Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

10-Year-Old Boy Discovers 600-Million-Year-Old Supernova

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the did-you-see-that? dept.

Space 214

minty3 writes "Nathan Gray, 10, from Nova Scotia, Canada, recently discovered a 600-million-year-old supernova in the galaxy PGC 61330, which lies in the constellation of Draco – beating his sister by 33 days as the youngest person to find a supernova. Gray made the discovery on October 30 while looking at astronomical images taken by Dave Lane, who runs the Abbey Ridge Observatory (ARO) in Nova Scotia. The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada confirmed Gray's discovery, but astronomers with the International Astronomical Union say they will need to use a larger telescope to make the finding official."

cancel ×

214 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A great example for kids (4, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45328313)

I hope this gets shared widely in school science classes and among the home schooled.

Science is open to people of all ages.

Re:A great example for kids (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328341)

I hope this gets shared widely in school science classes and among the home schooled.

In my experience most of the home-drooled kids get only a very basic bit of science because it's likely to interfere with the wacky creationist/survivalist ideas of their parents.

Re:A great example for kids (5, Interesting)

billakay (1607221) | about a year ago | (#45328421)

I hope this gets shared widely in school science classes and among the home schooled.

In my experience most of the home-drooled kids get only a very basic bit of science because it's likely to interfere with the wacky creationist/survivalist ideas of their parents.

This is a vile stereotype that doesn't deserve to be propagated. I say this as a home-schooled person currently enrolled in a Computer Science Ph.D. program at a well known state university.

Re:A great example for kids (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328469)

I hope this gets shared widely in school science classes and among the home schooled.

In my experience most of the home-drooled kids get only a very basic bit of science because it's likely to interfere with the wacky creationist/survivalist ideas of their parents.

This is a vile stereotype that doesn't deserve to be propagated. I say this as a home-schooled person currently enrolled in a Computer Science Ph.D. program at a well known state university.

Nooo, nooo, nooo.

Stereotypes propagated by our oh-soooo-wonderful teacher's-union-controlled "official" education system are perfectly acceptable.

Re:A great example for kids (3, Insightful)

krelvin (771644) | about a year ago | (#45328513)

Perhaps you are more the exception than the rule here?

Re:A great example for kids (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#45328623)

Nope. It is shown that home schooled and private school kids get a far higher education overall. Now the people that are interested in control whine that they dont get the proper exposure to liberal/conservative "values" but that is nothing but raging by the extremists on both sides. Parents do tend to cherry pick, but that flushes out when they hit college.

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328653)

It has been shown where? You provide exactly zero proof to back up your assertion.

Re:A great example for kids (5, Informative)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#45328779)

says the coward with no proof backing his claim?

http://blog.writeathome.com/index.php/2012/03/homeschool-vs-public-school-statistics-infographic/ [writeathome.com]

Take a look at the info graph - yes it is sourced.

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328827)

>yes it is sourced

Oh O.K, strong evidence. I'll just go check those sources and...hey, wait a minute, those are all homeschooling websites and CNN! Those aren't proper sources at all!

Clearly you're trying to trick me with your superior home-schooled intellect (which doesn't extend to understanding the concept of a reliable source or peer-reviewed data. Strange, that.)

Re:A great example for kids (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#45329069)

CNN?? Or would you prefer Fox News instead.

Come on back when you mention a CREDIBLE news source because you mentioned an entertainment tv network. CNN has not had news on it for over a decade now.

  Differences: The rate of public school students entering college after graduation has fluctuated between 62-67% in recent years. A variety of factors come into play which result in that relatively low matriculation rate. The drop out rate in public schools tends to have a negative effect on matriculation data.

In private schools the matriculation rate is typically in the 90-95% range. Minority students who attend a private high school are more likely to attend college than minority students who attend public school according to NCES data. The reason why most private high schools do well in this area is that they are generally selective. They will only accept students who can do the work.

I will leave it up to you to take classes on how to use google to find further information. Check your local high school about adult remedial classes and computer useage.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year ago | (#45329329)

If it's on the Internet, it's true. Didn't you learn anything in public school?

