patrick.net

Don't send your kid to boarding school too early. It is an entirely different beast from the usual school system.

Boarding school is like a mafia organization. The seniors bully the juniors, and since you live together in the same dorm (more beds per room compared to college), you end up being bullied 24 x7 until you become a senior yourself. Some boys may not take it so well and it may leave a scar with them in the future. Also, there is no privacy at all, not much space for self-development, because everyone spies on everyone. If you get along with your dorm mates, they will be your best friends ever throughout your life. If you don't get along with them, that will make your life a living hell.

I never got interested enough in Western religion to study it directly. However, I still manage to know more Catholic lore than my Catholic boyfriend.

hate to rent,

that's what the gay propaganda tells you. NO!

One can turn gay if put in a certain type of environment. I have quite a few Catholic gay friends, and I can tell you it is NOT entirely genetic.

really, i find that both eastern an d western philosophy are equally inconsistency.

I used to be fascinated with the philosophy of logic. I have to say that the methodologies of contemporary western philosophy tend to be logically consistent.

But logic is not everything.

Owneroccupier,

Thanks for the advice, I'll keep that in mind when and if my kids get to that age. I know a few people who went to pretty good boarding school and they seem to be okay (okay, one is bat shit crazy, but I think that's her and not her boarding school's doing).

astrid,

I am talking about boys-only or girls-only boarding school, never went through a co-ed, so the co-ed situation may be entirely different. Also, the British system is a tad bit different from the American one.

you can not teach someone to be gay, it is genetic….

Not necessarily genetic, buy innate.

One can turn gay if put in a certain type of environment. I have quite a few Catholic gay friends, and I can tell you it is NOT entirely genetic.

It is all in the stars.

There is a gay phase in adolescnce for all guys, most of us grow past that, some of us get stuck there. Sexual orientation is not entirely a natural-born thing, it is also influenced strongly by your early sexual experience and sexual partner.

A boy's school is more conducive to homosexual experience for boys who are eager to explore their bodies, let me just leave it at that.

I remember one professor say, with philosophy, you can justify anything and everything, it can be dangerous..

Did you mean statistics? :)

"A boy’s school is more conducive to homosexual experience for boys who are eager to explore their bodies, let me just leave it at that."

Hee, anyone here seen "Another Country"? Right or wrong, that's what I think of when I think of the British public school system.

(Then again, I also think of A Taxing Woman's Return when I think of the Japanese Yakuza, and I don't recall any white S500s in that movie)

True. Open-minded atheists with the sense of morality will serve humanity very well. Dogmatic atheists may not do much good.

I proffer that dogmatic any-ists do not do much good, yes even including "humanists". I encounter lots of dogmatic humanist types up here in Marin. They are so dogmatic about their humanism that they seem to forget the "human" part of that ism.

(Then again, I also think of A Taxing Woman’s Return when I think of the Japanese Yakuza, and I don’t recall any white S500s in that movie)

That movie was set in 1989. There was no S500 back then, only 500SEL. :)

Did you mean statistics?

I had a math professor in undergrad who insisted that statistics was nothing more than black magic.

but you can disprove on set of statistic with another.

All I know is that statistics a pretty good propaganda (spinning) device.

I had a math professor in undergrad who insisted that statistics was nothing more than black magic.

I have to agree. Statistics is not really math.

Come on, stop being so cynical, you all don't really believe that, do you? As long as you understand what has been done to the numbers, you should know if the calculation is good or bad. (as a none math person, I really can't tell)

Statistics are not to be confused with probabilities, even though intro stats courses necessarily cover probabilities first.

Probabilities are mathematically consistent and abide by proofs and theorems.

Statistics are descriptive means by which we "disprove the null hypothesis". That is, we can't prove anything with stats, only disprove a default assumption.

Stats really may be a kind of evil.

A Realtorâ„¢ and his girlfriend are spending their first night together. He takes off his shoes and socks. His girlfriend points at his feet and asks "what happened to your feet?" He shrugs and says, "When I was a kid I had toelio." She asks "You mean polio?" He replies, "No, I had toelio." Then he takes off his slacks and she makes a face. "What's wrong with your knees?" He shrugs and answers, "When I was a teenager I had kneezles." She says "You mean measles?" He replies, "No, I had kneezles." Finally he slides off his briefs and is nude from the waist down. His girlfriend is horrified. She wails "Oh no, you had smallcocks too!

Probabilities are mathematically consistent and abide by proofs and theorems.

Only if the underlying randomness can be ascertained.

yes, you can manipulate the number and trick someone who don’t know into something.

but statistic is very important without it biological research or any other physical science can not move forward……

True, but statistics is just another tool in academic politics.

I got a little further than probabilities. I took a college biology class and we had to do regressions and so forth. If I remember correctly, as long as I set the perimeters tightly enough, then the results are believable.

But in reality, if the problem ever came up, I just send the link to my boyfriend and wait for a reply.

Stats really may be a kind of evil.

You are probably 66.6% correct.

I'd say that's not very good.

Only if the underlying randomness can be ascertained.

Remember there are two types of mathematical proofs, the classically reasoned type we all learned in high-school (or should have), and the "exhaustive" type where all possible disproofs are ruled out. Probabilities, like binomial distributions abide by this (although maybe they are also arrived at classically; IANAMPHD).

Theoretically, all randomness can be ascertained with enough empirical measurement.

You are probably 66.6% correct.

But this stat is useless to me without an alpha or standard deviation and sample size, damnit!

I like the way engineers do proofs: "Works for n=1, works for n=2, works for all n."

Theoretically, all randomness can be ascertained with _enough_ empirical measurement.

Well, well, well... what is moral certainty?

I like the way engineers do proofs: “Works for n=1, works for n=2, works for all n.”

Induction is math, not statistics.

"an alpha or standard deviation and sample size, damnit!"

But if we assume Peter P as the entirety of the evil/non-evil universe...

But if we assume Peter P as the entirety of the evil/non-evil universe…

Huh?

I meant to be humorous...they jump from n=1 & n=2 to all n, without mathematical induction.

Well, that would do away with the sample size issue.

Why it's called mathematical induction when it's a deductive process is a mystery to me. Didn't mean to change the subject away from chi squared distributions and what not.

I meant to be humorous…they jump from n=1 & n=2 to all n, without mathematical induction.

It is fine if n = 2...

Might as well include economists in our late-nite festival:

Micro Economists do proofs as such: if a rational n = 1 but would like to be n = 2, and a rational m = 2 but would like to be one, then P = 1.5, but only assuming elasticity of ..., then we take the set the first derivative AC = 0 ... and finally we discover that MR = MC. Wow, lets make this into a 400 page book with lots of graphs.

Macro Economists do proofs as such: money = this theory, aggregate supply = that theory, capital = other theory, inflation = this + that - other theory. Wave hands a lot, and *poof*, we can't tell you anything about the future except that it is uncertain, but we can explain the past as if we should have known it before it happened.

Well, that would do away with the sample size issue.

If you know alpha you don't need the sample size, but it would be nice. You know how accurate the guess is with an alpha (because it incorporates n and sigma).

LMAO,

That's why I did much better in Macro than Micro economics.

If extraterrestrials were monitoring transmissions from Earth, what would have more meaning for them...the decimal expression of pi to 100 thousand digits, or Hootie and the Blowfish?

They're watching Seinfeld reruns in the Vega system about now, aren't they?