World Affairs

[airman15 4,111]

Its a shame but they never taught us anything like this at school. The only math they teach us is working with problems and sometimes word problems and by the time we hit High School its moving onto algebra. Its stupid, i'll admit because I don't think solving an equation is going to answer when the next train I would take will arrive at where i'm going to.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Its a shame but they never taught us anything like this at school. The only math they teach us is working with problems and sometimes word problems and by the time we hit High School its moving onto algebra. Its stupid, i'll admit because I don't think solving an equation is going to answer when the next train I would take will arrive at where i'm going to.

Well, the equation of time you don't hit unless you are heavily into history of science and run into building railroads in Canada. Then you find out about time zones and where they came from. The way to find out when the noon train is coming is to look at the clock in the station.

As for teaching maths in elementary school, I fear it is now technology dependent. Calculators and such used to be forbidden, but I had a slide rule when I hit grade 9. I think the problem with mathematics curricula these days is that they try to cram too much into it. I never even heard the word "set" except on a running track until I hit college. And the theory of limits, L'Hopital's rule and the calculus was a university subject too.

Primary school children should not be exposed to higher levels of math before they at least learn how to mensurate solids. For me, that was a grade 8 subject, and finding the volume of a complex shape can be done geometrically without calculus. Of course the solid basis of Euclidean geometry should not come until at least Grade 10 in my humble opinion. Kids are not really ready for the ideas of the Euclidean Axioms until then and learning them like a catechism is a really dumb move. Most kids think that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but if you do it on a sphere, it is a great circle. They aren't read for that in grade school. And they certainly are not ready for the ideas of Conformal Geometry when any line can be a circle.

IMHO, calculators should be forbidden below grade 7 because kids need to really know how to do arithmetic when the power is off. Someday, their lives may depend on this skill. Learning a few addition and multiplication tables does them no harm. And they shouldn't be playing with number systems other than decimal until at least Grade 11. It is too confusing to try to understand that at a young age when things are supposed to be concrete, 10-based and "immutable". Any kid who has a talent for computers younger than this can dip himself in binary, octal and hex. It is good for them.

  Edited December 31, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

New investment derivatives?

Some people will gamble on anything. Sports trivia can be turned into a major crime?

[penguin1634 43]

As for teaching maths in elementary school, I fear it is now technology dependent. Calculators and such used to be forbidden, but I had a slide rule when I hit grade 9. I think the problem with mathematics curricula these days is that they try to cram too much into it. I never even heard the word "set" except on a running track until I hit college. And the theory of limits, L'Hopital's rule and the calculus was a university subject too.

I fear the same thing. However, we as a people are becoming more technology dependent, and although that may be bad or good many countries are preparing students for this by allowing them calculators.

Primary school children should not be exposed to higher levels of math before they at least learn how to mensurate solids. For me, that was a grade 8 subject, and finding the volume of a complex shape can be done geometrically without calculus. Of course the solid basis of Euclidean geometry should not come until at least Grade 10 in my humble opinion. Kids are not really ready for the ideas of the Euclidean Axioms until then and learning them like a catechism is a really dumb move. Most kids think that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but if you do it on a sphere, it is a great circle. They aren't read for that in grade school. And they certainly are not ready for the ideas of Conformal Geometry when any line can be a circle.

I do agree, but if the students show they can understand it why not teach them it? If they can't understand it well they can learn at a slower pace than those that can, thus everyone is taught according to their ability.

IMHO, calculators should be forbidden below grade 7 because kids need to really know how to do arithmetic when the power is off. Someday, their lives may depend on this skill. Learning a few addition and multiplication tables does them no harm. And they shouldn't be playing with number systems other than decimal until at least Grade 11. It is too confusing to try to understand that at a young age when things are supposed to be concrete, 10-based and "immutable". Any kid who has a talent for computers younger than this can dip himself in binary, octal and hex. It is good for them.

Again, agreed. It is important for students to be able to use their brains for math. However, IMO students should be able to learn algebra onwards with a calculator because at that point the emphasis is not on the actual operations themselves (multiplying, dividing, etc), but on the techniques on how to solve the math, if that makes any sense. We must prepare are students for the modern, computerized world and the heavy competition to innovate, not for the off chance that the power goes off someday and the modern world collapses because we're all modernized softies.

