I'm not a singer, though I can actually sing while playing without difficulty, at least so long as my right hand's melody is the same (or nearly the same) as the vocal part. As I play I have a copy of the song running in my head with the melody, usually the right hand part, running through my normal speech bits (just as if I were humming it). I think my problem with talking while playing is that two different tasks are trying to go through my vocal center at once--the "humming" and regular speech. Changing the "humming" to words and actually vocalizing externally instead of internally is apparently not an issue for me.
I might have difficulty singing harmony while playing, but I'm not certain; I just sang while playing for the first time in months a few minutes ago, to test things out.
I hadn't heard of people developing a stammer with forced handedness--that's really interesting, consistent with my mental model of multitasking, and sad.
Because they play only Madonna at the meetings. It's indoctrination. I'm an ex-gay; I would know.
You see, two weeks after a young gay guy comes out, he gets a welcome package in the mail. It includes some educational material*, "necessaries"**, a copy of the gay agenda, and an invitation to the next monthly meeting. If he doesn't go, his gay license is taken away (so nobody will have sex with him; well, girls might, but who cares?). They all end up at the meetings eventually. It's like a Nazi dance party--glitter and leather everywhere. Anyway, at those parties all they play is Madonna. The leaders say it "encourages unity". The truth is, Madonna bought the gay industry years ago for cheap, before she became 90% plastic. She supports her career now almost exclusively with young gay guys who don't know any better. It's tragic really; I mean why would gay guys pick a female artist when there's so many hot guys to choose from nowadays with their YouTube videos and amazing pecs and delicious arms and... I mean, there are better artists than Madonna.
Anyway, I got out of that senseless life and am living clean. No gay for me, thanks; I like girls now. I tore up my license last week. My roommate tried to stop me, but in his tears all I saw was the glittery taint of corporate greed. I let him kiss me one last time, just a little--we can't all be perfect!--but I'm done. I like girls now. Oh, I said that already.
But yeah, that's why gays have such bad taste in music. So now you know.
* Includes: several pamphlets on jargon, at basic (top, bottom), intermediate (39, chibi), and advanced (chicken-of-the-sea, curry queen) levels; HIV/AIDS and other STD prevention information; a list of common hookup methods (Grindr, Manhunt, Craig's List local m4m section); a book on developing a lisp; several quick-start fashion and decorating guides; and of course Dr. Niederwieser's magnum opus, Bend Over!: The Complete Guide to Anal Sex for Men!.
** Includes: condoms, lube, poppers, a dildo, your gay license, tickets to a Lady Gaga concert near you, a gym membership, and new jeans that make your ass look great.
My score on Multitask 2 disagrees with you. Practice also improves my play significantly. After not having played for months I only stayed alive for 85 seconds and I fell apart with 5 tasks. My record is 105 seconds with 6 things at once. After a while it's hard for me to gather enough visual information to play each game, and they all use keyboard input which overloads that part of my brain. Towards the end I can "think" what needs to be done, but not cause my fingers to do so quickly enough.
I usually multitask when playing the piano. I...
* Get fingers positioned right (both hands of course)
* Decide on little touches like dynamics, stoccato, pedaling, rubato, what emotional content I want to convey, if any; I often make these up anew each time
* Decide on changes to the piece, like different rhythms, extra grace notes, changed chords, etc.
* Evaluate my playing--"missed note", "incorrect dynamics", "this emotional arc sucks", "I really like that passage at that speed", etc.
* Perhaps read music
* Let my mind wander, thinking about the day or interactions I had with someone or sometimes a math problem (to calibrate difficulty, I was fiddling with pointwise approximations of complex measurable functions by polynomials almost everywhere a while ago, and the non-null-homotopicness of a particular curve yesterday)
* Listen to people if they're talking around me or listen to TV if it's on; I can tune these out if I wish
Interestingly I can't respond verbally to someone while playing the piano. I can understand someone perfectly and think of a response (nodding if yes/no, for instance), but the verbal part of my brain seems to be engaged with the music. As a rule I can multitask somewhat on simple similar tasks and I can multitask to a large extent on unrelated tasks. Oh, I often juggle or otherwise occupy my hands while doing other things (eg. reading, thinking about math). I vary the patterns somewhat to keep that part of me from getting bored so it's not just tossing and catching in the same basic pattern forever.
If none of this is multitasking to you, you'll have to clarify your use of the term.
I suppose I should have been clearer since you're at least the third person to respond with essentially the same objection. The much more important half of my point (2) was a low amount of science education. I understand that problems reading are common and may or may not be the parent's fault in this case. I would have expected learning disabilities to be mentioned in the question since they're so relevant, but they might not have been, so the below-average reading ability point is at best suggestive. Low science education is pretty clearly a fault of the people doing the homeschooling though.
