Modern Technology vs Hard Work
Wjh213
Back in 1895 there were no calculators, microprocessors, etc. Thus, students
were expected to be able to calculate mathematical sums by using their chalk
and slate, etc.
Does this necessarily mean they were smarter or "better" than students that
rely on a calculator? Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should be able to
do long division, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and algebra and
calculus without such tools, but since our society has overcome the "burden of
hard thinking", shoudn't we be able to embrace that? (Don't flame me for that,
I'm not promoting laziness)
Also, since we've "evolved" into the information age, we've also been able to
tackle much more complicated issues that our ancestors wouldn't have been able
to do, for lack of technology. DNA mapping, space exploration, etc, have all
been brought about by computers and technology.
Anyhow, I don't mean to be "anti-math" or anything, these are just some of my
thoughts...
What are yours?
-Will H.
PSmith9626
How many of "us" really invented DNA
mapping, space exploration, etc.,? These were mostly invented by people who had
1880-1940 school educations.
The people who invented the atom bomb were --from a laboratory
equipment
perspective---one step out of the blacksmith shop. Take a look at " Methods of
experimental Physics"-Strong (1939) their bible. They were raised on books
similar to " The boy electrician" .
The people who invented space exploration e.g. robert goddard , Herman
Oberith, Von Karman, etc., were educated in the nineteenth century.Similarly
for DNA.
Most of the innovations of the last thirty years in the fields you
describe ( which were far lesser,anyway--the path had been already laid out)
were done by people of my generation and older. These were people who went to
school in 1960-1930.
They were not raised on calculators.
What major scientific innovations the calculator kids will contribute
has yet to be seen. My guess is practically nothing.
This is why we import top engineers and engineering students en mass
from the third world where they grew up with the same slates.
>DNA mapping, space exploration, etc, have all
>been brought about by computers and technology.
No. They were invented by people ,whose contemporaries invented the computers
etc.
>Anyhow, I don't mean to be "anti-math" or anything, these are just some of my
>thoughts...
I sure hope not, because all of the inventions you mention were based largely
on math.
>Back in 1895 there were no calculators, microprocessors, etc. Thus, students
>were expected to be able to calculate mathematical sums by using their chalk
>and slate, etc.
Yes, it was a better education. If you can't visualize mathematics ,you will
have big trouble inventing new math or science.What isn't in your head is not
accessable to the creative process.
That chalk and slate educated Gauss.
>Does this necessarily mean they were smarter or "better" than students that
>rely on a calculator? Don't g
No. But , the visual training helped them to think.
I have seen the results of the calculator
push in schools. When my generation retires , it will be a disaster.
Apres moi, le deluge.
best
penny
Bronia
PSmith9626 escribió en mensaje
<20000707064758...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
(sni...ip)
>No. But , the visual training helped them to think.
> I have seen the results of the calculator
>push in schools. When my generation retires , it will be a disaster.
Somebody, somewhere will come up with the "mathematics of
the (nearly) intangible". This will mean a qualitative jump in the
way we investigate the (as yet) "unexplainable". Some "calculator kid"
will dig out an old paper by Penny (year 2000), link it to the above,
crying "heureka!!!".
>Apres moi, le deluge.
An elegant way of saying "I don´t give a damn what comes after me"
But you do, don´t you? Wouldn´t you like to see that future footnote,
a reference to the original paper by Penny (2000), who has laid the
groudwork for Penny (2100)?
Saludos, Bronia.
bi...@xnet.com
> I have seen the results of the calculator push in schools.
It requires only a few brilliant visionaries in each
generation. As difficult as it is to accede to the notion,
such ideas are "old school" in the present.
>When my generation retires , it will be a disaster.
Throughout my life I have heard this from every
generation; still we continue to progress very nicely.
Sammi
<bi...@xnet.com> wrote in message news:8k5tn2$m...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
and rapidly considering the inventions since my childhood.
amazing really.
sammi
>
> bi...@xnet.com
>
>
>
>
PSmith9626
I care very much about the future. That is why I am sad about " apres moi le
deluge".
best
penny
"Genetic implants are no good, bring back the tried and true
universitron"--From the Galactic Educator 2132
>Message-id: <8k4m29$2ji$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net>
>
PSmith9626
Almost all those inventions were made by my generation or earlier. They were
not trained to push buttons on calculators.
best
penny
>Message-id: <8k5uar$r40$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
Sammi
> dear sammi,
> Almost all those inventions were made by my generation or earlier. They
were
> not trained to push buttons on calculators.
