"Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
Is it really not possible, even by plugin, to use absolute and relative numbering at the same time? While being able to switch is great, having both at the same time (in the form of a second column next to absolute numbers) would be amazing.
I have more than enough horizontal space, and this would be a great way to use it.
It is technically possible. There is a plugin from before +relativenumber was a feature, called RltvNmbr[1]. It's a bit broken (doesn't update the line numbers very smoothly) but it displays the relative numbering side-by-side with the absolute numbering.
I just don't use relative numbering enough to warrant trying to re-write it. Maybe you do?
If this is successful it would be one of the best things to happen to science in decades. It is ridiculous that open scientific collaboration is hindered by paywalls.
The sad fact of the matter is that it probably wouldn't affect scientific collaboration. A large fraction of scientific research is done at universities that generally have subscriptions to these journals (albeit at a relatively large price).
What's more appalling is that you[1], as the taxpayer who funded this research can't see the results. And don't let the companies that oppose the FRPAA flim-flam you: the published papers are the real results of the research, not the progress reports that get filed with the funding agencies. I'm not going to deny that journals add some value, but how much they add and whether subscriptions and one-off $40/article fees are the best way to recoup those values is something about which I'm deeply skeptical.
[1] I'm a grad student at one of those aforementioned universities. It's a hassle for me when I'm not on campus, but not impossible
Silly article. It offers no proof to their statement that students learning through Khan are on a "wild goose chase" for correct answers except for a 1973(!) paper. I believe it to be the opposite, the chances of you just guessing 10 correct answers in a row is ridiculously low. It encourages you to make sure every answer is correct before submitting it, otherwise you would have to start over again.
It doesn't address the issue that each student can learn at their own pace, which is the main part of Khan. It ignores people that had success with KA except for a quick mention. It also ignores the fact that Khan is a great teacher, and with this model anyone can learn from the best teacher there is.
It ignores the tools it gives teachers to see the progress of the students. It ignores the fact that teachers can give personalized assistance. it ignores that more advanced students can teach less advanced students.
It dismisses the achievement system while every single educator knows they work and have worked since the first teacher decided to give students gold stars. It only mentions it in passing to say that it doesn't work without offering any proof.
The truth is: There are a LOT of people who have their own idea of what the "perfect" teaching system is. When something comes around that challenges that, as with everything else, those people will try to say that it won't work. Let it be field tested, let's see the results. THEN we can say if it works or not.
EDIT: I forgot to say that it also ignores the fact that students can only advance once they completely mastered the subject. It doesn't mention that it puts the power in the hands of the students and let them take control of their own education by deciding which classes to take and when to take them. And as someone mentions, the author is also biased.
> I believe it to be the opposite, the chances of you just guessing 10 correct answers in a row is ridiculously low. It encourages you to make sure every answer is correct before submitting it, otherwise you would have to start over again.
That's not the point. You can learn to solve ten math problems in a row by simply memorizing algorithms to solve the problems, rather than learning the underlying concepts. The author criticizes Khan Academy because its methods emphasize the algorithms, rather than the concepts.
There's a good bit of research suggesting that the ability to solve quantitative problems isn't necessarily related to underlying qualitative understanding. Students could benefit from teaching methods designed to promote understanding.
The article is pointing out that the Khan Academy is very similar to previous pedagogical attempts. You are also not presenting any evidence that the ways in which it differs are significant. I fail to see why you can claim that the article, which raises a valid objection to the Khan Academy, is silly, but your own arguments, also without data to back them up, are not.
But yes, let us get more data, that I can always get behind.
This reminds me of a paper I read a few days ago. Melatonin, when bonded to MT1 receptors, can prevent cell death from neurodegenerative such as Huntingtons and Alzheimer's. The melatonin prevents the mitochondria from releasing an enzyme which lights the fuse on cell death mechanisms. Very, very cool.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...