Yeah. That was one of the "alternate explanations" I didn't bother to write down, primarily because it doesn't explain the low level of science education, making it unlikely, and because it's so pertinent it most likely would have been included in the question. It's still possible though. (Copied from another reply)
Yeah. That was one of the "alternate explanations" I didn't bother to write down, primarily because it doesn't explain the low level of science education, making it unlikely, and because it's so pertinent it most likely would have been included in the question. It's still possible, and more generally there are numerous other benign explanations; I just posted the one I find most probable.
There's really not enough information to draw hard conclusions, by the way. Almost all these posts are far too certain. I had to use "probably" and such many times and ideally should have limited my discussion to chemistry education tools but, well, I was bored and everyone else was doing it....
I didn't say it was illogical in this case. Still, some token "booth boys" wouldn't be amiss (for women too)--you don't have to totally screw over minorities to cater to majorities in every case. The bit you quoted applies much more generally to historically poor behavior, like segregation in the US, where it was mostly directed.
Something can make perfect sense and suck at the same time by the way.
"Hasn't had much science education"--that's the bit that worries me. Below average reading can be explained by a below average child, but a low amount of science instruction means the teachers (presumably parents) aren't doing it right. Science is a "core subject" in the Welsh (and other bits of the UK) primary school education system, despite whatever your education was like.
I think significant disabilities would have been mentioned in the question since they could get in the way of hands-on experiments and would be highly relevant.
"Clever parent" -- from current (limited) evidence, that's probably not the case here.
1. The grandparent is reasonably intelligent. The question is clear and concise; he's been in the computer industry and coding for decades (according to his web site). 2. The kid is below-average in reading and hasn't had much science by age 10--probably not a great job of homeschooling. 3. The grandparent is asking the question, not the parents--the parents aren't doing a good enough job and the grandparent felt the need to step in. Most likely the parents aren't smart enough to do it well. 4. The grandparent probably knows he wont change the parents' minds about homeschooling so is trying to make the best of things by giving his grandson a decent chemistry education.
(There are alternate explanations--eg. parents too busy, grandparent bored and finding something to fill his time--but (2) is pretty damning.)
How about sympathy for those of us who are female and work in the industry
Gay guys too. It's not fun being constantly reminded that companies don't consider you significant enough to be catered to. And you feel left out. And you want your own eye candy damn it!
So, yeah, typical we-only-care-about-the-majority-screw-you-minority behavior. Aren't humans wonderful creatures?
In my case, no. I couldn't care less about girls, but I am interested in people's candid opinions about their odd jobs. I'm also curious about whether the guesses I have about their line of work match up with reality since I like being able to predict people's behavior in general.
Guesses:
* To most it's just a job. It's kind of annoying to be objectified, but it's easy work; they don't mind.
* Some get sexually harassed and leave the business, or, if they need the money, stay and get bitter.
* They're all very young and move on by their mid-20's, partly because their looks begin to fade and partly because they want more out of life.
* Some like the attention, most find the job predominantly tedious and boring.
* None are brilliant and most have no skills to speak of.
* They all have big boobs and plastic smiles.
Correctness:
* Interviewed models generally agreed. So, yes.
* Article didn't say. One of the 25 year olds was broadly following this route, disliking increased objectification. Unclear.
* Interviewed models were 22, 23, 25, and 25, with a 25 year old leaving for a real career. So, yes with the fading looks bit unverified but likely a contributing factor.
* Mostly it was tiring, though also easy. So, these aren't the primary reactions.
* One model hasn't completed college, might be a flight attendant--so yes in her case. Another is becoming a PM at a biotech company, so maybe no. Another is a dancer and studying to be a hair stylist, so yes again. Mixed bag, probably yes.
* About the smiles, yes, from the picture. About the boobs, I'm not qualified to judge. Maybe someone else would like to chime in.
I hate it when people deride dark matter without having the first clue about it. Neutrinos interact only through the weak force and gravity. Maybe another particle interacts only through gravity. No EM emissions would make it dark, no strong or weak interactions would make it essentially undetectable on earth. It would only show up on astronomical scales. Oh, and humans (who are very biased towards the types of particles we're made of and interact regularly with) would think the whole thing was voodoo.
And maybe not. There are numerous explanations for dark matter ranging from various forms of exotic matter to fundamental problems with existing theory. So far there are no clear winners. Making a "mathematical error vs. magical substance" dichotomy is so oversimplified it would be better for you to simply be quiet on this topic.
