[L3]Re: Girls more confident of success...in an empathicaly focused world
some snippage done throughout Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William T Goodall wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3110594.stm Women have overtaken men at every level of education in developed countries around the world. snipped rest of article quote What about an education system and workplace that are now more focused on empathic and rote memorization ability than on problem solving ability? If by problem solving you mean mathmatical problems, then men generally do have an edge over women, but if problem solving includes practical solutions to quandries encountered in the home or workplace, I'd say women have just as much ability... snip I think your leaving out a lot of women who have the male type mind. I didn't mean to - heck, that 'text gender finder' had me being male (I think b/c of using numbers.) certainly Eilshemius might have been one of those people. There are of course also men with female type minds. The use of the term problem solving should have been qualified. OK. snipped websites listing women scientists Womens lib has benificial effects, but it also has some detrimental effects as well. I suggest that technolegy and buisness would be progressing much faster had Womens lib never happened. The focus in the work place on empathic systems rather than problem solving systems leads to a highly political environement more focused on polotics than getting the job done. ??? In practically every office in which I've worked over the past ten yearsincluding the current one, the office manager and/or executive secretary is/are key tothe efficient and harmonious workplace environment Strange it allways seems to me that these same people are setting up and applying procedures which work against the company rather than for it. And that this is why things go SNAFU when they are not around. LOL I take it you haven't worked in a private clinic, with the *massive* egos and This needs to be done STAT! [b/c I forgot to order the blood test last time the patient came in] -- SNAFUs occur daily in many offices. Adaptability and thinking-on-the-fly are essential in the typical office manager, because whatever procedures are in place, a typical week will involve something outside of the norm. I also don't think that progress is only measured by technology and business -- particularly I don't think that most corporations have a shining vision of the future- other than their own profits (of course there are responsible and innovative companies which do). Was it allways that way? I don't follow you here - I said that progress does not equal technology and business alone; as example I offered health and lifespan (which does reflect applied technology and applied knowledge - one only has to look at the former Soviet Union to see how advanced technology, poorly applied, does not correlate with the health and welfare of a people.) Support for this can be shown in advancements made in the last century prior to womens lib and those made after it. ??? My understanding (and if someone has a site showing otherwise, I'd appreciate the posting) is that scientific advancement in the past hundred or so years has been on a nearly asymptotic curve (IIRC the term) compared to the prior millennia. snip Exactly it is only when the effort was achieved that the advancement deterioraited. NASA can't even listen to their experts any more, and why? Becouse they are not people persons enough to get themselves heard in a strickly empathic driven political environement. I'm not tracking here, Jan; failing to account for one set of calculations done in kilometers and one in miles (or feet) doesn't have anything to do with empathy from my POV; not listening to warnings from their experts is just plain foolish (and deadly, as it turned out). Now it does seem to me that with increased media coverage, people are more indignant over the inherent dangers in exploration (how often were the deaths of test pilots rehashed on radio and TV back before the 60's? I don't remember outrage over the loss of Grissom/White/Chaffee, only national sorrow), and that might not be justified -- but the first two examples in this paragraph are errors of judgement rather than genuinely encountered unforeseen problems, IMO. Do you have an article stating that there has been a technological decline, and how it is related to the women's rights movement? snip description of microculture that employs both male and female modes of thinking Reason, logic, intuition and empathy definitely are synergystic when working on major problems, with of course one mode sometimes being more important than the others at different stages; the engineering/materials science had better be solid when a bridge is
Re: [L3]Re: Girls more confident of success...in an empathicaly focused world
Addendum: I left out the filtration and calibration steps required in the 'high-tech' approach to bacterial quantification, and I forget the name of the machine used to measure light absorption and emission at various wavelengths...bu' ith on th' tiph ah ma tongue! :) It wasn't even necessary for the usual sterile techniques (i.e. autoclaving) to be used with the waste sludge - just accurate dilutions with tap water (spot checks to ensure that sewage wasn't in the tap water probably weren't even necessary - unless there'd been a hurricane). __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3]Re: Girls more confident of success...in an empathicaly focused world
At 11:38 PM 9/19/03 -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: some snippage done throughout I'm not tracking here, Jan; failing to account for one set of calculations done in kilometers and one in miles (or feet) If you are thinking of the loss of the Mars Polar Lander, I believe it was actually confusion over whether the thrust of the engine was measured in newtons or pounds, both of which are units of force, but one of which is about 4.5 times the other. doesn't have anything to do with empathy from my POV Unless you want to say that the failure to communicate between NASA and a contractor was due to [a lack of] empathy? ; not listening to warnings from their experts is just plain foolish (and deadly, as it turned out). Now it does seem to me that with increased media coverage, people are more indignant over the inherent dangers in exploration (how often were the deaths of test pilots rehashed on radio and TV back before the 60's? I don't remember outrage over the loss of Grissom/White/Chaffee, only national sorrow) Ditto. And a resolve to fix it and fly. , and that might not be justified -- but the first two examples in this paragraph are errors of judgement rather than genuinely encountered unforeseen problems, IMO. Do you have an article stating that there has been a technological decline, and how it is related to the women's rights movement? If I were to blame it on any movement from the 60s or 70s, I'd blame it on the environmental movement, or specifically the subset thereof which claimed that all technology is evil. And speaking of movements . . . I did not say brown-nosing or shmoozing. [The hospital term for that is guiaic positive! - from a test done on stool to check for blood. ;} ] --Ronn! :) Bathroom humor is an American-Standard. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3]Re: Girls more confident of success...in an emphatically focused world
At 11:58 PM 9/19/03 -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: Addendum: I left out the filtration and calibration steps required in the 'high-tech' approach to bacterial quantification, and I forget the name of the machine used to measure light absorption and emission at various wavelengths...bu' ith on th' tiph ah ma tongue! :) It wasn't even necessary for the usual sterile techniques (i.e. autoclaving) to be used with the waste sludge - just accurate dilutions with tap water (spot checks to ensure that sewage wasn't in the tap water probably weren't even necessary - unless there'd been a hurricane). Your thoughts tonight really seem to be concentrated in the sewer . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memorization vs. idea space position
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: snip That's a good question. As Doug has pointed out, language is a system. I like to think of the metaphor of idea space where the words both defines the space and is embedded in the space. If one includes math as a language, there is a strong arguement that there are no ideas apart from language. Indeed most people who state I have a great idea, I just can't put it into words actually have a vauge idea they think is great, that may even have the potential to be great, but isn't fleshed out. and snip Dan M. We are probably talking about different things, but I have to disagree with this. There have been many times where I can see exactly how to fix a problem, or do something different; but cannot put it into words at all. There'd be a click and the solution would slide right in to my head, and more than once I was actually speechless. I've had to make drawings or do some other non-verbal communication, if the answer was needed right now! and my co-workers were going down the wrong (idea) path. But after a few times those working with me knew I was on (to) something when I got that way. And what about the case where someone tries to put into words their idea, even uses diagrams, and nobody gets it until it's been coded and they can see it working on a computer screen? Julia who hasn't been hearing *that* one for a few years, but heard it a number of times a decade ago That happens all the time. It's known in the industry as the differnce between abstractionists and implementationists. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3]Re: Girls more confident of success...in an empathicaly focused world
