I don't think your opinion is entirely fair here...
Work is not an option. We don't have the option to stay home with children, be a housewife
My wife stays home with the kids. It isn't easy. Spending all day at home with kids is extremely trying. There's nothing to do. She can't get involved in her crafts, because the kids will insist on "helping." She can't watch her TV shows because there is too much violence and sexuality in them (yes, it's that damned "Desperate Housewives" show).
It's cute and fun to play with the kids and all, but, alphabet letter blocks get kind of boring after 15 minutes. She can do laundry, clothes and some cleaning during the day, but those get very boring after a few days.
Her legs and back are constantly tired of bending down to clean up messes or pick up small children that want 'cuddle' time, but aren't willing to let you sit down during the cuddle. The only "break" she gets is about an hour in the middle of the day when both kids are sleeping at the same time. Kind of just like the hour I get for lunch.
By 8:30PM the kids are in bed. The first one will wake up promptly at 6:00AM. She is in a constant state of sleep deprivation.
Staying at home with kids and being a housewife is not an easy job. I don't care what it looked like on "leave it to beaver." It's rather tragic that society (both sexes) have so demeaned the work of a woman in the home. I'm all for women having choices, but choosing to stay home is not "taking the easy way out" or "allowing a patriarchal society define you". It's committing yourself to a long, difficult, un-compensated but very emotionally rewarding career path.
I noticed using ROT-2 gave what looked like a kinda-close decryption of ROT-13. So I started trying ROT-3, then ROT-4, I got as far as ROT-12 before I got bored and gave up, but it was showing great promise!
It seemed reasonable that they were using regression analysis to detect a spike event, so "even" would mean an approximately equal number of successes and failures within a window around some timepoint and a "spike" would mean a distribution of successes or failures that is far from expected (maybe 0.5 sigma if their grant is running low and they need a cash infusion). Otherwise, like you said, they would end up in either a near perpetual peak or valley.
I think this entry from their FAQ pretty well sums up the response to that entry in their FAQ:
The September 11 graphs suggest a precursor effect, as has been seen in a few prior cases. Could this be used as a warning?
The best guess is we cannot use the EGG data for such practical applications. One major reason is the statistical nature of our measures. Nobody has yet come up with anything more direct, and this means that there will be, by definition, both false positives and negatives. Moreover, the effect size is so tiny that we almost always require repeated measures, or measures over a long time to detect any anomalies. To see precursors we have to look back across that time from a post facto perspective. Unique point events have little chance of being seen, at least by our current methods.
In other words, they look at the data after something has happened searching for a "spike" that will almost certainly be there.
A series of bernoulli events with probability of success 0.5 will FREQUENTLY be on either the positive or negative side of "even". Unusual "spikes" are EXPECTED to happen.
Now comes the phenomenon of "selective inclusion". If no spike happens and a major world event occurs, nobody notices. If a spike happens a major world event occurs, suddenly this is "proof".
Now comes the phenomenon of "distortion of temporal significance". If a spike happens an hour before a major world event, it's noted as having been predicted. If a spike happens four hours before a major world event, it's noted. If a spike happens a day before an event, it's noted with the same significance.
So what's the expected frequency of "spikes" and what's the frequency of "major world events", and how long before an event is a "spike" considered significant?
Add it all up and you'll find that just by chance, this machine is EXPECTED to have major spikes before world events.
Your blanket assertion that students lack First Amendment rights was fallacious at best, primarily because you lack the constitutional authority to interpret the First Amendment.
Do you even know what "fallacious" means?
You claim that students are being denied rights, while the Supreme Court seems to say that said rights simply don't exist in the first place.
That statement just destroyed your own argument. You just said that the supreme court seems to say that students don't have the rights, then you say I couldn't say that because I'm not a supreme court justice (imagine the horror of a lawyer supporting his case using case law if that lawyer hadn't been a justice) and further you back up and say that the supreme court has given some first amendment rights to students.