I imagine core courses split between lecture and problem sessions will have the lecture portion replaced by digital distribution in the next 20 years or so. The benefits of physically attending a huge lecture are too low for cost-conscious schools to stomach indefinitely, especially if really high-quality lectures by gifted educators can be used.
Verily, betimes jargon need be eschewed for the erudition of the laity. Err--I mean, sometimes avoiding big words is the best way to teach people something.
That's not universally true though. Some concepts are just complicated and avoiding jargon makes them harder to understand--in the long term. An example from math:
Jargon-filled: "An nth degree polynomial has at most n roots." Non-jargony: "Suppose you are given a starting number and have a fixed process you use to create an ending number. Let's also say the process has a few rules. You begin with the starting number and are allowed to do three types of operations on your current number: (1) add a number from a list you chose beforehand; (2) multiply by a number from a list you chose beforehand; or (3) multiply by the starting number. For how many starting numbers can your process end up creating 0? It turns out the answer is at most the number of times you used operation (3), plus one, unless you multiplied by 0 at some point in operation (2) in which case every ending number is 0."
Now suppose you were interested in proving the statement. The jargon-filled version can be followed up by basic properties of polynomial factorization which gives the result quickly. You could translate those properties without jargon but there would be three long-term problems: (1) the result would not be very memorable since the important individual ideas wouldn't be picked out for special emphasis with special words; (2) the ideas presented wouldn't be very portable (that is, applicable to other problems) since they're not clearly broken into usable pieces; (3) it would take a long time to communicate with others on similar topics without jargon (they'd invent their own, actually).
Still, when teaching things to a general audience that probably won't continue down a particular line of inquiry, jargon is a bad plan.
You know, there are a lot of downsides to being gay and not a lot of upsides, but at least I've never seen a book titled Bears are from Mars, twinks are from Venus.
(1) The terminal velocities of larger objects is larger, and the effect is significant. The mouse hits the ground at a much lower speed than the horse. (2) The mouse and horse are not even remotely point particles so you should be considering pressure instead of force. You'd have to divide your 22000 number by the ratio of whatever bits land on the horse at once to the same for the mouse; this would be a fairly large number.
To illustrate very approximately why larger objects have larger terminal velocities, consider two falling spheres of equal density, one of small radius and one of large radius. An object reaches terminal velocity when the energy it gains from gravity is perfectly canceled by the energy it has to give up to move air molecules out of the way. Let's compute each.
Basic physics gives the first line of the following. Constant density and the definition of velocity gives the second, and the formula for the volume of a sphere gives the third. (energy gained from gravity) = (gravity constant) * (mass of object) * (distance it fell in a given time) = (different constants) * (volume of sphere) * (velocity of sphere) = (different constants) * (cube of radius) * (velocity of sphere)
The other half is more approximate. The first line is pretty much trivial from the setup. The second line is from the formula for the surface area of a sphere and from the basic physics fact that the energy of an object is proportional to the square of its velocity. The rest is algebra. (energy lost to moving air out of the way) = (constants) * (amount of air moved per unit time) * (energy imparted to each molecule of air) = (constants) * [(surface area exposed) * (distance it fell in a given time)] * (velocity of sphere squared) = (constants) * [(radius squared) * (velocity)] * (velocity squared) = (constants) * (radius squared) * (velocity cubed)
At terminal velocity, these two are equal. Simple algebra gives the answer from here. (constants) * (cube of radius) * (terminal velocity) = (constants) * (square of radius) * (cube of terminal velocity) (constants) * (radius) = (square of terminal velocity) (terminal velocity) = (constants) * sqrt(radius)
The large sphere has large radius, so large terminal velocity. Incidentally this is the formula from the Wikipedia page I linked, though my assumptions were very, very approximate and are probably different from the ones used to derive it.
Hah, nice quote. I tend to agree as well. To get into high level mathematics takes a rare obsession with nonexistent objects, which is a kind of insanity. The main difference between a mathematician and a madman is that the mathematician's work is blessed with applicability while the madman's is not. Also, to an outsider, high level math is indistinguishable from a sufficiently well-spoken lunatic's ravings, which is relevant since "insanity" often only has relative value as a label we assign others.
You made me glance at Eisenstein's Wiki page for biographical info. I didn't know he died so young. What shame, especially considering how much he impressed Gauss and the number of results he's still known for. I love to think of Eisenstein's Criterion as a huge generalization of the (traditional proof of the) irrationality of the square root of 2.
