepts and ideas, or are they just covering the high school topics a bit earlier? Spangly A posted:Probably, I know floating-point came up and I can't remember anything else mentioned (although it has been 6 years since my first year). Yeah but really this is more an example of why testing is important, and why if people post research (especially stuff as widely cited as Reinhart and Rogoff) it needs to be checked by other people. If anything that goes double(heh heh heh) when computers are involved, because it's so much easier for other people to repeat and check the work - you just download it and run it, and look at the excel sheet and waaaaaiit a minute! If it hasn't been independently verified, that should sound a few alarms
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Probably, I know floating-point came up and I can't remember anything else mentioned (although it has been 6 years since my first year). I would certainly be interested in how this stuff varies 'by OS version' since that has nothing to do with the ALU in your computer or e.g. the precision of the floating point you're using. Language and/or compiler, maybe...
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
This whole floating point discussion is fun, but not really relevant - proper calculators do not use floating point, and if you use a software calculator that does, you should do yourself a favour and find one that does not (of the 6 I have installed on my iPad, only 2 fail due to floating point and they're 2 I only use for conversions anyway). e: Just in case anyone cares which ones fail on iOS: PCalc (fails) (Games Space) Calculator 2.0(fails) HiCalc HD Pro (ok) (Incpt) Calculator+ (ok) (Apalon) Calculator Pro (ok) (Cider Software) Calculator HD Pro (ok) SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Yeah, same, but we had it a little better - maybe because I was a few years later. We did some stuff with sets (pushing counters around), messing with a trundle wheel outside... But I'm also going off other people's experiences (some younger, mostly older though) about the general approach to a maths education, where they come out of it thinking they can't do maths, but really they were done a disservice. That's what worries me about people like Gove saying they want more rigour, they usually mean they want things pushed back to the old ways with more drilling and rulers on desks, and if you can't keep up you're just No Good. We do lots of problem solving and investigations (and it should be cross-curricular, too), so if they can apply methods when they aren't given an explicit instruction to they should have more of an understanding of what they're doing rather than just robotically applying formulae. As I said before, there is a limit to the kind of depth primary teachers can go into, not only because they're generalists but also because the spread of ability you are faced with. In primary classes I have taught I have had children probably capable of taking GCSE and getting a passing grade, and then in the same class children that struggle with adding two two-digit numbers. I was in a Y5 class (9-10yo) the other day and had to remind the children about place value, seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
twoot posted:Labour wants to make it a specific criminal offence to assault one of Yep, UK politics gets closer to this every day: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I would certainly be interested in how this stuff varies 'by OS version' since that has nothing to do with the ALU in your computer or e.g. the precision of the floating point you're using. Language and/or compiler, maybe... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934198
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Contrary to popular belief, there's more to the national economy than just the housing market and consumer credit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
twoot posted:Labour wants to make it a specific criminal offence to assault one of Also expect to see a vast increase in pretend soldiers (sorry, the TA) starting fights on a night out because they'll now think they're untouchable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Semprini posted:Except assault was already illegal and they could simply amend the relevant act to make assaulting a soldier an aggravated offence for sentencing purposes. So this is basically pointless grandstanding, which no one should be surprised about. The trouble being the kinds of people that this sort of stunt is designed to appeal to are the same people who don't understand how anything works, and unless told that there's a specific "Don't kick seven shades out of AREBOYS law" will claim that Red Ed was giving out steel toed Koran-embossed boots with which to stamp soldiers to death with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
In my experience its more our boys doing the arse kicking as opposed to non-military people. Reference any given night in Colchester or Portsmouth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
So what is the problem with Juncker anyway? European federalism sounds like a decent idea to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Gort posted:So what is the problem with Juncker anyway? European federalism sounds like a decent idea to me. Well if you're a European federalist, there is no problem with him. It's just a problem for parties/voters who don't want to pursue further European integration. Edit: Here's a reasonable summary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-27993218 quote:FOR:
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Juncker is great and he won't tolerate Cameron's tantrums because they're directly opposed to his own ideals. All Cameron has to do to avoid this is shut the gently caress up about quitting the EU every time they don't pick out the red fruit pastilles, but since he won't do that, he's sabotaged our position until amends can be made post-tory government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Juncker is great
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:All Cameron has to do to avoid this is shut the gently caress up about quitting the EU every time they don't pick out the red fruit pastilles, but since he won't do that, he's sabotaged our position until amends can be made post-tory government. This implies that the British public won't a) re-elect the Tory government and b) vote to get out of the EU in the subsequent elections. I think there's a distinctly high chance that the British public would do both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
