[Read more posts about journaling here.]
I discovered the mother of all writing prompt lists this morning. And since we are coming down to the wire with our state test, I thought I would post these.  There are about 200 of each.  Enjoy!

Expository

http://www2.asd.wednet.edu/pioneer/barnard/wri/exp.htm

Narrative

http://www2.asd.wednet.edu/pioneer/barnard/wri/narr.htm

Persuasive

http://www2.asd.wednet.edu/pioneer/barnard/wri/per.htm

These are from Paula Banard’s website.

This might be useful for state writing assessments or other tests.

I found this information at Neatorama.com.

Here are the origins of several symbols we use in everyday life.

Question Mark

Origin: When early scholars wrote in Latin, they would place the word questio – meaning “question” – at the end of a sentence to indicate a query. To conserve valuable space, writing it was soon shortened to qo, which caused another problem – readers might mistake it for the ending of a word. So they squashed the letters into a symbol: a lowercased q on top of an o. Over time the o shrank to a dot and the q to a squiggle, giving us our current question mark.

Exclamation Point

Origin: Like the question mark, the exclamation point was invented by stacking letters. The mark comes from the Latin word io, meaning “exclamation of joy.” Written vertically, with the i above the o, it forms the exclamation point we use today.

Equal Sign

Origin: Invented by English mathematician Robert Recorde in 1557, with this rationale: “I will settle as I doe often in woorke use, a paire of paralleles, or Gmowe [i.e., twin] lines of one length, thus : , bicause noe 2 thynges, can be more equalle.” His equal signs were about five times as long as the current ones, and it took more than a century for his sign to be accepted over its rival: a strange curly symbol invented by Descartes.

Ampersand

Origin: This symbol is stylized et, Latin for “and.” Although it was invented by the Roman scribe Marcus Tullius Tiro in the first century B.C., it didn’t get its strange name until centuries later. In the early 1800s, schoolchildren learned this symbol as the 27th letter of the alphabet: X, Y, Z, &. But the symbol had no name. So, they ended their ABCs with “and, per se, and” meaning “&, which means ‘and.’” This phrase was slurred into one garbled word that eventually caught on with everyone: ampersand.

Octothorp

Origin: The odd name for this ancient sign for numbering derives from thorpe, the Old Norse word for a village or farm that is often seen in British placenames. The symbol was originally used in mapmaking, representing a village surrounded by eight fields, so it was named the octothorp.

Dollar Sign

Origin: When the U.S. government begin issuing its own money in 1794, it used the common world currency – the peso – also called the Spanish dollar. The first American silver dollars were identical to Spanish pesos in weight and value, so they took the same written abbreviations: Ps. That evolved into a P with an s written right on top of it, and when people began to omit the circular part of the p, the sign simply became an S with a vertical line through it.

Olympic Rings

Origin: Designed in 1913 by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the five rings represent the five regions of the world that participated in the Olympics: Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. While the individual rings do not symbolize any single continent, the five colors – red, blue, green, yellow, and black – were chosen because at least one of them is found on the flag of every nation. The plain white background is symbolic of peace.

I found this really interesting.  I thought I’d share.  I think it would make for an interesting writing prompt.

I found this infograpic interesting.  It comes from MOZY.COM’s blog.

This is a post from the most interesting math blog I have ever found (POLYMATHEMATICS).

Every year I get a few kids in my classes who argue with me on this.  And there are arguers all over the web.  And I just know I’m going to get contentious “but it just can’t be true” whiners in my comments.  But I feel obliged to step into this fray.

.9 repeating equals one.  In other words, .9999999… is the same number as 1.  They’re 2 different ways of writing the same number.  Kind of like 1.5, 1 1/2, 3/2, and 99/66.  All the same.  I know some of you still don’t believe me, so let me say it loudly:

Do you believe it yet?  Well, I do have a couple of arguments besides mere size.  Let’s look at some reasons why it’s true.  Then we’ll look at some reasons why it’s not false, which is something different entirely.  The standard algebra proof (which, if you modify it a little, works to convert any repeating decimal into a fraction) runs something like this.  Let x = .9999999…, and then multiply both sides by 10, so you get 10x = 9.9999999… because multiplying by 10 just moves the decimal point to the right.  Then stack those two equations and subtract them (this is a legal move because you’re subtracting the same quantity from the left side, where it’s called x, as from the right, where it’s called .9999999…, but they’re the same because they’re equal.  We said so, remember?):

Surely if 9x = 9, then x = 1.  But since x also equals .9999999… we get that .9999999… = 1.  The algebra is impeccable.

But I know that this is unconvincing to many people.  So here’s another argument.  Most people who have trouble with this fact oddly don’t have trouble with the fact that 1/3 = .3333333… .  Well, consider the following addition of equations then:

This seems simplistic, but it’s very, very convincing, isn’t it?  Or try it with some other denominator:

Which works out very nicely.  Or even:

It will work for any two fractions that have a repeating decimal representation and that add up to 1.

