At White Castle...



  • @toon said:

    To make one thing perfectly clear: I'm just explaining what another person meant by "beta". The whole distinction seems moronic to me and I've never been in any situation where it's been of any use. It's like comparing apples and oranges at the very least. Some folks may be the labeling type, but I am not one of them. Which is made clear by the fact that I haven't been labeling people; you're telling me I have, and that I do it regularly. You've obviously got me confused with someone else (or perhaps you can point me to a post of mine?).

    Sorry about that, it certainly sounded like you were in on it, since you were saying things like "it's just vernacular", which sounds exactly like someone who uses the terms would say to defend using the terms.

    The real flaw is my inability to follow threaded conversations. That makes me a Omega. I guess. Or something.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @toon said:
    There are, however, different kinds of high schools. And in practice, the difference is the intelligence of its students. The idea behind this system is twofold: first, it means that you get to share a class with people roughly as intelligent as you are. Second, different versions prepare for different things to do after: some high schools prepare for university, some teach you, for example, woodwork. Of course, there are several shades in between. But if there's anything offensive there, that might be it.

    I would say the offensive part to Americans is the fact that a child's options are so set in stone at a young age. Additionally, there's the disgust and classism I've seen some Europeans express towards the lower-class students (not that there aren't Americans guilty of the same, but it seems less accepted here). My experiences are from German foreign exchange students coming from Gymnasium. When we asked one if she had any friends in Hauptschule or Realschule she gave a disgusted face and said "Ew, no, we do not have the interactions with those people." She was very adamant that all students in lower schools were less intelligent than her and that they deserved the life they had been assigned. Of course, she was pretty much an insufferable cunt; she was from east Germany and complained incessantly about reunification. She felt that even though many things were better that people were less obedient and had less pride in their nation.

    I don't know about set in stone. I mean, the options are about the same for either country. You go to high school, then either you get a job or you do more school. However, I must admit that it's hard to get into university if you didn't attend the kind to prepare you for it. Universities will generally not let you in unless either you did, or you finished some other form of higher education. The latter is not unheard of, but uncommon and time-consuming. Not to mention expensive. I suppose that might be considered unfair.

    I'm not an expert on Germany, but I know that the difference between east and west Germany can still be clearly seen. The difference was apparently huge after the wall fell (I say 'apparently', because I'm only 31 years old), but it's less so now. Let's take for argument's sake East Germany right after the wall fell; it's much more comparable to the (then) Soviet Union than to the Netherlands (which is more like West Germany), where culture is concerned. The difference really is significant.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    As a counter-point, most top American universities give large scholarships to poor entrants and have many lower- or middle-class students. Of course, we still have a big problem with shitty public education screwing over lower- and middle-class kids, but there are far more options available. It's not unusual for a very successful person here to come from a poor (or even middle-class) family. In general, we are repulsed by successful individuals who rub their success in the faces of the less-successful. Flaunting your degree or wealth isn't going to make you any friends.

    I'd say that's about the way it is over here, except scholarships are basically given by the government here. It's unusual for a university to give scholarschips.



  • @toon said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @toon said:

    first, it means that you get to share a class with people roughly as intelligent as you are.

    Why is that considered desirable?

    Because that way, you're better able to tailor education to the needs, and the mental capacity (sorry about that term, I honestly can't think of a better one) of the student.

    A lot of this is just self-fulfilling prophecy. Label kids "smart" and "dumb" and the "smart" kids will do well while the "dumb" kids won't. Someone once called it the "soft-bigotry of low expectations" which is a very concise way of putting it. Obviously there are going to be some differences, but most people are capable of quite a lot if properly motivated and educated. Additionally, I think it's very important for children of varying intelligence levels to interact. I think it's beneficial for the good and poor students. School plays an important socialization role and I think it's more important for all students to learn real-world social interaction than for the smartest 20% of high schoolers to advance to quantum mechanics; they can learn that shit in college, if they need to.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @toon said:
    To make one thing perfectly clear: I'm just explaining what another person meant by "beta". The whole distinction seems moronic to me and I've never been in any situation where it's been of any use. It's like comparing apples and oranges at the very least. Some folks may be the labeling type, but I am not one of them. Which is made clear by the fact that I haven't been labeling people; you're telling me I have, and that I do it regularly. You've obviously got me confused with someone else (or perhaps you can point me to a post of mine?).

    Sorry about that, it certainly sounded like you were in on it, since you were saying things like "it's just vernacular", which sounds exactly like someone who uses the terms would say to defend using the terms.

    The real flaw is my inability to follow threaded conversations. That makes me a Omega. I guess. Or something.

    No prob. Anyway, I said it was just vernacular because to me, those labels aren't as offensive as they seem to be to you (I think we're agreed on how moronic they are though). To me it sounds more like non-geek versus geek. Unless you find that offensive, in which case that's a bad example. Also, there are no schools or government bodies that actually make that distinction.



  • @toon said:

    You go to high school, then either you get a job or you do more school. However, I must admit that it's hard to get into university if you didn't attend the kind to prepare you for it. Universities will generally not let you in unless either you did, or you finished some other form of higher education. The latter is not unheard of, but uncommon and time-consuming. Not to mention expensive. I suppose that might be considered unfair.

    Our problem is probably with too many people going to university, rather than not enough. However, I think the option should be open for most students. (In other words, most students should be able to pass a university entrance exam should they desire to, but it really should not be expected for every person to go to college. We have a proliferation of useless degrees in this country--with accompanying student debt. Also, a lot of our universities are turning into high schools because so many entrants didn't learn the basics in high school and we have this notion that all people should go to college, which is just bullshit peddled by people who make money off the college system.)

    @toon said:

    I'm not an expert on Germany, but I know that the difference between east and west Germany can still be clearly seen. The difference was apparently huge after the wall fell (I say 'apparently', because I'm only 31 years old), but it's less so now. Let's take for argument's sake East Germany right after the wall fell; it's much more comparable to the (then) Soviet Union than to the Netherlands (which is more like West Germany), where culture is concerned. The difference really is significant.

    I don't doubt it. My point is that she freely admitted that people were richer, happier and more free but felt this was meaningless because people didn't salute the old flag like they used to and because people were less obedient of authority. She was disappointed that east Germans no longer had a lot of national pride; I'm all for national pride when it's deserved--I'm very proud of my country--but national pride when you freely admit there was less reason for it is just blind nationalism.

    She also criticized us for being so Puritanical. She had moved in with her 30 year old boyfriend when she was 16 (with her parents blessing) and she insisted we were the ones who were weird for seeing a problem with that. She was completely humorless as well. She did break down crying and run from the room when we watched video of the Shoah, so she wasn't all bad.