There's also some opposition to the current process of electing the European Commissioner, which I have to admit i agree with. The idea that Juncker has any democratic legitimacy in the UK, for example, is ridiculous; Verhofstadt has a better mandate and the ALDE parties almost got wiped out last month.Semprini posted:Except assault was already illegal and they could simply amend the relevant act to make assaulting a soldier an aggravated offence for sentencing purposes. So this is basically pointless grandstanding, which no one should be surprised about. If it's the same policy they were floating back in March, they also want to make membership of the armed forces a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. So basically, it's saying that soldiers are as oppressed as LGBT people, women, the disabled and BAME people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
I've become increasingly angry by the media talking about "the debate" about Cameron's refusal to endorse Juncker. Who the gently caress, aside from a bunch of Westminster insiders, gives the smallest imaginable poo poo about what Mr PotatoHead thinks about someone from Luxembourg? I mean, I'd say I'm more engaged with politics than most of the public and I can't bring myself to care about who sits There was a grimly-hilarious line in the Evening Standard on Thursday/Friday where they talked about Jeremy Paxman saying he was a Tory, but that he refused to comment on whether he was the 'last Conservative at the BBC'. Given the right-wing bias of the BBC in general and their cap-doffing antics whenever someone from the government has something to say, in order to think that you'd have to be either licking the glass wall of the right wing, or so deeply entrenched in Westminster you can't see the sun. Basically, gently caress politicians and gently caress political journalists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:A hardline austerity-ite whose personal code is "when it becomes serious, you have to lie" is "great" now? While it pains me to betray the red flag, yes, federalism will be necessary if the EU is to survive and I'm fundamentally in favour of the idea of an EU federal state. So we can downgrade that to "better than a hardline austerity-ite who wants to continue the status quo which demonstrably isn't going to work". If we have a serious candidate for a federalist full-reform socialist EU that I'm not aware of then I will resume complaining about the lack of immediate communism. Delusibeta posted:This implies that the British public won't a) re-elect the Tory government and b) vote to get out of the EU in the subsequent elections. I think there's a distinctly high chance that the British public would do both. I have been confidently predicting a tory defeat for a while and nothing will change this. Currently I appear to be right and I will argue that I should have been right if by some disasterous shift in approval it turns out I was wrong. And there is absolutely no way we will be allowed to leave the EU. It's an obvious bomb set to detonate on Cameron's successor, there's far too much money at stake. Even if new trade agreements are possible, the risk of impact on share prices would demand any pretense of democracy be sabotaged. kingturnip posted:I've become increasingly angry by the media talking about "the debate" about Cameron's refusal to endorse Juncker. Cameron telling the EU to get bent while committing political suicide is his current election strategy. This is the only completely serious paragraph in this reply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
TinTower posted:
So rein in the outrage a little, please. HortonNash fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I have been confidently predicting a tory defeat for a while and nothing will change this. Currently I appear to be right and I will argue that I should have been right if by some disasterous shift in approval it turns out I was wrong. Labour will grasp defeat from the jaws of victory by being utterly loving hopeless. I reckon that incumbency benefit (average of a ~5% swing to the incumbent in the final runup simply by existing), "we should give them another term to finish trying to make this country great again" type of nonsense from older voters, and finally the 50% of Kipper voters who are likely to switch back under duress of a possible Labour victory will give the Tories the win. Although in one way I want the option which is currently most favoured by the betting markets; Labour gets a majority of seats despite Conservatives getting the most votes, because watching our right wing media going into a meltdown about FPTP will give me a schadenfreude-gasm. twoot fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:No it's not, it's simply extending protected status to the characteristic of "ex-service personnel". Just because you have a protected characteristic doesn't mean you're being oppressed, afterall Christians are protected by dint of religion being a protected characteristic as are heterosexuals because sexuality is protected and no one is oppressing heterosexuals (for being heterosexual) or Christians (for being Christian). Protected characteristics aren't endangered, you can add more without taking anyone else's away, and they confer no requirement for sympathy, so you do t suddenly have to love the Squaddies. You just can't refuse a job to one on the basis he was once a squaddie, which is probably fair to be honest. Joining the military is a choice. Maybe it's not always a choice that someone feels good about, sometimes it might even have been the best choice for their situation, but it's still a choice. If you're going to make discriminatory laws about one profession then really you have to do it about all of them, and then we're just saying 'you can't deny service to anyone ever', which would be a far simpler law. All that ever comes laws like this is someone who gets into a bar fight with someone who turns out to be a squaddie ends up getting slightly more jail time than if they'd got into a fight with a non-squaddie. It's a loving atrocious proposal that rather neatly