Topic: WCDT: 11-15 October 2010 (1771-1775) (Read 92900 times)

~~Schmorgluck~~ · « **Reply #250 on:** 16 Oct 2010, 17:41 »

Quote from: zadojla on 16 Oct 2010, 17:25

Quote from: pwhodges on 16 Oct 2010, 16:03
I remember trying to explain to a supermarket manager the inherent absurdity of selling fire alarms for £3.99 each, £7.99 for a 2-pack, or £12.99 for a 3-pack. I got nowhere.
I used to work for a supermarket chain (now-defunct Grand Union, for those in the NE USA). That is a supermarket trick, deliberately done. Most people assume that the price-per-unit improves as the size of the package increases. Not true at all; usually the second-largest package has the best price-per-unit. They assume most people have neither the skill nor will to actually calculate it for themselves.

It happens in France too, even though displaying price-per-unit is required by law here. They assume enough people won't double-check said price-per-unit for it to be worthwile. Sadly, they seem to be right, because I see it here and there. Hell, I can't affirm I didn't fall into this trap sometimes.

Mr_Rose · « **Reply #251 on:** 16 Oct 2010, 17:57 »

Quote from: Schmorgluck on 16 Oct 2010, 17:35

And as a disclaimer: out of experience, I'm able to make the difference (at least in French and English) between dyslectic people and people who don't give a shit or even use deliberately bad spelling. Come to think of it, I wonder how the former view the latter. I suspect they might find them offensive.

As a dyslexic who, by means of the magic of spell-checkers can in fact get things right most of the time, I have less than zero respect for the whiny little turds (and they always are) that just don't bother.
I also tend to get irate at those dyslexics who use their condition as an excuse to not bother. But that's slightly less socially acceptable.

Omega · « **Reply #252 on:** 16 Oct 2010, 18:01 »

I joined specifically to say this: I was never taught how to read an analogue clock during my childhood. I'm 15- I grew up with digital clocks, and it wasn't until I encountered the analogue format in eighth grade that my parents realized this and quickly corrected my absence of knowledge. It still takes me a while to read analogue clocks, and I wear a digital one for the sake of clarity. So, no, I wouldn't say it's motivation or ability- I and the majority of my immediate peers just didn't learn how to read them during "learning" stages of our lives, and, like the problem of studying a language after the part of our lives where we are most receptive to that kind of thing, we still have trouble doing so (not that reading a clock is really comparable to learning a language).

brew · « **Reply #253 on:** 16 Oct 2010, 18:16 »

Quote from: Akima on 16 Oct 2010, 16:53

The idea that "today's youth" is somehow stupider or lazier than the commentator's generation at the same age is a classic "Dang kids!" reaction.

Who presented it in that way? How is not being able to read an analog clock in a generation where analog clocks will no longer be common some horrible thing? It was just brought up as an interesting difference.

Carl-E · « **Reply #254 on:** 16 Oct 2010, 18:50 »

It really is a generational difference. The first digital clocks were a Bauhaus experiment in the late 20's / early 30's., but digital clocks (usually on clock radios and stoves, where the numbers were turned by a motor like an old odometer) weren't common until the 60's, and then digital watches became ubiquitous in the 70's.

But there was a backlash to those...

It was very uncommon for people my age and older to see digital clocks when growing up. We learned analog (or analogue, depending on who taught you to spell). Our 15 year old friend Omega has it right - there's a window of opportunity for things like this, and more people are missing it nowadays than ever before. As soon as cash registers could calculate correct change, counting up change became a lost art, unless you worked with a simple cash drawer. You only learn what you really need to know to get the job done, after all. We adapt to our surroundings, and as they change, so do we.

Generationally.

jwhouk · « **Reply #255 on:** 16 Oct 2010, 19:06 »

People who are 20-something are children to me.

raoullefere · « **Reply #256 on:** 16 Oct 2010, 19:16 »

Wow, have you been busy.

Quote from: Schmorgluck on 16 Oct 2010, 17:35

And then there are those young'uns (plus those trying to pass as younger than they are) who seem to make a point of spelling like shit when communicating on the Internet. I try to explain to them that it's a lack of respect for those who'll try to read their prose. I try to talk to them about the Netiquette (yes, I'm old enough to know this word). But my ultimate impression is that they spell like shit on the Internet because "all the cool kids do it!"