    @toon said:

    I'd say that's about the way it is over here, except scholarships are basically given by the government here. It's unusual for a university to give scholarschips.

    Yes, your system is completely nationalized whereas ours is only 90% nationalized or so. But the best universities are almost all private so your best bet is a scholarship from the school. I don't think the government should be giving scholarships at all, but here we are..



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Additionally, there's the disgust and classism I've seen some Europeans express towards the lower-class students (not that there aren't Americans guilty of the same, but it seems less accepted here). My experiences are from German foreign exchange students coming from Gymnasium. When we asked one if she had any friends in Hauptschule or Realschule she gave a disgusted face and said "Ew, no, we do not have the interactions with those people." She was very adamant that all students in lower schools were less intelligent than her and that they deserved the life they had been assigned. Of course, she was pretty much an insufferable cunt; she was from east Germany and complained incessantly about reunification. She felt that even though many things were better that people were less obedient and had less pride in their nation.

    As a counter-point, most top American universities give large scholarships to poor entrants and have many lower- or middle-class students. Of course, we still have a big problem with shitty public education screwing over lower- and middle-class kids, but there are far more options available. It's not unusual for a very successful person here to come from a poor (or even middle-class) family. In general, we are repulsed by successful individuals who rub their success in the faces of the less-successful. Flaunting your degree or wealth isn't going to make you any friends.

     

    In Belgium, we have roughly the same system as other European countries. We have three different kinds of high school, divided roughly by intelligence. But this has nothing to do with being lower or middle class. I don't see why you would assume so, is that actually how it is in other European countries? I have trouble believing that. A lot of poor people go to university here, and all universities are just as cheap here (500 euro tuition per year + 100 or 200 euro for books, with scholarships for poor people that bring this to zero), so there's no "top universities" where you have to be either really smart and get a large scholarship, or really rich. For that reason I would say it is more equal than the system in the US, actually.

    The division by intelligence seems really sensible to me. The schools from one category prepare for university and are very general in what they teach. Another category prepares you to be ready to immediately get a job after high school (mostly manual labour), and the third category is somewhere inbetween and leaves the options open for both (and some more technical jobs like electrician). This is a sensible division: people that want to start a job immediately after high school don't get taught advanced mathemathics which they will never need, people that want to go to college to study literature don't get taught how to work with wood. That this introduces a division by intelligence is quite obvious, but I don't see why that would be a problem.



  • @briverymouse said:

    In Belgium, we have roughly the same system as other European countries. We have three different kinds of high school, divided roughly by intelligence. But this has nothing to do with being lower or middle class. I don't see why you would assume so, is that actually how it is in other European countries? I have trouble believing that. A lot of poor people go to university here, and all universities are just as cheap here (500 euro tuition per year + 100 or 200 euro for books, with scholarships for poor people that bring this to zero), so there's no "top universities" where you have to be either really smart and get a large scholarship, or really rich. For that reason I would say it is more equal than the system in the US, actually.

    The division by intelligence seems really sensible to me. The schools from one category prepare for university and are very general in what they teach. Another category prepares you to be ready to immediately get a job after high school (mostly manual labour), and the third category is somewhere inbetween and leaves the options open for both (and some more technical jobs like electrician). This is a sensible division: people that want to start a job immediately after high school don't get taught advanced mathemathics which they will never need, people that want to go to college to study literature don't get taught how to work with wood. That this introduces a division by intelligence is quite obvious, but I don't see why that would be a problem.

    Because the division by intelligence is usually just a division by class and family environment. Also, a lot of intelligence metrics are sadly one-dimensional. The result is that people who are good at taking standardized tests and who have a stable home life do okay whereas extremely bright people who don't do well at tests (or who are improperly motivated) or who have an unstable home life do poorly and get shunted into manual labor. And it happens in the US, it just isn't as inevitable as it seems to be in Europe. It also seems it was less likely to happen in the past here, but our education system has been failing for decades.

    I also think people should learn certain practical skills from school. I see basic woodworking as something most people should know, along with basic mechanics, basic finance and basic housekeeping. As a practical matter, how often do students in the lowest high school (in the US "high school" usually means 9th through 12th grades whereas in Europe it seems to mean anything past 4th or 6th grade) end up in university? These kids are, what, 10 years old when their life is being decided for them? (Ironically, I would have thrived in such a system--at 10 I was exceptional at standardized tests, had perfect grades and scored very high on IQ tests, but by the time I was 16 I stopped giving a shit and had mediocre grades and test scores. As it is, I enrolled in a couple of years of very cheap community college but skipped most of my classes. I dropped out eventually, which I'm very happy about because I wasted very little time or money on college and I seemed to learn more than most of the people who did go to college. I also make more money than most of them.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I can't do math without a calculator.

    I'm willing to bet that's not true, strictly speaking.  Do you use a calculator to figure out how many minutes it is until <arbitrary timestamp>?

    I don't worry that they choose not to calculate change (Except for tutoring others, I don't recall ever having to do calculus after college, so arguably that skill is irrelevant for me).  I worry that they don't recognize any value in knowing how.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Step back. Think about your assumptions. If someone tells you, "man these kids won't get anywhere in life if they can't make change," your brain should instantly respond with, "what... is that true? Prove it."

    Strawman.  I don't argue that they "won't get anywhere in life if they can't make change," but that their potential is widened if their default setting is not "let someone/thing else do the thinking for me".

    @blakeyrat said:

    Teaching your kids skeptical thinking will get them a hell of a lot further in life than making change.

    Change that to 'critical thinking' ("you're wrong and I can explain") and I'd agree.  Skeptical thinking ("you're wrong and I'm right") is what he practices now.  That's why he thought he could get away with lying to a judge.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    I don't argue that they "won't get anywhere in life if they can't make change," but that their potential is widened if their default setting is not "let someone/thing else do the thinking for me".

    I agree that being open to learning things is fine, but that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether there is value in doing simple arithmetic manually. I don't expect most people to know how to ride a horse, it's no longer a particularly useful skill.

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    That's why he thought he could get away with lying to a judge.

    Your son sounds like a really fun guy to hang out with.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:
    (1) I'm concerned that they learn elementary math skills (and making change is exactly that) because otherwise, when they have kids, the parents will be ill-equipped to reinforce the importance of these same skills. I adopted one at age 14 who came from this environment, and even now at age 18, he's only able to do elementary math.

    This skill, along with so many others (like handwriting) is pretty much dead outside school.  Although it is important that your kids do well in school is more important that they do well in life, so perhaps focusing on a different skillset is in order.