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329687)

hey, wait a minute, those are all homeschooling websites and CNN! Those aren't proper sources at all!

A citation was requested and a citation was provided. If you want to question the credibility of the sources, then you should provide citations of your own, because now it is you making an assertive claim.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#45329735)

I wasnt even a part of this thread, im just sick of cowards calling out for sources, not providing any and then when a source is provided, its ignored. well you know what? those people will never get it anyway, they have in their minds what they want to believe and thats all there is to it.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about a year ago | (#45329369)

blog.writeathome.com

seems legit

Re:A great example for kids (5, Interesting)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#45329613)

It's only been reported that a higher percentage of people who are homeschooled graduate from college compared to their non-homeschooled counterparts (66.7% home schooled versus 57.5% non-homeschooled)(source: US News and World Report). Of course this only looks at homeschooled people who were accepted into college and does not take into account the entire homeschooled population. The statistics that pro-homeschool sites tout are the ones that have qualifiers in them like the us news statistic that only looked at homeschoolers that attend college. I haven't found the percentage of homeschool students that continue their education after high school equivalency.

It makes sense that homeschool do better than the overall population of public school. After all, only 2.9% (2009) of the school age children were home schooled. Their household tended to have both parents and at least one of them being a professional in a field and more than half of the homeschooled had a household income greater than $50,000/yr (2003). The traditional educational system is "burdened" by students with economic, mental or social disadvantages not found in large numbers in the homeschool population. If I limit the population of non-homeschooled students to similar demographics within the ed fast facts, I get close to the same completion percentages as the homeschooled population.

In other words: Homeschooling in of itself will not magically make you a better student. However if you were homeschooled then the odds are greater that you come from a two parent household that values an education which makes you more likely to succeed at least academically.

Re:A great example for kids (2)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#45328523)

I think you are confusing self-directed post graduate study with the K-12 home schooling sometimes abused to keep kids away from mainstream curriculum. Not all home schooling is abused this way. But often enough that its a stereotype I'd hate to mark a kid with unless he/she was exceptional* in some way to demonstrate accomplishments beyond the mean.

*Yeah, I know. All our kids are above average.

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328545)

Sounds fake. If it were well-known why not just tell us? Why be so vague?

Re:A great example for kids (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328589)

Because who cares? Why not just ask what color underwear he's wearing as well?

Re:A great example for kids (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328675)

I care because being a Ph.D at a third-rate college is not really an accomplishment. Which is likely the case here otherwise they wouldn't be so intentionally vague.

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328713)

I hope this gets shared widely in school science classes and among the home schooled.

In my experience most of the home-drooled kids get only a very basic bit of science because it's likely to interfere with the wacky creationist/survivalist ideas of their parents.

This is a vile stereotype that doesn't deserve to be propagated. I say this as a home-schooled person currently enrolled in a Computer Science Ph.D. program at a well known state university.

You may find yourself the exception to the norm, but I'm willing to bet that statistics might prove you wrong with the home-schooled demographic, as the creationist/survivalist/religious zealots certainly appear to make up a disproportionate amount of those against public schooling (as they are against most other forms of government-sponsored programs).

Re:A great example for kids (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#45328887)

> make up a disproportionate amount of those against public schooling

However you don't have to be against public schooling to be against sending your own kids to public schools in your area. I would wager many people who home school are in favor of public education, just not what is available to them.

My own sister does this, and isn't any sort of creationist or religious zealot. Instead she says things like "He can't be mainstreamed"; which I am still trying to decipher the meaning of, but I am sure has nothing to do with creationism since she has never expressed a religious thought in the years I have known her, and, he doesn't have any familiarity with Bible stories to the point I had to explain some to him so he would understand other cultural references*

(* The chapter title in some video game he was talking about was "Fratricide" and he was shocked I knew the word; and I was shocked he didn't know the story of Caine and Able, afterall, its only one of the most referenced stories in western litterature )

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328913)

But is he perhaps able to spell Cain and Abel?

Re:A great example for kids (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45329457)

Are you, in the original Hebrew, and guarantee that your preferred modern rendering accurately reproduces the implied vowel marks not present in the original texts? Of varied transliterations therefrom, any one is about as good as the others, so long as general meaning is conveyed (which, in this case, it apparently was).