So do the rights exist or not?
Read the two cases you cite. The supreme court gives schools the ability to curtail rights of students given to them in the bill of rights, provided that doing so is of legitimate pedagogical concern.
They don't say those rights never existed. In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier the issue was students not adequately protecting the privacy of people their articles were covering. In Tinker v. Des Moines the question was whether or not students wearing arm bands legitimately threatened the school environment. In the first case they said yes, students may not fully appreciate the damage their article can do so the censorship was permissible. In the second case they said Des Moines School district did not have a bonafide concern of the arm bands suddenly causing unrest so the school district could not impede the first amendement.
And lastly: I didn't write the gp post to begin with.
You are exactly right, it says "Congress shall make no law." So congress was precluded from making such a law but the states were NOT.
It was not until the 20th century when the supreme court started broadly interpretting the 14th amendment that states which had made laws to permit such things as double jeopardy, restriction on freedom of religion and unreasonable search and seizure were forced to give them up and we got to where we are today.
Many of the freedoms given to you in the constitution were not until relatively recently given to you in every state.
Wrong: Tinker vs. Des Moines: (students ability to freely protest Vietnam War upheld)
Wrong: Tinker vs. Des Moines did not grant students the right to freely protest the Vietnam War. It gave students the right to protest provided the protest was a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance.
In Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court said "we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." That doesn't sound like they limited censorship just to a principal (and considering hazelwood has been applied to universities, wouldn't make much sense).
What was your point anyway? You did not rebut that students exist under substantially less freedom than the first amendment provides
I have a set of 1000 weakly or strongly interacting particles. The matrix modeling their interaction is 1000x1000.
If I use Java 5's foreach, is that going to be more efficient than a semantic expression of what vector operations I'm doing? Will Java 5's JIT recognize that I'm doing a vector operation and switch to vector instructions to handle it?
Will mathematica invert a 1000x1000 matrix before my next performance review cycle?
Seriously, fortran is useful for hard core numerical computation. You don't want to do your finite element analysis in Mathematica or Java.
A new study would be fairly expensive. But this is not the point. The "urban legend" crowd is quite enamoured of having "debunked" the "Dvorak Faster" myth, when in fact they have done no such thing. To debunk a myth you at the very least need a study with proper scientific rigor.
MWB says "Wait a minute, the one study you use to backup that claim lacks credibility."
Qwerty may be just as good as Dvorak, but we do not, in fact, have a serious, credible, study which says so. Instead we just have a lot of anecdotal evidence... for instance the world's fastest typist uses Dvorak.
A 1953 U.S. General Services Administration study of the QWERTY keyboard and it's only serious challenger, the DVORAK keyboard, found no appreciable typing speed difference between the two keyboards.
Can you find that data used to back up this study?
Oh that's right. You can't. The study was run by Dr. Earl Strong, and he destroyed all his data before others could analyze it. Analysis done based on responses to surveys of people involved in the study turned up numerous problems in the study. But we can't investigate further because Dr. Strong DESTROYED HIS DATA. Dr. Strong displayed his objectivity by attacking the Dvorak, and his keyboard before he had even started any studies.
Was there another GSA study that has the integrity of a proper scientific study? Because the one everyone pins their hat on has none.
I find additionally suspicious that the world's fastest typist uses Dvorak's keyboard layout. Hardly a draw.
Re: Two Guys Say It.. So What IS the Truth?
on
New Standard Keyboard
·
· Score: 2, Informative
So this Dvorak Debunking lies in two people's research.
The only support that Liebowitz and Margolis provide as evidence that there is no speed difference between the two layouts is the research of Dr. Earl Strong in the 1950's.
So the Debunking actually boils down to the research of one person. Done in 1956. And he didn't want Dvorak to win. Oh, and he destroyed his data before anyone else could look at it, so all we know is what he said it said.
The truth isn't out there. Nobody has done a good study.
