Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 276 of 420 FirstFirst ... 176226266274275276277278286326376 ... LastLast
Results 20,626 to 20,700 of 31490
  1. #20626
    Quote Originally Posted by rong View Post
    But.... pizza!
    Check it, yo: why is pizza good? All that cheese and oil. You can make keto pizzas that are probably pretty good as long as you're not in love with the texture of rising crust wheat.

    Also you lose your craving for carbs/sugar on keto. As the body adapts to using ketones for fuel instead of glucose, it becomes preference, and you'll crave fats more (where ketones are created from) instead of carbs (where glucose is made from).

    When I say I'm loving this keto diet, I'm including that it focuses more on the food that tastes good. Most carb sources actually aren't that tasty because carbs are typically vehicles to transfer other things, and they're made tasty by lathering them in fats. Just skip the bland carbs (who likes plain bread anyways?) and go straight to the delicious keto-friendly fats.
  2. #20627
    Today I used my own keys (twice) to let myself in and out of my house, thinking they were my housemate's keys, so I could go and look for my keys.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #20628
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    How do I post a .mov file on FTR?

    OR

    Where do I put the file so that I can link to it in FTR post and peeps can see it?
  4. #20629
    idk, I'd do the same as you and ask someone else.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  5. #20630
    from dropbox...

    Supported file types that preview as a video

    .3gp, .3gpp, .3gpp2, .avi, .dv, .flv, .m2t, .m4v, .mkv, .mov, .mp4, .mpeg, .mpg, .mts, .ts, .vob, .wmv
    https://www.dropbox.com/en/help/6
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #20631
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    from dropbox...
    It costs tha monies, though.
  7. #20632
    Oh, in which case sorry for inadvertantly advertising dropbox at you.

    I didn't bother to check if movie storage was allowed for free, I just use it for image hosting.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #20633
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    YouTube video? Use [youtube] tags
  9. #20634
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO


    Look what I did yesterday.
  10. #20635
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Any examples (pictures) of pieces/sets of furniture for any room that you guys really like? Room/desk/furniture porn in general?
  11. #20636
    So this image is from the NASA archive and is from the last mission to the Moon, Apollo 17 (1972). It's very much overexposed, but there's something there... and no, not the alien shaped blob in the corner, which could just be a simple moon slug...



    source - Apollo 17 Image Library, nasa.gov
    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #20637
    I mean I dunno about anyone else, but that's the closest thing to conclusive proof I've seen of one of two things...

    1. Aliens built the pyramids,
    2. The global powers are preparing an alien invasion hoax, and have slipped this image onto the NASA website to get the ball rolling.

    I'm kinda close to 50/50.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #20638
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Why do Macs suck so bad? Can any of you stand them?


    The whole "You must 'eject' your drive before you remove it, or I'll totes screw it up" is the dumbest thing ever.

    The whole, "Hey, your drive hasn't been touched in days, but I just decided that you removed it without ejecting it, so I'll corrupt all your saved data. No, not in a way that prevents you from using the data, but in a way that I'll refuse to ever save any later revisions you may make." is kinda rubbing me the wrong way.

    (Seriously, though... is there a way to undo this? A utility that fixes whatever the hell the Mac did to the drive so that it will work again?)


    Why on earth doesn't Excel close when there are no open spreadsheets? As if I want every application I've ever used loaded into what limited RAM there is on this thing. Why?

    Why do I have to push the power button to wake it up from sleep mode? Why isn't just moving the mouse enough?

    Why is it the default setting to hide scroll bars? As if web pages don't have nested scroll bars which you need to select between when you use the scroll feature on the mouse.


    Not to mention dozens of other things which I've tried to take on their own terms, but at long last, I give up.
    This machine is the opposite of what mac enthusiasts tell me it is.


    It's like it has half the functionality of any IBM clone, but it makes up for it by doing it in twice as much time.
    Next time someone tells you how great their mac is, just laugh in their face. They're a turd.
  14. #20639
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    If it's formatted as hfs, try fsck_hfs on mac or fsck.hfsplus from linux. There shouldn't be anything that straight up prevents it from mounting as rw unless the partition table is fucked, and you can fix that with testdisk. Sometimes macs are dumb and won't let you do basic things. Then you can try to go into single user mode and do it from there.
    Things like wake up are handled by the bios, and macs have their bios completely locked, so there's nothing you can do there.
    All in all if you want an OS that can't run most commercial software, you'll have more fun with linux imo.
    If you do decide to install a linux distro on your mac, make sure to leave osx on there because if there's no osx there's a mandatory 30 sec. wait period to boot from anything that's not hfs and that's also hardcoded into the bios. So yeah, fuck mac.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  15. #20640
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Macs are pretty fucking terrible.
  16. #20641
    Really? How shit macs are is more interesting to you guys than maybe a pyramid on the moon?

