More on self-publishing, need HS info, etc
Howard Berkowitz
Henry <john...@lowgenius.com> wrote:
> You! Yes, YOU, John Henry (john...@lowgenius.com)! Behind the
> alt.fan.heinlein sheds! Stand still, laddie!
>
> > ISDN
>
> No, IS*B*N. I've obviously spent one too many moons as a tech weenie.
Does this include the Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication
process?
Kate Gladstone
... the very clueless (and very prudish) woman for whom I once worked as
a school librarian
(the one who didn't know what CD-ROMs looked like, so made me send back
the ones she'd required me to order because "these can't be CD-ROMS -
they're compact disks!")
firmly and irrevocably (though incorrectly) believed that the letters
"ISBN" stood for "In School Book Notation" and appeared only on books
which the city government had approved for school purchase and classroom
use.
She continued to believe this even after I sent her a memo worded
somewhat as follows:
"Dear Mrs. _________. Thank you for your memo last Friday explaining
that the letters 'ISBN' stand for 'In School Book Notation' and appear
only on books approved for school use by the government of our city.
Thank you also for your memo yesterday, directing me to add to the
library any donated books that show the letters 'ISBN' printed on their
jackets or covers.
"The information in both memos came in very handy this morning, when
I entered the school library and found that some kind soul had filled
our 'book donations' box with DEBBIE DOES DALLAS, DEEP THROAT, and THE
DEVIL IN MISS JONES. These books accompany this memo; please note that
each of these books prominently bears on its cover the letters 'ISBN.'
Please let me know where you would like them shelved in the library of
our school. Yours truly, Kate Gladstone"
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kate Gladstone - Handwriting Repair - ka...@global2000.net
http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LV Poker Player
>a school librarian
>
>(the one who didn't know what CD-ROMs looked like, so made me send back
>the ones she'd required me to order because "these can't be CD-ROMS -
>they're compact disks!")
>
>firmly and irrevocably (though incorrectly) believed that the letters
>"ISBN" stood for "In School Book Notation" and appeared only on books
>which the city government had approved for school purchase and classroom
>use.
>
>She continued to believe this even after I sent her a memo worded
>somewhat as follows:
>
>"Dear Mrs. _________. Thank you for your memo last Friday explaining
>that the letters 'ISBN' stand for 'In School Book Notation' and appear
>only on books approved for school use by the government of our city.
>Thank you also for your memo yesterday, directing me to add to the
>library any donated books that show the letters 'ISBN' printed on their
>jackets or covers.
> "The information in both memos came in very handy this morning, when
>I entered the school library and found that some kind soul had filled
>our 'book donations' box with DEBBIE DOES DALLAS, DEEP THROAT, and THE
>DEVIL IN MISS JONES. These books accompany this memo; please note that
>each of these books prominently bears on its cover the letters 'ISBN.'
>Please let me know where you would like them shelved in the library of
>our school. Yours truly, Kate Gladstone"
>
I assume they quietly disappeared without any explanation? I am also guessing
you might have been "kind soul" who donated these books? She probably figured
your donations had somehow slipped through the cracks in the system. I have a
dictionary here, with its own ISBN number, that says it is an abbreviation for
International Standard Book Number. Did you try showing her one of these?
Wouldn't have helped, she probably would have figured it was a mistake, or
referred to something else.
--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.
Simon Jester US
"LV Poker Player" <lvpoke...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031229225453...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >From: Kate Gladstone
Hmmm... Reminds me. My wife jokingly said that I have so many books that I
should arrainge them according to Dewey Decimal. I didn't smile at herjoke
but turned my chari and started dtroking my beard. So, how do I start
arrainging them?
Kate Gladstone
> > .... memo worded somewhat as follows:
> >
> >"Dear Mrs. _________. Thank you for your memo last Friday explaining
> >that the letters 'ISBN' stand for 'In School Book Notation' and appear
> >only on books approved for school use by the government of our city.
> >Thank you also for your memo yesterday, directing me to add to the
> >library any donated books that show the letters 'ISBN' printed on their
> >jackets or covers.
> > "The information in both memos came in very handy this morning, when
> >I entered the school library and found that some kind soul had filled
> >our 'book donations' box with DEBBIE DOES DALLAS, DEEP THROAT, and THE
> >DEVIL IN MISS JONES. These books accompany this memo; please note that
> >each of these books prominently bears on its cover the letters 'ISBN.'
> >Please let me know where you would like them shelved in the library of
> >our school. Yours truly, Kate Gladstone"
> >
>
> I assume they [the porn-books] quietly disappeared without any explanation?
Well, they disappeared - but not "quietly." After receiving the memo, my
boss accosted me on my way into school the next morning, ordered me into
a disused office, and delivered herself of the following remarks (as
well as I can remember them after 10+ years ... )
"Miss Gladstone, you had no right to challenge my authority by taking
advantage of an obvious printer's error. The books could not have had
'ISBN' on them except by mistake, because obviously they are not
suitable. As a school librarian, you need to have the ability to
distinguish 'ISBNs' which have been correctly printed on book-covers
from identical 'ISBNs' which have been printed on the covers in error. I
am also very concerned about your assistant having reported that the
library contains books, dictionaries, and encyclopedia articles which
state that 'ISBN' refers to 'International Standard Book Number.' Please
deny library-users access to these books, dictionaries, and encyclopedia
articles until you can obtain correctly printed books, dictionaries, and
encyclopedia articles from the same publisher which identify this
abbreviation according to my preferred belief that it stands for 'In
School Book Notation.' Until you have achieved this, I will advise
teachers at this school to find reasons not to bring their classes to
the school library. This will not excuse you from needing to provide a
specified number of class library-lessons before the end of the term.
You will receive in writing a memo on this meeting which will report
this meeting as a personal conference addressing insolent and
unexplained refusal on your part to consult with me regarding proper
shelving of books donated to the school library. Records already
prepared by me will report the meeting along those lines. Being head of
the English Department, these records will stand against whatever report
you yourself may care to make."
(I recall at least the first half of that final sentence accurately:
yes, gang - she dangled her participle right out in full view!)
> I am also guessing
> you might have been "kind soul" who donated these books?
No rule prohibited a staff-member (such as the librarian) from
anonymously donating books to the school library - particularly when
those books carried a marking allegedly indicating their suitability for
the library.
In any case, library rules (created by my boss who supervised the
school's English Department) specifically stated that "All books
received as donations must be reviewed by the librarian. If the library
does not already contain copies of the books in question, before adding
the books to the library's collection the school librarian must consult
with the head of the English Department regarding proper shelving for
the donated books."
I had done nothing, in other words, but to follow her rules to the
letter.
> She probably figured
> your donations had somehow slipped through the cracks in the system. I have a
> dictionary here, with its own ISBN number, that says it is an abbreviation for
> International Standard Book Number. Did you try showing her one of these?
I would have shown her such a dictionary and similar reference-sources,
but (as mentioned above) my assistant had beaten me to it. (She got into
trouble, too.)
> Wouldn't have helped, she probably would have figured it was a mistake, or
> referred to something else.
No, it didn't help - again, as mentioned above.
Bill Reich
It is not widely realized but the ISBN is not simply a device for
identifying and cataloging books. These so-called "books" are simply
devices to give solid forms to the ISBNs for the purpose of
propagating them and carrying them down from generation to generation.
See my work, _The Selfish ISBN_ for further clarification.
--
Will in New Haven
Kate Gladstone
notes:
> .. this is the point at which it becomes appropriate to break the
> chain of command and go over her head.
I did exactly that. It turned out that the woman's supervisor (the
school principal) and everyone above her in the chain of command within
the organization regarded it as "not only inadvisable, but morally wrong
[the principal's words to break a chain of command for ANY reason, even
a completely innocent and justifiable reason. And opposing the wishes of
your supervisor, for any reason, can *never* be justifiable - no matter
what the provocation, no matter what the consequences of obeying her
decision, no matter what the consequences of disobeying her decision."
It also turned out that the school principal (she who supervised my
supervisor) believed (and would not change her belief) that "the English
Department head has full authority to determine what words mean at this
school and in the school library. If she decides that 'cat' means 'dog'
and 'up' means 'down,' young lady, what she says is what it means. You
should have learned this from your earlier experience with her."
(The above-referenced "earlier experience" had involved an
English-teacher at the school who had taken a class to the library and
informed the students, before turning the students over to me, that "All
books in all libraries are arranged by the initial of the surname of the
author or subject. The word 'surname' is a Greek Latin word meaning 'the
given name.' For instance, President John F. Kennedy's surname was John
- so, if you need a book about John F. Kennedy, you need to look under
J." When the teacher turned the students over to me, I decided to change
my lesson-plan a bit and to have various students look up the dictionary
definition and origin of the word "surname" - I had further shown the
students the arrangement of the library (leaving them to figure out for
themselves that this library, at least, did not arrange all its books
according to "surname" either as the teacher used the word or as other
speakers of the English language use the word). The teacher duly
complained to her best friend, the English Department head, that I had
"sabotaged the lesson by leaving students unsure of what the word
'surname' actually meant. Also, [complained the teacher,] if I feel that
all libraries are arranged in a certain way then it is the job of the
librarian to be supportive of this. If she felt that parts of her
library were arranged in a different way, she should have had the tact
and common sense to keep her mouth shut about it.")
> Call me cruel,
I don't call you "cruel" - I would instead apply that term to my former
supervisor and to others whom I contacted within the "chain of command"
at that time and place.
Simon Jester US
"Kate Gladstone" <ka...@global2000.net> wrote in message
news:kate-0ABD60.1...@syrcnyrdrs-03-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...
You are well and truly serious about this? No B.S.? How can one be so
blatantly stupid and yet function as a non-shortbus rider? I mean the way
you portray this woman, she souns like a blithering goit. I've met some
people who were comparably stupid in my day, but they usually had trouble
holding a job as a security guard, much less a teacher.
Sheesh...