Other examples:
* Nikola Tesla (OCD and more)
* Glenn Gould (one of the greatest 20th century classical pianists; maybe autistic, definitely eccentric)
* Paul Erdos (20th century mathematician, also eccentric, referred to children as "epsilons", which is hilarious)
* Alexander Grothendieck (20th century mathematician; he's probably a hermit in the Pyrenees right now; Grothendieck is basically the definition of the reclusive genius)
* Grisha Perelman (mathematician of Poincare conjecture fame; also withdrawn)
(a) People can easily use Facebook and alternatives simultaneously. (b) Users are only interested in freshly generated data. Neither is true of Windows, so Facebook can be far more easily replaced than Windows. The end.
That argument sucks too--using multiple OSes is extremely common with smartphones and people are interested in their old pictures, so at least two of the four premises have gaping holes. The article wasn't worth the read and I'm not sure why it was even accepted.
The GP sees a rational decision, you see collusion, and I see paranoia mixed with stupidity--yours, not the agencies'. Either the FAA and NTSB called Canada honestly wanting to avoid conflicts of interest, or they just wanted it to appear that they were avoiding a conflict of interest while secretly getting Canadian investigators to cover something up. Of course in this second scenario their fake out brilliantly brought lots of extra publicity to the story. You know, which is exactly what you want when you're covering something up./sigh
Have mod point distribution rules changed recently or something? This is the third completely overrated post I've seen recently.
Ah, no, since you might have to do some stuff in this life to get God's favor in the next. I suppose I should have been clearer but I thought it was obvious.
Maybe one day a rationalist will sacrifice some of his time to tell you what I have told you. And inspire you to take a long hard sobering look at your faith and allow yourself to free yourself of its shackles and see the world unencumbered by the burden of superstition.
I applaud your optimism, but it's almost certainly misplaced. My preliminary analysis is that the GP thinks with their emotions, is somewhat neurotic, is a very poor reasoner, parrots other people's ideas, and has preached some. None of that bodes well for your hopes. I wonder what the GP's profession is. I get a sort of seminary drop out vibe from them. Details below.
"The biggest problem with Christianity" Including "biggest" is a bold statement which was not later justified. Sermon-style rhetorical device. Suggests: poor reasoning, some experience preaching
"is 90% of the people who claim to be christians aren't" Made-up statistic. "christians" not capitalized, as is "bible" later, though most grammar and capitalization are good or consistent throughout. Suggests: poor reasoning, maybe is young and too stupid to get an advanced degree or maybe is too old to care about all the minutiae they once did
"Judgement, Power and Greed" vs "Love, Mercy and Self-Sacrifice." A 3 vs. 3 dichotomy is improbable. It's conveniently symbolic that there are precisely three Wrongs and three Rights, especially in a discussion of Christianity. Non-standard capitalization as rhetoric. Suggests: mysticism, hence probably some neurotic tendencies
"I would bet you didn't learn about how to really apply the teachings of Jesus Christ and how he was. Like most,..." Meaninglessly vague and shows poor skills at generalizing; they applied a situation they've probably seen in their own life to you erroneously. Rhetoric throughout. Suggests: poor reasoning, some experience preaching
"...truly selfless christian will make a point to reach out to you in a loving sacrificing way rather then a judgmental way" Huge emphasis on emotion over reason. Suggests: thinks with their emotions
"...you could never get alone." Again, not later justified. I've heard this line before too. Suggests: parrots other people's ideas
(I was bored and had some time on my hands. Analyzing people is a hobby of mine.)
along with the realization that, had I been born to one of the other 67% of people in the world who have different beliefs, I also would have started out believing something different
This. I think this is the single most convincing argument against the truth of the world's major religions since it shows that religions are primarily social clubs.
I once read an opinion piece by an evolutionary biologist that suggested religions (somewhat ironically) evolved with human society since they can cause people to be more cohesive and productive. The idea is that tribes with socially beneficial religions outperformed the other tribes and dominated because of it. As an example, I'm reminded of the Rashidun Caliphate which was able to conquer most of the Middle East within decades of Muhammad's death. I'm also reminded of European Colonialism which was inspired at least in part by a desire to spread Christianity.
I find it completely unsurprising from this evolutionary perspective that the most successful of today's religions emphasize forgiveness, kindness, generosity towards others, doing good, and/or proselytizing, since they're socially beneficial traits. While religions sometimes demonize groups, they're minorities, and the overall gains outweigh the losses. To personify evolution, it couldn't care less whether transubstantiation is true. All that matters is whether groups with a particular religion did better that groups without it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a singer, though I can actually sing while playing without difficulty, at least so long as my right hand's melody is the same (or nearly the same) as the vocal part. As I play I have a copy of the song running in my head with the melody, usually the right hand part, running through my normal speech bits (just as if I were humming it). I think my problem with talking while playing is that two different tasks are trying to go through my vocal center at once--the "humming" and regular speech. Changing the "humming" to words and actually vocalizing externally instead of internally is apparently not an issue for me.