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: some snippage done throughout I also don't think that progress is only measured by technology and business -- particularly I don't think that most corporations have a shining vision of the future- other than their own profits (of course there are responsible and innovative companies which do). Was it allways that way? I don't follow you here - I said that progress does not equal technology and business alone; I am not sure that those who participated in sending a man to the moon has as a majority money grubing buisnessmen. In fact having met many of them I am quite certain that it was the mission, not the profit which drove them. While personal advancement was not unkown, it was not common for it to be placed above the mission. While there was political rambeling internaly, it was not based primarily on who empowered who, who liked who, and who sucked up to who in just the right way, as to make who ~feel~ important or powerful. At least not in a majority. There was a study...(read it after listening to a bit on NPR about 10 months ago - can't find it now as I don't remember any of the names.) which found that most buisneses do more to hinder themselves than they do to better themselves and that the reason was internal politics centered most usualy around people skills and popularity battles, not technical decisions. Support for this can be shown in advancements made in the last century prior to womens lib and those made after it. ??? My understanding (and if someone has a site showing otherwise, I'd appreciate the posting) is that scientific advancement in the past hundred or so years has been on a nearly asymptotic curve (IIRC the term) compared to the prior millennia. snip Exactly it is only when the effort was achieved that the advancement deterioraited. NASA can't even listen to their experts any more, and why? Becouse they are not people persons enough to get themselves heard in a strickly empathic driven political environement. I'm not tracking here, Jan; failing to account for one set of calculations done in kilometers and one in miles (or feet) doesn't have anything to do with empathy from my POV; not listening to warnings from their experts is just plain foolish (and deadly, as it turned out). Exacty the culture no longer is one where the administrators are there to facilitate the technicals. The administrators are more concerned with their own position, prestige, and sense of power than what their experts are telling them. They are so full of themselves that they believe they know better than the experts. Advancement to such positions require empathic...people skills not technical ability or savvy. Why? becouse only someone with those skill is able to survive the political in-fighting at the top. Not only is such a system extreamly ineficient, but it fosters failure. In this case death. You see, it's not that they were foolish as individuals (becouse clearly many in the group were not), it's why, as a group they were foolish. -- but the first two examples in this paragraph are errors of judgement rather than genuinely encountered unforeseen problems, IMO. Not the judgment of the scientists and engeneers, but the judgment of the leaders. Do you have an article stating that there has been a technological decline, and how it is related to the women's rights movement? What if I did? I assure you if you want an article linked on the web to support any argument, it will be available if you look long enough. If you look longer you will find the opposite support. so - No, but I am questioning it. It is my own thought...I think. First you would have to show that there is a decline. Ok well, we went to the moon in 1969, where have we gone since? We use to have software that could comunicate across many differnt nodes and work concurently and quickly in binary. Now we have port 80 and unicode and it keeps being fed down our throats like it was some kind of advancement. nuf said? Now to why these decisions are being made. Maybe I should formalize this. comlete with references...finding the NPR thing might help. But all you really have to do is talk to Engineers over 50 about the way things use to work compared to how they work now. Sure there is plenty that has improved but the one overiding theam keeps comeing back to the whole touchy feely, people person, empathic, mamsy-pamsy, buisness culture than now seems to drive science and engeneering fields. And it's not just men I'm talking to. snip description of microculture that employs both male and female modes of thinking Reason, logic, intuition and empathy definitely are synergystic when working on major problems, with of course one mode sometimes being more important than the others at different stages; the engineering/materials science had better be solid when a bridge is
Ideal Scientific Equipment
Here's one for Ronn and Alberto: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ideal/ideal.htm xponent If Only Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3]Re: Girls more confident of success...in an emphatically focused world
At 03:37 AM 9/20/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: some snippage done throughout I also don't think that progress is only measured by technology and business -- particularly I don't think that most corporations have a shining vision of the future- other than their own profits (of course there are responsible and innovative companies which do). Was it allways that way? I don't follow you here - I said that progress does not equal technology and business alone; I am not sure that those who participated in sending a man to the moon has as a majority money grubing buisnessmen. In fact having met many of them I am quite certain that it was the mission, not the profit which drove them. While personal advancement was not unkown, it was not common for it to be placed above the mission. While there was political rambeling internaly, it was not based primarily on who empowered who, who liked who, and who sucked up to who in just the right way, as to make who ~feel~ important or powerful. At least not in a majority. There was a study...(read it after listening to a bit on NPR about 10 months ago - can't find it now as I don't remember any of the names.) which found that most buisneses do more to hinder themselves than they do to better themselves and that the reason was internal politics centered most usualy around people skills and popularity battles, not technical decisions. Support for this can be shown in advancements made in the last century prior to womens lib and those made after it. ??? My understanding (and if someone has a site showing otherwise, I'd appreciate the posting) is that scientific advancement in the past hundred or so years has been on a nearly asymptotic curve (IIRC the term) compared to the prior millennia. snip Exactly it is only when the effort was achieved that the advancement deterioraited. NASA can't even listen to their experts any more, and why? Becouse they are not people persons enough to get themselves heard in a strickly empathic driven political environement. I'm not tracking here, Jan; failing to account for one set of calculations done in kilometers and one in miles (or feet) doesn't have anything to do with empathy from my POV; not listening to warnings from their experts is just plain foolish (and deadly, as it turned out). Exacty the culture no longer is one where the administrators are there to facilitate the technicals. The administrators are more concerned with their own position, prestige, and sense of power than what their experts are telling them. They are so full of themselves that they believe they know better than the experts. Advancement to such positions require empathic...people skills not technical ability or savvy. Why? becouse only someone with those skill is able to survive the political in-fighting at the top. Not only is such a system extreamly ineficient, but it fosters failure. In this case death. You see, it's not that they were foolish as individuals (becouse clearly many in the group were not), it's why, as a group they were foolish. -- but the first two examples in this paragraph are errors of judgement rather than genuinely encountered unforeseen problems, IMO. Not the judgment of the scientists and engeneers, but the judgment of the leaders. Do you have an article stating that there has been a technological decline, and how it is related to the women's rights movement? What if I did? I assure you if you want an article linked on the web to support any argument, it will be available if you look long enough. If you look longer you will find the opposite support. so - No, but I am questioning it. It is my own thought...I think. First you would have to show that there is a decline. Ok well, we went to the moon in 1969, where have we gone since? We use to have software that could comunicate across many differnt nodes and work concurently and quickly in binary. Now we have port 80 and unicode and it keeps being fed down our throats like it was some kind of advancement. nuf said? Now to why these decisions are being made. Maybe I should formalize this. comlete with references...finding the NPR thing might help. But all you really have to do is talk to Engineers over 50 about the way things use to work compared to how they work now. Sure there is plenty that has improved but the one overiding theam keeps comeing back to the whole touchy feely, people person, empathic, mamsy-pamsy, buisness culture than now seems to drive science and engeneering fields. And it's not just men I'm talking to. snip description of microculture that employs both male and female modes of thinking Reason, logic, intuition and empathy definitely are synergystic when working on major problems, with of course one mode sometimes being more important than the others at different stages; the engineering/materials science had better be solid when a
