Even more interesting that you ignore all the other points and only reply to that one.
Because I already replied to that before. You apparently believe you have your finger on the pulse of almost everyone. You do not.
There is a whole spectrum of people out there, from people who drive Prius' and have homes powered by solar and/or wind.
There are also people out there who drive 70 thousand dollar 8 mile per gallon Pickup trucks who never shut the engines off because that's puttin' to the liberals Pickup truck patriots.
I see all of them. and when you wrote:
Good for you, where I live I have never seen a solar panel on a house roof, ever. Not a single one.
You are either woefully inexperienced, or calling me a liar. I get around all over the country, If you've never seen a roof mounted solar panel, you don't.
I see the whole spectrum - so we are left with either you don't get out much, or you cast doubts upon my veracity. Either of which dosen't incline me to be your bitch.
Where I come from, math is arithmetic. The higher orders are called by their respective names. Perhaps where you come from "Maths" is an all encompasssing subject. Perhaps that's why they call it "maths" instead of "math".
Now on to other stuff:
Jezus krispy kryst - who the fuck peed in your Wheaties today? Sensitive as fuck, and trying to determine what others are allowed to write - even if you have to make shit up, or ignore all the other posts in a topic.
Part in subsidization, and damage. Think those big fuel trucks don't damage roads? Think the Dakota sweet crude that blew up a Canadian Town never happened?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
It's just passed off elsewhere, and given teh results, people like you just refuse to see them.
Or we could do things that work, like improve building processes to reduce the need for AC, eliminate older plants, reduce consumption, control environmental releases and not chase after unicorns.
Who is this "we"?
I honestly don't think I'm the one chasing after unicorns.
I dunno, Where I vacation, you see solar panels springing up all over the place. On schools, houses, all over.
These people have no idea that solar panel electricity doesn't work, and all the panelhaters memes are ignored by them. And they are lighting their houses, running their heating systems, and computers, and cooking, and somehow managing to do this without bankrupting themselves.
They simply aren't paying attention to the naysayers.
I think it's the difference between living in say, Oklahoma, where everyone has to toe the hardright Republican line or be marginalized, where petrofuel and coal and oil are part of the required belief system, so they tend to think the entire world is like they are.
If the "externalized costs" were incorporated into the prices you use to make your decisions, then you would decide more wisely.
You might be right... but the chances of that happening any time soon are slim...
The chances of it happening to the majority of the world any time soon are as close to it doesn't matter... zero...
As my one super-conservative friend said about Gasoline and petrofuels when asked about conservation:
"Fuck my grandchildren - Fuck conservation. I have that fuel available now, and I don't give a fuck if we use it all as long as I have it for me."
Which is just a more profane version of your statement.
Some of us take a rather longer view than your "I got mine, so fuck you" outlook.
isn't just the cost of extracting the fossil fuels and using them, it's the cost of relocating our cities to higher ground, and other very expensive consequences. We may pass this cost off to future generations and get away (dead) without paying for it, but it is a price that will be paid.
Well stated, but I would add that one more cost may very well be a large shift of global power. As new weather patterns emerge, some of the folks who are global powers might end up having large parts of their land turn into a desert. Africa was teh cradle of civilization. The Sahara was once upon a time, rather green. Now? not so much. Things change, the the mighty can topple. The irony might be that they topple themselves sooner than natural processes do.
He represents the social norm. It's not people like him. It's People Period. The number of people who would give up the things they take for granted in life in the name of some scientists saying it'll get 1degC hotter (and not understanding what that actually means) is an even smaller proportion than the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Believe it or not, many-most people actually do believe that AGW is real. That it has been taken up by certain groups in the US is more indicative of an odd shift that came about by deciding that anyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with what you have to believe is the enemy.
When 20 years ago, most of these people believed in science, as well as teh greenhouse effect, their present day radicalization has taken them to see science as just one of many enemies they have to topple. They are a very loud minority that have all too many convinced they are not a minority.
Let me get this straight - you seem to think that pollution is defined as "what SuperKendall assumes most people on the street would assume to be bad for plants". Wow. Simply incredible. Your lack of fundamental understanding is staggering.
Hey - The denialists rely on people like SuperKendall and their intellect, you insensitive clod.
