Jamie123

Members
  • Posts

    2292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Jamie123

  1. When I was a kid, "persons of authority" insisted there was a difference between the pronunciation of (for example) "what" and "Watt" - but they only sounded it when they were giving elocution lessons. (
  2. This is all about the chorus. The verse begins: Batman's in the kitchen Robin's in the hall Joker's in the bathroom Peeing on the wall! (Ha Ha Ha!) Two versions at we sang at school were 1. Father Christmas lost his whiskers on the motorway and 2. Uncle Billy* lost his [something mildly rude that rhymes with "Billy"] on the motorway An alternative to the American version is: Batmobile lost a wheel, the Joker took Ballet * I often wonder if this was the same Uncle Billy who let sillily let Potter steal the money from the Building and Loan in order to get James Steward put in prison.
  3. I just published another paper on the "numbers of words in books" thing, which included this rather neat formula for the number of words n(f) appearing exactly f times in a book: But now it's in print, I suddenly discover an obscure 1961 paper by Benoit Mandelbrot with exactly the same result (at least for the unlimited types case). His derivation is identical to mine - all that's different is the symbols he uses. (His A is my 1/alpha, and his i is my f.) In my defence, this result seems to have been largely ignored in the literature. I only just discovered it in the references of a paper published in 2020, where it's described as "a notable exception" (to commoner and wronger methods). Well, at least I didn't call it the "Jamie Model". But go ahead ... call me Mary!
  4. This is driving me nuts. When I was a kid at school, whenever Halloween came around, the teachers ALWAYS read us this same poem, but I cannot find it on the Web. The one complete couplet I can remember is... and it ends... I was asking about it at Church on Sunday. One lady who's a retired schoolteacher said she had never heard of it, but another friend said she did remember it, and rather thought it was American (which wouldn't surprise me). Google just gives me the ice-fishing monster. Does anyone remember it, and if so, can they quote the complete poem? Thanks
  5. Interesting coincidence: David Starkey has just posted this video about the significance of the Arthurian story on British history. It's very long, but quite interesting - you may want to skip to about half way in when he starts talking about the Tudors
  6. Too right. After his mum stuck it for 70 years it would look pretty pathetic if he couldn't even manage 5 minutes.
  7. There very nearly was an Arthur II - the eldest son of Henry VII who sadly died before his father. Henry was a Welshman and a descendant of the British kings who ruled before the Angles, Saxons and Normans came along, so it's not hard to see why he chose the name.
  8. Yes indeed - what I have is medium length and I think quite respectful. Thanks.
  9. Since posting this the thoughts have come flooding and I think I'm ready. Thanks to anyone who prayed for me!
  10. Sorry I should have said "prayers" not "intercessions". You stand up at the front and say prayers for everyone. You decide yourself what yo say, but you typically follow an accepted form (beginning with "Dear Heavenly Father" and ending with "rejoicing in the fellowship of all your saints...etc..etc..amen. Traditionally it is done by the priest, but in these more progressive times it's someone from the congregation. Some people go on and on and on until in the end no one's listening. I keep mine short - usually because I put it off to the last minute to write it (tell the truth and shame the Devil!) - but short intercessions are generally preferred by the congregation. Anyway, this is the one week I definitely can't afford to be sloppy. Anyone got anything prayerworthy they want me to include?
  11. I thought on Thursday when *the news* came, I didn't envy whoever was down to lead intercessions in church this Sunday. Guess who it is... This is the one Sunday service everyone's going to remember for ever, so if I muck up intercessions that's my place in history assured. Wish me luck...
  12. It's hard to tell if the chandelier is in the foreground or hanging directly over the tub. In the latter case I wouldn't care to take a shower with the lights on!
  13. I believe Charles II was quite popular in his day because he lifted most of the puritanical policies of the Protectorate. The problem was that as a descendant of Scottish kings, he took the idea of divine rights a bit more seriously than did most Englishmen, and overruled objections to his Catholic brother succeeding him. From his perspective this was a disaster, but it precipitated a largely peaceful revolution which gave us the moderate form of monarchy we still have today.
