The schome community Go to the Schome Wiki
January 20, 2020, 05:03:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: To register for the wiki or forum email ONE sentence explaining why you want to join the Schommunity to Peter[dot]Twining[at]newcastle[dot]edu[dot]au
(Replace [dot] with . and [at] with @)
  Home Help Search Login Register  

Show Posts

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30
1  Schome / Help with website / Re: Does anyone know why i cant get inworld? on: September 08, 2008, 08:05:34 PM
Schome park was closed after funding constraints meant staffing couldn't be provided. It's being opened to those involved in two competitions, or in documenting the project. Look in the private area for more details.
2  Schome Park Programme / Media (making) / Re: WANTED: Journalists for MySchome edition 2 on: September 07, 2008, 08:19:08 PM
I don't see what you can write about apart from the competitions...

Aren't hideously long calculations relating to the size of the arc covered by a certain field of view, and the signal strength gained from this, enough? :P  :D
3  Schome / Schome discussions / Re: Learning through Web 2.0 - a user-generated course? on: August 22, 2008, 06:31:16 PM

Would search engines be one? Coz in effect, if you create a website and it picks up on it, you are creating content

Some search engines are certainly web 2.0, as they are developed collaboratively, with the algorithms being open to edit and change. I wouldn't say the main search engines are web 2.0, because the actual content- the search algorithms- aren't open for a community to make changes to.
4  Schome / Schome discussions / Re: MySchome on: August 19, 2008, 03:20:23 PM
Ethics and philosophy I kind of understand- debates about one or the other seem to spring up constantly, and inworld discussions about them are probably one of the best places (synchronous communication, a presence in the form of an avatar, and the opportunity for internet fact checking). No idea why both islands have come up with a space connection.
5  Schome Park Programme / Reflection and forward planning / Physics Phenomenon - Havok4 on: June 08, 2008, 01:56:42 PM
The direction is random (no time to figure out something better), and the speed is vaguely related to the depth of penetration, but largely also random. Happy? :P

Well that's useful. :P. Now I just have to try to work out how SL's random number generators work and use that to construct useful laws.
Actually, I think I'll leave it to someone else. :D
6  Schome Park Programme / Reflection and forward planning / Physics Phenomenon - Havok4 on: June 07, 2008, 02:01:19 PM
....could we have a spherical source of gravity?

I think the only way to mimic that would be to apply at periodic intervals impulses to all objects which pushes them towards a given point, so an object below the point would be pulled upwards, and one orbitting the point would be pushed in different directions over time, towards the centre of the orbit, so that the approximate effect would be that of gravity. If that's the best way to do it, lag would be high.

They're exactly the same - I explained them in that post. The only change is in how it decides what to throw where how fast.

The precise details of what is thrown, and how fast, were what I was experimenting on, and what I haven't looked into for Havok 4 (I already knew that interpenetration caused objects to fly apart, both from you and from my own tests). Sorry for not explaining this better. As for SSF being a product of the simulator's resolution limit, you've explained this before (for which I am thankful)- I just think that SSF is a nicer name.
7  Schome Park Programme / Reflection and forward planning / Physics Phenomenon - Havok4 on: June 06, 2008, 10:37:26 PM
The force is, in fact, totally irrelevant to anything. Not to mention that metres per second is not a unit of force.

I referred to forces because that's what I was applying directly to the cubes (or their equivalent, as, as far as I know, instantaneous acceleration is achieved by impulses, which is impossible in RL), and to metres per second because it's simpler to say "around 150m/s" than "an impulse equal to approximately the cube's mass multiplied by around 150". I apologise for being basically incorrect, but I thought it worth it for the simplicity of explanation. It probably wasn't.

In order to avoid this, a program running in front of the physics engine resolves the issue by basically throwing the penetrating objects in opposite directions really fast. This resolver changed between 1 and 4 - Havok 1 didn't actually have one, so Linden Lab wrote their own that didn't always work, and thus sometimes let sim crashes through anyway.

I recognise this, and the testing I've done was on the old physics engine rather than on Havok 4. Because of various other projects, and the fact that data collection began to be rather less interesting than other stuff, I haven't done thorough tests on the current system (though the basic principles seem at first investigation to be similar)
8  Schome Park Programme / Reflection and forward planning / Physics Phenomenon - Havok4 on: June 06, 2008, 04:11:34 PM
Topper was playing with it; a sphere placed inside two hollowed cubes 'thus generating space between the cubes of a hollow sphere, would shoot off widly. Far enough to throw me a good half a mile! :P

(I really need to stop using imperial and metric, it's getting confusing)

The odd thing is that the forces required to push objects into each other so that they do fly off seem to vary quite a bit- 150m/s seemed to be around the requisite speed in the old physics engine, but only around 50m/s was necessary for lighter cubes.
9  Schome Park Programme / Reflection and forward planning / Re: The definition of Second Life on: June 06, 2008, 04:07:02 PM
I'd say Second Life is a MMORPG, but in the same way as Conway's game of life is a game- there aren't objectives except those you set yourself, but you do try to achieve certain things in the framework of the client software and of other users.
10  Schome / Schome discussions / Re: Learning about money ... on: June 06, 2008, 04:02:37 PM
To be honest, I'm not too keen about looking at finance- all too often guides are made simplistic in order to "appeal to young people", and end up being read by few and appreciated by none. Anything which uses two sets of alliteration in a single sentence is, to be honest, not likely to be very useful. Many people may be ignorant of financial matters, but in my experience teaching simply doesn't help.