Killing Them Softly
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/opinion/20KRIS.html?ex=1064635200en=5b 524a0834fb4234ei=5062 Killing Them Softly By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF NAIROBI, Kenya In fairness to President Bush, he presumably meant well when he cut off funds for some of the world's most vulnerable women. The Bush administration announced a few weeks ago that it was halting payments to the Reproductive Health for Refugees Consortium because, it said, one of the seven charities in the consortium was linked to abortions in China. So I decided to do what the White House didn't come out and see these programs we are slashing. That's where I met Rose Wanjera, a 26-year-old woman with one small child and another due about November (she isn't sure because she hasn't had any prenatal care). This month her husband was mauled to death by wild dogs, and she developed an infection that threatens her health and the unborn baby's. She turned to a clinic affiliated with Marie Stopes International, where a doctor treated her infection, palpated her bulging stomach and enrolled her in a safe-motherhood program. Unfortunately, this is the very aid group that the White House is campaigning against for supposedly being involved in abortions in China. Even before the latest cuts for aid to refugees, the Kenyan program of Marie Stopes International had already had to close two clinics and lay off 80 doctors and nurses because the Bush administration had applied its gag rule (no money to groups that mention abortions) and cut off grants for it. So because of White House maneuvering, girls and women in Africa's shantytowns are losing programs that offer them prenatal checkups, well-baby care, childbirth and family-planning assistance, and, above all, help fighting AIDS. Consider Deka Hamid, a 25-year-old Somali refugee who brought her 5-month-old son to a Marie Stopes clinic because he is too weak to hold his head up. Doctors offered some treatment, but there may be no cure because the health problem arose from a flawed delivery by an untrained Somali midwife. Complications of pregnancy and childbirth kill a quarter-million African women each year, and those deaths are what the refugee consortium is trying to prevent. I visited five Marie Stopes clinics in Kenya, spoke to the patients and front-line doctors, and found them to be a lifeline for destitute girls and women who have few alternatives. At one clinic, doctors fought to save the unborn baby of Gladys Wambui, an impoverished 27-year-old woman who was close to her due date but whose fetus had abruptly stopped moving. Ultimately, she lost the baby. It was horribly discouraging, as work here in the slums often is. The doctors and nurses in these clinics are fighting AIDS, rape, sexually transmitted diseases and genital mutilation of girls, and instead of being hailed as heroes, they're denigrated and stripped of funds by White House ideologues who don't know what an African slum is. Because of the cutoff of U.S. funds to the refugee consortium, the head of Marie Stopes in Kenya, Cyprian Awiti, says he is having to drop a planned outreach program to help Somali and Rwandan refugees. Bush does not realize how many people are going to suffer, Mr. Awiti said. If you don't give money to the consortium, does he know how many deaths he will cause? U.S. officials acknowledge that the refugee consortium (which also includes CARE and the International Rescue Committee) does great work. But they said this was outweighed by Marie Stopes's activity in China. It's true that Marie Stopes International operates in China providing contraceptives that reduce the number of abortions there. If Mr. Bush were trying to do something about coercive family planning in China by denouncing such abuses, I'd applaud him. But instead he's launching his administration on an ideological war against groups like the U.N. Population Fund and Marie Stopes. In fact, these groups are engaging China in just the way the White House recommends most of the time. When the topic of human rights abuses in China is raised, Mr. Bush usually argues, wisely, that it would be wrong to impose sanctions that punish the Chinese people. So it seems odd that when the issue is Chinese family-planning abuses, Mr. Bush responds by punishing African women. Mr. Bush probably sees his policy in terms of abortion or sex, or as a matter of placating his political base. But here in the shantytowns of Africa, the policy calculation seems simpler: women and girls will die. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
W's_sneak_vote_on_Vouchers_during_presidential_debate_passes_by_1_vote_while_3_democrat_opponents_were_at_debate
-- If only 1,300 of the District's 67,500 students are to benefit from this experiment, what happens to those who remain in public schools? The education bills being debated in Congress include an additional $27 million in funding for charter and public schools. Of the $40 million for set aside for education, a third would go to the vouchers plan. That's worth repeating. One-third of the federal funds given to D.C. for education would be used to benefit 2 to 3 percent of our students. -- http://www.houstonvoice.com/2003/9-19/view/editorial/vouchers.cfm School vouchers leave gay students behind If the Republican Congress gets its way, gay students will either have to study in the closet or stay where they are at failing public schools. By KEN SAIN IT APPEARS CONGRESS is about to downgrade District of Columbia residents from people who dont matter to guinea pigs who dont matter. They intend to force school vouchers on us even though some congressional supporters admit they would never do that to their own constituents. The only time District residents were asked if they wanted vouchers, they voted 89 percent against the idea in a 1981 referendum election. But who cares what the people who have to live with this experiment think? Congress doesnt. Once again D.C. pays the price for lacking a vote on Capitol Hill and gay students are the ones who could suffer this time. President Bush has had a hard time convincing anyone to give his school vouchers program a chance. Bush campaigned on a plan to give federal funds to parents of children who are attending a failing public school and allow them to enroll their children in a private usually religious school. Enter D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams. He gets a seat in the presidents box at the State of the Union address, and suddenly he reverses his position on school vouchers. He supports them now. In fact, if it wasnt for Williams changing his mind, this threat would have died months ago. Williams is one of those New Democrats, you know, the ones who look suspiciously like Old Republicans. Also flip-flopping on the issue is D.C. School Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz and City Councilmember Kevin Chavous. All three had told the Gay Lesbian Activist Alliance in pre-election questionnaires they were against school vouchers. Armed with these three conversions, the Bush administration came up with a five-year trial period for school vouchers in the District. It would give the parents of 1,300-to-2,000 students $7,500 annually per child so that they can take their child out of a failing public school, and put them into a private school. THIS IS JUST another attempt by this administration to force more religion into citizens lives. Still, it hasnt been easy convincing Congress. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) supported imposing vouchers on District residents even though she admits she would never do the same to Californians. The House approved the bill by one vote. To get that approval, House leaders scheduled the vote for the same time as the Democratic presidential candidates debate last week. Voucher opponents and presidential candidates Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) were at the debate and missed the vote. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), another voucher opponent, also missed the vote because he was acting as host for the debate, which was co- the Congressional Black Caucus, which he chairs. And, according to the Washington Post, they still didnt have the votes to pass it. They had to negotiate a deal with Kentucky Republican Ernie Fletcher to get him to switch sides. It passed 209-208. GLAA, D.C.s GAY rights organization, has come out against vouchers. GLAA points out that school vouchers would complicate the lives of gay students. Gay students who take the vouchers and attend a religious school would likely have to remain in the closet. A private school does not have to follow the same rules as public schools. In most cases, there will be no gay-straight student alliances. Courts cannot force private schools to add gay-friendly clubs. There will likely be no openly gay teachers or administrators kids can turn to for support. Any gay teachers who come out of the closet at a religious school can be fired. Ask Albert Santora about that. He lost his job at Paul VI Catholic High School in February when some students recognized his photo on a Web site for gay men. It is very unlikely there will be any safe-sex education. Religious educators prefer to keep our youth ignorant while preaching abstinence. Not only will they be putting their education at risk, but also their lives. If a gay student goes to a counselor at a religious school with a problem, they risk being expelled if they dont repent. The parents and student would have no recourse. Imagine a female student taking her girlfriend to the prom at a religious school. Not an image that comes to mind easily, is it? Forcing
Plasma blobs hint at new form of life
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns4174 Plasma blobs hint at new form of life 19:00 17 September 03 Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. Physicists have created blobs of gaseous plasma that can grow, replicate and communicate - fulfilling most of the traditional requirements for biological cells. Without inherited material they cannot be described as alive, but the researchers believe these curious spheres may offer a radical new explanation for how life began. Most biologists think living cells arose out of a complex and lengthy evolution of chemicals that took millions of years, beginning with simple molecules through amino acids, primitive proteins and finally forming an organised structure. But if Mircea Sanduloviciu and his colleagues at Cuza University in Romania are right, the theory may have to be completely revised. They say cell-like self-organisation can occur in a few microseconds. The researchers studied environmental conditions similar to those that existed on the Earth before life began, when the planet was enveloped in electric storms that caused ionised gases called plasmas to form in the atmosphere. They inserted two electrodes into a chamber containing a low-temperature plasma of argon - a gas in which some of the atoms have been split into electrons and charged ions. They applied a high voltage to the electrodes, producing an arc of energy that flew across the gap between them, like a miniature lightning strike. Sanduloviciu says this electric spark caused a high concentration of ions and electrons to accumulate at the positively charged electrode, which spontaneously formed spheres (Chaos, Solitons Fractals, vol 18, p 335). Each sphere had a boundary made up of two layers - an outer layer of negatively charged electrons and an inner layer of positively charged ions. Trapped inside the boundary was an inner nucleus of gas atoms. The amount of energy in the initial spark governed their size and lifespan. Sanduloviciu grew spheres from a few micrometres up to three centimetres in diameter. Split in two A distinct boundary layer that confines and separates an object from its environment is one of the four main criteria generally used to define living cells. Sanduloviciu decided to find out if his cells met the other criteria: the ability to replicate, to communicate information, and to metabolise and grow. He found that the spheres could replicate by splitting into two. Under the right conditions they also got bigger, taking up neutral argon atoms and splitting them into ions and electrons to replenish their boundary layers. Finally, they could communicate information by emitting electromagnetic energy, making the atoms within other spheres vibrate at a particular frequency. The spheres are not the only self-organising systems to meet all of these requirements. But they are the first gaseous cells. Sanduloviciu even thinks they could have been the first cells on Earth, arising within electric storms. The emergence of such spheres seems likely to be a prerequisite for biochemical evolution, he says. Temperature trouble That view is stretching the realms of possibility, says Gregoire Nicolis, a physical chemist at the University of Brussels. In particular, he doubts that biomolecules such as DNA could emerge at the temperatures at which the plasma balls exist. However, Sanduloviciu insists that although the spheres require high temperature to form, they can survive at lower temperatures. That would be the sort of environment in which normal biochemical interactions occur. But perhaps the most intriguing implications of Sanduloviciu's work are for life on other planets. The cell-like spheres we describe could be at the origin of other forms of life we have not yet considered, he says. Which means our search for extraterrestrial life may need a drastic re-think. There could be life out there, but not as we know it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Killing Them Softly
The Fool wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/opinion/20KRIS.html?ex=1064635200en=5b 524a0834fb4234ei=5062 Killing Them Softly By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF NAIROBI, Kenya In fairness to President Bush, he presumably meant well when he cut off funds for some of the world's most vulnerable women. The Bush administration announced a few weeks ago that it was halting payments to the Reproductive Health for Refugees Consortium because, it said, one of the seven charities in the consortium was linked to abortions in China. So I decided to do what the White House didn't come out and see these programs we are slashing. Did anyone _not_ know that this is what Shrub meant when he spoke of being a compassionate conservative? Doug Jumbo Shrimp maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Girls more confident of success
Jan Coffey wrote: I never memorized anything by rote and I always did lousy in school but has always been very good at taking standardized tests. Why? The questions can be analyzed and wrong answers eliminated logically. You have to have a lot memorized (even if it is not -as I said- by rote) to be able to do this. But you have to memorize math too - you don't just figure things out every time you do a problem do you? Unless you use your fingers every time you add, you have memorized basic addition. Do you figure out pi every time you need to use it? Commutative, distributive and associative principals? Is everything in math _easy_ to figure out? You can't learn the system and then be able to discover or create words based on that system which can then be found as valid words in the dictionary. Wrong again. You aren't able to create new words, but you most certainly can create sentences, paragraphs and essays. Just like in other systems that don't allow you to change the basic building blocks. Actualy I am not wrong. I specificaly used the word discover. Let's use mathmatics as an example. you have the number 0 and the successor function. By applying the successor function to 0 you can aquire 1 etc. etc. Whether or not you know what to call 1 you can ~discover~ it. You _can_ discover how to communicate. We are not talking about being able to ~change~ anything just the creation or ~discovery~ or something that is already a valid building block. We seem to be degrading into a discussion of linguistics. Ok. Natural languages vary in how well formed they are. In the case of english the rules are not strict. You can not learn the rules and then use them consistently corectly. As such it is not what I would describe as a system using the assumed definition which you then overloaded. (case in point actualy). You have to memorize which rule applies in which cases, and the ~reasons~ these rulls apply in their particular cases has no basis. It requires memorization (whether it is rote or not). Granted in cases where the most probable answer is based on the probabliity of one rule applying you can guess resaonably well. Of course the probabliity requires memorization as well, and this probabliity is most often based on the way the word is spelled not on the way it sounds. You would therefore have to be able to spell the word properly or at least to have some predjudice for one spelling over another. This again is the same type of degraded ~system~ without proper rules. You just have to memorize it. I agree that language is not as precise a system as mathematics, but there are many things in the scientific world that are counterintuitive - that one has to discover through experimentation and then _memorize_ unless they keep repeating the experiment every time they want to rediscover the phenomenon. And though math may be governed by stricter rules, we use language much more frequently and thus memorize through familiarization. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Equal rights opertunity or numbers?