And as a disclaimer: out of experience, I'm able to make the difference (at least in French and English) between dyslectic people and people who don't give a shit or even use deliberately bad spelling. Come to think of it, I wonder how the former view the latter. I suspect they might find them offensive.

I do wonder if this is actually born of the same impulse that sold 'decoder rings' and 'invisible ink' back when we were dodging T-rex's. Could be wrong, though.

celticgeek · « **Reply #257 on:** 16 Oct 2010, 20:21 »

Get off my lawn, you damn kids!

Carl-E · « **Reply #258 on:** 16 Oct 2010, 21:52 »

YOUR lawn?

raoullefere · « **Reply #259 on:** 16 Oct 2010, 22:30 »

Two subscribers to the Louis Black Fountain o' Gripe theory of longevity, I see.

To wit:
The good die young, but pricks live forever
So be sure, next time you see the neighborhood kid,
To yell at him to stay the hell off your lawn
And it'll be just like taking Vitamin C.

Hey, the dino-smile's back!
/

Akima · « **Reply #260 on:** 16 Oct 2010, 23:19 »

Quote from: raoullefere on 16 Oct 2010, 22:30

Hey, the dino-smile's back!
/

Awww... The afro guy is gone, and it messes up my old post.

pwhodges · « **Reply #261 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 00:14 »

Quote from: zadojla on 16 Oct 2010, 17:25

That is a supermarket trick, deliberately done.

I'm not aware of ever seeing it done in this country (unless that one instance was deliberate).

peterh · « **Reply #262 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 00:35 »

Quote from: Akima on 16 Oct 2010, 16:53

I'd say that failure to learn something is determined by a combination of ability and motivation, rather than the decade in which one was born.

Spot-on!

What we do see is that motivation tends to increase with age, up to a point. But that is of all times.

Exar_Kun · « **Reply #263 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 03:22 »

My dad likes to bitch non-stop about how "young people these days don't know half the things he did when he was half their age." Of course my dad grew up on a FARM of all places. I try to explain to my dad that not everybody grew up on a farm, and that this is no longer the 50s/60s, and that people can only be expected to learn as much as they need to learn to get the job done and that he was no different.

Its like talking to a particularly stubborn brick wall.

peterh · « **Reply #264 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 04:49 »

Well, he was right, of course!

Seriously, it does not make any sense, not does it provide you with a particularly satisfying sense of accomplishment, to master the art of saddling a horse, driving a tractor, or milding a cow when you live on the nth store of an apartment building.

How good is you dad at modern technology?

jwhouk · « **Reply #265 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 06:06 »

THE MOMENT OF THE WEEK:

Marigold and Dale - WOW Stalking!    - 2 (4%)
"May the Oppossums grow fat on your flesh."    - 5 (10%)
Are you jealous I went on a date?    - 0 (0%)
"I'm sorry! I'll always cherish the time we had together!"    - 6 (12%)
"You want the paper?" "Just the sports section, please."    - 7 (14%)
"How the hell are things MORE awkward?"    - 0 (0%)
NOT DURING WORK HOURS.    - 3 (6%)
Seriously. It's OK. Let it go.    - 0 (0%)
I WILL LET YOU TOUCH MY BOOBS IF YOU'LL SHUT UP.    - 9 (18%)
Boob touching!    - 8 (16%)
"I hate to interrupt your reverie, but..." SHHHH!    - 10 (20%)

Total Voters: 50

raoullefere · « **Reply #266 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 06:19 »

Quote from: Exar_Kun on 17 Oct 2010, 03:22

My dad likes to bitch non-stop about how "young people these days don't know half the things he did when he was half their age." Of course my dad grew up on a FARM of all places. I try to explain to my dad that not everybody grew up on a farm, and that this is no longer the 50s/60s, and that people can only be expected to learn as much as they need to learn to get the job done and that he was no different.

Its like talking to a particularly stubborn brick wall.

Er, a farm is the place, dude. It's as basic as life gets, outside of being a hunter-gatherer, which can be a chancy way to make a living.