> best
> penny
if they had invented them in your generation how come they didn't have them
?
i.e. c.d's
i suggest each generation builds upon and develops the knowledge gained by
the previous, including your generation, no ?
i'm not actually that far out of your generation-less than a decade i think,
but even those few years, make a big difference in technology development.
sammi
>
> >Message-id: <8k5uar$r40$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
>
PSmith9626
Cd's were invented in the 1980's at phillips by people educated in elementary
school in the 1950's.
My generation ,exactly.
best
penny
>Message-id: <8k6v6l$qbu$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>
dennis curtis
were either killed off, ridiculed unto insanity, or shot themselves
in the foot. --dennis
dennis curtis
a world of difference. I defied convention by making friends with
freshmen and sophomores. At 17 a decade is a lifetime.--dennis
Sammi wrote:
>
> PSmith9626 <psmit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000708001519...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
> > dear sammi,
> > Almost all those inventions were made by my generation or earlier. They
> were
> > not trained to push buttons on calculators.
> > best
> > penny
>
> if they had invented them in your generation how come they didn't have them
> ?
> i.e. c.d's
Sammi
> dear sammi,
> Cd's were invented in the 1980's at phillips by people educated in
elementary
> school in the 1950's.
> My generation ,exactly.
and so you think the next cannot, will not build upon that because they use
the inventions made by your generation ?
i doubt that.
sammi
Sammi
dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:39681753...@gte.net...
> A decade!!!! LOL! When you were in high school, a single year made
> a world of difference. I defied convention by making friends with
> freshmen and sophomores. At 17 a decade is a lifetime.--dennis
as you get older and time gets faster age seems relative. :)
there's nearly 14 years between my first and last born-still a huge
difference but when they are aldults (when my youngest has matured) the age
difference will seem negligable.
but they were born in different generations--the seventies and the nineties.
strange.
my oldest grew up with a c64 and tape deck and getting an amiga was the
ultimate dream, my youngest plays on my laptop and knows nothing different.
sammi.
>
> Sammi wrote:
> >
> > PSmith9626 <psmit...@aol.com> wrote in message
PSmith9626
No. I think that the next generation will create. But, many of them were
not calculator kids. Many had real educations:
for example kids who went to good american prep schools, home schooled
americans, and foreign students.
Some of the calculator kids will ,perhaps, overcome their poor
educations.
However, based on my experience teaching them advanced math, most are
damaged.
best
penny
>Message-id: <8k9n7d$83k$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
>
PSmith9626
When I was a child in the fifties the thirties seemed a million years away.
Now ,I prefer the culture of the thirties in many ways. After all, we are now
far further away from my childhood.
This is especially true of music and literature.
best
penny
It is all perspective. From the year 10,000ad. HItler and Attila the hun might
be seen as " Chiefs of the iron age".
This was pointed out by A , Huxley in a hilarious essay.
bi...@xnet.com
> Some of the calculator kids will ,perhaps, overcome their poor
> educations.
> However, based on my experience teaching them advanced math, most are
> damaged.
Bacon wrote:
"The human understanding when it has once adopted
an opinion......draws all things to support and agree
with it. And though there be a greater number and
weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet
these it either neglects and despises or by some
distinction sets aside and rejects.....And therefore it
was a good answer that was made by one who they
showed him hanging in the temple a picture of those
who had paid their vows as having escaped a
shipwreck, and would have him whether he did not
now acknowledge the power of the gods,--"Aye,"
asked he again, "but where are they painted that
were drowned after their vows?"
Knowing the problem with a thesis, Einstein as well sought
to disprove with equal vigor.
Woah986
also most "run of the mill" people can't properly input the question...let
alone get the right answer. There will always be a place for proper
technique.
"Wjh213" <wjh...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000705165002...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
> This post has been posted, in part, to the recent posting entitled "8th
Grade".
>
>
> Back in 1895 there were no calculators, microprocessors, etc. Thus,
students
> were expected to be able to calculate mathematical sums by using their
chalk
> and slate, etc.
>
> Does this necessarily mean they were smarter or "better" than students
that
> rely on a calculator? Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should be able
to
> do long division, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and algebra and
> calculus without such tools, but since our society has overcome the
"burden of
> hard thinking", shoudn't we be able to embrace that? (Don't flame me for
that,
> I'm not promoting laziness)
>
> Also, since we've "evolved" into the information age, we've also been able
to
> tackle much more complicated issues that our ancestors wouldn't have been
able
> to do, for lack of technology. DNA mapping, space exploration, etc, have
all
> been brought about by computers and technology.