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329615)

Yeah but on the other hand since ancient Hebrew didn't possess vowels, why on Earth would I take something which in English we could transcribe as CN and add not only those vowels that we know should be there (transcribed in English for centuries as AI) and an extra E on the end? I wouldn't, I'd use the spelling which everyone else has used for many centuries. As for Abel, the same applies. "TheCarp" spelled it "Able" because he thinks it should be spelt the same way as the word in English. Which is even less sensibly spelled than Abel is. And, again, Abel is a spelling that has been used for centuries and is, therefore, at the very least the de facto standard in English.

The mistake he made is indefensible on an intellectual basis, and we all know it. A far more sensible defence would have been that when typing quickly all of us tend to misspell words, and "Caine" is much more common in English than "Cain", while "Able" is much more common than "Abel". Alas, you chose the intellectually indefensible defence rather than the sensible. I only hope TheCarp would have chosen the sensible.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#45329777)

> mistake he made is indefensible on an intellectual basis, and we all know it.
> A far more sensible defence would have been that when typing quickly all of us tend to misspell
> words

I go with the affirmative defence. Yes I did it, and I don't really give a shit either way. Unless you are a compiler, I have better things to do than worry about minor deviations in my spelling from the standards.

I worry about it about as much as a billionaire might worry if you told him "hey don't park there, its a $50 ticket".

Re:A great example for kids (2)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#45329485)

Dyslexics of the world, untie!

Re:A great example for kids (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#45329701)

The chapter title in some video game he was talking about was "Fratricide" and he was shocked I knew the word; and I was shocked he didn't know the story of Caine and Able, afterall, its only one of the most referenced stories in western litterature

I could have worked out what fratricide meant when I was 11 or 12, but until just now I wouldn't have been able to recall the story of Cain and Abel. I think I've read it before, and could recall some of it with your prompt, but I don't know the motive or any detail.

I think that's at least average, if not better, for someone who grew up in England. There are very few Bible stories most people are aware of: Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Nativity, Death of Jesus. Looking up "10 well known Bible stories" suggests David and Goliath, but I couldn't tell you more than that David is smaller than the giant Goliath, but kills him through skill rather than force (a slingshot?). I don't know where I picked that up from -- probably through understanding the situation the phrase was used to describe, and inferring the meaning of the metaphor.

I have a bible on my shelf of books to read (also a quran), since I think it should be interesting, but it's been about 10 years and I've not started it yet...

(And I went to what was technically a religious school! But that's "religious" meaning "stick a sign outside and only let in the posh/rich kids".)

"Can't be mainstreamed" sounds like a euphemism.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about a year ago | (#45329427)

Anecdotal Supporting Evidence:

I know two parents each homeschooling their kids. Both believe the universe is 6,000 years old. I highly doubt that the discovery of a "600 million year old" supernova will make it to them.

There's a few homeschoolers just trying to provide a better education to their kids, because public schools (can) suck, and because they can't afford private schools and stay-at-home-moms can participate in collectives. The rest? Absolute nutbags, afraid that their kids will learn about Jonnhy's Two Dads instead of how Jesus ride a dinosaur. WRAA! Must. Defeat. Human. Secular. Agenda!

Re:A great example for kids (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#45329503)

the problem is the facts dont back your claim. for example, not ALL black people are bad and commit crimes, statistically they commit more crimes than other yes but even then its still a small minority of them who commit crimes, yet that is what is generally reported

same is true here, the information is easy to find, the majority of home schooled kids are not running around thinking the world is only 6K years old, its just those are the ones we see in the news.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about a year ago | (#45329761)

Hence the word anecdotal to start my post.

My experience is 100% nutbag, 0% quality-education-providing parent.

Re:A great example for kids (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328839)

I say this as a home-schooled person currently enrolled in a Computer Science Ph.D. program at a well known state university.

I know a home-schooled person who's a grad student in computer science at a state university. He's a creationist and he insisted on his child being born in his apartment and not at the hospital. So I don't think being a wacky creationist/survivalist is mutually exclusive from being a grad student in computer science.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

gmclapp (2834681) | about a year ago | (#45328965)

I agree as a home-schooled person currently employed as a degree holding mechanical engineer.

