As someone who graduated from an Engineering University...
Sines and cosines are everywhere. If you don't teach it to them in such a way that they understand it, you will be doing them a *horrible* disservice even if they only go so far as to take Calculus I. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to do "remedial trig" for someone in an introductory physics class because it wasn't taught properly the first time they studied it.
That hurts just in Physics I. It hurts worse in something like Surveying, Material Science, or--the gods forbid--electrical engineering.
While I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to rewrite the fourier sine series and such in this notational system, I don't see how it would make it any easier to work with.
As a linear algebra professor of mine put it "Don't memorize these--by the time you're my age you'll be senile and won't remember them anyway. Instead, learn how to do them so that you can always work them out in the future."
Hell the Norse thought the world was created from the rotting corpse of a frost giant.
If you are capable of using symbolism and telling stories, you might give other cultures the benefit of the doubt that they were capable of using symbolism and telling stories as well. Examining Christianity in the same light as how you just viewed the Norse religion, you'd come to the conclusion that they worshipped sheep.
"Creationism" is almost unique to certain Christian groups, because most others don't take their own creation stories as anything but myths. Quoting Gods and Myths of Northern Europe by H.R. Ellis-Davidson: "The mythology of a people is far more than a collection of pretty of terrifying fables to be retold in carefully bowdlerized form to our schoolchildren. It is the comment of the men of one particular age or civilization on the mysteries of human existence and the human mind, their model for social behaviour, and their attempt to define in stories of gods and demons their perception of the inner realities." The Christian mythology is no different, but just because some Christians take the Christian mythology literally does not mean those of other paths do the same. Sure, you get the odd group here or there that can be considered "creationist" in their own path, but I would argue that they are the exceptions and not the rule.
"Creationism" and "ID" are also not the same, because "ID" can be separated from any form of religious context and there are many, many forms of "theistic evolution" that all fall under "ID" but can hardly be called "creationist." To quote Arn's glossary, some Theistic evolutionists believe that "God set the initial conditions of the universe and designed natural laws so that their ordinary operation has resulted in the intended outcome." That's widely separate from even Old Earth Creationism.
I'm also not sure I'd describe Ymir as a "frost giant" since the stories goes that it was born when the ice of Niflheim was melted by the heat from Muspelheim, but that's neither here nor there.
Think of it as the chance is.0000000000001% * X, if X->inf, then we get, eventually, 1
It would help if, when discussing probability, you actually had a clue on how to do probability calculations. To get the probability of n independent trials getting 1 or more successes, you should employ a binomial distribution, not straight multiplication.
I've gotten totally out of these debates except when I am exceptionally bored.
The level of fanaticism by people who's grasp of scientific understanding stopped improving in the 8th grade is simply sickening and even those who should know better show an extreme level of extremism on this topic. Selective reading, people's gut reactions, taking things deliberately out of context, ignoring any talk of actual evidence one way or the other , and assertions with no further evidence reign supreme.....and that's among the RM+NS Evolution proponents. You'd think people championing the cause the "science" would, in fact, be more *scientific*.
For the record, ID competes with Naturalism, not with evolution. Naturalism shouldn't be taught in a science class either, but I agree that both would have a place in a philosophy class.
I know a woman who is married, has a boyfriend lives with them both simultaneously along with her husband's boyfriend, and is dating another individual (the husband's girlfriend is also dating another individual). All parties know each other and are aware of the relationship dynamics involved. All parties are supportive of the other parties.
That isn't "cheating" and the focus isn't sex, but the relationships--however--sex is involved.
I know another couple who swings on the weekends. It is just good Friday night entertainment to them.
Sex may not be that way *to you*, but sex means different things to different people and people define their relationships in different ways.
"This is what happened to me, boo hoo hoo" is not a valid measure for anyone other than yourself.
Plenty of people are perfectly happy swinging or existing in polyamorous relationships, polygyny is a cultural norm in the majority of the world's human cultures throughout history, and our closest genetic cousins are *clearly* not monogamous.
Face it, your "living with emotions and having a conscience" are clearly centered on a cultural bias and on your own upbringing and have nothing to do with how healthy alternatives are for different people.
Considering its been known to be roughly spherical since well into the BC era (just about every seafaring country knew it and the greeks took a pretty reasonable stab at calculating the Earth's circumference), I would hardly say it is comparable to global warming.
The rational mind questions even the most basic and broadly held beliefs. I know more than one scientist who says that their job is "disproving what is commonly known."
I have specific evidence that the world is roughly a sphere--I've done the calculations myself based on collected data. I still would never declare "the scientific debate over." I would say, simply, "here is my evidence, what is yours for your counter hypothesis and/or what flaws do you see in the evidence that I have collected?"
That is scientific, "the scientific debate is over" is, funnily enough, completely unscientific.
Slashdot Mirror
Darwin is based on FreeBSD.
Anyone else immediately think of the "flair" from Office Space?
Look up the Order Monotremata. There are two surviving Families: Tachyglossidae (Spiny Anteaters) and Ornithorhynchidae (Platypus).
Surviving Tachyglossidae are Tachyglossus aculeatus, Zaglossus attenboroughi, and Z. bruijnii.
Only the Ornithorhynchus anatinus survives from the Ornithorhynchidae family.
"If me and a friend walk into an apple store and buy Mac Minis, I expect that mine will be just as good as his."
Why don't you just get a ruler and measure?
You forgot the Ark of the Covenant! I'm sure that's in an FBI warehouse too!
Anyone, properly trained, can deliver 2/3rds of their body weight in any given direction (more along specific lines).
It takes something like 50 lbs of torque to break someone's neck.
As someone who graduated from an Engineering University...
