If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#721
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
Tina writes:
¤The average person does not know how to use a circular slide rule. The average pilot does, The private pilot must solve wind triangles, a form of vector analysis, must demonstrate some skill in navigation, enough gas theory to understand the dynamics of weather systems, enough physics to know about lapse rates, and so on. The average person does not. All of these skills are trivial and largely unrelated to those I mentioned. |
#722
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
terry writes:
Thats a ridiculous statement and non logical at all. There are so many barriers to gaining a pilots license ( as you would know) that it would be self evident to any reasonable person that pilots ( even private ones) must be skewed towards higher education , intelligence, income and determination than the population as a whole ( ie your average person). That's wishful thinking. While there is surely some bias in favor of higher intelligence, it's overly optimistic to assume that this bias is significant, even in airline pilots. Anyone can learn to fly an aircraft by rote. |
#723
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
Steve Foley writes:
I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also pointed these out. You've disagreed with me, nothing more. |
#724
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
terry writes:
well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of using your usual authorative tone ... There's nothing authoritative about my tone. That pretty much says it all. You want people to help you but you dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them. I care much more about them than they do about me. I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of atmosphere from the gas laws. You just plug in the numbers and do the arithmetic by rote for most calculations. Nothing particularly advanced or difficult about that. |
#725
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Steve Foley writes: I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also pointed these out. You've disagreed with me, nothing more. The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem. I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well. |
#726
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
On May 31, 1:02*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes: well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of using your usual authorative tone ... There's nothing authoritative about my tone. That pretty much says it all. *You want people to help you but you dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them. I care much more about them than they do about me. I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of atmosphere from the gas laws. You just plug in the numbers and do the arithmetic by rote for most calculations. *Nothing particularly advanced or difficult about that. I neither said it was advanced or difficult, only that it was correct, and obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of the gas laws. In fact it was I who made the point in my original thread that it was nothing more than high school science. But the point is you claimed ( again) to know what you really didnt. My gut feel is that you probably do understand you were wrong now, but as I said in my previous post and others have noted ad nauseum, you will not admit to being wrong. You have confirmed this once again. And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by rote. How do you do arithmetic, by first principles? Terry PPL Downunder Terry |
#727
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
On Thu, 29 May 2008 15:36:35 -0800, Temporal Voyager Onideus Mad Hatter
, in a desperate attempt to change the alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk timestream, said: On 28 May 2008 01:48:35 GMT, gregvk wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:g1icla$8o3$1 : Jim Logajan wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: I don;t have to show anything. Is there some sort of prize awarded when one gets a person to respond with that sentence? Anybody know? Of course. Oh, yeah, the lame attempt at froup snipping... I wouldn't. You give yourself good advice. Eliding groups from the Newsgroups header isn't right for everyone - ask your doctor if it's right for you. Moi? I never snip froups. As to the "literal" thing. someone who jumps into a shark's mouth is not wht you might call a figurative fjukkwit. "Jim Logjam" is a funny name. That's what I'd name my kid if I wanted to make sure he got teased by other kids to the point of turning into a word class loser with severe psychological problems. This from the retard whose parents named him "Greg". Like a guy who named *himself* "Onideus" has any room to complain. On teh Internet you can try and hide how pathetic you are And yet Matty fails completely at it, *every ****ing time*. -- Lorrill Buyens MHM: 9x1; Smeeter: #21; WSD: #3; Gutter Chix0r: #19 Alcatroll Labs; Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll Division "dsysm, its sooooo smooth and clesr." - Dave Hillstrom's ringing endorsement of mead, in aav3f |
#728
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
Steve Foley writes:
The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem. Which problem was that? I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not recognize equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned. I've seen this happen even with extremely experienced pilots. They learn something by rote, you give a theoretical explanation thereof that they've never heard, and since they don't know any underlying theory themselves (remember, they learned by rote), they think the theory is wrong. It would be amusing if it were not so unfortunate. I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well. There are lots of stupid people in the world, and lots of people who are familiar with rote learning only. Rote learning is what allows the majority of the population to survive in a technologically complex world. |
#729
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
terry writes:
And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by rote. How do you do arithmetic, by first principles? I've at least examined it theoretically. Anyway, all the air pressure on our planet results from gravity, not temperature or confinement or anything else. |
#730
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not recognize equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned. I didn't learn math and physics by rote. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DC-3 parts to give away | Robert Little | Restoration | 2 | November 23rd 06 03:30 AM |
Who can give a checkout? | Mark S Conway | General Aviation | 2 | May 9th 05 12:15 AM |
Winch give-away | KP | Soaring | 6 | January 11th 05 08:04 PM |
Did you ever give up on an IR? | No Such User | Piloting | 24 | November 26th 03 02:45 PM |
FS 2004 give away | Ozzie M | Simulators | 0 | November 23rd 03 03:50 PM |