    I mean it's probably just weird angles on the robot thing. But still. It might be a pyramid.

    But you guys are blabbering about macs. And furniture.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #20642
    I don't have a mac, nor do I have any interesting furniture, to throw my two cents into those topics.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #20643
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    So ong... how much are you asking for your moon pyramid?
  19. #20644
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Any examples (pictures) of pieces/sets of furniture for any room that you guys really like? Room/desk/furniture porn in general?
    Impractical maybe, but amazing

  20. #20645
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Last edited by oskar; 03-08-2016 at 02:18 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  21. #20646
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    So ong... how much are you asking for your moon pyramid?
    Come on, give me your science opinion on the matter! Can that just be an overexposed image of lunar equipment creating angles that just happen to make it look a bit like a pyramid? That's the official explanation. Seems a bit thin to me, but I'm not science.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #20647
    That said, if you wanna buy it, my price is a mere $10k.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #20648
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Come on, give me your science opinion on the matter! Can that just be an overexposed image of lunar equipment creating angles that just happen to make it look a bit like a pyramid? That's the official explanation. Seems a bit thin to me, but I'm not science.
    I'd say point another camera at the same spot and take another picture.
    If the [whatever] isn't repeatable... or reproducible... then science is not prepared to discuss it.
  24. #20649
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That said, if you wanna buy it, my price is a mere $10k.
    It's not for me. I was asking for a friend.
  25. #20650
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'd say point another camera at the same spot and take another picture.
    If the [whatever] isn't repeatable... or reproducible... then science is not prepared to discuss it.
    Right, so go back to the moon and take more pics. Gotcha.

    I wonder why they stopped going to the moon after this mission?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #20651
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    How do you know that's a picture of the moon?
  27. #20652
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Right, so go back to the moon and take more pics. Gotcha.
    That's not what I said, but it'd work.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I wonder why they stopped going to the moon after this mission?
    Who do you mean by "they?"
    Who told you moon missions have stopped?

    The last mission to the moon
    By last, I mean most recent to actually land on the moon. There are more recent missions than this, but they are doing flyby's of the moon, not landing.

    Why did "they" stop sending people there?
    Sending robots is cheaper and quite effective. It's hard to say what people would add to the missions.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 03-08-2016 at 02:37 PM.
  28. #20653
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    How do you know that's a picture of the moon?
    Because it was from a roll of film from a camera that was taking pictures on the moon.

    I mean I don't know it is a picture of the moon. I have reason to believe it's a picture that was taken on the moon.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #20654
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Who do you mean by "they?"
    Them.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #20655
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Them.
    Well, then.

    They're still doing it.
  31. #20656
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Because it was from a roll of film from a camera that was taking pictures on the moon.

    I mean I don't know it is a picture of the moon. I have reason to believe it's a picture that was taken on the moon.
    Hrm. Even if it was, whats it of? Sheet of paper? Glove? Fmily photo in bad light?
  32. #20657
    Oh yeah I suppose it could be one of those triangular gloves that you find on the moon.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #20658
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    IDK why this is so cool.


    On September 3, 2002, astronomer Bill Yeung discovered a suspected asteroid, which was given the discovery designation J002E3. It appeared to be in orbit around the Earth, and was soon discovered from spectral analysis to be covered in white titanium dioxide, which was a major constituent of the paint used on the Saturn V. Calculation of orbital parameters led to tentative identification as being the Apollo 12 S-IVB stage. Mission controllers had planned to send Apollo 12's S-IVB into solar orbit after separating from the Apollo spacecraft, but it is believed the burn lasted too long, and hence did not send it close enough to the Moon, remaining in a barely stable orbit around the Earth and Moon. In 1971, through a series of gravitational perturbations, it is believed to have entered in a solar orbit and then returned into weakly captured Earth orbit 31 years later. It left Earth orbit again in June 2003.
  34. #20659
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Oh yeah I suppose it could be one of those triangular gloves that you find on the moon.
    Why couldn't that be a triangle shape on a glove? All the other pictures of the moon, we see details of the sand. We see the darkness of space in half the picture. But not on this one.