    Somewhat agreed that math in the concrete after school is ... less than alive.  In the abstract, it's developing the discipline to reason about simple math (and then reason about problem solving, causality, etc.) that I'm talking about.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    @serguey123 said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:
    (1) I'm concerned that they learn elementary math skills (and making change is exactly that) because otherwise, when they have kids, the parents will be ill-equipped to reinforce the importance of these same skills. I adopted one at age 14 who came from this environment, and even now at age 18, he's only able to do elementary math.

    This skill, along with so many others (like handwriting) is pretty much dead outside school.  Although it is important that your kids do well in school is more important that they do well in life, so perhaps focusing on a different skillset is in order.

    Somewhat agreed that math in the concrete after school is ... less than alive.  In the abstract, it's developing the discipline to reason about simple math (and then reason about problem solving, causality, etc.) that I'm talking about.

    The problem being that most basic math education is just rote memorization with no emphasis on critical thinking or practical application. So a lot of otherwise-intelligent people go through school thinking "Math Sucks!" and not realizing that it's actually math instruction which sucks. Until one day a friend who knows math demonstrates the elegant beauty of the discipline and makes it interesting by giving some history to go along with the formulas and they suddenly realize that math is actually really cool (and not nearly as difficult as they were lead to believe by incompetent text books and instructors).



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Because the division by intelligence is usually just a division by class and family environment. Also, a lot of intelligence metrics are sadly one-dimensional. The result is that people who are good at taking standardized tests and who have a stable home life do okay whereas extremely bright people who don't do well at tests (or who are improperly motivated) or who have an unstable home life do poorly and get shunted into manual labor. And it happens in the US, it just isn't as inevitable as it seems to be in Europe. It also seems it was less likely to happen in the past here, but our education system has been failing for decades.


    I also think people should learn certain practical skills from school. I see basic woodworking as something most people should know, along with basic mechanics, basic finance and basic housekeeping. As a practical matter, how often do students in the lowest high school (in the US "high school" usually means 9th through 12th grades whereas in Europe it seems to mean anything past 4th or 6th grade) end up in university? These kids are, what, 10 years old when their life is being decided for them? (Ironically, I would have thrived in such a system--at 10 I was exceptional at standardized tests, had perfect grades and scored very high on IQ tests, but by the time I was 16 I stopped giving a shit and had mediocre grades and test scores. As it is, I enrolled in a couple of years of very cheap community college but skipped most of my classes. I dropped out eventually, which I'm very happy about because I wasted very little time or money on college and I seemed to learn more than most of the people who did go to college. I also make more money than most of them.)

    We don't work with tests to decide which school people go to, the parents
    choose (at age 12). You can still change to a different type of
    school relatively easily until about age 14 to 16 (you have some catching up to do, of course, but nothing that a motivated teacher can't solve in a few months). At what age do you propose a child is old enough to choose? Americans seem to think this is age 18, but this means everything you learn up to then is general knowledge. You think that is a good thing, but I disagree. I'm happy my high school prepared me for one of the best engineering schools in the world, instead of teaching me woodworking. I don't see why I would ever need that skill in later life.

    It's not a division by class. Sure, when you are improperly motivated at home, you don't perform well at school. But teachers do everything they can to motivate children, and I don't see what more the education system can do. You can keep hoping they will someday decide to start studying and go to university, but what are the odds? On the contrary, if teachers before high school see that children are intelligent (not by any standardized test, but by following them for a whole year), they can often convince the parents to send them to a high school that prepares them for university. From there on, they are surrounded by other intelligent, hard-working children and will be motivated by that, instead of only being friends with people from the same class, whose parents are often just as non-motivating.

    To answer your question: only a few people every year from the "lowest" high school (which prepares you for a job, not for university) start at university. But there are a lot of people with poor parents that do very well in university. I just looked it up, and statistics seem to suggest that the problem of social class deciding education is much worse in the USA than in Europe.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    I can't do math without a calculator.

    I'm willing to bet that's not true, strictly speaking.  Do you use a calculator to figure out how many minutes it is until <arbitrary timestamp>?

    By "strictly speaking" of course you mean "if I'm a pedantic dickweed".

    But to humor you, it depends on how far away the timestamp is. If you ask me how many minutes it is until 6:00 PM PST (as of this typing), I could easily answer 52. If you ask me how many minutes it is until 6:00 PM PST Feb. 5th 2098... then I have no fucking clue.

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    I don't worry that they choose not to calculate change (Except for tutoring others, I don't recall ever having to do calculus after college, so arguably that skill is irrelevant for me). I worry that they don't recognize any value in knowing how.

    I believe there is a negative value in computer science programs requiring calculus, when it's almost entirely useless for jobs relating to computer science. It just, for no reason, destroys the self-esteem of students who are good at logic and programming but terrible at calculus.

    Fortunately, it sounds like that's not as big a deal with most universities anymore, compared to when I went to school.

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    I don't argue that they "won't get anywhere in life if they can't make change," but that their potential is widened if their default setting is not "let someone/thing else do the thinking for me".

    Doing thinking like, "how much change do I give back" is exactly the reason we built things like computers in the first place. It's stupid to go to a kid whose spent his entire life working and playing with a machine that can seamlessly, instantly, and perfectly do X, and tell them they have to learn how to do X without the machine. It's a waste of your time and a waste of the kid's time.

    There's no crazy post-apocalyptic scenario in which computers cease to exist, and also in which making change will be a useful survival skill.

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    Change that to 'critical thinking' ("you're wrong and I can explain") and I'd agree. Skeptical thinking ("you're wrong and I'm right") is what he practices now.

    I don't see a difference between the two. The skeptic would never say "you're wrong and I'm right" unless they knew they were right, in which case it's the same as scenario A, yes?

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    That's why he thought he could get away with lying to a judge.

    That's a lack of wisdom and not at all what we're talking about here.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    A lot of this is just self-fulfilling prophecy. Label kids "smart" and "dumb" and the "smart" kids will do well while the "dumb" kids won't. Someone once called it the "soft-bigotry of low expectations" which is a very concise way of putting it. Obviously there are going to be some differences, but most people are capable of quite a lot if properly motivated and educated. Additionally, I think it's very important for children of varying intelligence levels to interact. I think it's beneficial for the good and poor students. School plays an important socialization role and I think it's more important for all students to learn real-world social interaction than for the smartest 20% of high schoolers to advance to quantum mechanics; they can learn that shit in college, if they need to.

    I don't really disagree with anything you've said here. On the other hand, in the US, we're trying to force everyone through the same path, which is to say, college. This has the obvious effects of making college more expensive (a combination of increased demand and subsidies) and the dumbing down of the curriculum. It's becoming common to have many university students taking remedial math and writing.

