HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: xm9@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (richard g. adair)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: sexual dimorphism on hands bones
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:43:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <57409@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> archive@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (DCG Mktg Docmnt (Ivrea)) writes:
>
        Our research is focused on the study of the carpus and
    metacarpal in order to analyze sexual dimorphism connected
    to the differentiate use of the right hand and left hand,
    putting in evidence also the pathologies found.
>

I regret that I have nothing to contribute, but this sounds
fascinating.  Please update us on your findings.
Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:1565 talk.religion.misc:23630
From: v187ef4y@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Patrick J Crowe)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Hermaphrodites
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:56:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec8.073311.20301@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
 dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes...
> 
>Religions always seem to make pretty black & white laws regarding
>sexuality and on the whole condemn homosexuality/bisexuality.
> 
>Does anyone know of any reference of a case study of how a
>religious group/entity responded (in practice & in their theology)
>to a real case of a hermaphrodite wanting to get married.

Black and white, perhaps, but many cultures have more than two genders.
Ancient Greece made an institutional practice of male homosexuality.  I
believe Navaho has three genders.  Perhaps you intended "religions" to 
mean only those ideological systems with full-time bureaucracies?

As to the final question, I've never heard of it, but perhaps you could 
look in the HRAF.

-Pat Crowe, SUNY at Buffalo
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,talk.religion.misc
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Hermaphrodites
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:56:33 GMT
Summary:  Greek genders

In article <Bz4D5w.91t@acsu.buffalo.edu> v187ef4y@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Patrick J Crowe) writes:

>Black and white, perhaps, but many cultures have more than two genders.
>Ancient Greece made an institutional practice of male homosexuality.  I

Stick to the American case; the Greeks were insistent on a binary
gender system.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@panix.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
(please note address)			With your crooked heart."
Newsgroups: sci.edu
From: tilo@nmr.lpc.ethz.ch (Tilo Levante)
Subject: Re: Student attitudes
Organization: NMR-Group, Physical Chemistry Lab., ETH-Zuerich, Switzerland
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:14:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.151314.17428@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
|> >If the physics department teaches calculus, what are the mathematicians
|> >going to do?
|> 
|>      If the physics department teaches physics (including calculus) to
|> its students, the mathematics department can teach mathematics to its
|> students in the way it sees fit.  It can also offer courses to students
|> who are just plain interested in the subject.  The current system serves no one
|> particularly well.  Even when there are separate courses for math
|> majors, departments such as physics apply considerable pressure to keep
|> the contents of these courses consistent with those of the "math for
|> physical scientists" courses.  This is not done maliciously; the physics
|> department often just thinks that a properly designed (by physics
|> standards) "math for mathematicians" course is good for their students.
|> Unfortunately, it's bad for the math students and not that great for the
|> physics students either.

I also work as teaching assistant in a physical chemistry lab course and can
agree with your argument from that view.

But on the other hand, I think that already now, the connections
between different departments are very very weak. For students,
the only contact to "neighbor" sciences and the departments are only
through these courses.

I think it is a good training for students to learn things from
a different view. I myself studied Computer Science and we had to
take the same courses as the math-students for a bachalor degree.
This good basic education in mathematics helped me much in physical
chemistry.

The courses like "math for chemists" are (at least from my point of
view) bad, because they assume, that a chemist can not learn the
therory and tries to give many, many cooking recipe, without conection.
I belive that most chemists are not able to give a good lecture about
mathematics.

Tilo


Newsgroups: sci.edu,sci.math
From: mgb@moksha.uucp (Michael Branton)
Subject: Re: Student attitudes
Followup-To: sci.math
Reply-To: mgb@moksha.uucp (Michael Branton)
Organization: Totally Disorganized
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:47:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.155710.24168@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>  
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>      The right thing to do is to stop sending physicists to math
> departments to learn calculus and linear algebra.  It just doesn't make  
sense.
> Physics is built on these elementary subjects.  The current
> arrangement serves the students very poorly since the math has to be
> taught in physics class anyway, not being taught quickly enough in
> "real" mathematics courses.  Any physicist worthy of the name can teach
> calculus and algebra as well as a mathematician could, and to any degree
> of rigour required. 

I would agree that physicists could teach calculus and algebra. "As well as  
any mathematician could..." is, of course, a statement whose truth relies at  
least upon what concepts and viewpoint is desired. My experience has been that  
the emphasis within physics is usually on manipulations and cookbook  
techniques (so that one can get down to the real work at hand.) That you claim  
it could be done to any degree of rigour required, I take as prima facie  
evidence that you suffer from a narrow viewpoint as to what calculus might be  
about, the ways in which the ideas can be presented and thus what role  
mathematics should play in a student's education. It is an attitude whose  
arrogance seems to occur from time to time among some in the natural  
sciences....( I didn't want to just offend you and the physicists who would  
agree with you, after all :-) )

> >Some years ago, we tried to put in a "Mathematical Methods" course, but
> >the math department made a fuss about our invading their turf, so the
> >proposal got shot down.
> 
>      The math department shouldn't be able to say how we will educate
> our physicists.  It's none of their business.
> 

I certainly agree to that, however you might wish to consider the fact there  
are perspectives on mathematics which are best conveyed by those who are  
mathematicians, and that even physicists can benefit from a broadened point of  
view.

-- 


-Michael

Newsgroups: sci.edu
From: mkreyka@cs.vu.nl (Kreijkamp M)
Subject: WANTED: Research Project
Organization: Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:15:52 GMT

Hello,

I am a student Human Movement Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. Before graduation, I have to participate in a research
project. I would very much like to do that abroad. But of course I have to
find a suitable project first. That's why I put this article on the
news. By this means, I hope to get information on future projects or
even find myself a placement.

I was thinking of the following subjects (in random order):

	- the effect of reduced barometric pressure on physiological
	  response to exercise
	- efficiency of breathing (lung disease patients vs. healthy
	  subjects)
	- exercise under water
	- human achievements in breath-hold diving (in comparison to
	  sea-mammals)
	- effects of hypoxic training
	- physiological adaptations to weightlessness
	- fatigue of the respiratory muscles
	- biomechanics
	- 3D analyses

And the following countries (in order of preference):

	- USA
	- Great Britain
	- Russia/CIS
	- Canada
	- Australia
	- Belgium

All information is welcome (e-mail!). Many thanks in advance,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Maartje Kreykamp                And it was eleven o'clock.
                                     Which was Time-for-a-little-something...
 e-mail: mkreyka@cs.vu.nl                    The House at Pooh Corner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.edu
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Math books for young kids (Was: Is Math Hard?)
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A74FBA4830021C23@rs17-annex3.sfu.ca>
X-Xxdate: Sat, 12 Dec 92 23:48:24 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d13
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:47:44 GMT

My favorite kids' math book is "Mathematics, a Human Endeavor" by Harold 
Jacobs. We bought one as a Christmas gift for our oldest boy when he was 
about eight years old. He loved it, almost to death, and by the time the 
three boys had all had their way with it it was thoroughly disreputable, 
so we bought another, just to have on hand. For some reason our daughter, 
two years older than the boy we bought it for, never found the book 
attractive.

Don't let the pretentious title put you off. You can probably check this 
book out of your local library for a trial run before ordering one from 
Freeman. It is casebound and somewhat more expensive than the run-of-the-
mill children's book. It may also be thought that this book is for older 
children. Don't prejudge it; if three of my four kids liked it that much 
(and the didn't even have to ask us lots of questions while reading it) 
it is, indeed, a children's book.

Leigh Palmer
Newsgroups: sci.edu
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Student attitudes
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:13:14 GMT

In article <92350.162157HASSLER@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> HASSLER@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
(John Hassler) writes:
>    It is rather pointless to argue based upon reason and logic.  We are,
>after all, discussing universities.  Politics, by whatever euphemism you
>may wish to call it, has a great deal to do with who teaches what.

     Here, we agree.

>If the physics department teaches calculus, what are the mathematicians
>going to do?

     If the physics department teaches physics (including calculus) to
its students, the mathematics department can teach mathematics to its
students in the way it sees fit.  It can also offer courses to students
who are just plain interested in the subject.  The current system serves no one
particularly well.  Even when there are separate courses for math
majors, departments such as physics apply considerable pressure to keep
the contents of these courses consistent with those of the "math for
physical scientists" courses.  This is not done maliciously; the physics
department often just thinks that a properly designed (by physics
standards) "math for mathematicians" course is good for their students.
Unfortunately, it's bad for the math students and not that great for the
physics students either.
     Lest anyone think I'm unfairly picking on mathematics, I have a
similar bone to pick with all service courses.  I am currently employed
as a tutor in a "physical chemistry for the life sciences" course.  Part
of the problem with any service course is exactly that outlined above:
Conflicting demands placed on us by the various departments which
require their students to take such a course make it impossible for us to
satisfy either the students or their departments.  The biochemistry
department knows which parts of physical chemistry they want their
students to learn:  Let them teach it themselves.  Similarly, each of
the other departments mandating this course could teach the selected bits
of physical chemistry they want.  Let them contract with our department
for instructors if they don't have faculty and students qualified to
teach the subject, but let them retain control over the curriculum by
taking on the administrative and fiscal responsibilities associated with it.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Xref: sparky sci.edu:1239 comp.edu:2202 sci.math:17009
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Teaching Calc in Physics (was Re: Student attitudes)
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:02:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.150943.24178@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
kevin@sherman.pas.rochester.edu (kevin mcfadden) writes:
>It also
>seems that a lot of math professors do not enjoy teaching, which hurts
>the students because they don't think the professor gives a damn.
>It seems that math/physics professors want to be continuing their
>research and not teaching.
[...]
>    As far as physics professors go, I think that they care more
>about the teaching.

