Search results

oh, there's nothing wrong with thinking about what it means to people, but including it in the syllabus FORCES you to take one stance, for example, I would not be able score any marks if I express my opinion that the impact of understanding superconductivity on society was next to nothing

I think trouble maker would be more appropriate :P

more girls than guys, but top 3 = guys, by a big margin too

hey... that's a different question. this one asks you the assess the reliability, not asking you to improve it

what I don't like is.. assess the impact of {fill in the blanks} on society

My teacher was worse, if you have things in the wrong order, she would not see it.

That would be great, then everyone could memorize prepared responses instead of memorising history and social science essays from the textbooks

yeah.. it's probably one mark for examples/equations for each.

it's not reliable because fertillisers are usually heterogenous(unless it's a just a single compound, without insoluble solids), and the sulphate content varies from each sample taken.

90-99.

The enrolment rate would probably have increased more had they not been making the blunder to included these new material after they removed the old. [/sarcasm]

that's not the point, the point is why are they teaching us these fancy things when we can't explain it, even in our dear professor McPhedran's concept of explaining it to our dads and gf/bf

I(f,T) = 8(Pi)hf^3/c^3 * [ e^[hf/kT] - 1]^ -1 where k is the boltzmann constant. but giving the formula explains nothing.

By that line the classical theory will predict the same. And that explanation doesn't tell you why the intensity peaks at one value then drops

so little that their effects are negligible as relativitivistic effects are in normal life

Precisely. I guess that's the major concern of the board of studies. The new syllabus attempted to put the 2 together, but did not suceed. I have trouble explaining how planck's assumption of quantised energy would solve the UV catastrophe, could you help me? "hmm, I will check the textbook...

read ND's post. The professor's formula is right but it's for something else.

you'll see it on BOS this week

Einstein said: god does not play dice with the cosmos.. so in effect he was denying quantum mechanics..

It's a matter of principle