I've figured it out -- the TSA is groping towards quantum physics, I just don't know how to explain it, any more than I know how to explain the probability density function of an electron. The TSA scanning and pat downs are only in place to find whole bombs, not pieces of them -- they can't find a whole bomb. They can't find an average bomb spread over a number of passengers. It's analogous to finding electrons. (It is a separate argument that the measurement changes where the probability function of where the electron will be, but that also applies to this situation.) The TSA knows, on average, that there must be a bomb or a terrorist out there somewhere. They know (and I quibble with this knowledge, but it isn't important to the argument) that the probability is 100 per cent that that bomb or terrorist will be flying on a plane. So if they sample a random proportion of the potential passengers, they think they will somehow find the bomb (or the electron) because they have made a statistical sample of the full probability density. They are convinced that they have a 100 per cent probability of finding a piece of the bomb (or the electron) because they have sampled the entire space. What they haven't figured out is that the electron, or the bomb, is not spread out (averaged) over the entire area. It's in ONE SPOT and if you don't sample every single spot, you won't ever see it. Same with electrons (but somehow this throws physicists for a loop just as well as it does the TSA). Also, as with electrons, if you start sampling for the bomb, it won't be there anymore. In the link I posed the passenger is getting OFF a plane, has no intention of getting on a connecting flight, but claims he was still required to go through the scanner or the pat down just to leave the airport. All the TSA is trying to do is pin down where the electron is. But finding it is of no use to them, because this guy isn't even getting on a plane. However, they are more concerned with sampling than with finding the actual bomb, because they know, intuitively, that they must sample the entire space in order to find the bomb. They can't let passengers leave the airport just because they are already getting off a plane because the TSA has a sense that they (the TSA) have missed sampling part of the sampling space if these passengers were not part of the original group that could have been sampled. Maybe some statistician pointed out to them that their sampling was biased by missing this group, or maybe they sensed it on their own. If the govt was only worried about things getting into the US they'd be doing pat downs at the borders, not just at the airports.

This is a site where a guy is claiming he had already gotten off his international flight (arriving in the US) and the TSA still had a policy in place that he needed to be scanned or patted down. He's getting OFF the plane, not on. So why is the TSA insisting on scanning him? This isn't a researched news article, so I'm not quite sure if this is really true or not. But if it is true, what in the world are they looking for in a passenger who just got OFF a plane. He apparently wasn't even catching a connecting flight. http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter (I hope the link works -- it only worked for me the second time I tried.) "This new line led to a TSA security checkpoint. You see, it is official TSA policy that people (both citizens and non-citizens alike) from international flights are screened as they enter the airport, despite the fact that they have already flown. Even before the new controversial security measures were put in place, I found this practice annoying. But now, as I looked past the 25 people waiting to get into their own country, I saw it: the dreaded Backscatter imaging machine."

You might see if Vandiver's lectures on Herodotus (from the Teaching Company) are available at your library. Even if you decide to go with Thucydides, her info on Herodotus is a nice comparison.

David Brooks and Gail Collins give their opinion on big name schools. And then they talk about some other unrelated things: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/college-kids-these-days/?ref=opinion The college counselor at our local high school assured me that she has never seen a kid not get into college -- just so long as they aim for schools that will want them (and that they manage to graduate from high school).

For French we've used Pimsleur French in Action We got Pimsleur at the library for free. If your library doesn't have it, try inter library loan. We get a 3 week loan period, so we could, potentially, get through one of the half-levels in that time period. I will warn you that Pimsleur French after level I may not make a whole lot of sense unless you are also doing some grammar. (The Pimsleur Spanish is much easier, probably because Spanish is spelled more phonetically.) The free videos for French in Action are here: http://www.learner.org/resources/series83.html I got the text used for 20 dollars. It's mostly a transcript of the video, with a little extra reading, so it won't do the grammar for you. (You might not even need the text, unless you're having trouble understanding the videos.) There are FIA grammar workbooks you can buy (which can be gotten used) but in order for them to work, you'd need the audio tapes. I know the audio used to be on the web somewhere, but I've lost the link. If you don't do the French in Action workbook, you will need some other grammar book. There are tons of them out there. Just find something cheap. First year french textbooks are probably a good resource. The ones I have are just as good as the FIA grammar workbooks (maybe better) so I wouldn't bother with the FIA workbook if you have a better option. (The videos are great, but the books assoc with FIA are just the run of the mill French books you could get anywhere.) This has worked better for us than Rosetta Stone. We used to have free access to Rosetta Stone and even though it was free we gave up on it. The company does say they've improved it, but I can't tell how much without buying it and I'm not willing to fork over the cash when I know their last edition was pretty worthless.