    Is this an issue of scale? Are we seeing something incredibly zoomed in? Did the camera get spun and take a picture of the equipment? Why is there a bend in the bottom right corner...as if it were a fold on a uniform or piece of paper? Is this even the moon? Is it the ground of the moon, and we're seeing imprints caused perhaps by astronaut boots? Was the camera moved between pictures? Was there a tripod that had triangular feet...and this is a picture of the ground? Does the fingerlike shadow imply that this photo was taken by accident...and could therefore be of the ground or of a very close up person?
  35. #20660
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Why couldn't that be a triangle shape on a glove? All the other pictures of the moon, we see details of the sand. We see the darkness of space in half the picture. But not on this one.
    Ok let's throw some context into this. Let's look at more pictures from the sequence...



    Note the astronauts shadow is clearly cast, which shows the source of light (one assumes the sun) behind him. But look at the rock at the top left of the image. The shadow is cast differently, placing the sun to the left of the astronaut, not behind him.

    These photos are fake. Fuck knows what the pyramid is, it's probably an overexposed image of fucking giza, where these photos were taken.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  36. #20661


    Oh look, another image with two objects casting shadows in different directions.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #20662
    Anyway, the gloves thing is ridiculous because the astronaut is taking the photos by holding the camera. The black blob in the bottom right corner of the "pyramid" image is probably the astronaut's thumb.

    Here's the very next one in the sequence...



    This one supports the official explanation that it's merely a picture of the rover showing weird angles. I'd actually quite like to discuss this with a photograph expert... like, why would the image be less overexposed where the "pyramid" is? Overexposure is letting in too much light, there's no reason I can think that would explain why the light entering the camera would be fluctuating, but I'm way out of my depth trying to think about that.

    I really can't figure those shadows out though. The "pyramid" is nothing more than an interesting thing to talk about. The shadows are just wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #20663
    A bit of digging tells me the official explanation for the mismatched shadows is the use of a wide angled lens. This would distort the image, making two objects that are parallel on the surface appear to be angled towards each other on the image. This would be an acceptable explanation if the astronaut's shadow was distorted... but it's not. A wide angled lens that would distort the shadows to this degree would make the astronaut seem unfeasibly short and fat. Yet the shadow cast appears to be that of a regular undistorted human being.

    Something's up with this.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  39. #20664
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Why do you assume scientists on a million dollar expedition would fail to bring a light source?
  40. #20665
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Why do you assume scientists on a million dollar expedition would fail to bring a light source?
    To ensure it doesn't become a billion dollar expedition.

    Taking one bottle of water too much would probably cost someone their job. Why would they take a light source when they have the sun up there with no atmopshere to dim the sunlight? It's much brighter on the lunar surface than here on Earth.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #20666
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    So, ong doesn't know there are craters on the moon?

    Hey, ong. There are craters on the moon.
    The slope upon which a shadow is cast makes a dramatic difference in the shape of the shadow.
  42. #20667
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Wide angle lenses distort the edges much more than the center of the image.

  43. #20668
    Two light sources doesn't make any sense, anyway. There would be evidence of this in the form of two shadows, especially where the small rocks are between the two larger objects.

    Based on the shadows the rocks cast, especially that darkened ridge at the front of the big rock, shows the sun is to the bottom left of the image, at roughly 8 o'clock. But it's behind the astronaut, which places it at 6 o'clock. What's that in degrees? It's 360/12=30. There's a roughly 60 degree distortion of the shadows, but no apparent distortion of the astronaut.

    I can't explain it other than to assume the shadow of the astronaut was not part of the original image, and was put in there afterwards. But it seems dumb for someone working for NASA to not realise that the shadows need to align.

    I'm actually struggling to find a reasonable explanation. Wide angled lens isn't cutting it for me though.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #20669
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Most convincing argument I ever heard for why the moon landings weren't fake is that the Russians didn't ever call BS on the USA.

    Cold war and whatnot.

    ~0% chance the Russians let this one slide without an obvious debunking of the claim.
  45. #20670
    Oh hey mojo.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #20671
    I don't doubt we've been to the moon, fwiw. I just like to question the evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #20672
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    So, ong doesn't know there are craters on the moon?