>
> Anyhow, I don't mean to be "anti-math" or anything, these are just some of
my
> thoughts...
>
Sammi
> dear sammi,
> When I was a child in the fifties the thirties seemed a million years
away.
> Now ,I prefer the culture of the thirties in many ways. After all, we are
now
> far further away from my childhood.
> This is especially true of music and literature.
i am the opposite. i hated much of the music of my time, remember disco ?
oh yuck.
i like the pop music around now. i like indie and brit pop. i like modern
literature and i still like things of the past too.
i don't find the culture of today any less valid or distasteful then that of
the past, though there are bits in every decade that are, to me, repulsive.
one has to pick and choose not regress.
>
> It is all perspective. From the year 10,000ad. HItler and Attila the hun
might
> be seen as " Chiefs of the iron age".
> This was pointed out by A , Huxley in a hilarious essay.
do you have the title of the essay ?
sammi.
>
dennis curtis
England. Many myths are dispelled. Slavery. Short, but very strong
lives. Then, as now, a few years make a world of difference. A
"venerable Bede" type was one who lived to 50 years old, yet they
were as tall and strong as those in the 20th century. Lived well,
ate well, yet died young, due to lack of disease control, water
and other pollution,and mystical medicine.--dennis
PSmith9626 wrote:
>
> dear sammi,
> When I was a child in the fifties the thirties seemed a million years away.
> Now ,I prefer the culture of the thirties in many ways. After all, we are now
> far further away from my childhood.
> This is especially true of music and literature.
> best
> penny
dennis curtis
ball. The rent in the space of human thought, being only that with
which we have to measure. Circumlocution. Math itself is not an
absolute. Ideas DO seem to be closer to a maxim. The outrageous
of this minute becomes the debated standard of tomorrow. Gods may
be eccentric and whimsical, yet they have never punished a good
idea. An indication that even the gods are on our side,no?-dc
bi...@xnet.com wrote:
>
> PSmith9626 <psmit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
bi...@xnet.com
> Ahhh! the fabric of the universe! The pull towards the heaviest
> ball. The rent in the space of human thought, being only that with
> which we have to measure. Circumlocution. Math itself is not an
> absolute. Ideas DO seem to be closer to a maxim. The outrageous
> of this minute becomes the debated standard of tomorrow. Gods may
> be eccentric and whimsical, yet they have never punished a good
> idea. An indication that even the gods are on our side,no?-dc
It is as they were destined to do.
dennis curtis
bi...@xnet.com
> What ho! Do I percieve a tinge or even glimmer of agreement? <g>-dc
More than that, we have managed to refute
free will of gods.
PSmith9626
Well, the armor I have seen from the middle ages was all proportioned for
people less than five feet four.
And they were the better fed upper classes.
best
penny
>A
>"venerable Bede" type was one who lived to 50 years old, yet they
>were as tall and strong as those in the 20th century. Lived well,
>ate well, yet died young, due to
>Life in the year 1000 in
bi...@xnet.com
> dear dennis,
> Well, the armor I have seen from the middle ages was all proportioned
for
> people less than five feet four.
> And they were the better fed upper classes.
As were doors and furniture, horses, lances, and even bows
especially the length of arrows.
dennis curtis
we mere mortals have no chance. <g> regards--dennis
dennis curtis
could not afford to be a knight. The better fed got their food from
the farms. They also had better cooks. There is indication that
shortness, in the past, was partially due to the inbreeding of
in the upper, insular class. Early English local Kings were often
taller. Alfred, Ethelred ,William and even Bodacciea were quite tall
for the age.--dennis
PSmith9626 wrote:
>
> dear dennis,
> Well, the armor I have seen from the middle ages was all proportioned for
> people less than five feet four.
> And they were the better fed upper classes.
bi...@xnet.com
> Not only that, but gods with a destiny, and as usual, against which
> we mere mortals have no chance. <g> regards--dennis
I dunno, dennis. Since we have free will and they
don't it appears to me we have a pretty good
leg up, no? We don't have to be predictable,
they do, being jealous gods. Seems a large enough
advantage to give them at least a run for the money,
no?
==========================================
PSmith9626
The best food went to the lord. The knights ate better than the peasants.
