 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 am certain that this was because of the portrayal of 'nerds' in
mainstream children s TV and film. When every day, kids are watching
hours of nerds being beaten up, hated and generally victimized- you can
only expect the same to happen in schools, and hence many children will
make a conscious effort NOT to be good at it."
Seems pretty solid logic to me.
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?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> For some reason, we live in a culture where it is seen as "desirable" to
> not be cleaver.
Interestingly enough, I was talking to some of my colleagues about this
exact subject and how it is different in Japan compared to the UK. In
Japan, it is usual for pupils to compare how much work they'd done the night
before for school, more definitely being seen as "cooler" and "better". 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!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> For some reason, we live in a culture where it is seen as "desirable"
>> to not be cleaver.
>
> Interestingly enough, I was talking to some of my colleagues about this
> exact subject and how it is different in Japan compared to the UK. In
> Japan, it is usual for pupils to compare how much work they'd done the
> night before for school, more definitely being seen as "cooler" and
> "better". 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!
Exactly.
Although Japan does strike me as a very... serious sociaty. They take
business extremely seriously, even obsessing over tiny details that
realistically have no significant impact.
Not that I've met too many Japanise people personally - it might just be
stereotyped.
> I blame the parents!
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...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The best revenge is to do well. Seriously, I was also the kid who was
picked last in gym class for all the team sports because I absolutely
sucked at all of them. I had maybe 4 friends through high school, a few
more in college (though I've only heard from 3 or 4 since leaving school,
and not very often at that)
Even at the various jobs I've worked, I've generally been regarded (until
the last 5 years, really) as someone that if they could avoid interacting
with, that was a good thing. My boss at my last job (> 5 years ago) and
a few of my teammates I'd go out for a beer with after work. But users
(> 95% of the company)? Generally the less they saw of me, the better -
so they seemed to think.
I look back at some of the kids I went to high school with and see where
they are - and while a few have done well for themselves, most seem to be
stuck in some sort of dead-end job that doesn't look to pay all that well.
You have the skills and the talent to leave them in the dust. Do it, and
never look back.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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...
Maybe the bullies beat them up using cleavers? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> The best revenge is to do well.
Yeah well... that's not always possible.
> Seriously, I was also the kid who was
> picked last in gym class for all the team sports because I absolutely
> sucked at all of them. I had maybe 4 friends through high school, a few
> more in college (though I've only heard from 3 or 4 since leaving school,
> and not very often at that)
Then you have 4 more than me.
> Even at the various jobs I've worked, I've generally been regarded (until
> the last 5 years, really) as someone that if they could avoid interacting
> with, that was a good thing.
Nice to know that it's only kids, eh? :-S
> I look back at some of the kids I went to high school with and see where
> they are - and while a few have done well for themselves, most seem to be
> stuck in some sort of dead-end job that doesn't look to pay all that well.
Hmm... sounds rather like... MY JOB!
> You have the skills and the talent to leave them in the dust. Do it, and
> never look back.
Heh. If only...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:46:04 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> For some reason, we live in a culture where it is seen as "desirable"
>>> to not be cleaver.
>>
>> Interestingly enough, I was talking to some of my colleagues about this
>> exact subject and how it is different in Japan compared to the UK. In
>> Japan, it is usual for pupils to compare how much work they'd done the
>> night before for school, more definitely being seen as "cooler" and
>> "better". 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!
>
> Exactly.
>
> Although Japan does strike me as a very... serious sociaty. They take
> business extremely seriously, even obsessing over tiny details that
> realistically have no significant impact.
>
> Not that I've met too many Japanise people personally - it might just be
> stereotyped.