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329023)

[...] well known state university [...]

WKSU? Never heard of it.

Re:A great example for kids (2)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#45329043)

I think it varies greatly depending on the area. Here in Seattle the local school system is very supportive of the home school families, providing suggested curricula, phys ed classes, and making available space where the home-school students can socialize. In Louisiana, where my niece lives, pretty much all the home school families are ultra-conservative religious fanatics who think even the pitiful LA school system is too liberal. Dunno the situation in Nova Scotia.

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328463)

I hope this gets shared widely in school science classes and among the home schooled.

In my experience most of the home-drooled kids get only a very basic bit of science because it's likely to interfere with the wacky creationist/survivalist ideas of their parents.

You don't have "most" quantified, so I am not sure what percentage you mean are wacky creationists, but my next door neighbor growing up was home-schooled until she started college. She started college at age 14 and graduated with high honors when she was 17. She is now a very accomplished statistician living the dream, complete with her very own Mustang GT500.

It's only anecdotal evidence, but this suggests home-schooled kids may not be deprived of science, afterall.

Re:A great example for kids (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328549)

90% of the home schooled kids that I run across are introverted asocial assholes with whack-a-doodle right wing parents who don't dare let the kids be exposed to real education for fear they will learn enough to debunk their magic-fairy-universe-creator myths.

Re:A great example for kids (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year ago | (#45329377)

Got you beat, 100% of the home schooled kids I know are completely normal well adjusted people with no wacky parents. I have a decent sampling, five from one family, three of which are attending university now, belong to the guy in the cubical next to me who insisted on home schooling because of the public school systems race to the bottom in terms of increasing class sizes combined with the no-one left behind mentality. He wanted to make sure his kids weren't getting pulled down because teachers in public school have to cater to the lowest common detonator. Which by the way is a huge issue because if you're stuck in a class with a bunch of morons, in most cases, you're stuck with them until you graduate high school, meaning they will always be pulling you and the rest of the class down.

I've also mentored thirteen students, four of which were home schooled, as part of the co-op program my company participates in with two separate universities. In all four cases I couldn't tell the students were home schooled until they, or I, specifically brought it up. In most cases they were much brighter and better adjusted socially then the other nine public school students I've mentored.

The first time I had a co-op student tell me they were home schooled I was shocked because they were such a polar opposite to what I had always thought a home schooled person to be. This is a case where a harmful stereotype is wrong and can have very negative implications to anyone willing to admit they were home schooled. Before mentoring in a co-op interview if someone mentioned they were home schooled I would have put a mental black mark on them and if it came down to them and someone equally qualified, I would have gone with the other candidate.

I suspect there are several reasons the stereotype is propagated the least of which is because the majority of the population attended public school and
  1. a) doesn't want to admit they didn't receive top quality education making them not perfect so it's easy to spread the rumor about the guy you've never met who isn't as good as you and,
  2. b) is ignorant of what is actually required to be allowed to home school your kids.

The program, at least where I live, is very rigorous, regulated and takes a lot of dedication and discipline on the part of the parents and involves groups of parents that get together with a common goal to educate their kids, rather than what is commonly believed where one set of parents isolates their kid in a dark room brain washing them with religious/political doctrine. The truth is the process heavily involves several families, and requires the participation of the parents as much as the students.

So you've met *one* person who was home schooled and they were an asshole. That's probably more because they were just an asshole to begin with. I attended 12 public schools in 13 years in England, Canada and the US, public school is filled with assholes and plenty more people who were/are poorly socialized, how many home school kids do you read about walking in to a school and shooting everyone they see, and yet we apply that label to home schooled people because you met *one* bad egg. How does that even make sense!?

I'd also be willing to bet you know many more home schooled people, but they wouldn't out right tell you they were because of the negative connotations that come along with being labeled "home schooled".

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329423)

...because teachers in public school have to cater to the lowest common detonator.

