 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:16:22 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
spake, saying:
> For some reason, we live in a culture where it is seen as "desirable" to
> not be cleaver. People who are good at football are regarded as gods,
> but anybody who claims to be good at (say) trigonometry is regarded as a
> pathetic failure of a human being.
Here in the UK Kate Fox puts in down to being part of the Importance of
Not Being Earnest rule. It's perfectly alright to be good at mathmatics
provided you a) don't obviously study for it and b) are able to put down
your own talents. Otherwise you've either taking it too seriously or
showing off and both of those are cardinal sins and deserve beatings to
knock it out of you.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:45:15 +0100, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
spake, saying:
>> That's nice. We've been thinking about moving to the UK for a few years
>> now, but if we earn over a certain amount in the UK, we still have to
>> pay
>> US taxes as well as UK taxes.
>
> That really is crazy. How do they justify taxing you when you are not
> even living there? Does that mean that anyone born in USA must
> (potentially) pay USA taxes for the rest of their life no matter in
> which country they live? What a hassle!
Possibly because growing up there you've benefited from the previous
generations work and you shouldn't be able to simply divorce your debt to
them by moving away?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> task, they *don't want* to do that. They completely reject the notion.
> It's like they had some kind of fear or phobia, and they like to hide
> behind their "I'm not good at math" defense. Any explanations or attempts
It is - at least it's classified as a "learning disorder" in some
places. It's called math anxiety. It's probably always placed into their
heads via society (e.g. really bad math teachers and fellow students who
tend to equate intelligence with mathematical ability).
--
A Mexican newspaper reports that bored Royal Air Force pilots stationed
on the Falkland Islands have devised what they consider a marvelous new
game. Noting that the local penguins are fascinated by airplanes, the
pilots search out a beach where the birds are gathered and fly slowly
along it at the water's edge. Perhaps ten thousand penguins turn their
heads in unison watching the planes go by, and when the pilots turn
around and fly back, the birds turn their heads in the opposite
direction, like spectators at a slow-motion tennis match. Then, the
paper reports "The pilots fly out to sea and directly to the penguin
colony and overfly it. Heads go up, up, up, and ten thousand penguins
fall over gently onto their backs." -- Audobon Society Magazine
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Btw, some schools and school books in the US are taking the other extreme:
> They are dumbing down basic math to the point where nobody learns anything
> useful.
>
> For example, they don't teach the classical way of summing or multiplying
> two numbers on paper anymore *at all*. It's like it's completely censored.
>
> Instead, they give a few heuristics on how to deduce the result of a few
> easy cases, and for the rest the rule is basically "if you can't deduce it,
> use a calculator".
Do you have examples of this?
I know months ago a youtube link was posted on this newsgroup about a
Seattle woman complaining about the way they teach math these days and
comparing what she had learned with what they're teaching now.
If that's what you're talking about, I honestly can't say the "old
fashioned" way is "better". What she referred to as the new way of
teaching it weren't simply heuristics - they always work and unlike how
many of us were taught when we were young, actually force the students
to understand how multiplication and division actually work - rather
than just following an algorithm to compute the result.
For me, the only real concerns were: 1) Can kids that age be reasonably
expected to understand *how* long division works? Some always will, but
what percentage? 2) Seems if they do it the "algorithmic" way, they'll
quickly be able to divide faster, whereas with the new way, being able
to divide faster may take a lot more practice.
I didn't really understand her complaints. She seemed to just have this
opinion that the old ways were better. For me, it's best to teach both.
--
A Mexican newspaper reports that bored Royal Air Force pilots stationed
on the Falkland Islands have devised what they consider a marvelous new
game. Noting that the local penguins are fascinated by airplanes, the
pilots search out a beach where the birds are gathered and fly slowly
along it at the water's edge. Perhaps ten thousand penguins turn their
heads in unison watching the planes go by, and when the pilots turn
around and fly back, the birds turn their heads in the opposite
direction, like spectators at a slow-motion tennis match. Then, the
paper reports "The pilots fly out to sea and directly to the penguin
colony and overfly it. Heads go up, up, up, and ten thousand penguins
fall over gently onto their backs." -- Audobon Society Magazine
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> What she referred to as the new way of
> teaching it weren't simply heuristics - they always work
I didn't claim the methods don't work. What I said that the methods
are only easily applicable to a small subset of all possible operations,
while the "classical" method can be equally easily applied to any operation
(only the length of the calculation varies, not its difficulty).
