the new math: old battle of the lovees was: PDP1 3570

Yes.

But I talk with experimentalists. I'm going to go ask them. I always do get this stuff wrong. Another one of my confusions is mixing up the words precision and accuracy.

With all due respect, you're just f***ing wrong. I know how this done, because I've seen it. I know what knowledge is completely gone and will have to be rediscovered again. And this wasn't even one generation's gap.

And they are using their tools properly. What happens when the calculator keeps telling the student he's wrong when it's the calculator's results that are wrong? And furthermore, everybody else's also says the student is wrong. How does this student go back to the basics and show that the calculator is wrong? Or is the computer always right? I don't like this atbreastude.

I didn't say they had no abilities. I said there is none of the thinking in medicine. Distributed processing doesn't work when one individual needs all the data in one spot, namely his GP's head.

The pharmacist had more confidence in the calculator's results than her "gut feel". This was an exception to all pharmaceutical rules of calculation. There is a reason why pills are made with .1 mg or .01 mg, etc. The presciption was a bizarre dosage that required cutting pills etc.

Note that, when you are treated for cancer, you're a guinea pig and established rules of dosage have not been pbutted by the FDA.

In addition, if you are female and old, you will always get a prescription that is an end. So you have to be able to cut your own drugs. This requires arithmetic of the mental kind.

BAH