LV Poker Player
>You are well and truly serious about this? No B.S.? How can one be so
>blatantly stupid and yet function as a non-shortbus rider? I mean the way
>you portray this woman, she souns like a blithering goit. I've met some
>people who were comparably stupid in my day, but they usually had trouble
>holding a job as a security guard, much less a teacher.
Security guards don't get the protections of tenure.
Ed Reppert
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
> Please let me know where you would like them shelved in the library of
> our school. Yours truly, Kate Gladstone"
LOL!!!
Ed Reppert
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
> I would have shown her such a dictionary and similar reference-sources,
> but (as mentioned above) my assistant had beaten me to it. (She got into
> trouble, too.)
"Stupidity is the only universal capital crime..."
Someone should have taken this... person out behind the barn and shot
her in the head.
Ed Reppert
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
> It also turned out that the school principal (she who supervised my
> supervisor) believed (and would not change her belief) that "the English
> Department head has full authority to determine what words mean at this
> school and in the school library. If she decides that 'cat' means 'dog'
> and 'up' means 'down,' young lady, what she says is what it means. You
> should have learned this from your earlier experience with her."
It appears that the principal of this place (I hesitate to call it a
school) was as stupid as the head of the English department.
Me, I'd keep going up the chain until I found someone with a brain. Or
verified that there was no such person - in which case I'd probably
take Brain's advice: "I think we should run in fear. That would be the
wisest course."
Simon Jester US
> >From: "Simon Jester US"
>
> >You are well and truly serious about this? No B.S.? How can one be so
> >blatantly stupid and yet function as a non-shortbus rider? I mean the
way
> >you portray this woman, she souns like a blithering goit. I've met some
> >people who were comparably stupid in my day, but they usually had trouble
> >holding a job as a security guard, much less a teacher.
>
> Security guards don't get the protections of tenure.
>
True. I was a rent a cop during college. There were three types. College
kids, retirees and other. And boy, were they 'other'....
Kate Gladstone
> > I did exactly that. It turned out that the woman's supervisor (the
> > school principal) and everyone above her in the chain of command within
> > the organization regarded it as "not only inadvisable, but morally wrong
> > [the principal's words to break a chain of command for ANY reason, even
> > a completely innocent and justifiable reason. And opposing the wishes of
> > your supervisor, for any reason, can *never* be justifiable - no matter
> > what the provocation, no matter what the consequences of obeying her
> > decision, no matter what the consequences of disobeying her decision."
John Henry answered:
> Time to look for a new job -
Within a year of the incident (10+ years ago), I had done so - and
thereafter went into business for myself, which continues.
> and contact the local press. The only cure
> for such ignorance is to drag it out into the light where it will wither
> and die.
I won't say what I did or did not do, when this happened (about 10 years
ago) - but, even though they fired me within a year the school had a new
and (by all reports) much better and far-more-informed set of people in
charge. (I did hear, later, that some person or people had indeed
contacted local media - partly because of other nasty stuff at the
school - and that the school had to clean itself up in a hurry or else
the local-media people would have run the story which they'd started
work on.)
Kate Gladstone
> It appears that the principal of this place (I hesitate to call it a
> school) was as stupid as the head of the English department.
I concur with his evaluation.
>
> Me, I'd keep going up the chain until I found someone with a brain. Or
> verified that there was no such person
Going up the chain quickly verified the non-existence of such a person.
Kate Gladstone
>
> You are well and truly serious about this?
Yes.
> No B.S.?
None.
> How can one be so
> blatantly stupid and yet function as a non-shortbus rider?
Simple - enter a tenured occupation and present some facade of
reasonable competence until you get tenure (no matter how much it hurts
- you can more-or-less simulate competence by aping the actions of those
above you on the totem-pole),
then, when you get tenure, you can do as you please.
(If you sincerely think 2+3=23, for instance, pretend otherwise if you
have to ... but just until you get tenure. Then you can drop the
pretense. Or, better yet if you can manage it, avoid from the beginning
any need for pretense by finding a supervisor who agrees with your way
of thinking. This, of course, requires more luck than brains -
fortunately for those who have more of the former than of the latter.)
Howard Berkowitz
<simonje...@spambait.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Kate Gladstone" <ka...@global2000.net> wrote in message
> news:kate-0ABD60.1...@syrcnyrdrs-03-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...
> > Regarding the "ISBN means what I say it means" supervisor, John Henry
> > notes:
> >
> > > .. this is the point at which it becomes appropriate to break the
> > > chain of command and go over her head.
> >
> > I did exactly that. It turned out that the woman's supervisor (the
> > school principal) and everyone above her in the chain of command within
> > the organization regarded it as "not only inadvisable, but morally wrong
> > [the principal's words to break a chain of command for ANY reason, even
> > a completely innocent and justifiable reason. And opposing the wishes of
> > your supervisor, for any reason, can *never* be justifiable - no matter
> > what the provocation, no matter what the consequences of obeying her
> > decision, no matter what the consequences of disobeying her decision."
> >
> > It also turned out that the school principal (she who supervised my
> > supervisor) believed (and would not change her belief) that "the English
> > Department head has full authority to determine what words mean at this
> > school and in the school library. If she decides that 'cat' means 'dog'
> > and 'up' means 'down,' young lady, what she says is what it means. You
> > should have learned this from your earlier experience with her."
> >
I shall attempt to avoid the sin of Godwin, and merely point out that
the International Military Tribunal in Nuremburg rejected the defense of
"befehl ist befehl" -- orders are orders.
Howard Berkowitz
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
Sports, otolaryngology, and theology?
Howard Berkowitz
<simonje...@spambait.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "LV Poker Player" <lvpoke...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20031229225453...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>
>
> Hmmm... Reminds me. My wife jokingly said that I have so many books
> that I
> should arrainge them according to Dewey Decimal. I didn't smile at
> herjoke
> but turned my chari and started dtroking my beard. So, how do I start
> arrainging them?
Don't laugh. Now, I did have the benefit of working for the Library of
Congress for several years, but I do use the formal classification. If
you're lucky, recent books will have gone through the Library's
Cataloging in Publication program, which means that a reproduction of a
properly prepared library index card (the preparation of which is
amazingly technical) appears on the copyright page. That card will have
the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress call numbers, and any other
relevant and specialized call numbers such as that of the National
Library of Medicine.
I have a good deal of my professional library arranged by LC Call
Number, as that's more familiar to me than Dewey. The exception is that
I've switched over to the NLM call numbers for my medical library -- it
is much better organized for the specific discipline.
History and such is by period, but that would correspond fairly well
with cataloging rules -- the only problem is I mix military with
nonmilitary. I actually remember a fair bit of the U series for
military science, but never really memorized the general history codes.
Howard Berkowitz
Henry <johnhenry.at.lo...@DIESPAMMINGSCUM.invalid> wrote:
> Hi, Howard Berkowitz! This is a friendly line to let people know who I'm
> talking to!
> I don't believe so:
>
> Cataloging in Publication (CIP)
> The purpose of the Cataloging in Publication (CIP) program is to prepare
> prepublication cataloging records for those books most likely to be
> widely
> acquired by the nation's libraries. For further information about the CIP
> program and how your publishing house may apply for participation in the
> program, write to:
> Library of Congress, Cataloging in Publication Division, COLL/CIP (4320)
> Washington, DC 20450-4320.
>
> I doubt very seriously that any POD service is producing "those books
> most
> likely to be acquired by the nation's libraries" at this point.
>
> Further, from the LOC website:
>
> Only U. S. publishers who publish titles that are likely to be widely
> acquired by U.S. libraries are eligible to participate in the CIP
> program.
> Book vendors, distributors, printers, production houses and other
> intermediaries are ineligible. Self-publishers (i.e. authors and editors
> who pay for or subsidize publication of their own works) and publishers
> who
> mainly publish the works of only one or two authors are ineligible.
> Publishers ineligible for the CIP program may be eligible for the
> Preassigned Control Number Program.
>
> I also find no evidence of Lulu's participation in the LOC's Preassigned
> Control Number program. For what it's worth, mass-market paperbacks -
> which most of the Lulu products would be considered, I'll wager - don't
> qualify for this program anyway. From what I can see, the only way to
> guarantee getting your book listed in LOC is to formally register the
> copyright, including depositing a copy with the US Copyright Office and
> (of
> course) paying the fee.
No, not even that. I used to work for the Library of Congress. The
Copyright Office is a division of LC.
While the Copyright Office requires two copies of a work (do note that
common-law copyright is quite potent, and the official copyright doesn't
add that much value), those copies are then shipped to the acquisition
officers for the collections. They have a general rule that they do not
acquire publications of "ephemeral value," which tends to include most
paperbacks. We had a constant battle with the acquisition people over
their general principle that loose-leaf material was ephemeral, but we'd
point out that international technical standards, often with formal
national and international regulatory recognition, were NOT emphemeral
-- even the superceded editions were historically important.
At the time I worked there in the late seventies, acquisition actually
took about 20% of the haul from the Copyright Office and put the rest in
big rolling bins for miscellaneous use or disposal. In practice, that
meant the Library staff got first crack for "official purposes," then
other Federal libraries, and then some other odd categories. A fair
number were pulped. Where I worked, in the Information Systems Office,
we had our own, non-official library of "ephemeral" technical works.
Howard Berkowitz
Reppert <erep...@rochester.rr.invalid.com> wrote:
Ahem. In most humans, and I use the term advisedly, the brain is located
in the head. In this person's case, either there might be no effect
whatsoever, or, if we admit there might be a small, well-armored area to
protect the brainstem and its autonomic function, there might be
dangerous ricochets if armor-piercing ammunition were not used.
Howard Berkowitz
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
> About the "ISBN" incident, Simon Jester wants to know:
>
> >
> > You are well and truly serious about this?
>
> Yes.
>
> > No B.S.?
>
> None.
>
> > How can one be so
> > blatantly stupid and yet function as a non-shortbus rider?
>
> Simple - enter a tenured occupation and present some facade of
> reasonable competence until you get tenure (no matter how much it hurts
> - you can more-or-less simulate competence by aping the actions of those
> above you on the totem-pole),
>
> then, when you get tenure, you can do as you please.
