On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 03:22:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:06:52 -0500, Nick Hull
wrote:

In article ,
Santa Cruz Mike wrote:

Cliff.. have you figured out how a bowl can have a 10 inch diameter
and a 30 inch circumference yet?

Is it impossible?


1 Kings chapter 7 verse 23 (Authorised Version): "... and he made a molten
sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other : it was round about ... and a
line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

That's where the nonsense came from.

Ed Huntress



Ed.. the nonsense isn't in this description from a Jewish History.
Book... the nonsense is that some (Cliff for one) have said that this
verse and a chapter in another book with a few more details.. state
the PI equals 3.00 because a round bowl, etc cannot be made with an
outside diameter of 10 units and have an outside circumference of 30
units... Well.. I have a bowl that has an OD of 10 inches and an
outside circumference of 30 inches.... And I was hoping Cliff would
enlighten us as to how this is possible.. or just state that it is not
possible.. I mean he does have a degree in physics, etc..and
shouldn't this be child's play to him?



Thanks for the reference though. and the extra info on the Clinton
quote..

Ed, What do you think about the implications from "peak oil"
production?

Later,
Mike

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:24:27 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:



Lewis Hartswick wrote:

Nick Hull wrote:

In article ,
Santa Cruz Mike wrote:

Cliff.. have you figured out how a bowl can have a 10 inch diameter
and a 30 inch circumference yet?

Is it impossible?

Not if you measure ID diameter and OD circumference


Woops Nick. Check that again. :-)
...lew...


Lewis:

Nick had the right idea but inverted the OD/ID. If you had a bowl with
a wall thickness of something like .2255 "cubits" you could check the
diameter across the OD and get 10 "cubits". 10 "cubits" minus .451
"cubits" (2 walls) = 9.549 "cubits". 9.549 "cubits" X pi = 29.999
"cubits" on the ID of the bowl.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob


Bob, lets keep it simple.. 10 units OD and 30 units OD Circumference..
no tricks.. and PI does not equal 3.0

Later,
Mike

Santa Cruz Mike wrote:


Bob, lets keep it simple.. 10 units OD and 30 units OD Circumference..
no tricks.. and PI does not equal 3.0

Mike:

Well, since pottery in ancient times wasn't turned on a lathe I suppose
their bowls were not perfect circles but more elliptical. So measuring
across the short axis could get you your 10 cubits while measuring the
total circumference which includes more material of the long axis might
get you to pi.


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

BottleBob wrote:

Santa Cruz Mike wrote:


Bob, lets keep it simple.. 10 units OD and 30 units OD Circumference..
no tricks.. and PI does not equal 3.0

Mike:

Well, since pottery in ancient times wasn't turned on a lathe I suppose
their bowls were not perfect circles but more elliptical. So measuring
across the short axis could get you your 10 cubits while measuring the
total circumference which includes more material of the long axis might
get you to pi.


Did I get the backwards? Sorry, I was already in bed and just got up
to get a glass of milk, and couldn't resist stopping by the computer. I
should have stayed in bed. g


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 05:12:48 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:



Santa Cruz Mike wrote:


Bob, lets keep it simple.. 10 units OD and 30 units OD Circumference..
no tricks.. and PI does not equal 3.0

Mike:

Well, since pottery in ancient times wasn't turned on a lathe I suppose
their bowls were not perfect circles but more elliptical. So measuring
across the short axis could get you your 10 cubits while measuring the
total circumference which includes more material of the long axis might
get you to pi.


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob


Bob.. That is a creative explanation.... but we don't need to do
that.. you can assume the pot is pretty round.. lets say to .001,
LOL.. just for precision's sake.. I know you can figure it out
Bob... Working on very large parts makes it easier to visualize for
some reason too

Bowl, 10 inch outside diameter and 30 inch outside circumference....
and to be consistent.. 5 units deep... 5 inches..

A litlte big for Ruby..

Later,
Mike

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 05:20:37 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:



BottleBob wrote:

Santa Cruz Mike wrote:


Bob, lets keep it simple.. 10 units OD and 30 units OD Circumference..
no tricks.. and PI does not equal 3.0

Mike:

Well, since pottery in ancient times wasn't turned on a lathe I suppose
their bowls were not perfect circles but more elliptical. So measuring
across the short axis could get you your 10 cubits while measuring the
total circumference which includes more material of the long axis might
get you to pi.