I don't know about the inbreeding, that may be so. Do you have a
reference?
best
penny
The danes were taller. They invaded much of england.
>Message-id: <396D2DC8...@gte.net
R. K. Henry
Those metal suits are expensive and hard to make. Outfitting a short person
would be a lot easier and cheaper. And adding that much more metal would add
that much more weight to an already overloaded horse. Perhaps the technology
tended to favor a smaller guy as a knight. Don't fighter pilots tend to be
somewhat shorter? Better to fit inside those cramped cockpits? A smaller
guy, with a lower center of mass, could stay on the horse more easily in
combat. And perhaps manipulating such a mass of metal armor might also tend
to favor a shorter, stockier person inside. Shorter people with shorter
limbs have greater strength because of the mechanical advantage, at least
that's what the bodybuilders tell me.
--
Bob
bi...@xnet.com
news:026b01bfecf6$b00fd200$430d1bd0@rkhenry...
> Don't fighter pilots tend to be
> somewhat shorter? Better to fit inside those cramped cockpits?
You're probably thinking about Mercury & Apollo astronauts
who were all relatively small.
Dave Evans
Modern fighter pilots as well. 5'9" or shorter is perfect.
Look at the air force academy football team. No whoppers there really
unless they are going to be cargo pilots.
The original american astronauts were recruited from the services.
Many were fighter pilots.
regards,
dave
PSmith9626
All very interesting.
best
penny
>Message-id: <026b01bfecf6$b00fd200$430d1bd0@rkhenry>
>
>Shorter people with shorter
>limbs have greater strength because of the mechanical advantage, at least
>that's what the bodybuilders tell me
Long arms have greater lever action and greater rotational kinetic energy .
But, the other stuff is very interesting.
dennis curtis
not hubristic, we get away with much. A leg up is an invitation. Two
legs up is either sex or a fall from grace. Either way, something is
happening on the floor. The gods seem a little "stuck " to me. By that
I mean that myths haven't changed much, nor been added to. I am one
of those free thinkers who feel that God and gods are ethnocentric,as
are most human concepts. A worthy invention to be sure, nevertheless
an invention of the human mind. I was kidding when I said we have no
chance. We have every chance possible, since we create them also.-dc
dennis curtis
that many peasants lived short lives, but they were very strong and
tall, indicated by femur length and brain pans being the same size
as now. Peasants were seldom inducted, as the lords knew on which
side their bread was buttered. Napolean ignored that fact and
paid dearly. Most war casualties are not from the shooting, but from
other things like dysentery,starvation,disease,cholera,malaria,
various poxes, and many other "acts of god." Including resignation.
True even in present times.
Best foods went to the royalty and the clergy. Still,the serfs ate
very well. I assume you mean the local lord and not the Lord. Same
jiveness today in my opinion. The rich eat better. But there was
plenty left over. A similiar situation exists today in So. America.
The Danes led to the Danelaws. Tribute. On the Thames today,
artifacts are still being dug up daily. Mostly Roman.
The danes not only invaded England, they inter married and settled
everywhere,bringing much new energy to a tired country,having been
invaded since Ceasar's time and subdued in Claudius's time. King
Alfred
is the only English King to be labeled "great". IOW, there were not
many great kings of England. --dennis
bi...@xnet.com
> A worthy invention to be sure, nevertheless
> an invention of the human mind. I was kidding when I said we have no
> chance. We have every chance possible, since we create them also.-dc
The trick is to keep the gods busy being gods cause
then they're too busy to notice what we're about.
Sammi
> not hubristic, we get away with much. A leg up is an invitation. Two
> legs up is either sex or a fall from grace. Either way, something is
> happening on the floor. The gods seem a little "stuck " to me. By that
> I mean that myths haven't changed much, nor been added to.
i think the gods have changed
i think they're called 'science' now :)
sammi
I am one
> of those free thinkers who feel that God and gods are ethnocentric,as
> are most human concepts. A worthy invention to be sure, nevertheless
> an invention of the human mind. I was kidding when I said we have no
> chance. We have every chance possible, since we create them also.-dc
>
> bi...@xnet.com wrote:
> >
> > dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > news:396D2823...@gte.net...
> >
> > > Not only that, but gods with a destiny, and as usual, against which
> > > we mere mortals have no chance. <g> regards--dennis
> >
> > I dunno, dennis. Since we have free will and they
> > don't it appears to me we have a pretty good
> > leg up, no? We don't have to be predictable,
> > they do, being jealous gods. Seems a large enough
> > advantage to give them at least a run for the money,
> > no?