    There's definitely value to be gotten from tracking (that's what separating students of different ability is generally called in the US), but as you mention, there are benefits to having them mix, too. Also, at some point people have to take some responsibility for their broken homes, etc, and either get their acts together or be satisfied with a life lived in the underclass. Sadly, it seems like the latter is the preferred option for many lower class people who aren't recent immigrants. Just like immigrants, it may require multiple generations to get out of the mess.

    Of course, our socialized jobs program education system isn't helping matters, and I'm not sure how you can rebuild the institution of marriage. Especially with more women graduating college, the tradition (not to say human nature) of hypergamy seems to be even more bad news on that front.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    @serguey123 said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:
    (1) I'm concerned that they learn elementary math skills (and making change is exactly that) because otherwise, when they have kids, the parents will be ill-equipped to reinforce the importance of these same skills. I adopted one at age 14 who came from this environment, and even now at age 18, he's only able to do elementary math.

    This skill, along with so many others (like handwriting) is pretty much dead outside school.  Although it is important that your kids do well in school is more important that they do well in life, so perhaps focusing on a different skillset is in order.

    Somewhat agreed that math in the concrete after school is ... less than alive.  In the abstract, it's developing the discipline to reason about simple math (and then reason about problem solving, causality, etc.) that I'm talking about.

    The problem being that most basic math education is just rote memorization with no emphasis on critical thinking or practical application. So a lot of otherwise-intelligent people go through school thinking "Math Sucks!" and not realizing that it's actually math instruction which sucks. Until one day a friend who knows math demonstrates the elegant beauty of the discipline and makes it interesting by giving some history to go along with the formulas and they suddenly realize that math is actually really cool (and not nearly as difficult as they were lead to believe by incompetent text books and instructors).

    +1



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Doing thinking like, "how much change do I give back" is exactly the reason we built things like computers in the first place. It's stupid to go to a kid whose spent his entire life working and playing with a machine that can seamlessly, instantly, and perfectly do X, and tell them they have to learn how to do X without the machine.
     

    Agreed in the broad sense, but garbage in gets you garbage out.  Being able to do these calculations in your head reasonably well (even just a reasonable quick estimate) can be immensely helpful when someone types the wrong number into the computer.  



  • @da Doctah said:

    @Nagesh said:

    I think White Castle is place of fiction for movie. Is it real like McDonald?

     

    It's real, and it's spectacular.

    The burgers are affecionately known as "gut grenades" locally.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The fact that:

    1) You label people like this at all

    2) You do it so regularly that you think nothing of posting to this international site as if we all instinctively understood the term

    tells me you're either delusional or lying.
     

    Yeah, that's the kind of attitude I'd expect from you ESFJ types.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    By "strictly speaking" of course you mean "if I'm a pedantic dickweed".

    Absolutely right on the pedantic dickweedery; I'm just pointing out the distinction between "can't" and "don't want to", as it's relevant to me.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I believe there is a negative value in computer science programs requiring calculus, when it's almost entirely useless for jobs relating to computer science. It just, for no reason, destroys the self-esteem of students who are good at logic and programming but terrible at calculus.

    Agreed, to a point. The same argument might be applied to literature, social sciences, etc.; college would have been easier if I didn't have to write a paper on "My Kinsman, Major Molineux".

    @blakeyrat said:

    Doing thinking like, "how much change do I give back" is exactly the reason we built things like computers in the first place.

    The same type of thinking is also the reason we were able to build things like computers in the first place.  I'm hoping that one of today's kids gets around to inventing the teleporter, and I'm betting it won't be one of the 16 year olds that can't subtract from 100.

    @blakeyrat said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:
    Change that to 'critical thinking' ("you're wrong and I can explain") and I'd agree. Skeptical thinking ("you're wrong and I'm right") is what he practices now.

    I don't see a difference between the two. The skeptic would never say "you're wrong and I'm right" unless they knew they were right, in which case it's the same as scenario A, yes?

    I admit some creative license here, but many (not all) dictionary definitions of 'skeptic' liken it to merely exhibiting doubt or questioning 'accepted' fact.  Perhaps a bastardization of the original Greek?

    @blakeyrat said:

    That's a lack of wisdom and not at all what we're talking about here.

    Or, a gross miscalculation of risk and reward.  Once it was mentioned that the cop's video recorder would demonstrate his folly, the wisdom quickly took over.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Doing thinking like, "how much change do I give back" is exactly the reason we built things like computers in the first place.

    The same type of thinking is also the reason we were able to build things like computers in the first place. I'm hoping that one of today's kids gets around to inventing the teleporter, and I'm betting it won't be one of the 16 year olds that can't subtract from 100.

    I hope they don't waste their time doing the calculations for it on paper, from both the "why are we wasting these smart guys' time" angle and the "holy crap what if you made like 20 mistakes" angle.

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    I admit some creative license here, but many (not all) dictionary definitions of 'skeptic' liken it to merely exhibiting doubt or questioning 'accepted' fact. Perhaps a bastardization of the original Greek?

    Oh well here's the problem. You see, I live in the 21st century, and I use 21st century definitions of words. I didn't realize I was talking to a fucking ancient Greek. Christ, what the hell is wrong with people on this forum.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Doing thinking like, "how much change do I give back" is exactly the reason we built things like computers in the first place. It's stupid to go to a kid whose spent his entire life working and playing with a machine that can seamlessly, instantly, and perfectly do X, and tell them they have to learn how to do X without the machine. It's a waste of your time and a waste of the kid's time.
     

    This is the reason why stores cannot conduct business when the power goes out.  No one knows how to do it manually any more.  With a reference book and a piece of paper, it would be possible to continue to conduct business, albeit slower than usual.  Still, they'd be able to keep sales going.  That's what used to happen.

    If you don't know how to do it, you'll never be able to know if the computer has malfunctioned or not.  Or if the answer makes sense.  Or you end up with stupid situations where the total is $14.98 and you give $20.03 to get a five dollar bill and a nickel back, and the kid asks "What are the 3 pennies for?"  (I've had it happen.)  If the total is $11.46, you give a $20 bill, and the kid gives you  $38.54 in change because he entered $50 instead of $20 and didn't think about whether getting almost $40 back in change after receiving a $20 bill is logical . . .

    We are supposed to be in charge of the computer.  We're supposed to know more than the computer.  The day we blindly turn it all over to the computer is the beginning of the end of the human race.  Sorry, but the attitude of "let the machine do it" is a dangerous, fucked-up attitude at best.  Hell, you've seen and posted WTFs on this site.  Do you really believe that the machine can do it "seamlessly, instantly, and perfectly" every single time?  I don't, and my kids are being taught to trust-but-verify when it comes to the output of any computer.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    This is the reason why stores cannot conduct business when the power goes out. No one knows how to do it manually any more.