Sines and cosines are everywhere. If you don't teach it to them in such a way that they understand it, you will be doing them a *horrible* disservice even if they only go so far as to take Calculus I. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to do "remedial trig" for someone in an introductory physics class because it wasn't taught properly the first time they studied it.
That hurts just in Physics I. It hurts worse in something like Surveying, Material Science, or--the gods forbid--electrical engineering.
While I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to rewrite the fourier sine series and such in this notational system, I don't see how it would make it any easier to work with.
As a linear algebra professor of mine put it "Don't memorize these--by the time you're my age you'll be senile and won't remember them anyway. Instead, learn how to do them so that you can always work them out in the future."
"What OS do you think will be on a computer that you buy two years from now?"
MacOS X 10.6, why do you ask?
Unfortunately neither of them show my house. It's in a black area on Google Maps and it is squarely under a cloud in the linked site.
When a bullet can arrange a face-to-face introduction?
(sorry, sorry, couldn't resist)
Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy, you do know?
I've heard more than one scientist remark that a big part of their job is "disproving what is commonly known."
The snowball earth happened 630 million years ago. Not 4.5 bya.
That's a slightly shorter time scale than the age of the earth.
Hell the Norse thought the world was created from the rotting corpse of a frost giant.
If you are capable of using symbolism and telling stories, you might give other cultures the benefit of the doubt that they were capable of using symbolism and telling stories as well. Examining Christianity in the same light as how you just viewed the Norse religion, you'd come to the conclusion that they worshipped sheep.
"Creationism" is almost unique to certain Christian groups, because most others don't take their own creation stories as anything but myths. Quoting Gods and Myths of Northern Europe by H.R. Ellis-Davidson: "The mythology of a people is far more than a collection of pretty of terrifying fables to be retold in carefully bowdlerized form to our schoolchildren. It is the comment of the men of one particular age or civilization on the mysteries of human existence and the human mind, their model for social behaviour, and their attempt to define in stories of gods and demons their perception of the inner realities." The Christian mythology is no different, but just because some Christians take the Christian mythology literally does not mean those of other paths do the same. Sure, you get the odd group here or there that can be considered "creationist" in their own path, but I would argue that they are the exceptions and not the rule.
"Creationism" and "ID" are also not the same, because "ID" can be separated from any form of religious context and there are many, many forms of "theistic evolution" that all fall under "ID" but can hardly be called "creationist." To quote Arn's glossary, some Theistic evolutionists believe that "God set the initial conditions of the universe and designed natural laws so that their ordinary operation has resulted in the intended outcome." That's widely separate from even Old Earth Creationism.
I'm also not sure I'd describe Ymir as a "frost giant" since the stories goes that it was born when the ice of Niflheim was melted by the heat from Muspelheim, but that's neither here nor there.
Think of it as the chance is .0000000000001% * X, if X->inf, then we get, eventually, 1
It would help if, when discussing probability, you actually had a clue on how to do probability calculations. To get the probability of n independent trials getting 1 or more successes, you should employ a binomial distribution, not straight multiplication.
lim(n->\infty) P[ n >=1 ] = lim(n->\infty) 1 - P[ n = 0 ] = lim(n->\infty) 1 - n! / ( (n - 0)! * 0! ) * p^0 * (1-p)^n ~= 1 - 0 = 1
You can assert that until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make you correct.
I've gotten totally out of these debates except when I am exceptionally bored.
..and that's among the RM+NS Evolution proponents. You'd think people championing the cause the "science" would, in fact, be more *scientific*.
The level of fanaticism by people who's grasp of scientific understanding stopped improving in the 8th grade is simply sickening and even those who should know better show an extreme level of extremism on this topic. Selective reading, people's gut reactions, taking things deliberately out of context, ignoring any talk of actual evidence one way or the other , and assertions with no further evidence reign supreme...
For the record, ID competes with Naturalism, not with evolution. Naturalism shouldn't be taught in a science class either, but I agree that both would have a place in a philosophy class.
I know a woman who is married, has a boyfriend lives with them both simultaneously along with her husband's boyfriend, and is dating another individual (the husband's girlfriend is also dating another individual). All parties know each other and are aware of the relationship dynamics involved. All parties are supportive of the other parties.
That isn't "cheating" and the focus isn't sex, but the relationships--however--sex is involved.
I know another couple who swings on the weekends. It is just good Friday night entertainment to them.
Sex may not be that way *to you*, but sex means different things to different people and people define their relationships in different ways.
What, precisely, is objectionable about BDSM?
If you prefer emotional connections, there's always polyamory.
"This is what happened to me, boo hoo hoo" is not a valid measure for anyone other than yourself.
Plenty of people are perfectly happy swinging or existing in polyamorous relationships, polygyny is a cultural norm in the majority of the world's human cultures throughout history, and our closest genetic cousins are *clearly* not monogamous.
Face it, your "living with emotions and having a conscience" are clearly centered on a cultural bias and on your own upbringing and have nothing to do with how healthy alternatives are for different people.
Do you have a cray mainframe set up to run your word processing applications?
Considering its been known to be roughly spherical since well into the BC era (just about every seafaring country knew it and the greeks took a pretty reasonable stab at calculating the Earth's circumference), I would hardly say it is comparable to global warming.
The rational mind questions even the most basic and broadly held beliefs. I know more than one scientist who says that their job is "disproving what is commonly known."
I have specific evidence that the world is roughly a sphere--I've done the calculations myself based on collected data. I still would never declare "the scientific debate over." I would say, simply, "here is my evidence, what is yours for your counter hypothesis and/or what flaws do you see in the evidence that I have collected?"
That is scientific, "the scientific debate is over" is, funnily enough, completely unscientific.