Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 24, 2014, 04:29 am

Updated Topics | Recent Unread Topics
Home Help Search Login Register

+  Dragon Mountain
|-+  Forum
| |-+  Sanctum Sanctorum
| | |-+  Charts and Graphs thread
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 45 Print
Author Topic: Charts and Graphs thread  (Read 94335 times)
BSam
THE FUCKDOG



View Profile
« Reply #200 on: February 15, 2012, 04:28 pm »

California, probably.
Logged
Danny G
Fart Master


Workplace Sex Criminal


View Profile
« Reply #201 on: February 15, 2012, 04:29 pm »

Based on quoting his post, I'm guessing it's from here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2012/02/your_states_report_card/state_sci_standards.jpeg
Logged

Logjammin'
Johnny Roastbeef
Unbanned



View Profile
« Reply #202 on: February 15, 2012, 04:37 pm »

If you track it down, the post is here.
Logged

All right, later dudes. S you in your Aís, donít wear a C, and J all over your Bís.
Johnny Roastbeef
Unbanned



View Profile
« Reply #203 on: February 15, 2012, 04:53 pm »

scorecard for states' science education standards



As an interesting comparison to the rating of standards, here's actual performance.  Results are the 8th grade actual performance for white students (shut up it's all I could find in map form). From Here.  What's interesting is that though they have highly rated educational policy, CA, SC, and Indiana have middling actual performance.  Wisconsin, Montana, the Dakotas and Idaho have good performance but "terrible" policy.  I'm sure we can generate an argument about how worthwhile standardized testing is.

Logged

All right, later dudes. S you in your Aís, donít wear a C, and J all over your Bís.
Johnny Roastbeef
Unbanned



View Profile
« Reply #204 on: February 15, 2012, 04:59 pm »

Sorry for spamming this, but here's the government site where you can generate actual maps.  As it turns out, when you include minority students, California is second to worst, next to Mississippi.  It's not definitive, because it's just standardized test scores, but it does show a discrepancy between good curriculum planning and actual learning.
Logged

All right, later dudes. S you in your Aís, donít wear a C, and J all over your Bís.
CatAstrophe
Gay Dolphin Sex
Buddy Friend Pal



View Profile
« Reply #205 on: February 15, 2012, 10:43 pm »

Minority students include lots of ESL students. You have to be able to fully comprehend what a test is asking you to answer it correctly.
Logged

fermun   haha, if killing babies offends you, this may not be the show for you
HyperGlavin
bridge and tunnel dyke
Probably a postbot


I'm a cool guy irl


View Profile
« Reply #206 on: February 15, 2012, 10:54 pm »

There are many socio-economic factors at work to produce that discrepancy, many of which affect ethnic regions worst of all. It's still good to get the bigger picture, though.
Logged

Yes, come on, get a dog up you, you rapscallion.
Zach
Artist, Allusionist, Ape
Admin


Human, all too human


View Profile WWW
« Reply #207 on: February 18, 2012, 09:09 pm »

An animation filled with lots of charts AND graphs.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg</a>
Logged

spermus
Sucks at High Fiving



View Profile
« Reply #208 on: February 19, 2012, 11:01 pm »

That's a cool video but naturally I have complaints.

(a) I'm pissed that they kept saying "known" sources of uranium, and emphasizing "known" as if to twist the knife in my brain. We stopped exploring for uranium in the 80's, because we'd found enough. Or because of environmentalism. At any rate, exploration started again in the 00's, and known sources are increasing again.

I won't mention exotic future nuclear tech, because the video anticipated that line of argument handily. But Canada already has reactors that can use thorium, which is three times as abundant as uranium.

I'm sure every energy source has fanboys who would object to something misleading in the video, but I'm also sure that the nuclear fanboys are righter.

(b) They left a Malthusian population catastrophe implied. After showing all those open-ended growth curves, they could have mentioned that at least population is expected to stabilize. It wouldn't diminish their point. The fact that they left it out just seems misleading.
Logged

Ban all cuntfags.
nak
Internet Person


View Profile
« Reply #209 on: February 20, 2012, 12:19 am »

Ya in fact the 2050 total population figure is also when the global population is likely to stabilize and begin to drop. At that point total gdp per country year on year growth will be lower, even if the rate of gdp growth per person is still increasing (see Japan).