Did I get the backwards? Sorry, I was already in bed and just got up
to get a glass of milk, and couldn't resist stopping by the computer. I
should have stayed in bed. g


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob


I got the point...

Mike

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 03:22:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:06:52 -0500, Nick Hull
wrote:

In article ,
Santa Cruz Mike wrote:

Cliff.. have you figured out how a bowl can have a 10 inch diameter
and a 30 inch circumference yet?

Is it impossible?


1 Kings chapter 7 verse 23 (Authorised Version): "... and he made a
molten
sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other : it was round about ... and a
line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

That's where the nonsense came from.

Ed Huntress



Ed.. the nonsense isn't in this description from a Jewish History.
Book... the nonsense is that some (Cliff for one) have said that this
verse and a chapter in another book with a few more details.. state
the PI equals 3.00 because a round bowl, etc cannot be made with an
outside diameter of 10 units and have an outside circumference of 30
units... Well.. I have a bowl that has an OD of 10 inches and an
outside circumference of 30 inches.... And I was hoping Cliff would
enlighten us as to how this is possible.. or just state that it is not
possible.. I mean he does have a degree in physics, etc..and
shouldn't this be child's play to him?

I have no idea where this has gone because I don't read these threads, Mike.
But I remember that it started out with an argument over a Biblical
reference and I saw that it had gone on intermidably, so I thought I'd
interject the reference and help get it over with. g

Math historians attribute this error to rounding, and/or to the common and
rough approximations that were in use in ancient times. There were much more
accurate numbers for pi. The Egyptians and the Babylonians hit it pretty
close. So did the Greeks, after they got over their distaste for actually
measuring things to find out what they were talking about.

Anyway, it seems that this has nothing to do with facts, so I'll pass by to
let you guys argue about whatever it is you're arguing about. g


Thanks for the reference though. and the extra info on the Clinton
quote..

Ed, What do you think about the implications from "peak oil"
production?

The implications are the end of civilization as we know it. Whether the Peak
Oil people are drawing correct implications from the facts is a question I
know nothing about.

I remember getting worried when the Club of Rome told us we were running
dry. I won't get worried again until Republicans tell us we should worry. If
they start to show signs of nervousness about it, then it will be time to
buy a woodstove and a good bicycle, because it will mean it's already too
late to do anything about it.

Ed Huntress

Clark Magnuson wrote:

How did someone interested in metalworking turn into a liberal
troll?

I've got a better question:

How did a middle eastern imaginary friend following cult member,
turn into a fundie conservative troll?


A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of
atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

A society that teaches the endless lies, bigotry & oppression of
middle eastern christian superstitions as fact will breed another
generation of murdering fundamentalist terrorist jackals that will
destroy the society. It is Talibanian.


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD)

"strabo" wrote in message
...
s

Your posts in this thread imply that those who graduate from HS
today are brighter and better educated than in 1965.

I don't know if they're brighter; I doubt if there's any difference. As for
"better educated," they have a better curriculum and better specific
content. Compared to the history books my son is using, for example, the
ones we used back in '65 were the Classic Comics version.


While no one here knows the academic achievements of your kid, he
is apparently not representative of the general population of
high schoolers.

The typical college graduate today knows less of the basics than
did the typical high school graduate of 1965.

I seriously doubt that, strabo. What's the basis of that assertion?

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

Santa Cruz Mike wrote:


Bob.. That is a creative explanation.... but we don't need to do
that.. you can assume the pot is pretty round.. lets say to .001,
LOL.. just for precision's sake.. I know you can figure it out
Bob... Working on very large parts makes it easier to visualize for
some reason too

Bowl, 10 inch outside diameter and 30 inch outside circumference....
and to be consistent.. 5 units deep... 5 inches..


Mike:

Well, let's try this. A lot of bowls have a flared lip or bead at the
top edge. So if the diameter of the bowl was measured at the outside of
the "bead" and the circumference was measured below the "bead" (the
"cubit" string might have kept slipping off the "bead" and the measurer
just got lazy since he didn't have have 3 slaves to hold the "cubit"
string on the bead), then you might very well get a 10 cubits dia. with
a 30 cubits circumference. (remember one side of the bead only needs to
be something a little over a quarter inch larger than the main part of a
10" bowl to come up with those measurements).