I might have difficulty singing harmony while playing, but I'm not certain; I just sang while playing for the first time in months a few minutes ago, to test things out.
I hadn't heard of people developing a stammer with forced handedness--that's really interesting, consistent with my mental model of multitasking, and sad.
E.g. Why do gays have such bad taste in music?
Because they play only Madonna at the meetings. It's indoctrination. I'm an ex-gay; I would know.
You see, two weeks after a young gay guy comes out, he gets a welcome package in the mail. It includes some educational material*, "necessaries"**, a copy of the gay agenda, and an invitation to the next monthly meeting. If he doesn't go, his gay license is taken away (so nobody will have sex with him; well, girls might, but who cares?). They all end up at the meetings eventually. It's like a Nazi dance party--glitter and leather everywhere. Anyway, at those parties all they play is Madonna. The leaders say it "encourages unity". The truth is, Madonna bought the gay industry years ago for cheap, before she became 90% plastic. She supports her career now almost exclusively with young gay guys who don't know any better. It's tragic really; I mean why would gay guys pick a female artist when there's so many hot guys to choose from nowadays with their YouTube videos and amazing pecs and delicious arms and... I mean, there are better artists than Madonna.
Anyway, I got out of that senseless life and am living clean. No gay for me, thanks; I like girls now. I tore up my license last week. My roommate tried to stop me, but in his tears all I saw was the glittery taint of corporate greed. I let him kiss me one last time, just a little--we can't all be perfect!--but I'm done. I like girls now. Oh, I said that already.
But yeah, that's why gays have such bad taste in music. So now you know.
* Includes: several pamphlets on jargon, at basic (top, bottom), intermediate (39, chibi), and advanced (chicken-of-the-sea, curry queen) levels; HIV/AIDS and other STD prevention information; a list of common hookup methods (Grindr, Manhunt, Craig's List local m4m section); a book on developing a lisp; several quick-start fashion and decorating guides; and of course Dr. Niederwieser's magnum opus, Bend Over!: The Complete Guide to Anal Sex for Men! .
** Includes: condoms, lube, poppers, a dildo, your gay license, tickets to a Lady Gaga concert near you, a gym membership, and new jeans that make your ass look great.
My score on Multitask 2 disagrees with you. Practice also improves my play significantly. After not having played for months I only stayed alive for 85 seconds and I fell apart with 5 tasks. My record is 105 seconds with 6 things at once. After a while it's hard for me to gather enough visual information to play each game, and they all use keyboard input which overloads that part of my brain. Towards the end I can "think" what needs to be done, but not cause my fingers to do so quickly enough.
I usually multitask when playing the piano. I...
* Get fingers positioned right (both hands of course)
* Decide on little touches like dynamics, stoccato, pedaling, rubato, what emotional content I want to convey, if any; I often make these up anew each time
* Decide on changes to the piece, like different rhythms, extra grace notes, changed chords, etc.
* Evaluate my playing--"missed note", "incorrect dynamics", "this emotional arc sucks", "I really like that passage at that speed", etc.
* Perhaps read music
* Let my mind wander, thinking about the day or interactions I had with someone or sometimes a math problem (to calibrate difficulty, I was fiddling with pointwise approximations of complex measurable functions by polynomials almost everywhere a while ago, and the non-null-homotopicness of a particular curve yesterday)
* Listen to people if they're talking around me or listen to TV if it's on; I can tune these out if I wish
Interestingly I can't respond verbally to someone while playing the piano. I can understand someone perfectly and think of a response (nodding if yes/no, for instance), but the verbal part of my brain seems to be engaged with the music. As a rule I can multitask somewhat on simple similar tasks and I can multitask to a large extent on unrelated tasks. Oh, I often juggle or otherwise occupy my hands while doing other things (eg. reading, thinking about math). I vary the patterns somewhat to keep that part of me from getting bored so it's not just tossing and catching in the same basic pattern forever.
If none of this is multitasking to you, you'll have to clarify your use of the term.
I suppose I should have been clearer since you're at least the third person to respond with essentially the same objection. The much more important half of my point (2) was a low amount of science education. I understand that problems reading are common and may or may not be the parent's fault in this case. I would have expected learning disabilities to be mentioned in the question since they're so relevant, but they might not have been, so the below-average reading ability point is at best suggestive. Low science education is pretty clearly a fault of the people doing the homeschooling though.