> >
> > bi...@xnet.com
> >
> > ==========================================
> >
> > > bi...@xnet.com wrote:
> >
> > > > dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
bi...@xnet.com
> dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > Billv-- Well, I meant their destiny is to be gods. As long as we are
> > not hubristic, we get away with much. A leg up is an invitation. Two
> > legs up is either sex or a fall from grace. Either way, something is
> > happening on the floor. The gods seem a little "stuck " to me. By that
> > I mean that myths haven't changed much, nor been added to.
> i think the gods have changed
> i think they're called 'science' now :)
> sammi
That's one of them, there are many more, for
teh most part squabbling among themselves,
very good for us.
PSmith9626
This is interesting. It would say that the stuff we learned in history about
the feudal period was mostly lies.
It makes sense too, because the industrial capitalist world schools also
told us that US farmers lived worse than citypeople in the last century:
( Not that the rich forced through goverment policies that with price gouging
railroad prices ---for example-- bankrupted farmers and sent them to be factory
fodder in squalid conditions); and also that hunter -gatherer and pastural
primitives had far less free time than we do. In fact,people in such cultures
often have more time than we do. Hence, sheperds music.
It makes sense.
What is the name of the book, again?
best
penny
>Message-id: <396E8072...@gte.net>
Sammi
<bi...@xnet.com> wrote in message news:8km58r$8...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
what are the others ? i would be interested .
scientists, of course, are mere demi-gods :)
sammi
>
> bi...@xnet.com
>
>
>
>
dennis curtis
and wirey. same with knights. Same with gunslingers. --dennis
"R. K. Henry" wrote:
>
> Dennis,
>
> Those metal suits are expensive and hard to make. Outfitting a short person
> would be a lot easier and cheaper. And adding that much more metal would add
> that much more weight to an already overloaded horse. Perhaps the technology
> tended to favor a smaller guy as a knight. Don't fighter pilots tend to be
> somewhat shorter? Better to fit inside those cramped cockpits? A smaller
> guy, with a lower center of mass, could stay on the horse more easily in
> combat. And perhaps manipulating such a mass of metal armor might also tend
> to favor a shorter, stockier person inside. Shorter people with shorter
> limbs have greater strength because of the mechanical advantage, at least
dennis curtis
alone and give most of their attention to the genuflecting crowd.
One of my reasons for leaving the Catholic Church was that i got
very tired of dealing with a middleman. I also wish it known that
there is nothing amiss with any form of worship, yet i can't help
getting the notion that it is a worship of our future,or best,
selves and not a god at all. Thoughtfully--dennis
bi...@xnet.com wrote:
>
> dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:396E7650...@gte.net...
>
> > A worthy invention to be sure, nevertheless
> > an invention of the human mind. I was kidding when I said we have no
> > chance. We have every chance possible, since we create them also.-dc
>
bi...@xnet.com
> billv- worthily said. I think the gods leave the brighter folks
> alone and give most of their attention to the genuflecting crowd.
Kind of like drawing lightening, no?
> One of my reasons for leaving the Catholic Church was that i got
> very tired of dealing with a middleman.
But dennis, if you go wrong and there's a middleman misleading
you, you can't be held accountable. I believe you missed the
advantages.
> I also wish it known that there is nothing amiss with any form
> of worship,
I have a problem with rituals involving live animals, including
snake handling.
>.yet i can't help getting the notion that it is a worship of our
> future,or best, selves and not a god at all. Thoughtfully--dennis
I never saw it as "of" so much as "buying insurance for" but your
point is well taken despite the slight difference in words.
But of course mine assumes the believer believes while
that isn't necessarily true--sort of the emporer's new clothes.
Given the cross cultural nature of the invention gives it a validity
which cannot be ignored andy more than it can actually be
understood.
dennis curtis
turn of the first millennium,an Englishman's world, by Robert Lacey,
pub., 1999. A quote from chapter one, January(as he goes through
the months based on the Julius work calendar; "If you were to meet an
Englishman in the year 1000,the first thing that would strike you
would be how tall he was--very much the size of anyone today."
Again-"Nine out of ten of them lived in a green and unpolluted
countryside on a simple, wholesome diet that grew sturdy limbs--and
very healthy teeth......excavations of later medieval sites reveal
bodies that are already smaller than those discovered from the years
around 1000...." Plauges, city development and other factors led to
the literal shrinking of humans. Chivalry and knighthood came much
later.--dennis
dennis curtis
accept a religion where i have no hand in it's outcome.
bi...@xnet.com wrote:
>
> dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:396FE338...@gte.net...