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

Way I heard it was those who cant teach teach teachers.
From my wife who has a M Ed. :-)
...lew...


Or write ).
Greg Sefton
(former writer)

Ed Huntress wrote:

I won't get worried again until Republicans tell us we should
worry. If they start to show signs of nervousness about it, then
it will be time to buy a woodstove and a good bicycle, because it
will mean it's already too late to do anything about it.

Invest early in methane hydrate mining. Discover magazine has a rather
interesting article on the subject. The oceanic reserves of the stuff
dwarf oil reserves. And it's interesting stuff.
Nothing quite like a picture of a chunk of ice burning...

Jon

In article , Malcolm
Kirkpatrick says...

MK. Someone determines which institution shall receive the taxpayers'
K-12 education subsidy. The legislature commits the funds. Yes,
taxpayers subsidize children with the K-12 subsidy. Politically the
issue between school vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel is whether
students, parents, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers, who would
all benefit from school vouchers, weigh more, in your legislator's
mind, than the public sector unions.

OK then, what do you do with the kids who spend their subsidy
and then run of voucher money half way through the year?

And, how do you handle the entanglement that vouchers are going
to cause between state funding and religious schools? Who's
driving this thing now, the state or the diocese?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 15 Feb 2004 15:15:29 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

Example: the school my daughter was attending was private,
and had no facilities that were ADA compliant. They didn't
have to. But in the new voucher scheme, there *is* no
public school, because it's been run out of town on a rail
for being so terrible. So now kids are going to be knocking
on the door of private schools, demanding to be let in.
But some of them are in wheelchairs, etc. "Hey, this voucher
says I can come here. You better make the classrooms ADA
compliant." What do they say, 'nope' - the voucher is no good
here?

A voucher doesn't give you the right to attend any school. Only the
ability to pay for it if they accept you. Just like a college.

What makes you think that the new breed of schools are going
to be any different (better) than the ones we have now? Sounds
to me like the same problems are going to keep on cropping up.
Why not fix the problem where it is now, rather than making
new ones?

The difference will be competition.

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

In article , John Flanagan says...

A voucher doesn't give you the right to attend any school. Only the
ability to pay for it if they accept you. Just like a college.

OK, we're going to ignore the voucher proponents who say that
public school are so awful that instituting vouchers will mean
their certain demise - because then your comment above would
be quite *un*true - all vouchered kids have to attend somewhere,
so the vouchers really would be an instant in at any school in that
case.

But agreeing for a moment that public schools will still exist
after "V" day, it's apparent that the brighter kids will abandon
them instantly and leave only the problem kids behind: the
kids who cost more to educate. How does a voucher plan ensure
that the left-behinds will still get a decent education?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:...

MK. Discussion deleted...

...what do you do with the kids who spend their subsidy
and then run of voucher money half way through the year?

MK. There are a couple of ways to accommodate this objection: 1) the
State can pay tuition on a month-by-month basis (and in most school
voucher plans, the State pays the tuition subsidy to a school, not to
parents), or the State could require that school districts --hire
parents--, on personal service contracts to provide for their
children's education. Make payment contingent on performance at or
above age-level expectations on standardized tests of reading and
math. Make payment equal to some fraction 1/2 a/b 1 of the
district's per-pupil cost. Test at the end of the school year. I agree
that this limits the options of really por parents, but it probides
performance and financial accountability, and gives parents a wide
range of options. They can homeschool, hire tutors, or send kids to a
private of parchial school.

And, how do you handle the entanglement that vouchers are going
to cause between state funding and religious schools?

MK. I don't worry much about them. Just bar schools which advocate
criminal activity. Most parents will want their children to grow into
responsibility.

...Who's driving this thing now, the state or the diocese?

MK. Motivation? There's probably a wide variety.

Take care. Homeschool if you can.

You could have monthly or quarterly payments, so that shouldn't be a
big deal.
And if the parents get the vouchers whether they send the kids to
private school or home school,......... Well I would say that
religious schools are private schools. The kids would just have to
meet the same standards for what they learn as any other private
school ( and public school for that matter ).
Math at a Catholic School is pretty much the same as math at a home
school.

Dan


jim rozen wrote in message

OK then, what do you do with the kids who spend their subsidy
and then run of voucher money half way through the year?

