Leaving aside Yogi and Skeeves little tiff , the start of this video does raise an interesting question in terms of our assessment of ourselves as "intelligent". Is there a line that is crossed which marks a species as intelligent?

For me, I think our intelligence comes from our ability to both understand and communicate abstract concepts, particularly things like math. Most of the research I've seen into communication with other potential intelligences focuses on the conveyance of our understanding simple mathematical concepts like arithmetic, geometry, prime numbers and so on. I think based on that, we would be able to eventually communicate with another intelligent species, even starting with something as simple as


..
...
.....
.......
...........
.............
.................

That demonstrates we know what the first few primes are.

I don't believe there is another animal on earth that can understand and communicate these concepts

apart from mice and dolphins obviously, but they don't want to talk to us.

That said, there may be some fundamental property of primes or some other universal mathematical pattern we simply haven't recognised yet (it may only be apparent in a different base notation or when looked at n-dimensionally) that is considered the universal equivalent of 1+1=2. In which case, we'll appear remarkably dense to other intelligences.

Obama's stimulus was too small and didn't put enough people to work, unlike FDR, who got us out of the great depression with his stimulus plan. Economist Paul Krugman correctly predicted that Obama's plan was big not enough to make dent: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/ >> ^quantumushroom:

So the "Stimulus" was an abject failure? Statist idiots.

>> ^MaxWilder:

LarsaruS, you are ignoring context. This was a geometry lesson, not a socio-politcal discussion. It was not intended to raise a topic for thoughtful debate. When you put together a word problem for a math lesson, you are implying that the content of the problem is something you might have to consider in real life, and in a fairly trivial manner. It is not appropriate to use immoral acts as the content of school lessons, no matter what the specific act may be. For instance, you would not want a teacher who used an example of how much children eat daily, and how much less they would need if you drowned some of them. You would not want to use the example of how many slaves you would need to buy to get a certain amount of acreage harvested. GeeSussFreeK's example above is funny because of how totally inappropriate it would be in school.
It doesn't matter whether it is a hypothetical. The context implies approval of the activities specified.


Ok, I have a couple of issues with your post.

1: "When you put together a word problem for a math lesson, you are implying that the content of the problem is something you might have to consider in real life, and in a fairly trivial manner".
1.1: No, that does not have to be the case. I never considered word problems in any lesson as something I might have to do in real life (anecdotal evidence but still). There is a skill called critical thinking, you use it to see what the lesson is about, here angles and probably Pythagoras, and learn that not just what the problem's solution is. That way you can apply what you have learnt on many things as you get the principle for how to solve all similar problems.


2: "It is not appropriate to use immoral acts as the content of school lessons, no matter what the specific act may be"
2.1: Umm, what? Not being able to use immoral acts as content of school lessons at all? Seriously? And who decides what these immoral acts are? (Hint: lobby groups) For some being homosexual is an immoral act as it is a choice/lifestyle, ergo no teachers are allowed to talk about HBTQ rights. Equality is therefore gone in school education. For some talking about evolution is immoral so good bye science. The list goes on. If you have an "Immoral list" you can always add more things to it as you see fit until only the things that the people in power wants to be taught can be taught and in a couple of generations all other knowledge will have vanished as the people who learnt it die off.

Also school is to prepare children for adult life. Adult life is filled with "immoral" actions and people. Sending kids out into the real world with a distorted world view is the most immoral act I could ever think of as they will be completely unprepared for real life and hit a lot of pitfalls that otherwise could have been avoided. "Everybody in the world is super nice and you are super special too!" so go with the man who has a rabbit in his cellar that he wants you to see...

2.2: What about classes about law or history? Lessons where criminals, or criminal acts, are discussed would have to go. For instance, lessons about the eradication of the Native Americans would have to go, No Nürnberg trials, no Pearl Harbour or nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... the list of things which can be considered immoral or that contains immoral acts is endless. We are a violent species.