To an extent, it is. My brother lives in Osaka and is married to a
Japanese womanm, and in talking with her family at the wedding (mostly
through translators as very few of them speak any English at all). There
seem to be two major groups of people in Japanese society from what I've
seen - there's the traditionalists, like Yoshimi's parents, where the
gender roles are very rigidly defined; attitudes are very stoic in
general and things seem to usually be very formal. The younger
generation is less formal (if they can get away with it), but some things
(like management of household money) is in the hands of the wife to the
point that the husband doesn't have any idea where the family stands
financially. Steve explained to me that the reason for this is because
that way, the husband is incented to continue to work hard; it drives the
work ethic.
After spending a week with her family here in the US, I found myself
bowing to people as I talked to them - my wife had to point out to me
that I was doing this little Japanese-style bow to some people who were
helping us out with directions at the hotel as I was thanking them.
Steve's brother-in-law is a truck driver. He knows a bit of English
(spent some time in the UK several years ago, which is where he
learned). I found him to be much less formal than his parents, and very
personable. I've only had a couple of interactions with people in Japan
on a business level, but my brother has had more since he works over
there. In fact, he commented to me that the teacher evaluations he
receives from his students and their parents (he teaches ESL over there),
some of the details he's evaluated are are really quite asinine - like
whether or not he wore a tie while teaching - just little stuff like that.
He also had to deal with the legal system over there - former employer
didn't want to pay him, so accused him of being a drug user. Nasty
business; got it resolved fairly well, though I don't think he ever got
paid.
>> I blame the parents!
>
> 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...
It's not just the cartoons.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> For some reason, we live in a culture where it is seen as "desirable" to
> not be cleaver.
I don't find that very surprising. Just make a google image search
on "cleaver". Why would anyone want to be that?
OTOH, while I wouldn't want to *be* that, I recognize that they can
be quite useful for certain things.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7435023.stm
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!
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:21:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The best revenge is to do well.
>
> Yeah well... that's not always possible.
It is. But it doesn't happen without effort. The good fortune I've had
did not just drop into my lap; I had to work for it. The harder I've
worked, the luckier I've been. It works that way.
>> Seriously, I was also the kid who was picked last in gym class for all
>> the team sports because I absolutely sucked at all of them. I had
>> maybe 4 friends through high school, a few more in college (though I've
>> only heard from 3 or 4 since leaving school, and not very often at
>> that)
>
> Then you have 4 more than me.
Had. I can't remember the last time I heard from any of them.
>> Even at the various jobs I've worked, I've generally been regarded
>> (until the last 5 years, really) as someone that if they could avoid
>> interacting with, that was a good thing.
>
> Nice to know that it's only kids, eh? :-S
It's a people thing.
>> I look back at some of the kids I went to high school with and see
>> where they are - and while a few have done well for themselves, most
>> seem to be stuck in some sort of dead-end job that doesn't look to pay
>> all that well.
>
> Hmm... sounds rather like... MY JOB!
I don't think so. It seems like it now - it seemed like it to me when I
was where you are. I didn't think I'd ever do anything other than IT
work, couldn't see myself doing management stuff at all. I maintained my
integrity and someone noticed and offered me this job when I was about to
be laid off. I had absolutely no idea what I was doing when I started
(and some days it still feels like I don't, now almost 4 years in), but
I've found that overall, I'm actually pretty good at it.
I *never* wanted to do a job that involved dealing with people - that's
why I got into IT. Computers don't talk back, and when they act up, you
can whack them with a hammer and they don't sue you.
>> You have the skills and the talent to leave them in the dust. Do it,
>> and never look back.
>
> Heh. If only...
Like I said, it won't fall into your lap, you have to work at it. Don't
sit back and wait for the recruiters to call you; call them. Get your
name out in front of them *regularly*.
IIRC, you're still relatively new to the workforce - it takes time to
establish yourself and your skills. You said a few months ago "who would
want to hire a programmer who didn't know C or Java?". Here's one answer:
http://www.nat.org/blog/
(May 20 entry)
"The ideal person will be a strong programmer who can tell a good bug
report from a bad one, will consider themself a whiz at scripting
(***shell, perl - whatever works for you***), and will enjoy
understanding the ins and outs of a sophisticated system." (emphasis
added)
Nat, BTW, is a VP of Linux Desktop development. While none of these jobs
may be exactly what you're looking for, my point is that these types of
positions do exist where knowing C, C++ or Java doesn't matter. Maybe
you could contribute your skills to the Mono project and fix some of the
issues with it - it runs on Windows and is based on .NET. Or maybe get
involved in Moonlight, an OSS version of Silverlight that's currently
being worked on.