>
> > billv- worthily said. I think the gods leave the brighter folks
> > alone and give most of their attention to the genuflecting crowd.
>
> Kind of like drawing lightening, no?
Probably why they pray so dang much.
>
> > One of my reasons for leaving the Catholic Church was that i got
> > very tired of dealing with a middleman.
>
> But dennis, if you go wrong and there's a middleman misleading
> you, you can't be held accountable. I believe you missed the
> advantages.
point taken, but there is not much advantage in being left out of
one's own religion if one takes the easy way out,IE no personal
accountability.
>
> > I also wish it known that there is nothing amiss with any form
> > of worship,
>
> I have a problem with rituals involving live animals, including
> snake handling.
I do too, which is why I am not a snake handler! Seems entire sects
are fashioned from a single line or paragraph from the Bible.
>
> >.yet i can't help getting the notion that it is a worship of our
> > future,or best, selves and not a god at all. Thoughtfully--dennis
>
> I never saw it as "of" so much as "buying insurance for" but your
> point is well taken despite the slight difference in words.
> But of course mine assumes the believer believes while
> that isn't necessarily true--sort of the emporer's new clothes.
>
> Given the cross cultural nature of the invention gives it a validity
> which cannot be ignored andy more than it can actually be
> understood.
Did not mean it is understood, only human created. Not the only
thing
we don't understand.--RG--dennis
>
> bi...@xnet.com
PSmith9626
Thanks . I am going to read that book.
I think cities were a terrible development. (Civil)ization is usually a
health and freedom disaster.
best
penny
>Message-id: <396FE8DE...@gte.net>
>city development and other factors le
However,medieval cities were still town size compared to ancient Rome.
A great city had a population of, perhaps, a hundred thousand.
But, most lived in squalor.
PSmith9626
Being short is a great advantage in a gunslinger. The nerve impulses have
less distance to travel.
best
penny
>Message-id: <396FD56B...@gte.net>
Small men are cheaper to feed on a long cattle trek, and need smaller cheaper
horses.
Most cowboys were scotch-irish ( those scots cattlemen and raiders descended
from "braveheart"). These are not giants.
R. K. Henry
> dear dennis,
> Being short is a great advantage in a gunslinger. The nerve impulses
have
> less distance to travel.
> best
> penny
Possibly, and the hand has a shorter distance to travel. But I suspect that
choosing that line of work might somehow be attributed to some kind of
Napoleonic complex. That's what they meant when they said that Col. Colt
made men equal.
> Small men are cheaper to feed on a long cattle trek, and need smaller
> cheaper horses.
The horses could be smaller just for the job of carrying cowboys but a
cowboy's horse does much more than that, helping to manage the cattle too--a
team effort. For that a big, strong horse would still be needed.
And as for feeding the men after performing hard day of working cattle, I'd
guess that by the time these guys carb up on the several thousand calories a
day required to do the work any differences in appetite due to size would
probably somewhat even out.
--
Bob
bi...@xnet.com
> Most cowboys were scotch-irish ( those scots cattlemen and raiders
descended
> from "braveheart"). These are not giants.
Citation please.
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
> Being short is a great advantage in a gunslinger. The nerve impulses have
> less distance to travel.
It also makes them a smaller target.
On the other hand, the ideal fencer is tall and thin: Long reach and
narrow target. These advantages completely override any disadvantage
due to longer nerve paths.
In both cases, skill trumps all else (though, sometimes, luck trumps
skill).
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) "There are no good plan Bs. If
http://www.babcom.com/polymath/ they were good, they'd be plan A."
http://www.babcom.com/gla-mensa/ -- The Magic School Bus
Query pgpkeys.mit.edu for PGP public key.
bi...@xnet.com
> And as for feeding the men after performing hard day of working cattle,
I'd
> guess that by the time these guys carb up on the several thousand calories
a
> day required to do the work any differences in appetite due to size would
> probably somewhat even out.
Carbs were at a premium in the old west. Meat was available
both in the herd being driven as well as other game. Grease was
a delecacy well savored on the trail as the cattle were, for the
most part, rapidly losing weight during the drive. Besides, the
longhorns I saw as a child were far from fat.