Give a hoot dont pollute. It is simple and old and works.
Here's the problem with your brilliant "argument".
CO2 is not pollution by any means. For instance, if you asked most people "would pollution cause harm to plants", they would say "yes, of course".
But plants aren't harmed by CO2 - it's what they SUBSIST on.
.
Try breathing pure CO2 for an hour, then report back.
Any chemical any gas can be a pollutant. Oxygen is quite poisonous as well as very dangerous above a certain concentration level, yet we can't live without it. CO2 is critical to life, as a temperature moderator, because the greenhouse effect that you don't believe in makes the earth warm enough to sustain life. Without CO2, we ain't here. But too much and we might not be dead, but the world will alter a good bit. And the seats of power today might not be for long as weather patterns shift. That you would resort to such a simplistic statement like "CO2 is not a pollutant by any means" shows a comprehension of science unmatched by the normal person.
Since you know all about how AGW is a cult, Give me the peer reviewd studies that disprove AGW. Then we'll discuss them. That should be really easy.
And no, "Michael Mann is a jerk" is not an argument.
How about the very basic one - the rising average global temperature?
They will just deny it.
There is no logic, no science that trumps simple denial.
It's modern day creationism tactics transplaneted to AGW denialism. Every time I ask for evidence, they trot out long discredited studies, altered studies, conspiracy theories or when cornered, simple denial.
When really backed into a corner, they look out the window and say "It's cold today, so much for global warming."
I use it every day to cumulate sales, hours, "normal" calculation such as adding number, date, multiplication and division between rows. Do I qualify as non-import task?
Yes.
You should bottle your smug and sell it.
So what you are saying is that the idea of using imprecise calculations is a good thing? AC is correct, it is the right hand of PowerPoint.
I do bottle my smug - it's an irresistable attractant to people like yourself.
It's called "Yes".
When you opt for the Windows experience, you gonna get whatever experience they want you to get.
But any way I know of of blocking any updates blocks all of them. like pulling the cable or disabling wifi.
Sometimes you do not opt, but you get a mandate from above (say, current company merges with another one that has a bunch of windows systems to support). At this point we can try be professionals and do the best effort possible, or simply throw a tantrum and leave Windooze doesn't wanna play nice with you.
Right, just like I said - and your company better hope that the enterprise edition of Wondows 10 doesn't phone home with sensitive documents.
So should we discuss the controversies around the multiplication tables? Maybe a few Semesters proving that every wrong answer isn't actually correct?
It seems like you're being sarcastic about something, but I find it hard to tell what, since it doesn't relate in any way to the topic.
Well now, yes it does relate to the conversation. Try reading in sequence.
Anyhow, I'll explain. There are some matters where critical thinking, and even fun are involved. And there are some that just cannot be efficiently taught without rote.
But back to the topic that you jealously demand strict adherence to:
mlookaba posted noting that it isn't hard to memorize facts, and that we don't want to reinvent the wheel every time we teach students, and that participation trophies aren't the answer.
PTvoid didn't like that does not like facts taught in a world where we can look them up, and is more interested in relationships between things. Believes we'll memorize the facts that way.
Athanisiuskircher disagreed, saying that while understanding relationships is more important than rote memorization, that there are certain avenues of memorization that fast track knowledge.
At which point you chime in noting that if you keep looking something up, you'll memorize it eventually, and that you can just as easily memorize wrong without understanding something.
At which point, I replied sarcastically. Yes, so sorry - I do that a lot.
So I will attempt to explain myself in a manner that won't upset your delicate sensibilities.
Mathematics.
A simple process that is at the heart of most everyday activities. Buying and selling things, balancing your budget, figuring out the grocery bill - pretty important, pretty simple, and pretty well settled.
We spent a week or so memorizing out multiplication tables in early grade school. In my class we had to stand and deliver the tables in front of the class - it was like our first public speaking assignment.
Whereas I now just know those matters by heart, I think rather sincerely that looking them up every time I need to know what 5 times something is is incredibly inefficient, and will make a week's practice take years to master.
And while a calculator is a big help, it doesn't substitute for some basic knowledge.It's sadly humorous to watch today's students math skills fall apart when they deal with notation.