>
> (If you sincerely think 2+3=23, for instance, pretend otherwise if you
> have to ... but just until you get tenure. Then you can drop the
> pretense. Or, better yet if you can manage it, avoid from the beginning
> any need for pretense by finding a supervisor who agrees with your way
> of thinking. This, of course, requires more luck than brains -
> fortunately for those who have more of the former than of the latter.)
But...but...I could be a proper academic and define an system in which
"+" is the concatenation operator, not the addition operator. I could
then define, say "|" as the addition operator, so that 2+3 properly was
23, and 2|3 was properly 5.
Pete Lagrange
> Ed Reppert notes:
>
>> It appears that the principal of this place (I hesitate to call it a
>> school) was as stupid as the head of the English department.
>
> I concur with his evaluation.
>
>
>> Me, I'd keep going up the chain until I found someone with a brain. Or
>> verified that there was no such person
>
> Going up the chain quickly verified the non-existence of such a person.
Surely some of the parents were concerned with their children's education.
Perhaps the best tactic would have been to expose the behavior at an open
school board meeting.
--
Pete LaGrange
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation
as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases
which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
--C.A. Beard
Kate Gladstone
> Surely some of the parents were concerned with their children's education.
> Perhaps the best tactic would have been to expose the behavior at an open
> school board meeting.
Ninety-five percent of the parents who had children at this high school
(and about ninety-five percent of the students themselves) could neither
read nor write, had no evident concern with education, and bashed
(physically and otherwise) the five percent who did have any interest.
School board meetings existed, but I wouldn't call them "open" because -
at the time -
/1/ if a school principal objected to a schoolteacher/staffer from
his/her school saying anything at the meeting, the teacher/staffer in
question could not say anything at the meeting
/2/ the meetings, at the time, operated under what the folks in charge
called a "consensus structure" - which meant (as they used the term)
that
/a/ school-related meetings existed to gain a 100% consensus on the
correct course of action - "we can't take any action unless 100% percent
of us feel that this is okay: if a thousand people like some plan of
action and one person doesn't, we can't adopt that plan until and unless
that maverick thousand-and-first feels happy about it too" BUT
/b/ if some "maverick" did not come around, in time, to what the
majority wanted, for the sake of "gaining consensus" the majority could
and did rule that the persistent objector no longer formed a part of
this particular meeting ... therefore, since s/he and his/her objection
no longer counted re the decision at hand, "100% consensus has now been
obtained" on whatever the maverick objected to.
Ed Reppert
Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
> Ahem. In most humans, and I use the term advisedly, the brain is located
> in the head. In this person's case, either there might be no effect
> whatsoever, or, if we admit there might be a small, well-armored area to
> protect the brainstem and its autonomic function, there might be
> dangerous ricochets if armor-piercing ammunition were not used.
Good point. :-)
LV Poker Player
>> (If you sincerely think 2+3=23, for instance, pretend otherwise if you
>> have to ... but just until you get tenure. Then you can drop the
>> pretense. Or, better yet if you can manage it, avoid from the beginning
>> any need for pretense by finding a supervisor who agrees with your way
>> of thinking. This, of course, requires more luck than brains -
>> fortunately for those who have more of the former than of the latter.)
>
>But...but...I could be a proper academic and define an system in which
>"+" is the concatenation operator, not the addition operator. I could
>then define, say "|" as the addition operator, so that 2+3 properly was
>23, and 2|3 was properly 5.
From what Kate is telling us, this person is not quibbling about notation. She
really did think that if you set 3 objects in front of you, then 2 objects in a
separate pile, then perform the addition operation of putting the two piles
together, then start counting "one...two...three..." until you run out of
objects, it really is objectively possible to say "twenty three" when you run
out of objects, and NOT through any counting error, but because there really
were 23 objects in front of you after piling them together.
Do I have this right, Kate?
LV Poker Player
>> Surely some of the parents were concerned with their children's education.
>> Perhaps the best tactic would have been to expose the behavior at an open
>> school board meeting.
>
>Ninety-five percent of the parents who had children at this high school
>(and about ninety-five percent of the students themselves) could neither
>read nor write, had no evident concern with education, and bashed
>(physically and otherwise) the five percent who did have any interest.
How could this situation arise any place in the U. S.? Or was it foreign? I
don't think there is any community of any size anywhere in the U. S. with a 95%
illiteracy rate, is there?
Simon Jester UK
...
> I did hear, later, that some person or people had indeed
> contacted local media - partly because of other nasty stuff at the
> school - and that the school had to clean itself up in a hurry or else
> the local-media people would have run the story which they'd started
> work on.
Mepham?
Kate Gladstone
(in part of the "inner city" of a large
East Coast city where I then lived)
where kids and parents shared a 95% illiteracy rate), LVPP wants to know:
> How could this situation arise any place in the U. S.?
Don't ask me -
ask the school-staff who forbade having this situation publicly
mentioned, because (as became front-page news in the same city some
years later) this school and other similar schools had managed to
somewhat conceal the situation by such measures as having the teachers
correct/complete students' erroneous guesswork-answers (or non-answers)
to multiple-choice standardized city-wide exams.
(I got into serious trouble for refusing to play along - my superiors
could not direct me [or any other teacher] *in* *writing* to do
something this illegal, but they could & DID make quite difficult the
lives of those teachers/staffers who didn't respond to oral
"suggestions" that they should show up at a certain place and time
prepared to "do their duty and help our students look good. No matter
how poorly almost all of our students may have appeared to perform on
exams covering reading and computation skills, this needs to change
between the time when they complete the exam-papers and the time that we
submit those exam-papers to the city for grading. You know what I mean -
if not, ask a veteran teacher now or when you show up tomorrow in the
auditorium to make this happen.")
Remember that this took place at the same school that *also* reprimanded
me for not having found some way to exactly translate the entire text of
the Oxford English Dictionary, word-for-word, into pictures immediately
comprehensible to illiterates.
(So, okay, *you* go ahead and translate
into word-for-word pictorial representations
the dictionary's definition of "constitutionality" -
or, for that matter, the dictionary's definition of "the"!)
> Or was it foreign? I
> don't think there is any community of any size anywhere in the U. S. with a
> 95%
> illiteracy rate, is there?
Recall the situation described by Maureen in TO SAIL BEYOND THE SUNSET:
in the mid-twentieth century (hers and ours), most USA houses had few
bookshelves because "most people don't read" -
- sometime in the early twenty-first century (in her world), the reason
had changed to "most people _can't_ read."
We rapidly approach the latter situation.
Kate Gladstone
I used "2+3=23" as a horrible example; I have not (yet!) seen things
fall *quite* that low ...
... though (as mentioned here earlier) I *do* know a schoolteacher who
considers "7x8=52" just as correct as "7x8=56" ... so she doesn't care
which way the kids learn it,
"as long as they learn *something.*
If they have a hard time remembering 56,
I let them memorize that it equals 52," quoth she.
Also, a friend of mine who consults for the aircraft industry
tells me that, of the college-students whom he interviews for jobs with
his firm
(the ad requests applicants with good math skills),
the majority cannot correctly answer most of the 50 very basic
reasoning/computation-skills/numeracy questions he gives to applicants.
The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
follows:
2 apples
+ 5 oranges
______________________
Take a stab at this yourselves, and I'll tell you whether your answers
would have passed muster with this employer in need of workers with good
math skills.
Kate Gladstone
> Mepham?
No - I've never even heard of that place. It sounds British, for that
matter, and I've never taught school outside of the USA.
bookman
> Also, a friend of mine who consults for the aircraft industry
> tells me that, of the college-students whom he interviews for jobs with
> his firm
> (the ad requests applicants with good math skills),
> the majority cannot correctly answer most of the 50 very basic
> reasoning/computation-skills/numeracy questions he gives to applicants.
> The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
> applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
> follows:
> 2 apples
> + 5 oranges
> ______________________
7 fruits?
1 Stomach-ache?
1 fruit salad?
<G>
Rtb
LV Poker Player
> The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
>applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
>follows:
> 2 apples
> + 5 oranges
You have seven objects. This is obviously a reference to the classic
"comparing apples and oranges" thing. Sometimes it is acceptable to lump these
all together, other times the problem is meaningless. You just have to look at
the circumstances of the particular case to decide if the answer 7 objects
means something in the context of that case.
TreetopAngel
"Kate Gladstone" quizzes:
> Also, a friend of mine who consults for the aircraft industry
> tells me that, of the college-students whom he interviews for jobs
with
> his firm
> (the ad requests applicants with good math skills),
> the majority cannot correctly answer most of the 50 very basic
> reasoning/computation-skills/numeracy questions he gives to
applicants.
> The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
> applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
> follows:
> 2 apples
> + 5 oranges
> ______________________
>
> Take a stab at this yourselves, and I'll tell you whether your answers
> would have passed muster with this employer in need of workers with
good
> math skills.
>
E!
William Hughes
<ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
> The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
> applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
> follows:
> 2 apples
> + 5 oranges
> ______________________
>
> Take a stab at this yourselves, and I'll tell you whether your answers
> would have passed muster with this employer in need of workers with good
> math skills.
7 cups of fruit salad.
RB
Howard Berkowitz
> >From: Kate Gladstone
>
> > The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
> >applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
> >follows:
> > 2 apples
> > + 5 oranges
>
> You have seven objects. This is obviously a reference to the classic
> "comparing apples and oranges" thing. Sometimes it is acceptable to lump
> these
> all together, other times the problem is meaningless. You just have to
> look at
> the circumstances of the particular case to decide if the answer 7
> objects
> means something in the context of that case.
I'm mixing a couple of Butler Lampson quotes, I think, but "there is no
problem in computer science that is not amenable to a sufficient level
of abstraction and recursion."
Robert A. Woodward
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
> Re a particularly horrendous school
> (in part of the "inner city" of a large
> East Coast city where I then lived)
> where kids and parents shared a 95% illiteracy rate), LVPP wants to know:
>
> > How could this situation arise any place in the U. S.?