There are options, but unless you seek them out, you're not going to find
them. Jobs generally don't fall out of the sky and just land in people's
laps.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> For some reason, we live in a culture where it is seen as "desirable" to
>> not be cleaver.
>
> I don't find that very surprising. Just make a google image search
> on "cleaver". Why would anyone want to be that?
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
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7435023.stm
>
> I have noticed that many people have some kind of conscious, intentional
> mind block for anything involving math.
Definitely.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
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.
>
> "He has done more than me, he thinks he is better than me. I'll teach
> him a lesson."
Definitely.
Much easier to say "intelligent people suck" than to try to actually be
better than them.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:35:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 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!
The funny thing is that many of these people are very good at doing
math. My mom, for example, has always claimed to be a slow reader and
poor at math. She has two primary hobbies (one of which she uses as a
source for income): Cooking and sewing. With sewing, she takes patterns
and scales them to sizes that the pattern doesn't include (up or down) -
doing fairly complex calculations without even thinking about it to
resize an odd shape (or more often two or more odd shapes) properly so
they can be sewn together in a way that it will actually work.
Similarly, she can scale a recipe properly in her head for however many
guests are eating. It's quite amazing to watch - and then she sits down
to do the taxes, and just gets completely frustrated at all the numbers.
I think it is some sort of a block.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> The funny thing is that many of these people are very good at doing
> math.
Math /= arithmetic. ;-)
*I* suck at arithmetic. It wasn't until I was about 17 that I discovered
that mathematics involves more than just those sheets of long division
problems.
(Seriously - why the hell does anybody in the modern era need to be
fluent at long division? Sure, you should know how it works. But being
able to finish 50 problems in an hour? That just seems pointless. Get a
computer!)
There are polynomial equations, derivatives and integrals, the binomial
theorum, statistical parameters and probability distributions,
trigonometric ratios, complex numbers and matrix algebra, and why are
those girls in the corner laughing at me? ._.
> and then she sits down
> to do the taxes, and just gets completely frustrated at all the numbers.
>
> I think it is some sort of a block.
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??]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> For some reason, we live in a culture where it is seen as "desirable" to
> >> not be cleaver.
> >
> > I don't find that very surprising. Just make a google image search
> > on "cleaver". Why would anyone want to be that?
> 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
Given the subject of this thread, shouldn't you try to better yourself
at this instead of just using the "I can't spell very well" defense? ;)
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7435023.stm
> >
> > I have noticed that many people have some kind of conscious, intentional
> > mind block for anything involving math.
> Definitely.
Do I see some kind of irony in here? ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 people thought high-school math classes were boring and useless,
until they fell in love with POV-Ray?
> > and then she sits down
> > to do the taxes, and just gets completely frustrated at all the numbers.
> >
> > I think it is some sort of a block.
> No no - *everybody* gets confused as hell by taxes. ;-)
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?
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.
(Of course for employers it's a completely different matter, but normal
people don't have to worry about that.)
I would be really surprised if this was not the case in most other
countries too.
> [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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
>
> Given the subject of this thread, shouldn't you try to better yourself
> at this instead of just using the "I can't spell very well" defense? ;)
And who says I'm not trying?
Either way, laughing at me isn't helping anything, is it? :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:02:42 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> The funny thing is that many of these people are very good at doing
>> math.
>
> Math /= arithmetic. ;-)
I know. And what I see my mom do isn't simple arithmetic. If it were, I
could handle it (because I'm fairly good at arithmetic).