Yeah, it's a pretty volatile situation.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#45328677)

I went to public school but the bulk of any real education came from my father at home. He had me learning algebra and geometry in grade school, I was also experimenting in electronics and using a soldering iron (OH THE HORROR) at age 8. Learning the maths needed to figure out transistor gain, analog electronic circuit design and digital electronics. I knew Binary, Octal, Decimal, and Hexadecimal and could covert between them in my head at age 12.

And my father knew nothing at all about electronics and computers, but he knew how to get the books I needed and how to research answers.

Today I can run Assembly, C and C++ code in my head, I can out code review even a PHD in CS as I can process it as I am reading the code and spot errors they even miss.

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328763)

Good code should be readable, like a book.

So review should be literally "read the code", and mistakes will jump out ate you just like the "typo" there did.

I once entered a code review comment of "This is wrong" on an if declaration, because I could read it and immediately knew it always resolved to true. I couldn't tell what the right value was, but I knew that code was wrong.

Re:A great example for kids (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45328833)

I can out code review even a PHD in CS

Well, in fairness, by the time someone has a PhD in CS they are so removed from things like code reviews it's not funny.

Some of the worst programmers I've met in my life had a Masters in CS. Some of them couldn't really program at all, which often made me wonder how the hell they'd gotten a Masters degree. Because they'd clearly never learned some of the stuff I'd have expected them to have learned in an undergraduate degree.

At a certain point, CS has nothing at all to do with writing code, and is more like abstract math. And I've known several CS professors who hadn't written any code in literally years, and more than a few who never actually wrote code professionally.

Don't underestimate the extent to which the more letters after your name, the more your knowledge is limited to the purely theoretical or only your research area. That's not to say everybody with an MSc or PhD in CS suffers from this -- but I know I'm not alone in having seen examples of people who do.

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329599)

From my (admittedly limited) experience in professionals and programming, it seems to be best to stop at a BS for Computer Science if you want to be a programmer. The only exception I think is if you go on to a very programming oriented graduate degree. After a BS, the curriculum in most programs I looked into focus far too much on theory than code. I agree entirely with your statement about a PhD in CS. In fact, looking back on my CS classes, I would much rather have had professors with a BS and 10+ years experience programming than a PhD with no professional programming experience.

Re:A great example for kids (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328885)

you sound like a fantastically brainy fellow. i'd imagine that with an intellect like that you must be doing extremely well for yourself! because i'd hate to think that actually you were just another deluded egotist! did you want to be my friend?

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329019)

No, nobody wants to be your friend, go back under your rock.

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329309)

but there aren't any geniuses who can "run assembly in their head" under my rock :( i was looking forward to asking him to compile c++ routines down to i7 assembly and run them in front of me

Re:A great example for kids (0)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year ago | (#45328819)

with her very own Mustang GT500

Poor girl can't be living too much of the dream if that's what she's driving.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

Dzimas (547818) | about a year ago | (#45328577)

While some parents home school for worrying religious reasons, I know others who do it because their extremely intelligent children didn't fit in and were bullied at school, or because they school refused to acknowledge cross-gender behavior (Bobby likes dolls, or Suzie likes dump trucks), or because the school was so busy catering to dim-witted dullards that it neglected the problem-free smart kids and left them unchallenged for years on end.

Re:A great example for kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328593)

Ahh a public school moron posting I see. you need to try harder at your trolling, maybe if you could read you might actually be able to construct a coherent though that would be witty as well.

Why dont you get a bit more education in grammar and comprehension and come on back :-)

Re:A great example for kids (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45328659)

In my experience most of the home-drooled kids get only a very basic bit of science because it's likely to interfere with the wacky creationist/survivalist ideas of their parents.

I think a much bigger problem is that if you are a kid interested in science you might be labeled as a loser nerd by other kids.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45329005)

I think a much bigger problem is that if you are a kid interested in science you might be labeled as a loser nerd by other kids.

And, has this changed in the last 30-50 years, and is it related to home-schooling?

The answer is, 'no' on both counts.

So I'm not sure what you're saying -- home schooling prevents bullying of nerds by taking other children out of the equation?

Home schooled is better (2)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#45328741)

From the Wikipedia article on Home Schooling:

.) "A study conducted in 2008 found that 11,739 home schooled students, on average, scored 37 percentile points above public school students on standardized achievement tests."

