And, again, you miss the point. I apologize if I didn't make that clear. It's not about directly solving real life problems. It's about learning the STYLE AND WAY OF THINKING LOGICALLY in order to solve real life problems.

The way math classes make you do this is by doing math problems, because math problems can only be solved by logical thinking and a logical application of mathematical properties. Doing this again and again, building in complexity over the years, doesn't just teach you to solve math problems, it teaches you HOW TO THINK about any problem. Just like muscular exercise builds up muscles that are used repetitively for some task that you want to be stronger at doing, the kinds of problems you do in math are brain exercises that build up, through repetitive use, the pathways that are useful for logical thinking.

I'm sorry if your teachers didn't make this explicitly clear to you. A lot of teachers don't. I, for one, do explain this to my students, because I understand very well that the level of math we are doing is not very interesting, the types of problems we solve with it are very contrived and not realistic (because the math required to solve "real" problems is way beyond these basics, but you must master the basics if you want to learn to do the advanced stuff), and a lot of the actual things we do in class are not very applicable themselves in real life. For most people, math is not exciting or interesting. But learning it gives the gifts of clear and logical thinking and the ability for sustained chains of reasoning.

I'm sure not many of my students get this, even though I have explained it to them, but that's simply a product of them being young and inexperienced with the world. If even a few of them come out of this class as clearer, more rational thinkers, then I've done my job well.

Which average: the mean, median, or mode? :p :D

There are a lot of posts like this, so apologies for singling you out... But, as a math teacher I have to say in response to the "but I never use this" ideas...

Though doing such things is required as class, mathematics is NOT and has never been about memorizing formulas, or even about using specific ones. Yes, we all know you probably don't use the quadratic formula in real life, nor to you have to find the rules for number sequences, nor do you have to find all of the number patterns you can in Pascal's triangle, nor do you have to use Pascal's triangle as a convenient shortcut for binomial expansions, nor do you have to do proofs using all of those uselessly memorized names and properties from your various classes, etc. Yes, you probably had to do all of these things and more in your math classes, but believe it or not, learning math is not really about these things.

Mathematics is (or should be) the class where you learn how to think logically, and use logical and critical thinking skills to solve problems. Not just math problems, but ANY kind of problem you are likely to encounter in life. No, you won't ever use pythagorean theorem to solve relationship problems in your love life, but the logical and critical thinking styles you gained in your mind from solving problems in math will apply to you finding reasonable and logical solutions in real life.

Not only are you learning how to think in math, but you are learning how to break down your thinking so you can check it step by step to make sure there are no flaws. THAT is why we math teachers make you show your work. I, for one, don't care if you get the correct answer or not. I care about how you arrived at your answer, if you can show me the process you used to get to it, and if, in the case of an incorrect answer, you can find the flaw in your thought process that lead to your mistake. Tell me the ability to explain your thinking or the process you intend to engage in to reach a particular outcome is not an important and necessary life skill!

The fact that we use mathematics to try to teach these things is a side effect of what math is. But math class is not just for learning math. It is the class where you exercise your brain so that logical thinking and sustained reasoning become easier in all aspects of life.

And that is why learning to prove the quadratic formula, rather than programming the answer into your calculator, is important.

Borderlands was flawed (lame level scaling, inactive NPCs, weak story, etc) but it was fun as hell. I'd love to see a Borderlands 2 fixing those flaws but keeping the cool design and graphics, the quirky humor, the bazillion guns, and so on.

Like any game, it's not for everyone. But, Borderlands was awesome and you suck for not thinking so. :p ;)

Where is Portal 2 60 bucks? Because accessing the Steam store from Thailand, I see a price of $49.99 with a current pre-order discount of 10% plus a free copy of Portal 1.

Are the prices different where you are?

Your numbers seem off...

It was about 200-400 million years from the end of major bombardment to the first geological evidence of life on Earth. The moon formed before major bombardment ended. Approximate dates are 4.6Gya for Earth, 4.5Gya for the moon, 4.2Gya for the end of late heavy bombardment, and 3.8Gya for the first fossil evidence of life). The Wikipedia article on geologic time gives a pretty good overview. :)

As for the GPP, I agree. Every time they find something like this, there's always the "So Earth was seeded by these" speculation. It seems that such materials are rather common in our solar system, both here on Earth, on other planets, and on meteors and asteroids. If such organic molecules can form with relative ease in so many other places in the solar system, I see no reason why they couldn't have formed on Earth as well as it went through it's own geological evolution. Especially when geological processes for forming many complex organic chemicals abiotically have been documented. No doubt that stuff falling from the sky could contribute to organic materials on Earth, but I see no reason to believe that they are a major contribution.