And, how do you handle the entanglement that vouchers are going
to cause between state funding and religious schools? Who's
driving this thing now, the state or the diocese?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Good point, Jim.

My objection to the vouchers is that they are easy to manipulate to
create an even greater difference in class from those who have cash and
those who live paycheck to paycheck. Don't want "those" kind of people
in your school? Charge a cost equal to the voucher plus a certain
dollar amount and almost all can be kept out.

One rule I would impose on vouchers...If you accept them (assuming the
voucher is the same amount the public school would get), you accept them
as full payment. The goal is get people who can do it MORE efficiently
and better, not more costly and exclusive than public schools.

Koz

jim rozen wrote:

In article , John Flanagan says...



A voucher doesn't give you the right to attend any school. Only the
ability to pay for it if they accept you. Just like a college.



OK, we're going to ignore the voucher proponents who say that
public school are so awful that instituting vouchers will mean
their certain demise - because then your comment above would
be quite *un*true - all vouchered kids have to attend somewhere,
so the vouchers really would be an instant in at any school in that
case.

But agreeing for a moment that public schools will still exist
after "V" day, it's apparent that the brighter kids will abandon
them instantly and leave only the problem kids behind: the
kids who cost more to educate. How does a voucher plan ensure
that the left-behinds will still get a decent education?

Jim

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:56:31 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:


-
Ed.. the nonsense isn't in this description from a Jewish History.
Book... the nonsense is that some (Cliff for one) have said that this
verse and a chapter in another book with a few more details.. state
the PI equals 3.00 because a round bowl, etc cannot be made with an
outside diameter of 10 units and have an outside circumference of 30
units... Well.. I have a bowl that has an OD of 10 inches and an
outside circumference of 30 inches.... And I was hoping Cliff would
enlighten us as to how this is possible.. or just state that it is not
possible.. I mean he does have a degree in physics, etc..and
shouldn't this be child's play to him?





Just out of curiosity, You have given the major diameter of the ellipse. What
is the minor diameter?


Mark Rand
RTFM

Guys, think outside of the box. They had rubber yardsticks in those days.
Stretch it to measure bowl diameter, and relax it to measure circumference..
Besides which Microsoft Excel will round pi down to 3 when number of digits of
the decimal point are set to zero.

Mike Eberlein

Mark Rand wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:56:31 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

-
Ed.. the nonsense isn't in this description from a Jewish History.
Book... the nonsense is that some (Cliff for one) have said that this
verse and a chapter in another book with a few more details.. state
the PI equals 3.00 because a round bowl, etc cannot be made with an
outside diameter of 10 units and have an outside circumference of 30
units... Well.. I have a bowl that has an OD of 10 inches and an
outside circumference of 30 inches.... And I was hoping Cliff would
enlighten us as to how this is possible.. or just state that it is not
possible.. I mean he does have a degree in physics, etc..and
shouldn't this be child's play to him?




Just out of curiosity, You have given the major diameter of the ellipse. What
is the minor diameter?

Mark Rand
RTFM

In article , Koz says...

One rule I would impose on vouchers...If you accept them (assuming the
voucher is the same amount the public school would get), you accept them
as full payment. The goal is get people who can do it MORE efficiently
and better, not more costly and exclusive than public schools.

This would make sense to me. I think one reason why private schools
invariably are run at a lower cost than public schools is their
ability to operate outside an entire subset of regulations that
public schools are required to obey.

The ADA thing that I mentioned before, for example.

Private schools have one thing that public schools would *love*
to be able to boast about, but cannot: the ability to say
"no" to some students. One single kid can cause enormous amounts
of hassle and disruption in a classroom by misbehaving. I saw
that happen in my daugher's school for two or three years running.

Then that kid was told "don't come back, we've tried everything."
What a difference.

Public schools can't do that. That's one more reason they
cost more to run. They *have* to take everyone.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Malcolm
Kirkpatrick says...

...what do you do with the kids who spend their subsidy
and then run of voucher money half way through the year?

MK. There are a couple of ways to accommodate this objection: 1) the
State can pay tuition on a month-by-month basis (and in most school
voucher plans, the State pays the tuition subsidy to a school, not to
parents),

I think what I was getting at is the idea that the vouchers are
not going to cover the full freight at most private schools,
so the parents are going to have to handle the remainder. It
would be nice if the state simply handed over an 'equal slice'
payment (which probably *would* cover most of the tuition
in a private school, at least until the exodust of from public
schools drove up the price...) but for a variety of reasons
that's probably never going to happen.