     One of the most important determinants of instructor motivation is
the institutional attitude towards teaching.  Here at the University
of Toronto for instance, teaching has traditionally not been taken into
consideration much when determining promotion and tenure.  (This seems
to be changing, although it's always hard to tell.)  The result is
predictable:  People who want to be good teachers go elsewhere; people who might
have been good teachers given a little encouragement concentrate on
their research instead because their jobs depend on that; a few
exceptional individuals manage to be good teachers without spending too
much time on it.  By way of contrast, at Queen's University, teaching
was considered equally with research in determining who stayed and who
went so that bad teachers were the exception rather than the norm.  If
almost all of your teachers seem indifferent, your school probably has
hiring policies similar to those of the U. of T.
     It's also a little dangerous to compare between departments.  Among
other things, teaching loads often vary from department to department.
Here in Canada, it is common for mathematicians to have teaching loads
fifty to one hundred percent higher than those of physical scientists.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Newsgroups: sci.edu
From: nkjrm@taxus.uib.no (Rolf Manne)
Subject: Re: UNIX
Organization: University of Bergen
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:37:30 GMT

In article <T8oyuB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> forcer@netlink.cts.com (Nicholas Rahaghi) writes:

>At our local high-school we have a problem. Our school, is meant to be 
>a center for Computer/Science and Math, and attempts to live up to that 
>name. Recently, we have acquired a new Physical Network of 386 
>computers. Most teachers and administrators have resolved to run NOVELL 
>Netware as the operating system. I, an a few others feel that UNIX may be 
>a better environment. In your opinion, Is UNIX proper for a High-school 
>programming environment?

I have used neither but our department is in the process of buying
a classroom of PC compatibles (386 or 486 SX) for elementary chemistry
education. We expect the students to do the majority of their
work on their local machines and to use the net mainly for output. In 
addition, the supervisor would use it for loading of programs from the 
server to the local hard disks. This situation is different from the classic 
scientific set-up with many users processing simultaneously on a high-speed 
computer from more or less dumb terminals. 

I would think that your use of the net would be similar and would therefore
not be afraid of the Novell solution.

More important for my decisions would be what the cost is and what kind of 
technical support I can get for the two alternatives.

Whichever solution you end up with, you will have problems :-) :-)

Rolf Manne
Department of Chemistry, University of Bergen, Norway
e-mail Rolf.Manne@uib.no
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: sci.edu
Subject: Re: UNIX
Date: 14 Dec 1992 13:59:01 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
NNTP-Posting-Host: grissom.larc.nasa.gov

dobrien@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
> Up to 50 terminals can be run on UNIX, provided they are all doing work
> which doesn't hog time on the CPU to a great extent

Strange, our Cray machine here on base is running a UNIX, and often has
two hundred people or more on it.  On the other hand, my PDP-11 at home
is running UNIX and has a hard time keeping up with two users in vi.  It
has something to do with the available I/O bandwidth, as well as the CPU
power, don't you think?
--scott
Newsgroups: sci.edu
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Teaching Calc in Physics (was Re: Student attitudes)
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:03:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.012057.28418@orlith.bates.edu> pfaulsti@abacus.bates.edu
(Paul Faulstich) writes:
>The bottom line is that I think that it is ESSENTIAL that we not isolate
>ourselves from other disciplines.  Many students are not sure, especially
>in their first year, of what they wish to major in.  To force them to take
>calculus with the math department OR physics/calculus with the physics
>department would be a real tragedy.

     I don't entirely disagree with this, but the sad fact is that most
math courses take too long to get to the punch line.  I like proofs as
much as anyone (perhaps more than most) but in introductory courses, you
want to convey the spirit of the work, not the rigorous basis.  The only
other alternative is for students to take a double helping of
math in first year and not to take any physics at all until second year.
Perhaps that's actually a better solution, now that I think of it.
     Besides, as long as all the same topics are covered (albeit in a
different sequence and with different emphasis) why should taking one
stream prevent a qualified student from switching later?  It should be
up to the faculty or school to decide what constitutes equivalent
coursework, not up to the departments.