Yeah. That was one of the "alternate explanations" I didn't bother to write down, primarily because it doesn't explain the low level of science education, making it unlikely, and because it's so pertinent it most likely would have been included in the question. It's still possible though. (Copied from another reply)
Yeah. That was one of the "alternate explanations" I didn't bother to write down, primarily because it doesn't explain the low level of science education, making it unlikely, and because it's so pertinent it most likely would have been included in the question. It's still possible, and more generally there are numerous other benign explanations; I just posted the one I find most probable.
There's really not enough information to draw hard conclusions, by the way. Almost all these posts are far too certain. I had to use "probably" and such many times and ideally should have limited my discussion to chemistry education tools but, well, I was bored and everyone else was doing it....
I didn't say it was illogical in this case. Still, some token "booth boys" wouldn't be amiss (for women too)--you don't have to totally screw over minorities to cater to majorities in every case. The bit you quoted applies much more generally to historically poor behavior, like segregation in the US, where it was mostly directed.
Something can make perfect sense and suck at the same time by the way.
"Hasn't had much science education"--that's the bit that worries me. Below average reading can be explained by a below average child, but a low amount of science instruction means the teachers (presumably parents) aren't doing it right. Science is a "core subject" in the Welsh (and other bits of the UK) primary school education system, despite whatever your education was like.
I think significant disabilities would have been mentioned in the question since they could get in the way of hands-on experiments and would be highly relevant.
"Clever parent" -- from current (limited) evidence, that's probably not the case here.
1. The grandparent is reasonably intelligent. The question is clear and concise; he's been in the computer industry and coding for decades (according to his web site).
2. The kid is below-average in reading and hasn't had much science by age 10--probably not a great job of homeschooling.
3. The grandparent is asking the question, not the parents--the parents aren't doing a good enough job and the grandparent felt the need to step in. Most likely the parents aren't smart enough to do it well.
4. The grandparent probably knows he wont change the parents' minds about homeschooling so is trying to make the best of things by giving his grandson a decent chemistry education.
(There are alternate explanations--eg. parents too busy, grandparent bored and finding something to fill his time--but (2) is pretty damning.)
How about sympathy for those of us who are female and work in the industry
Gay guys too. It's not fun being constantly reminded that companies don't consider you significant enough to be catered to. And you feel left out. And you want your own eye candy damn it!
So, yeah, typical we-only-care-about-the-majority-screw-you-minority behavior. Aren't humans wonderful creatures?
In my case, no. I couldn't care less about girls, but I am interested in people's candid opinions about their odd jobs. I'm also curious about whether the guesses I have about their line of work match up with reality since I like being able to predict people's behavior in general.
Guesses:
* To most it's just a job. It's kind of annoying to be objectified, but it's easy work; they don't mind.
* Some get sexually harassed and leave the business, or, if they need the money, stay and get bitter.
* They're all very young and move on by their mid-20's, partly because their looks begin to fade and partly because they want more out of life.
* Some like the attention, most find the job predominantly tedious and boring.
* None are brilliant and most have no skills to speak of.
* They all have big boobs and plastic smiles.
Correctness:
* Interviewed models generally agreed. So, yes.
* Article didn't say. One of the 25 year olds was broadly following this route, disliking increased objectification. Unclear.
* Interviewed models were 22, 23, 25, and 25, with a 25 year old leaving for a real career. So, yes with the fading looks bit unverified but likely a contributing factor.
* Mostly it was tiring, though also easy. So, these aren't the primary reactions.
* One model hasn't completed college, might be a flight attendant--so yes in her case. Another is becoming a PM at a biotech company, so maybe no. Another is a dancer and studying to be a hair stylist, so yes again. Mixed bag, probably yes.
* About the smiles, yes, from the picture. About the boobs, I'm not qualified to judge. Maybe someone else would like to chime in.
I hate it when people deride dark matter without having the first clue about it. Neutrinos interact only through the weak force and gravity. Maybe another particle interacts only through gravity. No EM emissions would make it dark, no strong or weak interactions would make it essentially undetectable on earth. It would only show up on astronomical scales. Oh, and humans (who are very biased towards the types of particles we're made of and interact regularly with) would think the whole thing was voodoo.
And maybe not. There are numerous explanations for dark matter ranging from various forms of exotic matter to fundamental problems with existing theory. So far there are no clear winners. Making a "mathematical error vs. magical substance" dichotomy is so oversimplified it would be better for you to simply be quiet on this topic.
I imagine core courses split between lecture and problem sessions will have the lecture portion replaced by digital distribution in the next 20 years or so. The benefits of physically attending a huge lecture are too low for cost-conscious schools to stomach indefinitely, especially if really high-quality lectures by gifted educators can be used.