3: "For instance, you would not want a teacher who used an example of how much children eat daily, and how much less they would need if you drowned some of them. You would not want to use the example of how many slaves you would need to buy to get a certain amount of acreage harvested."
3.1: Kids and food problem: See this.
Also it is simple arithmetic. Example: "You have X food and Y people. Every person Needs Z food per day and you can add F food per day that can be harvested from your farms. How many people can you have without them starving?" What is the problem with a problem like this? Basic civilization survival is based on this formula. Natural resources - consumption/person = Sustainability/Starvation

3.2: Slave problem: Obsolete as slaves are inefficient compared to modern automated machines. Who would use slave labour when you could use a robot that never fucks up (unless you use Windows ofc.), never needs to sleep, never demands pay and never complains? Technological progress FTE (For The Emancipation )


4: "The context implies approval of the activities specified"
4.1: What context and why would it imply approval? That it was a lesson in a school? So if I bring up the attack on WTC in a lesson and how it was executed it means that I approve of the actions? (I guess that Nicolas Cage and a lot of other people who were in the movies about the attacks all support it then?) If I let my students calculate the forces that were subjected on the buildings from the planes mass M and its speed V + the force of the fuel exploding or the McVeigh bombing and the force that X amount of explosives generate I approve what they did? I abhor all use of violence but if I use these examples I approve of them? That makes no sense to me.

One of the best things you can do as a teacher is to ground your lessons in reality and real life events as that increases the motivation and curiosity of the students IMHO.


5: "This was a geometry lesson, not a socio-politcal discussion. It was not intended to raise a topic for thoughtful debate."
5.1: As a teacher, no matter what your subject is, you have to be able to lead discussions on tough subjects as students can come in from recess and something horrible has happened and they need to process it and be "debriefed", think every classroom in the US the hours after 9/11 or after Columbine. If a student is assaulted/gets hit by a car/whatever you have to be able to have a discussion about it.

5.2: If a meaningful debate emerges from any lesson that interests your students you run with it. Simple as that. Learning and developing a lust for learning is the main goal of any teacher worthy of that title in my book.

Wow, that was a serious wall of text. Congrats on getting through it!

*edit for getting the + to show... forgot to put in extra blank spaces...

^Right, I already think the system is horrible, and I wouldn't want to add silly rules to make it work for some people at the expense of others. That is already how the system is setup, it protects skilled laborers from unskilled for ever rivaling their position in the market place. It keeps the poor, under skilled person from ever threatening his position. I was lucky enough that I could read, write, and do arithmetic as I am unimpaired and took my education seriously growing up, some either weren't that lucky or missed the opportunity all together.

However, as a result of that, the majority of people make more than min was in the US, but you still have a substantial portion of people who can't read, write or do all that other basic stuff you take for granted. There is something very important to remember about min wage, it isn't the starting point of what labor is worth, it is just what some person considers a min standard of living should be in the US, and as a result, the default wage one has to charge. What it doesn't represent is what actual value of skills certain under privileged people (sometimes through no natural fault of their own) have. A person who can't read, write, or do simple math, or speak the language could only very rarely find a job that would demand them to be compensated in a level on par or surpassing min wage.

When you set a min price for labor rate you ensure that when markets fluctuate, that the people on the bottom suffer most. Instead of trying to find a low paying job, they just get none. You also ensure that the price of goods, specifically goods that would be inexpensive through cheap labor are more expensive and cause those with all ready low wages or no wages to pay more for them.

I sympathize with the goals of min wage, truly, but in my experience with the destitute, they do more harm than good.

(edit grammar...gosh I sux at writing)

It's dreamy weather we're on
You waved your crooked wand
Along an icy pond with a frozen moon
A murder of silhouette crows I saw
And the tears on my face
And the skates on the pond
They spell Alice

I disappear in your name
But you must wait for me
Somewhere across the sea
There's a wreck of a ship
Your hair is like meadow grass on the tide
And the raindrops on my window
And the ice in my drink
Baby all I can think of is Alice

Arithmetic arithmetock
Turn the hands back on the clock
How does the ocean rock the boat?
How did the razor find my throat?
The only strings that hold me here
Are tangled up around the pier

And so a secret kiss
Brings madness with the bliss
And I will think of this
When I'm dead in my grave
Set me adrift and I'm lost over there
And I must be insane
To go skating on your name
And by tracing it twice
I fell through the ice
Of Alice

And so a secret kiss
Brings madness with the bliss
And I will think of this
When I'm dead in my grave
Set me adrift and I'm lost over there
And I must be insane
To go skating on your name
And by tracing it twice
I fell through the ice
Of Alice
There's only Alice

Why fail? She got the answer right.

Some people get too worried about how they're perceived if they make a mistake with simple math, so, in her case, I guess the anxiety froze her brain.