As for the use of curricula, I far prefer greater freedom in learning. There are a few areas which people need to cover, but focussing on them prevents those who already know from progressing at their own pace, and can often leave those who don't understand behind. I've spent a huge proportion of my life so far following set curricula, and I prefer the looser constraints of schome so far and of looking at things myself.
11  Schome Park Programme / Schome Park Governance / Re: Goverment watchdog non DO's expression of interest on: May 17, 2008, 04:22:19 PM
I'd have to agree that with PeterT taking more of a dictatorial role, there isn't really a need for another government, which would just be a puppet entity. In terms of the 1984 references, I can just see the new vision of schome emblazoned on the website:
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face- forever" :P
12  Schome Park Programme / Building / Re: Diner on: April 30, 2008, 05:32:44 PM
I think I managed one on the old NAGTY forums which stretched to around 3 screen heights, with a few lines of that quotes. For any who were on the forums quite a bit, guess who I was replying to.  ;)
13  Schome Park Programme / Languages / Re: Sorry guys... on: April 23, 2008, 05:35:08 PM
Not true, if the goods are not of high quality then you can hardly expect to charge a high price for it as the consumer can clearly see its not worth much, not buy it which demand and supply says forces the price down
Goods have to be of decent quality to be worth much

That's roughly what I was trying (and apparently failing  :D) to say. In education, healthcare, and luxuries, people expect to pay a certain amount of money for a certain positive effect. If something cost more and satisfied the consumer less (whether due to low quality or intrinsic nature), then the consumer wouldn't buy it. If supply costs were far more important than demand, then that wouldn't be the case.

It costs less due to the sheer economies of scale (benefits of bulk buying - you get it cheaper per unit) the governement can achieve

I'd argue that the government can provide things cheaper because they don't need to market goods, compete with other companies, make a profit, or provide money to shareholders. In many areas, these costs are greater than the money saved through competition.

Though your arguement falls on one major point, there is no evidence to suggest paying more for teaching will improve the quality of teaching

Paying teachers more encourages more people to become teachers, lowering class sizes (which has been shown to be useful in certain circumstances, especially in primary schools), and means that highly qualified and skilled people are more likely to become teachers, rather than go into another profesion where they would currently be paid more. This is supported by ERIC paper EJ403362:
"teachers who are paid more stay longer in teaching, [and] teachers with high opportunity costs... stay in teaching less long than other teachers do"
It's also described in "School Administration: Persistent Dilemmas in Preparation and Practice":
"monetary incentives...have an important effect on...recruitment, retention, and attendance", though this suggests they don't "have much of an effect on the way teachers teach".

*In this case, the cost of staying in teaching rather than going into a more highly paid profession.

As to worries about the post being aggressive, they're unfounded. A heated discussion is very different from an aggressive one  :P.

EDIT-Explo: sorted the quote formatting out
EDIT-Marko: sorted some more formatting.
14  Schome Park Programme / Languages / Re: Sorry guys... on: April 22, 2008, 09:04:06 PM
Taxation means that you have less money to spend and thus less luxeries
or funding gets diverted from elsewhere (usually the solution, do you want to explain a tax hike to the public when a general election could be soon?)

last 3 week of term would have been better, virtually nothing happens then with regard to exams

Personally, I'd prefer to be well-educated and in good health than have luxuries. Anyway, in a privatised system where what the consumer will pay is more important than what something costs to provide (which, as profit is as important as it is, is common), it would be expected that things providing equal happiness will cost equal amounts. As education and healthcare cost less as part of tax than the same costs in a privatised system, it can therefore be concluded that for a given increase in happiness we are paying less by paying tax than we would by paying for luxuries.

What is it with any views that could be seen as vaguely left and tofu?

Well I for one am not going to let the right steal the symbol of tofu. :P
(Incidentally, that's the section on fuel use in the AQA Chemistry textbook, isn't it? I think it's C1, but I'm not sure)
15  Schome Park Programme / Languages / Re: Sorry guys... on: April 22, 2008, 08:37:27 PM
Yes but the money has to come from somewhere

Teachers are public sector (non independants that is)

so tax payers will foot the bill for a rise

Another point regardless or whether they should strike or not, is it responsible to do this when there are exams coming up?

In terms of money coming from somewhere, I'm not quite sure what's so bad about taxation. Yes, individuals lose money, but they gain through better healthcare, education, policing etc. As a sandal-wearing, tofu-munching, Guardian-reading lefty loony I'm slightly biased, but surely we, as students and exempt from most tax, should be happy if tax is increased to pay teachers more?

In terms of it being a responsible time to strike, I'd have thought GCSE revision is when teachers are needed least, because the syllabus has been taught. I'd certainly prefer strike action now to about a term ago (life is so much more pleasant without tech coursework deadlines)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!