Re:Ironically, that story isn't true
on
New Standard Keyboard
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The work of Liebowitz and Margolis, cited above, makes this abundantly clear.
The study by Liebowitz and Margolis depend heavily on two assumptions:
1) Dvorak's studies were self-serving and therefore suspicious. 2) Strong's studies were well controlled.
The first is kind of hard to argue, as the studies were self-serving. However, Strong's studies were NOT well controlled.
Don't believe me? Try getting the original material of Strong's research to verify his claims. You can't. Know why? Strong destroyed the material. If Strong's studies were well controlled, why did he shred his research when people started asking about it?
So in "researching the entire Dvorak saga", the two economists failed to even mention that Strong's research, which they use as the fundamental support of their argument, may be seriously flawed. At the very least we cannot take it at face value since we cannot analyze the data ourselves. In fact, Strong was not objective at all, from the very beginning he intended to show that any speed up with Dvorak is sufficiently small that retraining the Navy's typists would be impractical. So why did these economists overlook this fact? Well, they were themselves trying to argue that the market always picks the best solution.
Keep this in mind when you think about window's dominance in the market, or any other product that rose to the top through whatever questionable means. The paper in which these two economists wrote about Dvorak not being better than Qwerty was actually a paper in which they were saying "The market always chooses the best option." The keyboards were just the whipping boy they chose to use.
So which serious objective tests between the two keyboards have there been?
Suppose we take someone who is 65 right now, who put $3,000 into a Roth IRA when he was 15, 16 and 17. This is great news for him now. $1,000,000 will provide him a reasonable retirement for at least 15 years.
Ignoring for a moment that Roth IRA's didn't exist when he was 15, let's consider what his environment was when he was 15.
He was 15 years old 50 years ago. So it was 1955. In 1955, the average family brought in $4,137 per year. After taxes, that $3,000 was the family income for the entire year. For each of those 3 years, it would be the equivalent of a high school student earning as much as his or her father for three years. Instead of investing that money in a retirement account, he could have spent $2,944 on the finest Ford available and spent the remaining $56 on 243 gallons of gas. The next year he (or she) could have put $2,200 as a 10% down on the average new house.
The mean income for a family in 2001 is $66,863. Most families are now two-income, so let's say the average single individual could expect to make 2/3 that amount. The equivalent today would be investing about $30,000 every year while you're 15, 16 and 17. Then when you're 65 you would have the inflation-adjusted equivalent of a cool million in todays dollars.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the "Land of the Free" Creationism is banned from being taught in schools.
You are wrong. Creationism is banned from being taught in public schools.
In this case (and a number of others) I have to agree that the religion of Atheism has been endorsed above all others.
For that to be true you would have to define "not endorsing atheism" as "endorsing theism". It is possible to not endorse either one. Science is not atheist, it's agnostic.
It does not violate church and state since it is not a tenet of a single religion or even just of christianity as a whole.
It is ridiculous to believe that any belief that is held by a plurality of religions does not violate the establishment clause. The Raelians are certainly the most popular religion to believe our origin is aliens creating us, but not the only one. Should aliens having created us be presented as an equally probable source of intelligent design?
I also believe that the theory of gravity, quantum theory and string theory should also be taught in schools despite their conflicting ideas.
Gravity and Quantum Theory have predictive value. Their conflict is truly a puzzle, but within the realm they are used they are very useful.
String theory is interesting, but its predictive value is somewhat questionable. It's on the fringe. It may yet prove to be useful but for right now, it should stay as a studied curiousity outside of primary science curricula.
Evolution also has predictive value. Genetic engineering is a product of our research on how species evolve.
I agree with the other stickers mentioned - when other theories are available, teaching one is depriving our students of the ability to make a choice through reasoning.
Your lack of respect for people is truly dismaying. If a student hears the scientific view at school and the theological view at church, how are they deprived of a choice through reasoning?
The judge in this case ruled the stickers unconstitutional because of the religion of the people who supported it.