Not only do the vast majority of kids get into a college they like, a significant number of them get merit financial aid. I wouldn't worry. If your daughter is passionate about just one thing (ballet) that will do a lot for her chance of getting in and getting some money. Apply to state schools just in case, but don't rule out private schools. They often turn out to be cheaper than the state schools once aid is factored in. You won't know until you apply. And many schools are now waiving application fees if the student applies online. Don't let middling test scores and grades discourage you. I've seen a number of kids come through the scholarship programs at our school who weren't stellar students in high school. Colleges are looking for more than grades. I'm not sure why anyone would want to go to a hard to get into school anyway. The people I've known who went to those places haven't been any smarter or more engaged. In some cases, they just have more unbearable attitude. The classes are similar, the professors pretty much the same. The only reason I can see for looking at some of the Ivies is that some of them don't charge tuition (or not much) to families with mid-range income. But if one gets into another school that provides merit aid, this may not be anything to get excited about.

My daughter only did the ACT and PSAT. The colleges she was looking at all accepted either ACT or SAT. Based on how well she understood the tests in the prep books, she decided the ACT would be more straight forward. The SAT does seem to have a lot of devious questions which make sense if you have LOTS of experience at math or if you have all the time in the world to take the test. This makes the SAT as a timed test to be a bit more difficult (but on the other hand, everyone's probably having the same difficulties, so the score one gets accounts for that). And she did not enjoy taking the PSAT, so that clinched the decision.

We got some thicker lead mechanical pencils at Office Max. They seem to have fixed the problem of leads breaking in the hands of those who press too hard.

I started a yahoo group for this sort of thing: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/charlottemasonselfed/?yguid=333082698 Unfortunately, it never got very active. It probably needed a lot more people. So it would be great if lots of people showed up over there and started discussing, but I'll be surprised (unfortunately) if it happens. I've also joined several other groups that were supposed to talk about these, but they all seemed to die from lack of participation. I would think that this forum on the WTM board might be your best bet. It seems that when people post questions about this sort of thing here, it does spark a discussion. The title of this forum does include "self-education" so I don't see that it would be out of line. I'd be interested in seeing more posts about self-education.

If you want to get even madder, go watch some of the videos of lectures at places like Harvard that are online. They're virtually the same course you'd get at any other college in the US, most community colleges included (yeah,some ccs are awful, but most really are giving a decent education). And keep in mind that the courses they're putting up on the web are probably the ones they're most proud of. So why does Harvard think they're so special? I can understand the idea of having all students studying the same material together as it builds more of an academic community. For that reason alone, I can understand where they're coming from. But it isn't about the quality of their courses. The Ivy Leagues really aren't any better than most other colleges. I've been at a number of colleges, big and small, private and public, including a couple ccs. The only difference I could ever see was in the motivation of the students -- and that wasn't always lower at the ccs. Sometimes it was higher. The big name schools like Harvard and Berkeley and such have themselves believing that a) they're attracting better students, and b) they're providing a better education, but it just isn't true. They aren't necessarily attracting the best students. Lots of really sharp kids that look like Harvard material are ending up at small liberal arts colleges, large state universities and ccs. And the kids I know who are going to Harvard and Yale are no brighter than them. In fact, they might be LESS bright, if only because they think they must be special because they're attending Harvard or wherever. As far as undergrad research goes, I have a running discussion with my neighbor who keeps telling me the quality of undergrad research in his fancy chem lab at the local U is SO much better than what kids are getting at the local private colleges. He's just misinformed. My job is working with undergrad research students at a small college, so I know. His fancy lab at the U isn't doing any better job with their undergrad (they only have one). The great thing about the undergrad research going on at the local private colleges is that every student who wants to do research is getting to do it. At that fancy chem lab at the U, they have ONE undergrad doing any research. Out of how many chem majors? And is that one undergrad publishing papers and presenting at meetings like our students are doing? I haven't heard that he is.

My oldest has been advising her younger sister not to take AP tests. She thinks they're a bother and not worth much. She gets a lot more out of taking the actual class. I don't completely agree with her, but I can kind of see where she's coming from. She is in favor of dual enrollment classes. The big thing she's noticing, though, is how little she's noticing having been homeschooled. She seems to fit right in.

