Conservapedia: The funniest site in the world
-
I believe you. You were much more assertive. Maybe @darkmatter thought @ben_lubar was playing Jeopardy.
I was questioning whether there might be another base that was intended to be used, since it seemed like it was supposed to be a trick question yet the answer is the same regardless of base interpretation.
Or he was just pointing out that the problem & answer is cool because it's the same both ways.
-
that they're trying to teach advanced techniques to kids instead of the basics.
Here I thought that trying to teach advanced concepts is a good thing
After doing some digging, the real problem isn't so much that they're teaching those alternative methods, it is that they're teaching those methods FIRST, and they delay the requirement on teaching the regular method by a year or two! They do actually have to teach the regular form of long division in Common Core. Doing a division problem like (23894072 / 3247) is going to be next to impossible without doing it the regular way. The alternative method is good, but it should be secondary teaching, not primary.
Uh... seriously DICSOURSE? I Just want to link a webpage, and you pull a random image from about 75% of the way down the page to display? GO TO HELL.
EDIT - OR not, SERIOUSLY? It inlines THE ENTIRE GOD DAMN PAGE?!??!?!? WHAT. THE. HELL.
Here is what the PREVIEW looks like:
And see this HUGE MESS for what actually happens....
Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Does It Add Up or Down? Part 2
Concerns About the Math Content Standards You are encouraged to actually look at the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics document. Become familiar with the document and learn to use your p…
[ http://stopcommoncorewa.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/common-core-state-standards-for-mathematics-does-it-add-up-or-down-part-2/ ] here's an actual link that dicsourse doesn't screw up.
-
The previous post is 100% dicsourse's fault.
Nice One-Box, dicsourse, you piece of turd.
-
>I guess they want to make sure to cover the topic of area while going around the perimeter topic.
Ba-dum tish!
-
Awesome, now Dicsourse has managed to break CTRL+F+F sometimes too - if you try to search something from the ACTUAL BROWSER SEARCH in this topic, sometimes the first time it highlights and jumps to any result in the page, the highlighting of the word occasionally triggers the "Quote Reply" option, which causes the search text to auto-close itself and returns focus back to Dicsourse so that the next letters you type cause ridiculous stupid navigations thanks to retarded keyboard shortcuts in a webpage.
It doesn't seem to happen 100% of the time, because dicsoursistency and all. Just enough to make it piss me off.
Thanks Dicsourse, that makes 3 brand new annoying as piss bugs for me today alone.
-
the first time it highlights and jumps to any result in the page, the highlighting of the word occasionally triggers the "Quote Reply" option, which causes the search text to auto-close itself
What?!? How? I don't even... How can CDCK do so many things so wrong?
-
It doesn't seem to happen 100% of the time, because dicsoursistency and all. Just enough to make it piss me off.
On chrome, it seems to happen if I click the X to dismiss the find box.
-
I'm not clicking anything. I just start typing and halfway through typing the search terms, the page jumps to the first result and then the searchbox closes itself
-
I'd take a video of it if I were on my home pc.
-
Here I thought that trying to teach advanced concepts is a good thing
After doing some digging, the real problem isn't so much that they're teaching those alternative methods, it is that they're teaching those methods FIRST
Right. If you go back and re-read the posts leading up to this one, you'll see that was what we were talking about, although it's possible that nobody managed to distill it down like that. But that's what I meant in the sentence you quoted; I just didn't get the word "first" in there.
-
@darkmatter said:
Here I thought that trying to teach advanced concepts is a good thing
After doing some digging, the real problem isn't so much that they're teaching those alternative methods, it is that they're teaching those methods FIRSTRight. If you go back and re-read the posts leading up to this one, you'll see that was what we were talking about, although it's possible that nobody managed to distill it down like that. But that's what I meant in the sentence you quoted; I just didn't get the word "first" in there.
The real WTF with math education is that students get exposed to the conceptual leaps and tedium of algebra-by-memorization before they ever figure out what math really is, and learn how to apply logical (numeric, geometric, etal) reasoning to the real world. As a result, they simply give up on math by the time they get to the good parts.
(There's also the WTF that any alternative approach to math education will likely get criticized rather unfairly because the parents won't understand it.)