And now we're going to bitch up the works even more with common core set theory based math?http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/22What-Parents-Rail-Against-Common-Core-Math-259363861.html
So my sarcastic remarks start to sound a little less so when dealing with the new common core math concepts http://wheresthemath.com/.
The modern version of basic math is pretty darn close to "teaching the controversy". This isn't Social Justice warrioring (Olsoc's rule: using S*W automatically voids your argument) it's thinking that taking something simple that has worked for centuries, and complicating the living shit out of it with silly concepts like Looking it up on the web, or set theory instead of simple memorization, is simply stupid.
It's actually a lot easier to bullshit people who think they are smart. Look at the anti-vaccination movement and Chipotle's anti-GMO noise for examples.
The only problem I see with what you're saying, is that people who are not smart enough to make
Well that's the part of idiocracy where it gets ridiculous. It's not a genius or idiot choice. There's a whoe range in between. But there are plenty of people who cannot fathom science at all, but can grow crops. They might notever be able to figure out how to build an H-Bomb or design an airplane, but they know how to screw, and reproduce, and that's all nature needs.
There are two parts to "science". There is learning some of the vast amount of science that has already been done, and there is learning how to do science. Both are important, and both can be made interesting by a good teacher and dull by a bad one.
Go to youtube and do a search on "Periodic Table of Videos" The main host of the series is Martyn Poliakoff, an incredibly charming fellow with a wild head of hair.
I doubt professional scientists think their work is "fun".
Everyone I worked with disputes your ridiculous claim. WE were enjoying ourselves so much that we sometimes forgot to go home. Around 7: the wives started calling.
Just because you have a white hot seeting hatred for any and all matters science, doesn't mean everyone else thinks like you do.
That is not the point. No, it's not supposed to be fun. But it can be. Science can be exhilarating, heart-pounding and absolutely amazing.
Yer damn right its fun. I've caught shit in here by a lot of Slashdotters because of all the hours that I worked, and lots of things outside my education.
But I went to interesting places, did a lot of interesting things, and did a lot of science.
Why? It was freaking fun. Made for a career rich beyond measure.
Because they can vote? Because if even two of them can find their way out of the door they've outvoted the one with a clue?
Why should the "science" crowd be given political power over their neighbors? Has that worked out well historically? Any reasoning behind this at all, or do you just want more political power over people, regardless of the benefits to anyone besides yourself?
Because Trollerina, they won't be the "science" crowd. They will be people smart enough to know when you are trying to biullshit them
I think though that one naturally memorizes stuff. If you keep having to make use of a fact and keep having to look it up, after not especially long you commit it to memory automatically. The trouble with just mindless rote memorization that it's awfully easy to memorize wrong without understanding, awfully easy to have a list of facts but no idea how to use them and it's boring as all hell and guaranteed to put off the majority of students.
Do, rather than memorize and the memorization will come naturally.
So should we discuss the controversies around the multiplication tables? Maybe a few Semesters proving that every wrong answer isn't actually correct?
To tell a student that 2 times 5 equals 10, without giving them the option to believe otherwise is just going to ruin their self esteem.
What, exactly, is useful about memorizing facts, in a world where any fact you want is at your fingertips on demand? Being usefully conversant in facts is not about memorization, it's about understanding relationships between things. Understanding how stuff works. The facts you need will be memorized along the way.
Because not everything is about interrelational self actualization, self esteem enhancing, collaboration.
Basic math for instance. No matter how damn hard we try, basic math is neither exciting, need some rote memorization and 2 plus 2 still adds up to 4.
Rectangular arrays, and area models are the products of insanity, making the simplest problems ridiculously difficult.
Basic math is basic math, and needs to be memorized. If 2 plus two equaled 5, or some valuable social construct, then hey, let's all discuss and teach teh controversy..
But it doesn't. It's 4, no matter how hard we try.
Slashdot Mirror
keep your space orgy porn to yourself.
A little privacy folks - It's comet mating season, ya insensitive clods!
Even more interesting that you ignore all the other points and only reply to that one.
Because I already replied to that before. You apparently believe you have your finger on the pulse of almost everyone. You do not.
There is a whole spectrum of people out there, from people who drive Prius' and have homes powered by solar and/or wind.