[Easy Bakes 253]

But if you know your arithmetic backwards and forwards by not using the calculator

when you learn it you wont need it for algebra either.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Terrorism is everywhere.

Who would have thought of this country as a hot bed of pseudo-Islamic terrorists?

[Cobraroll 138]

^Since the Muhammad cartoons... well, there has been some stirring. But then again, such things are unfortunately likely to spring up in any country with a large immigrant population and few enough restrictive laws that monitor them every second. The more people, the greater the probability of extremists among them. People have been caught for terror plotting in the UK, in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, France... it was bound to happen here too, eventually. Fortunately, the freedom of expression and the public debate concerning immigrants means that extremists tend to be rather vocal about their beliefs, and as the network fundamentalists have in the country is rather small and easy to monitor, they will be picked up. Usually. However, when the extremist is of a kind you wouldn't normally expect... things can go horribly wrong.

[Meg 368]

I don't think techonlogy should be used in any form of primary education. My terminology may be confusing, but I also think it should be disallowed in secondary education, as well (high school). Only in college should gadgets be introduced - and we can almost all agree that the students will already be familiar with the general ones (calculators). My reasoning is multi-fold: we need to encourage critical and analytical thought, we need our youth to know the basics, we need our youth to know 'the hard way'.

I think all basic education (primary and secondary schooling) should only focus on the basics: Reading, writing, mathematics, history (this one is subject to bias, but necessary), law, the sciences, the arts, languages, and crafts (woodshop, metalshop, home economics). Anything specific should be saved for a further education/specialty.

Barbarossa

I understand your point that it is possible to become too dependent on technology: why learn to spell when the computer will fix your errors, why learn long division when the calculator can do it, and so forth. But, at some point, it just gets overly cumbersome.

My nephew and I were talking about trigonometry the other day. (He is in a field where they actually use it.) Yes, he knows the difference between a sine and a cosine and when to use which one. But what would be the value of his lugging around a book with trig tables in the back (like the textbook I had back when) versus using the calculator that he is already lugging around?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I understand your point that it is possible to become too dependent on technology: why learn to spell when the computer will fix your errors, why learn long division when the calculator can do it, and so forth. But, at some point, it just gets overly cumbersome.

My nephew and I were talking about trigonometry the other day. (He is in a field where they actually use it.) Yes, he knows the difference between a sine and a cosine and when to use which one. But what would be the value of his lugging around a book with trig tables in the back (like the textbook I had back when) versus using the calculator that he is already lugging around?

Really depends on circumstances. If you are on a sailing vessel in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and something happens to your GPS system, you had better have a sextant, almanac, set of tables and a chronometer or you are lost forever on the wide, wide sea. A copy of U.S. H.O. Publication No. 9 (Bowditch) is also a standard to carry on board because it has the necessary tutorial to use the others in case you need a refresher. Of course this is a special case, but I am sure we can think of others more ordinary. And the chronometer should be spring driven, not electric. Joshua Slocum did it with an old alarm clock with only an hour hand. ("Sailing Alone Around the World" 1906).

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Having been raised in the 1990s, I was taught how to do math without calculators and spelling without word processors in elementary school. We even had spelling tests through 5th grade. Of course 5th grade spelling tests were dictation, sometimes even rewording after dictation. I excelled in many things though I was around average for spelling and multiplication tables. I still count and double numbers in order to get 3s, 6s, 7s, and sometimes 9s. I also have trouble with spelling to this day, especially with regards to double consonants and non-phonetically spelled words.

Of course, it is hard to tell because I certainly (1) have come up with methods to avoid spelling things wrong (2) while making myself sound smarter. I replace words that challenge (3) me with similar (4) ones, especially if they are longer or better sounding. I think hard before talking about deserts and desserts and prefer to talk about sweets and pastries or arid regions. Seeing as I have dysgraphia, I can type everything up or have a scribe write them, except math-heavy papers that have a lot of symbols and special formatting for numbers and equations. I want to sound as smart (5) as possible without improper English. Most of my improper use of English is to depersonalize pronouns, using 'that' instead of 'who' or 'whom' and 'it' instead of 'he' or 'she' or to turn it plural into 'they' when incorrect (someone, anyone, everyone).

