|
An American
|
Janet. Your letter about Sara Jane Olson probably not having had to go to jail in the first place if she were a football player confusing. I do not recall any incidents of football players attempting to blow up police cars AND participating in the armed robbery of a bank where a customer was killed.
|
|
Snowball
|
You can't go to space with fractions! What are you gonna land on, one-quarter, three-eighths? Dialectics, Man!
|
|
You Know
|
I am NOT saying what she did was ok nor am I saying she should not have gone to prison - what I am saying is the clamor about this woman is fascinating given far more dangerous people than Sara Jane get out of prison early every day around the country.
|
|
GB Fan
|
Janet....Yeah, there's no justice for aging, hippie, terrorists without remorse for their actions.
Maybe if she ACTED like she was truely sorry for her actions, she would be on her way home.
|
|
HonestLiberal
|
Sara Jane was just protesting an unjust society in which the police participated. They were therefore guilty of injustice.
While she should have paid for her "crime" years ago she was clearly not the same person. She had been living a clean life, supporting DFL politics, got married and had a family, etc. She was the model citizen and the past should have been forgotten. "Let she or he who is without sin cast the first stone."
|
|
well - -
|
Janet, I totally agree. The injustice is not that Sara Jane Olson was sent back to prison to finish serving her sentence. The injustice is that celebrities too often walk. Even without tinkering with sentencing guidelines, a bare minimum corrective should be that, for professional athletes, a single felony conviction brings a lifetime ban from professional sports, with forfeiture of any remaining contracts. Period. You wanna play and earn all that money? Then behave yourself.
|
|
Gndydncr
|
You Know wrote: I am NOT saying what she did was ok nor am I saying she should not have gone to prison - what I am saying is the clamor about this woman is fascinating given far more dangerous people than Sara Jane get out of prison early every day around the country. I didn't think the issue was getting out early but it was getting out TOO early. However, if a convicted felon has a good friend (or cohort) in the white house whose coming to the end of his term, the felon could not only be getting out way, way, way, too early but receive a full pardon and have the record expunged besides. Just think, if Sara Jane had only been convicted in 2000.....
|
|
Higher math
|
George R Ruth most not understand that in order to do Algerbra and any other higher level math or science, a sound knowledge of fractions is required. If he wants his children to never move beyond 1+1 thats fine, but my children will learn fractions.
|
|
|
|
Gndydncr
|
Higher math wrote: George R Ruth most not understand that in order to do Algerbra and any other higher level math or science, a sound knowledge of fractions is required. If he wants his children to never move beyond 1+1 thats fine, but my children will learn fractions. My reaction to George Ruth’s letter was much the same as yours,“Oh, you gotta have fractions!” I, too, learned how to add, subtract, multiply and divide using fractions like 9/16 and 4/5 but then I realized his point – we wouldn’t have to learn fractions if everything were measured in decimals. After all, every fraction can be, and frequently is, converted to a decimal. As a matter of fact, I worked for a company that did measurements in increments of 1/16 inch. I wrote a program for them that calculated run, rise, and diagonals based on the Pythagorean Theorem. Dimensions were entered using fractions. The fractions were converted to decimals. The decimals were then used to calculate results. The results were converted back to fractions for output. I’ve studied algebra, geometry, trigonometry, chemistry, and physics and cannot, for the life of me, recall why fractions would be necessary in any of them. It’s time to go metric. Correction, we’re way past time to go metric.
|
|
WJH
|
HonestLiberal wrote: Sara Jane was just protesting an unjust society in which the police participated. They were therefore guilty of injustice.
While she should have paid for her "crime" years ago she was clearly not the same person. She had been living a clean life, supporting DFL politics, got married and had a family, etc. She was the model citizen and the past should have been forgotten. "Let she or he who is without sin cast the first stone." Oh I see if you support DFL politics, we'll look the other way? Abortion bombers think their protesting an unjust society so should we just forgive them? Gads the logic around here scares me sometimes.
|
|
Former Ranger
|
George Ruth I agree, fractions are just too complicated for today's e-generation. I think fractions (and decimals) should just be rounded off to the nearest whole number, close enough and so much easier don't you think?
|
|
870girl
|
WJH - I agree completely. Apparently to some people, as long as you feel your violent behavior is morally acceptable and you can sleep at night, you can do whatever you want without regard to the lives or safety of others. So what if Olson was living a clean life now? If she was such a good person why didnt she go to the nearest police department and confess to what she did? Why was she hiding?
|
|
Gndydncr
|
870girl wrote: WJH - I agree completely. Apparently to some people, as long as you feel your violent behavior is morally acceptable and you can sleep at night, you can do whatever you want without regard to the lives or safety of others. So what if Olson was living a clean life now? If she was such a good person why didnt she go to the nearest police department and confess to what she did? Why was she hiding? By George, I think you've got it! The liberal mind set says you don't have to be responsible for anything but are entitled to everything. Can't we all just get along?
|
|
Suzanne
|
"My car gets fourty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I like it" - Grandpa Simpson
Eventually all the "Grandpa Simpsons" will be gone and we can start using decimals.
|
|
jcf817
|
Wait 1/60th of a minute!
How are you supposed to know that .25 is 1/4th if you're not learning fractions? How exactly do you convert to decimals if you don't understand fractions?
|
|
well - -
|
But first, you have to learn how to spell "forty"...(sorry, the door was just wide open...)
|
|
Gndydncr
|
jcf817 wrote: Wait 1/60th of a minute!
How are you supposed to know that .25 is 1/4th if you're not learning fractions? How exactly do you convert to decimals if you don't understand fractions? Interesting example. When I was a child and learning to tell time, when the clock showed 25 minutes after an hour, I would say it was quarter after. Similarly when the clock showed 25 minutes to the hour, I would say it was a quater to. Reason? I knew a quarter was worth 25 cents so assumed all 25's were quarters.
|
|
jcf817
|
yes...but how would you know that 25 cents is 1/4th. In other words, how do you know that one quarter is the same as 1/4th.
Also...your example proved my point. If you don't learn what 1/4th actually means, you can't apply it to different values. i.e. 1/4th of 100 or 1/4th of 60.
|
|
Gndydncr
|
jcf817 wrote: yes...but how would you know that 25 cents is 1/4th. In other words, how do you know that one quarter is the same as 1/4th.
Also...your example proved my point. If you don't learn what 1/4th actually means, you can't apply it to different values. i.e. 1/4th of 100 or 1/4th of 60. If your point is that it is important to understand fractions, I have no argument. It is important to know and understand fractions, decimals, percentages and how they all relate to each other. An earlier poster claimed fractions were necessary for doing higher mathematics (algebra was cited as the example). I took him to literally mean “fractions” rather than “decimals” and that is where I disagreed. You cannot use your hand held calculator (a basic computer), for example, to multiply 4/5 times 9/16 and come up with the answer of 9/20. However, convert the fractions to decimals, then you can use your hand held calculator to multiply 0.8 times 0.5625 to arrive at 0.45.
|
|
Hmmmmmm
|
This is interesting food for thought. Maybe you don't need to understand and use fractions to solve equations, after all-- but do you need a good working knowledge of fractions to be able to *create* equations? That is, to turn real-life engineering or physics parameters into numbers that can be crunched?
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