So even though the situation is dire, the current economic growth model which uses leverage does not imply doom.
Logged
jimbob
Technocratic Libertarian


Armadillidium vulgare


View Profile
« Reply #210 on: February 20, 2012, 03:56 am »

Spermus, just because the crisis might happen a few decades later than assumed doesn't mean we shouldn't plan to avert it or deal with it. Nuclear fission is a non-renewable energy source.

And the demographic shift that occurred in today's rich countries required exponentially increasing and seemingly unlimited energy sources and minerals. Since we predict the end of these unlimited resources, it is by no means definite that poor countries will be able to follow the same pattern and the global population will stabilise at a sustainable level.

I'm not saying that the video was the last word on the subject, but for a teaching resource aimed at children I thought it was pretty good.
Logged

"Now with a shrieking and crashing, shells began to descend upon us from our own guns, while simultaneously German guns began to shell their own lines." - Edwin Campion Vaughan, MC
HyperGlavin
bridge and tunnel dyke
Probably a postbot


I'm a cool guy irl


View Profile
« Reply #211 on: February 20, 2012, 04:06 am »

And the demographic shift that occurred in today's rich countries required exponentially increasing and seemingly unlimited energy sources and minerals. Since we predict the end of these unlimited resources, it is by no means definite that poor countries will be able to follow the same pattern and the global population will stabilise at a sustainable level.

China is already undergoing such a change in demographics, their resource use is actually rather efficient for a country their size. It's not as simple an issue as you seem to think.
Logged

Yes, come on, get a dog up you, you rapscallion.
thermus aquaticus
Sucks at High Fiving



View Profile
« Reply #212 on: February 20, 2012, 09:05 am »

"A few decades" is a very pessimistic figure for fission, but even it would make a difference. And now I'm pissed that people think I'm against the whole video's thesis because I thought one thing in it was bad.
Logged

Wooer et ass, 2013
jimbob
Technocratic Libertarian


Armadillidium vulgare


View Profile
« Reply #213 on: February 20, 2012, 09:16 am »

I probably misinterpreted your tone, sorry.

Maybe this is too tangential, but have they managed to make nuclear power profitable in the USA? In the UK the government has to give huge subsidies to the industry, and no one has taken responsibility for long-term disposal of waste.
Logged

"Now with a shrieking and crashing, shells began to descend upon us from our own guns, while simultaneously German guns began to shell their own lines." - Edwin Campion Vaughan, MC
spermus
Sucks at High Fiving



View Profile
« Reply #214 on: February 20, 2012, 10:03 am »

Here's a brief history. There have been lots of bailouts.
Logged

Ban all cuntfags.
fermun
Mod



View Profile
« Reply #215 on: February 20, 2012, 05:03 pm »


source: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/historic-price-cost-presidential-elections
Logged
fermun
Mod



View Profile
« Reply #216 on: February 22, 2012, 04:49 pm »



Logged
Zach
Artist, Allusionist, Ape
Admin


Human, all too human


View Profile WWW
« Reply #217 on: February 22, 2012, 05:27 pm »

Welcome to Fox, where fake means facts!
Logged

Housefly
Potential Friend


Man without a country.


View Profile
« Reply #218 on: February 22, 2012, 11:28 pm »

What on earth happened at the end of 2008?  Was that the Rapture?
Logged
fermun
Mod



View Profile
« Reply #219 on: February 22, 2012, 11:55 pm »

Where were you? As a quickish summary of what that is all about, in 2003, the capital gains tax rate was lowered quite a bit, stock market investors had already pretty much filled up all of the good investments, so started investing more heavily in higher risk investments like real estate and commodity speculation. The extra money flowing in created a bubble which inflated prices on the consumer end for people who wanted to buy houses or any product that depends on a commodity, such as gasoline. The real estate bubble collapsed in late 2007 and early 2008, people who got out of real estate early enough to keep their money tossed it into commodity speculation which further inflated the bubble. The commodity market crashed shortly afterwards and gasoline's price more closely related to supply and demand.

The law for regulating commodities wasn't significantly strengthened and capital gains tax is still really low and wealth is still really concentrated so speculation money is going back into the commodity market, which is reflected in the price starting to rise again to the unreasonably high levels of summer 2008
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 45 Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!