search results matching tag: recital

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (117)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (11)     Comments (295)   

Border Collie Disc Caddy

The Looters

admiralronton (Member Profile)

New Math vs Old Math

JiggaJonson says...

I have asked math teachers about this and they seem to be behind the line that it helps kids understand how they got to a solution. I am yet to see any credible research that illustrates that this improves skills or thinking or critical thinking.

I will admit, I do THINK about numbers this way. If I come across a problem that's too difficult to do immediately, I start breaking things up in my head.

Sometimes when I'm bored and walking I whistle, sometimes I recount the digits of pie, sometimes I recite the To be or not to be speech from Hamlet, sometimes I start multiplying (really)

2x2 = four
4x4 = sixteen
16x16 = uhhhh <<<< and this is where I start breaking it up --->16x10= 160
----->10x6= 60
------>6x6= 36

Then I have to remember the 36 as I add up the 6 n 6 for 12 dont forget the zero so it's 120 + 100 + 36
so it's 256

256 x256 is like 250x250 or 25x 25 (at this point it's helpful to think of quarters and money) and then add 36 (6x6)
so if there are 4 quarters in a dollar or 100, 25/4 = $6.25
then i need the zeros still

62500 + 360??? = 663? no that's not right, 65? Im losin' it somewhere in there, cant keep track a whole lot further without some paper in my hands or digital transcription (I'm trying to simulate what I actually think of)

>>>>>>>> 65k? estimation <<<<<<<<<
ALL that said, I do that but I learned math the old way and worked as a cashier for 5 years. I never would do regular calculations this way all the time, it's just handy for some fast math. It was easier to commit to memory a lot of my multiplications tables than it would have been to think through this stuff when i didn't know anything about it.

a lot of the education community shits all over the idea of memorization, but I think there's something to be said for it and would be interested if anyone had any studies of memorization as a teaching method and its efficacy.

Mordhaus said:

It's part of common core. Supposedly it makes it easier to understand the theory behind math so later in higher level classes (algebra, trig, etc) they can easily break the harder equations down.

Beats me, I learned the old way and it worked for me through algebra 1/2, and geometry.

God Isn't Allowed In School

Donald Trump will never be President of the United States

SaNdMaN says...

Good one there! "I know you are but what am I?!"

Trump is not afraid to lead? What's he leading in exactly?

An idiotic, poorly thought out travel ban that won't help anything?

Mouthing off to our allies, making us look like idiots? (Mexico will pay for the wall... wait, maybe not, but they'll pay 20% tariffs.... well actually the Americans will be the ones paying... sounds like a solid plan everyone!)

Appointing unqualified cabinet members? Rick Perry for energy secretary.... the department he wanted to destroy... the department that he had no idea manages our nuclear stockpiles... the department whose previous leader under Obama was a nuclear physicist. It's now Rick fucking Perry.

The only thing he's leading in is in being the most embarrassing statesman this country has ever seen, arguing with celebrities on Twitter like a child. This moron was actually ranting about Schwarzenegger and The Apprentice ratings in his National Prayer Breakfast speech. All he had to do was just recite a short passage from the bible or something. But nope, not him. He needs to ask like a 12 year old.

We have a 70-year-old man, who also happens to be THE PRESIDENT, who can't control himself and act the part. He really has a few screws loose. There's no other explanation. But we did give him the nuclear codes! Yaay!

Leader - my ass. (Besides, it's Bannon leading him anyway.)

bobknight33 said:

And you have the mind set of a fool.

Obama was a failure with no leadership on real issues
HE always lead from behind.

Trump is not afraid to lead.

Ann Coulter Insults at the Rob Lowe Roast

eric3579 says...

Seems she had no idea what she was in for. Must have been a bit of a shock.

Tony Hinchcliffe, who wrote jokes for Coulter to recite at the show. In Hinchcliffe’s telling, Coulter had no idea of what went down at the somewhat iconic roasts, and refused to learn. “We asked her if she’d seen a Comedy Central Roast, and she said no,” he said. “She had no idea what was going to happen going into it.”
http://www.spin.com/2016/09/ann-coulter-was-at-the-roast-of-rob-lowe-because-she-didnt-know-what-a-roast-was/

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

The role is to interpret whether or not actions are in compliance with the written law - not to interpret new meanings/definitions of the law.

Changing definitions within a law alters the law, rewrites it, which makes it legislative activity. That's outside of judicial scope.

You can summarize the thought pattern as : "We know the law says this one thing, but we think this other thing should apply, so instead of waiting for a change to the law [so that it will apply], we will just say it applies already, even though it's not written."

It's sheer laziness, complacency, and acceptance that allows that sort of activity to be. It also creates a minefield of possible offenses that are not created by elected representatives, and are not documented in any way that would allow a person to avoid violation.




You are forgetting the current laws that restrict gun ownership. Not anyone can own a gun - even though the 2nd makes no exceptions. Laws that violate constitutional law are left to stand all the time, simply because people are ok with it.