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are all threatened when equal rights become equal numbers. Should Dyslexics have equal rights to become english teachers? Do you want people with I.Q.'s under 80 to have equal rights to be Mathmaticians? The blind to be fighter pilots? Well? If is so happens that there are certain things that statisticaly women realy are better than men at, then why shouldn't the number of women in those positions be greater than men? And why shouldn't the average pay for that position be higher for women than it is for men? What do you consider equal? opertunity or numbers? What criteria other than equal numbers can an outsider use to determine equal opportunity in a quantitative way? The very assumed need for the criteria creates the need for the criteria. whatever group will never be really equal until no such criteria is needed. Frex, if somebody accuses an employer of discriminating against whatever group, how does the employer prove once and for all s/he does not discriminate except by hiring as many members of whatever group as is necessary to make the workplace reflect the same percentage of whatever group as the general population? Even if the employer has records showing that s/he has considered applicants from whatever group only to reject them because none of those who applied were qualified for the job, some people will say that the deficit in numbers is proof of discrimination against members of whatever group and will at the very least continue to file claim after claim and lawsuit after lawsuit against the employer until what is considered a sufficient number of members of whatever group are hired. That is exctly the kind of thinking that has us where we are today. Overcomeing descrimination is not complete until such equal numbers are no-longer used for determining. The need to fit equal numbers prolongs the descrimination, it keeps it alive, it even fosters it becouse it doesn't take much for someone in the previously dominant group to realize that their numbers are being artificialy culled to make room for the less worthy, just to make up numbers. This in turn creates an environemnt of resentment. Iv'e been on both sides of this, -BOTH- sides. In all cases it is unjust. However, I don't believe we will overcome this for generations. I feel we are on the edge of a long period between enlightened erras. The world is not a place in which I would want to raise children. many people see this as some kind of suicidle decision. What Genes that are not selfish? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Girls more confident of success
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: I never memorized anything by rote and I always did lousy in school but has always been very good at taking standardized tests. Why? The questions can be analyzed and wrong answers eliminated logically. You have to have a lot memorized (even if it is not -as I said- by rote) to be able to do this. But you have to memorize math too - you don't just figure things out every time you do a problem do you? Actualy yes, I do. Unless you use your fingers every time you add, you have memorized basic addition. No, I do it every time. And no, I don't need my fingers to do it. I can just see it. Not that it is a vision, it's an abstraction, I process it every time. Even if I did use my fingers I could count to 1023 on them anyway. :) Do you figure out pi every time you need to use it? No I do have pi memorized to 3 digits, but when is that suficient? It's one of those things I use a computer for. Why waste your brain on remembering something if you can look it up in the same amount of time? Knowing why pi is pi is what is really importat anyway. Commutative, distributive and associative principals? Is everything in math _easy_ to figure out? Yes, once you understand the idea it is easy to figure out. Most of these ideas are things we figure out long before we are tought them anyway. Being tought them just shows us nuances we were never chalanged to dicover...and lables, and in learning them we are chalanged to understand the reprocusions, the next level. Have you ever worked a rubix cube? You did right, you got the solutions and you applied them like program. the last level you used the technique to arange the corners, then flip them properly, then used the other set of moves which exchange and flip center peices. You memorized the moves. Then you could solve the puzzle whenever. Some people figured those moves out, or realized others that did the same thing. They saw the rotations needed to put the peices where they wanted them and then just did that. After working through it 20 times or so you start to memorize by muscle memory, but that is seeing understanding, retracig a familiar path. A form of memorization. But it doesn't last, it fades and after a few years you have to work it all over again. Do it enough of course and it won't fade. But being able to see the correct rotation every time you do it, and simply remembering the moves are two compleatly differnt things. You can't learn the system and then be able to discover or create words based on that system which can then be found as valid words in the dictionary. Wrong again. You aren't able to create new words, but you most certainly can create sentences, paragraphs and essays. Just like in other systems that don't allow you to change the basic building blocks. Actualy I am not wrong. I specificaly used the word discover. Let's use mathmatics as an example. you have the number 0 and the successor function. By applying the successor function to 0 you can aquire 1 etc. etc. Whether or not you know what to call 1 you can ~discover~ it. You _can_ discover how to communicate. We are not talking about being able to ~change~ anything just the creation or ~discovery~ or something that is already a valid building block. We seem to be degrading into a discussion of linguistics. Ok. Natural languages vary in how well formed they are. In the case of english the rules are not strict. You can not learn the rules and then use them consistently corectly. As such it is not what I would describe as a system using the assumed definition which you then overloaded. (case in point actualy). You have to memorize which rule applies in which cases, and the ~reasons~ these rulls apply in their particular cases has no basis. It requires memorization (whether it is rote or not). Granted in cases where the most probable answer is based on the probabliity of one rule applying you can guess resaonably well. Of course the probabliity requires memorization as well, and this probabliity is most often based on the way the word is spelled not on the way it sounds. You would therefore have to be able to spell the word properly or at least to have some predjudice for one spelling over another. This again is the same type of degraded ~system~ without proper rules. You just have to memorize it. I agree that language is not as precise a system as mathematics, but there are many things in the scientific world that are counterintuitive - that one has to discover through experimentation and then _memorize_ unless they keep repeating the experiment every time they want to rediscover the phenomenon. Things are named in counterintuitive ways yes. And there are areas which seem...odd...seem not to quite fit, to not quite be right. I allways assume these are becouse we are working with
Re: Girls more confident of success