    I'm sorry, have you seen the tax code? Our lovely government has made it virtually impossible to do a transaction without a computer in any case.

    @nonpartisan said:

    Still, they'd be able to keep sales going.  That's what used to happen.

    What happens now is that 99% of businesses realize that without any power, they can't provide the goods/service they're supposed to. So they either have a backup generator (which can also power the registers), or they close (because there's no point to, say, going to a movie theater if the power is out.)

    That, plus the fact that unless you live in the Congo the power only goes out maybe once every 3 years, for an hour... I put that in my "non-issue" file.

    @nonpartisan said:

    We are supposed to be in charge of the computer. We're supposed to know more than the computer. The day we blindly turn it all over to the computer is the beginning of the end of the human race. Sorry, but the attitude of "let the machine do it" is a dangerous, fucked-up attitude at best.

    Ooo! I watched the Terminator and it made me all scared!!! And the Forbin Project! And 2001: A Space Odyssey!! Hollywood says computers are eviiil so they must be!

    Fuck.

    Don't base your life around retarded ideas from hack science fiction writers. That applies double to Scientologists.

    @nonpartisan said:

    Hell, you've seen and posted WTFs on this site. Do you really believe that the machine can do it "seamlessly, instantly, and perfectly" every single time?

    Have any of the WTFs been due to a computer making a math error? Ever? In the history of this site? I don't recall any.

    @nonpartisan said:

    I don't, and my kids are being taught to trust-but-verify when it comes to the output of any computer.

    Fine. Teach them whatever you want. We teach kids a lot of useless shit. Just don't pretend it's useful, that's all I ask.

    And stop fucking double-spacing, what are you, 80? You wish you were back on your Smith-Corona electric typeriffic or what the fuck ancient fucking device required double-spacing between sentences? Join the rest of us in the 21st century, leave those ancient Greeks behind and come our way.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    What happens now is that 99% of businesses realize that without any power, they can't provide the goods/service they're supposed to. So they either have a backup generator (which can also power the registers), or they close (because there's no point to, say, going to a movie theater if the power is out.)

    Wow.  Just . . . wow . . .

    Really?  You deduce that when I say "reason why stores cannot conduct business" that I'm referring to a movie theater too???  Dude, get to bed.  You need your sleep.  Of course there are businesses that, due to their very nature, rely on having electricity.  Movie theaters.  Factories.  Print shops.  Etc.  Hint:  I'm not talking about them.

    @blakeyrat said:

    That, plus the fact that unless you live in the Congo the power only goes out maybe once every 3 years, for an hour... I put that in my "non-issue" file

    So, since problems occur so rarely, you don't prepare for them?  I take it you don't back up your data then because, hell, hard drives only fail once every several years?  That's a non-issue?  You live in the lovely Pacific Northwest.  What if that power went out for several days due to something unforeseen?  Say, oh, maybe a major earthquake?

    @blakeyrat said:

    Don't base your life around retarded ideas from hack science fiction writers. That applies double to Scientologists.

    Perhaps a little hyperbolic saying the end of the human race, but the two most basic, essential skills from which all other abilities are founded are reading and math.  To advocate for not having to learn mathematics, you may as well advocate for not learning to read, because the computer can just read it to you.  And we've got books on tape.  Who needs to be able to read?  What a useless skill that is!

    @blakeyrat said:

    Have any of the WTFs been due to a computer making a math error? Ever? In the history of this site? I don't recall any.

    "Dear Mr. Blakey Rat, Your bill of $0.00 is overdue.  If you do not reconcile this within seven days from the date of this letter, we will be turning your account over to WTF Collections Agency.  If you have any questions, please call (800) BITE-ME, or log on to www.cantdomathworthshit.com."  Underlying those letters are mathematically-related errors, likely due to rounding, probably someone used floating point improperly . . . but whatever the reason, an uncorrected mathematical error has occurred behind the scenes.  Or any of those "Your video will start in 6.99999999999999999993 seconds" errors.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Fine. Teach them whatever you want. We teach kids a lot of useless shit. Just don't pretend it's useful, that's all I ask.

    I won't pretend it's useful.  I will emphasize with every lesson that knowing math is something they will genuinely use on a daily basis in their lives.

    @blakeyrat said:

    And stop fucking double-spacing, what are you, 80? You wish you were back on your Smith-Corona electric typeriffic or what the fuck ancient fucking device required double-spacing between sentences? Join the rest of us in the 21st century, leave those ancient Greeks behind and come our way.

    Are you talking about putting two spaces in-between sentences?  Like this?  Just out of high school, 1990, I went to work for a secretarial/answering service.  Learned how to properly type a paragraph for business correspondence on Ashton-Tate's MultiMate word processing software.  PC-XT class machines.  Canon LBP-II laser printer.   The printer had 512KB of memory.  The only useful font was Courier.  So everything we typed was fixed space with two spaces in-between each sentence.  I learned proofreading skills there.  Proofreading skills have declined a bit (yes, I know I make grammatical errors, bite me) but I came out of that experience with an eye for detail.  When we need a peer review of new equipment configurations at work, most of my peers turn to me first.  Several of the little things I find may be considered to be pedantic and perhaps not strictly necessary, but ultimately I receive high praise from them.  When I ask my colleagues for a peer review as per SOP, sometimes it doesn't get done fast enough.  They'll still come back and say, "We know you configured it -- it's probably just fine!"  I can attribute this back to my early experiences in double-checking work.

    Translation:  I'll type my posts any fucking way I want.  What a thin skin you must have if you can't stand seeing two spaces between sentences.

    So I graduated high school in 1990.  That doesn't make me 80.  If it's now 2012, I'll let you make a guess as to my age.  Without using a calculator.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Teaching your kids skeptical thinking will get them a hell of a lot further in life than making change.

    Change that to 'critical thinking' ("you're wrong and I can explain") and I'd agree.  Skeptical thinking ("you're wrong and I'm right") is what he practices now.

    Skeptical thinking means: "you said something and you may be right, but I'm not taking your word for it". The word for "you're wrong and I'm right" is "faith".



  • @toon said:

    The word for "you're wrong and I'm right" is "faith".

    Is it? Here I thought that definition was "I'm right but I can't prove it." 



  • @nonpartisan said:

    Translation:  I'll type my posts any fucking way I want.  What a thin skin you must have if you can't stand seeing two spaces between sentences.

    So I graduated high school in 1990.  That doesn't make me 80.


    I graduated high school in 1989, and yet I've managed to adapt to the fact that with modern computer typography systems, double spacing at the end of sentences is counterproductive. You could do it too.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @toon said:
    There are, however, different kinds of high schools.

    I would say the offensive part to Americans is the fact that a child's options are so set in stone at a young age.

