>> ^jwray:
his shirt is not anymore disruptive or offensive than a shirt that says "kermitt is bert's best friend" or "2+2=5"
O RLY?
I disagree. His shirt could start a fight. No one would care about the two shirts you suggested.

in principle, how are the three any different?

all three are false statements. you happen to care more about certain nouns than other people (i.e. obama as opposed to bert or arithmetic) but explain to me how the concept is any different?

are you saying that a bert fan could not take offense at someone claiming that ernie is not bert's best friend? or a die-hard mathematician could not take offense at someone claiming 2+2=5?

just because you consider "obama" to be a noun worth initiating violence over, doesn't mean everyone else does.

wow. 1/2 upvote for the video, another 1/2 for the comments, and the last 1/2 for basic arithmetic.

What happens when ADD meets arithmetic.

-22 you mean ?
In signed arithmetic, yeah, 110110 is -22. But no such declaration was made, assumption of unsigned is acceptable

Deal or No Deal is a totally idiotic game that promotes superstitious bullshit.

I get a kick out of moron guests on that show trying to pray or use ESP to figure out which case to pick instead of picking randomly.

The optimal strategy is to just pick a random case to eliminate every time, and only accept an offer if it exceeds the arithmetic mean of the remaining numbers, unless you prefer the certainty of a small reward to a higher expected value of a random variable reward.

If you want to take tax into the equation, only accept an offer if its after-tax value exceeds the arithmetic mean of the after-tax value of each remaining number.

This no educational value and a trivial optimal strategy, which makes it completely worthless except for the comedy of watching the spastic effusive moron guests. At least people might learn something by watching Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy, Millionaire, or Whose Line. But Deal or No Deal is braindead.

As a philosophy student, I'm somewhat ashamed by the logic of this. First you have to ask : "How do you know pushing the fat man will indeed stop the train?". That's far from being obvious or commonsensical, and thus many people will find lots of non-ethical problems with that course of action. A better way to put the problem would be to say that there is an activist that you neither like nor dislike (i.e. he's not protesting against you or something you care about, the term "activist" is only used to provide plausibility to the situation) attached in some way to the lever so that if you pull it you will kill him. Both the four men and the activist presumably, as far as you can know on the spot, know the risks of their actions (we can think the activist attached himself to this particular lever because of the danger it could possibly entail to his life). Will you then pull the lever and kill one person to save another four? Most people would find no qualms doing it, even most of those who would be biased towards the activist before the situation occurred.

A more difficult and appropriate question in this case would be : "Would you kill with your own hands a "helpless" person (one who can't physically stop you from killing him), in a similar situation, to save four others?" (I'm sure you can think of a scenario on your own). As long as the person making the decision must base their decision on a purely utilitarian/arithmetical reasoning (for want of more information about the five persons in jeopardy), they will kill one to save four. When you introduce matters of feeling, as of guilt or fear of killing someone in cold blood, then the decision process is "tainted" and not purely ethical, unless your ethics is somewhat based on feelings, but even then one wouldn't be able to tell if the real decision, on the moment, was based on ethical grounds (logical reasoning) or on an aversion (a psychosomatic feeling) to killing the one person in cold blood. By the way, putting a "fatty" in the mix might allow prejudice in some people who hate "fatties" so the situation in the video is even more inadequate at setting the problem. That's what you get when you ask a professor of philosophy at a technological institute .

There is also evidence to suggest that omega-3 fats improve brain function in a very short timeframe (about a day). Seth Robert's research -

Rapid effects of omega-3 fats on brain function

"I measured the effect of omega-3 fats on my brain by comparing flaxseed oil (high in omega-3) with other plant fats (low in omega-3) and with nothing. Flaxseed oil improved my balance, increased my speed in a memory-scanning task and in simple arithmetic problems, and increased my digit span.

The first three effects were very clear, t > 6. The effects of flaxseed oil wore off in a few days and appeared at full strength within a day of resumption. The best dose was at least 3 tablespoons/day, much more than most flaxseed-oil recommendations. Supporting results come from three other subjects.

Because the brain is more than half fat, it is plausible that type of dietary fat affects how well it works. The most interesting feature of these results is the speed and clarity of the improvement. The tools of experimental psychology may be used to determine the optimal mix of fats for the brain with unusual clarity."

He had 7 years to balance the budget. Instead, his administration (with the help of the Congress) unbalanced it to historical levels, and now he hypes an invisible, magical plan to make it all ok by 2012, which he obviously will never execute. It's trivial to give tax discounts when you're borrowing money from the Chinese at the rate of $2-3 billion per day.