> (Seriously - why the hell does anybody in the modern era need to be
> fluent at long division? Sure, you should know how it works. But being
> able to finish 50 problems in an hour? That just seems pointless. Get a
> computer!)
I often wondered that as well when I was in college; similarly, I never
understood the need to understand physics formulae as a computer
programmer. If I was writing a simulation for an airplane, I was going
to have reference materials available for the things that *weren't* in a
standard function library to make sure I got them right - because it
sucks to design an airplane that doesn't actually fly because you figured
the wing cross sections wrong in the simulation or got the airflow
dynamics equation wrong.
>> and then she sits down
>> to do the taxes, and just gets completely frustrated at all the
>> numbers.
>>
>> I think it is some sort of a block.
>
> No no - *everybody* gets confused as hell by taxes. ;-)
What confuses me more is figuring out the right number of deductions for
withholding. I'm not keen to give the US government an interest-free
loan with money I could be *doing* something with (like earning
interest), but having to pay in requires more discipline than I have to
save some money to pay what's owed.
> [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 might be onto something there. Here in the US, maybe it's to ensure
the future employment for all the employees of the IRS.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Seriously - why the hell does anybody in the modern era need to be
>> fluent at long division?
>
> No such thing as useless knowledge.
Knowing how to do long division is not useless.
Practicing long division over and over and over and over again, for many
years on end, is a completely waste of time IMHO. Once you know how to
do long division, you know how to do long division. What possible
purpose could there be in spending years doing it over and over again?
> How many people thought high-school math classes were boring and useless,
> until they fell in love with POV-Ray?
Maybe we should make POV-Ray more popular? Maybe it would make a good
teaching aid! ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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? ;-)
> 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?
In the US that is the case if you make over a certain amount in the
year. There are a handful of different forms based on how complex your
income situation is, too; 1040EZ is pretty straightforward, the full 1040
form is a bit more complicated. Many people have to have an accountant
do their taxes.
> 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.
A lot of the information that goes onto the US tax form comes from other
forms; automating the information from employer W2 forms and 1090 forms
is something that *could* be done if there were sufficient funding and
motivation at the IRS to automate it instead of sending us a million
pieces of paper with the information on it.
We've done our taxes electronically the last several years, so at least
the chances of a calculation error are drastically reduced. Ironically,
my dad discovered the early onset of his alzheimer's while doing the
taxes one year - he caught himself going back for the same information
over and over and over and over again and decided to get tested.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:30:38 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Either way, laughing at me isn't helping anything, is it? :-P
At some point you're bound to learn to laugh at yourself. ;-)
But more to the point, you demonstrated McKean's Law, as described on
Wikipedia as:
"Any correction of the speech or writing of others will contain at least
one grammatical, spelling, or typographical error"
(aka Skitt's Law)
While not precisely what happened here, it's that type of irony; even
you've got to appreciate the irony and see the humour in it. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Seriously - why the hell does anybody in the modern era need to be
>> fluent at long division?
Ever tried dividing one polynomial by another? A useful skill if you're
doing Laplace transforms and stuff that need polynomials in certain forms.
Without knowing how to do long division with numbers, you'd be stuffed to
try and divide a polynomial.
> 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?
In the UK it's only if you pay tax in the highest band (earn more than £36k)
or if you have some "special" items, like company car, shares, working
abroad, or basically anything that is non-standard.
> 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.
Which is essentially what you do on the UK form too, if you get one.
Everyone gets a "P60" form that tells you how much income you got and how
much tax you paid over the last year. You simply copy&paste those two
numbers onto your tax return form. The rest of the tax form is for other
items. I suspect a lot of people simply leave 90% of the form blank (there
are many many optional sections).
It can get complicated if you are a family, paying a mortgage with two kids
at university, have a company car and shares in the company you work for.
You just need to sit down and read through the guidelines carefully to work
out which numbers to put in which boxes. Of course, many people just pay
someone else to do it for them who is much more familiar with the system.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> (Seriously - why the hell does anybody in the modern era need to be
>>> fluent at long division?