The constitution also denies the government the authority to limit assembly - but that freedom has been interpreted to be secondary. It is in practice restricted by a permit process that makes any non-approved assembly subject to government disbandment.
It's supposed to allow people (i.e. the state) to communicate, organize, and form a disruptive group that is able to cause enough disruption to the government that the state can force a disobedient government to behave - without having to resort to violence.
But, because people are universally inconvenienced by folks that are protesting about things they don't care about, they would rather the government keep those folks out of their way. So freedom of assembly goes to the wayside.


Basically, the 'system' takes the law only as seriously as is convenient. When it's useful to be literal, it's treated literal. When it's useful to be twisted, it's twisted. It's just whatever is useful/convenient/populist/etc to the people executing the process.




Eminent is not a word you would use on today's parlance to say that something is obvious.

Ask most people what eminent domain is, and they will recite a legal concept. Ask them what the words themselves mean, and most will draw a blank. Few will say 'it is a domain that sticks-out'.

The point was just to illustrate how things change regarding how people express themselves. It's not strange to hear someone describe something as 'well adjusted'. But if they said 'well regulated' instead, you would think they mean something else. You wouldn't think that they are just speaking in 1700's English.

Imagine writing a law that states that only 'well adjusted' people are allowed to drive cars. Then imagine 200 years from now, 'adjustment' is a reference to genetic engineering. You'll end up with people arguing that only well genetically engineered people can drive.

-scheherazade

newtboy said:

The supreme court is in a position to interpret the law because that's how our system works.
The Judicial's role is to INTERPRET the law that congress writes.
Due process is followed. You mean if strict, literal interpretation with no thought were the rule. It's not though.
Yes, the judicial interprets the legislature....so their interpretation may differ from the specific words in a law.
No, it's a matter of what the courts say is enforceable. Our system does not change laws because some, even most people disagree with the law. Just look at gun laws if you think differently. The people are willing to enforce more background checks and willing to bar anyone on the watch list, the legislature isn't. Enough of everyone is 'on board with twisting the rules', but they can't because the courts say they can't.
Really? You think people won't panic if you yell "fire" in a crowded room. OK, make sure you NEVER stand between me and a door then.

Um...yeah...you just keep thinking that "well regulated" has nothing to do with being regulated. I disagree.

I don't understand your point about eminent domain....Full Definition of eminent. 1 : standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted : conspicuous. 2 : jutting out : projecting. 3 : exhibiting eminence especially in standing above others in some quality or position : prominent.

Sounds the same to me.
-Newt

Heil Trump

aaronfr says...

From an article by Chris Hedges:

Robert Paxton wrote in “The Anatomy of Fascism”:

The language and symbols of an authentic American fascism would, of course, have little to do with the original European models. They would have to be as familiar and reassuring to loyal Americans as the language and symbols of the original fascisms were familiar and reassuring to many Italians and Germans, as [George] Orwell suggested. Hitler and Mussolini, after all, had not tried to seem exotic to their fellow citizens. No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the pledge of allegiance. These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of course, but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy.

Finally, Stephen's Tolkien Geekdom Pays Off

gorillaman says...

It brings me so much pleasure just to hear these names spoken on a popular tv show. His pronunciation though, of Gollum, Sauron and Edain - ugh - and the flame of Anor and the secret fire aren't the same thing. Come on, Stephen.

I demand crystal purity in my Tolkien geekdom. But I would like to hear him tell us about Beren and Luthien, it is a badass story; or, say, just devote the next twenty episodes of his show to reciting the Lay of Leithian in its entirety.

Australian Kid Sings National Anthem With Hiccups

Star Trek: Renegades (Episode 1)

jmd says...

Wow.. so.. a lot of good.. a lot of bad. Actor performances and writing were all over the board. The seasoned actors were all awesome, and sean young who at first seamed out of place turned out a wonderful performance as Dr Lucien and a hopeful character. The space sequences were numerous and well done with great ship models. Pyrotechnics were kept minimal as those are still hard to do in style in CG so its best to keep it good or keep it out.

The bad how ever. The klaxon mining facility was just all kinds of horribleness. The bad layering, the over the top and ridiculous amounts of shooting flames, and the cherry on the top is the introduction to the main bad guy race with their mask straight out of planet of the apes. I seriously can't believe someone though those were a go for filming. Also most of the planet intro scenes are more of a neo electro artistic style rather than something that looks real. This is a bit surprising since I would think the "animated paintings" from enterprise and voyager era would have been pretty low cost. The worst of the performances is by Crystal Conway, chekovs great great grand daughter.

Writing was also up and down. I think the story was ok with 2 general sins being committed. #1 a little to much backstory stuffed into the first 30 minutes. Icheb's borg roots were uncomfortably recited in a full scene in front of his own crew who would have already known this, and should have instead been a few lines to say he was a borg and then leaving his origin story for a later date. And #2, a lot of plot points like the doorway placed on earth ahead of time and being able to transport through the time distortion seem awfully convenient and tries to absolve the episode from going any farther in complexity. This is a pretty big sin when you consider these need to be %90 self contained episodes. Also it seems no matter how bad you are or how much of an outlaw you are, finding you in the star trek universe is one scene away. I do have to give props to Corin Nemec as the captain of the other ship. His crew is actually pretty bad but I liked him. I was sad to see his script called for more shooting and less investigating. Also I feel bad for the horrible looking bridge set they built him.