No, the judge in this case ruled the stickers unconstitutional because an attack directed at evolution in this manner, to any reasonably intelligent person, is an endorsement of religion. This was simply christian fundamentalists trying to play fast and loose with the rules.
They neither promoted nor condemned any religion--or lack thereof.
I don't see how you came to that conclusion, but it is not the conclusion the judge said he came to: "By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof"
If this were allowed to stand, we'd see them attacking all sorts of things that conflict with their interpretation of the bible:
Geology text: "This text book suggests that the rocky material of the mountains between arizona and utah are too hard to have had the Grand Canyon formed by all the floods of the last 10,000 years, which is a theory not a fact. Readers are asked to keep an open mind..."
Physics text: "This text book suggests that the half life of some radioactive materials found on earth, and the relative amounts of decay products found with them, indicate that they have been around for billions of years, which is a theory not a fact. Readers are asked to keep an open mind..."
Sometimes an attack on science that is popularly at odds with religion is an endorsement of religion. No matter how well you dress it up.
All it's saying is to keep an open mind that it's only an unproven idea
The verbage specifically states that evolution is not a fact. They don't know that it is not a fact. The sticker is playing games with semantics ("Oh we mean not a fact as in something is either a theory or a fact") but was clearly cleverly written such that it could easily be read as saying "Evolution is false."
Doesn't sound very open minded to me.
As far as I know, no one has actually observed macroevolution.
There have been several instances of observed speciation in plants and insects.
Sadly (very sadly) in my school - a non-phd-granting state institution - somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of the math majors are in the teacher credentialing program.
Everytime I take a class in the applied math and statistics track that doesn't overlap with theirs, the class has maybe 10-12 people (except the statistics classes that are required for business and economics grad students).
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, one is 3 years and the other is 16 months. How do you figure that they are old enough for 1-2 hours per day of SNES?
I don't think your opinion is entirely fair here...
Work is not an option. We don't have the option to stay home with children, be a housewife
My wife stays home with the kids. It isn't easy. Spending all day at home with kids is extremely trying. There's nothing to do. She can't get involved in her crafts, because the kids will insist on "helping." She can't watch her TV shows because there is too much violence and sexuality in them (yes, it's that damned "Desperate Housewives" show).
It's cute and fun to play with the kids and all, but, alphabet letter blocks get kind of boring after 15 minutes. She can do laundry, clothes and some cleaning during the day, but those get very boring after a few days.
Her legs and back are constantly tired of bending down to clean up messes or pick up small children that want 'cuddle' time, but aren't willing to let you sit down during the cuddle. The only "break" she gets is about an hour in the middle of the day when both kids are sleeping at the same time. Kind of just like the hour I get for lunch.
By 8:30PM the kids are in bed. The first one will wake up promptly at 6:00AM. She is in a constant state of sleep deprivation.
Staying at home with kids and being a housewife is not an easy job. I don't care what it looked like on "leave it to beaver." It's rather tragic that society (both sexes) have so demeaned the work of a woman in the home. I'm all for women having choices, but choosing to stay home is not "taking the easy way out" or "allowing a patriarchal society define you". It's committing yourself to a long, difficult, un-compensated but very emotionally rewarding career path.
I noticed using ROT-2 gave what looked like a kinda-close decryption of ROT-13. So I started trying ROT-3, then ROT-4, I got as far as ROT-12 before I got bored and gave up, but it was showing great promise!
It seemed reasonable that they were using regression analysis to detect a spike event, so "even" would mean an approximately equal number of successes and failures within a window around some timepoint and a "spike" would mean a distribution of successes or failures that is far from expected (maybe 0.5 sigma if their grant is running low and they need a cash infusion). Otherwise, like you said, they would end up in either a near perpetual peak or valley.
I think this entry from their FAQ pretty well sums up the response to that entry in their FAQ:
The September 11 graphs suggest a precursor effect, as has been seen in a few prior cases. Could this be used as a warning?
