XXXX:

1girl1boy:

[quote=\"XXXX\"]

Who knew!

You will see this accords with my sqrt(15H) for v at B in my 1 pager (eventual speed on slope for given delta y = free fall speed for same delta y), as I used g=10 and delta y = 3H/4 so your formula gives sqrt(2 x 10 x 3H/4) = sqrt(15H). Just sayin'.

So what you working out is for B not C..... :stupid: :stupid: :stupid:

Eh? I already showed that V at C has a minimum value of sqrt(10H) assuming the ball comes to rest at D [end of arrow] which I guess is at H/2 from the original diagram. You really should stop banging your head! [/quote]Question is why do you have to guess D? and then go back to get C?
You could have worked out that D is only slightly further up from B because of the \"imperfect inelastic collision\" - not all energy are fully lost from the cancelling by the normal forces.
You have earlier posted an MIT video. The theory of the working of damping is the same mechanism. As you pointed out rightly through the video; that type of damping is more substantial than friction.
I think I will use a mathematical proof by contradiction to show that there cannot be any carryover tangential velocity if you are comfortable with those methodology but possibly tomorrow.
If 1girl1boy permits....

I am leaving this topic.

Too much of :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: too.
Don't waste your time...

XXXX:

[

Ha, nice try. I note you're fond of getting other people to prove things. I think the onus is on you to prove that the ball would stop at D in PG's example. Should be easy to do if it is true. Until you demonstrate this \"collision\" effect, the rest of the debate is off.

http://i41.tinypic.com/34ih8ie.gif\">

1girl1boy,
See what I told you. These guys are tutors and they can't prove and tell you to prove, verbal argument eh?
See he did not even answer you question that the ball will make it all the way to the full height.
My foot, if that happens :rotflmao:

1girl1boy!

You’re back after our last year’s PSLE discussion one year ago.
So am I. Jesus, cool down … Don’t waste your time. Using experiments and by inference, we can argue forever here… Spend it more meaningfully.

Just relax:

I don't think there is anything to disagree with what I have said. I have merely stated that the Govt. must continue to be robust and not pander to populist policies based on the people's feedback as that is the slippery road to partisan politics that currently has made many democracies less than efficient. For these other democracies such deficiencies and inefficiencies will not cripple the country. Singapore does not have the luxury of allowing for these inefficiencies or deficiencies as another country or large Chinese, Indian or neighboring ASEAN city could come in to take over the position that Singapore occupies in a certain sector.

Interesting proposition. We have to agree that we disagree.

First in your model, there is only 3 groups of people - 1) an elite and knows it all government and civil service, 2) an ignorant majority population that is prone to populist \"wrong decision\" and needs to be led and governed to accomodate unpopular measures and 3) a minority who will follow the government as they think that the government are always right and or who aspire to be a member of the elite.

To be brunt, I wish to be no part of such a \"naive model\". Our population has come a long way from the mostly uneducated generation of our fathers' era. We are capable of sound judgement. At least I think I am, being an economist and engineer by training. We are currently blessed with pple like Ngiam Tong Dow, Prof Tommy Koh, Lim Chong Yah, Yeoh Lam Keong, Tan Cheng Bok etc who have voiced their concerns on recent policies. I am not sure which group in your model you belong to. I have faith that the average Singaporean have sound judgement and if the majority are not comfortable with some issues, we need to discuss in ernest where the issue is and address the issue. Now is it me who is naive?

It is a fallacy that democracy breeds inefficiency and we can become a Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia and go into a tailspin.

If you take a cross section snapshot of all the countries in the world and arrange them into democratic/partisan and single party, authoritarian type.
Singapore gravitates towards the group containing North Korean, China, Syria etc which is heavily populated with African countries. Whereas the partisan system government group consists of US, Japan, European countries and of course countries like Philippines and Indonesia and Malaysia bringing up the rear. But we have to take into account that Philippines got rid of Marcos 20 years ago and Indonesia is transforming from the Suharto era of cronyism. The question is which group would you like to see Singapore in?
We are fortunate that we are a miracle thanks to the PAP old guards and excellent technocrats like Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam and Ngiam Tong Dow. But that miracle may likely not last given the statistics. Definitely not with the set of policies in the recent past.

Is Singapore willing to sacrifice the insurance of checks and balances and political development for dubious sake of efficiency as claimed? The scandinavian countries are no better endowed than singapore but they are thriving with bipartisan political system. So is Israel.

If you're interested, you may refer to the research work by MIT Prof - Acemoglu on political institutions and economic growth.

Just relax:

To me the Govt. is doing what it can in the circumstances and that it does not have all of the solutions.

The Govt. must not feel unsure of itself at this time in the face of the barrage of criticisms that it has faced. It must take heart and strength from its many policies that have worked in the past and to not be afraid to be bold again. There are enough Singaporeans who believe that we will overcome the challenges that we face but that the policies must be articulated clearly and Singaporeans convinced that what the Govt. is doing is right. i think it has been repeated ad nauseum that the Govt.'s misstep was to push the White Paper through in its final form as if it was a given that the people would accept the same on the face of it. We want the Govt. to understand that it can only get the support of the people if the Govt. itself believes in the people and that enough right-thinking, passionate, honest and upright citizens will pull together to ensure Singapore's future continues to shine brightly for generations to come.

Happy CNY....

And I disagree with your opinion. Sometimes INERTIA is better than takIng too strong a position. Especially in an \"very efficient society like Singapore\" where KPI is the sole metric of performance in the civil service and things get into the extreme.