>
> Don't ask me -
>
<SNIP>
>
> Recall the situation described by Maureen in TO SAIL BEYOND THE SUNSET:
>
> in the mid-twentieth century (hers and ours), most USA houses had few
> bookshelves because "most people don't read" -
>
> - sometime in the early twenty-first century (in her world), the reason
> had changed to "most people _can't_ read."
>
> We rapidly approach the latter situation.
I am reminded of a somewhat obscure H. Beam Piper title (actually a
collaboration with J. J. McGuire), published in Astounding as "Alpha
Null" and in Ace D-227 as _Crisis in 2140_ (this is an error, the events
take place in 2142). The reason it's obscure is that when Ace did their
big Piper reprint cycle 20 odd years ago, they didn't do this title (and
they did do every other Piper-McGuire story) even though they claimed
that they had put all of Piper in print. High concept: only a small
minority are literate and are things a mess.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw
Robert A. Woodward
"Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
<SNIP illiteracy>
>
> I am reminded of a somewhat obscure H. Beam Piper title (actually a
> collaboration with J. J. McGuire), published in Astounding as "Alpha
> Null" and in Ace D-227 as _Crisis in 2140_ (this is an error, the events
> take place in 2142).
"Null-ABC" (Feb-Mar 1953) - I keep making that mistake.
Kate Gladstone
"bookman" <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote:
>
> 7 fruits?
>
> 1 Stomach-ache?
>
> 1 fruit salad?
And others have suggested "7 objects," "7 objects consisting of 2 apples
and 5 oranges," and similar things.
My friend the disgruntled interviewer of collegians "good at math"
gives full marks only to the answers "7 fruits" or "7 pieces of fruit" -
the least common answer he receives.
The most common answers (for which he provides *no* credit) run as
follows:
"The problem cannot be solved because you cannot add apples and oranges."
"7 apples."
"7 oranges."
"7"
[with no unit - nothing answering the question "seven of *what*?"]
"2 apples and 5 oranges"
[simply re-writing the question and giving this re-write as the answer]
One applicant came up with this: "5 plus 2 apples plus oranges" -
someone else said, as I recall, "2 and 5 apples or oranges."
Pat Galea
> And others have suggested "7 objects," "7 objects consisting of 2 apples
> and 5 oranges," and similar things.
>
> My friend the disgruntled interviewer of collegians "good at math"
> gives full marks only to the answers "7 fruits" or "7 pieces of fruit" -
> the least common answer he receives.
Then I'm afraid your friend will receive only those people who have a
restricted way of looking at the world.
As others have pointed out, the question requires clarification of the
context in order to provide an acceptable answer. If no clarification is
given, then the only way to answer (without just saying "I need more
info") is to say "This is a non-exhaustive list of possible answers..."
and give a few context-sensitive solutions.
A grocer making an inventory of his stock would find it far from
acceptable to say that he has merely "7 pieces of fruit". He would want
to keep the items clearly delimited, as they are essentially (for him)
different items. The abstraction "fruit" is meaningless in the context
of an inventory.
If the question were "How many pieces of fruit do I end up with if I
receive 5 apples and 2 oranges?" then "7" would be an acceptable answer.
pg
--
Pat Galea - p...@dudegalea.co.uk - www.dudegalea.co.uk
"The author of the Iliad is either Homer or, if not Homer, somebody else
of the same name." - Aldous Huxley
Robert A. Woodward
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
> In article <kKIIb.2017$VV4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> "bookman" <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > 7 fruits?
<SNIP>
>
> My friend the disgruntled interviewer of collegians "good at math"
> gives full marks only to the answers "7 fruits" or "7 pieces of fruit" -
> the least common answer he receives.
>
> The most common answers (for which he provides *no* credit) run as
> follows:
<SNIP>
>
> "2 apples and 5 oranges"
> [simply re-writing the question and giving this re-write as the answer]
I wonder what he would have done when faced with:
Position 5, 2 in fruit space (oranges are "i" and apples are "j")
Engr Bohn
Kate Gladstone wrote:
[...]
> Also, a friend of mine who consults for the aircraft industry
> tells me that, of the college-students whom he interviews for jobs
> with his firm
> (the ad requests applicants with good math skills),
> the majority cannot correctly answer most of the 50 very basic
> reasoning/computation-skills/numeracy questions he gives to
> applicants.
> The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
> applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
> follows:
> 2 apples
> + 5 oranges
> ______________________
>
> Take a stab at this yourselves, and I'll tell you whether your answers
> would have passed muster with this employer in need of workers with
> good math skills.
Three bananas short of a fruit salad.
Take care,
cb
--
Christopher A. Bohn ____________|____________
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/ ' ** ** " (o) " ** ** '
"Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."
- Mark Twain
Howard Berkowitz
Howard Berkowitz
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
>
> Remember that this took place at the same school that *also* reprimanded
> me for not having found some way to exactly translate the entire text of
> the Oxford English Dictionary, word-for-word, into pictures immediately
> comprehensible to illiterates.
> (So, okay, *you* go ahead and translate
> into word-for-word pictorial representations
> the dictionary's definition of "constitutionality" -
> or, for that matter, the dictionary's definition of "the"!)
>
I think the more recent historical imperative deals with the definition
of "is".
Unfortunately, I snipped your text about the prevalence of bookshelves
in houses. There's no question I know of people with none.
I do find, however, there's still a fair bit of shock by many Americans
at finding houses with walls of floor-to-ceiling books. This gets
especially scary as I start to replace many linear feet of professional
journals with CD-ROMs of their content.
Nancy Lebovitz
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
>
>Also, a friend of mine who consults for the aircraft industry
>tells me that, of the college-students whom he interviews for jobs with
>his firm
> (the ad requests applicants with good math skills),
>the majority cannot correctly answer most of the 50 very basic
>reasoning/computation-skills/numeracy questions he gives to applicants.
> The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
>applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
>follows:
> 2 apples
> + 5 oranges
IIRC, the text with its typical answers, correct answers, and how
they were used to evaluate applicants were written up in a book
called _Mathesemantics_. The idea was to find people who would reliably
think about what statements meant rather than just reacting to verbal
formulae.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Nancy Lebovitz
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
>
>Ninety-five percent of the parents who had children at this high school
>(and about ninety-five percent of the students themselves) could neither
>read nor write, had no evident concern with education, and bashed
>(physically and otherwise) the five percent who did have any interest.
I've wondered why you seem to run into such extraordinarily stubborn
and slow-witted people. Does it seem to be regional or just luck of
the draw, or what?
Possibly of interest: The January issue of _Liberty_ has an entertaining
article about a region of Texas which is remarkably slow-witted,
how a survivalist ended up there, and the good and bad points of being
a professor at the local college. "A Strange Little Town in Texas" by
Larry Sechrist.
_Liberty_ generally doesn't put its contents online, but the superstores
carry it.
Nancy Lebovitz
Ed Reppert <erep...@rochester.rr.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>"Stupidity is the only universal capital crime..."
Nature must love stupid people, that's why there are so many of them.
The only universal capital crime is getting born.
Kate Gladstone
Nancy notes, correctly, that:
> the text with its typical answers, correct answers, and how
> they were used to evaluate applicants were written up in a book
> called _Mathesemantics_. The idea was to find people who would reliably
> think about what statements meant rather than just reacting to verbal
> formulae.
For further info on this and related educational endeavors
(as Nancy said, to teach people to
"think [in math and perhaps other fields] ...
rather than just reacting to verbal formulae"),
you may wish to visit http://mathsemantics.com
Kate Gladstone
> [Kate's] friend will receive only those people who have a
> restricted way of looking at the world.
Since my friend (one Ed MacNeal) always discusses each "incorrect"
answer with a candidate after the test,
and since he tends to accept "wrong" answers when the discussion reveals
competent thought on the part of the candidate,
so far (Ed reports) his exam has had the opposite effect from what Pat
imagines: it has tended to screen out, rather than to welcome, those of
restricted mindsets.
>
> As others have pointed out, the question requires clarification of the
> context
When Ed discusses answers with candidates (so as to learn their
thought-processes), as I recall he *does* go into these questions of
context.
> in order to provide an acceptable answer. If no clarification is
> given, then the only way to answer (without just saying "I need more
> info") is to say "This is a non-exhaustive list of possible answers..."
> and give a few context-sensitive solutions.
As I recall what Ed has said to me on how he grades his test,
/a/ if anyone offered such an answer
he'd probably evaluate it as "correct,"
but
/b/ no one (in several decades of his having used the test)
has offered such an answer.
>
> A grocer making an inventory of his stock would find it far from
> acceptable to say that he has merely "7 pieces of fruit". He would want
> to keep the items clearly delimited, as they are essentially (for him)
> different items. The abstraction "fruit" is meaningless in the context
> of an inventory.
Pointing this out, if you'd given the grocer's answer, would probably
classify your answer as "correct" in Ed's eyes.
But giving the grocer's answer
*without* the logic demonstrating how that answer
arose from perceived context
would probably leave your answer "incorrect" in Ed's eyes.
Since Ed sees the context of his questions as "a test of mathematical
skills," Ed expects that people will recognize this and will deal with
adding 2 apples + 5 oranges the way that they deal with
adding two-thirds + five-sevenths -
find the least common denominator (the lowest unit, or the lowest level
of abstraction, that will permit the addition).
>
> If the question were "How many pieces of fruit do I end up with if I
> receive 5 apples and 2 oranges?" then "7" would be an acceptable answer.
But Ed (as he would tell you if you took his test) didn't ask that
question - he didn't provide you with the desired unit, because he wants
to see whether you can come up with this on your own.
As he likes to say: "Answer the question I asked, not the question that
you substituted for the one I asked" -
- because he doesn't define his goal as providing problems easily solved
without further thought. The real world, as he likes to note, does not
normally provide such problems: so why should he?