The best guess is we cannot use the EGG data for such practical applications. One major reason is the statistical nature of our measures. Nobody has yet come up with anything more direct, and this means that there will be, by definition, both false positives and negatives. Moreover, the effect size is so tiny that we almost always require repeated measures, or measures over a long time to detect any anomalies. To see precursors we have to look back across that time from a post facto perspective. Unique point events have little chance of being seen, at least by our current methods.
In other words, they look at the data after something has happened searching for a "spike" that will almost certainly be there.
Here let me do some debunking for you:
A series of bernoulli events with probability of success 0.5 will FREQUENTLY be on either the positive or negative side of "even". Unusual "spikes" are EXPECTED to happen.
Now comes the phenomenon of "selective inclusion". If no spike happens and a major world event occurs, nobody notices. If a spike happens a major world event occurs, suddenly this is "proof".
Now comes the phenomenon of "distortion of temporal significance". If a spike happens an hour before a major world event, it's noted as having been predicted. If a spike happens four hours before a major world event, it's noted. If a spike happens a day before an event, it's noted with the same significance.
So what's the expected frequency of "spikes" and what's the frequency of "major world events", and how long before an event is a "spike" considered significant?
Add it all up and you'll find that just by chance, this machine is EXPECTED to have major spikes before world events.
Personally, I'm surprised at the dupe.
You must be new here.
I can't wait to see how Rob Enderle and Maureen O'Gara and Laura Didio are gonna spin this one in the trade press...
Read and laugh: http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/48199.htm.
Make games seem more like a real job?? You mean fewer hours, more pay and better benefits?
How the f$ck is this trandemark infringement?
You thought a French court would find in favor of an American company?
Your blanket assertion that students lack First Amendment rights was fallacious at best, primarily because you lack the constitutional authority to interpret the First Amendment.
Do you even know what "fallacious" means?
You claim that students are being denied rights, while the Supreme Court seems to say that said rights simply don't exist in the first place.
That statement just destroyed your own argument. You just said that the supreme court seems to say that students don't have the rights, then you say I couldn't say that because I'm not a supreme court justice (imagine the horror of a lawyer supporting his case using case law if that lawyer hadn't been a justice) and further you back up and say that the supreme court has given some first amendment rights to students.
So do the rights exist or not?
Read the two cases you cite. The supreme court gives schools the ability to curtail rights of students given to them in the bill of rights, provided that doing so is of legitimate pedagogical concern.
They don't say those rights never existed. In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier the issue was students not adequately protecting the privacy of people their articles were covering. In Tinker v. Des Moines the question was whether or not students wearing arm bands legitimately threatened the school environment. In the first case they said yes, students may not fully appreciate the damage their article can do so the censorship was permissible. In the second case they said Des Moines School district did not have a bonafide concern of the arm bands suddenly causing unrest so the school district could not impede the first amendement.
And lastly: I didn't write the gp post to begin with.
You are exactly right, it says "Congress shall make no law." So congress was precluded from making such a law but the states were NOT.
It was not until the 20th century when the supreme court started broadly interpretting the 14th amendment that states which had made laws to permit such things as double jeopardy, restriction on freedom of religion and unreasonable search and seizure were forced to give them up and we got to where we are today.
Many of the freedoms given to you in the constitution were not until relatively recently given to you in every state.
Wrong: Tinker vs. Des Moines: (students ability to freely protest Vietnam War upheld)
Wrong: Tinker vs. Des Moines did not grant students the right to freely protest the Vietnam War. It gave students the right to protest provided the protest was a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance.
In Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court said "we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." That doesn't sound like they limited censorship just to a principal (and considering hazelwood has been applied to universities, wouldn't make much sense).
What was your point anyway? You did not rebut that students exist under substantially less freedom than the first amendment provides
I have a set of 1000 weakly or strongly interacting particles. The matrix modeling their interaction is 1000x1000.