Here's the thing, Exar_Kun. Unless he grew up on some sort of factory farm, what your father likely sees is this: if all of civilization went to hell, he would know, basically, how to feed himself (especially if he every helped with any slaughtering. Trust me, killing the critter's the easy part). The people he's seeing wouldn't, or that's how it seems to him. That makes them vulnerable.

One of the things we tend to forget as nations is that each country's viability is really based on food production. If your country can't feed itself, it's a rotten log waiting to fall, no matter how advanced its tech or what fancy services it offers (Good luck eating a web page). Too many people don't stop to think where the food they buy at the supermarket comes from, and that in turn plays out in many ways that can be harmful in the long run.

Your father is seeing that from a personal perspective. I agree with him to this extent: while mastering such skills isn't necessary, I think it would do every child who lives in a large city or even a suburb an enormous amount of good to spend at least one summer (or longer) of his or her life on a farm learning where food comes from in a hands-on way. No, we can't all live on farms, but when we forget what feeds us, we're heading for trouble.

Mad Cat · « **Reply #267 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 07:16 »

Age and experience beat youth and guile every time.

peterh · « **Reply #268 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 12:03 »

Quote from: raoullefere on 17 Oct 2010, 06:19

Here's the thing, Exar_Kun. Unless he grew up on some sort of factory farm, what your father likely sees is this: if all of civilization went to hell, he would know, basically, how to feed himself (especially if he every helped with any slaughtering. Trust me, killing the critter's the easy part). The people he's seeing wouldn't, or that's how it seems to him. That makes them vulnerable.

True, to a point.

Quote

I think it would do every child who lives in a large city or even a suburb an enormous amount of good to spend at least one summer (or longer) of his or her life on a farm learning where food comes from in a hands-on way. No, we can't all live on farms, but when we forget what feeds us, we're heading for trouble.

Not only does it do them good, they also think it's tremendous fun. Our grandchildren love to come here (and do on quite a regular basis), and they want to be involved with all the "farmy things" (except the killing bit... they're still a bit too young for that).
It's now slowly dawning on the oldest that, no, it is NOT normal that if you want an apple or a prune or strawberries, or beans for dinner, you just go out and get them from your lot, rather than from the shop.

Carl-E · « **Reply #269 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 13:59 »

Quote from: Mad Cat on 17 Oct 2010, 07:16

Age and experience beat youth and guile every time.

Actually, it's "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill".

And yes, they will.

Rimwolf · « **Reply #270 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 14:10 »

John Kenneth Galbraith grew up on a farm. He's said that one advantage of that background is that after that, nothing else really seemed like work.

pwhodges · « **Reply #271 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 14:26 »

Quote from: Exar_Kun on 17 Oct 2010, 03:22

"people can only be expected to learn as much as they need to learn to get the job done"

If you only learn what you need, you are never ready at the moment a new skill is needed, and others who have learnt things they didn't immediately need will pass you again and again.

Akima · « **Reply #272 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 16:08 »

Quote from: raoullefere on 17 Oct 2010, 06:19

One of the things we tend to forget as nations is that each country's viability is really based on food production. If your country can't feed itself, it's a rotten log waiting to fall, no matter how advanced its tech or what fancy services it offers (Good luck eating a web page).

Yes, because specialisation is bad. Every nation should only consume what it produces domestically, and trade is a source of weakness. Why stop at nations? Cities within a nation rely on trade to bring in food, so they're obviously rotten logs too. Individuals providing "fancy services", like judges, doctors, teachers and engineers for example, rely on others to grow their food. Rotten logs all of them! Send them to the countryside to grow food! Trade and specialisation are bad! Subsistence agriculture is the way to go!

I'm sorry about the sarcasm, and of course Raoul was not advocating that sort of primitivism, but I'm sensitive on this point. Within living memory, in the land where I was born, the idea that trade and specialisation were bad, and a source of national weakness, while regional autarky was good, led to... unfortunate results.