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you have to memorize math too - you don't just figure things out every time you do a problem do you? Actualy yes, I do. OK, 2-part question: 1) Did you take Differential Equations? 2) If so, derive the Heat Equation. :) That's what killed my husband in DiffEq -- he derives things on the fly, has a hard time memorizing formulae. But you can't just derive the heat equation in a couple of minutes when you're confronted with it on a test. One day at lunch, someone claimed to be able to derive whatever he needed on the fly; he was known for using napkins to figure things out over lunch, so Dan told him, Derive the heat equation. Here's a napkin. The other guy allowed as how maybe he couldn't derive *everything*, then. I can memorize equations more easily than that, and can apply them properly. But I ran into a problem in high school, taking physics. The physics teacher we had wasn't qualified to teach physics (in fact, *nobody* in the science department was, pathetically enough), but boy did she know her chemistry. On tests, we were each allowed one 3X5 file card, and I'd just put the equations on there -- I could tell which one it was by looking at it, but had a hard time memorizing. Then one day, she gave us a standardized test, told us she didn't expect anyone to do well on it, but that we should just do our best. No file card, but no constraints. Use the margins of the question sheet to figure things out. So I used the *calculus* I'd known for 2 years already and could utilize in my sleep, and totally, totally blew the curve. (I could look at any of the questions where calculus would be useful, and know how to set up the equation, and get the right answer, no sweat.) Linear acceleration? The stupid *formula* wouldn't stay in my head, but I could get the right answer with calculus in almost no time. (If I had to use the stupid equation and show my work, I'd either have to look at my card, or *derive* the stupid equation through calculus in my head, write it down on the paper, and take it from there. Stupid, stupid, stupid.) Unless you use your fingers every time you add, you have memorized basic addition. No, I do it every time. And no, I don't need my fingers to do it. I can just see it. Not that it is a vision, it's an abstraction, I process it every time. Even if I did use my fingers I could count to 1023 on them anyway. :) Never trust anyone who can count to 1024 on their fingers is what a friend of mine said on another mailing list. I guess you'd need an 11th finger to do that, and, well, have you seen The Princess Bride? :) Do you figure out pi every time you need to use it? No I do have pi memorized to 3 digits, but when is that suficient? It's one of those things I use a computer for. Why waste your brain on remembering something if you can look it up in the same amount of time? Knowing why pi is pi is what is really importat anyway. And any memorization of digits out to any arbitrary place is *not* pi, just a closer and closer rational approximation. I had it memorized to about 106 digits or so once (don't remember exactly, but it was over 100), and then someone tripped us up with that, and I slowly began to forget. Don't think I could rattle off more than roughly 20 digits or so now But it doesn't really matter. Other numbers that you can only memorize a rational approximation of include e and that number which is its own cosine (measured in radians, I mean), cool numbers, but not *necessary* to memorize out to a zillion places. (By zillion, *I* mean more than necessary. It can be a very useful term, if the people with which I use it understand that that's what I mean by it..) (I did the *horribly* geeky thing my junior year of high school coming to school on Halloween as pi. Some teachers were amused. The rest, and the other students, just thought it was *weird*. The next year, I went as a hippie. That was OK with everyone.) Julia babbling again -- waiting for dinner to arrive, and feeling just generally uncomfortable, and looking a lot like a grape today, what with the long purple shirt I'm wearing :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Equal rights opportunity or numbers?
At 02:19 PM 9/20/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are all threatened when equal rights become equal numbers. Should Dyslexics have equal rights to become english teachers? Do you want people with I.Q.'s under 80 to have equal rights to be Mathmaticians? The blind to be fighter pilots? Well? If is so happens that there are certain things that statisticaly women realy are better than men at, then why shouldn't the number of women in those positions be greater than men? And why shouldn't the average pay for that position be higher for women than it is for men? What do you consider equal? opertunity or numbers? What criteria other than equal numbers can an outsider use to determine equal opportunity in a quantitative way? The very assumed need for the criteria creates the need for the criteria. whatever group will never be really equal until no such criteria is needed. Frex, if somebody accuses an employer of discriminating against whatever group, how does the employer prove once and for all s/he does not discriminate except by hiring as many members of whatever group as is necessary to make the workplace reflect the same percentage of whatever group as the general population? Even if the employer has records showing that s/he has considered applicants from whatever group only to reject them because none of those who applied were qualified for the job, some people will say that the deficit in numbers is proof of discrimination against members of whatever group and will at the very least continue to file claim after claim and lawsuit after lawsuit against the employer until what is considered a sufficient number of members of whatever group are hired. That is exctly the kind of thinking that has us where we are today. Overcomeing descrimination is not complete until such equal numbers are no-longer used for determining. The need to fit equal numbers prolongs the descrimination, it keeps it alive, it even fosters it becouse it doesn't take much for someone in the previously dominant group to realize that their numbers are being artificialy culled to make room for the less worthy, just to make up numbers. This in turn creates an environemnt of resentment. Iv'e been on both sides of this, -BOTH- sides. In all cases it is unjust. I agree with you. I just brought that up because it's the situation that must be dealt with in America today. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Girls more confident of success
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: I never memorized anything by rote and I always did lousy in school but has always been very good at taking standardized tests. Why? The questions can be analyzed and wrong answers eliminated logically. You have to have a lot memorized (even if it is not -as I said- by rote) to be able to do this. But you have to memorize math too - you don't just figure things out every time you do a problem do you? Actualy yes, I do. Unless you use your fingers every time you add, you have memorized basic addition. No, I do it every time. And no, I don't need my fingers to do it. I can just see it. Not that it is a vision, it's an abstraction, I process it every time. Really. What's the difference between your visualization and my memory? Are you saying your memory is so poor that you can't remember 1+1=2, you have to visualize it? Can you remember phone #s, and addresses? Even if I did use my fingers I could count to 1023 on them anyway. :) 8^) Do you figure out pi every time you need to use it? No I do have pi memorized to 3 digits, but when is that suficient? It's one of those things I use a computer for. Why waste your brain on remembering something if you can look it up in the same amount of time? Knowing why pi is pi is what is really importat anyway. Commutative, distributive and associative principals? Is everything in math _easy_ to figure out? Yes, once you understand the idea it is easy to figure out. Most of these ideas are things we figure out long before we are tought them anyway. Being tought them just shows us nuances we were never chalanged to dicover...and lables, and in learning them we are chalanged to understand the reprocusions, the next level. Have you ever worked a rubix cube? You did right, you got the solutions and you applied them like program. No I got bored long before I figured anything out. 8^ Things are named in counterintuitive ways yes. No, thing behave in counterintuitive ways. I remember being flummoxed by thermodynamics in chemistry - as was the rest of the class (but I don't remember why) And there are areas which seem...odd...seem not to quite fit, to not quite be right. I allways assume these are becouse we are working with impricise models. But sometimes maybe theyare just odd due to some incorect predjudice one must overcome. Or perhaps they are counterintuitive. Remembering the outcome of an experiement, or gaining an understanding of a system which you can then recal are differnt than memorization. Remembering is different than memorizing? Must be one of those language tricks. Besides we can use tools to store much of this information. The kind of inforation you are talking about now has structure. It fits into the abstract, and therefore has nodes on which the information can hang. English is direct, brutal, flat, there are no mappings, no associations, no structure. There is no structure? Structure is no there? No structure is there? No is there structure? There no is structure? etc. And though math may be governed by stricter rules, we use language much more frequently and thus memorize through familiarization. Well, your we might, but my we doesn't. Now that I can agree on. But you talk in absolutes as if everyone was your we. They aren't, but AFAIC, the more we's the better. 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Derivation vs. Memorization, was Re: Girls more confident of success