So the question is, once a kid takes a voucher, but the
parents can no longer contribute their sha

Do You Require the Public School to Take the Kid Back??



And, how do you handle the entanglement that vouchers are going
to cause between state funding and religious schools?

MK. I don't worry much about them.

That's like saying, "I don't care about a teeny little
tornado!"

Sure *you* don't care but that little thing like the bill
of rights *does* care! What are the private schools going to
do when the state starts demanding that catholic schools
recognize jewish holidays, or that they ban religious displays?

State money being funnelled into parochial schools is the
first step towards a huge first amendment collision.
That collision *will* happen in the courts when vouchers are
first tried. It is also one of the biggest reasons why
vouchers will be avoided for quite some time to come.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. net...
"strabo" wrote in message
...
s

Your posts in this thread imply that those who graduate from HS
today are brighter and better educated than in 1965.

I don't know if they're brighter; I doubt if there's any difference. As
for
"better educated," they have a better curriculum and better specific
content. Compared to the history books my son is using, for example, the
ones we used back in '65 were the Classic Comics version.


While no one here knows the academic achievements of your kid, he
is apparently not representative of the general population of
high schoolers.

The typical college graduate today knows less of the basics than
did the typical high school graduate of 1965.

I seriously doubt that, strabo. What's the basis of that assertion?

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)


I suspect that kids today seem less smart simply because as WE get older our
accumulated knowledge that we compare to has gotten much greater.

"Kid, I've already forgotten more that you know! That's too bad, because it
means I've really forgotten a lot!"

The older I get the better I used to be.

Gary H. Lucas

"Gary H. Lucas" wrote in message
news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. net...
"strabo" wrote in message
...
s

Your posts in this thread imply that those who graduate from HS
today are brighter and better educated than in 1965.

I don't know if they're brighter; I doubt if there's any difference. As
for
"better educated," they have a better curriculum and better specific
content. Compared to the history books my son is using, for example, the
ones we used back in '65 were the Classic Comics version.


While no one here knows the academic achievements of your kid, he
is apparently not representative of the general population of
high schoolers.

The typical college graduate today knows less of the basics than
did the typical high school graduate of 1965.

I seriously doubt that, strabo. What's the basis of that assertion?

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)


I suspect that kids today seem less smart simply because as WE get older
our
accumulated knowledge that we compare to has gotten much greater.

"Kid, I've already forgotten more that you know! That's too bad, because
it
means I've really forgotten a lot!"

The older I get the better I used to be.

Gary H. Lucas



Haha! Yes, I wonder sometimes how we could have been so smart, and today's
kids so dumb, when I read things like the contents of strabo's post. g

It's also true that the education in other countries has gotten better a lot
faster than ours has. That's the pinch we feel about our education system,
which certainly needs a lot of improvement.

But it's simply not true that kids are not as smart. For example, the
decline in SAT scores that have been reported off and on over the last few
decades have been accompanied by a higher *percentage* of kids actually
taking the SAT. More kids who are down the line academically take the test.
It used to be mostly the top kids who even took it. They don't often mention
that.

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:26:02 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 03:22:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:06:52 -0500, Nick Hull
wrote:

In article ,
Santa Cruz Mike wrote:

Cliff.. have you figured out how a bowl can have a 10 inch diameter
and a 30 inch circumference yet?

Is it impossible?


1 Kings chapter 7 verse 23 (Authorised Version): "... and he made a
molten
sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other : it was round about ... and a
line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

That's where the nonsense came from.

Ed Huntress



Ed.. the nonsense isn't in this description from a Jewish History.
Book... the nonsense is that some (Cliff for one) have said that this
verse and a chapter in another book with a few more details.. state
the PI equals 3.00 because a round bowl, etc cannot be made with an
outside diameter of 10 units and have an outside circumference of 30
units... Well.. I have a bowl that has an OD of 10 inches and an
outside circumference of 30 inches.... And I was hoping Cliff would
enlighten us as to how this is possible.. or just state that it is not
possible.. I mean he does have a degree in physics, etc..and
shouldn't this be child's play to him?