(Ed has noted over the years that people who answer his questions wrong
tend to "blame it on the problem": they tend to say things like "You
should have asked an easier/different question, so it's not my fault and
it should not count against me that I didn't answer this one." He has
also noted that people who choose to "blame the problem," if he hires
them for any reason, tend to do far less well in his employ than people
who "accept the cards they're dealt" and do their best to solve a
problem rather than to blame it.)
Nancy Lebovitz
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
>Re my aircraft-industry friend's unusual math-test for interviewees,
>Nancy notes, correctly, that:
>
>> the text with its typical answers, correct answers, and how
>> they were used to evaluate applicants were written up in a book
>> called _Mathesemantics_. The idea was to find people who would reliably
>> think about what statements meant rather than just reacting to verbal
>> formulae.
>
>For further info on this and related educational endeavors
>
>(as Nancy said, to teach people to
>"think [in math and perhaps other fields] ...
>rather than just reacting to verbal formulae"),
>
>you may wish to visit http://mathsemantics.com
Thanks--it looks promising.
Kate Gladstone
> ... seem to run into such extraordinarily stubborn
> and slow-witted people.
Like attracts like, perhaps.
;-)
> Does it seem to be regional or just luck of
> the draw, or what?
Since I've seen this in various parts of the country, I'd put it down to
/a/ runs of bad luck and/or /b/ the fact that my line of work brings me
into frequent contact with people whose careers/prior training have
instilled/rewarded very subjective mindsets.
> Possibly of interest: The January issue of _Liberty_ has an entertaining
> article about a region of Texas which is remarkably slow-witted,
> how a survivalist ended up there, and the good and bad points of being
> a professor at the local college. "A Strange Little Town in Texas" by
> Larry Sechrist.
>
> _Liberty_ generally doesn't put its contents online, but the superstores
> carry it.
Superstores here in Albany don't have it. Perhaps you could snail-mail
me the article? (My web-page displays my snail-address.)
Pat Galea
> Pat speculates that:
>>[Kate's] friend will receive only those people who have a
>>restricted way of looking at the world.
>
> Since my friend (one Ed MacNeal) always discusses each "incorrect"
> answer with a candidate after the test,
>
> and since he tends to accept "wrong" answers when the discussion reveals
> competent thought on the part of the candidate,
>
> so far (Ed reports) his exam has had the opposite effect from what Pat
> imagines: it has tended to screen out, rather than to welcome, those of
> restricted mindsets.
From what you're saying, it appears that what he's doing is asking a
question that needs a bit of thought (because it cannot be answered
simplistically), and looking for answers that show a deeper
understanding of math; "meta-math", if you like.
Provided that *is* what he is doing, then yes, he will probably get
better people.
What you said before made it sound like he had a preconceived idea of
what the "right" answer was, and a candidate's success was determined by
how close he got to that answer.
> (Ed has noted over the years that people who answer his questions wrong
> tend to "blame it on the problem": they tend to say things like "You
> should have asked an easier/different question, so it's not my fault and
> it should not count against me that I didn't answer this one." He has
> also noted that people who choose to "blame the problem," if he hires
> them for any reason, tend to do far less well in his employ than people
> who "accept the cards they're dealt" and do their best to solve a
> problem rather than to blame it.)
It's a very important skill to learn - and it can take many many years
to get it - that asking questions right at the start to clarify what is
*really* being asked does not make you look an idiot.
OTOH, there exists a time period after which you can't ask a simple
question without looking like a moron. If you've been asked to design a
rocket motor to send a probe to another planet, it's OK twenty seconds
later to ask "Which planet is it going to?". Wait a year before asking,
however, and you might get a different response. :-)
File under "stuff you don't learn at college".
Howard Berkowitz
<p...@dudegalea.co.uk> wrote:
By the bye, there's a lovely term in photographic engineering. A
fundamental assumption of light meters, automated printers, etc., is
that the majority of scenes, when integrated, are equivalent to 18%
reflectance of neutral gray.
So, automated printers adjust until the integrated image comes out at
18% gray. Of course, this will result in a picture of a black cat on a
white sheet coming out as a gray blob.
The technical term for this pathology is "subject failure".
Kate Gladstone
> From what you're saying, it appears that what [Ed MacNeal]'s doing is asking a
> question that needs a bit of thought (because it cannot be answered
> simplistically),
Yes - most of his exam-questions fall into that category ... though he
does include some simple straight-computation questions also
(just to make sure that the candidate really *can* do arithmetic ...
not all "good-at-math" college-graduate candidates,
it turns out, can [e.g.] accurately add
2 hours 50 minutes to 3 hours 45 minutes).
Ed Reppert
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
> Superstores here in Albany don't have it. Perhaps you could snail-mail
> me the article? (My web-page displays my snail-address.)
Borders carries it. At least, the one here in Rochester does.
Simon Jester UK
(My initial answer was "7 pieces of fruit", btw)
...
> Since Ed sees the context of his questions as "a test of mathematical
> skills," Ed expects that people will recognize this and will deal with
> adding 2 apples + 5 oranges the way that they deal with
> adding two-thirds + five-sevenths -
>
> find the least common denominator (the lowest unit, or the lowest level
> of abstraction, that will permit the addition).
Two-thirds and five-sevenths are both real numbers. They can both be added
using the type of maths learned in primary school.
Apples and oranges are not the same. So while abstracting it to the level of
"pieces of fruit" is one acceptable answer, another would be to note that
the two quantities being measured are not compatible - a better analogy,
rather than 2/3 + 5/7, would be 2 + 5i.
> > If the question were "How many pieces of fruit do I end up with if I
> > receive 5 apples and 2 oranges?" then "7" would be an acceptable answer.
>
> But Ed (as he would tell you if you took his test) didn't ask that
> question - he didn't provide you with the desired unit, because he wants
> to see whether you can come up with this on your own.
>
> As he likes to say: "Answer the question I asked, not the question that
> you substituted for the one I asked" -
The question he asked - in the absence of further context - allows only one
answer: the equation cannot be simplified any further. By answering "7
pieces of fruit", people like me *are* answering the question that *we*
substituted.
> - because he doesn't define his goal as providing problems easily solved
> without further thought. The real world, as he likes to note, does not
> normally provide such problems: so why should he?
...
In which case, Ed is lying to people when he tells them it is "a test of
mathematical skills".
Kate Gladstone
> Borders carries [LIBERTY magazine]. At least, the one here in Rochester does.
I go to the one in Colonie, NY ... where LIBERTY doesn't grace the
periodical-racks, and where the staff (those staffers I've cornered, at
least) claim ignorance.
Kate Gladstone
>
> Two-thirds and five-sevenths are both real numbers ...
... which we can also think of as two of one thing/unit/measure (a
"third") and five of another (a "seventh") ...
>They can both be added
> using the type of maths learned in primary school.
Simple addition (a "type of math learned in primary school" and simpler
than that applied to fractions) works for the apples/oranges problem,
too - as long as one takes proper care with the units (something also
basic to primary-school math) -
2 "red pencils" plus 5 "blue pencils" = 7 "pencils"
2 "pencils" plus 5 "pens" = 7 "writing tools"
2 "apples" plus 5 "oranges" = 7 "fruits"
> Apples and oranges are not the same.
The fact that we give a different name to apples than to oranges
does not prevent adding them together as "fruit"
any more than the fact that
"red pencils and blue pencils are not the same"
prevents adding them together as "pencils"
or the fact that "fifths and sevenths are not the same"
prevents adding them together as the appropriate number of
"thirty-fifths."
If "sameness of names" in a given language controlled "addability,"
then we'd have a very peculiar situation indeed:
because, if so, Chinese-speakers could add 2 pens to 5 pencils
("pen" and "pencil" have the same name in Chinese - the name _bi_)
but English-speakers could not
(since we speak a language which
calls some _bi_'s "pens" and calls other _bi_'s "pencils")
>So while abstracting it to the level of
> "pieces of fruit" is one acceptable answer, another would be to note that
> the two quantities being measured are not compatible - a better analogy,
> rather than 2/3 + 5/7, would be 2 + 5i.
I don't see the two quantities (or, rather, the two units) as somehow
"not compatible" unless you have 5 antimatter oranges going into a bag
with 2 ordinary-matter apples.
Otherwise (in the real world), "2 apples + 5 oranges" happens every day,
and understanding it constitutes a legitimate test of everyday
mathematics.
I don't think I'd shop very long in a store where the grocery-clerk told
me that I couldn't add five oranges to the two apples I'd bought because
"they are not compatible."
Pat Galea
> I don't think I'd shop very long in a store where the grocery-clerk told
> me that I couldn't add five oranges to the two apples I'd bought because
> "they are not compatible."
In fact, the clerk *does* treat them as incompatible objects. They are
priced differently. As far as the clerk is concerned, they have no more
in common than (say) newspapers and apples.
The operation that the clerk is performing isn't addition of objects;
he's not adding apples to oranges. He's adding the *price* of a quantity
of apples to the *price* of a quantity of oranges.
Howard Berkowitz
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
> Simon Jester notes:
>
> >
> > Two-thirds and five-sevenths are both real numbers ...
>
> ... which we can also think of as two of one thing/unit/measure (a
> "third") and five of another (a "seventh") ...
>
> >They can both be added
> > using the type of maths learned in primary school.
>
> Simple addition (a "type of math learned in primary school" and simpler
> than that applied to fractions) works for the apples/oranges problem,
> too - as long as one takes proper care with the units (something also
> basic to primary-school math) -
>
> 2 "red pencils" plus 5 "blue pencils" = 7 "pencils"
>
> 2 "pencils" plus 5 "pens" = 7 "writing tools"
>
> 2 "apples" plus 5 "oranges" = 7 "fruits"
>
> > Apples and oranges are not the same.
>
> The fact that we give a different name to apples than to oranges
> does not prevent adding them together as "fruit"
No, the context is quite significant in the real world, other than in a
mathematical one to which you've added considerable semantic extensions.
If I were asking for such an answer, and told the interviewee to be
rigorous, I'd expect some set-theoretic introduction/axioms that
establish that the more-specifics are members of a common set.