This quote, with references, is cited among many studies that note essentially the same thing.

What's that? Did you say something about socialization? From the same article:

.)"[The researchers] later found, using the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, "while half of the conventionally schooled children scored at or below the 50th percentile (in self-concept), only 10.3% of the home-schooling children did so."

I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear your next question: are you talking about costs? From the same article:

)."[...] home educators expend only an average of $500–$600 a year on each student, in comparison to $9,000-$10,000 for each public school student in the United States, which suggests home-educated students would be especially dominant on tests if afforded access to an equal commitment of tax-funded educational resources."

The take-away is that home schooling will give your kids a better chance of having a successful life. Much, *much* better, based on the scores. Another way to think about it is that public schooling impedes and retards your child's development, and makes them less fit to compete in the arena of life.

(Pro tip: ten seconds of research will save you 5 minutes of posting, and as a side-effect prevent you from putting your foot in your mouth.)

Re:Home schooled is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329219)

Home school children probably succeed more so because of parent involvement than homeschooling itself. Comparing home schooled children to all of public schools is disingenuous, the demographics won't even come close to aligning.

You're guessing (2)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#45329535)

Home school children probably succeed more so because of parent involvement than homeschooling itself. Comparing home schooled children to all of public schools is disingenuous, the demographics won't even come close to aligning.

You're guessing.

We (scientists, that is) have two situations completely described, with strong objective evidence that one is better.

You (anonymous coward on the internet) suggest that it "might" be due to something that furthers your own beliefs.

Cite some studies or shut up. If you think "more studies need to happen", then that's a weak argument: since the original study included almost 12,000 test cases, you'll need a much larger study to show that your assertion is valid, but wasn't shown in the original study due to random chance. Let us know when you're done.

In the mean time, feel free to send your kid to public school. Mine is home-schooled and I want to give him as much of an edge as possible.

No, really: send your kid to public school, do us all a favor. This problem will sort itself out in a generation or two.

Re:Home schooled is better (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#45329455)

So is home-schooling better or do public schools suck? (Or both...)

Re:Home schooled is better (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45329589)

The $500-$600 expenditure neglects the cost of having a stay-at-home parent not earning a paycheck in the time taken to homeschool kids. This is no problem for upper-middle-class couples where a single professional salary can support a nice household. People in the lower quintiles of income, however (who suffer most from the shoddy quality of public education), don't have a spare $20k/year in excess salary they can give up to raise the kids. Now, perhaps an ideal solution would be a national $30/hr minimum wage (and move to reduced work weeks), so everyone has the time to raise their kids with extensive parental involvement. However, until you fix the fact that people working 80+ hour weeks on existing minimum wages are often still fairly impoverished (and lacking the resources to be a full-time teacher), tossing an extra $9-10k at upper-middle-income families to ditch the public school system (leaving only the most underserved and vulnerable population in the gutted remains) isn't an appealing solution.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about a year ago | (#45328769)

You're either trolling or do not know many home schooled people. What you describe is a minuscule fraction of them.

Re:A great example for kids (1)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#45329153)

Depends on where you are. Seattle? Great home school movement, plenty of support groups, lots of support from the public school system even. Louisiana? By all the gods you don't even want to talk to most of those people. My niece looked at home schooling her kids, since the public school system is so bad there, but just being Latina was enough to make the home school groups treat her like crap.

Re:A great example for kids (-1)

qubezz (520511) | about a year ago | (#45328471)

Daddy lets you look at a slideshow, spot the magically appearing star. Boy genius!

Big Bang (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year ago | (#45328325)

This sounds like something Leonard Hofstadter's family would do for Christmas. The sister's going to have a terrible "Why did you always have to out do me as kids!!?" Complex.

Re:Big Bang (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45328851)

Carefull... or you might get a rant-on from an AC who's never heard of the show [slashdot.org] .

Re:Big Bang (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329653)

I can't believe my little comment cause that thread. :(

Recently discovered almost 3 years ago (0)

sayno2quat (1651749) | about a year ago | (#45328355)

Published on Tue Jan 04 2011

Cool story. Not exactly recent, though.