Julia Thompson wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you have to memorize math too - you don't just figure things out every time you do a problem do you? Actualy yes, I do. OK, 2-part question: 1) Did you take Differential Equations? 2) If so, derive the Heat Equation. :) Sure. Heat behaves like a fluid, where the amount of heat in a given small region is proportional to its temperature, T. So the rate of change of temperature with time, dT/dt, is proportional to the net rate of heat flow into the region. By Newton's Law of Cooling, the rate of heat flow from one small region to the next is proportional to the temperature difference between the regions, that is to dT/dx, where x is the direction from one region to the other. If the small regions are lined up along the x-axis, the heat flow into a region is then proportional to dT/dx at the right side of the region minus dT/dx at the left side. But this is essentially the second derivative, d^2 T / dx^2. This gives the one-dimensional heat equation: dT/dt = k * d^2 T / dx^2, where k is the constant of proportionality (Actually, every 'd' is a 'del'.) (To go to more dimensions, just add the contributions for each, giving dT/dt = k * (d^2 T / dx^2 + d^2 T / dy^2), etc.) Does that count? : ) The one class where I ever snuck in a cheat sheet of formulas was Thermodynamics, though. So I get your point! It's not so much a matter of not being able to derive things, as a matter of just not having sufficient time to do so. ---David Who somehow did memorize the quadratic formula... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: W's_sneak_vote_on_Vouchers_during_presidential_debate_passes_by_1_vote_ while_3_democrat_opponents_were_at_debate
Although I realize it's not the point the author of the article was trying to make, nor the reason it was posted to the list, a question which arises after reading the article is why there are apparently not any private schools available which emphasize that their academic standards are superior to those of the failing public schools but which are not associated with any religious organization? Are there indeed no such non-religious schools, or is there some other reason why that is not a valid choice in this case? At 10:57 AM 9/20/03 -0500, The Fool wrote: -- If only 1,300 of the District's 67,500 students are to benefit from this experiment, what happens to those who remain in public schools? The education bills being debated in Congress include an additional $27 million in funding for charter and public schools. Of the $40 million for set aside for education, a third would go to the vouchers plan. That's worth repeating. One-third of the federal funds given to D.C. for education would be used to benefit 2 to 3 percent of our students. -- http://www.houstonvoice.com/2003/9-19/view/editorial/vouchers.cfm School vouchers leave gay students behind If the Republican Congress gets its way, gay students will either have to study in the closet or stay where they are at failing public schools. By KEN SAIN IT APPEARS CONGRESS is about to downgrade District of Columbia residents from people who dont matter to guinea pigs who dont matter. They intend to force school vouchers on us even though some congressional supporters admit they would never do that to their own constituents. The only time District residents were asked if they wanted vouchers, they voted 89 percent against the idea in a 1981 referendum election. But who cares what the people who have to live with this experiment think? Congress doesnt. Once again D.C. pays the price for lacking a vote on Capitol Hill and gay students are the ones who could suffer this time. President Bush has had a hard time convincing anyone to give his school vouchers program a chance. Bush campaigned on a plan to give federal funds to parents of children who are attending a failing public school and allow them to enroll their children in a private usually religious school. Enter D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams. He gets a seat in the presidents box at the State of the Union address, and suddenly he reverses his position on school vouchers. He supports them now. In fact, if it wasnt for Williams changing his mind, this threat would have died months ago. Williams is one of those New Democrats, you know, the ones who look suspiciously like Old Republicans. Also flip-flopping on the issue is D.C. School Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz and City Councilmember Kevin Chavous. All three had told the Gay Lesbian Activist Alliance in pre-election questionnaires they were against school vouchers. Armed with these three conversions, the Bush administration came up with a five-year trial period for school vouchers in the District. It would give the parents of 1,300-to-2,000 students $7,500 annually per child so that they can take their child out of a failing public school, and put them into a private school. THIS IS JUST another attempt by this administration to force more religion into citizens lives. Still, it hasnt been easy convincing Congress. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) supported imposing vouchers on District residents even though she admits she would never do the same to Californians. The House approved the bill by one vote. To get that approval, House leaders scheduled the vote for the same time as the Democratic presidential candidates debate last week. Voucher opponents and presidential candidates Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) were at the debate and missed the vote. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), another voucher opponent, also missed the vote because he was acting as host for the debate, which was co- the Congressional Black Caucus, which he chairs. And, according to the Washington Post, they still didnt have the votes to pass it. They had to negotiate a deal with Kentucky Republican Ernie Fletcher to get him to switch sides. It passed 209-208. GLAA, D.C.s GAY rights organization, has come out against vouchers. GLAA points out that school vouchers would complicate the lives of gay students. Gay students who take the vouchers and attend a religious school would likely have to remain in the closet. A private school does not have to follow the same rules as public schools. In most cases, there will be no gay-straight student alliances. Courts cannot force private schools to add gay-friendly clubs. There will likely be no openly gay teachers or administrators kids can turn to for support. Any gay teachers who come out of the closet at a religious school can be fired. Ask Albert Santora about that. He lost his job at Paul VI Catholic High School in February when some students recognized his photo on a Web site
Re: Derivation vs. Memorization, was Re: Girls more confident of success
At 07:49 PM 9/20/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: ---David Who somehow did memorize the quadratic formula... Can you derive it? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Girls more confident of success
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can memorize equations more easily than that, and can apply them properly. But I ran into a problem in high school, taking physics. The physics teacher we had wasn't qualified to teach physics (in fact, *nobody* in the science department was, pathetically enough), but boy did she know her chemistry. On tests, we were each allowed one 3X5 file card, and I'd just put the equations on there -- I could tell which one it was by looking at it, but had a hard time memorizing. Then one day, she gave us a standardized test, told us she didn't expect anyone to do well on it, but that we should just do our best. No file card, but no constraints. Use the margins of the question sheet to figure things out. So I used the *calculus* I'd known for 2 years already and could utilize in my sleep, and totally, totally blew the curve. My Honors Physics class in high school was even more pathetic. Whenever the teacher presented a new formula to the class, she'd always say something like how the heck did they come up with this wacky formula? That was the running joke for the whole year. As far as we knew, the origin of all those formulas was far beyond anything we were capable of. Despite the fact everyone in the class had Calculus, she never revealed to us even the slightest clue to the connection. It wasn't until my college physics course 2 years later that I discovered the mysterious origin of all those formulas. Afterwards, I saw her while visiting the high school, and I said Don't you know that all those formulas are derived using calculus? and she said Yeah, but I really didn't want to get into that. Grrr! She was a sweet lady, but a terrible, terrible science teacher. She had also taught my Honors Chemistry course, which proved to be absolutely zero preparation for college chemistry. By contrast, a friend of mine in the college chemistry class (who went to a different high school), regularly skipped class and pretty much coasted by using his old high school chem notes. But then, my high school Trig and Calc courses weren't really good prep for college level math courses, either. Damn, my high school education almost entirely sucked. Actually, on the humanities side, it was pretty decent, but that didn't do me much good, getting an engineering degree. _ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Derivation vs. Memorization, was Re: Girls more confidentof success