    Hey, ong. There are craters on the moon.
    The slope upon which a shadow is cast makes a dramatic difference in the shape of the shadow.
    There's a shadow at the FRONT of the big rock, even though the sun appears to be behind the astronaut. That darkened ridge should be illuminated.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #20673
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Oh hey mojo.
  49. #20674
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Most convincing argument I ever heard for why the moon landings weren't fake is that the Russians didn't ever call BS on the USA.
    They haven't called BS on 9/11 either. That doesn't make what the Americans say to be the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #20675
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There's a shadow at the FRONT of the big rock, even though the sun appears to be behind the astronaut. That darkened ridge should be illuminated.
    If it's a wide angle lens, then the objects on the far right and far left of the image are like 45 degrees or more off the center line.

    Stand with your back to the sun and then turn your head about half-way to the side... you'll see some shadows.

    Frankly, this is something you've observed your entire life, but you're not used to seeing it as a single image because humans brains think we're too stupid to handle that level of connectivity in our world view. It's prob worth trusting it on this issue.

    Consider this:
    When you look in the mirror, you can look at your left eye. You see your eye staring back at you.
    Then you can look at your right eye. You see your eye staring back at you.

    You never saw your eyes track across your vision from one eye to the other, though. Just snap between images. No interim blurred image as your eyes switched their direction from one eye to the other.

    Your brain ignores that part of your history, never reporting it to your consciousness. This happens all the time. All day long. Your brain is constantly ignoring things and stitching the odds and ends together in a way that you don't even question that anything is missing.


    OK... that's not actually related to the prior conversation, but it's still worth remembering how dumb and limited unaided observation is / can be.
  51. #20676
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    They haven't called BS on 9/11 either. That doesn't make what the Americans say to be the truth.
    The space race was a symbolic struggle between the US and USSR, with the USSR beating the US at every step.

    Except for sending humans to the moon.

    The US did that first, and the USSR had an interest in debunking the claim if it was false. It could spin the propaganda for years that the US was full of lies and that USSR was the only leader in space.


    What struggle or interest does the USSR have in 9/11? I don't think they compare. Show me.
  52. #20677
    Maybe the Russians believed the Americans? There's no question it was possible to get to the moon, the Soviets had already done so with an unmanned mission.

    idk, I'm not really intending to get into that first manned mission. There's no evidence left other than the grainy photos Armstrong took, after NASA accidentally lost the original video footage in the 80's. There's a huge motive to fake it, there's also a huge motive to actually do it.

    I think we've been to the moon, I just wonder what's up there that has stopped us setting up a base there.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #20678
    What struggle or interest does the USSR have in 9/11? I don't think they compare. Show me.
    There's an ecominc war going on right now between the West and Russia. If the Russians' official position was that 9/11 was an inside job, that has the potential to cause unrest or perhaps even instability in USA. So why aren't they playing that card? They could.

    I suppose the Russians are in it up tho their necks, just like the rest of us. They have their agenda and what the Americans are doing suits their agenda. It's all theatre.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #20679
    You might well have convinced me with the wide angled lens, though. My friend is a photographer and I'm going to discuss this later with him.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #20680
    Actually wide angled lens isn't cutting it in the second image of the astronaut's shadow. Note that here, the astronaut is still directly in front of the sun, but isn't centre of the image. His shadow should be distorted, giving the impression the sun is behind him and to the right. But this isn't the case.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #20681
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Looks like wufwugy's blog became OngBonga's Twitter.
  57. #20682
  58. #20683
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    called it
  59. #20684
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I posted this in IRC in your honor before you posted it here lol
  60. #20685
    i only post like one out of ten libertarian-memes i want to.
  61. #20686
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  62. #20687
    This is so clutch:

  63. #20688
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Thanks, Obama.
  64. #20689
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Thanks, Obama.
    wp, I chuckled.
  65. #20690
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    What's the big deal with common core? I stumbled upon it on youtube, and apparently it is hugely confusing to some parents, well... just how math works I guess. Because somehow 2+2 = 1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1 = 4 is hugely confusing for some adults... which is all there is to it when it comes to math as far as I can tell. Parents and pupils alike seem outraged that they are no longer learning to shout multiplication tables like fucking parrots. How is common core a bad thing?
    Just watched some videos about this after seeing an article about how this is some huge topic in America.