There are also people out there who drive 70 thousand dollar 8 mile per gallon Pickup trucks who never shut the engines off because that's puttin' to the liberals Pickup truck patriots.
I see all of them. and when you wrote:
Good for you, where I live I have never seen a solar panel on a house roof, ever. Not a single one.
You are either woefully inexperienced, or calling me a liar. I get around all over the country, If you've never seen a roof mounted solar panel, you don't.
I see the whole spectrum - so we are left with either you don't get out much, or you cast doubts upon my veracity. Either of which dosen't incline me to be your bitch.
Ooh you're confusing maths and arithmetic I see.
Where I come from, math is arithmetic. The higher orders are called by their respective names. Perhaps where you come from "Maths" is an all encompasssing subject. Perhaps that's why they call it "maths" instead of "math".
Now on to other stuff:
Jezus krispy kryst - who the fuck peed in your Wheaties today? Sensitive as fuck, and trying to determine what others are allowed to write - even if you have to make shit up, or ignore all the other posts in a topic.
There are fewer of you in the world than you think there are.
Interesting to see you cut out the part where I explained why you have a monoculture worldview
NO. NOT CHEAPLY.
Then where is this price tag?
Part in subsidization, and damage. Think those big fuel trucks don't damage roads? Think the Dakota sweet crude that blew up a Canadian Town never happened? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
It's just passed off elsewhere, and given teh results, people like you just refuse to see them.
Internalized profit, externalized losses.
Or we could do things that work, like improve building processes to reduce the need for AC, eliminate older plants, reduce consumption, control environmental releases and not chase after unicorns.
Who is this "we"?
I honestly don't think I'm the one chasing after unicorns.
I dunno, Where I vacation, you see solar panels springing up all over the place. On schools, houses, all over.
These people have no idea that solar panel electricity doesn't work, and all the panelhaters memes are ignored by them. And they are lighting their houses, running their heating systems, and computers, and cooking, and somehow managing to do this without bankrupting themselves.
They simply aren't paying attention to the naysayers.
I think it's the difference between living in say, Oklahoma, where everyone has to toe the hardright Republican line or be marginalized, where petrofuel and coal and oil are part of the required belief system, so they tend to think the entire world is like they are.
We aren't.
If the "externalized costs" were incorporated into the prices you use to make your decisions, then you would decide more wisely.
You might be right... but the chances of that happening any time soon are slim...
The chances of it happening to the majority of the world any time soon are as close to it doesn't matter... zero...
As my one super-conservative friend said about Gasoline and petrofuels when asked about conservation:
"Fuck my grandchildren - Fuck conservation. I have that fuel available now, and I don't give a fuck if we use it all as long as I have it for me." Which is just a more profane version of your statement.
Some of us take a rather longer view than your "I got mine, so fuck you" outlook.
isn't just the cost of extracting the fossil fuels and using them, it's the cost of relocating our cities to higher ground, and other very expensive consequences. We may pass this cost off to future generations and get away (dead) without paying for it, but it is a price that will be paid.
Well stated, but I would add that one more cost may very well be a large shift of global power. As new weather patterns emerge, some of the folks who are global powers might end up having large parts of their land turn into a desert. Africa was teh cradle of civilization. The Sahara was once upon a time, rather green. Now? not so much. Things change, the the mighty can topple. The irony might be that they topple themselves sooner than natural processes do.
He represents the social norm. It's not people like him. It's People Period. The number of people who would give up the things they take for granted in life in the name of some scientists saying it'll get 1degC hotter (and not understanding what that actually means) is an even smaller proportion than the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Believe it or not, many-most people actually do believe that AGW is real. That it has been taken up by certain groups in the US is more indicative of an odd shift that came about by deciding that anyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with what you have to believe is the enemy.
When 20 years ago, most of these people believed in science, as well as teh greenhouse effect, their present day radicalization has taken them to see science as just one of many enemies they have to topple. They are a very loud minority that have all too many convinced they are not a minority.
Let me get this straight - you seem to think that pollution is defined as "what SuperKendall assumes most people on the street would assume to be bad for plants". Wow. Simply incredible. Your lack of fundamental understanding is staggering.