    Except, they're not: if you go to one level of high school and turn out to be capable of doing a higher one, you will (should?) be encouraged to go to that one instead the next year — and vice-versa, though it's usually a bit more enforced in that direction.



  • @Gurth said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @toon said:
    There are, however, different kinds of high schools.

    I would say the offensive part to Americans is the fact that a child's options are so set in stone at a young age.

    Except, they're not: if you go to one level of high school and turn out to be capable of doing a higher one, you will (should?) be encouraged to go to that one instead the next year — and vice-versa, though it's usually a bit more enforced in that direction.

    Good point. I've actually seen that happen myself quite a few times, when I was in high school.



  • @Scarlet Manuka said:

    I graduated high school in 1989, and yet I've managed to adapt to the fact that with modern computer typography systems, double spacing at the end of sentences is counterproductive. You could do it too.

    Counterproductive? Because of the extra fraction of a second it takes for the muscle memory to type that extra space? Extra bandwidth? Overwhelming our hard drives? I love it when the people who whine the most about pedantic dickweedery get their panties in a twist because of a few extra spaces. It almost makes me want to triple space. Oh, the humanity!



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Scarlet Manuka said:
    I graduated high school in 1989, and yet I've managed to adapt to the fact that with modern computer typography systems, double spacing at the end of sentences is counterproductive. You could do it too.

    Counterproductive? Because of the extra fraction of a second it takes for the muscle memory to type that extra space? Extra bandwidth? Overwhelming our hard drives? I love it when the people who whine the most about pedantic dickweedery get their panties in a twist because of a few extra spaces. It almost makes me want to triple space. Oh, the humanity!

    One doesn't need a double space after a period when using a non-fixed-width font. If you only have Courier (or similar) then by all means double space. Too bad HTML needs &nbsp;s everywhere to actually see your triple spacing. But I don't care; I don't even see many mistakes any more on forums: I used to be a bit of a grammar nazi but now I CBF'd.

    FTR I was born in 1981 and graduated high school 1997. I was put forward a grade early primary school because I was too advanced academically.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    (2) This $3.88 breakfast was typical for me, and once (maybe on this occasion) I gave the cashier $10.13 because I only had a ten and change and wanted to get rid of some of it... and (after a confused look) got back the original 13 cents and then the $6.12.
     

    Ahhh yes, I've been on the receiving end of that confused look too - and it's even more tragic here because our smallest coin is 5c (not 1c) and everything else is a multiple of 10c, so the maths should be even easier. These days I don't both trying anything like that unless cashier is at least 35, because otherwise they get confused. Even when the cash register calculates the change for them.



  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    @rpjs said:

     The other day at a Hale and Hearty Soups in Manhattan I tended a $20 bill for a purchase of $9.77.  The girl at the till hit the $50 button for the amount tendered, so the till indicated she give change of $40.23.  She spotted that she'd made a mistake, and apologised, and then left the till before I could say anything.  She brought back a calculator to work out what the change should have been...

     Americans shouldn't feel too bad though - I've witnessed similar muppetry in my home country of England as well.

    I have a fast-food receipt from 2008 taped to my cube wall which I keep as a reminder...  It's for $3.88 (two breakfast burritos), and printed near the bottom is:

    CTND    .12

    Yes, they print the Change To the Next Dollar on the receipt in case the carhops (that might be a clue) need to make change.

    This is why I no longer feel squeamish about using a credit card for a $4 meal.

    You know that means "Cash TeNDered", not Change to The Next Dollar, right?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:
    (1) I'm concerned that they learn elementary math skills (and making change is exactly that) because otherwise, when they have kids, the parents will be ill-equipped to reinforce the importance of these same skills. I adopted one at age 14 who came from this environment, and even now at age 18, he's only able to do elementary math.

    I think we've had this discussion way back in the nebulous past on this forum, but here goes again.

    My reaction to this is: so?

    Until someone proves a coorelation between "math skills" and "quality of life", I'm always going to answer "so what?" when people complain that Kids These Days (tm) can't do math without a calculator. Guess what? I can't do math without a calculator. Hell, I can barely do math with a calculator (I get dyslexic if numbers have more than 4 digits). That's exactly why I learned computers-- so I could tell the computer to do it for me and give me a result I could copy and paste elsewhere. And, at the risk of being "that guy", I make more money than all of my friends and family*-- primarily because I work with computers in an area with a large and healthy IT market.

    Even cheap crappy jobs already have computers doing this work for you. I mean, we're talking about it right now: you enter the amount tendered, and the computer tells you exactly how much change.

    Step back. Think about your assumptions. If someone tells you, "man these kids won't get anywhere in life if they can't make change," your brain should instantly respond with, "what... is that true? Prove it."

    Teaching your kids skeptical thinking will get them a hell of a lot further in life than making change.

    *) Including my brother, who was in "Math Olympiads" in school.

    And then the power goes out, and your customers wait in line forever because you can't figure out how much change to give 'em.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Labeling people is not "just vernacular". It's offensive, and it's wrong.
    Why is it different from "left-brained" vs "right-brained"?
     

    It's different in that it exists.



  • @FrostCat said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    @rpjs said:

     The other day at a Hale and Hearty Soups in Manhattan I tended a $20 bill for a purchase of $9.77.  The girl at the till hit the $50 button for the amount tendered, so the till indicated she give change of $40.23.  She spotted that she'd made a mistake, and apologised, and then left the till before I could say anything.  She brought back a calculator to work out what the change should have been...

     Americans shouldn't feel too bad though - I've witnessed similar muppetry in my home country of England as well.

    I have a fast-food receipt from 2008 taped to my cube wall which I keep as a reminder...  It's for $3.88 (two breakfast burritos), and printed near the bottom is:

    CTND    .12

    Yes, they print the Change To the Next Dollar on the receipt in case the carhops (that might be a clue) need to make change.

    This is why I no longer feel squeamish about using a credit card for a $4 meal.

    You know that means "Cash TeNDered", not Change to The Next Dollar, right?


    Cash Tendered is how much you gave them, not how much you got in return.





  • @nonpartisan said:

    Really? You deduce that when I say "reason why stores cannot conduct business" that I'm referring to a movie theater too???

    Sure why not?

    @nonpartisan said:

    Hint: I'm not talking about them.

    Oh. Well you should have told me that the first time through.

    @nonpartisan said:

    So, since problems occur so rarely, you don't prepare for them? I take it you don't back up your data then because, hell, hard drives only fail once every several years? That's a non-issue?  You live in the lovely Pacific Northwest. What if that power went out for several days due to something unforeseen? Say, oh, maybe a major earthquake?