If you want to calculate "223882819200394832*4802993291324" on paper,
the "old-fashioned" way is equally easy as calculating "244*25" (it just
takes longer, which is understandable, but is in no way harder). It would
be completely hopeless to calculate that with the "new methods".
I don't disagree in teaching alternative methods for easy cases, such
as for example "25*9" (which can be thought of as, for example, "25 times
10 is 250, minus one time 25, which is 225"). However, I completely disagree
in not teaching the "mechanical" way of calculating multiplications (or
other operations), for the case when you really need to do so.
> I didn't really understand her complaints. She seemed to just have this
> opinion that the old ways were better. For me, it's best to teach both.
The old way is better in the sense that it allows you to calculate *any*
summation, multiplication and division (and even things like square roots),
regardless of the size of the operands. The "new methods" are very limited
and become very complex in many situations. Not teaching the classical way
is really stupid, IMO.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Seems pretty solid logic to me.
It always seemed to me it was because I messed up the curve. I wasn't
hated for being good at math when I was in AP Calculus where everyone
was good at math. I was hated for being good at physics because I didn't
have to do more than one homework problem from each set to know I
understood what was going on well enough to ace the tests.
Everyone can play football at some level or another. (And yes, you can
be disliked for not playing football too well, if someone is required to
put you on their team. :-)
The thing is, the people who are good at football don't compete with the
people who are bad at football. But they have to compete with the people
who are good at math and science, or they don't graduate grade school.
Think about college (university?) - did anyone dislike you if you aced
all your math tests? No, because at that level, they weren't required to
take the advanced math classes you were taking.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> realistically have no significant impact.
How do you know? There's *some* reason that Japan moved up to one of the
world's superpowers (economically at least) over the course of 50 years.
Maybe obsessing over details *is* important.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Is it really so that in the US, the UK and other places everybody has
> to explicitly fill out tax forms each year, specifying all their income,
> tax reductions, etc?
Yeah. I saw recently someone calculated that 60% of everyone could get
away with just filling out on the tax form that which had already been
reported to the government.
> (Of course for employers it's a completely different matter, but normal
> people don't have to worry about that.)
I'm always amazed how much overhead there is for employers to pay taxes.
Call it 10x the paperwork for each employee as the employee ever sees.
Even if you're the only employee of the company. Try to start a 3-person
company and you have practically no choice but to hire some outside
company to do the employment paperwork in the USA.
>> [Why do they make them so complicated? Is it a conspiracy to ensure you
>> get them wrong and hand over more money than you're supposed to??]
>
> You mean there are no tax returns where you live? That would be odd.
It's complicated so the legislature can favor particular people and
companies and behaviors over others. And then when the rules interact
poorly and let some subset of people get away with having lots of money
and no taxes, they put together a second set of rules to deal with that.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> able to do at least the basics very quickly in your head.
It also helps if you can do some common sense. If you look at sample
apartments in a half-dozen neighborhoods to figure out how much rent you
might have to spend to get there, and you have $1200/month, $1400/month,
$900/month, and your average comes out to $30,000/month, you better know
you've done something wrong.
> To be fair though, in the end I got the £90 and the £100 back, but it
> took a long time and a lot of effort - not sure if that was a profitable
> use of my time though!
I was actually pleasantly surprised with the tax authority last year.
They sent me a letter telling me I hadn't paid tax on some income I
made. I called them up and told them I'd reported it on the consulting
company's tax return, even tho the employer had filled out my personal
name on the paperwork they sent to the government. Took about 15
minutes to get audited, over the phone, and I got a letter a week or two
later saying "nevermind."
I expected it to be way more of a PITA. But then, I'd never heard of
anyone honest getting audited before, so that might play into it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> That really is crazy.
Yes.
> How do they justify taxing you when you are not even living there?
Because they can.
> Does that mean that anyone born in USA must
> (potentially) pay USA taxes for the rest of their life no matter in
> which country they live? What a hassle!
I believe it's five years, last I remember hearing about it. Possibly
longer if you remain a citizen of the USA.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Hell, I can't even multiply numbers in my head!
>
> I'm good at understanding principles and elligant mathematical theories.
> I'm not good at memorising vast amounts of unstructured data.