Rian
gunslinger, I do not like horsebackriding. the beasts never obey me (but
then my kids never did too!)
--
Rendering Interface Access Node
PSmith9626 <psmit...@aol.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
20000715090644...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> dear dennis,
> Being short is a great advantage in a gunslinger. The nerve impulses
have
> less distance to travel.
> best
> penny
>
> >Message-id: <396FD56B...@gte.net>
>
> Small men are cheaper to feed on a long cattle trek, and need smaller
cheaper
> horses.
>
dennis curtis
million people, with London having the population you indicate. In
the year 1000, England was the most prosperous land in all Europe.
The English learned sheepherding from the Vikings and it was very
profitable. The English school system was quite effective as well.-dc
dennis curtis
seven. He is the Hercules of the Rodeo. Champion in all catagories,
which is a first.--dennis
dennis curtis
Western Lore. The English immigrants were too good for that sort of
work. The majority of soldiers in the Civil war were Irish, as it
was tought to be an opportunity to come to America, get paid for
fighting, and then take their money home to Ireland to continue the
good fight. Reference- "The Scholar and the Madman".--dennis
bi...@xnet.com wrote:
>
> PSmith9626 <psmit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > Most cowboys were scotch-irish ( those scots cattlemen and raiders
> descended
> > from "braveheart"). These are not giants.
>
> Citation please.
>
> bi...@xnet.com
PSmith9626
As , I said.
best
penny
> Penny- au contraire. In the year 1000 England had well over a
> million people, with London havi
>the population you indicate. I
>> However,medieval cities were still town size compared to ancient Rome.
>>
>> A great city had a population of, perhaps, a hundred thousand.
Well, yes. As I said, London was a great medieval city, a town compared to
ancient rome which teamed with more than a million.
>The English learned sheepherding from the Vikings and it was very
There is a reason why the queen of england sits on a bag of wool.
dennis curtis
on the Stone Of Scone, which is supposedly the stone that Abraham
laid his son on for the ultimate sacrifice.
It is a very engrossing book.--regfards--dennis
PSmith9626
On top of it is a wool sack to remind them that the wealth of england came
from wool.
best
penny
>Message-id: <3972630E...@gte.net>
Catharine Honeyman
> Plauges, city development and other factors led to
> the literal shrinking of humans. Chivalry and knighthood came much
> later.
The other thing to remember is that there have always been plenty of crones
and geezers tottering around. The short life expectancies given for
medieval types also include astronomical infant mortality rates, which
bring the average life expectancy down.
Though I must say, I remember an old client of mine who was 35 and had
eight kids. She was missing teeth and looked to be around 60 years old. I
can also see that unrestrained fertility would be aging.
--
Aloha,
Catharine
dennis curtis
dennis curtis
were strong and tall and had healthy teeth, they did not live long.
In fact, if one lived to be 50, they were "venerable", so not much
improvement from Roman times, although the aveage life span of a
Roman was 37, due mostly to vomitoriums, partying, the jealousy and
whims of the current Emperor, lack of sanitation, ad nauseum.
Childbirth is a horrendous trial and it's unfair for a man to force
his husbandry upon, in some areas, a technical slave. Until the
20th century, wives in France had no rights at all. Dowrys were,IMO,
an abomination. Similiar goings-on in India. There they have to
purchase a marriage. Absurd. --dennis
Sammi
gdiv <gd...@gdiv.gdiv> wrote in message
news:8ktug0$2...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
>
> Catharine Honeyman <cat...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:20000716220619.450$4...@newsreader.com...
> > Though I must say, I remember an old client of mine who was 35 and had
> > eight kids. She was missing teeth and looked to be around 60 years old.
> > I can also see that unrestrained fertility would be aging.
unrestrained fertility or unrestrained childbearing ? :)
>
> Remaining nulliparous seems to retard the aging process.
oh rubbish.
nothing to do with childbearing but with lifestyle.
smoking, drinking, stress, too little income, inadequete (self) healthcare,
poor housing, etc, etc.
>
> >From Donna Tartt's *A Secret History*:
>
> In nature, early fulfillment of the reproductive cycle results
> in swift decline and death.
so howcome i ain't dead yet, or falling apart and looking like 60 ?
utter bosh.
sammi
Catharine Honeyman
> so howcome i ain't dead yet, or falling apart and looking like 60 ?