    I think we're pretty well prepared for earthquakes. Except that damned Alaskan Way Viaduct. I mean, assertions like that are obviously not worth much until the earthquake actually happens, but I'm optimistic about the whole thing.

    I don't understand why you think lack of math abilities would cause death in an earthquake, though. Because... people can't do cash transactions manually? This is your priority in a natural disaster? Selling shampoo?

    @nonpartisan said:

    Perhaps a little hyperbolic saying the end of the human race, but the two most basic, essential skills from which all other abilities are founded are reading and math.

    A little? I'd like to see what you consider a lot.

    Here's a quick pro-tip: if you spout out stupid, wildly exaggerated, hyperbole like it's going out of style, nobody will take you seriously. Sane people understand that the one thing humans are best at is adapting to change (although you wouldn't know it reading this forum, Mr. Type Two Spaces!) and therefore understand that if we lived in a world where computers suddenly disappears, hey wow, we'd figure out how to live in that world. It might be hard for awhile, but it's not going to be the "end of the human race".

    If I read you literally, and you honestly think trusting cash registers implicitly will end civilization, then... well, that goes back to my original reply: 1) you read too much shitty sci-fi, and 2) you're crazy. Like, padded-room crazy.

    @nonpartisan said:

    Underlying those letters are mathematically-related errors, likely due to rounding, probably someone used floating point improperly . . . but whatever the reason, an uncorrected mathematical error has occurred behind the scenes. Or any of those "Your video will start in 6.99999999999999999993 seconds" errors.

    Yeah, I'm just waiting for you to cite an example where a WTF occurred because a computer did math incorrectly. Thanks for bringing up all that random noise that has nothing to do with what I'm asking for, but I'll wait for the actual example.

    @nonpartisan said:

    I will emphasize with every lesson that knowing math is something they will genuinely use on a daily basis in their lives.

    For what?

    @nonpartisan said:

    Are you talking about putting two spaces in-between sentences? Like this? Just out of high school, 1990, I went to work for a secretarial/answering service. Learned how to properly type a paragraph for business correspondence on Ashton-Tate's MultiMate word processing software.

    Even in 1990 it was wrong. You only did it because typewriters (and pre-Macintosh computers) had horrible mono-spaced fonts, and its the only way to make horrible monospaced fonts slightly readable.

    @nonpartisan said:

    Translation: I'll type my posts any fucking way I want. What a thin skin you must have if you can't stand seeing two spaces between sentences.

    Glad you summarized that paragraph because I didn't read the dumb thing.

    From skimming, though, it looks like you're really proud of your "proofreading skills" which are utterly and entirely obsolete, and have been for 20+ years. Congratulations on being a dinosaur, regardless of your age.



  • @da Doctah said:

    It's real, and it's spectacular.

    No White Castle for you!

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:
    I admit some creative license here, but many (not all) dictionary definitions of 'skeptic' liken it to merely exhibiting doubt or questioning 'accepted' fact. Perhaps a bastardization of the original Greek?
    Oh well here's the problem. You see, I live in the 21st century, and I use 21st century definitions of words. I didn't realize I was talking to a fucking ancient Greek. Christ, what the hell is wrong with people on this forum.

    Sorry, I should have said "many (not all) modern dictionary definitions of 'skeptic' liken it to merely exhibiting doubt or questioning 'accepted' fact".  I didn't think I needed to specify that.

    Back to point:  Thinking skeptically without thinking critically is akin to "I think your position is flawed.  I can't provide a cogent argument to demonstrate it, but I choose to believe it anyway."  Hence, we still have those who profess that the earth is flat.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Here's a quick pro-tip: if you spout out stupid, wildly exaggerated, hyperbole like it's going out of style, nobody will take you seriously.

    QFI



  • @FrostCat said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:
    CTND    .12

    Yes, they print the Change To the Next Dollar on the receipt in case the carhops (that might be a clue) need to make change.

    You know that means "Cash TeNDered", not Change to The Next Dollar, right?

    Given that (a) I didn't give the carhop 12 cents, and (b) the receipt was printed before any cash was tendered at all, I stick with my explanation.

    But since you bring it up, the receipt also has printed on it "CARD PAID    3.88".  Apparently in this case, I paid with a credit card beforehand.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    Back to point:  Thinking skeptically without thinking critically is akin to "I think your position is flawed.  I can't provide a cogent argument to demonstrate it, but I choose to believe it anyway."  Hence, we still have those who profess that the earth is flat.

    Maybe I'm a moron, but that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. A skeptic person who believes something she thinks is flawed, is a logical paradox, unless I'm much mistaken. And I don't mean the kind that has people puzzled because they see something is wrong but can't put their finger on what, btw: I mean the other kind.



  • @toon said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    Back to point:  Thinking skeptically without thinking critically is akin to "I think your position is flawed.  I can't provide a cogent argument to demonstrate it, but I choose to believe it anyway."  Hence, we still have those who profess that the earth is flat.

    Maybe I'm a moron, but that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. A skeptic person who believes something she thinks is flawed, is a logical paradox, unless I'm much mistaken. And I don't mean the kind that has people puzzled because they see something is wrong but can't put their finger on what, btw: I mean the other kind.

    Is your "person" the same as your "she"?  If so, that's not what I meant; I meant that person A (the uncritical skeptic) thinks that persons B's position is flawed, yadda yadda.  Change "akin to" to "akin to thinking in this manner:"

    Or, maybe your issue is that "I can't provide a cogent argument to demonstrate it" implies that I can't even prove it to myself, so my own position must be flawed.  If so, I stipulate that if I'm not thinking critically, then I'm not that concerned with the validity of the argument.

    Ooh, I'm having flashbacks to Formal Logic.  Make it stop!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    Really? You deduce that when I say "reason why stores cannot conduct business" that I'm referring to a movie theater too???

    Sure why not?

    @nonpartisan said:

    Hint: I'm not talking about them.

    Oh. Well you should have told me that the first time through.

    Wow.  Can't do math and can't read.

    @blakeyrat said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    Underlying those letters are mathematically-related errors, likely due to rounding, probably someone used floating point improperly . . . but whatever the reason, an uncorrected mathematical error has occurred behind the scenes. Or any of those "Your video will start in 6.99999999999999999993 seconds" errors.

    Yeah, I'm just waiting for you to cite an example where a WTF occurred because a computer did math incorrectly. Thanks for bringing up all that random noise that has nothing to do with what I'm asking for, but I'll wait for the actual example.