I have no idea where this has gone because I don't read these threads, Mike.
But I remember that it started out with an argument over a Biblical
reference and I saw that it had gone on intermidably, so I thought I'd
interject the reference and help get it over with. g

Math historians attribute this error to rounding, and/or to the common and
rough approximations that were in use in ancient times. There were much more
accurate numbers for pi. The Egyptians and the Babylonians hit it pretty
close. So did the Greeks, after they got over their distaste for actually
measuring things to find out what they were talking about.

Anyway, it seems that this has nothing to do with facts, so I'll pass by to
let you guys argue about whatever it is you're arguing about. g


LOL... Ed.. I don't know why there is even an issue about the math
on the is subject.. but Cliff kept bringing it up... .. I can only
assume that the people confused about the dimensions have never built
or worked on large projects... that is why I built the bowl.. I
wanted to see if it was possible to build a bowl with an outside
diameter of 10 inches.. and an outside circumference of 30 inches..
and it was.. only accurate to .010 inch.. I was in a big hurry...
the point is.. the numbers are not inaccurate.. but there is this big
fuss and confusion as though the Jewish writers were trying to claim
that PI equals 3.00 , of course they never made such a claim...
Well.. anyway Ruby has a big bowl now.. she doesn't understand why it
looks so empty with her daily ration...


Later,
Mike

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
...


Anyway, it seems that this has nothing to do with facts, so I'll pass by
to
let you guys argue about whatever it is you're arguing about. g


LOL... Ed.. I don't know why there is even an issue about the math
on the is subject.. but Cliff kept bringing it up... .. I can only
assume that the people confused about the dimensions have never built
or worked on large projects... that is why I built the bowl.. I
wanted to see if it was possible to build a bowl with an outside
diameter of 10 inches.. and an outside circumference of 30 inches..
and it was.. only accurate to .010 inch.. I was in a big hurry...
the point is.. the numbers are not inaccurate.. but there is this big
fuss and confusion as though the Jewish writers were trying to claim
that PI equals 3.00 , of course they never made such a claim...
Well.. anyway Ruby has a big bowl now.. she doesn't understand why it
looks so empty with her daily ration...

Maybe it leaks? g

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:19:32 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:



Santa Cruz Mike wrote:


Bob.. That is a creative explanation.... but we don't need to do
that.. you can assume the pot is pretty round.. lets say to .001,
LOL.. just for precision's sake.. I know you can figure it out
Bob... Working on very large parts makes it easier to visualize for
some reason too

Bowl, 10 inch outside diameter and 30 inch outside circumference....
and to be consistent.. 5 units deep... 5 inches..


Mike:

Well, let's try this. A lot of bowls have a flared lip or bead at the
top edge. So if the diameter of the bowl was measured at the outside of
the "bead" and the circumference was measured below the "bead" (the
"cubit" string might have kept slipping off the "bead" and the measurer
just got lazy since he didn't have have 3 slaves to hold the "cubit"
string on the bead), then you might very well get a 10 cubits dia. with
a 30 cubits circumference. (remember one side of the bead only needs to
be something a little over a quarter inch larger than the main part of a
10" bowl to come up with those measurements).


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

Bob.. now you are getting creative... and closer...

Mike

Gary H. Lucas wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. net...

"strabo" wrote in message
. ..
s

Your posts in this thread imply that those who graduate from HS
today are brighter and better educated than in 1965.

I don't know if they're brighter; I doubt if there's any difference. As

for

"better educated," they have a better curriculum and better specific
content. Compared to the history books my son is using, for example, the
ones we used back in '65 were the Classic Comics version.


While no one here knows the academic achievements of your kid, he
is apparently not representative of the general population of
high schoolers.

The typical college graduate today knows less of the basics than
did the typical high school graduate of 1965.

I seriously doubt that, strabo. What's the basis of that assertion?

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)



I suspect that kids today seem less smart simply because as WE get older our
accumulated knowledge that we compare to has gotten much greater.

"Kid, I've already forgotten more that you know! That's too bad, because it
means I've really forgotten a lot!"

The older I get the better I used to be.

I've had the opportunity to hire several high school kids
as materials handlers and engineering aids/interns. I've
been very impressed with their abilities. The engineering
intern has been very fast and sharp. The materials handlers
are more accurate than most of the adults we've used.