Verily, betimes jargon need be eschewed for the erudition of the laity.
Err--I mean, sometimes avoiding big words is the best way to teach people something.
That's not universally true though. Some concepts are just complicated and avoiding jargon makes them harder to understand--in the long term. An example from math:
Jargon-filled: "An nth degree polynomial has at most n roots."
Non-jargony: "Suppose you are given a starting number and have a fixed process you use to create an ending number. Let's also say the process has a few rules. You begin with the starting number and are allowed to do three types of operations on your current number: (1) add a number from a list you chose beforehand; (2) multiply by a number from a list you chose beforehand; or (3) multiply by the starting number. For how many starting numbers can your process end up creating 0? It turns out the answer is at most the number of times you used operation (3), plus one, unless you multiplied by 0 at some point in operation (2) in which case every ending number is 0."
Now suppose you were interested in proving the statement. The jargon-filled version can be followed up by basic properties of polynomial factorization which gives the result quickly. You could translate those properties without jargon but there would be three long-term problems: (1) the result would not be very memorable since the important individual ideas wouldn't be picked out for special emphasis with special words; (2) the ideas presented wouldn't be very portable (that is, applicable to other problems) since they're not clearly broken into usable pieces; (3) it would take a long time to communicate with others on similar topics without jargon (they'd invent their own, actually).
Still, when teaching things to a general audience that probably won't continue down a particular line of inquiry, jargon is a bad plan.
You know, there are a lot of downsides to being gay and not a lot of upsides, but at least I've never seen a book titled Bears are from Mars, twinks are from Venus.
How do they work? Like this.
Why do they work? Fuck if I know. At least Richard Feynman agreed with me.
No, your two main assumptions are badly wrong.
(1) The terminal velocities of larger objects is larger, and the effect is significant. The mouse hits the ground at a much lower speed than the horse.
(2) The mouse and horse are not even remotely point particles so you should be considering pressure instead of force. You'd have to divide your 22000 number by the ratio of whatever bits land on the horse at once to the same for the mouse; this would be a fairly large number.
To illustrate very approximately why larger objects have larger terminal velocities, consider two falling spheres of equal density, one of small radius and one of large radius. An object reaches terminal velocity when the energy it gains from gravity is perfectly canceled by the energy it has to give up to move air molecules out of the way. Let's compute each.
Basic physics gives the first line of the following. Constant density and the definition of velocity gives the second, and the formula for the volume of a sphere gives the third.
(energy gained from gravity)
= (gravity constant) * (mass of object) * (distance it fell in a given time)
= (different constants) * (volume of sphere) * (velocity of sphere)
= (different constants) * (cube of radius) * (velocity of sphere)
The other half is more approximate. The first line is pretty much trivial from the setup. The second line is from the formula for the surface area of a sphere and from the basic physics fact that the energy of an object is proportional to the square of its velocity. The rest is algebra.
(energy lost to moving air out of the way)
= (constants) * (amount of air moved per unit time) * (energy imparted to each molecule of air)
= (constants) * [(surface area exposed) * (distance it fell in a given time)] * (velocity of sphere squared)
= (constants) * [(radius squared) * (velocity)] * (velocity squared)
= (constants) * (radius squared) * (velocity cubed)
At terminal velocity, these two are equal. Simple algebra gives the answer from here.
(constants) * (cube of radius) * (terminal velocity) = (constants) * (square of radius) * (cube of terminal velocity)
(constants) * (radius) = (square of terminal velocity)
(terminal velocity) = (constants) * sqrt(radius)
The large sphere has large radius, so large terminal velocity. Incidentally this is the formula from the Wikipedia page I linked, though my assumptions were very, very approximate and are probably different from the ones used to derive it.
Hah, nice quote. I tend to agree as well. To get into high level mathematics takes a rare obsession with nonexistent objects, which is a kind of insanity. The main difference between a mathematician and a madman is that the mathematician's work is blessed with applicability while the madman's is not. Also, to an outsider, high level math is indistinguishable from a sufficiently well-spoken lunatic's ravings, which is relevant since "insanity" often only has relative value as a label we assign others.
You made me glance at Eisenstein's Wiki page for biographical info. I didn't know he died so young. What shame, especially considering how much he impressed Gauss and the number of results he's still known for. I love to think of Eisenstein's Criterion as a huge generalization of the (traditional proof of the) irrationality of the square root of 2.