Hey - The denialists rely on people like SuperKendall and their intellect, you insensitive clod.
Give a hoot dont pollute. It is simple and old and works.
Here's the problem with your brilliant "argument".
CO2 is not pollution by any means. For instance, if you asked most people "would pollution cause harm to plants", they would say "yes, of course".
But plants aren't harmed by CO2 - it's what they SUBSIST on.
.
Try breathing pure CO2 for an hour, then report back.
Any chemical any gas can be a pollutant. Oxygen is quite poisonous as well as very dangerous above a certain concentration level, yet we can't live without it. CO2 is critical to life, as a temperature moderator, because the greenhouse effect that you don't believe in makes the earth warm enough to sustain life. Without CO2, we ain't here. But too much and we might not be dead, but the world will alter a good bit. And the seats of power today might not be for long as weather patterns shift. That you would resort to such a simplistic statement like "CO2 is not a pollutant by any means" shows a comprehension of science unmatched by the normal person. Since you know all about how AGW is a cult, Give me the peer reviewd studies that disprove AGW. Then we'll discuss them. That should be really easy.
And no, "Michael Mann is a jerk" is not an argument.
How about the very basic one - the rising average global temperature?
They will just deny it.
There is no logic, no science that trumps simple denial.
It's modern day creationism tactics transplaneted to AGW denialism. Every time I ask for evidence, they trot out long discredited studies, altered studies, conspiracy theories or when cornered, simple denial.
When really backed into a corner, they look out the window and say "It's cold today, so much for global warming."
I use it every day to cumulate sales, hours, "normal" calculation such as adding number, date, multiplication and division between rows. Do I qualify as non-import task?
Yes.
You should bottle your smug and sell it.
So what you are saying is that the idea of using imprecise calculations is a good thing? AC is correct, it is the right hand of PowerPoint.
I do bottle my smug - it's an irresistable attractant to people like yourself. It's called "Yes".
When you opt for the Windows experience, you gonna get whatever experience they want you to get.
But any way I know of of blocking any updates blocks all of them. like pulling the cable or disabling wifi.
Sometimes you do not opt, but you get a mandate from above (say, current company merges with another one that has a bunch of windows systems to support). At this point we can try be professionals and do the best effort possible, or simply throw a tantrum and leave Windooze doesn't wanna play nice with you.
Right, just like I said - and your company better hope that the enterprise edition of Wondows 10 doesn't phone home with sensitive documents.
So should we discuss the controversies around the multiplication tables? Maybe a few Semesters proving that every wrong answer isn't actually correct?
It seems like you're being sarcastic about something, but I find it hard to tell what, since it doesn't relate in any way to the topic.
Well now, yes it does relate to the conversation. Try reading in sequence.
Anyhow, I'll explain. There are some matters where critical thinking, and even fun are involved. And there are some that just cannot be efficiently taught without rote.
But back to the topic that you jealously demand strict adherence to:
mlookaba posted noting that it isn't hard to memorize facts, and that we don't want to reinvent the wheel every time we teach students, and that participation trophies aren't the answer.
PTvoid didn't like that does not like facts taught in a world where we can look them up, and is more interested in relationships between things. Believes we'll memorize the facts that way.
Athanisiuskircher disagreed, saying that while understanding relationships is more important than rote memorization, that there are certain avenues of memorization that fast track knowledge.
At which point you chime in noting that if you keep looking something up, you'll memorize it eventually, and that you can just as easily memorize wrong without understanding something.
At which point, I replied sarcastically. Yes, so sorry - I do that a lot.
So I will attempt to explain myself in a manner that won't upset your delicate sensibilities.
Mathematics.
A simple process that is at the heart of most everyday activities. Buying and selling things, balancing your budget, figuring out the grocery bill - pretty important, pretty simple, and pretty well settled.
We spent a week or so memorizing out multiplication tables in early grade school. In my class we had to stand and deliver the tables in front of the class - it was like our first public speaking assignment.
Whereas I now just know those matters by heart, I think rather sincerely that looking them up every time I need to know what 5 times something is is incredibly inefficient, and will make a week's practice take years to master.
And while a calculator is a big help, it doesn't substitute for some basic knowledge.It's sadly humorous to watch today's students math skills fall apart when they deal with notation.