If I use Java 5's foreach, is that going to be more efficient than a semantic expression of what vector operations I'm doing? Will Java 5's JIT recognize that I'm doing a vector operation and switch to vector instructions to handle it?
Will mathematica invert a 1000x1000 matrix before my next performance review cycle?
Seriously, fortran is useful for hard core numerical computation. You don't want to do your finite element analysis in Mathematica or Java.
A new study would be fairly expensive. But this is not the point. The "urban legend" crowd is quite enamoured of having "debunked" the "Dvorak Faster" myth, when in fact they have done no such thing. To debunk a myth you at the very least need a study with proper scientific rigor.
MWB says "Wait a minute, the one study you use to backup that claim lacks credibility."
Qwerty may be just as good as Dvorak, but we do not, in fact, have a serious, credible, study which says so. Instead we just have a lot of anecdotal evidence... for instance the world's fastest typist uses Dvorak.
A 1953 U.S. General Services Administration study of the QWERTY keyboard and it's only serious challenger, the DVORAK keyboard, found no appreciable typing speed difference between the two keyboards.
Can you find that data used to back up this study?
Oh that's right. You can't. The study was run by Dr. Earl Strong, and he destroyed all his data before others could analyze it. Analysis done based on responses to surveys of people involved in the study turned up numerous problems in the study. But we can't investigate further because Dr. Strong DESTROYED HIS DATA. Dr. Strong displayed his objectivity by attacking the Dvorak, and his keyboard before he had even started any studies.
Was there another GSA study that has the integrity of a proper scientific study? Because the one everyone pins their hat on has none.
I find additionally suspicious that the world's fastest typist uses Dvorak's keyboard layout. Hardly a draw.
So this Dvorak Debunking lies in two people's research.
The only support that Liebowitz and Margolis provide as evidence that there is no speed difference between the two layouts is the research of Dr. Earl Strong in the 1950's.
So the Debunking actually boils down to the research of one person. Done in 1956. And he didn't want Dvorak to win. Oh, and he destroyed his data before anyone else could look at it, so all we know is what he said it said.
The truth isn't out there. Nobody has done a good study.
The work of Liebowitz and Margolis, cited above, makes this abundantly clear.
The study by Liebowitz and Margolis depend heavily on two assumptions:
1) Dvorak's studies were self-serving and therefore suspicious.
2) Strong's studies were well controlled.
The first is kind of hard to argue, as the studies were self-serving. However, Strong's studies were NOT well controlled.
Don't believe me? Try getting the original material of Strong's research to verify his claims. You can't. Know why? Strong destroyed the material. If Strong's studies were well controlled, why did he shred his research when people started asking about it?
So in "researching the entire Dvorak saga", the two economists failed to even mention that Strong's research, which they use as the fundamental support of their argument, may be seriously flawed. At the very least we cannot take it at face value since we cannot analyze the data ourselves. In fact, Strong was not objective at all, from the very beginning he intended to show that any speed up with Dvorak is sufficiently small that retraining the Navy's typists would be impractical. So why did these economists overlook this fact? Well, they were themselves trying to argue that the market always picks the best solution.
Keep this in mind when you think about window's dominance in the market, or any other product that rose to the top through whatever questionable means. The paper in which these two economists wrote about Dvorak not being better than Qwerty was actually a paper in which they were saying "The market always chooses the best option." The keyboards were just the whipping boy they chose to use.
So which serious objective tests between the two keyboards have there been?
Here's the problem with this idea...
Suppose we take someone who is 65 right now, who put $3,000 into a Roth IRA when he was 15, 16 and 17. This is great news for him now. $1,000,000 will provide him a reasonable retirement for at least 15 years.
Ignoring for a moment that Roth IRA's didn't exist when he was 15, let's consider what his environment was when he was 15.
He was 15 years old 50 years ago. So it was 1955. In 1955, the average family brought in $4,137 per year. After taxes, that $3,000 was the family income for the entire year. For each of those 3 years, it would be the equivalent of a high school student earning as much as his or her father for three years. Instead of investing that money in a retirement account, he could have spent $2,944 on the finest Ford available and spent the remaining $56 on 243 gallons of gas. The next year he (or she) could have put $2,200 as a 10% down on the average new house.
