Originally Posted by floydie-pink (Post 910657)

We have moved house last september and have a faily dececnt sized front and back garden (Both of wich need alot of work!).
I started clearing the back before the bad snow hit us (pulling out brambles, weed spraying, digging what will be the rockery over and lineing a patch i was hopeing to start with).
I spent an afternon in the garden this week lobbing the tops off grass (growing between the paveing slabs) putting together what will be either a veggy patch or deep border (not decided what to put were yet really) and just tidying up alittle (hopeing to get out there later today too if the weather holds off!).
I also had abit of a play about on the yard area by my back door as i wanted some colour not a scrap of mud that was there before (we made a small raised ish border) my winter flowering plants have now died back and spring bulbs are pokeing through.
Sorry if my post is long i just want to give an idea of what i am working with (basicly a garden thats mostly paving slabs :-().

Originally Posted by Rusty Hinge[_2_] (Post 911552)

kay wrote:

What do you mean by "it worked"?

Do you mean "everybody could multiply relatively small numbers together
in their heads" or do you mean"everybody had a good understanding of
percentages, differentials, risk and the other concepts that are
necessary in order to make decisions in everyday life"?

What has that to do with learning your 'times' tables?

Originally Posted by (Post 911670)

In article ,
Martin lid wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 22:13:19 +0000, kay wrote:

But I think the time could be better spent.

Teaching statistics to 6-8 year olds?

Or probability, at least. There isn't a problem doing that, and
most will learn it readily.

For example, just recently
I've seen two newspapers make the same mistake - in the one case, a
couple had just had their third child, and all three children had been
born on the same date, the chances of which, according to the newspaper,
were "an astonishing 48 million to 1".

It would be astonishing if it were true, but the right answer is about
133 thousand to 1.

It wasn't the newspaper that was wrong. The Daily Mail quoted a professor of
Pure Mathematics

And what evidence do you have that the Daily Wail quoted him
correctly? My money is on a misquotation.
.