  14. Just a small point - Queen Anne was the last woman to hold the title "Queen of England", and she died in 1714 (at which point she had not been Queen of England for 7 years). Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland etc...etc.)
  15. You're right- she served as a mechanic and a driver.
  16. You're partly right, but it's also a method of evaluating definite integrals of functions with no analytical integral, or indeed any equation form at all. (Though Simpson's rule is usually more accurate since it is based on a parabolic rather than linear interpolation.)
  17. I'm not the right person to judge the medical quality of the paper, but it may be fine in that regard - particularly if researchers had been using cruder methods and could gain greater precision using trapezoids (though Simpson's rule would be better still). But you must admit it's comical that in the very first sentence of the abstract she names a method known for millennia after herself. No one unilaterally names their own discoveries anyway. (Well almost no one: the only other example I can think of is the "Hovind Theory" - named by Kent Hovind - that the ice age was caused by an "ice meteor" breaking apart in the earth's atmosphere and falling as "super-cold snow".) Most scientists have the humility to let others decide whether they deserve the accolade of an equation named after them.
  18. It's not going to happen. A few years ago they tried to abolish the Lord Chancellor, but the paperwork made it a dozen times more trouble than it was worth. To abolish the monarchy would be a hundred times worse. It would make Brexit look like a doddle!
  19. She just died We now have a king I'm in shock
  20. As a young postdoc who had recently transferred from one field of research (semiconductors) to another (telecommunications), I independently "discovered" the Erlang-B formula and Bayes' Scolium. Fortunately I was disillusioned by "older, wiser and better people" before making an ass of myself in the literature, but other people have not been so lucky. Like Mary M. Tai. You can read her paper here: TaisMethod.pdf (berkeley.edu). You'll notice at once that "Tai's Mathematical Model" (as she calls it) is nothing but the trapezoidal rule. I could understand it if Tai didn't take calculus (or even pre-calculus) at school, but can this be true? Her mathematical notation is immaculate and she uses the sigma notation for addition perfectly. She even uses the word "abscissa" correctly! So how can she think that she "invented" (and gets the honour of naming!) a technique familiar to every 16-year-old? I read somewhere that this paper has over 400 citations - so she's clearly doing well out of it!
  21. The cultural references in Family Guy are a constant source of amazement to me: I wonder how many people "got" this? (I only did because my daughter happened to pick up a copy of the original book in a church rummage sale. It's actually no less cruel and silly than the Family Guy parody!) https://worldhistorycommons.org/der-struwwelpeter-slovenly-peter
  22. It bugs me a bit as well but I'm always told it is now acceptable usage. A bit like splitting infinitives and saying "begs the question" when you mean "raises the question". A few years ago someone gave me a very amusing book called "Doctor Whom". Doctor Whom is similar to Doctor Who, with the exception that he travels the universe correcting everyone's grammar, making a lot of enemies in the process!
  23. Yes I agree with you about Shakespeare - I prefer the original over " translations" - though these paraphrases do have their place in teaching Shakespearian language. The difference with the Bible for me is I don't (usually) go to it for its literary beauty but for its meaning. The original languages of the Bible are as different from 1611 English as they are from the English we speak today. As for the Book of Mormon I don't hear 16th Century English so much as a 19th Century attempt to mimic it. Perhaps it's just because I've used modern Bible translations most of my life that it sticks out to me so much. I daresay for the people of Joseph Smith's time, it would have just flowed over them as "Bible language".
  24. That is a great soliloquy though isn't it? "Why do we put up with so much crap when we could easily put an end to it by topping ourselves? It must be that we're worried something even worse might be waiting for us on the other side. That's always the problem: we overthink things and end up doing nothing!" Shakespeare's version was better I know!
  25. No "problem" - just a matter of personal taste I suppose. I've no problem understanding the Book of Mormon - or the 1611 for that matter, though I dont use it much. The NIV is my main "go to" Bible followed by the NRSV and the Good News. I do occasionally use the King James if I want something I can be sure is very close to the original wording, but if it's NT I more often consult a Greek interlinear online.