Those are my first two demonstrations that our fact is true (the last one is at the end).  But then the whiners start in about all the reasons they think it’s false.  So here’s why it’s not false:

• “.9 repeating doesn’t equal 1, it gets closer and closer to 1.”

May I remind you that .9 repeating is a number.  That means it has it’s place on the number line somewhere.  Which means that it’s not “getting” anywhere.  It doesn’t move.  It either equals 1 or it doesn’t (it does of course), but it doesn’t “get” closer to 1.

• “.9 repeating is obviously less than 1.”

Hmmmm…it might be obvious to you, but it’s not obvious to me.  Is it really less than 1?  How much less than 1?  No, seriously…tell me how much less?  What is 1 minus .99999999…?

Really???? Infinitely many zeros and then after the infinite list that never ends, there’s a 1????  Surely that’s stranger than the possibility that .9 repeating simply does equal 1.  Or for something even stranger, consider this:  if .9 repeating is less than 1, then we ought to be able to do something very simple with those two numbers:  find their average.  What’s the number directly between the two?  Or for that matter, name any number between the two.  Let me guess:  the average is .99999…05?  So after this infinite list of 9s, there’s the possibility of starting up multiple-digit extensions?  Doesn’t that just raise the obvious question:  What about .9999999…9999999…?  Namely, infinitely many 9s, and then after that infinite list, there’s another infinite list of 9s?  How, exactly is that different from the original infinite list of 9s?  If you saw it written out, where would the break between the lists be?

I’m afraid that if you apply the “huh??” test of strangeness, you get a much higher strangeness factor if you say that .9999999… is not 1 than you do if you say it is 1.

• “Uhhhhh, I’m sorry, but I still don’t believe you.  .99999… just can’t equal 1.”

Well, let’s look a little more carefully at what we really mean by .999999…:

This equation isn’t really up for debate, right?  It’s simply the meaning of our place value system made explicit.  That thing on the right hand side is called an infinite geometic series.  They have been studied extensively in math.  The word “geometric” means that each term of the series is the identical multiple (in this case 1/10) of the previous term. The definition of the sum of an infinite geometric series (and other series, too, but we won’t get into those) goes something this:

1. Start making a list of partial sums:  the sum of the first one number, then the sum of the first two numbers, then the sum of the first three, etc.
2. Examine your list closely.  In this case the list is: .9, .99, .999, .9999, …. (Note that the actual number .99999…. is not on the list, since every number on the list has finitely many 9s.)
3. Find some numbers that are bigger than every single number on your list.  Like 53, 3.14, and a million.
4. Of all the numbers that are bigger than every number on your list, find the smallest possible such number.  I think we can all agree that this smallest number is 1.
5. That smallest number that can’t be exceeded by anything on the list is the definition of the sum of the geometric series.

Notice that I keep putting the word definition in bold face.  (See, I did it again!)  That’s because it’s a definition, which isn’t really up for debate.  It is the nature of a mathematical definition that once you acccept it, you have to agree to its consequences.  In other words, .99999… = 1 by the definition of the sum of a geometric series.  It’s also true if you use the popular formula

a/(1 - r) with a = 9/10, and r = 1/10.

We’re left with this:  merely saying “.99999… doesn’t equal 1″ admits the fact that this number .99999… exists.  And if it exists, it equals 1 by definition.  The only way out for you now, if you still don’t believe it, is to have a different working definition of the sum of an infinite series (go talk to some math professors, and see how far you get) or to deny the very existence of the number .9999….  I have seen a lot of people doubt that the number equals 1, but very few of them are willing to deny the very existence of that number.  If you want to play “there’s no such thing as infinitely long decimal representations,” I’m afraid you won’t get very far, because there’s always the number pi to worry about, too, you know.

Okay, so there’s my rant.  .9 repeating equals one.  No, I’m sorry, it does.

You can find quite a few free audiobooks online but they’re frequently scattered all over. Save yourself the run around by checking out the thousands of free audiobooks cataloged at BookShouldBeFree.

BooksShouldBeFree houses thousands of books in the public domain, available as both MP3s and as iTunes format audiobooks. Each entry for a book includes links to the full text, supplemental text, and reviews.

The reviews are particularly helpful because they are specific to the actual audiobook recording and not just the book in general so you get feedback like “The use of character voices in this record was excellent” or “I love the story but this recording was a rather flat reading of the text.”, information relevant to your enjoyment of the book in audio form.

BooksShouldBeFree is a free service and requires to registration to use. Have a favorite place to find free audio books? Let’s hear about it in the comments.

I read about this at LIFEHACER.COM

Jump directly to booksshouldbefree.com.