Showing posts with label judiciary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judiciary. Show all posts

Friday, September 07, 2007

higher math


I saw a man at the 401 bus stop wearing a black pirate-y eye patch. Eye patches (2) have now drawn even with unicycle sightings in the Paddle. The patch wearer was, of course, smoking a cig.

The Eleven and the boys decided that Thursday nights would be filled with pizza and movies this semester. X doesn’t get home until about 9pm from classes so a homemade deep dish followed by a DVD or trip to the theatre seem like a good idea. It kicked off last night with the three of us heading over to Ballston to see Transformers. My knowledge of Transformers falls on the spectrum very near my knowledge of heels on women’s shoes (kitten?), and Pokemon. On the way home H. decided to pass along some additional information about other Transformer generations…ahhhh! I decided the equivalent for him would me passing along this little dissertation on mathematics after watching him do his long-division homework:

Me: “That was some good math. After that you’ll learn that the method of separation of variables will yield particular solutions…”

Henry: “Wait. I don’t know anything about that.”

Me:
“I know, but this is right after long division. Those partial solutions of a linear partial differential equation on very simple domains such as rectangles may satisfy initial or boundary conditions. Isn’t that cool?"

Henry:
[eyes rolling back in his head] “But that’s way more than I want to know.”

Me: “Okay, but, because any superposition of solutions of a linear PDE is again a solution, the particular solutions may then be combined to obtain more general solutions. You see?”

Henry: [falls from his chair to the floor]

Me: “Henry? Anyway, if the domain is finite or periodic, an infinite sum of solutions such as a Fourier series is appropriate, but an integral of solutions such as a Fourier integral is generally required for infinite domains. It’s very cool.”

Henry: [mumbling from the floor] “What does that have to do with Optimus Prime?”

It’s not really Henry. X will no doubt testify that I’m guilty of not using enough yes and no answers if I feel there should be more to a story.

One clerkship interview has been offered from West Virginia for X’s application process (see our Sunday). She’s also received two offers for publication of her environmental paper on Atlantic tuna fishing, very impressive. Of course, I’m published many times a month.

The Stranger had a hilarious reader input concerning the Sen. Craig issue. I’ve got nothing much to say about the tomfoolery so I’ll just leave to others. The comments below the picture made me laugh on a Friday…and that’s good enough.

T.

Monday, February 12, 2007

onions

I’m waaaay behind on the politics. I started some work on Joe Biden, got distracted on the Clarence Thomas hearings, and haven’t got back to my assignment (I’m sure I’ll be docked when grading comes around). Here’s a link to Justice Thomas’ statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee at the end of the confirmation hearings way back in 1991. What intrigues me is the fact that there is no way we’ll ever hear a nominee for a judgeship or political office speak out publicly as Thomas did that day. Not in America, not in these days while everyone is simply trying to not say anything. Those hearings were something and remember watching snippets of them over lunch while stationed in England and thinking just how shameful the behavior was. I don’t know the truth or untruth behind the accusations, nor would I try to parse out the "he said, she said" testimony in 2007, but I admire the delivery.