    Now from what I've seen the methods that are being taught to solve problems are actually teaching kids how maths works & if understood it's a million times better for the children not only in terms of maths but for helping develop their problem solving skills.

    The issue is understanding of maths isn't the end goal of your maths education in school (it's a pretty ideal by-product) & it sure as hell isn't what's tested to give you your maths grade. At school you're essentially learning methods to solve problems in a mix of the easiest & quickest possible way because that's what was needed for the majority of people in real life. I'd even go as far to argue that a lot of higher education courses that use maths do the exact same thing where using a method to solve a problem is much more important than understanding the real maths behind it or why it works.

    Having spoke about basic maths with ages ranging from 9 (where I started seeing some of these new methods in primary schools) to adults that learnt "the old way" & with teachers the problem really does boil down to this is a better, if harder to teach & more involved, way of teaching maths but with testing how it is you need to know the fastest way of solving a problem because you don't have time for slower methods. It also means that parents can't help their kids with the work which is infuriating for them because they can solve 83-15 and in their minds that's the problem & most people react to things they don't understand by dismissing them especially when it seems to make an "easy" problem "harder".

    Which leads to the problem that if you still need to learn the efficient and fast ways that used to be taught & you want kids to understand what they're doing you're trying to fit a huge amount more work into the same amount of time.

    So as with most things you need to boil the problem down to it's most fundamental parts & look at what the point of maths as part of an education is in the first place (or the point of education full stop) & then you work at making sure what's being taught, the testing etc all match up.

    As someone who enjoys maths & at school I didn't until I actually got into the "real" stuff I'd argue that a proper understanding of what's going on isn't what's necessary for the majority of people.

    tl;dr - common core seems to be well intentioned but somewhat missing the point.

    edit -

    tl;dr 2 - What spoon said
    Last edited by Savy; 03-14-2016 at 03:34 AM.
  66. #20691
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Spring Break is a welcome respite.

    I didn't realize how accustomed I'd gotten to the constant noise. Now that the building is quiet, I appreciate it much more.

    I'm trying to grade, but I raged on the first report, so I'll try again in a couple of hours. No need to be all ragey and then deal with regrades later. Just chill out and get it right the first time.
  67. #20692
    I wholeheartedly disagree with the attempts to teach math theory to anybody other than those who naturally gravitate towards it. I was only able to do well in calculus because it was mostly absent in theory. I learned the procedures, when and how to apply them, and I could have learned many more if the teaching had emphasized that. I would have never even passed pre-calculus if it focused on theory. Now that I'm in my first upper level math theory class, I am grasping nothing, and I'm soon to withdraw and change majors to something I intuitively kick butt at.

    There are two kinds of people in this world (isn't there always?): those with mathematician brains and those without. There's no amount of try that is going to get me to understand math theory. No I can't show how this function is verified by the properties of your theorem. Even if I could, it means nothing to me and I have no idea how to use this information for anything and I would just be memorizing process anyways. Give me a problem where the answer is a value and show me how to get that value. I'll memorize that and use it for actual things.
  68. #20693
    I hypothesize that teaching math theory to math intuits requires a fundamentally different approach than teaching any math to non-intuits. The people good at math don't need the instructor's help. They just read the books and think about it and figure the stuff out just fine. But to us normies, textbooks are mostly trash full of nonsense symbols. Instead we need clear and concise annotated solutions.
  69. #20694
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    tl;dr - common core seems to be well intentioned but somewhat missing the point.

    edit -

    tl;dr 2 - What spoon said
    Pretty much. Good post btw
  70. #20695
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    re. wufwugy:

    I totally get that math is harder to learn when it's purely abstract. I find it hard to memorize anything in math unless I know of a practical application for the knowledge. It hurt me in my undergrad 'cause there are plenty of physics courses with math courses as pre-reqs. This means I had a passing familiarity with the math I was supposed to be competent with when it came time to use the math for physics. I had to go back and re-study all that forgotten material.

    However, I disagree that math is for some certain type of people. Math is nothing more than defined symbols and logic. Everyone uses symbols all the time. E.g. your name is not you - it's just a symbol for you - but you can talk about people using their names as a symbol for the person.

    Sure, logic is not everyone's forte', but I feel like most people appreciate being spoken to in a logical way when they're being informed of something, or trying to suss out what to believe. I think everyone could benefit from a more practiced view of logic. If for no other reason, than to be able to tell when what they're being told is possibly foolish, or incomplete.