I called a number of schools with these kinds of questions, and then some that the student probably should have asked. Even so, everyone at the schools was very helpful and didn't say I should have the student call. Individual professors might be different, but I had no problem with admissions offices.

Yep. In fact, that was one of the reasons we gave up on public school -- so my introverted, awkward kid could learn how to not be awkward in a supportive environment. She's still not one of those in your face extroverts, but honestly, now that she's in college majoring in theater, it would be difficult to call her an introvert (and difficult to call her uneducated as she's also double majoring in physics). BTW -- as far being sheltered -- yes, she was home most of the time, but we did let her out of her cage on occasion. Something must have sunk in. This week, her acting class went to a play that turned out to be very experimental, violent, shocking, etc. The professor who took them later confided that she was sorry she'd taken them. She hadn't known it was going to be quite that, um, challenging. So which were the kids in the class who were most shocked by it all? Not my homeschooled daughter. It was all the public school kids who had a problem with it.

I know that doctors will often tell their patients to take it every day, so it's considered to be somewhat safe. You do have to be careful not to overdose -- like forgetting you already took a pill and then taking another. I took it for years at night because of allergies. When I finally went off it, I had a couple bad nights where I didn't sleep much at all, but then things sorted themselves out and I could sleep again. So I wasn't as hooked as I feared. I only ever took half a dose. I figured if I got confused and got up in the night and took another half dose, I wouldn't overdose. However, benadryl is an appetite inducer. Many people gain a lot of weight if they're on it for a long period of time. My kids also sometimes have a lot of trouble sleeping and will take benadryl (or unisom) for nights on end. They seem to have the most trouble sleeping when their allergies are acting up, so I suppose it makes sense for them to do this. They will just get crazy from lack of sleep otherwise. However, we've been trying to cut the allergens out of their life rather than having them subsist on Benadryl. Also, my one daughter has discovered that she has asthma, and that using her inhaler is more helpful for her sleeping than the benadryl. I would bring it up with a doctor if your daughter wants to be taking it for more than a few nights in a row. (If you have a doctor you can afford.) I don't know what else you've tried to help her sleep. There are herbal remedies that people swear by. I don't know if they're any safer, though.

You've been having a rough time, and your kids are right there along for the ride. Even if they'd been in school, they'd probably be having difficulties with their education. It's not your fault life hit you hard recently. For your kids who can read,maybe just getting them to spend a lot of time reading would be helpful? They could pick up the rest later, when things calm down. There are also a lot of documentaries you could watch. This has been nice for us when things aren't going well, as we end up sitting around watching something educational while snuggling on the couch. My kids really have picked up a lot this way, and the extra physical contact has been nice when things are stressful. Even reading aloud to everyone (if you have the time for that) can be very educational. If you get the older kids to do the reading, they will get even more out of it (and give you a break). The year my dad died, we hardly got anything done. We were only able to recover the next year, because things let up a bit for us. But there are a lot of weeks even now, when things are on an even keel when we may only school for a couple days. (This is true of the public schools too.) If you really do feel that a stint of public school would be good for your kids, I wouldn't decide not to do it because they're "behind". Lots of kids in school are at the levels you're talking about. In fact, if the kids are behind, they might get more out of school than a kid who is average or ahead because the school will feel they have to deal with it.

Only the offbeat ones like WKRP, Dr. Who, The Good Neighbors... We do enjoy watching the old Star Treks, but only because they're so very, very bad. I forgot about Night Court. I should see if that's on Hulu. However, there weren't a lot of TV shows I remember from my childhood. My mom wasn't keen on us watching much. Mostly the TV was on for such fun shows as Washington Week in Review. I did finally get to watch some of Happy Days reruns when my kids were up in the middle of the night as babies. So at least I know what it was all about. They have gotten into I Dream of Jeannie and Green Acres because they were some of my husband's favorite shows, but they watch those when I'm not home. (So what are they hiding?)

Werther's is pretty good. But if you make it yourself, it's even better. You can make it with cream or whole milk like the recipes say, or you can make it with skim milk and it still tastes fine. (My kids like it much better with skim milk.) And we've finally figured out how to melt sugar to make caramel. You get a much better flavor that way than using corn syrup like all the recipes use. Problem is, melting sugar can very, very quickly turn into burnt sugar which not only tastes bad but can burn down your house. So you have to watch it every single second. It will sit doing nothing for the longest time, then melt and burn within seconds. So if you aren't willing to do that, then, sure Werther's isn't bad.