And now we're going to bitch up the works even more with common core set theory based math?http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/22What-Parents-Rail-Against-Common-Core-Math-259363861.html
So my sarcastic remarks start to sound a little less so when dealing with the new common core math concepts http://wheresthemath.com/.
The modern version of basic math is pretty darn close to "teaching the controversy". This isn't Social Justice warrioring (Olsoc's rule: using S*W automatically voids your argument) it's thinking that taking something simple that has worked for centuries, and complicating the living shit out of it with silly concepts like Looking it up on the web, or set theory instead of simple memorization, is simply stupid.
It's actually a lot easier to bullshit people who think they are smart. Look at the anti-vaccination movement and Chipotle's anti-GMO noise for examples.
Thinking one is smart != being smart.
The only problem I see with what you're saying, is that people who are not smart enough to make
Well that's the part of idiocracy where it gets ridiculous. It's not a genius or idiot choice. There's a whoe range in between. But there are plenty of people who cannot fathom science at all, but can grow crops. They might notever be able to figure out how to build an H-Bomb or design an airplane, but they know how to screw, and reproduce, and that's all nature needs.
There are two parts to "science". There is learning some of the vast amount of science that has already been done, and there is learning how to do science. Both are important, and both can be made interesting by a good teacher and dull by a bad one.
Go to youtube and do a search on "Periodic Table of Videos" The main host of the series is Martyn Poliakoff, an incredibly charming fellow with a wild head of hair.
I doubt professional scientists think their work is "fun".
Everyone I worked with disputes your ridiculous claim. WE were enjoying ourselves so much that we sometimes forgot to go home. Around 7: the wives started calling.
Just because you have a white hot seeting hatred for any and all matters science, doesn't mean everyone else thinks like you do.
Science isn't supposed to be fun
That is not the point. No, it's not supposed to be fun. But it can be. Science can be exhilarating, heart-pounding and absolutely amazing.
Yer damn right its fun. I've caught shit in here by a lot of Slashdotters because of all the hours that I worked, and lots of things outside my education.
But I went to interesting places, did a lot of interesting things, and did a lot of science.
Why? It was freaking fun. Made for a career rich beyond measure.
Science isn't supposed to be fun.
Speak for yourself. Science is a blast. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean eveyone is like you.
Because they can vote? Because if even two of them can find their way out of the door they've outvoted the one with a clue?
Why should the "science" crowd be given political power over their neighbors? Has that worked out well historically? Any reasoning behind this at all, or do you just want more political power over people, regardless of the benefits to anyone besides yourself?
Because Trollerina, they won't be the "science" crowd. They will be people smart enough to know when you are trying to biullshit them
I think though that one naturally memorizes stuff. If you keep having to make use of a fact and keep having to look it up, after not especially long you commit it to memory automatically. The trouble with just mindless rote memorization that it's awfully easy to memorize wrong without understanding, awfully easy to have a list of facts but no idea how to use them and it's boring as all hell and guaranteed to put off the majority of students.
Do, rather than memorize and the memorization will come naturally.
So should we discuss the controversies around the multiplication tables? Maybe a few Semesters proving that every wrong answer isn't actually correct?
To tell a student that 2 times 5 equals 10, without giving them the option to believe otherwise is just going to ruin their self esteem.
What, exactly, is useful about memorizing facts, in a world where any fact you want is at your fingertips on demand? Being usefully conversant in facts is not about memorization, it's about understanding relationships between things. Understanding how stuff works. The facts you need will be memorized along the way.
Because not everything is about interrelational self actualization, self esteem enhancing, collaboration.
Basic math for instance. No matter how damn hard we try, basic math is neither exciting, need some rote memorization and 2 plus 2 still adds up to 4.
Rectangular arrays, and area models are the products of insanity, making the simplest problems ridiculously difficult.
Basic math is basic math, and needs to be memorized. If 2 plus two equaled 5, or some valuable social construct, then hey, let's all discuss and teach teh controversy.. But it doesn't. It's 4, no matter how hard we try.
Teachering is a brilliant word and is used more commonly than you would seem to realize. Or did you not realize languages evolve.
I know - I was engagerating in a lot of chuklefication when he wroteified that.