As for TFS, I found this to be rather humorous:

Well, I should hope so. I'd be very surprised and impressed if the meteorite were rich in ammonia but didn't contain nitrogen. :p

July. :p

Now, I live in Thailand, so I can honestly ask, what is winter? Oh, right. It's beer garden season! :D

Why, you are absolutely right. Planes never crash, ships never sink, trains never derail, cars never crash, wars and other acts of violence never break out, natural disasters never happen, crazed fans never harm or kill bystanders, no one ever ODs on drugs, etc. etc.

Good to know.

Pay attention to the Steam Sales. During the "Perils of Summer Sale", they had all 3 DLCs (at that time) for $9.99. I was stupid and didn't get them then when I bought the base game, because I didn't realize how much I'd end up liking the game.

I've actually bought each of the Borderlands DLCs at full price ($9.99 each), and for me they were worth the investment. Since I also got the base game for $9.99 during the sale, in all I haven't paid more than the GOTY edition.

The Borderlands DLCs are really good fun. I highly recommend getting them the next time they go on sale. I don't know if Gearbox will be willing to make all 4 available together for $9.99, but seriously, if you can get them all for $20 or less, it's a steal.

Heh... oops. Sorry, I forgot that. ^^;;

However, isn't that more Microsoft's doing than Valve's doing? As I understand things now for the future, Valve would rather gamers not buy Portal 2 for Xbox if they want to get the best possible experience playing it, mainly because of Microsoft's limitations on DLC and patches and such. Valve could never do for TF2 on XBox what they've done for TF2 on PC, and the only reason for this is because Microsoft won't allow it.

I highly agree, except I won't say it's the "only" good DLC. Despite costing money, I've really enjoyed the Borderlands DLC. Great side stories with great humor, some good game enhancements, and most importantly MORE GUNS! :D

They are largely moot now, as buying the GOTY edition gets you all of the DLC... but they do seem to be guilty of making you actually download the DLC rather than having on the physical disc when you buy retail. This doesn't affect me as I bought the game and its DLCs previously, on Steam.

But, yes, Valve with L4D(2) and TF2 are a fine example of great DLC systems. :D

Yeah, you pretty much summed up my feelings better than my long-winded response below.

Regarding "what is a 'complete' game?", though. I'd say, a game that at least has a full story arc. Incomplete and using DLC for money grubbing would be something like releasing the first game as, half the story, and then having to buy DLC to finish that story. i.e. it wouldn't be an extension of the game; it would be building to the completion of the game.

Though not quite DLC, this is kind of how I look at Valve with the HL2 episodes. Episodic content is annoying like that when you have to wait so long to get to the next chapter. Even more so when you are really enjoying the story. (and I love the HL2 story)

Like I said in my comment below, "Borderlands" *might* feel kind of like an incomplete game due to its weak story, BUT it's such a fun game that you do feel you got a complete game in the base game, and the DLC then extends and enhances, as DLC should.

Also, like I said in the post below, I have never bought an "incomplete" game in the sense of this post, and I never intend to.

While I agree with this in principle, I have not yet bought a game that I felt the base-game was incomplete and the DLC felt like a money-grubbing scam. The closest was maybe Borderlands, mainly because the base game storyline was pretty weak. BUT, it was still a damn fun game, even only in the base game. The DLC enhances and extends the game and makes it significantly better, to the extent one might argue that the DLC should have just been part of the original, but I don't fault them too much for it. I think GearBox did alright with their compromise between putting out a game within a reasonable timeframe and putting out a game with all possible content (including stuff you may not have thought of or developed yet).

A lot of people hate on Bioshock 2, especially for PC after the recent no-DLC-for-PC debacle. For my part, I was very disappointed that Minerva's Den DLC was not coming for PC, mainly because the console users said it was quite good. But, I'd already felt I bought a complete game, so even with this, it was a case of missing out on truly EXTRA content. (And, apparently, they've decided to port Minerva's Den after all... someday)

And, as for DLC done right, one only has to look at Valve and everything they've done for TF2, L4D, and L4D2. And, they release it for free!

I agree that I hate the idea of a developer releasing an incomplete game and releasing the story piece by piece, and I WILL NOT buy such a game. I'm keeping my eye on Bioshock Infinite, and if it is anything like that or in any way heavily DLC based, I will skip it. I play games on my computer, and I'm not going to buy an incomplete game that also includes the risk of not being able to get the complete content. If a company does go the incomplete game, bit by bit route, then, assuming it does look like a really good game, I'll just wait for a GOTY edition that bundles all of the DLC and main game into one (and probably save a ton of money, too).

So, I hear you about wanting a complete game. I agree that DLC *can* be a scam. However, in my experience, DLC has been a good thing, for the most part (or, at least not a hindrance, in the case of BS2). And my money will only go towards supporting games which, if they must have DLC, do DLC right.

Can I assume that you think the rating system for movies is equally pointless?