If you think multiplication tables are "unstructured data"... ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The "new methods" are very limited
You may be speaking about different "new methods".
In the USA, there's "new math", introduced a few decades ago. It gets
rid of "three apples plus two apples is five apples", and instead tries
to teach arithmetic based on formalism instead of "common sense".
This has the benefit that you actually learn the math instead of just
the algorithms, and the drawback that it's harder to understand how to
apply it to every-day situations.
It sounds like Warp is talking about a system of shortcuts rather than
something more comprehensive.
(And the running joke here is the parent's can't help the children with
the "new math" because they don't understand it. That is, they know the
arithmetic, but not the math behind it that makes it work.)
I know that I was in graduate school before anyone actually explained
what a formal system really is and how it works and why it matters. I
did years of calculus and statistics and such, without ever being taught
the fundamentals of anything like proof theory, rewrite rules, lambda
calculus, etc. I personally think those latter are much more useful to
learn than (say) partial integrals or some such.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm good at understanding principles and elligant mathematical
>> theories. I'm not good at memorising vast amounts of unstructured data.
>
> If you think multiplication tables are "unstructured data"... ;-)
It is conspicuous that all the times tables I can remember are the ones
that have a trivial formula (i.e., you don't *need* to remember them).
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> [Why do they make them so complicated? Is it a conspiracy to ensure you
> >> get them wrong and hand over more money than you're supposed to??]
> >
> > You mean there are no tax returns where you live? That would be odd.
> It's complicated so the legislature can favor particular people and
> companies and behaviors over others. And then when the rules interact
> poorly and let some subset of people get away with having lots of money
> and no taxes, they put together a second set of rules to deal with that.
Expanding on my comment on the original idea expressed above, at least
here some kind of "conspiracy" to get people to pay excessive taxes by
mistake would be rather ridiculous. Ok, I understand that just having more
money, even if temporarily, is worthy, but still it would seem to be of
little use.
If you pay too much taxes, the excess is returned at the end of the
following year, adjusted for inflation (which means the interest rate
is enormously higher than what you get in almost any bank; while a
typical bank account for a moderate sum of money gives you an interest
of about 0.3%, tax returns have an interest rate equal to inflation,
which is something closer to 3%; that's about 10 times as much as the
interest you get from a bank).
If anything, paying too much taxes could even be seen as an investment
with a fair interest rate (at least compared to typical bank accounts).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If you pay too much taxes, the excess is returned at the end of the
> following year, adjusted for inflation
Wow. If you withhold too much here (but less than 10% too much), you
just get it back some couple of months after you file your taxes. No
interest or anything.
If you withhold more than 10% too little, you have to pay hefty interest
and penalties.
If you withold more than 10% too much, you *also* have to pay penalties,
altho I don't know what they are since I never did that. I believe the
reason is that the feds have already spent your money, so now they look
at it as a hardship that they have to give you back the money they
shouldn't have spent in the first place.
Of course, our tax system is pretty f'ed up here. No question, that.
I always figured the way to go would be to legislate that you could only
spend *last* year's taxes this year. That way, there wouldn't be any
withholding, the government would have a year of taxes in the bank (to
spend this year), and there would be all kinds of incentives not to do
stupid expensive stuff that doesn't work. Sort of like the "you can't
vote for a raise that takes effect before the next election" rule.
I have *so* many good ideas for when I run my own sovereign country.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:486dea67@news.povray.org...
> For some reason, we live in a culture where it is seen as "desirable" to
> not be cleaver.
I had something cleaver to say about that, but I'll let it pass.
> People who are good at football are regarded as gods,
> but anybody who claims to be good at (say) trigonometry is regarded as a
> pathetic failure of a human being.
There's a difference between being good at something, and being good at
something and not anything else.
> Yes... this is my life...
>
> Everybody hated me for being the "teacher's pet". Just because *they*
> were a bunch of thick idiots... :-P
Again, being a "teacher's pet" is quite different from being good at math.
It's the attitude and self-presentation, not what you may or may not know
about obscure subjects, that's key in social interactions.
> So the question arrises... why does the media always portray technically
> talented people as freaks and weirdos? And why does it constantly
> reinforce the idea that mathematics is "hard", and that only "geniuses"
> can comprehend it? Where did all this come from?
Math is not easy, but that's not the point. It's that socially clumsy people
tend to take solace in focusing their energies into solitary endavours like
math, chess, bug collecting... etc. That's fine as long as one is aware that
being good at math will not do anything about acceptance while the root
cause of the social awkwardness remains, so he does not raise false hopes
and end up even more bitter.
As to math itself, beyond the rudimentary, it's useless for most people in
their daily lives. Also, watching someone do sports is entertaining.
Watching someone do math is not, so it's hard to blame the society for not
putting math geeks on a pedestal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> People who are good at football are regarded as gods,
>> but anybody who claims to be good at (say) trigonometry is regarded as a
>> pathetic failure of a human being.
>
> There's a difference between being good at something, and being good at
> something and not anything else.
True. But the comment I posted talks of somebody who was rejected just
for liking maths.
>> Yes... this is my life...
>>
>> Everybody hated me for being the "teacher's pet". Just because *they*
>> were a bunch of thick idiots... :-P
>
> Again, being a "teacher's pet" is quite different from being good at math.
And there's a difference between *being* the teacher's pet and merely
being labelled as one. ;-)
> Math is not easy, but that's not the point. It's that socially clumsy people
> tend to take solace in focusing their energies into solitary endavours like
> math, chess, bug collecting... etc.
This rather echos the comment somebody posted saying that "only autistic
people are good at maths".
My sister was quite good at maths. (Hell, she's an accountant now!) And
she's about the most socially popular person one can imagine.
As for myself... I suspect I wouldn't *be* so socially clumsy if I
hadn't gone to a school where there was a culture of praying on anybody
who was regarded has having any sort of weakness. Even several former
teachers from that school agree that it was a retched place...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> Everyone always blames the parents.
>
> As I said, I blame the endless cartoons where the cleaver people are
> always the evil villans or the hopeless geeks who get beat up all day...
>
I blame society (and Canada?).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:486e6ace$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Everybody hated me for being the "teacher's pet". Just because *they*
> >> were a bunch of thick idiots... :-P
> > Again, being a "teacher's pet" is quite different from being good at
math.
> And there's a difference between *being* the teacher's pet and merely
> being labelled as one. ;-)
Maybe, maybe not. You of course realize that what we read from you can be
but one side of the story. But even here, you seem to seek
validation/admiration for your accomplishments, and those who do that at
every opportunity towards the teacher get that label. Of course everyone
seeks admiration - otherwise people would not post their POV renders, for
instance. There's a line, however, beyond which constant attention seeking
starts to annoy others.
> > Math is not easy, but that's not the point. It's that socially clumsy
people
> > tend to take solace in focusing their energies into solitary endavours
like
> > math, chess, bug collecting... etc.
> This rather echos the comment somebody posted saying that "only autistic
> people are good at maths".
I wouldn't overgeneralize, but different professions attract different
personalities. There's no reason mathematicians and actors should share
similar personality traits.
> My sister was quite good at maths. (Hell, she's an accountant now!)
Maybe it's my ignroance of the profession, but I didn't think any kind of
higher math was necessary for being an accountant. And with the invention of
the pocket calculator, even arithmetic skills needed are minimal. Not to say
an accountant cannot be a mathematician, just saying that it's not
necessary.
> And
> she's about the most socially popular person one can imagine.
Was she picked on for being good at math?
> As for myself... I suspect I wouldn't *be* so socially clumsy if I
> hadn't gone to a school where there was a culture of praying on anybody
> who was regarded has having any sort of weakness. Even several former
> teachers from that school agree that it was a retched place...
I don't know you from Adam, so I cannot comment on anything specific there.
You might well have a case. In general, however, it's easier blaming
everybody else.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> For some reason, we live in a culture where it is seen as "desirable" to
> not be cleaver. People who are good at football are regarded as gods,
> but anybody who claims to be good at (say) trigonometry is regarded as a
> pathetic failure of a human being.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7435023.stm
>
> The article focuses specifically on maths, but it seems generally
> "fashionable" to be bad at anything that looks "technical". Maths,
> science, computing, etc.
>
> Some of the comments submitted are interesting too. My particular
> favourite:
>
> "I have always liked maths, but I remember that at school, being good at
> maths was a sever issue. Those who made any effort towards being good at
> maths and science were ostracized by the rest of the year group."
>
> Yes... this is my life...