Alternatively, I might define a 'strip qualifier' function, such as
cardinality-in-superset = sq(starting_set, qualifier, superset)
which would lead to:
7 F = sq(orangeF, color, F) + sq(appleF, color, F)
another way of looking at this might be to observe the restrictions in
(physical) dimensional analysis.
>
> any more than the fact that
> "red pencils and blue pencils are not the same"
> prevents adding them together as "pencils"
Ummmm...try adding two units of metallic potassium to five units of
water. You get seven units of "chemicals", right/
>
> If "sameness of names" in a given language controlled "addability,"
> then we'd have a very peculiar situation indeed:
Sameness or difference of names is an extremely important real-world
quantities, assuming the names refer to significant differences in the
physical world. To take an example from Internet addressing, I can't
"add" 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.2.0/24 and get 192.168.3.0/23. I can
"add", or more properly "aggregate", 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24
and get 192.168.0.0/23. You see, these are "names" -- an identifier is
a name, right? -- that are a "human-friendly" notation for what are
actually 32-bit binary strings, with certain operational rules.
>
> because, if so, Chinese-speakers could add 2 pens to 5 pencils
> ("pen" and "pencil" have the same name in Chinese - the name _bi_)
> but English-speakers could not
> (since we speak a language which
> calls some _bi_'s "pens" and calls other _bi_'s "pencils")
>
> >So while abstracting it to the level of
> > "pieces of fruit" is one acceptable answer, another would be to note
> > that
> > the two quantities being measured are not compatible - a better
> > analogy,
> > rather than 2/3 + 5/7, would be 2 + 5i.
>
> I don't see the two quantities (or, rather, the two units) as somehow
> "not compatible" unless you have 5 antimatter oranges going into a bag
> with 2 ordinary-matter apples.
Try 2 grams of potassium and 5 grams of water.
>
> Otherwise (in the real world), "2 apples + 5 oranges" happens every day,
> and understanding it constitutes a legitimate test of everyday
> mathematics.
But mathematics alone has no content (IIRC, more or less quoting RAH).
If I'm interviewing someone to work in the real world, I expect them to
know the limitations of mathematics alone. If I convert your colors or
types of fruit to proper set-theoretic notation, the abstraction to
"fruit" does NOT work mathematically, unless my axioms permit the
abstraction.
>
> I don't think I'd shop very long in a store where the grocery-clerk told
> me that I couldn't add five oranges to the two apples I'd bought because
> "they are not compatible."
Why would a clerk do that? If apples are 59 cents each and oranges are
49 cents each, how do I come up with a price when I don't have a generic
one for "fruit"?
Nancy Lebovitz
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
>Nancy wonders why I ...
>
>> ... seem to run into such extraordinarily stubborn
>> and slow-witted people.
>
>Like attracts like, perhaps.
>
>;-)
>
>> Does it seem to be regional or just luck of
>> the draw, or what?
>
>Since I've seen this in various parts of the country, I'd put it down to
>/a/ runs of bad luck and/or /b/ the fact that my line of work brings me
>into frequent contact with people whose careers/prior training have
>instilled/rewarded very subjective mindsets.
The other possibility is that you notice extraordinary stupidity more
acutely than most people do--I consider this unlikely, at least when
the "most people" are denizens of rec.arts.sf.fandom and alt.fan.heinlein.
>
>> Possibly of interest: The January issue of _Liberty_ has an entertaining
>> article about a region of Texas which is remarkably slow-witted,
>> how a survivalist ended up there, and the good and bad points of being
>> a professor at the local college. "A Strange Little Town in Texas" by
>> Larry Sechrist.
>>
>> _Liberty_ generally doesn't put its contents online, but the superstores
>> carry it.
>
>Superstores here in Albany don't have it. Perhaps you could snail-mail
>me the article? (My web-page displays my snail-address.)
Will do, but it's possible that folks here might want to subscribe--it's
a somewhat quirky libertarian magazine, and I view it as mostly comfort
reading.
http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/orders.html
Kate Gladstone
*selling* fruit to someone ...
> The operation that the clerk is performing isn't addition of objects;
> he's not adding apples to oranges. He's adding the *price* of a quantity
> of apples to the *price* of a quantity of oranges.
... but wrongly about what that clerk (or, more usually, another one
further down the line) does when adding the sold fruit to other fruits
(or other objects) in a bag or similar container
(the operation that I'd had in mind when responding to Simon Jester).
Kate Gladstone
> Ummmm...try adding two units of metallic potassium to five units of
> water. You get seven units of "chemicals", right/
If my friend Ed's "apples and oranges" exam had include a "potassium and
water" questions, neither he nor I would expect *only* mathematical
considerations to apply. Ed would, I've reason to believe, not grade as
"correct" a candidate who gave the answer that Howard jestingly provides.
(NOTE: Ed's exam *does* include examples of real-world reasoning not
necessarily amenable to pure mathematics unaided by real-world
considerations. For these questions, at least, he does expect that an
applicant will take the real world into account.) As Howard says:
> If I'm interviewing someone to work in the real world, I expect them to
> know the limitations of mathematics alone. If I convert your colors or
> types of fruit to proper set-theoretic notation, the abstraction to
> "fruit" does NOT work mathematically, unless my axioms permit the
> abstraction.
>
> >
> > I don't think I'd shop very long in a store where the grocery-clerk told
> > me that I couldn't add five oranges to the two apples I'd bought because
> > "they are not compatible."
>
> Why would a clerk do that? If apples are 59 cents each and oranges are
> 49 cents each, how do I come up with a price when I don't have a generic
> one for "fruit"?
I had in mind a clerk who wouldn't *let* you purchase five oranges (at
any price) because you had already purchased two apples (at whatever
price) - or a clerk who has your bag with two apples but who refuses to
add (or to let you add) your newly purchased five oranges to the
contents of that bag "because putting five oranges together with two
apples is an incompatibility." And, when you ask why, the bag-clerk
responds: "Because my primary-school arithmetic-teacher told us that it
is impossible to add apples and oranges [the reason that Ed's applicants
most frequently give for refusing to do the addition or to accept any
procedure suggested by Ed for stating the addition's result]. Because it
is impossible to add apples and oranges, I cannot place oranges into
this bag that contains apples."
Pat Galea
> Pat Galen
'Galen'? From Planet of the Apes, yeah? You makin' a monkey outa me? ;-)
> speaks rightly about what the grocery-clerk does when
> *selling* fruit to someone ...
>
>>The operation that the clerk is performing isn't addition of objects;
>>he's not adding apples to oranges. He's adding the *price* of a quantity
>>of apples to the *price* of a quantity of oranges.
>
> ... but wrongly about what that clerk (or, more usually, another one
> further down the line) does when adding the sold fruit to other fruits
> (or other objects) in a bag or similar container
> (the operation that I'd had in mind when responding to Simon Jester).
But he's not actually 'adding' them mathematically; he's just putting
them in there. This is a different sense of 'addition', one in which we
don't actually care about the numerical result. (Or rather, we only care
about the numbers of individual objects, not the total number. I've
bought specific numbers of apples and oranges, not just a number of
generic fruits.)
Howard Berkowitz
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
> Pat Galen speaks rightly about what the grocery-clerk does when
> *selling* fruit to someone ...
>
> > The operation that the clerk is performing isn't addition of objects;
> > he's not adding apples to oranges. He's adding the *price* of a
> > quantity
> > of apples to the *price* of a quantity of oranges.
>
> ... but wrongly about what that clerk (or, more usually, another one
> further down the line) does when adding the sold fruit to other fruits
> (or other objects) in a bag or similar container
> (the operation that I'd had in mind when responding to Simon Jester).
While I'm sure you did have it in mind, this is a good example of not
stating axioms. When interviewing technical candidates, I'm often more
concerned that they can define and bound an arbitrary problem than
necessarily to give me a solution.
pixelmeow
<ka...@global2000.net> scribbled:
>In article <kKIIb.2017$VV4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> "bookman" <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> 7 fruits?
>>
>> 1 Stomach-ache?
>>
>> 1 fruit salad?
>
>
>And others have suggested "7 objects," "7 objects consisting of 2 apples
>and 5 oranges," and similar things.
>
>My friend the disgruntled interviewer of collegians "good at math"
>gives full marks only to the answers "7 fruits" or "7 pieces of fruit" -
>the least common answer he receives.
Funny, before I read anything else, my answer was "7 fruits".
Interesting to see the points of view on this, as well as the answers!
:-)
--
~teresa~
AFH Barwench
^..^ "Never try to outstubborn a cat." Robert A. Heinlein ^..^
http://pixelmeow.com/ && http://heinleinsociety.org/
http://pixelmeow.com/Book_Exchange/index.htm
http://www.storesonline.com/site/thesurvivalstation/
http://rose-n-thorn-llc.com/
aim: pixelmeow msn:pixe...@passport.com
Kate Gladstone
> But he's not actually 'adding' them mathematically; he's just putting
> them in there. This is a different sense of 'addition', one in which we
> don't actually care about the numerical result. ...
True, although my pal Ed tells me that (when he discusses the questions
with applicants after their interviews) some folks cite the
"can't-add-apples-to-oranges" objection as a reason that they "can't"
solve or try solving the problem when stated as a grocery-bag,
"just-putting-them-in-there" situation either.
E.g., Ed gets out a bag, wordlessly tosses in two apples, then tosses in
five oranges, and asks: "What do I have 'seven of' in the bag?" ... some
people will not say "You have seven fruits" - and will not accept 'seven
fruits' [or even seven ANYTHINGS - e.g., "seven objects" as a possible
answer if suggested to them, ' because you can't add apples and
oranges.'
Two apples to five apples -
fine for these applicants: seven apples.
Two red apples to five green apples -
still fine; still seven apples. BUT ...
if Ed then tells them that "I call red apples 'reddies' and green apples
'greenies'," (or the same for red versus green pencils, or whatever)
all of a sudden,
for at least some of these applicants,
calling the items in the bag "seven apples"
(or "seven pencils," or whatever)
becomes definitely NOT "fine" according to their mindset.