    Do I think everyone should take calc. II and calc III? No. I think everyone should have a solid grasp of algebra (I mean SOLID), and I think that politicians would get away with a lot less BS if everyone was a bit better at understanding probability and statistics.
  71. #20696
    I agree on algebra, stats, and probability. I hope I'm not suggesting that some people shouldn't learn math. What I don't like is the theory aspect of it for those not already oriented towards its abstractions. Understanding stats and such in their real world applications is totally different than understanding what makes stats theorems work.

    A distinction I'm making is that I learned some really important stuff in intro stats but this current prob and stats theory class seems to exist only in the ether.
  72. #20697
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I hope I'm not suggesting that some people shouldn't learn math.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I hope I'm not suggesting that some people shouldn't learn math.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    some people shouldn't learn math.
    You evil, evil wugy.
  73. #20698
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I hypothesize that teaching math theory to math intuits requires a fundamentally different approach than teaching any math to non-intuits. The people good at math don't need the instructor's help. They just read the books and think about it and figure the stuff out just fine. But to us normies, textbooks are mostly trash full of nonsense symbols. Instead we need clear and concise annotated solutions.
    I don't think this is really true. There is a point to be made that the harder/more abstract the maths you learn is the people teaching it tend to start to move towards people who are good at maths not necessarily good at teaching but there is obviously huge overlap but this has an impact for everyone maybe just proportionately more for people who struggle.

    As for learning maths from books there are a couple of points.

    The first is that there are good books & bad books for breaking down ideas and getting to grips with them & the more sources you read the more likely you'll come to terms with whatever it is you're learning. The second is that reading in depth sources of material is a skill in itself & I think this implies to most subjects. If you picked up a law journal for example it'd most likely be hard to get into. It's essentially a new language that you have to familiarise yourself but with the added layer that the ideas aren't necessarily easy to comprehend even if you can read it. Finally & probably most importantly you shouldn't expect to read something & understand it straight away. You should sit down, play about with it, think about it, talk to others about it & you then develop an understanding.
  74. #20699
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    A distinction I'm making is that I learned some really important stuff in intro stats but this current prob and stats theory class seems to exist only in the ether.
    This is something that kinda bugs me about physics students, actually.

    They hold the mistaken conception that their books and professors know True things, and that their role as a student is to memorize these things. To the extent that their grade depends on learning what the book/professor are telling them, this makes some kind of sense. Add in that they are barely adults - just beginning to enter a world outside the loving shelter of their parents - and you see their motivation to blindly trust authority figures.

    However, books and professors are not gifted with any power to divine Truths. They are just as fallible as any source of information. Trusting in their methods is only good for a layman's understanding of some of the techniques. It's when you understand that the complex methods are built out of simple assumptions that you see the power and limitations of what you've learned.

    I mean... math books have typos, too. Sometimes it's those typos that slow me to a stop and force me to derive something. It's my active involvement in connecting what I think I understand with this new information which is the real learning. Sussing out that the typo is a false statement is indicative of the whole point of learning the theories and methods in play.

    The more theory you know, the less of the derivative stuff you need to memorize, and the more you can figure out on your own - from more simple assumptions, no less.
  75. #20700
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I don't think this is really true. There is a point to be made that the harder/more abstract the maths you learn is the people teaching it tend to start to move towards people who are good at maths not necessarily good at teaching but there is obviously huge overlap but this has an impact for everyone maybe just proportionately more for people who struggle.

    As for learning maths from books there are a couple of points.

    The first is that there are good books & bad books for breaking down ideas and getting to grips with them & the more sources you read the more likely you'll come to terms with whatever it is you're learning. The second is that reading in depth sources of material is a skill in itself & I think this implies to most subjects. If you picked up a law journal for example it'd most likely be hard to get into. It's essentially a new language that you have to familiarise yourself but with the added layer that the ideas aren't necessarily easy to comprehend even if you can read it. Finally & probably most importantly you shouldn't expect to read something & understand it straight away. You should sit down, play about with it, think about it, talk to others about it & you then develop an understanding.
    You are correct. Teaching ability is significant. I think my point exists on a spectrum. For example, even though the thing I'm probably worst at intuitively is abstract mathematics, I definitely could learn it better from a more quality instructor.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •