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