-
There's also the WTF that any alternative approach to math education will likely get criticized rather unfairly because the parents won't understand it.
New Math. New Math. So simple, so very simple, that only a child can do it.
-
The real WTF with math education is that students get exposed to the conceptual leaps and tedium of algebra-by-memorization before they ever figure out what math really is, and learn how to apply logical (numeric, geometric, etal) reasoning to the real world. As a result, they simply give up on math by the time they get to the good parts.
I don't buy this. I can recall any number of things I learned in math by basically learning a procedure without understanding the why. After using the procedure and getting comfortable with it, I was able to focus on the mechanics and start to understand what was going on. A bit later I was able to connect it to other things I'd learned. This seems like the right way to do things, though I doubt most people are capable of reaching each level in many topics.
People give up because they're told it's all difficult and boring. And it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Though to be fair, some people are just not very smart, and won't be able to go very far.
There's also the WTF that any alternative approach to math education will likely get criticized rather unfairly because the parents won't understand it.
But when mathematically literate parents can't figure out the homework for their first grader, the WTF probably isn't the parents.
-
My parents taught me the "new" multiplication & division methods that we've been talking about, but at home on the side. May be why I'm not so turned off by those, although I still don't necessarily agree with teaching those methods as a first option.
But when mathematically literate parents can't figure out the homework for their first grader, the WTF probably isn't the parents.
I'm thinking that sentence is impossible. If they're actually mathematically literate, they would understand any and all possible math concepts ever taught in first grade, I don't care how ridiculous they are. It's more like,But when mathematically literate parents can't figure out the homework for their first grader,
the WTF probably isn't the parents.they only thought they were mathematically literate but in fact they simply memorized a handful of multiplication tables and have no practical mathematical problem solving skills.
-
My parents taught me the "new" multiplication & division methods that we've been talking about, but at home on the side. May be why I'm not so turned off by those, although I still don't necessarily agree with teaching those methods as a first option.
There are probably some people capable of learning like you did. Though one on one with parents is a very different thing than as part of a normal class of students.
I'm thinking that sentence is impossible. If they're actually mathematically literate, they would understand any and all possible math concepts ever taught in first grade, I don't care how ridiculous they are.
The techniques are typically poorly explained and don't always make sense. You have too much faith in Ed Schools if you think they can't make simple concepts incomprehensible.
-
My parents taught me the "new" multiplication & division methods that we've been talking about, but at home on the side. May be why I'm not so turned off by those, although I still don't necessarily agree with teaching those methods as a first option.
What's interesting about this whole discussion is that I first read about those methods in the 80s. They were basically presented as a quick and easy way to do math if you don't have a calculator handy. If you had told me back then that the methods would be taught first as the standard in public schools, I would have asked you what you had been smoking and if you had any left.
-
The techniques are typically poorly explained and don't always make sense. You have too much faith in Ed Schools if you think they can't make simple concepts incomprehensible.
It sounds to me like you've got the problem (maybe only in some parts) where mediocre teachers have settled firmly into a post, lost interest in learning how to teach well, yet are doing their best to resist being replaced by someone more able to do the job. Alas, it sounds like some parts of the country try to counter this by having the local political munchkins trying to get teachers to use a curriculum that has no basis in reality (or legality) at all. Which in reality just makes things worse.
Incompetence shouldn't be defended, but merely disagreeing with someone doesn't make them incompetent. Science is no close friend of Left or Right; it tries to follow reality, whatever that is, not what makes people comfortable with their ideologies-of-the-month.
-
Incompetence shouldn't be defended, but merely disagreeing with someone doesn't make them incompetent. Science is no close friend of Left or Right; it tries to follow reality, whatever that is, not what makes people comfortable with their ideologies-of-the-month.
This is all true. And Ed School is where the dumb people go for graduate school. Or anyways, lower achievers (i.e., lower grades, standardized test scores, etc).
-
>boomzilla said:
But when mathematically literate parents can't figure out the homework for their first grader, the WTF probably isn't the parents.I'm thinking that sentence is impossible. If they're actually mathematically literate, they would understand any and all possible math concepts ever taught in first grade, I don't care how ridiculous they are.