Once the item "is a reddie" or "is a greenie" for them, to their minds
it cannot remain "an apple" -
similarly, once some of Ed's applicants have verbally identified
something as "an apple" or "an orange," when they see it bagged with
other more-or-less similar items they will refuse to categorize this and
the other such items as "fruits" at the moment.
This would not surprise anyone dealing with (say) four- or
five-year-olds - it *does* surprise me (and still surprises Ed) to see
this among even some college graduates ("good at math" or otherwise).
pixelmeow
Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> scribbled:
ABSOLUTELY. That's the majority of what I do in my job; define the
"problem" as well as solve it. If you can't define it, you sure as
hell can't solve it... it's just that in computers, you can't just
fly by the seat of your pants like you can in other areas.
bookman
"pixelmeow" <NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:c8cc944c9acc0339...@news.teranews.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:29:25 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, Howard
> Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> scribbled:
> >While I'm sure you did have it in mind, this is a good example of not
> >stating axioms. When interviewing technical candidates, I'm often more
> >concerned that they can define and bound an arbitrary problem than
> >necessarily to give me a solution.
>
> ABSOLUTELY. That's the majority of what I do in my job; define the
> "problem" as well as solve it. If you can't define it, you sure as
> hell can't solve it... it's just that in computers, you can't just
> fly by the seat of your pants like you can in other areas.
OTOH, I get complaints from customers to the effect that
they would be happier paying $900 for a part & $100 for
my services, than to pay $900 for my labor & $10 for the part.
Of course, I also have people get pissy when I tell them that
since they opened up the unit (breaking the "warranty void if
broken" seals) and performed non-FAA-approved modifications
to it, that not only did they void the Warr., but additionally I would
notleave their modifications in place when certifying the unit.
I'm funny that way, I guess...
Rusty the bookman
Howard Berkowitz
pixelmeow <NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote:
Or, as Robert Benchley wrote,
"Aye, deck thy lower limbs in pants
Yours are the limbs, my sweeting
You look divine as you advance
Have you seen yourself retreating?"
Given that I have seen Pixel retreating, I submit she ALSO does JUST
FINE by the seat of her *pant* pants.
Kate Gladstone
> ... complaints from customers to the effect that
> they would be happier paying $900 for a part & $100 for
> my services, than to pay $900 for my labor & $10 for the part.
Hmmmm ... where could I find such customers, Rusty?
;-)
In my business, "a part" would translate to
"a book/worksheets/other similar materials for which I might charge"
(if I sold such materials rather than selling, as at present,
my services alone).
Rusty -
since I currently charge hospitals (for instance)
three- or four-figure sums each time they use my services,
should I perhaps slap together a book
(that a sensible person
would not pay more than $10 for)
and sell single copies to corporations
for the current cost of my services
while charging them only $100 for said services?
;-) ;-)
pixelmeow
Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> scribbled:
>In article <c8cc944c9acc0339...@news.teranews.com>,
>pixelmeow <NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
HEY!!! YOU STOP THAT! *BLUSH*!!!
<hides under table><gimme that bottle, OJ!>
Mr_B...@reservoirdogs.com
Heh... Last year I was flown from Houston to the Congo to do what turned
out to be 45 minutes worth of actualy work on a Server... I didn't mind at
all, as there was a 24 hour delay in Rio each way, which I put to good
use... <G> I never did figure the hourly cost of those 45 minutes but I'm
sure it was over $3000/per hour.
============================
Mr_Blonde Presents the: "MORON OF THE MONTH" Club:
Cleared at the first of the month; no new members yet...
============================
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>In article <20031231162057...@mb-m14.aol.com>,
> The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
>applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
>follows:
> 2 apples
> + 5 oranges
>______________________
>
>Take a stab at this yourselves, and I'll tell you whether your answers
>would have passed muster with this employer in need of workers with good
>math skills.
2 apples and 5 oranges is a perfectly valid response to that unless
you consider "5 nails + 5 screws" to be "10 pieces of metal"
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
bookman
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:44:38 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, Howard
> Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> scribbled:
>
> >In article <c8cc944c9acc0339...@news.teranews.com>,
> >pixelmeow <NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >>
> >> ABSOLUTELY. That's the majority of what I do in my job; define the
> >> "problem" as well as solve it. If you can't define it, you sure as
> >> hell can't solve it... it's just that in computers, you can't just
> >> fly by the seat of your pants like you can in other areas.
> >
> >
> >Or, as Robert Benchley wrote,
> >
> >"Aye, deck thy lower limbs in pants
> > Yours are the limbs, my sweeting
> > You look divine as you advance
> > Have you seen yourself retreating?"
> >
> >Given that I have seen Pixel retreating, I submit she ALSO does JUST
> >FINE by the seat of her *pant* pants.
>
> HEY!!! YOU STOP THAT! *BLUSH*!!!
>
> <hides under table><gimme that bottle, OJ!>
<Peeks under table, wondering which end will present...>
Rtb
Part & parcel of the Pretty Pix Patrol
<WEG>
Oscagne
"bookman" <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
news:TErJb.27923$fq1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "pixelmeow" <NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> news:e6b4f537de5662a1...@news.teranews.com...
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:44:38 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, Howard
> > Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> scribbled:
> > >FINE by the seat of her *pant* pants.
> >
> > HEY!!! YOU STOP THAT! *BLUSH*!!!
> >
> > <hides under table><gimme that bottle, OJ!>
>
> <Peeks under table, wondering which end will present...>
*goes to the other end of the table... just in case.*
--
Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics
wanna read a story? http://users.ev1.net/~mcgrew/mss
or see my goofy website? http://users.ev1.net/~mcgrew/webpage/home.htm
Howard Berkowitz
<h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:58:13 GMT, Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <20031231162057...@mb-m14.aol.com>,
>
> > The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
> >applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
> >follows:
> > 2 apples
> > + 5 oranges
> >______________________
> >
> >Take a stab at this yourselves, and I'll tell you whether your answers
> >would have passed muster with this employer in need of workers with good
> >math skills.
>
> 2 apples and 5 oranges is a perfectly valid response to that unless
> you consider "5 nails + 5 screws" to be "10 pieces of metal"
Funny,I just had some plastic screws around here...
Kate Gladstone
answer to the addition-problem
> > 2 apples
> > + 5 oranges
> >______________________
> >
>
> ... unless you consider "5 nails + 5 screws" to be "10 pieces of metal"
In the context of an addition-problem, I consider that "5 nails + 5
screws" do add to "10 pieces of metal" - since items added together
should share common units, and "piece of metal" looks to me like a
common unit encompassing "nail" and "screw."
Basil
wrote:
<major snip>
>
>... though (as mentioned here earlier) I *do* know a schoolteacher who
>considers "7x8=52" just as correct as "7x8=56" ... so she doesn't care
>which way the kids learn it,
> "as long as they learn *something.*
> If they have a hard time remembering 56,
> I let them memorize that it equals 52," quoth she.
It'd be interesting playing cards with 'em, wouldn't it.
>Also, a friend of mine who consults for the aircraft industry
>tells me that, of the college-students whom he interviews for jobs with
>his firm
> (the ad requests applicants with good math skills),
>the majority cannot correctly answer most of the 50 very basic
>reasoning/computation-skills/numeracy questions he gives to applicants.
> The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
>applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
>follows:
> 2 apples
> + 5 oranges
>______________________
7 oarpapnlgeess
;-)
To reach me, use pesdszb02 <at> sneakemail <dot> com
--
Part of the secret of success in life is to eat what you like.
-- Mark Twain
Kate Gladstone
> >considers "7x8=52" just as correct as "7x8=56" ... so she doesn't care
> >which way the kids learn it,
> > "as long as they learn *something.*
> > If they have a hard time remembering 56,
> > I let them memorize that it equals 52," quoth she.
Basil notes:
>
> It'd be interesting playing cards with 'em, wouldn't it.
I suspect that Kettle Belly Baldwin would rate them ineligible for
_Homo_novus_ status no matter *how* fast they stacked the deck.
(After all, doesn't a truly superior intellect rise above
*whatever* foolishness others impose?
Kettle Belly in GULF, at least, seemed to think so.)
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>Mad Hamish regards "2 apples and 5 oranges" as a "perfectly valid"
>answer to the addition-problem
>
>> > 2 apples
>> > + 5 oranges
>> >______________________
>> >
>>
>> ... unless you consider "5 nails + 5 screws" to be "10 pieces of metal"
>
>In the context of an addition-problem, I consider that "5 nails + 5
>screws" do add to "10 pieces of metal" - since items added together
>should share common units, and "piece of metal" looks to me like a
>common unit encompassing "nail" and "screw."
The term "critical loss of information" springs to mind.
at work
"Kate Gladstone" <ka...@global2000.net> wrote in message
news:kate-3FD3C6.0...@syrcnyrdrs-03-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...
> Mad Hamish regards "2 apples and 5 oranges" as a "perfectly valid"
> answer to the addition-problem
>
> > > 2 apples
> > > + 5 oranges
> > >______________________
> > >
> >
> > ... unless you consider "5 nails + 5 screws" to be "10 pieces of metal"
>
> In the context of an addition-problem, I consider that "5 nails + 5
> screws" do add to "10 pieces of metal" - since items added together
> should share common units, and "piece of metal" looks to me like a
> common unit encompassing "nail" and "screw."
7 piercing fasteners. *grin*
--
Oscagne
TreetopAngel
Mr. Blonde writes:
>
> Heh... Last year I was flown from Houston to the Congo to do what
turned
> out to be 45 minutes worth of actualy work on a Server... I didn't
mind at
> all, as there was a 24 hour delay in Rio each way, which I put to good
> use... <G> I never did figure the hourly cost of those 45 minutes
but I'm
> sure it was over $3000/per hour.
>
problem with a piece of equipment, (mass spectrometer) he plugged the
unit in and went back to his hotel room and waited for his return
flight. Seems the cleaning crew had unplugged it and nobody thought to
check the electrical supply before calling him.
E!
