Started by Dave, March 04, 2017, 10:20:59 AM
Quote from: Dave on April 14, 2018, 07:24:16 AM I know the purpose of jargon and its almost essential use in textbooks - be half as long again in oure lay-tslk! But it can ge obscure and fonfusing, like "myocardial infarct" "instead of "death of heart muscle" of "heart attack" (the latter is not very specific, several conditions can "attsck" the heart). My favourite is "heart failure" - don't take it too literally, medically it is relative rather than absolute! But also shorter than "cardiac output function insufficiency" or even "systolic impairment" and, anyway, those are the result rather than the cause.But in some fields the jargon is overblown and, unnecesssrily, takes up more space than "lay speak" - managed to write an almost jargon free sociology paper ('cos I knew I did not need a pass in that) in my pre-uni college finals. Passed anyway. Often eonder if the medical profession chose Greek and Latin to keep their esoteric knowledge priviledged.
Quote from: Icarus on May 25, 2018, 09:53:11 PMA snippet about one of our long gone heroes..........https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/05/23/pythagoras-olympic-games/
Quote from: Icarus on July 04, 2018, 11:38:11 PMNot sure where to put this or whether to post it at all. AI is beginning to have some far out applications. https://medium.com/forbes/in-case-you-are-wondering-sex-with-robots-may-not-be-healthy-b591d84b60f2
QuoteThe Random RequestTwo random questions in this episode. "Is anything truly random, or is everything predetermined?" asks Darren Spalding from Market Harborough.Hannah and Adam go in search of random events, from dice throws to lava lamps. Can we predict the outcome of any event? And "how do computers manage to pick random numbers?", asks Jim Rennie from Mackinaw in Illinois.Joining them are a random selection of experts: mathematician Colva Roney-Dougal, technology journalist Bill Thompson, Science Museum Curator Tilly Blyth and quantum physicist Jim AlKhalili.
QuoteConfucius said "Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." Some people, however, are just better at getting back up when the most challenging life events knock them down. Today there is a growing body of research into mental resilience; where it comes from, why it matters and how it can be nurtured.Journalist Sian Williams explores the science of resilience; she meets Dr Michael Pluess from Queen Mary University of London who is testing for the resilience gene, and Professor Toni Bifulco who, along with her colleague Dr David Westley at Middlesex University, has developed an online test for those at risk of resilience failure.Nobel laureate Professor Daniel Kahneman and science journalist and psychologist Daniel Goleman offer expert insight into resilience. Professor Martin Seligman who founded the Penn Resiliency Program, and David Clark, Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford, describe the psychological background to mental strength and how it can be developed. Professor Lord Richard Layard from the LSE explains the economic benefits of building resilience into society. Sian visits Icknield Community College in Watlington in Oxfordshire where resilience is on the curriculum and watches a lesson in which children are taught to bounce back. She meets students, Headmaster Mat Hunter, teacher Claire Foster, and Lucy Bailey and Emma Judge from the resilience-building organisation How To Thrive.The documentary is informed by Sian's own MSc research into post-traumatic growth and also from personal testimony: while drafting her thesis for academic publication, she experiences a sudden and very personal trauma which changes her view of resilience.
Quote from: Icarus on February 13, 2019, 02:01:22 AMAwwright boys and girls, it seems that I am the most prolific...or pestering.... contributor to this thread. So here is another of the posts about things that you do not need to know.............are you ready?Select any number that strikes your fancy......Divide the number by 2. If it is not evenly dividable, use another method and multiply the number by 3 and then add one. No matter what number you originally choose, the eventual result will be ONE.Example: choose the number 5. It does not divide evenly by two....SO multiply by three and add one......3 x 5 + 1 = 16....now we can divide by two and get eight which is dividable by two and then 8 divided by two is 4....and 4 divided by 2 is 2 and two divided by 2 is oneYeah, I am at least vaguely aware that I might be a crazy old man who thinks that numbers are fun.