    If you won't take those, then you won't accept anything.  Because any example I give you're going to point back to it being human-caused.  These errors?  Programming errors by the humans.  Pentium division bug?  Hardware design error by the humans.  A hardware malfunction will be a hardware malfunction and so it won't count either.  Cosmic radiation?  Outside interference, not a computer error.  So by a strict definition, no, the computer is never in error.  However, the result in its output can be untrustworthy, and this is where the problem lies.  It is unrealistic to expect that the output of a computer should automatically be trusted because there are so many human-involved components that can make the output incorrect.  But those components are absolutely necessary, for without them the computer remains nothing more than a pile of sand.

    @blakeyrat said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    I will emphasize with every lesson that knowing math is something they will genuinely use on a daily basis in their lives.

    For what?

    Not even you can be this dense.  But since I have time to kill while babysitting a vendor . . . I've calculated the amount of time left before the bus comes.  I've converted a CIDR prefix to a netmask.  I calculated the beginning and ending addresses for the new subnet.  I've figured out the number of extra spaces in my response post from last night and figured out the number of characters needed to render those in HTML as non-breaking spaces (258).  I've estimated the total of several items in a purchase so I knew whether I had enough cash or not.  These are all things that I consciously know I did; there have probably been several more that I did entirely unconsciously.  All without a calculator.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Glad you summarized that paragraph because I didn't couldn't read the dumb thing.

    FTFY.

    @blakeyrat said:

    From skimming, though, it looks like you're really proud of your "proofreading skills" which are utterly and entirely obsolete, and have been for 20+ years. Congratulations on being a dinosaur, regardless of your age.

    In this day and age, proofreading skills have translated into attention to detail.  I just found out there's a job fair here at work where my boss has recommended an article about me, coming up through the ranks to become a highly-respected network engineer.  I attribute that to attention to detail and putting in the time improving my knowledge of my trade.

    boomzilla already did the QFI thing, so I'll leave that one to stand as it is.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    From skimming, though, it looks like you're really proud of your "proofreading skills" which are utterly and entirely obsolete, and have been for 20+ years. Congratulations on being a dinosaur, regardless of your age.

    Well, the same way that there are no perfect translators there are no perfect spell checkers

    @blakeyrat said:

    I don't understand why you think lack of math abilities would cause death in an earthquake

    Rioting over incorrect change. :)

    @nonpartisan said:

    I will emphasize with every lesson that knowing math is something they will genuinely use on a daily basis in their lives.

    Lying to your kids is parenting 101.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Sane people understand that the one thing humans are best at is adapting to change (although you wouldn't know it reading this forum, Mr. Type Two Spaces!) and therefore understand that if we lived in a world where computers suddenly disappears, hey wow, we'd figure out how to live in that world. It might be hard for awhile, but it's not going to be the "end of the human race".

    Extintion is a very complex phenomenon that can be triggered by a number of reasons, I doubt that the absence of computers would be a deciding factor but you never know for sure.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    I have a fast-food receipt from 2008 taped to my cube wall which I keep as a reminder...  It's for $3.88 (two breakfast burritos), and printed near the bottom is:

    CTND    .12

    Yes, they print the Change To the Next Dollar on the receipt in case the carhops (that might be a clue) need to make change.

    This is why I no longer feel squeamish about using a credit card for a $4 meal.

    I wish my brother-in-law had saved the receipt from one of the first times we went to Hardees after they came out with the Thickburgers...they were still getting used to how to ring up the new stuff and managed to provide him with a receipt indicating he had ordered

    1 Cheeseburger

      No Vanilla

    Which was accurate, as far as that goes, but he was surprised they'd found it necessary to specify that particular option, since he didn't.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    If you won't take those, then you won't accept anything. Because any example I give you're going to point back to it being human-caused.

    Yeah, that was kind of my point. Congratulations on working that out on your own.

    @nonpartisan said:

    Pentium division bug?

    That was noteworthy exactly because it resulted in computers that did (in a rare circumstance) do math wrong. That's why it was news.

    @nonpartisan said:

    In this day and age, proofreading skills have translated into attention to detail.

    Except in your own writing, where you double-space. Which is clearly wrong.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    Not even you can be this dense.  But since I have time to kill while babysitting a vendor . . . I've calculated the amount of time left before the bus comes.  I've converted a CIDR prefix to a netmask.  I calculated the beginning and ending addresses for the new subnet.  I've figured out the number of extra spaces in my response post from last night and figured out the number of characters needed to render those in HTML as non-breaking spaces (258).  I've estimated the total of several items in a purchase so I knew whether I had enough cash or not.  These are all things that I consciously know I did; there have probably been several more that I did entirely unconsciously.  All without a calculator.

    The only things this proves is that you are an bored OCD person without a calculator.  A more valuable way to waste your time is to use a calculator and then use your brainpower in something more useful (hint: watching horseporn is more useful than this.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @nonpartisan said:

    Not even you can be this dense.  But since I have time to kill while babysitting a vendor . . . I've calculated the amount of time left before the bus comes.  I've converted a CIDR prefix to a netmask.  I calculated the beginning and ending addresses for the new subnet.  I've figured out the number of extra spaces in my response post from last night and figured out the number of characters needed to render those in HTML as non-breaking spaces (258).  I've estimated the total of several items in a purchase so I knew whether I had enough cash or not.  These are all things that I consciously know I did; there have probably been several more that I did entirely unconsciously.  All without a calculator.

    The only things this proves is that you are an bored OCD person without a calculator.  A more valuable way to waste your time is to use a calculator and then use your brainpower in something more useful (hint: watching horseporn is more useful than this.

    I'm scheduled to take the CCIE written exam in June.  I'll be expected to know, and perform, subnetting, routing metric calculations, spanning tree cost paths, etc.  After I get my CCIE certification, I may not perform those calculations on a daily basis.  But during the test, I will be expected to perform them without a calculator.  If I don't have a foundation in basic mathematics (let alone the more advanced mathematics that will be required for these) I'll never have a chance to succeed at it.

    As for the examples, you write like I intentionally sat down and focused on all of those.  Calculating the time for the bus was instantaneous while walking to the stop.  Changing the CIDR to a netmask and calculating the subnet addressing took a few seconds while the server admin was bringing up the screen to change the addressing.  I counted the number of spaces because who the hell is going to lose disk space over 43 stored space characters (hell, that's just slack space in 1 sector).  No one's going to miss the latest pr0n movie because of 43 characters, what with 2 TB drives these days.  Estimating the amount of the purchase was a very conscious calculation, yes.  There's nothing OCD about any of it; they were all strictly mathematical calculations that I do in the normal course of a day that I was able to do without the aid of a calculator.  And the only way I was able to do them was because I have a practical knowledge of basic mathematics.

     



  • @kilroo said:

    1 Cheeseburger

      No Vanilla

    Hopefully, this didn't spur the line cook to believe that "with vanilla" was the default setting for the Hardees Thickburger.

    Although, you can get a bacon shake, so why not?


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.