Re:Recently discovered almost 3 years ago (2)

sayno2quat (1651749) | about a year ago | (#45328411)

I take that back. Slashdot editors simply linked to the old story of his sister, but did so in such a way that I thought the first article was the article that was summarized. The second link is the actual story.

Re:Recently discovered almost 3 years ago (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45328451)

The 2011 story was about his sister, the more recent story (from today) was about him. And both mention the father as the one who really did the work.

Re:Recently discovered almost 3 years ago (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year ago | (#45328607)

If you read the story you'll see that in both cases, the kids spotted the candidate and their dad did the work to verify it. Without them spotting the change in brightness there wouldn't have been anything for him to do. Thus, they get credit for finding them and he gets credit for verifying the discovery.

Re:Recently discovered almost 3 years ago (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#45328929)

Without his dad having access to a very large telescope, he would not have the images to study. It's not like this is some kid with a backyard telescope actually discovering something. It's also probably likely that the images were probably somewhat filtered by the father (or his computer) to be images likely to contain a supernova.

Re:Recently discovered almost 3 years ago (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year ago | (#45329157)

Actually, if you RTFA, you'd find that the images were emailed to his Dad by various amateur observers so that he (and his family) could look for interesting things such as comets, asteroids, novas and/or supernovas. Not uncommon, actually, because that just shares the workload around.

Re:Recently discovered almost 3 years ago (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | about a year ago | (#45329449)

You don't need need a large telescope to discover supernovae. A CCD, a decent backyard scope that can take good exposures, and a computer is all you need. And since when does an astronomer need to own the equipment he's using for his work to be taken seriously?

Re:Recently discovered almost 3 years ago (5, Funny)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45328707)

Published on Tue Jan 04 2011

Cool story. Not exactly recent, though.

That is because before publishing, all Slashdot news go through a rigorous fact-checking and quality assurance review, which can take months or years.

Almost discovery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328371)

So some kid almost discovered a star. That's some news Slashdot. Even given your awful track record, this it low even for your standards.

No, 10-year-old boy's FATHER finds supernova (4, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45328377)

10-year-old boy gets credit for it.

Re:No, 10-year-old boy's FATHER finds supernova (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328815)

Did you actually read what happened? The BOY and NOT the father, spotted it. Yes his father taught him what to look for, but he was the one to actually find it and deserves the credit as it's discoverer.

Re:No, 10-year-old boy's FATHER finds supernova (4, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#45328869)

I have trained OCR programs to recognize patterns. If they discover something from the data I give them, do I not take the credit?

Re:No, 10-year-old boy's FATHER finds supernova (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328977)

The logical extension of this logic is that everything ever discovered was discovered by the first person who ever taught anyone anything about any subject.

Re:No, 10-year-old boy's FATHER finds supernova (3, Funny)

mythosaz (572040) | about a year ago | (#45329567)

All credit to Adam and Eve.

Re:No, 10-year-old boy's FATHER finds supernova (0)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45328983)

Sure, but...

A) your OCR programs are not both sentient and sapient.

B) unless you are suggesting that this kid was Jesus, his dad didn't actually give him the data to look through (which in this case, would be the sky),

Re:No, 10-year-old boy's FATHER finds supernova (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329391)

B) unless you are suggesting that this kid was Jesus, his dad didn't actually give him the data to look through (which in this case, would be the sky),

Wrong. This supernova predates Jesus.

Re:No, 10-year-old boy's FATHER finds supernova (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329131)

If you're a professor and one of your grad students discovers something, do you not take the credit?

Re:No, 10-year-old boy's FATHER finds supernova (0)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45329237)

A 10 year old is hardly a grad student.... also, a grad student receives something in exchange from the university for their work... their masters degree or doctorate.

Re:No, 10-year-old boy's FATHER finds supernova (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329355)

Did you actually read what happened? The BOY and NOT the father, spotted it.

Yeah, and it's just a coincidence that his sister also happened to discover one when SHE was 10 years old, and that the father happens to be an amateur astronomer with several discoveries to his name.