I have an engineering degree. I've been through college Math starting at Calculus, and going through DiffEq, Linear Algebra, Statistics, "Advanced Engineering Mathematics" and Stochastic Processes. I think that I am mathematically literate by just about any reasonable definition of the term. But more that once my kids asked, "How do you do $mathTermOfTheDay?" where $mathTermOfTheDay was something I'd never heard of.
In some cases, it was just a new term somebody made up to describe a technique that used to be called something else. (Why?) In others it was one of those convoluted "shortcuts" discussed above that I'd never been exposed to. Sure, I was able to read their textbook and figure it out, but why teach kids techniques that an engineer has to read three times to decipher?
-
Sure, I was able to read their textbook and figure it out
So you figured it out, because you're mathematically literate.
In some cases, it was just a new term somebody made up to describe a technique that used to be called something else. (Why?)
Because it's hard to come up with a good reason to print a new book every 3 years if you don't rename things. Because it's not like Elementary math is a cutting-edge dynamic field. But they have to try to make it seem like one, otherwise people will ask why they can't keep using the same 100 year old elementary school math book. Especially now in the digital age where you don't have to worry about wearing out the books by use, you'd never have to buy another book again.
-
So you figured it out, because you're mathematically literate.
You left out the rest of my statement:
but why teach kids techniques that an engineer has to read three times to decipher?
you'd never have to buy another book again.
Yes, of course, along with university professors needing to write the books in order to justify their tenure and research grants.
-
but why teach kids techniques that an engineer has to read three times to decipher?
It is often harder to decipher alternative methods when you already know how to do something the "right" way because your brain has been trained. You'd have to be a fresh kid all over again to know which way really was better to start with. Sounds like they needed to do some objective testing to determine which way works best, or if they've already done such testing then those results should be released. I've seen nothing but speculation so far though, mostly based on the "that's how we always did it" point of view [edit: or the, "I taught my one class this way once and they're all great at math now!" anecdotes ], neither of which is a great stand-alone reason for continuing to do things that way.
-
Old Math.
New Math.
Common Core Math.
Cake Math:
-
A simple like is insufficient for this. I'd offer you a
, but you already have 10.
-
I wonder how much cake you could trade the body for?
-
You deserve a
, but apparently Dicsourse doesn't allow them.
-
I love watching Americans debate the merits of universal healthcare.
-
I love watching Americans debate the merits of universal healthcare.
I thought we already beat that dead horse?
Well fine.
They're not making universal healthcare in America, they're trying to make universal insurance.
Not the same thing.
The only point of universal health care would be to make people productive. Outside of that, it won't save lives if the cost is too high.
Hybrid systems is what is implemented in most countries. Where people can be made productive for free if the decision is that it is financially worth the investment for the government. If it's not 'worth it', people can then spend their own money at a private doctor.
No matter what you try to do, when the government is involved it's an investment, not a solution, if you want it to function at all.
However, in America, they don't care about the cost, they'll drive it into the ground for votes. And that's why I'm against it. They think the government is a solution, not an investment.
-
Good job, Kerry.
-
Good job, Kerry.
<img src="/uploads/default/6884/e05f931e45e0e586.png" width="690" height="151">
Well, technically, Kerry is correct. Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war, so we are not "at war". As such, the United States is only considered to be "engaged in military action." One of those odd separation of powers things.
-
He's right; the Executive Branch (or, in Newspaper-speke the "White House"), doesn't have the power to declare war.
Regardless of what the White House and Pentagon says, the US it not at war until Congress says the US is at war. (That said, during the Bush years, we had troops shooting at guys for like months before Congress finally said, "meh. I guess it's war? Sure why not.")
-
He's right; the Executive Branch (or, in Newspaper-speke the "White House"), doesn't have the power to declare war.
Regardless of what the White House and Pentagon says, the US it not at war until Congress says the US is at war. (That said, during the Bush years, we had troops shooting at guys for like months before Congress finally said, "meh. I guess it's war? Sure why not.")
When was the last time anyone actually declared "war"? In like 1940-ies? There's, however, been plenty of "interventions", "police actions", "peace operations" etc... The law has lost its meaning because the word has lost its meaning.
-
When was the last time anyone actually declared "war"? In like 1940-ies?
1942, to be exact1. You are right that the word has lost it's meaning. The problem with the way that war is handled in the United States is that a declaration of war is essentially meaningless. The President commands the military. He has no need to get a declaration of war to command war-like actions. Conversely, Congress could issue a declaration of war, and the President could refuse to send our military into battle.
-
Also glossed over: Kerry is a member of the White House.
-
Right; but like a lot of things with our Government that's a feature, not a bug. Every branch balances every other branch in various ways, which is why the branch that can declare war is different from the branch that can realize it.
There was some debate when Bush sent troops to Iraq-- you probably remember the filthy hippies calling it an "illegal war" for about 47 years-- but Congress within like a week legitimized the action in any case.
-
Right; but like a lot of things with our Government that's a feature, not a bug. Every branch balances every other branch in various ways, which is why the branch that can declare war is different from the branch that can realize it.
Whoosh.
There was some debate when Bush sent troops to Iraq-- you probably remember the filthy hippies calling it an "illegal war" for about 47 years-- but Congress within like a week legitimized the action in any case.
As far as I understand, in this case "legitimize" means some kind of vague legalese coming down to "we don't want to take a stance, but if president think this is ok, who are we to argue?" Not exactly the unambigious declaration of war that was intended.
-
When was the last time anyone actually declared "war"? In like 1940-ies? There's, however, been plenty of "interventions", "police actions", "peace operations" etc... The law has lost its meaning because the word has lost its meaning.
Bush got AUMFs (Authorization to Use Military Force) in Afghanistan and Iraq. The text didn't literally say "Declaration of War," but that's what they were.
-
Also glossed over: Kerry is a member of the White House.
He's a member of the Administration, but not part of the White House.
-
As far as I understand, in this case "legitimize" means some kind of vague legalese coming down to "we don't want to take a stance, but if president think this is ok, who are we to argue?" Not exactly the unambigious declaration of war that was intended.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
-
60 Words
How one sentence -- just 60 words written in the hours after the September 11 attacks -- became the legal foundation for the "war on terror."
-
-
-
I know you don't know you're doing it, but this post is exactly what I was talking about. You guys will never understand, and that makes me very happy.
-
You guys will never understand, and that makes me very happy.
Some of us understand. But as you demonstrate, ignorance is bliss.
-
Except you really don't. You guys will spend decades arguing about who should be paying for it, probably charging the common folk outrageous fees in the mean time, just to come up with a half assed solution that only benefits the insurance companies. Every other country that has implemented such a healthcare system already figured out who pays for it: everybody. Your silly "debate" is between two sides that fundamentally do not understand what government funded healthcare means, so they'll never reach a solution which anyone can agree with.
You don't even have to get rid of private insurance! The two systems can live in harmony.
I do agree that what you've got now is the wrong answer to the problem, but you guys will never be able to fix it. You might as well enjoy (or not, nobody else really cares) what you've got.
-
What you fail to realize is that health care delivery is so expensive in the US that no one can pay for it. The health care problem in the US cannot be solved from the payer side.
-
What you fail to realize is that health care delivery is so expensive in the US that no one can pay for it. The health care problem in the US cannot be solved from the payer side.
It will be hellishly expensive to actually fix, particularly in terms of political capital. (Money too, but the system it would replace is so utterly expensive that that shouldn't be so much of a problem.) That means that clearing this particular swamp is going to be awfully difficult; ordinary people are very attached to having some form of healthcare and very fearful of anyone doing anything that might be slanted by someone as taking it away. A lot of people, many of whom are making a very nice living right now thankyouverymuch, would have an incentive to be a bit less than 100% honest in describing the effects of reform proposals…
It's not fighting left/right. It's against the healthcare-industrial-complex. They make the military-industrial-complex look like puny amateurs in terms of total spend and political influence…
-
You don't even have to get rid of private insurance! The two systems can live in harmony.
Like I said, ignorance is bliss. We already have all of that.
-
No, you lot have ignorance. We're the ones with the bliss. Or something a damn sight closer to it than you have, anyway.
-
If that were true there would be no debate at all because you'd already have a world-class public healthcare system. You'll never have that. This is what I mean when I say you'll never understand, you don't even know how it's supposed to work. You refuse to accept the basic premise.