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:49 PM 9/20/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: ---David Who somehow did memorize the quadratic formula... Can you derive it? -- Ronn! :) Certainly. Just complete the square. ---David Not biting. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: W's_sneak_vote_on_Vouchers_during_presidential_debate_passes_by_1_vote_while_3_democrat_opponents_were_at_debate
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Although I realize it's not the point the author of the article was trying to make, nor the reason it was posted to the list, a question which arises after reading the article is why there are apparently not any private schools available which emphasize that their academic standards are superior to those of the failing public schools but which are not associated with any religious organization? Are there indeed no such non-religious schools, or is there some other reason why that is not a valid choice in this case? There probably are some. I bet they also charge a LOT of money. Catholic schools don't, for various reasons. ---David Vow of poverty, anyone? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Girls more confident of success
Bryon Daly wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can memorize equations more easily than that, and can apply them properly. But I ran into a problem in high school, taking physics. The physics teacher we had wasn't qualified to teach physics (in fact, *nobody* in the science department was, pathetically enough), but boy did she know her chemistry. On tests, we were each allowed one 3X5 file card, and I'd just put the equations on there -- I could tell which one it was by looking at it, but had a hard time memorizing. Then one day, she gave us a standardized test, told us she didn't expect anyone to do well on it, but that we should just do our best. No file card, but no constraints. Use the margins of the question sheet to figure things out. So I used the *calculus* I'd known for 2 years already and could utilize in my sleep, and totally, totally blew the curve. My Honors Physics class in high school was even more pathetic. Whenever the teacher presented a new formula to the class, she'd always say something like how the heck did they come up with this wacky formula? That was the running joke for the whole year. As far as we knew, the origin of all those formulas was far beyond anything we were capable of. Despite the fact everyone in the class had Calculus, she never revealed to us even the slightest clue to the connection. It wasn't until my college physics course 2 years later that I discovered the mysterious origin of all those formulas. Afterwards, I saw her while visiting the high school, and I said Don't you know that all those formulas are derived using calculus? and she said Yeah, but I really didn't want to get into that. Grrr! In calculus class, a bunch of the word problems were just physics problems. So I was familiar with the basics. (I took calculus as a sophomore.) My husband's experience was the opposite -- he had physics his junior year, and then AP physics his senior year, and in his junior year, the teacher taught them some basic calculus that would be handy for the physics they were doing. When the folks from that class got to calculus as seniors, as things were being introduced at the beginning of the year, they came to the conclusion that it's just physics without the units. The calculus teacher was NOT amused. She was a sweet lady, but a terrible, terrible science teacher. She had also taught my Honors Chemistry course, which proved to be absolutely zero preparation for college chemistry. By contrast, a friend of mine in the college chemistry class (who went to a different high school), regularly skipped class and pretty much coasted by using his old high school chem notes. Mine, I wouldn't even call sweet. Not a great teacher, not a terribly nice person, but she was unhappy, and everyone knew it, and those who knew a little about her personal life let the rest of us know something about *why* she was unhappy. Didn't help us with our learning, but it somehow made it a little easier to deal with *her*. (And then there was the mistake she made of assuming that since Jeni and I separately were models of good behavior, that having us sit next to each other would be fine. She never actually *caught* us at anything, but we got away with stuff she never suspected. Mostly in the note-passing department. And the one time she came close to busting us by calling on me, I was able to look at the problem in question in about 2 seconds, come to the right answer, and then I just had to think out loud about getting the answer using the approved method.) But then, my high school Trig and Calc courses weren't really good prep for college level math courses, either. Damn, my high school education almost entirely sucked. Actually, on the humanities side, it was pretty decent, but that didn't do me much good, getting an engineering degree. My high school math, English and American history classes were good. My biology class in 9th grade was good, as well. And the way they graded in gym was sensible and humane. I think I lucked out on which teachers I got for all of those, though. (Well, there were only 2 people teaching gym, and one was my teacher my freshman year and the other was my teacher my sophomore year, but they were grading under the same policies, at least.) But my mother had to fight some to get me all the math I got. (That's another story entirely, which I can go into on another post another time.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Derivation vs. Memorization, was Re: Girls more confidentof success
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:49 PM 9/20/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: ---David Who somehow did memorize the quadratic formula... Can you derive it? Probably more easily than the heat equation. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Equal rights opertunity or numbers?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Do you want people with I.Q.'s under 80 to have equal rights to be Mathmaticians? eu qero ser profesora de matematica. ana silvia. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Derivation vs. Memorization
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Who somehow did memorize the quadratic formula... Can you derive it? Trivial. I ddn't memorize Cardano's formula, but I can derive it easily: eliminate term in x^2, x = u + v then eliminate term with uv. OTOH, I have a hard time remembering some obscure geometry formulas, even simple ones like a^2 = b^2 + c^2 - [or +?] 2 [?] b c cos [or sin?] A Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: W's_sneak_vote_on_Vouchers_during_presidential_debate_passes_by_1_vote_ while_3_democrat_opponents_were_at_debate
a question which arises after reading the article is why there are apparently not any private schools available which emphasize that their academic standards are superior to those of the failing public schools but which are not associated with any religious organization? Are there indeed no such non-religious schools, or is there some other reason why that is not a valid choice in this case? It is my opinion that 95+% of the people advocating vouchers do not give the tiniest shit about improving education in general but are just desperately trying to get around the church-state barrier to funding religious education with public money. They want to fund their sectarian religious school with my money, and I say to hell with them. (Forgive the possible pun.) Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Equal rights opportunity or numbers?
At 01:31 AM 9/21/03 +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ronn!Blankenship did not write: Do you want people with I.Q.'s under 80 to have equal rights to be Mathmaticians? eu qero ser profesora de matematica. ana silvia. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