(these are the same people it took Dad three weeks to learn how to use
it, it usually takes less than a week, about the time he was ready to
box it up and send it back to his company, somebody had the lightbulb go
off)
pixelmeow
<thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> scribbled:
*yanks down tablecloth!*
>Rtb
>Part & parcel of the Pretty Pix Patrol
><WEG>
;-)
pixelmeow
<Osc...@ev1.net> scribbled:
>
>"bookman" <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
>news:TErJb.27923$fq1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>
>> "pixelmeow" <NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>> news:e6b4f537de5662a1...@news.teranews.com...
>> > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:44:38 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, Howard
>> > Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> scribbled:
>> > >Given that I have seen Pixel retreating, I submit she ALSO does JUST
>> > >FINE by the seat of her *pant* pants.
>> >
>> > HEY!!! YOU STOP THAT! *BLUSH*!!!
>> >
>> > <hides under table><gimme that bottle, OJ!>
>>
>> <Peeks under table, wondering which end will present...>
>
>*goes to the other end of the table... just in case.*
*yanks down other end of tablecloth*
*sneaks out to get more tablecloth*
LV Poker Player
>> > 2 apples
>> > + 5 oranges
>> >______________________
>> >
>>
>> ... unless you consider "5 nails + 5 screws" to be "10 pieces of metal"
>
>In the context of an addition-problem, I consider that "5 nails + 5
>screws" do add to "10 pieces of metal" - since items added together
>should share common units, and "piece of metal" looks to me like a
>common unit encompassing "nail" and "screw."
You're assuming. Screws at least can be non metallic, and perhaps nails as
well. "10 fastening implements" seems to me would be a better answer.
I think the best answer is still along the lines of asking for more context,
and giving a few examples of answers that make sense within a given context.
--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.
Howard Berkowitz
> >From: Kate Gladstone
>
> >> > 2 apples
> >> > + 5 oranges
> >> >______________________
> >> >
> >>
> >> ... unless you consider "5 nails + 5 screws" to be "10 pieces of
> >> metal"
> >
> >In the context of an addition-problem, I consider that "5 nails + 5
> >screws" do add to "10 pieces of metal" - since items added together
> >should share common units, and "piece of metal" looks to me like a
> >common unit encompassing "nail" and "screw."
>
> You're assuming. Screws at least can be non metallic, and perhaps nails
> as
> well. "10 fastening implements" seems to me would be a better answer.
>
> I think the best answer is still along the lines of asking for more
> context,
> and giving a few examples of answers that make sense within a given
> context.
And, as Dilbert teaches us, there are many corporate context for screws.
Kate Gladstone
*manufactured* kind!) - since LVPP has apprised me of their existence, I
agree with him that "10 fastening units" better subsumes "5 nails plus 5
screws."
Nohbody
<NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 04:36:03 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, "bookman"
> <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> scribbled:
>
> >"pixelmeow" <NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> >news:e6b4f537de5662a1...@news.teranews.com...
> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:44:38 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, Howard
> >> Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> scribbled:
> >> >Given that I have seen Pixel retreating, I submit she ALSO does JUST
> >> >FINE by the seat of her *pant* pants.
> >>
> >> HEY!!! YOU STOP THAT! *BLUSH*!!!
> >>
> >> <hides under table><gimme that bottle, OJ!>
> >
> ><Peeks under table, wondering which end will present...>
>
> *yanks down tablecloth!*
*watches as everything on the table but a huge flower vase falls onto
the floor*
<voice type="Bill Murray">And the flowers are still standing!</voice>
;)
--
Dan Poore
ICQ UIN: 3908950 <http://wwp.mirabilis.com/3908950>
A Meeting of Minds <http://nohbody.com/schtuff/meeting.html> - a
(mostly) cliche-free first contact story (updated periodically)
pixelmeow
<lo...@my.reply-to.address> scribbled:
>On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:07:31 GMT, pixelmeow
><NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 04:36:03 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, "bookman"
>> <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> scribbled:
>>
>> >"pixelmeow" <NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>> >news:e6b4f537de5662a1...@news.teranews.com...
>> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:44:38 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, Howard
>> >> Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> scribbled:
>> >> >Given that I have seen Pixel retreating, I submit she ALSO does JUST
>> >> >FINE by the seat of her *pant* pants.
>> >>
>> >> HEY!!! YOU STOP THAT! *BLUSH*!!!
>> >>
>> >> <hides under table><gimme that bottle, OJ!>
>> >
>> ><Peeks under table, wondering which end will present...>
>>
>> *yanks down tablecloth!*
>
>*watches as everything on the table but a huge flower vase falls onto
>the floor*
>
><voice type="Bill Murray">And the flowers are still standing!</voice>
>
> ;)
sigh. *gets up, gets broom, cleans mess, goes back behind the bar*
TreetopAngel
"pixelmeow" writes:
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:00:34 -0600, in alt.fan.heinlein, "Oscagne"
> <Osc...@ev1.net> scribbled:
>
> >
> >"bookman" <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
> >news:TErJb.27923$fq1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >>
> >
> >*goes to the other end of the table... just in case.*
>
> *yanks down other end of tablecloth*
>
> *sneaks out to get more tablecloth*
>
her clothes when I peeked in this afternoon.
E!
pixelmeow
<treeto...@micro-mania.net> scribbled:
We need more tablecloths, E; and some new flower vases...
Ed Reppert
<thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote:
> OTOH, I get complaints from customers to the effect that
> they would be happier paying $900 for a part & $100 for
> my services, than to pay $900 for my labor & $10 for the part.
Reminds of the one about the company who called in The Consultant
because their Big Machine stopped working properly all of a sudden. The
Consultant comes in, listens to the description of the problem, looks
at the Big Machine for a second, pulls out a little tiny screwdriver,
and turns one screw about a quarter turn. Big Machine is now working
perfectly again. Manager says "Thanks so much. If you can give us your
bill now, we'll cut you a check before you leave." So The Consultant
grabs a piece of paper and writes out a bill: $1200 for "services". The
Manager goes ballistic. "$1200?! I'm not paying you $1200 for tweaking
one lousy screw!" The Consultant looks at him for a moment, takes the
bill, crosses out "$1200 for 'services'" and writes "Tweaking: $5.
Knowing where to tweak: $1195." :-)
William Hughes
<ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
> I'd never seen non-metallic screws (STOP THAT! I meant the
> *manufactured* kind!) - since LVPP has apprised me of their existence, I
> agree with him that "10 fastening units" better subsumes "5 nails plus 5
> screws."
Plastic screws and bolts are used in many aviation, electronic and plumbing
applications.
RB
bookman
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:38:15 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, Nohbody
> <lo...@my.reply-to.address> scribbled:
>
> >On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:07:31 GMT, pixelmeow
> ><NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 04:36:03 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, "bookman"
> >> <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> scribbled:
> >>
> >> >"pixelmeow" <NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:e6b4f537de5662a1...@news.teranews.com...
> >> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:44:38 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, Howard
> >> >> Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> scribbled:
> >> >> >Given that I have seen Pixel retreating, I submit she ALSO does
JUST
> >> >> >FINE by the seat of her *pant* pants.
> >> >>
> >> >> HEY!!! YOU STOP THAT! *BLUSH*!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> <hides under table><gimme that bottle, OJ!>
> >> >
> >> ><Peeks under table, wondering which end will present...>
> >>
> >> *yanks down tablecloth!*
> >
> >*watches as everything on the table but a huge flower vase falls onto
> >the floor*
> >
> ><voice type="Bill Murray">And the flowers are still standing!</voice>
> >
> > ;)
>
> sigh. *gets up, gets broom, cleans mess, goes back behind the bar*
<quirks eyebrow, gets mop & dustpan, helps out>
Rtb
charles krin
wrote:
> The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
>applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
>follows:
> 2 apples
> + 5 oranges
>______________________
Seven pieces of Fruit....
ck
--
The Ten Commandments display was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court
building, But here was a good reason for the move.
You can't post "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and
politicians without creating a hostile work environment.
Edna H. on alt.books.m-lackey, 20030930
charles krin
wrote:
>I'd never seen non-metallic screws (STOP THAT! I meant the
>*manufactured* kind!) - since LVPP has apprised me of their existence, I
>agree with him that "10 fastening units" better subsumes "5 nails plus 5
>screws."
There are several different kinds of non metallic screws
around...mostly designed to provide fastening into wall board....
charles krin
<BravoOscarH...@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Good afternoon,
>
>Kate Gladstone wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Also, a friend of mine who consults for the aircraft industry
>> tells me that, of the college-students whom he interviews for jobs
>> with his firm
>> (the ad requests applicants with good math skills),
>> the majority cannot correctly answer most of the 50 very basic
>> reasoning/computation-skills/numeracy questions he gives to
>> applicants.
>> The first question on his test, a question which some 75% of
>> applicants do not answer in a way he considers satisfactory, reads as
>> follows:
>> 2 apples
>> + 5 oranges
>> ______________________
>>
>> Take a stab at this yourselves, and I'll tell you whether your answers
>> would have passed muster with this employer in need of workers with
>> good math skills.
>
>Three bananas short of a fruit salad.
>
>Take care,
>cb
hmmm...need to add a lemon, and some raisins, and some walnuts...
what else goes into a Waldorf?
charles krin
wrote:
>Mad Hamish regards "2 apples and 5 oranges" as a "perfectly valid"
>answer to the addition-problem
>
>> > 2 apples
>> > + 5 oranges
>> >______________________
>> >
>>
>> ... unless you consider "5 nails + 5 screws" to be "10 pieces of metal"
>
>In the context of an addition-problem, I consider that "5 nails + 5
>screws" do add to "10 pieces of metal" - since items added together
>should share common units, and "piece of metal" looks to me like a
>common unit encompassing "nail" and "screw."
or better yet, "ten fasteners"...
TreetopAngel
"pixelmeow" reminds me:
>
> We need more tablecloths, E; and some new flower vases...
>
store for more vases. Do we want matching vases or would we like a more
ecclectic selection?
E!