For me, it was chocolate. The stuff makes me feel just awful (can't sleep, heart racing, stomach upset, hair falling out, nails splintering off, hives all over, neck so stiff I couldn't drive very well...), but I couldn't stop eating it. Even though it tasted terrible to me. At some point, I just finally REALLY realized what I was doing to myself and quit (for the most part). But it took a couple years to convince myself. I had to say enough times: this stuff is awful for me. So maybe you're still at the stage of convincing yourself and the light is just around the corner. It's actually very freeing. I can now go to parties where chocolate is being served and not feel like I HAVE to have it. Coke makes me feel awful too, but for some reason I was never all that addicted to it.

The Chalice and the Blade (Riane Eisler) was a book about societies changing from more egalitarian to more male dominated in prehistory. Most of her science is considered to be a bit questionable by other experts, but it might be interesting to look at. But Eisley wasn't postulating a matriarchy. She supposed that there was more equality between the sexes.

Because checking snopes takes all the fun out of it. That's my impression anyway, from the responses I've got.

I looked up Thirkell and Godden, thinking it would be fun to read a book by them, but they each wrote a LOT of books. Has anyone read any of them to recommend which might be good starting points?

Our experience has been that you just can't tell. So, yes, you're not imagining it, you really can't figure out what will be best. It will depend not only on which college your child eventually goes to, but also their major, whether they are in the honors program, what their test scores are, and even the particular year they go to the school because policies change overnight. It will also depend on who else applies in the year your child applies -- are they stronger candidates that will knock your child out of the running for the full ride scholarships? I'm of the opinion that one should just worry about getting a good education in the here and now and let things sort themselves out later. You will drive yourself crazy if you try to play the game just right. And then you'll find out you did the wrong thing anyway. My oldest has a a few AP credits -- but only the calculus ones are going to do her any good. The history ones won't because she ended up in the honors program that requires they take all the honors classes -- which will duplicate the history credits. If she had decided to take AP physics or chemistry and IF she had gotten a 5 on them, then they would have counted for something -- but I'm not convinced she would have had as good a background in those areas if she had gone the AP route. If she'd got only a 4, she would have got nothing from them (credit wise) and would still have to take the class. She did take a number of dual enrollment classes. She finished the language requirement, but then ended up in a program that didn't require a language. She did some engineering courses that would have got her ahead, but then went to a school with no engineering program (there were other things she wanted from a college as well). I think all these classes were good for her, but they aren't going to save us any money. If your child is planning on a science field, I'd suggest trying to get the math out of the way. That seemed to be the one thing that transferred -- but even that doesn't always transfer. And this will only work successfully if your child is ready for that math. After that, I'd go for the basic science courses like chemistry and physics -- but only if you're reasonably sure they're going to transfer. Although, if they don't transfer, at the least your child will find the first year a lot easier than it would have been otherwise. The reason for getting these classes done is that they allow the student to start in the sophomore year of the science sequence. Taking composition is easy and possibly will get the student out of a class, but it doesn't move the student forward in the sequence, so it may not really save any time in the end. A lot of colleges would prefer students stay for the whole 4 years. It's not all financial. They just find that it makes for a better student body if everyone is around for the same things for the same amount of time. (If it were financial, they'd be happy to graduate their full ride scholars early, but they never encourage this.) Also, the students find that they would like to be there for the whole 4 years. There are internships and things that really make it worth their while to take their time before getting out on the job market (and might be the deciding factor in whether they ever get a job). It's not just the fun and games (although those are enticing too!).

Did the Consumer Reports article give any recommendations for dishwasher detergent brands?

But I read somewhere that they're going to be changing too. It's just not happening as soon.

"Canned" numbers are assumed to be exact so you don't worry about them in sig digits. I don't round anything until the final answer, and that seems to be what the textbooks I have are doing, based on their answers. If they were rounding in between, they'd come up with vastly different answers. What I don't like about sig figures is that there seem to be 2 methods: 1) only report the number of figures that are sig or 2) only report the same number of digits past the decimal point that the original data had. I don't think 2 is really correct, but I keep running into chem books that do this (even after only explaining method 1). Method 2 really shouldn't be correct, in my thinking, because it won't work if you put data into scientific notation. Has anyone else found this discrepancy?