My 17 year old daughter comes and gets me every night to
watch Jeopardy and she holds her own against her old man.
I have nothing bad to say about this generation of kids.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:44:08 +0000, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:56:31 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:


-
Ed.. the nonsense isn't in this description from a Jewish History.
Book... the nonsense is that some (Cliff for one) have said that this
verse and a chapter in another book with a few more details.. state
the PI equals 3.00 because a round bowl, etc cannot be made with an
outside diameter of 10 units and have an outside circumference of 30
units... Well.. I have a bowl that has an OD of 10 inches and an
outside circumference of 30 inches.... And I was hoping Cliff would
enlighten us as to how this is possible.. or just state that it is not
possible.. I mean he does have a degree in physics, etc..and
shouldn't this be child's play to him?





Just out of curiosity, You have given the major diameter of the ellipse. What
is the minor diameter?


Mark Rand
RTFM


Try again mark.. it is round to .001.. no ellips.. how do you spell
that..

Later,
MIke

Cliff's Homework for this year: Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch
outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5
unit/inch depth. The diameters have a .005 inch tolerance. And no
Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl?

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:52:27 -0600, mikee wrote:

Guys, think outside of the box. They had rubber yardsticks in those days.
Stretch it to measure bowl diameter, and relax it to measure circumference..
Besides which Microsoft Excel will round pi down to 3 when number of digits of
the decimal point are set to zero.

Mike Eberlein


Mike.. good try.. but we have a real problem... that needs to be
solved today..

Mike

Cliff's Homework for this year: Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch
outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5
unit/inch depth. The diameters have a .005 inch tolerance. And no
Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl?

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:25:01 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .


Anyway, it seems that this has nothing to do with facts, so I'll pass by
to
let you guys argue about whatever it is you're arguing about. g


LOL... Ed.. I don't know why there is even an issue about the math
on the is subject.. but Cliff kept bringing it up... .. I can only
assume that the people confused about the dimensions have never built
or worked on large projects... that is why I built the bowl.. I
wanted to see if it was possible to build a bowl with an outside
diameter of 10 inches.. and an outside circumference of 30 inches..
and it was.. only accurate to .010 inch.. I was in a big hurry...
the point is.. the numbers are not inaccurate.. but there is this big
fuss and confusion as though the Jewish writers were trying to claim
that PI equals 3.00 , of course they never made such a claim...
Well.. anyway Ruby has a big bowl now.. she doesn't understand why it
looks so empty with her daily ration...

Maybe it leaks? g

Ed Huntress


ROFLMAO...

Cliff's Homework for this year: Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch
outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5
unit/inch depth. The diameters have a .005 inch tolerance. And no
Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl?

Ed Huntress wrote:
"strabo" wrote in message
...

The typical college graduate today knows less of the basics than
did the typical high school graduate of 1965.


I seriously doubt that, strabo. What's the basis of that assertion?




Something he read in the bathroom, probably. Sure sounds
like something he pulled out of his ass, at any rate.

Santa Cruz Mike wrote:

LOL... Ed.. I don't know why there is even an issue about the math
on the is subject.. but Cliff kept bringing it up... .. I can only

Poor lil souperstitious Fundie Cruz Mike. After all these many
weeks you're still stuck half way through your souperstitious fundie
meltdown. Got foorp? Wanna start a bunch more empty fundie meltdown
threads? LOL... Poor lil souperstition boy...

Fundie Cruz Mike's Homework for this year: TRY to realize that
your manipulative ignorant middle eastern christian control freak
souperstitions are not "TRUE"...


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD)

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
...

Cliff's Homework for this year: Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch
outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5
unit/inch depth. The diameters have a .005 inch tolerance. And no
Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl?

Hmm. Does this have something to do with curved space and the velocity of
light? If so, then making the bowl is something you have to do while
traveling very fast...

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:26:02 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ed, What do you think about the implications from "peak oil"
production?

The implications are the end of civilization as we know it. Whether the Peak
Oil people are drawing correct implications from the facts is a question I
know nothing about.

For those wondering what "Peak Oil" is all about:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

You can look at it as yet another doomsday site, but it does
raise (and answer) some pretty sobering questions.


