I think rigor is imposing to people when you try and combine it with high-level theory. The concepts in that article are built on top of so much theory, that to explain it all would require the equivalent of a course on analysis.
But if you supply rigor in an appropriate dose, it can really be eye-opening. For me, calculus was a nightmare because none of the terms used were well defined. I was just presented with all this highly developed theory and had to take much of it on faith. And I couldn't enjoy nor care about something I felt was just forced memorization of computational techniques for solving contrived problems. But if they'd done it rigorously, the classes would have begun with questions like "what is distance?", then answering that question would lead into "what is a space?", etc. This is rigor and I feel like exploring these types of questions is a lot more intuitive than forcing kids to memorize how to compute the volume of some cone.
I don't see much use out of either other than as a line on a resume. With that in mind, I'd choose IEEE - more well known than ACM. (And if you're getting the type of membership providing access to research libraries, IEEE will cover a far broader range of topics than ACM).
The comment that the link leads directly to is devastatingly good. If you don't want to do a lot of reading, just skip the main article and read that comment.
No. I think SAT score would be correlated with IQ, but not too strongly on its own (many not particularly brilliant people get high scores by preparing excessively). I think measured IQ and family income would, together, be quite good predictors of SAT performance. But what leads me to believe that also leads me to believe that predictive strength would tail off as family income (or IQ) got extremely high. E.g., for very smart people, the SAT is probably not a challenge, so their score wouldn't benefit much from 10 more IQ points. Similarly, very rich people can't use their money to do much for their kids SAT score than those making $150k / year can.
But presumably average score for each group is used. I wouldn't think the difference in average score between the 200k group, and the 220k+ group would be great enough to cause that (and I don't think there'd be too many data points the farther you went out to have much influence on the average).
Unless they were using some type of weighted average for each interval and then skewed the $200k group by adding its weighted average in with the intervals beyond it, then averaging that. Which wouldn't surprise me given the appearance of the chart.
The only wierd thing to me is that the strength of the relationship appears to gradually weaken as income gets higher (which would make sense), but then sort of jumps up at $200,000. That's surprising, I would have thought the highest would have been around the upper middle class - comfortable enough to be able to dedicate oneself to school, but poor enough to still be hungry.
I'd like to see the relationship between extremely high SAT scores (e.g., 99th percentile) and family income. I suspect middle to upper-middle class students would proportionately outnumber the rich.
Yeah, good point, my advice is not particularly general. I guess I should also add, I've found most things not particularly enjoyable until I get a minimum level of skill. So if your a complete beginner jumping in for 10 hrs at a time might be a little much.
EDIT: ugh, this is not working right. I can't figure out how to get the asterisks to not italicize ( I was trying to show an example).
Variables have block scope, but storage duration need not. If you return a pointer to a block of memory allocated within a function, that is not undefined behaviour. If you return a pointer an array declared within the function that is (if you return a pointer to a static array declared within a function that is not). That's the contrast I was trying to point out.
In my experience, LONG practice sessions are much more effective than short ones. E.g., I've found I get far more out of one 8 hour practice session than four 2 hour sessions.
I'd also say you need to do it intensely - you've got to be into and "feeling" what you're doing. If you're just sitting there waiting for your 3 hours of "practice time" to elapse so you can go chill you may as well just not do it.
I strongly recommend you find a trusted friend/family member/mentor/etc. to talk with about your concerns. It's really difficult to get a handle on a situation as complex as what you've described without knowing you personally. So I can't really say anymore than that.
Also... Arrays have block scope. So if you have a function that declares an array, operates on it, then returns a pointer to that array, it's undefined behaviour.
This was very confusing to me when I learned C because it's one of those undefined behaviours that appears to work properly in trivial programs (at least with the compiler I was using).
But most people, IMO, do not think deeply about morality, they just mimic others around them.
I guess that would still apply to what you said though - it would take a very complex algorithm to come up with the optimal set of beliefs to minimize resistance you'd meet from others in the society you live in (I believe such an algorithm would not be unlike what goes on in the minds of many people).
I highly, highly recommend the book "Programming from the Ground Up". It is freely available, and full of small asm sample programs to try out yourself.
With the exception of solving integrals, diff eqs, or other CAS things, is Wolfram Alpha particularly useful when you'd have google at your disposal? I would think no, but that's just my experience.
"the Supreme Court, in its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger ruled that diversity is a permissible objective for the use of racial preferences in admissions"
But if you supply rigor in an appropriate dose, it can really be eye-opening. For me, calculus was a nightmare because none of the terms used were well defined. I was just presented with all this highly developed theory and had to take much of it on faith. And I couldn't enjoy nor care about something I felt was just forced memorization of computational techniques for solving contrived problems. But if they'd done it rigorously, the classes would have begun with questions like "what is distance?", then answering that question would lead into "what is a space?", etc. This is rigor and I feel like exploring these types of questions is a lot more intuitive than forcing kids to memorize how to compute the volume of some cone.