>
> Everybody hated me for being the "teacher's pet". Just because *they*
> were a bunch of thick idiots... :-P
I found that the most venom came not from the kids would were incapable
of the higher challenges, but from the kids who were capable, but who
had dumbed themselves down in order to get along.
The solution is for the math-adept people to build spaceships to another
world and leave. To keep those who lost the chromosome lottery from
impeding our efforts, we will say that the planet we're going to has no
beaches, skiing, or professional sports, and that once we're gone we'll
quit making them take algebra classes.
Then, when we are safely away, we'll send occasional messages for the
purpose of messing with the heads of the people we've left behind:
* Robots now do all the work.
* We were mistaken about the ski slopes.
* And the beaches, too.
* And silly us, we've realized that just because there are no sports
doesn't mean you can't start some.
* There's an herb here whose sole effect is to cause excess body fat to
melt away. Unfortunately, this herb cannot be exported.
* Since the robots do all the work, we spend our mornings doing tensor
calculus, and spend the afternoons skiing, playing other sports, or
lounging at the beach.
* Immigration is closed for now.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> To keep those who lost the chromosome lottery from
> impeding our efforts, we will say that the planet we're going to has no
> beaches, skiing, or professional sports,
I was in the movie theater today and saw an ad that showed clips of some
of the recent 3D movies and said "You don't need to leave the 3D
experience behind when you leave the movie theater!"
I thought "man, I thought *I* was a nerd. Apparently, there are movie
goers who are also unaware of the Big Blue Room with the DayStar in it."
(Turns out it was an ad for a 3D computer monitor. :-)
BTW - Hancock wasn't nearly as bad as everyone says. It wasn't high on
the list, but it wasn't notably worse than Speed Racer or Indiana Jones.
It wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible either. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> I blame society (and Canada?).
Aren't those muturally exclusive?
*runs away*
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And there's a difference between *being* the teacher's pet and merely
>> being labelled as one. ;-)
>
> Maybe, maybe not. You of course realize that what we read from you can be
> but one side of the story. But even here, you seem to seek
> validation/admiration for your accomplishments, and those who do that at
> every opportunity towards the teacher get that label.
I do *now* because I'm completely alone in the world. :-(
>> This rather echos the comment somebody posted saying that "only autistic
>> people are good at maths".
>
> I wouldn't overgeneralize, but different professions attract different
> personalities. There's no reason mathematicians and actors should share
> similar personality traits.
It just annoys me when people claim that you have to have a brain
disorder to be good at maths - and, by implication, if you're good at
maths then you must have a brain disorder...
>> And
>> she's about the most socially popular person one can imagine.
>
> Was she picked on for being good at math?
Erm... As I recall, when we both went to the same school she wasn't all
that exceptional at any particular subject. But then she moved to a
different school and suddenly became a very bright public. (This school
was popular _for a reason_.) Different culture at that school, so I
don't think she got picked on.
>> As for myself... I suspect I wouldn't *be* so socially clumsy if I
>> hadn't gone to a school where there was a culture of praying on anybody
>> who was regarded has having any sort of weakness. Even several former
>> teachers from that school agree that it was a retched place...
>
> I don't know you from Adam, so I cannot comment on anything specific there.
> You might well have a case. In general, however, it's easier blaming
> everybody else.
Heh. Before I started at school, I actually _had_ friends. Several of them.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>
>> I blame society (and Canada?).
>
> Aren't those muturally exclusive?
>
> *runs away*
>
No, they both can be blamed, but MAC (Mothers Against Canada) says we
shouldn't blame society, but Canada instead.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
> > I blame society (and Canada?).
> Aren't those muturally exclusive?
I thought they were the one and same thing.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:486f22d0$1@news.povray.org...
> It just annoys me when people claim that you have to have a brain
> disorder to be good at maths - and, by implication, if you're good at
> maths then you must have a brain disorder...
It does require a certain amount of dedication to be good at something, and
singleminded pursuit to excel. But I wouldn't call it a brain disorder.
> > Was she picked on for being good at math?
> Erm... As I recall, when we both went to the same school she wasn't all
> that exceptional at any particular subject. But then she moved to a
> different school and suddenly became a very bright public. (This school
> was popular _for a reason_.) Different culture at that school, so I
> don't think she got picked on.
There you go. Being good at math (or anything else) is not a sufficient
reason to be picked on. Certain personalities are picked on, true enough,
but correlation is not causation, and the correlation is weak to begin with.
If somebody comes in here, talking non-stop about how many pounds of iron he
has pumped that day, you, not to mention Warp, would probably pick on him,
not because he's good at weightlifting, but because of the personality he
displays. Now substitute "weightlifting" with "Haskell"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> I think it's just a question of primitive jealousy, which the western
> culture does nothing to fix.
>
Or defense against embarrassment.
Every week I face classrooms of people who often are turning to cab
driving as a refuge of last resort. When they find that once again they
have to crack open books and face rote-learning challenges some are
openly discouraged and humiliated, others react with extreme hostility
and defensiveness.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:45:06 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>>
>>> I blame society (and Canada?).
>>
>> Aren't those muturally exclusive?
>>
>> *runs away*
>>
>>
> No, they both can be blamed, but MAC (Mothers Against Canada) says we
> shouldn't blame society, but Canada instead.
I'm just waiting to see how many get the reference. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:54:19 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:38:01 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:23:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> (Seriously - why the hell does anybody in the modern era need to be
>>>> fluent at long division?
>>>
>>> No such thing as useless knowledge.
>>
>> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? ;-)
>
> One, provided he can find a partner who can also gavotte.
Not a bad answer. Here's a new question:
Why is a duck?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:45:15 +0200, scott wrote:
>> That's nice. We've been thinking about moving to the UK for a few
>> years now, but if we earn over a certain amount in the UK, we still
>> have to pay US taxes as well as UK taxes.
>
> That really is crazy. How do they justify taxing you when you are not
> even living there? Does that mean that anyone born in USA must
> (potentially) pay USA taxes for the rest of their life no matter in
> which country they live? What a hassle!
You know, I've been trying to figure that one out myself for a couple of
years now. I think they don't tax you if you give up your citizenship,
but I don't know if that even would do the trick. There's also some
weirdness in how the US Government treats dual citizenship, too, for
people born here who obtain citizenship in a different country. I'll
have to find the details again (my wife would know, she's researched that
extensively).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:09:58 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> All I can say is that IME, as soon as you ask somebody about a job they
> instantly say "how many years experience do you have?" If you say some
> number less than 3, suddenly nobody wants to know you. I have no idea
> what the hell is so special about 3, but what ever. Employers seem
> completely uninterested in what qualifications you have, only how much
> experience you have.
How long have you been where you are now?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5 Jul 2008 14:47:45 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Not a bad answer. Here's a new question:
>
>Why is a duck?
"Have you considered the possibility," I countered, "that I simply assumed that
you were another drunken, disheveled, ignorant bum? This city is full of them,
you know."
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:45:06 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
>
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I blame society (and Canada?).
>>> Aren't those muturally exclusive?
>>>
>>> *runs away*
>>>
>>>
>> No, they both can be blamed, but MAC (Mothers Against Canada) says we
>> shouldn't blame society, but Canada instead.
>
> I'm just waiting to see how many get the reference. ;-)
>
> Jim
Never saw the movie, but of course I know what it is.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have noticed that many people have some kind of conscious, intentional
> mind block for anything involving math. If you try to explain or induce
> them to solve even the simplest of math problems, they immediately curl
> into their "happy world" which has a thick wall which has a sign which
> says "I'm not good at math" (which they usually also say out). It sometimes
> goes so far that it kind of feels like they were intentionally protecting
> themselves from learning even the simplest of math. Even if they were
> completely capable of easily learning the principles to solve the simple
> task, they *don't want* to do that. They completely reject the notion.
> It's like they had some kind of fear or phobia, and they like to hide
> behind their "I'm not good at math" defense. Any explanations or attempts
> at teaching will fall to deaf ears. Heaven forbid that they ever actually
> learn math!
My mother in law does this with *everything*. No matter how smart she
really is (and, granted, she's not the brightest bulb in the package,
but she's not a *complete* idiot!), she hides behind the excuse "I can't
do that" and refuses to learn *anything*.
She drives me crazy (and not in a good way).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> OK, so I can't spell very well. I think we've established that one. It's
> actually a miracle I can read or write at all! :-P
I'd say it's a miracle *any* of us can :) It makes no sense at all that
things such as abstract information exist; but it does!
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> No no - *everybody* gets confused as hell by taxes. ;-)
>
> [Why do they make them so complicated? Is it a conspiracy to ensure you
> get them wrong and hand over more money than you're supposed to??]
It's a matter of policy, actually.
The tax code in the US has been, unfortunately, chosen as politicians'
favorite way of rewarding certain activities and industries. Any time
they want to encourage particular behaviors by people or corporations,
they add a new rule to the tax code. Things like,
1) We want people to invest in energy production, so returns on energy
investments are taxed at a much lower rate than other investments.
2) We want people to save for retirement, so we'll allow a certain class
of savings accounts that have tax-free growth.
3) We want people to give money to charity, so we'll allow them to
deduct up to a certain amount from their tax liability when they donate
that same amount to qualifying charities.
Now, when you consider that politicians have been doing this for more
than one hundred years, you begin to get an idea about how complicated
the tax code currently is.
The problem, of course, is that the tax system is now being used for
something entirely unintended. What it is meant for is to fund the
Federal Government. What it is being used for is social reform.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Here in Finland all that is automatic: You receive a pre-filled form
> with all your income, tax reductions, etc. already put in. If everything
> is correct, you don't have to do anything about it. Only if there's
> something not in the form already (for example some significant payment
> which has not been notified to the tax officials, or something which is
> worth tax reductions) you'll have to add it to the form and return it.
It's official: the Finnish are more intelligent than the Americans!
How can I move to Finland? :)
By the way, the IRS recently looked at completely automating the tax
process (meaning the individual would only have to look over the final
result to make sure it's accurate). It's one of their goals, but they
decided that the technical hurdles involved would make a full
implementation problematic (while they did collect bids from various
companies, the IRS's own analysis concluded that most of those bids were
wildly optimistic at best).
Even doing it for a small portion of the population would be more
trouble that it's worth, at present.
A more realistic immediate goal for them is allowing you to do your
taxes online at the IRS's web site, rather than paying a third party to
do them for you (there is a partnership program between the IRS and
various tax prep companies that allows those companies to do your taxes
online for free, but only for certain qualifying individuals {your
income has to be in a certain range, and your return can't be very
complex}). This would eliminate a large part of the business of tax
firms, but the IRS actually seems more concerned about the taxpayers
than the tax preparers.
Maybe that's because the IRS isn't run by politicians? Unfortunately,
they still have to report to them :(
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> It's like they had some kind of fear or phobia, and they like to hide
> behind their "I'm not good at math" defense. Any explanations or attempts
> at teaching will fall to deaf ears. Heaven forbid that they ever actually
> learn math!
>
You can even annoy them by using numbers for everything possible. I, for
example, tend to refer roads with numbers instead of names. If I'll
drive to Lahti, I won't say "I'll go to Lammi and then continue to
Lahti", but instead "I'll take 290-292" or if I'll go to see my mum I
won't drive "Hämeenlinna-Padasjoki-Jämsä" but "10-56-24". People give
interesting looks on theier faces :).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> BTW - Hancock wasn't nearly as bad as everyone says. It wasn't high on
> the list, but it wasn't notably worse than Speed Racer or Indiana Jones.
> It wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible either. :-)
It certainly wasn't what I expected. But it did have some funny moments :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> It's official: the Finnish are more intelligent than the Americans!
> How can I move to Finland? :)
I was thinking the same thing until Warp mentioned that the sign of the
temperature in centigrade is how he decided whether to wear short
sleeves or long sleeves. I don't think I could handle that. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:13:12 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Never saw the movie, but of course I know what it is.
Got the movie in the next room. It's a shame, I think, that the series
didn't continue being good. I was so disappointed with last season I
just stopped watching altogether.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:04:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2008 14:47:45 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>>Not a bad answer. Here's a new question:
>>
>>Why is a duck?
>
> "Have you considered the possibility," I countered, "that I simply
> assumed that you were another drunken, disheveled, ignorant bum? This
> city is full of them, you know."
LOL, but I don't think I'm disheveled. Or drunk, for that matter - I can
still type. When I'm drunk, I can't type.
That said, there's rum in the freezer; it should probably come out.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Every week I face classrooms of people who often are turning to cab
> driving as a refuge of last resort. When they find that once again they
> have to crack open books and face rote-learning challenges some are
> openly discouraged and humiliated, others react with extreme hostility
> and defensiveness.
What is it with the western culture that makes studying and intellectuality
a good thing and a shame, all at the same time?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > It's official: the Finnish are more intelligent than the Americans!
> > How can I move to Finland? :)
> I was thinking the same thing until Warp mentioned that the sign of the
> temperature in centigrade is how he decided whether to wear short
> sleeves or long sleeves. I don't think I could handle that. :-)
There are other things which you should consider more seriously.
For instance, you might not need to fill tax forms ever, but OTOH you'll
be paying quite a lot *more* taxes than in the US.
And do you even know how much gasoline/diesel costs here? An American
would drop his jaw into the ground if he saw it. Translated to the US
units, gasoline is about 9.5 dollars/gallon, and diesel is 8.3.
Oh, and cars cost almost double what they cost, for example, in Germany
because of all the taxes. (In Germany, IIRC, a tax of 16% is put on the
price of sold cars, while in Finland it's something like 96%.)
Not only that, you have to pay mandatory annual car insurance (good
thing, I suppose) as well as a mandatory annual car tax (you receive
nothing in return, it's a *pure* tax for simply *owning* a car, without
any benefits).
Own a TV (or, for that matter, any device capable of decoding TV
signal)? Tax. Own a house? Tax. Own land? Tax. Inherit some money or
property from a relative? Tax. Win a car abroad and want to bring it
to Finland? You'll have to pay almost the original price of the car
in taxes.
And if you think you'll get rid of the RIAA by moving to Finland, guess
again. (Ok, the situation might still not be *so* bad here, but it's
quickly going in that direction.)
On the plus side, you'll usually get a fast broadband internet connection
for a quite moderate price here.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What is it with the western culture that makes studying and intellectuality
> a good thing and a shame, all at the same time?
Because western culture is shaped primarily by non-intellectuals and
pseudo-intellectuals.
I think the cause of the way that being smart is not worshipped in the
same way that being good at football is worshipped, is because pursuing
athletic success doesn't change you the way that pursuing intellectual
success does. Becoming good at scoring goals in football doesn't change
you, it just makes you richer. Becoming good at understanding nature
does change you. A football star is not as different from the average
Joe as is the man who developed the TV set that enables the average Joe
to watch the football star perform.
Ask an average Joe what he would do if he were good at football, and
he'd point at the football star and say "what he's doing." Ask him what
he'd do if he were good at math, and you will find that he has no clue.
And that the question annoys him.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> I
>> said that if you boasted about how much work you'd done at a school in the
>> UK you'd likely get beaten up by a group of bullies at lunchtime!
>
>> I blame the parents!
>
> I think it's just a question of primitive jealousy, which the western
> culture does nothing to fix.
>
> "He has done more than me, he thinks he is better than me. I'll teach
> him a lesson."
Entire books have been written on how envy has been one of the most
destructive influences in human society. Oddly enough, none of these
books were written by socialists.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6 Jul 2008 01:12:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:04:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Why is a duck?
>>
>> "Have you considered the possibility," I countered, "that I simply
>> assumed that you were another drunken, disheveled, ignorant bum? This
>> city is full of them, you know."
>
>LOL, but I don't think I'm disheveled. Or drunk, for that matter - I can
>still type. When I'm drunk, I can't type.
>
>That said, there's rum in the freezer; it should probably come out.
>
I googled the phrase and the first hit was a short story, that is a line from it
:)
When I'm drunk I can delete someone's bug report by mistake instead of replying
:oops:
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> It's official: the Finnish are more intelligent than the Americans!
>>> How can I move to Finland? :)
>
>> I was thinking the same thing until Warp mentioned that the sign of the
>> temperature in centigrade is how he decided whether to wear short
>> sleeves or long sleeves. I don't think I could handle that. :-)
>
> There are other things which you should consider more seriously.
> For instance, you might not need to fill tax forms ever, but OTOH you'll
> be paying quite a lot *more* taxes than in the US.
Finland is regarded here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
as the 16th on the list of economic freedom. Hong Kong is at the top,
and North Korea is at the bottom (#157 of the ranked nations). The US
is #6 on this list.
If the taxation in Finland is as bad as Warp says, it must be horrid in
the places farther down.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I recently said:
> The US is #6 on this list.
Correction: The US is #5 on the list.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What is it with the western culture that makes studying and intellectuality
> a good thing and a shame, all at the same time?
Weird, isn't it? I mean, nobody wants to be an idiot. But then, nobody
wants to be a geek either... [Well OK, *few* people want to be geeks.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