>Any student which is graduated from a college is the
>concern of everyone in the college.  Don't forget that many physics majors
>are math majors too!

     Some are.  More to the point, the faculty or school to which a department
belongs has a responsibility to oversee the quality of the programmes
offered.  I simply disagree with the idea that only card-carrying
mathematicians know what constitutes appropriate mathematical
education or, for that matter, that any department should be able to
decide how another department's academic programmes should be run.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 15 Dec 1992 16:21:56 EST
From: John Hassler <HASSLER@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.edu
Subject: Re: Student attitudes
 <1992Dec14.004705.1811@moksha.uucp>
 <1992Dec15.151923.5433@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>

In article <1992Dec15.151923.5433@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) says:
>
>In article <1992Dec14.004705.1811@moksha.uucp> mgb@moksha.uucp (Michael       )
>Branton
>writes:
>>I would agree that physicists could teach calculus and algebra. "As well as
>>any mathematician could..." is, of course, a statement whose truth relies at
>>least upon what concepts and viewpoint is desired.
........................................
>                     Every physicist worthy of the name knows these
>subjects at least as well as most mathematicians.  Since the math
>departments don't guarantee that these courses will be taught by experts
>(only that they will be taught by departmental staff), I don't see what
>we would lose by having physicists teach them.
.........................................
>     Physicists already teach advanced mathematics courses.  (These
>courses are often either called "mathematical physics" or they are
>disguised as "advanced classical mechanics" or "general relativity" or
>something like that.)
.........................................

[The above quotes ripped, bruised and bleeding, out of context.]
    It is rather pointless to argue based upon reason and logic.  We are,
after all, discussing universities.  Politics, by whatever euphemism you
may wish to call it, has a great deal to do with who teaches what.  If
the physics department teaches calculus, what are the mathematicians
going to do?  Teach a duplicate course?  I doubt it.  (And it is
very difficult to convince a cost-conscious administration that the
calculus course taught in physics is really different from the course
with a similar syllabus in mathematics.)
    In fact, "who teaches what" is often determined by the outcome of
fairly bloody turf battles.  The motivation is, of course, that if
somebody else starts teaching Chem. Eng., I'm out of a job.  So I will
be rather sensitive to the subject matter taught in courses in other
departments.  (Which is the reason that advanced math. taught in physics
is called "Underwater Basket Weaving and Applied Analysis",  or some other
misleading title.)
    And as to which professor teaches a given course, we again must consider
other factors.  Professor X is an excellent teacher, who has kept up with
the cutting edge of his topic.  Professor Y hasn't opened a journal in 35
years.  You have to staff a beginning calculus service course, and an
advanced graduate course for your own majors.  What do you do?  (Why, of
course you do.  Wouldn't anybody?)
    It is very difficult to understand any complex system unless you
identify the actual causitive factors.
======================================================================
J. C. Hassler          Dept. of Chem Eng.        U of Maine
Newsgroups: sci.edu
From: dobrien@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: UNIX
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:52:32 GMT

In article <T8oyuB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, forcer@netlink.cts.com (Nicholas Rahaghi) writes:
> At our local high-school we have a problem. Our school, is meant to be 
> a center for Computer/Science and Math, and attempts to live up to that 
> name. Recently, we have acquired a new Physical Network of 386 
> computers. Most teachers and administrators have resolved to run NOVELL 
> Netware as the operating system. I, an a few others feel that UNIX may be 
> a better environment. In your opinion, Is UNIX proper for a High-school 
> programming environment?
> 
> Please forward mail : Forcer@netlink.cts.com
> Or Nicholas Rahaghi,
>    7636, San Diego CA. 92126
> 
> 
> --                    
> INTERNET:  forcer@netlink.cts.com (Nicholas Rahaghi)
> UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!forcer
> NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115

I feel that it may be a good environment so long as you limit the range of
commands using a shell script in order to concentrate on the intended 
course material, rather than having to learn commands which at first sight 
may appear terse and illogical to high school students. However, it has, in 
my opinion, one of the best "network" systems going, and is the easiest to 
manage. In addition, most UNIX-based systems, to my knowledge, are geared 
to science and engineering, if this is what you want. Up to 50 terminals 
can be run on UNIX, provided they are all doing work which doesn't hog time
on the CPU to a great extent, which I suspect they won't. If you plan to 
teach them the command language, it is like the "C" language, so you might 
as well teach them "C" (unless you only wish to teach them the on-line 
commands.