Any form of agriculture much above the level of a bronze-age village ceases to be self-supporting in any event. Even in the bronze-age, long-distance trade was often needed to bring in rare tin to alloy with copper. Later, iron tools relied on the "fancy services" supplied by the smith, and the smith relied on the iron-smelter, who relied on the charcoal-burner. Farmers routinely pat themselves on the back about how self-sustaining they are, and how much city-dwellers depend on them, but the modern high-yield agriculture even relatively self-supporting-for-food countries rely on to feed themselves is heavily dependent on city-based manufacturing and "fancy services" like higher education, engineering, communications, chemistry, biology and meteorology, and a good deal of it comes from overseas. International trade is just another step along the chain from trade between regions within a nation, and, I hope, binds countries together as once it bound villages into counties, and counties into nations.

Quote from: Exar_Kun on 17 Oct 2010, 03:22

people can only be expected to learn as much as they need to learn to get the job done

I hope, and believe, that this is not so:

We travel not for trafficking alone.
By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned.
For lust of knowing what should not be known,
We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

raoullefere · « **Reply #273 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 18:12 »

Of course I don't beleive that, Akima.

But in the U.S., it often seems to me we go the other way. To work on a farm is to be a hick; it's a fate to be avoided at all costs, something for people who 'can't do anything else' to do. That doesn't work too well, either.

Mike Rowe makes this point pretty often on his show (Dirty Jobs): we need to value the folks that do all jobs that make civilization possible. A farmer is certainly not more important than a judge, doctor, teacher or engineer. But he's not less important, either. We need them all.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #274 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 19:24 »

It's not just a contemporary US thing. Look up the etymologies of "churl" and "villain".

badbum61 · « **Reply #275 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 20:56 »

Quote from: zadojla on 15 Oct 2010, 13:15

My favorite is the opposite of "postpone" - "prepone" meaning to perform a task ahead of schedule.

My wife (who is a remedial English teacher, BTW) seems to think that the correct terminology is not exclude or preclude, but disclude....and she wonders why I get upset with her when she says it! Honestly, the younger generation....

edit: yes, point taken, akronnick. "opposite" was not actually what I meant....

akronnick · « **Reply #276 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 21:06 »

umm... exclude?

Carl-E · « **Reply #277 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 22:42 »

Gesundheidt.

snubnose · « **Reply #278 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 01:59 »

Quote from: raoullefere on 17 Oct 2010, 18:12

[...] A farmer is certainly not more important than a judge, doctor, teacher or engineer. But he's not less important, either. We need them all.

Hehe.

Actually I'm fairly certain you will miss farmers more than judges if they would suddenly be gone.

After all, Criminals on the rampage are fairly unimportant if you're starving to death for sure.

Quote from: Carl-E on 17 Oct 2010, 22:42

Gesundheidt.

Almost.

Its "Gesundheit".

Unless they changed the word while it traveled to the english language, anyway.

Carl-E · « **Reply #279 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 09:04 »

Thanks. My tiny amount of German's over 20 years old, and extraordinarily rusty.

...and I didn't bother asking my spellchacker - I just assumed it didn't recognize the word...

peterh · « **Reply #280 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 14:08 »

Quote from: snubnose on 18 Oct 2010, 01:59

Quote from: Carl-E on 17 Oct 2010, 22:42
Gesundheidt.
Almost.

Its "Gesundheit".

While we're at nitpicking, we might at that it's not "its Gesundheit" rather than "It's Gesundheit".

Jeez, Snubnose, if you're going to correct Carl-E on his German, you might as well do so in correct English.

Blergh.

pwhodges · « **Reply #281 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 15:01 »

s/at/add/

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #282 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 15:12 »

This is one reason I don't post spelling flames, even though some spelling errors are almost physically painful for me to read. There's some unbreakable law of the Internet which forces all spelling flames to have at least one spelling or grammar error.

If I ever make fun of ESL speakers, I will feel very bad about doing it.

raoullefere · « **Reply #283 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 16:02 »

WEEL OF CURSE THAT WILL MAKE IT AAL OAKY.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.

)

jwhouk · « **Reply #284 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 17:09 »

Bad enough I have to read broken English every night. Sheesh.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Poll

THE MOMENT OF THE WEEK:

Author Topic: WCDT: 11-15 October 2010 (1771-1775) (Read 92900 times)