Tue, 19 Dec 2023 05:43:04 +0000 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134783#Comment_134783 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134783#Comment_134783 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:03:42 +0000 SteamyTea http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120210133346.htm]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134805#Comment_134805 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134805#Comment_134805 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:27:43 +0000 Joiner
Invented by a mathematician to give them something to do!

God then invented statisticians so that mathematicians had someone to argue with. ]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134811#Comment_134811 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134811#Comment_134811 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:06:29 +0000 owlman
or,

Did you hear about the Mathemetician and the Farmer who were sitting in a train when it passed a flock of sheep. The mathematician said there are 1,248 sheep in that flock. That's amazing said the farmer it so happens that's my field and my sheep and I know you're right, how did you do that. Oh says the Mathematician that was easy, I just counted the number of legs and divided by four.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134816#Comment_134816 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134816#Comment_134816 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:19:36 +0000 SteamyTea I get the feeling that maths is considered a joke, must get some data on that ]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134818#Comment_134818 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134818#Comment_134818 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:21:09 +0000 Joiner ]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134824#Comment_134824 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134824#Comment_134824 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:37:21 +0000 JSHarris
The infamous rubbish "hockey stick" curve that the imbeciles in DECC presented to the Select Committee being a good example (and I still think that PS should have been disciplined for misleading parliament like that).]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134829#Comment_134829 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134829#Comment_134829 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:10:03 +0000 Nick Parsons http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134831#Comment_134831 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8600&Focus=134831#Comment_134831 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:05:06 +0000 Ed Davies
E.g., the other day I got a Guardian article corrected: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/jan/26/newt-gingrich-moon-base-dream when it said NASA's spending in the 1960s was 3.45% of GDP. I just knew that couldn't be right as NASA spending is a pretty small fraction of US military spending so they'd have been spending a huge percentage of GDP on the military. A quick look showed that actually it was 3.45% of Federal spending which is, in turn, about 1/5th of GDP. Clearly the original journalist and any fact checkers who looked over the article didn't have the context to spot the error. However, plus points to them for giving the amount as a percentage rather than just quoting so many billions of dollars.]]>