Yesterday I was watching Bernanke's testimony to the Congressional Budget Committee, and he said he believed in the "law of arithmetic", i.e., that expenses and income should be balanced. I was already pissed that the economist heading the world's largest central bank couldn't come up with anything better to say, and then comes a congressman (whose name I've forgotten), and says "well, that's a law we should pass in Congress", after which they laugh.

All that's missing is the blackjack and the hookers.

SCIENTISTS CHALLENGE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STANCE ON FLUORIDE

Professors of Chemistry Albert Burgstahler (University of Kansas) and Paul Connett (St. Lawrence University) and Professor Emeritus Lennard Krook (Cornell University) will be joined by Dr. William Hirzy (representing the union of scientists and attorneys at EPA headquarters) and New York attorney Paul Beeber in presenting information showing fluoride is neither an essential nutrient nor a beneficial element, contrary to what the NAS is attempting to establish, and that Americans are now over-dosed with that chemical.

Professor Burgstahler, who has been an active researcher on the toxic effects and chemistry of fluoride for over thirty years, will cover in detail the unscientific nature of the NAS's justification for attempting to anoint fluoride as an "beneficial element". He will explain errors in the NAS's arithmetic and reasoning on the subject and point out the bias of the NAS panel members involved. Professor Connett will present information on the mechanisms of fluoride's toxic effects, including suppression of the activity of the pineal gland, which responsible for many critical aspects of life such as aging and adaptation to day/night cycles. He will also discuss how fluoride's chemical properties explain much of that substance's toxicity, and the present state of America's over-dosing by fluoride and the role of the American Dental Association in it.

January,1999
CONTACT: DR. J. WILLIAM HIRZY, NTEU CHAPTER 280
PHONE: 202-260-4683 FAX: 202-401-3139 EMAIL: HIRZY.JOHN@EPA.GOV

Pocket revolution tour..it was last year..great!! (4 me much easier, I live in Germany) dunno what they are doing at present..I hope a new album. what do u play?

In reply to your comment:
“The group I was in used to cover 'Little Arithmetics'. At the time, I felt we were the only people in the U.S. who had ever heard of dEUS. I generally had to special order their albums as the music shops in my area didn't carry them.

Thanks to your post, I got the urge to break out my dEUS albums. I'm listening to their newest, 'Pocket Revolution' right now. Great stuff.

In reply to your comment:
“thanks leadingzero.
yes, I completely agree. Since i´ve seen the video I like the song better. and In a Bar, Under the Sea my favourite album!”

The group I was in used to cover 'Little Arithmetics'. At the time, I felt we were the only people in the U.S. who had ever heard of dEUS. I generally had to special order their albums as the music shops in my area didn't carry them.

Thanks to your post, I got the urge to break out my dEUS albums. I'm listening to their newest, 'Pocket Revolution' right now. Great stuff.

In reply to your comment:
“thanks leadingzero.
yes, I completely agree. Since i´ve seen the video I like the song better. and In a Bar, Under the Sea my favourite album!

From George Carlin:

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?

I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.

Well, of course she has an agenda -- no one is ever neutral about anything. The question is whether she's right or not.

I agree with her because I've seen the consequences of this alternative math education. It's a reaction to the "New Math" that was implemented in the 60s (in the US, and later in many other countries). New Math tried to teach formal math before giving students an intuitive background, with disastrous results. The "Everyday Math" approach does exactly the opposite -- it constantly resorts to intuition, and constantly delays formalization. Defenders of Everyday Math like to claim that formalization is just around the corner, but they never get to it.

I specially like her points because she's not a math teacher. She's someone with a background in science who noticed the problem and got interested in it. I'm an Electrical Engineering grad student, but I'm also working on becoming a licensed math teacher partly because of the disaster that math education has become in my country (Brazil).

In the long run, it is possible to teach elementary arithmetic and algebra using just about any approach, including Everyday Math. It's just not practical, and specially not in public schools where teachers have little time to allocate to each student. Math instruction must balance intuition and formality, and a curriculum which neglects one of these aspects will create deficient students. This deficiency can be overcome if kids are motivated enough to figure out the missing pieces, and if they have help from their teachers and parents, but this scenario is unrealistic in most cases.

I'm certainly sympathetic to some of the views about math in this video, but somehow it feels a little misguided. There's no reason why solid arithmetic and the development of "math sense" need to be separated, at least when done properly. Anyways, here's a pretty balanced look at one of the programs in the video: "Everyday Mathematics".

http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Everyday_Mathematics

Mental arithmetic? I thought they were handing out calculators in preschool now? How else are kids going to learn how to spell "Boobies"?