They did the work on this about like half the kids in affluent areas in the U.S. do their own science fair projects. Mommy and Daddy didn't help little Billy build that advance robot at all--NOW GIVE HIM THE A!!!

penis (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328413)

When will he discover his penis though?

Need Coffee (3, Funny)

RandomUsername99 (574692) | about a year ago | (#45328423)

Read that as 10-Year-Old Supernova Discovers 600-Million-Year-Old Boy

Re:Need Coffee (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45328483)

Now THAT would be News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters

kids today (2)

themushroom (197365) | about a year ago | (#45328557)

"You kids need to get away from the telescope and go outside to play!"

Re:kids today (1)

swamp boy (151038) | about a year ago | (#45328737)

And get the hell off my lawn!

Re:kids today (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#45329051)

My mother always joked that she was the only mother in town that had to yell at her kid to stop reading and play outside. Of course, karma being what it is, I find myself trying to tell my oldest son to put his tablet computer down and play outside. I wonder what HIS kids won't want to put down when he tells them to go outside and play.

Re:kids today (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329313)

I wonder what HIS kids won't want to put down

Their father

It's so easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328567)

even a 10 year old boy can do it.

Sibling rivalry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328595)

Instead of being happy for him and his achievement, his sister will probably put boogers on his pillow. He's 10, he probably does that to her anyway.

Re:Sibling rivalry? (2)

Valdrax (32670) | about a year ago | (#45328813)

Instead of being happy for him and his achievement, his sister will probably put boogers on his pillow. He's 10, he probably does that to her anyway.

And well she should! Stupid younger siblings, always getting the same privileges as the older sibling at a younger age because it "wouldn't be fair."

"Hey, Mom and Dad, can use the telescope to break a record for girls in science?
"Sure thing, dear."
"I wanna use it too!"
"Okay, you can go after your sister."
"But Mooooom, you wouldn't let me make any scientific discoveries until I was twelve!"

(Not that I have a grudge or anything!)

This news is nearly three years old! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328619)

The source article was published on Tuesday, January 4th 2011. I'm usually more of a lurker to Slashdot, but is this generally considered acceptable behavior? Please don't take my asking as sarcastic or snarky; I'm mostly curious!

Re:This news is nearly three years old! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328789)

No dude, TL DR; Nathan's older sister (Kathryn) found a supernova 2 years ago. He beat her age record by 33 days, 2 days (the second article).
Do I have to explain why the inside of the TARDIS is larger than the outside now?

Cue jealous 30-something /.ers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328645)

I love stories like this, if for no other reason to watch nerds who have failed to contribute to society or live up to their potential in any meaningful way justify their smug superiority by tearing down the work of a little kid.

Re:Cue jealous 30-something /.ers (5, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#45328685)

My team mate and I discovered that the Cepheid variable we were supposed to be studying in astronomy back in 1998 was actually a binary star system. The prof got credit, of course, but it was enough to make me feel as though I had Contributed To Astronomy.

So, mad props to this young man. Good on ya, kid.

Very nice Nathan, now go take a bath (2)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year ago | (#45328717)

And make sure you clean up your toys before going to bed.

How did Kathryn become Nathan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328895)

How did Kathryn become Nathan? The linked article credits the discovery to Kathryn Aurora Gray of Fredericton, N.B.

Re:How did Kathryn become Nathan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328999)

There aren't half a lot of people here with limited reading skills.

To be fair to you all, the editing is of Slashdot's usual high standards so it's not entirely clear, but there are two stories linked here. One refers to Kathryn, and one to her younger brother Nathan.

WEIRD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329545)

10 year old stumps scientists using this one weird trick....

33 days (2, Insightful)

Jonathunder (105885) | about a year ago | (#45329629)

"...beating his sister by 33 days as the youngest person to find a supernova."

If he's 33 days younger than his sister, their mom had a rough couple of months.

Ho-hum (3, Funny)

Roblimo (357) | about a year ago | (#45329675)

"10-Year-Old Boy Discovers 600-Million-Year-Old Supernova" is a "Dog Bites Man" story. "600-Million-Year-Old Boy Discovers 10-Year-Old Supernova" would be serious real news. Wow!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?