Thread: South Carolina cuts college funding over books with gay themes

Originally Posted by dex71

I'm glad you are in favor of it. Today it was just a bunch of bigots who can't get their minds off of what all the penises are doing. Tomorrow, they will be deciding that the Metal Shop be defunded because someone made a pot pipe. Maybe the Auto Repair classes get cut because internal combustion engines are evil, and one of the legislators is running on being greener than the next asshole. Maybe Creationism gets taught, or Science classes get defunded.

Budget cuts are budget cuts, and shit happens. These are targeted to control behavior and curriculum, as well as drive an adjenda. Just because it isn't the first time its happened, doesn't make it right.

Or maybe i actually read what this was for. Just because there is an article claiming this is because its gay doesn't mean that was the actual reason. Even this pos article says its punishment for ASSIGNING this novel as as reading. There are lists made of assigned reading and this book did not make the cut.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

I don't know where 1900 comes from. Jacob Bernoulii was making core contributions to probability theory in the 1600s. Gauss died in 1855 - you're saying that statistics doesn't exist until 1900? (or are you referring directly to statistical moments - mean, variance, skew, kurtosis - in which case, 1900? Are you serious?)

And what is it about this:



... that doesn't look like mathematical equation? Gauss can help you out there.

(edit: I gave the png a white background for shadow-theme users. see how much I love you?)

You and I have been down this road before. You've already said you'd never buy a book called "Statistics for Marines." I'm pretty comfortable not discussion probability and statistics with you.

That's ok, since stats was never the point in this thread. It was only a counter-example to you pissing on Drama, and I substituted Chemistry for my original example.

No one here is saying that having petty political or religious interests interfere with higher ed is a new thing. Some of us are saying it's a bad thing.

But I guess that the people of South Carolina voted for the republican vision. If the republican vision is state-sponsored religious madrasa, then maybe that's what they should have.

Cheers,


AetheLove

No im not saying stats didn't exist before 1900. That falls in with a tree falling in the woods. Of course one existed and the other made a noise even if no one was using them or hearing them. Now what i said was statistical moments did not exist. Its like saying 1+1=2 before you actually knew the equation for it. Statistical moments are the backbone behind this psuedoscience. What happened before it help build the theory but it easy dismissed. IE most people think mercedes built the first car but in reality they didn't. The forerunners are dismissed because of how crude they were.

I know you bowed out of the statistics for marines deal but i would still like to hear how there would be no marksman without statistics. Mostly because i can build the weapon and hit the target and already know there is no statistics to it. Well until you decide to start making averages among shooters being applied to the future.

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

Anyone that preaches the death of the arts of any kind is ignorant of the arts and it's influences in history. But as they say, when you use a hammer for a living, every problem starts to look like a nail. Drama, painting, drawing... nobody with a hammer has time for that silly nonsense.

Spoken like someone actually said that. The funny thing about art is 99% of the time the ones that make it big didn't go to school for it and sometimes a nail is just a nail. Most times its ignorance to problem solving that make the nail more then what it really is but i'll just keep swinging my hammer while everyone else makes silly nonsense out of that nail.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I know you bowed out of the statistics for marines deal but i would still like to hear how there would be no marksman without statistics. Mostly because i can build the weapon and hit the target and already know there is no statistics to it. Well until you decide to start making averages among shooters being applied to the future.

I'm reluctant to spend the time because it feels like I've had this experience before:

http://www.teamplayergaming.com/news...ml#post1585322

I enjoyed parts of that thread, and a number of people made convincing contributions. I think some people found some of what I wrote about probability to be convincing, but you were not among them.

Without a formal knowledge of statistics there would certainly still be marksmen. The beginnings of formal statistics predate accurate musketry, but not accurate archery. So clearly, the technique of a skilled individual doesn't require a formal understanding of probability and statistics. We can also, perhaps, hold you up as an example.

But the beginnings of formal understanding (see, for example, Niccolò Tartaglia) showed us that what people thought was happening with projectiles was wrong, and it helped us to describe what really was happening. Then, it turned out, it also helped us to predict what would happen.

Ever since then (where "then" is the 1500s) marksmanship has improved as a direct result of a formal understanding that can describe and predict. The interplay between the mathematical foundations of ballistics and the practical application (a guy trying to put a projectile on target) has improved both.

But, and again, this thread was originally about art. What good is art? Via painting, Brunelleschi gives us Linear Perspective - the ability to mechanically construct an accurate 2D visual representation of a 3D space (or object) - which helps both geometry and optics, also architecture and engineering.

... and also all that cultural health stuff other people have already mentioned.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Originally Posted by AetheLove

I'm reluctant to spend the time because it feels like I've had this experience before:

http://www.teamplayergaming.com/news...ml#post1585322

I enjoyed parts of that thread, and a number of people made convincing contributions. I think some people found some of what I wrote about probability to be convincing, but you were not among them.

Without a formal knowledge of statistics there would certainly still be marksmen. The beginnings of formal statistics predate accurate musketry, but not accurate archery. So clearly, the technique of a skilled individual doesn't require a formal understanding of probability and statistics. We can also, perhaps, hold you up as an example.

But the beginnings of formal understanding (see, for example, Niccolò Tartaglia) showed us that what people thought was happening with projectiles was wrong, and it helped us to describe what really was happening. Then, it turned out, it also helped us to predict what would happen.

Ever since then (where "then" is the 1500s) marksmanship has improved as a direct result of a formal understanding that can describe and predict. The interplay between the mathematical foundations of ballistics and the practical application (a guy trying to put a projectile on target) has improved both.

But, and again, this thread was originally about art. What good is art? Via painting, Brunelleschi gives us Linear Perspective - the ability to mechanically construct an accurate 2D visual representation of a 3D space (or object) - which helps both geometry and optics, also architecture and engineering.

... and also all that cultural health stuff other people have already mentioned.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Yes i know we similar discussion before BUT you made the argument without statistics there would be no Marine marksman. That is inherently a different discussion.

Now you say without it there will still be marksmen. The problem is your still wrong. Anyone with no knowledge in statistics can be a marksman and that is proven every single week with every graduation from any military boot training that has infantry.

Then you want to place me in your group as an example of having no statistical background but able to shoot. The problem with that is i have a bit of back ground with statistics i'll be it meager but I'll just say i did pretty well on the range. You can also add every sniper to that list because you dont use statistics to make shots you use simple math on close shots and calculus on long one due to the coriolis effect.

Just to make sure i hear what your trying to say....are you implying the first guy to try and explain ballistic drop was using statistics as his modeling program? I guess you could try and rewrite history many others have.

Maybe you'll mention Newton next but he was just a mere mathematician and not a statistician. Or maybe we should go back to the earliest mathematician we can find and say thats where statistics officially began. In other words your reaching brother.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

You're they only person on the webs with this opinion DG. Just sayin.

Then why the fuck did you have something to say?