In speech, I use a combination of several "accents" to pronounce words clearly even if no single accent uses that combination of pronunciations. I rhyme bag and gag with hag and not peg. I call parties where guests bring food potlatches (that is our regional term, borrowed from Samish). I tend to pronounce 'r' unless told otherwise. I pronounce Foreign or Latin based words like standard Spanish. Seeing as I am autistic, I have trouble using tone in my voice and my tone is either more flat for a given time, either monotone, Emphasis On Every Single Word, or constant happy (sing-song) or sad (grough, vibrato).

  Edited February 2, 2012 by OcramSeattle  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Understanding is the key word here. You may think you can do something until someone takes away your pretty buttons.

I went to elementary school in the 1940s when the Canadian education system was still rooted in the British system. Over the years, I've come to appreciate that no end. One of the most important things we did in the early grades was to learn some pronunciation differences between words containing unvoiced consonants. There is a considerable difference in the pronunciation of the words 'who' and 'were' and 'where'. The difference is the slight breathiness that goes with 'wh'. If sure helps in spelling if you can hear this.

American contractions like 'thru' for 'through' and 'nite' for 'night' indicate a dialectical change in the language. Perhaps it is sloppiness or just a simplification since the understanding is clear. To my ear the American contractions seem short and abrupt.

We never said 'bonnet' for 'hood' nor 'boot' for 'trunk' in discussing automobiles. To that extent, some of the elements of the U.K. English were lost. We also say 'semi' instead of 'pantechnion' or 'lorry'. Some things are just as unacceptable to us as to our American cousins because we need to communicate on this continent.

However, we did learn reading, writing, and 'rithmatic the hard way. In those days there was no choice. We graduated from pencils to straight pens with dipped nibs. Ball point pens came out when I was in high school, and pretty poor ones at that, always making blots with the excess ink. It has come a long way, baby. I now prefer the fine-point wet markers as pens. The smell of the evaporating solvent reminds me of the smell of ink, but you no longer have to blot it.

In high school, I also had a slide rule. This was the only form of calculator that was around. You were not allowed to have one in a math test. You had to use the tables provided. What would the little darlings do without a calculator today? Duh!

[Ocram's Razr 963]

There are many math tests that do not allow calculators in either part or all of them. Seeing as American politicians want to alter English into a gender-neutral, politically-correct, international language, when we already have one, this language might merge with Esperanto.

(1) definitely

(2) misspellings

(3) difficult

(4) synonym (I know this one but it but my phone's autocorrect does not like it)

(5) intelligent

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I marked synonyms in post #732. No one noticed them so I wrote them in post #734.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I marked synonyms in post #732. No one noticed them so I wrote them in post #734.

The obscurity in these posts is beyond me. Perhaps you might make things more clear.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Should Russia and China still be Permanent Members of the Security Council?

In fact, since this is a left over from WW II, should there be any permanent members at all?

[airman15 4,111]

Whats next after kicking permanent members, abandoning the entire organization?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Think about it for a bit.

The Security Council is the executive committee for world security. The five permanent members are those countries who were "the allies" during WW II. They should be the ones with the most clout. Let's review:

U.S. - THE most clout

U.K. - OK but diminished capacity. It isn't the Empire any more.

France - Going broke

China - OK

Russia - Formerly the armed camp of the U.S.S.R. but now???

After 67 years (two+ generations) I think it is time for a review. What countries could replace the weak sisters? Should they be replaced? Why have veto power? The veto is a means of retaining national interest in spite of everyone else.

At one time the UN was pretty much a closed shop of countries involved directly in WW II. Now, every splinter country that has managed to get a flag registered can be a member if they pony up the fees. So why should such absolute power reside in five members alone?

We already see the factionalism that takes place in the "United" Nations. Power blocs are obvious. Who says that the current five permanent members on the SC are now the cooler heads that should prevail? In the past, the allies had the power to dictate this. Do they still?