>
> Ever tried dividing one polynomial by another?
No.
And you know why?
Because I don't know what polynomial division actually "is" yet.
(Remember: I've never been taught algebra. I just read books when I have
time...)
> Without knowing how to do long division with numbers, you'd be
> stuffed to try and divide a polynomial.
I didn't say you don't need to know how to do long division - I said you
don't need to spend 3 years practising it for several hours per day.
>> 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?
>
> In the UK it's only if you pay tax in the highest band (earn more than
> £36k) or if you have some "special" items, like company car, shares,
> working abroad, or basically anything that is non-standard.
Thanks for clarifying that. I was wondering myself!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> No such thing as useless knowledge.
>
> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? ;-)
I'm going to have to Google this one, aren't I? :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Because I don't know what polynomial division actually "is" yet.
Opposite of polynomial multiplication.
(x^3+3x^2-4x)/(x^2-x) = ???
> I didn't say you don't need to know how to do long division - I said you
> don't need to spend 3 years practising it for several hours per day.
It makes things later in life, assuming you go on with studying maths, a lot
easier. At university I used to cringe at the people who used their
calculators so often to do what they really should be doing in their head.
When you are tackling a large problem it is a huge advantage do be able to
do at least the basics very quickly in your head.
> Thanks for clarifying that. I was wondering myself!
Since I'm living in Germany I don't pay UK tax anymore, but I asked them to
repay me some bank interest tax (it was a relatively small amount, like
£90). In return I got a huge thick envelope back, saying "fill this out and
we'll see". And to make matters worse, they then sent me a fine for £100
because I didn't return it by the deadline (even though the deadline had
passed by the time I got the form!!!).
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!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:34:19 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Practicing long division over and over and over and over again, for many
> years on end, is a completely waste of time IMHO. Once you know how to
> do long division, you know how to do long division. What possible
> purpose could there be in spending years doing it over and over again?
Some people need more practice than others.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:10:46 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> No such thing as useless knowledge.
>>
>> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? ;-)
>
> I'm going to have to Google this one, aren't I? :-P
LOL, you're learning. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Because I don't know what polynomial division actually "is" yet.
>
> Opposite of polynomial multiplication.
>
> (x^3+3x^2-4x)/(x^2-x) = ???
As I understand it, the product of two polynomials is a formula that
produces the same result as running the two polynomials and then taking
the product of their answers. And this product is guaranteed to always
be a polynomial.
It is not immediately clear to be that the quotient of two polynomials
is necessarily a polynomial.
>> I didn't say you don't need to know how to do long division - I said
>> you don't need to spend 3 years practising it for several hours per day.
>
> It makes things later in life, assuming you go on with studying maths, a
> lot easier. At university I used to cringe at the people who used their
> calculators so often to do what they really should be doing in their
> head. When you are tackling a large problem it is a huge advantage do be
> able to do at least the basics very quickly in your head.
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.
And if you think your experience was bad, imagine being in a room full
of undergraduates and finding that only 2 of them know what "logarithm"
means. (Obviously one was me. The other one was that crazy rugby player
from Manchester. I remember at the time feeling quite guilty for
assuming he was stupid just because has acted like a complete psychopath
all day long...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:18:28 +0200, scott wrote:
> Since I'm living in Germany I don't pay UK tax anymore,
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It is not immediately clear to be that the quotient of two polynomials is
> necessarily a polynomial.
Nope, same as dividing two integers doesn't always give an integer answer,
you sometimes end up with fractional parts in the answer.
eg 10/4 = 2 + 2/4
same as
(x^3+2x^2)/(x^2+1) = x+2 + (-x-2)/(x^2+1)
> And if you think your experience was bad, imagine being in a room full of
> undergraduates and finding that only 2 of them know what "logarithm"
> means.
Didn't your course require a maths A level for entry?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It is not immediately clear to me that the quotient of two polynomials
>> is necessarily a polynomial.