A good robust system must be responsive to feedback. In history, there are numerous examples- failure of the communist regimes and excesses of the capitalist system during the industrial revolution. It is not good if the pendulum is swung to the extreme end.

Coming back to the point, what makes the policy makers so sure about their stand when there are some many dissenting voices even from learned pple like yeoh lam keong, ngiam tong dow, lim chong yah, tan cheng bok.

Immigration may be good to drive GDP growth, but we know that this will also drive up social inequality unless there is sufficient wealth redistribution measures through appropriate tax policies. Foreign talents intake can cut both ways, hurting income and employment of locals unless it is done properly to ensure that there is complementarity with the local employment and this requires detailed planning. I dont see these safeguards in the current white paper so how can we be sure that the balance does not get tipped too far. To think that we cannot even get the minimum wage law passed when countries all around us including HongKong has it implemented.

Closer to triviality, IP programme is good but not when there are so limited places and every thing hinges on PSLE. Teach less learn more is good but not when testing gets too far outside of the content that tuition is becomes essential and places the poor at a disadvantage. DSA is good because there are some kids with other talents but not when the poorer students are disadvantaged because their parents cannot sponsor swimming programmes and piano/violin lessons and are not given the options. Aren't these cases of good intention but require tweaking and responsiveness to feedback/

We are too far behind other countries in political development that we will suffer if nothing is done about it through our naivety.

And HAPPY CNY again!!! Lets hope we are more politically developed by 2016.

Pen88n:

AWSP:

But it will be interesting to look into the computer algorithmn because implementing it requires a few passes because the placement now not only depends on the ranking of the students but also the ranking changes with respect to the handful of SAP schools. Maybe, there is some form of human intervention and \"human heuristic\" involved and I am not going to be surprised about it.

This is simple programming to have logics to sort out SAP schools COP and even affiliation COP.

On second thought, you are right. I was amending my earlier post when you posted.

Studious Alien:

Outsourcing:

Something for the experts here to ponder:


Assuming 3 students have the same 1st choice for SAP school Dunman high. All 3 meet Dhs cop requirement of 256. However, with the following scores:

A gets 255+1, B gets 254+2, C gets 253+3.

Base on merit of T-score, which I think exclude bonus points, A should be given the priority, followed by B and then C. Without even looking into the decimal marks, A should be selected ahead of B, followed by C. Am I right?

If the above scenario is truth, let us go to scenario 2. Assuming their 1st choices are Dhs.

D gets 255+1, E gets 254+3.

Again, based solely on T-score, D is standing ahead of E. Assuming D gets the last seat in Dhs when his turn comes. However, when it is E's turn to choose. E has a higher score of 257 then D's 256, after adding bonus points. The system will drop D in favour of E?

Experts, please enlighten.

Regards.

Hi,
For the first situation, it all depends on the decimal points as all three students would have 256.xxxxxx after adding the HCL points( Which will be immediately added to the original T- Score since DHS is a SAP school. )
However, I may be wrong as I'm just a student and not an expert.

I would think that MOE would implement the above by adding the HCL points when an SAP school is selected. Implementing it as a computer algorithm could be a little complex as ranking of the students now changes for the handful of SAP schools - but I guess a little recursive algorithmn could just do the work. If not some human intervention is possibly exercised.

Skyed:

Skyed:

[quote=\"TTBCOOL\"]Hi Anxious Father,

I'm curious to know what is the COP for the Top 5% pupils? Can you estimate? Thank you.

Very sorry, it is hard to tell as it depends on normal distribution - whether it is a fat or thin bell.

:thankyou: for replying.

Should be around 260 ish.[/quote]Probably answered too late; he is trying to submit his application on 28th Nov.
3% cut off is at 261; 10% cut off is 249 ( following 3rd language cut off).
When everything is uncertain, I will fall back onto straight line approximation.
It would likely lie around 257-258. That is very very rough but the best we can do.

1girl1boy:

The following is the article:
The commentary, ‘The runaway IP train’ (14 Dec), noted that only some 500 places were set aside for O-level students entering Hwa Chong Institution (HCI) and RI at JC1. We would like to point out that prior to IP, only 400 of HCI and RI’s students (at JC1) hailed from schools not offering the IP today.

But reading between the statement (in RED) it could be a \"play of words\" from MOE. We can possibly assume that before hwa chong became IP, may be another 400 could have come from the other IP schools like dunman high, river valley high, victoria, cedar, acs (maybe also SJI, catholic high, st nicholas which have just turned ip).
The affiliation effect between chinese high, nygh and HCJC could have bumpeed up the number of chinese high and nygh students to 50%. That is after my time.

I am a peaceful person

Hmmm.... going by your analysis... if you add back the demand from those from the new ip schools who still have O level batches in 2011, 2010, the number of 500 may be too low.... at most only half of the demand.

Thanks for the input. Old schoolmate?

I will also not debate on the affiliation issue - too hot to handle. But interesting that it goes clearly against the meritocracy principle of Lee Hsien Loong. Too many vested interests makes it difficult to debat rationally.

Here are 2 interesting articles from OECD research and 1 from Dr Petunia Lee on early streaming and education stratification issues:
http://www.thelittleeducationreport.com/OECD.html
http://www.oecd.org/education/preschoolandschool/39989494.pdf
http://petunialee.blogspot.sg/2012/11/singapores-royal-jelly-education.html