I have no objection to the organization other than its ostentatious and overblown, expensive opinion of itself. It luxuriates in New York while people starve around the world. Perhaps a new setting in meaner circumstances should be the proper thing for the General Assembly. Grand halls are for the times of WW II. Besides, the building is old, and I am sure it has become a maintenance headache.

Being able to come to one place for general "diplomacy" and talks is a good thing. Not having much clout is not a good thing. Think of poor Haile Selassie pleading his case before the deaf ears of the League of Nations (the islolationist U.S. not being a member).

Abyssinia.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"As it slurps, slurps, slurps into the barrels"

From a song sung by Eartha Kitt, title ?"I want an old fashioned house"?

Let us not be confused about this. The Falkland Islands were colonized by the Empire in 1833, and nobody much cared until oil was discovered off-shore. The people living there have voted to remain British, and the U.K. has defended them for well over a century as a Crown protectorate.

This just goes to show that even Madame Presidente will express greed with moves like this. Resistance is futile, they have been assimilated.

[airman15 4,111]

If Argentina keeps this up, it will only be a matter of time before the two nations clash like they did in the 80's

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Actually, the last time they tried an invasion. Hotheads!

[Odainsaker 2,134]

The Argentine president's speech, let alone the nationalist flag-burning protestors in the streets of Buenos Aires, never clearly laid out what they will do to the current inhabitants, who are agreed by all sides to not be Argentinians. However, with the heated, jingoist rhetoric, I suspect any "repatriation" back to Britain will be the nice term term for Ethnic Cleansing. I'm not interested in who-claimed-what-when among long-dead people from two centuries ago...forced mass expulsions today of actually living residents, especially in the name of opportunist internal politics, have no place among civilized nations. Food blockades, harrassing phone calls, and scare tactics designed to make the islanders become self-made refugees from their own homes...how shameful!

On the plus side, the moment Russia and China step in on Argentina's side in order to simply stymie and spite the West, we can quickly point to Tibet, Taiwan, the Kurile Islands, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. Not exactly the best lot of issues for Argentina to throw itself in with.

  Edited February 9, 2012 by Odainsaker  

[Meg 368]

okay, let me see if I have this right . . .

The people on these islands want to remain a British colony (Crown protectorate, whatever). Everyone agrees that the people are not Argentinians.

So, the UK wants to protect its people. and Argentina wants the land back because there is oil there.

Does that cover it?

[cogeo 960]

Britain has every right to protect her territories. What is Argentina fearing of?

  Edited February 8, 2012 by cogeo  

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Last Time the Argentinians invaded sovereign British Soil as an election ploy. Margaret Thatcher sent the Royal Navy and some Army Units to Recover it. Amongst them were 18 British Harriers, a marvelous plane which the Navy did'nt want at first. Probably the only plane that could Hover and Fly Backwards. The Harriers very quickly sent the Argentine Air Force Packing. Marines soon mopped up any outlying Argentine soldiers and the Paras marched on Stanley (the capital) releasing the civilians held hostage.

Argentina complained that amongst the British forces were Gurkas whose reputation scared the Argentine soldiers.

[airman15 4,111]

And considering Britain trying to upgrade it's military (new F-35's, I think several new ships and better trained foot soldiers) Britain won't be messing around if they end up getting into another confrontation.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

And considering Britain trying to upgrade it's military (new F-35's, I think several new ships and better trained foot soldiers) Britain won't be messing around if they end up getting into another confrontation.

@Meg: Exactly.

The old Lion hasn't roared her last. Lots of teeth too. What the Argentines are not thinking of is that Britain has 53 automatic allies who also trade with those fools. They could wind up eating all their beef lest it rot on the docks, among other things. A little oil is probably not worth being ostracized by the Commonwealth. When the chips are down, trade treaties are in the pot.

I am personally fed up with the silly posturing of that NAZI-loving bunch of ex-pat Conqistadores.

  Edited February 9, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[airman15 4,111]

Worst of all, Argentina knows what they would be getting into. If I were president of that nation, I would leave the hornet's nest alone rather than make the same mistake twice. I think the world can do with 1 less war (more like stop all conflicts) in the year 2012