The mean income for a family in 2001 is $66,863. Most families are now two-income, so let's say the average single individual could expect to make 2/3 that amount. The equivalent today would be investing about $30,000 every year while you're 15, 16 and 17. Then when you're 65 you would have the inflation-adjusted equivalent of a cool million in todays dollars.
So where does the average teen make $30K/year?
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the "Land of the Free" Creationism is banned from being taught in schools.
You are wrong. Creationism is banned from being taught in public schools.
In this case (and a number of others) I have to agree that the religion of Atheism has been endorsed above all others.
For that to be true you would have to define "not endorsing atheism" as "endorsing theism". It is possible to not endorse either one. Science is not atheist, it's agnostic.
It does not violate church and state since it is not a tenet of a single religion or even just of christianity as a whole.
It is ridiculous to believe that any belief that is held by a plurality of religions does not violate the establishment clause. The Raelians are certainly the most popular religion to believe our origin is aliens creating us, but not the only one. Should aliens having created us be presented as an equally probable source of intelligent design?
I also believe that the theory of gravity, quantum theory and string theory should also be taught in schools despite their conflicting ideas.
Gravity and Quantum Theory have predictive value. Their conflict is truly a puzzle, but within the realm they are used they are very useful.
String theory is interesting, but its predictive value is somewhat questionable. It's on the fringe. It may yet prove to be useful but for right now, it should stay as a studied curiousity outside of primary science curricula.
Evolution also has predictive value. Genetic engineering is a product of our research on how species evolve.
I agree with the other stickers mentioned - when other theories are available, teaching one is depriving our students of the ability to make a choice through reasoning.
Your lack of respect for people is truly dismaying. If a student hears the scientific view at school and the theological view at church, how are they deprived of a choice through reasoning?
End the universe on me once, shame on - shame on you. You can't end the universe on me again!
And just below that:
"In Soviet Russia, curious object spots YOU!"
The judge in this case ruled the stickers unconstitutional because of the religion of the people who supported it.
No, the judge in this case ruled the stickers unconstitutional because an attack directed at evolution in this manner, to any reasonably intelligent person, is an endorsement of religion. This was simply christian fundamentalists trying to play fast and loose with the rules.
They neither promoted nor condemned any religion--or lack thereof.
I don't see how you came to that conclusion, but it is not the conclusion the judge said he came to: "By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof"
If this were allowed to stand, we'd see them attacking all sorts of things that conflict with their interpretation of the bible:
Geology text: "This text book suggests that the rocky material of the mountains between arizona and utah are too hard to have had the Grand Canyon formed by all the floods of the last 10,000 years, which is a theory not a fact. Readers are asked to keep an open mind..."
Physics text: "This text book suggests that the half life of some radioactive materials found on earth, and the relative amounts of decay products found with them, indicate that they have been around for billions of years, which is a theory not a fact. Readers are asked to keep an open mind..."
Sometimes an attack on science that is popularly at odds with religion is an endorsement of religion. No matter how well you dress it up.
All it's saying is to keep an open mind that it's only an unproven idea
The verbage specifically states that evolution is not a fact. They don't know that it is not a fact. The sticker is playing games with semantics ("Oh we mean not a fact as in something is either a theory or a fact") but was clearly cleverly written such that it could easily be read as saying "Evolution is false."
Doesn't sound very open minded to me.
As far as I know, no one has actually observed macroevolution.
There have been several instances of observed speciation in plants and insects.
Sadly (very sadly) in my school - a non-phd-granting state institution - somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of the math majors are in the teacher credentialing program.
Everytime I take a class in the applied math and statistics track that doesn't overlap with theirs, the class has maybe 10-12 people (except the statistics classes that are required for business and economics grad students).