>
> Nope, same as dividing two integers doesn't always give an integer
> answer, you sometimes end up with fractional parts in the answer.
Right. So there should also be a polymonial modulus operator?
> Didn't your course require a maths A level for entry?
I'm not 100% sure on that - I think it might have said "you must have 3
good A-levels" but not specify any specific subjects.
Either way, I have no A-levels at all, and I got in. ;-)
(But I had a crazy college tutor who claimed to have worked at
"Oxbridge" that said I was worthy - I guess that must have had something
to do with it...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Right. So there should also be a polymonial modulus operator?
I guess so, never heard of it or needed it myself though.
> Either way, I have no A-levels at all, and I got in. ;-)
I guess they weren't overrun with applicants then ;-)
Seriously though, you should consider picking up a couple at evening school,
it will make any future job applications look much better. I suspect you'd
breeze through the maths one, and you'd probably fill out some holes in your
knowledge. Plus you get the chance to meet hot geek girls.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Either way, I have no A-levels at all, and I got in. ;-)
>
> I guess they weren't overrun with applicants then ;-)
Well like I said, I had a college tutor behind me telling everybody how
great I am. (And obviously I had the qualification I got from college too.)
> Seriously though, you should consider picking up a couple at evening
> school, it will make any future job applications look much better.
Right. Because holdong an honours degree really helped me in that
direction. Oh, wait...
> I
> suspect you'd breeze through the maths one, and you'd probably fill out
> some holes in your knowledge.
Possibly. But given the tiny amount of free time I have available to me,
it would be quite a struggle to fit it in. Not to mention the financial
cost involved...
> Plus you get the chance to meet hot geek girls.
Many have claimed these exist. I have yet to see any evidence. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> (Seriously - why the hell does anybody in the modern era need to be
> fluent at long division? Sure, you should know how it works. But being
> able to finish 50 problems in an hour? That just seems pointless. Get a
> computer!)
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".
No matter how much the current world wants to deny it, there still are
situations where eg. summing or multiplying two large numbers on paper is
necessary. You might be in a situation where you simply don't have access
to a calculator or a computer, and you *really* need to know how much
you have to pay for a certain amount of something, for example.
Those heuristics are supposed to make calculations "easier", but in
many cases a simple classical mechanical paper&pen algorithm is easier
and more practical.
What I don't understand is why they have to censor the classical way.
I would understand if they taught *both* methods.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Seriously though, you should consider picking up a couple at evening
>> school, it will make any future job applications look much better.
>
> Right. Because holdong an honours degree really helped me in that
> direction. Oh, wait...
I'm sure it has actually, by having that honours degree you have opened up a
whole new set of jobs that without the degree would have been impossible to
get.
I only say about the A-levels, because if someone applies here with a degree
from a university that we are not faimiliar with, we'll likely look to see
what A-level grades they got (well actually we'll look anyway, but it's less
important). While I'm sure you are capable of getting an A at maths, if
it's not on paper then how are we going to know? Also it's a bit unusual in
this day and age to have a degree but no A levels. Expect to be asked about
that.
While it might not help you actually get the job, it will definitely help
you get interviews.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Seriously though, you should consider picking up a couple at evening
>>> school, it will make any future job applications look much better.
>>
>> Right. Because holdong an honours degree really helped me in that
>> direction. Oh, wait...
>
> I'm sure it has actually, by having that honours degree you have opened
> up a whole new set of jobs that without the degree would have been
> impossible to get.
>
> I only say about the A-levels, because if someone applies here with a
> degree from a university that we are not faimiliar with, we'll likely
> look to see what A-level grades they got (well actually we'll look
> anyway, but it's less important). While I'm sure you are capable of
> getting an A at maths, if it's not on paper then how are we going to
> know? Also it's a bit unusual in this day and age to have a degree but
> no A levels. Expect to be asked about that.
>
> While it might not help you actually get the job, it will definitely
> help you get interviews.
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.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
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 10:16:22 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