Other examples:
* Nikola Tesla (OCD and more)
* Glenn Gould (one of the greatest 20th century classical pianists; maybe autistic, definitely eccentric)
* Paul Erdos (20th century mathematician, also eccentric, referred to children as "epsilons", which is hilarious)
* Alexander Grothendieck (20th century mathematician; he's probably a hermit in the Pyrenees right now; Grothendieck is basically the definition of the reclusive genius)
* Grisha Perelman (mathematician of Poincare conjecture fame; also withdrawn)
What does "virgin beta geek" mean? Is "beta geek" a play on "alpha male"?
There's slightly more to it. Something like...
(a) People can easily use Facebook and alternatives simultaneously.
(b) Users are only interested in freshly generated data.
Neither is true of Windows, so Facebook can be far more easily replaced than Windows. The end.
That argument sucks too--using multiple OSes is extremely common with smartphones and people are interested in their old pictures, so at least two of the four premises have gaping holes. The article wasn't worth the read and I'm not sure why it was even accepted.
The GP sees a rational decision, you see collusion, and I see paranoia mixed with stupidity--yours, not the agencies'. Either the FAA and NTSB called Canada honestly wanting to avoid conflicts of interest, or they just wanted it to appear that they were avoiding a conflict of interest while secretly getting Canadian investigators to cover something up. Of course in this second scenario their fake out brilliantly brought lots of extra publicity to the story. You know, which is exactly what you want when you're covering something up. /sigh
Have mod point distribution rules changed recently or something? This is the third completely overrated post I've seen recently.
Ah, no, since you might have to do some stuff in this life to get God's favor in the next. I suppose I should have been clearer but I thought it was obvious.
Maybe one day a rationalist will sacrifice some of his time to tell you what I have told you. And inspire you to take a long hard sobering look at your faith and allow yourself to free yourself of its shackles and see the world unencumbered by the burden of superstition.
I applaud your optimism, but it's almost certainly misplaced. My preliminary analysis is that the GP thinks with their emotions, is somewhat neurotic, is a very poor reasoner, parrots other people's ideas, and has preached some. None of that bodes well for your hopes. I wonder what the GP's profession is. I get a sort of seminary drop out vibe from them. Details below.
"The biggest problem with Christianity"
Including "biggest" is a bold statement which was not later justified. Sermon-style rhetorical device.
Suggests: poor reasoning, some experience preaching
"is 90% of the people who claim to be christians aren't"
Made-up statistic. "christians" not capitalized, as is "bible" later, though most grammar and capitalization are good or consistent throughout.
Suggests: poor reasoning, maybe is young and too stupid to get an advanced degree or maybe is too old to care about all the minutiae they once did
"Judgement, Power and Greed" vs "Love, Mercy and Self-Sacrifice."
A 3 vs. 3 dichotomy is improbable. It's conveniently symbolic that there are precisely three Wrongs and three Rights, especially in a discussion of Christianity. Non-standard capitalization as rhetoric.
Suggests: mysticism, hence probably some neurotic tendencies
"I would bet you didn't learn about how to really apply the teachings of Jesus Christ and how he was. Like most, ..."
Meaninglessly vague and shows poor skills at generalizing; they applied a situation they've probably seen in their own life to you erroneously. Rhetoric throughout.
Suggests: poor reasoning, some experience preaching
"...truly selfless christian will make a point to reach out to you in a loving sacrificing way rather then a judgmental way"
Huge emphasis on emotion over reason.
Suggests: thinks with their emotions
"...you could never get alone."
Again, not later justified. I've heard this line before too.
Suggests: parrots other people's ideas
(I was bored and had some time on my hands. Analyzing people is a hobby of mine.)
along with the realization that, had I been born to one of the other 67% of people in the world who have different beliefs, I also would have started out believing something different
This. I think this is the single most convincing argument against the truth of the world's major religions since it shows that religions are primarily social clubs.
I once read an opinion piece by an evolutionary biologist that suggested religions (somewhat ironically) evolved with human society since they can cause people to be more cohesive and productive. The idea is that tribes with socially beneficial religions outperformed the other tribes and dominated because of it. As an example, I'm reminded of the Rashidun Caliphate which was able to conquer most of the Middle East within decades of Muhammad's death. I'm also reminded of European Colonialism which was inspired at least in part by a desire to spread Christianity.
I find it completely unsurprising from this evolutionary perspective that the most successful of today's religions emphasize forgiveness, kindness, generosity towards others, doing good, and/or proselytizing, since they're socially beneficial traits. While religions sometimes demonize groups, they're minorities, and the overall gains outweigh the losses. To personify evolution, it couldn't care less whether transubstantiation is true. All that matters is whether groups with a particular religion did better that groups without it.