encapsulates the moral death of the modern Labour party. We can only hope it's one of their election promises that they don't keep. EDIT: twoot posted:Labour will grasp defeat from the jaws of victory by being utterly loving hopeless. I reckon that incumbency benefit (average of a ~5% swing to the incumbent in the final runup simply by existing) You think the Conservatives are going to get more than the last election O.o. We only need to see a really quite small swing from Con to Lab from 2010 for Labour to end up in government. I have no doubt they have it in them to throw it, but it'd be very impressive nonetheless. Alecto fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Alecto posted:Joining the military is a choice. Maybe it's not always a choice that someone feels good about, sometimes it might even have been the best choice for their situation, but it's still a choice. If you're going to make discriminatory laws about one profession then really you have to do it about all of them, and then we're just saying 'you can't deny service to anyone ever', which would be a far simpler law. All that ever comes laws like this is someone who gets into a bar fight with someone who turns out to be a squaddie ends up getting slightly more jail time than if they'd got into a fight with a non-squaddie. My comment has nothing to do with aggravating factors in assault charges, which I agree are a stupid idea, with regards to squaddies. And if you're talking choices, then how's about getting rid of religious protections, because religion is a choice too. The whole proposal is a plain old sop to the Are Boys brigade, and compared to what other things those kinds of people think about (foreigns and browns) it's probably a pretty benign one. Giving protection to a spurious group is fairly inconsequential anyway, as long as the groups that need protect get it. I'm a BAME disabled person, and I welcome the squaddies and just ask that they don't break poo poo in the protected club and wipe down the machines when they've finished. HortonNash fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
TinTower posted:There's also some opposition to the current process of electing the European Commissioner, which I have to admit i agree with. The idea that Juncker has any democratic legitimacy in the UK, for example, is ridiculous; Verhofstadt has a better mandate and the ALDE parties almost got wiped out last month. The irony of this is not lost on those of us up in Scotland in support of independence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Alecto posted:You think the Conservatives are going to get more than the last election O.o. We only need to see a really quite small swing from Con to Lab from 2010 for Labour to end up in government. I have no doubt they have it in them to throw it, but it'd be very impressive nonetheless. If we imagine that UKIP didn't exist then the Tories would have a fairly healthy poll lead now under the same conditions. It doesn't take much of the UKIP vote flipping to put the Tories on level with Labour, and the main Tory election strategy will be using their media links to scream bloody that a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. I don't think this election is going to be normal. twoot fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:My comment has nothing to do with aggravating factors in assault charges, which I agree are a stupid idea, with regards to squaddies. I'm all for removing religious protections for pretty much that reason, and non-christians will almost all be covered by racial discrimination laws anyway. I don't see why military personnel need special protection. I suppose it's possible that they're being denied service occasionally by businesses owned by ethnicities whose country we've recently bombed/invaded, but I don't fell any desire to force those people to serve them. twoot posted:If we imagine that UKIP didn't exist then the Tories would have a fairly healthy poll lead now under the same conditions. It doesn't take much of the UKIP vote flipping to put the Tories on level with Labour, and the main Tory election strategy will be using their media links to scream bloody that a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. None of that is a reason for why the Conservatives would get a greater share than in 2010. The UKIP voters didn't come out of nowhere, they did exist in 2010 and I don't see any of them that didn't vote Conservative then voting Conservative now. The Conservative fall in the polls also pre-dates the main of the rise of UKIP, suggesting what they lost in the main was centrists rather than fruitcakes. Yes UKIP will bleed to all the parties in the run up, overwhelmingly the Conservatives, yes Labour will bleed to the Conservatives in the last few months, but who's voting Conservative in 2015 who didn't in 2010? It'd be an extraordinary hold to not lose any net votes after 5 years of government, possibly a first ever (would have to check the data on that one to be sure). Working from that principle the chances of the Conservatives being the largest party with these boundaries is very small. Alecto fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:No it's not, it's simply extending protected status to the characteristic of "ex-service personnel". Just because you have a protected characteristic doesn't mean you're being oppressed, afterall Christians are protected by dint of religion being a protected characteristic as are heterosexuals because sexuality is protected and no one is oppressing heterosexuals (for being heterosexual) or Christians (for being Christian). Protected characteristics aren't endangered, you can add more without taking anyone else's away, and they confer no requirement for sympathy, so you do t suddenly have to love the Squaddies. You just can't refuse a job to one on the basis he was once a squaddie, which is probably fair to be honest. Has this happened, like, ever? While there's a fair criticism to how the idea of "protected characteristics" has been implemented, the Equality Act and previous legislation was designed to give a statutory avenue for people marginalised by holding a protected characteristic redress for discrimination. Adding military service to that list defeats the entire purpose of it. Besides, ex-service personnel are already protected by the military covenant, making it statutory is unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Alecto posted:I'm all for removing religious protections for pretty much that reason, and non-christians will almost all be covered by racial discrimination laws anyway. I don't see why military personnel need special protection. I suppose it's possible that they're being denied service occasionally by businesses owned by ethnicities whose country we've recently bombed/invaded, but I don't fell any desire to force those people to serve them. It's not about service though, because short of someone going round shouting about their previous employment no one can tell an ex-soldier just by looking at them. They don't need special protection (and the ones that do need it, the disabled, homeless and mentally ill, already are), but it doesn't harm anyone to give it to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:They don't need special protection (and the ones that do need it, the disabled, homeless and mentally ill, already are), but it doesn't harm anyone to give it to them. It harms the very idea of equality. To elevate such a privileged group of people in society as needing statutory redress mocks the work done to try to foster racial/sexual/etc equality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Has this happened, like, ever? Probably not. TinTower posted:While there's a fair criticism to how the idea of "protected characteristics" has been implemented, the Equality Act and previous legislation was designed to give a statutory avenue for people marginalised by holding a protected characteristic redress for discrimination. Adding military service to that list defeats the entire purpose of it. Besides, ex-service personnel are already protected by the military covenant, making it statutory is unnecessary. Seriously, how does this affect existing protections? If the ex-military characteristic is added, does it take away my BAME or disabled protections? Does it make me less special? No.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It harms the very idea of equality. To elevate such a privileged group of people in society as needing statutory redress mocks the work done to try to foster racial/sexual/etc equality. Oh do behave
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Under the Equality Act, there is a duty, especially in the public sector, to actively "eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation" and "advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations". Adding a privileged category such as ex-service members reduces the amount of resources these people can use on actually marginalised categories.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Has this happened, like, ever? No, I've heard of Soldiers being denied entry in bars/clubs though (at least in a big military group and in uniform). Probably because they'll get drunk, take off all their clothes and start a fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Has this happened, like, ever? It happened to my dad back in the 80s. He'd bought himself out of the army and applied to join the fire brigade, and was looking for a job to tide him over until he found out whether he'd been accepted or not. First interview he got was with a little firm that needed a van driver. The boss (a little bloke in his fifties) showed him round, asked him if he could drive a van and all that, and everything was going swimmingly up until he asked him where he'd worked prior. My dad told him he'd just left the army, and the guy starts telling him how it was a quiet company and they never had any trouble. This suited my dad down the ground, because he was a quiet bloke who didn't like any trouble. It was only after the third time he was told about how it quiet and untroubled the company was that he twigged what the guy was getting at. Ironically, my dad's massively critical of the military and credits it with turning him left-wing EDIT: he also finds the whole wearing the uniform outside of work thing baffling. Partly because when he was in the IRA was a thing, and partly because the average squaddie couldn't wait to put some proper clothes on and get off the camp so they could pretend they weren't in the army for a bit. Baytor fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:afterall Christians are protected by dint of religion being a protected characteristic as are heterosexuals because sexuality is protected and no one is oppressing heterosexuals (for being heterosexual) or Christians (for being Christian). 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Seriously, how does this affect existing protections? I guess it works in the same way that legalising homosexual marriage makes my heterosexual marriage less special. Is that right TinTower?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Has this happened, like, ever? Yes. Here's a couple of examples: Recruiters in uniform being refused a pub lunch. Soldier returning from Afghanistan refused service in a co-op.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:No it's not, it's simply extending protected status to the characteristic of "ex-service personnel". Just because you have a protected characteristic doesn't mean you're being oppressed, afterall Christians are protected by dint of religion being a protected characteristic as are heterosexuals because sexuality is protected and no one is oppressing heterosexuals (for being heterosexual) or Christians (for being Christian). Protected characteristics aren't endangered, you can add more without taking anyone else's away, and they confer no requirement for sympathy, so you do t suddenly have to love the Squaddies. You just can't refuse a job to one on the basis he was once a squaddie, which is probably fair to be honest. In other words, I could claim I got beaten up by a soldier for NOT being a soldier, and the soldier would be in far more trouble than otherwise. *slow claps*
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Alecto posted:
In both the 1987 and the 1992 elections, the Tories won more votes than they had the previous election (13,012,316 in 1983, 13,790,935 in 1987, 14,093,007 in 1992) So incumbent tory goverments have won more votes in the next election before, and in 1992 during the beginning of a recovering from a recession that was in their previous term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 10:08
|
|