'Cause you don't have eight kids, popped out one every thirteen months or
so until your sex partner went to prison? :)
When consoling me about a miscarriage, an OB-GYN mentioned to me that
childbearing is hell on a woman's teeth. I ignored it at the time, but I'm
curious about it now, as I have seen a lot of multiparous women with
missing teeth. Does anyone know why that is so? Is it something really
physical or does it just mean that you don't have time to floss anymore?
--
Aloha,
Catharine
Rian
not take in enough it will come from your teeth and bones!
--
Rendering Interface Access Node
Catharine Honeyman <cat...@spamcop.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
20000717165848.633$g...@newsreader.com...
Ray L.
> > When consoling me about a miscarriage, an OB-GYN mentioned to me that
> > childbearing is hell on a woman's teeth. I ignored it at the time, but
> I'm
> > curious about it now, as I have seen a lot of multiparous women with
> > missing teeth. Does anyone know why that is so? Is it something really
> > physical or does it just mean that you don't have time to floss anymore?
>
> from your teeth and bones. In my former department, one of the
> secretaries was my age. She had four kids. She was like a wizened
> crone, hunched over. She looked 50.
I'll have to ask my dad about his mom, who had sixteen kids!
My mother's mom had three, but still has lost quite a few teeth.
dennis curtis
Catharine Honeyman wrote:
>
> Sammi wrote:
>
> > so howcome i ain't dead yet, or falling apart and looking like 60 ?
>
> 'Cause you don't have eight kids, popped out one every thirteen months or
> so until your sex partner went to prison? :)
>
> When consoling me about a miscarriage, an OB-GYN mentioned to me that
> childbearing is hell on a woman's teeth. I ignored it at the time, but I'm
> curious about it now, as I have seen a lot of multiparous women with
> missing teeth. Does anyone know why that is so? Is it something really
> physical or does it just mean that you don't have time to floss anymore?
>
> --
> Aloha,
> Catharine
bi...@xnet.com
> gdiv wrote:
> > If you don't take in enough calcium for your baby, your body steals it
> > from your teeth and bones. In my former department, one of the
> > secretaries was my age. She had four kids. She was like a wizened
> > crone, hunched over. She looked 50.
> I'll have to ask my dad about his mom, who had sixteen kids!
> My mother's mom had three, but still has lost quite a few teeth.
Nellie Pauline Hall Hester, b 1907, d. ca. 1977, bore 14 children
of which 10 survived into adulthood. She died with her teeth intact
and a reasonably straight back. She was almost as round as she
was tall.
But then, she spent her entire life on a farm, with their own milk cow(s).
DavePirtle
<cat...@spamcop.net> writes:
>Though I must say, I remember an old client of mine who was 35 and had
>eight kids. She was missing teeth and looked to be around 60 years old. I
>can also see that unrestrained fertility would be aging.
>
Could it be that you mean fecundity? I've been fertile ever since puberty
and I haven't aged any faster than anyone else.
"Is it not the first attribute and distinction
of an American to be abused and slandered as
long as he is heard of?" - R W Emerson
dennis curtis
isn't so!--dennis
Catharine Honeyman
> In article <20000716220619.450$4...@newsreader.com>, Catharine Honeyman
> Could it be that you mean fecundity? I've been fertile ever since
> puberty and I haven't aged any faster than anyone else.
Whoops. Yes, of course, you're right.
--
Aloha,
Catharine
Ray L.
>
> dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:3977A795...@gte.net...
> > Isn't it true that one of the Bachs had 64 children? Tell me it
> > isn't so!--dennis
>
>
> He had seven children with his first wife and cousin Maria Barbara.
> Four survived. He then married Anna Magdalena, who bore him
> thirteen children. Seven survived.
>
> Despite his productivity,there are no known living descendants.
They all became great decomposers.
bi...@xnet.com
> gdiv wrote:
> > dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > > Isn't it true that one of the Bachs had 64 children? Tell me it
> > > isn't so!--dennis
> > Bach had twenty children.
> > Despite his productivity,there are no known living descendants.
> They all became great decomposers.
It is merely tense that separates us.
winter
>dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
>> Isn't it true that one of the Bachs had 64 children? Tell me it
>> isn't so!--dennis
>
>Bach had twenty children.
>
>He had seven children with his first wife and cousin Maria Barbara.
>Four survived. He then married Anna Magdalena, who bore him
>thirteen children. Seven survived.
>
>Despite his productivity,there are no known living descendants.
it is possible that amongst the greatest of tragedys
is what occuring so often has great genius so rare.
it is possible that that need not be.
winter