--
- JN -

On 17 Feb 2004 17:32:17 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
Private schools have one thing that public schools would *love*
to be able to boast about, but cannot: the ability to say
"no" to some students. One single kid can cause enormous amounts
of hassle and disruption in a classroom by misbehaving. I saw
that happen in my daugher's school for two or three years running.

Then that kid was told "don't come back, we've tried everything."
What a difference.

Public schools can't do that. That's one more reason they
cost more to run. They *have* to take everyone.

They don't have to keep them in the same classes, though.
The school system in this county has an "alternative" school
for disruptive students.

When the state shut down the infamous "rock quarry" state
prison in our county, the school system took it over and
turned it into the alternative school. Many of the same staff
were retained. It isn't the same place it used to be, but it
is still intimidating.

Kids don't like being there, and tend to clean up their acts
pretty quickly in order to get back to their "regular" school.
Those who won't at least aren't disrupting classes at the
regular school anymore (and are probably getting good
training for their likely futures).

Gary

On 17 Feb 2004 17:47:51 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:


I think what I was getting at is the idea that the vouchers are
not going to cover the full freight at most private schools,

Actually it will. Catholic schools for example cost around $3500 a
year IRRC, where the national average for public schools is around
$6500.

If there is money to be spent, the private sector will always find a
way to provide a service.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On 17 Feb 2004 17:47:51 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:


Sure *you* don't care but that little thing like the bill
of rights *does* care! What are the private schools going to
do when the state starts demanding that catholic schools
recognize jewish holidays, or that they ban religious displays?

State money being funnelled into parochial schools is the
first step towards a huge first amendment collision.
That collision *will* happen in the courts when vouchers are
first tried. It is also one of the biggest reasons why
vouchers will be avoided for quite some time to come.

Jim

Jim..there is no legal injuction. Read the First Amendment again. The
Seperation of Church and State Fallacy was from a letter from
Jefferson IRRC.

Btw..I know several Jewish families whose children attend Catholic
schools, simply for the superior education. They simply do not join in
the religious activities, and the schools have structured themselves
to allow such as this without making the Jewish kids feel left out.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On 17 Feb 2004 15:11:12 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , John Flanagan says...

A voucher doesn't give you the right to attend any school. Only the
ability to pay for it if they accept you. Just like a college.

OK, we're going to ignore the voucher proponents who say that
public school are so awful that instituting vouchers will mean
their certain demise - because then your comment above would
be quite *un*true - all vouchered kids have to attend somewhere,
so the vouchers really would be an instant in at any school in that
case.

But agreeing for a moment that public schools will still exist
after "V" day, it's apparent that the brighter kids will abandon
them instantly and leave only the problem kids behind: the
kids who cost more to educate. How does a voucher plan ensure
that the left-behinds will still get a decent education?

Jim

Its obvious. The public schools will finally have to get off their
overstuffed dead asses and be competative with the private schools.
When they see their tax dollars dribbling away..they will indeed
institute improvements. Standardized testing will make sure everyone
is working on a level playing field. Those that cannot teach worth a
**** will be dumped in favor of those who can actually teach.
Administration costs will fall, as they remove the deadwood and
streamline. With fewer kids in the public schools, wear and tear on
the infrastructure will be reduced and for those children who tear up
the place, are "unteachable" etc..they will be finally handled the way
they should be. With the proper punishment and expulsion as needed.
Im sure there will be Boot Camp type schools that will spring up for
problem children that will accept vouchers. It will really suck to be
an asshole child who wants to disrupt things.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Clark Magnuson wrote in message ...
Cliff Huprich wrote:




I am a pro second amendment poster that was arguing religion with a
couple trolls who reacted to my by line.
Clark



Which you seemingly don't understand the subject matter of and
should no doubt change.

What does it have to do with your gun collections & sporran?




I was just about to assume you were ONLY a Tax-hiking,
Government-expanding, Latte-drinking, Sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New
York Times-reading, Body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, Left-wing, Freak
show troll, when I looked and you actually have posted some non troll
things about metalworking.

How did someone interested in metalworking turn into a liberal troll?

A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of
atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

No doubt I already know too much to be a proper conservative
fundie G.
--
Cliff

"Rabbit's clever," said Pooh thoughtfully.
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit's clever." "And he has Brain."
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has Brain."

There was a long silence.

"I suppose," said Pooh, "that that's why he never understands
anything."

- The House at Pooh Corner by A.A. Milne