I just remember the trick where "61.61 is a portion of 205.37, the same way that ?? percent is a portion of 100." YOu draw that as the aforementioned equation:

61.61/205.37 = ??/100

And then you do the criss-cross trick! top-left and bottom-right go together, and bottom-left and top-right go together (this is much easier to draw than to describe) so you end up with this:

61.61 * 100 = 6161 = 205.37 * ??

And then you divide both sides by 205.37.

6161/205.37 = (205.37/205.37) *??

Since anything divided by itself is 1, you end up with:

6161/205.37 = ??

And then you just type it into a calculator and find out it is actually 29.9995%! Which rounds up to 30 in a way that only makes really nitpicky people cry.

I have to sit down and draw out each step of this process sometimes. (Not all the time.) I am also the sort who, when converting feet to inches, sometimes have to do the little hand-gesture, "larger-to-smaller, multiply. Smaller-to-larger, divide." It's like the Watusi, except you can do it sitting down.

Can you tell it's almost tax time?

The cool thing about expressing such problems as a pair of fractions is that it works for all sorts of % problems.

Say you have 18 toasters. That's 57% of the number of toasters that you need. How many toasters do you need?

57% means 57/100. You have 18 out of a total of some unknown number. So,

57/100 = 18/x

The cool thing about expressing such problems as a pair of fractions is that it works for all sorts of % problems.

I'm not denying that formulae are more flexible, etc.

I love the math.

However, not everyone does--so if someone uses the term "math idiot" I'm gonna provide a method to solve that problem.

Question about teapots. The assumption in design is that you serve the whole pot at once, right? Otherwise the second pouring is too strong and old. What if you're one person that wants two (consecutive) cups of the same brew?

I just wanted to get the answer with the least amount of button-presses on my calculator.

You know what, this is old, but I heard about it again and realized Scalia is sort of scary. From a dissent in the Kentucky ten commandments case.

"If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word "God," or "the Almighty," one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists. The Thanksgiving Proclamation issued by George Washington at the instance of the First Congress was scrupulously nondenominational—but it was monotheistic.

Historical practices thus demonstrate that there is a distance between the acknowledgment of a single Creator and the establishment of a religion. The three most popular religions in the United States, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—which combined account for 97.7 percent of all believers—are monotheistic. All of them, moreover (Islam included), believe that the Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses, and are divine prescriptions for a virtuous life. Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishable, insofar as discriminating against other religions is concerned, from publicly honoring God. Both practices are recognized across such a broad and diverse range of the population—from Christians to Muslims—that they cannot be reasonably understood as a government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint.

I got it from [link]

The gist seems to be that it's okay to disregard atheists and any religion without Moses.

I just wanted to get the answer with the least amount of button-presses on my calculator.

Eh, you already had the right answer. So now you're the meat of philosophy debate, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Gah. There's a bullet point in someone else's meeting minutes that neither of us can decipher. Somehow it's become my job to puzzle it out...

Take the tea leaves out? Though I don't think that addresses the "old" factor.

Or! I know! Drink faster!

Eh, you already had the right answer.

You had the right answer with you all the time. Just click your heels together...

Or maybe the answer is in your heart.