Poincaré, a famous french mathematician, once admitted to being terrible at making even the simplest arithmetic operations.

>> ^archer:
>> ^ForgedReality:
He's spending more money that we do not have that us taxpayers are going to have to be paying back for many years to come. We're trillions of dollars in debt, and yet he feels it's justified to go spend billions more on wars we can't afford to be in right now; wars in which we really have no right to be involved.
The national debt grew by 46% during the GWB years, from 5,727,776,738,304.64 on the day he was sworn in
to 10,628,881,485,510.20 on the day he left office.
That, in contrast Clinton's eight years with a modest 27% increase from 4,188,092,107,183.60
to 5,727,776,738,304.64.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov
The debt now stands at 11,648,548,144,569.70, about 1 trillion since Bush left office and Obama came on stage.
With actual facts, I'm not sure I understand the "justification" to stop spending. Apparently a Republican president can start two wars and fight them indefinitely while nearly doubling the national debt, while a democrat must immediately stop both wars and be a fiscal conservative.


1) 46%? Better check that arithmetic.

2) Anyone who claims to know exactly how a given amount of debt will affect the economy, or how much debt we can accrue before a total collapse of the fiscal system is full of it. The global economy and the United States' role in it is totally unprecedented, and everyone is just guessing. Clinton's advisers guessed that balancing the budget would boost confidence and spur economic growth. Cheney is on record saying that there's no problem with deficits forever. Obama's guys think borrowing money from China to fuel a recovery makes sense.

Even with hindsight we don't know how much Clinton's policies caused the Boom of the 90's, or Bush's spending caused the recessions of his presidency. There were too many other factors at work to lay all the credit at the feet of the government. Similarly, we may be able to rack up debt for decades with few consequences, or our creditors could get fed up and the US could be forced to default within 6 months.

If the best economic minds in the country don't know how best to balance spending and debt. It's unlikely that any sifters or the talking heads we listen to do either.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Arithmetic-Population-and-Energy

you should try and get this reposted or promoted!

http://www.videosift.com/video/Arithmetic-Population-and-Energy

Ugh, c'mon Chris... "evolutionary belief and assumption"... really? Any scientist can tell you that evolution is a scientific law. That's not a "belief". That's not an "assumption". It's fact. People who don't believe in evolution either a) don't understand what it is or b) refuse to understand what it is.

"There is nothing mysterious or purposeful about evolution by natural selection; it just happens. It is an automatic consequence of simple, cold arithmetic." -- Scott Freeman, Evolutionary Analysis

http://www.videosift.com/video/Arithmetic-Population-and-Energy

>> ^vairetube:
God doesn't decide. Bartlett does.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Arithmetic-Population-and-Energy
someone get that sifted


Done.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-most-important-and-boring-video-youll-ever-see

God doesn't decide. Bartlett does.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Arithmetic-Population-and-Energy

someone get that sifted

MINK, come on. are you really suggesting that dag slaps all his accounting on the table for everyone to see?

if for some reason you don't trust his arithmetic, don't donate. he's not pointing a gun to your head. asking for donations is an uncomfortable thing to have to do and i'm certain that dag wasn't overjoyed when he realised he'd have to do this. there's no need to make the process any more shitty by asking to see an income and expenditure.

honestly, the fact that dag and lucky haven't managed to make shitloads of money from videosift is quite endearing. if they were making thousands per week i think the whole experience would be less intimate. that's not to say i don't want them to make shitloads of money btw. i'm just glad the site is run by people who obviously didn't start it with a financial masterplan only to sell the fucker to AOL a couple of years down the line.

ask for donations whenever you want.

Honestly, the only thing the government has any business in teaching are the four Rs

Reading.
Writing.
Arithmetic.
Critical Thinking

The rest, they should stay out of--none of it is actually practical in everyday life: a skewed history, an incorrect presentation of evolution, an ineffective foreign language program, a deficient philosophy, and calculus. The reality of public education is students spend 12 years learning 3 out of 4 of the above skills, and little else of value.

Give me a 16 year old kid who can read, write, perform arithmetic, and think critically and I could teach him to a collegiate level in less than 1 year. Keep your $40,000 in taxes (average cost is $10,000 a year per public high school student) and use it to send him to a specialized private program for whatever career he wants.

Parents should take a personal responsibility for their children's education.