Still in the end, I am a big supporter for more star trek. I loved voyager and I think the renegade crew is actually in good shape. Lexxa, is not BAD but needs more work. Like another comment I read, she doesn't seem very smart about anything, no hidden talents. Her fighting is pretty horrible and scripted, and while she pulls the bad girl image off, she lacks the muscle or fancy footwork to look like she could actually hold her own physically.

Ronara was largely forgettable and suffered from the same origin scene stuffing scene sin as Icheb. Chekovs 2 girls on the other hand look like good additions and I think they pulled the female andorian well. Nothing dramatic in their acting but at this point, not sucking is a good thing.

Unfortunately who knows how many years till we see eps 2. I seem to recall this one finished its kickstarter long ago but delayed heavily.

On Point with Sarah Palin 'Interviews' Donald Trump

moonsammy says...

Sweet jeebus. She's... words fail. Seriously. It's just rambling nonsense with little punctuation, eventually culminating in a tonal uptick? indicating a question?. He's no better, as it's like a recitation of powerpoint bullet items, strung together with little structure or sense. I can't fathom anyone seriously considering voting for either of these ignorant yokels. Perhaps nihilists. That would actually make sense.

Our Women Should Not Be Allowed to Drive Lest They Get Raped

gorillaman says...

So, we agree that since to be a muslim requires the absence of consistent, rational thought, then muslims are necessarily intellectually inferior to humans. Obviously that implies moral inferiority also, which is what I posted originally. It's nice to build consensus.

Humanity is defined by intellect. It's the distinguishing characteristic of our species, and when it's lacking, as it so often is, then the result is something literally sub-human.

It can be an amusing distraction to map out the ramifications of preposterous belief systems, and alright I'm guilty of that, I admit it. Actually, stupidity is stupidity. Tyrant, astrologer, anti-vaxxer or just some sad little idiot pointing its carpet at mecca and dutifully reciting its prayers, they're all the same to me; I hate them all and I want them all dead. Stupidity is no small crime; it's no less than the ultimate source of all the evil in the world.

The moral gap between stupidity and the consequences of stupidity is non-existent. What real difference is there between the merely hypocritical and the genocidal, beside the opportunities they had to inflict their defective thinking on the world?

ChaosEngine said:

What a load of horseshit.

I have no intention of arguing that Mohammed was anything other than a terrible human being.

But to say that all Muslims are guilty of mass rape or genocide is so patently absurd it's barely worth rebutting.

Are they guilty of cognitive dissonance? Hell yeah.

I've argued in the past that almost all members of religions are hypocrites; either you believe your religion is divine and therefore, infallible, or you're just making up your own morality and therefore tacitly acknowledging your religion is a flawed man-made thing.

But since the alternative is insane fanatical fundamentalism, I can forgive a little hypocrisy.

The moral gap between hypocrisy and mass rape or genocide is pretty fucking substantial. If you can't or won't understand that, then you're looking at the world in terms of absolutes and little better than a fanatic yourself.

Oh, and ordinarily, I would take this as given, but just in case you really are that simple, I think mass rape and genocide are Bad Things.

Do not rape people. Do not murder people. Especially do not do this to lots of people.

Clear?

Bellamy salute and the Pledge of Allegiance

danielexposed says...

Rex Curry is the nation's leading authority on the Pledge of Allegiance. You're right to post the video. The video is completely accurate. The salute used by the Nazis was NOT derived from the socialist Mussolini. And the gesture was not based on the so-called "ancient Roman salute" because the "ancient Roman salute" is a complete fictional, as stated above.

Jacques-Louis David's painting "The Oath of the Horatii" did not associate the salute with classical Rome, and David never said such a thing, and the painting does not show the gesture, it shows three people reaching for weapons, including the use of the left hand. The Horatii lie is a very modern lie, fabricated circa 2006(?) on wakipedia in order to cover-up the Pledge of Allegiance's putrid past.

The socialist Mussolini did NOT adopt what he thought was the Roman salute.

No one should stand for nor chant the Pledge of Allegiance because it was the origin of the Nazi salute and Nazi behavior (see the discoveries of the historian Dr. Rex Curry). The early pledge began with a military salute that was then extended outward to point at the flag (thus the stiff-arm gesture came from the pledge and from the military salute). The pledge was written in 1892 for kindergartners to be forced to recite under the flag at government schools (socialist schools). The pledge was written by an American socialist who influenced other socialists worldwide, including German socialists, who used the gesture under their flag's notorious symbol (their symbol was used to represent crossed "S" letters for their "socialist" dogma -another of Dr. Curry's discoveries). The pledge continues to be the origin of similar behavior even though the gesture was changed to hide the pledge's putrid past. The pledge is central to the US's police state and its continued growth.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon