Mathematics Skills More in Demand Than Ever

knownsense writes "Business week has a nice article (feel good, low on detail, vague numbers) on the rise of maths and mathematicians in a world that is increasingly obsessed with statistics, advertising, search engines, and algorithms. The article also deals with issues of privacy. How has mathematics, statistics and other number driven aspects of life impacted you in the last decade?"

Comments

Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[sbaker]

We all know that advancements in technology can cost people their jobs. However, in the case of the building industry in Texas, the effect of introducing new technology can often be somewhat delayed.

Back in 1997, my new house was in the slow process of changing from plans on paper into bricks on concrete. One of the tasks that has to be done early on is to lay out the shape of the house accurately onto the land. My builder uses a sub-contractor to do that - and I had occasion to watch him work. He arrived in a beat up old pickup truck with four 'migrant workers' sitting in the back. In order to lay out the initial 'bounding rectangle' of the building, they follow this algorithm:

* Measure a baseline for the long edge of the rectangle. Mark it with two stakes hammered into the ground and tie a length of nylon string between them.

* Tie a second piece of string to one of the stakes and measure out the width of the rectangle along it. Eyeball the angle between the new edge and the baseline so it's roughly 90 degrees and you have an 'L' shape. One guy holds the string there.

* Do the same at the other end of the baseline. Now you have a 'U' shape and two guys are holding the open ends of the strings.

* Take a third piece of string - equal in length to the length of the rectangle. Give one end to each of the two guys who are already holding string. 'jiggle' them until all three strings are tight. You now have a parallelogram made of string, staked out at two corners.

* Now take two long tape measures and with one guy standing at each corner of our parallelogram, position the tape measures along the two diagonals of the parallelogram. With two guys holding the tapes on the baseline stakes and the other two holding onto the strings and shouting out the lengths of the diagonals, they jiggle the two free points until all of the strings are tight and the two diagonals tape measures are reading the same lengths. This requires a lot of shouting, cursing and everyone telling everyone else which way to move.

* Now they have a rectangle - so they bash in two more stakes and then level the whole thing with a really impressive-looking laser contraption.

Well, I watched this with some amusement - and asked why they didn't just calculate the length of the diagonal. The boss guy said that you couldn't do that - "It's impossible". I told him about Pythagoras' theorem. With the aid of a calculator (he didn't know what that funny 'square-root' key was for), I was able to show him how easy it is to calculate the length of the diagonal and do away with all the ugly 'jiggling'.

"Wow!" he said. Then he thought for a moment - "Now I'll only need three guys to hold the string!"...and fired one of them on the spot! I thought he was kidding - but the next day when they were measuring out the place for the garage, there was one less guy holding the string.

So, a 2,500 year old technological advance cost some poor guy his job. ...sigh...

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Wholeflaffer]

That makes one less migrant tech worker visa that's needed.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Peden]

While it was true it cost someone his job, it also effectively lowered the price of the subcontractors operations, which in turn, will make it cheaper for you. When will people understand that in the long run better technology is a win-win, no matter how you look at it. Yes widespread RFID will cost alot of people their jobs at supermarkets when people can just go through the exit and the price is deducted automatically from the account. These people, althought sad and with no job at first, will find other jobs and society will be better off in general.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't laughed this well in days lol

The other workers should be happy he didn't realize he could do it all by himself if he wanted to :) (and probably faster too)

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[hal2814]

There's actually a framing calculator that has a much more useful square root function on it. It will return values that aren't decimal so it's easier to to use with a tape measure.

If you think that was bad, you should look at how most framers put up rafters. My dad could do all those measurements in his head. On one house we did, my dad actually had me use the blue book (the one you get when you buy a speed sqaure) and the framing calculator to figure up the roof system. We still finished that house faster and better than the guys down the street who put a "pilot rafter" up to mark it by eye and monkeyed with it until it worked out. Most framers just spend an inordinate amount of time fiddling with the book and making prototype rafters until they are sure they will work.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[stunt_penguin]

If Pythagoras can get one guy fired, imagine what Goldman's Polytope is going to do!

/changes professions

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Vellmont]

So, a 2,500 year old technological advance cost some poor guy his job. ...sigh...

That's one way to look at it. There's no denying that technology replaces some low level jobs. But on the other end the boss guy now has more money to spend on something else. He might pocket the money, or he might fire another guy and use the combined money to hire a more skilled helper. Then take on jobs that require more skill than simply staking out building sites.

If technology simply eliminated jobs without creating new ones, we'd all have been out of work a few thousand years ago.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Funakoshi]

While I appreciate the story, I think your sub-contractor was pretty brutal, at the very least he should have had a theodolite (construction instrument) to turn his 90 degree angles for him. I sell construction equipment and there is no doubt that it is difficult to "teach an old dog new tricks", the technology available to those companies is mind boggling, but equally as amazing is the fact that they dont search it out to improve their effeciency.

For example, the layout contractors I speak to (should) use instruments that allow them to layout their forms with not only no string, but also no paper. Plans are transfered to ruggedized PDAs, attached to instruments that calculate locations based on distance and angles from given landmarks, and stakes are pounded. They can increase productivity by 30% with very little effort at all. Some land suveyors are doing layout with GPS systems with sub-centimeter accuracy and are seeing 50-70% increases in productivity.

I dont mean to flame the parent, he/she is correct, the users in that industry dont use enough technology, but it is available to them.

PS: I think, no matter how much frickin money they make, they ALL drive beat up pickups

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Dielectric]

I used to think like that, too. Not so much anymore. Try "Player Piano" by Kurt Vonnegut.

There's always going to be a bottom rung of people who really can't do much more than run a cash register. What happens to them?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[antifoidulus]

Takaru!

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[pogson]

Wait until the boss learns about the carpenter's square or the theodolite... One or two people could do the job. With a prism that deflects a laser beam 90 degrees, one person could do the job. Using the strings as a compass, one person could "construct" 90 degree corners and do the job. With centre A on baseline PQ and radius R, draw an arc intersecting baseline PQ at x and y. With centre x and suitable radius draw an arc encompassing A. With centre y and same radius, draw an arc encompassing A and intersecting the arc centred on x at t and u. TU will contain A and will be perpendicular to the original baseline. Repeat as necessary.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[pogson]

The trailing edge of the bell curve can be accommodated by the small operations that are so small, staff cannot be cut further, the night shift, the undesirable post, and the dole/welfare/prison/social assistance.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that likes checking out at the market?! How else do you get local news? Ohh and I will stand in line an extra 20min if that cute girl with the funny bangs, and baggy shirt (shows cleavage when she bends over) is bagging. I guess I am the exception though, I don't "drive through" I always sit down to eat.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Threni]

> When will people understand that in the long run better technology is a win-win, no matter how
> you look at it.

A `win win` in which context? Are people happier, safer, richer etc when there is more technology around them? I though technology was neutral? People in the 1950's were told that washing machines, vaccuum cleaners etc would allow housewifes/etc to get the jobs done so quickly they'd have more time for leisure, but repeated surveys of housewife's/etc show no increase in happiness.

You don't have more fun playing an xbox360 game than you did playing on a spectrum/amiga/psx1, you don't have more fun driving a modern car, or watching a new film etc. Technology is having a negative impact on the environment, jobs (wages, hours worked) etc. These are not the only result of technology, just the way it's being used. We live in an abusive social system where the minority of the worlds population controls the majority of its resources - the rest of use who are lucky enough not to live somewhere where we're likely to die from easily treatable diseases/problems like malnutrition, cholera, diarreah, malaria have to work longer and harder to take home less money to pay more for less. Technology just makes that process faster.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Vellmont]

There's always going to be a bottom rung of people who really can't do much more than run a cash register. What happens to them?

The society works hard to shrink them to a smaller and smaller percentage of the populace through education. Fify years ago I'll bet you the percentage of unskilled labor was much higher in the US than it is now.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[recharged95]

It goes to show that technology doesn't cost jobs, it reallocates the work. To reintegrate that lost worker--educate him in something else--discovery & learning are core virtues of math & science. Any mindless task can be done with a mindless device.

For instance, why are we trying to create oxygen when the plants are do that work for us? Hmmm, must be that abstract concept called "need to comsume" or the plants 'fired us'.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

This requires a lot of shouting, cursing and everyone telling everyone else which way to move

Sounds like I'm getting useful training from my Statistics class

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[thetejon]

I think that's a tremendous oversimplification. How is my life better off if I can just walk out of the grocery store and everything is automatically paid for? It saves me 2-10 minutes, on average, of waiting in line. Sure, that time has value for me. But what about the half dozen cashiers that store just fired? Does my 2-10 minutes of free time outweigh their loss of income? What else are they going to do? If they had extensive, valuable skillsets, they wouldn't be working as cashiers.

You can't just make a blanket statement that "in the long run better technology is a win-win" without offering some sort of support for the statement beyond "society will be better off in general".

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[cryfreedomlove]

I don't share your sense of gloom. People today are living longer and better than 50 years ago. People below the poverty line in the USA today drive their own car, they have color TV's, and they are vaccinated. None of them are going to be crippled by polio or die from the measles.

Still, if you really think things are getting worse, let's make you King with absolute authority. What would you do to change things?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[sammy baby]

Did I just read correctly that one of your options for people who can't find unskilled labor work is prison?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Dinny]

People are certainly safer and richer. Safer, look at the number of work related deaths as a percentage of population from 1950 to today. Richer, compare the average portion of income spent on luxuries like eating out.

As far as happier, people have signifigantly more control over how they spend their time and what they do. People tend to settle in to a level of happiness based not on their current condition, but on what they compare it to. Find someone and compare what they would have had in the 50's to what they have now and see if what they have now makes them happy.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[cryfreedomlove]

Can you propose an answer to your cashier question? What do you think happened to lamplighters that were replaced by electric lamps? How about blacksmiths that were replaced by the automobiles?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[saforrest]

There's actually a framing calculator that has a much more useful square root function on it. It will return values that aren't decimal so it's easier to to use with a tape measure.

I was completely mystified about what this could possibly have meant, until I remembered that you guys don't use the metric system. :)

I guess converting from 11.764 feet to 11 feet and the appropriate number of inches would be a bitch. I'm just surprised they put the conversion into a special "square root" button and don't just have a general feet/inches decimal conversion tool.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Threni]

> People today are living longer and better than 50 years ago

People are living longer largely due to decreased infant mortality.

> Still, if you really think things are getting worse, let's make you King with absolute
> authority. What would you do to change things?

More equality of access to healthcare. Discourage the trend towards obesity by ensuring people can afford and have access to fresh fruit and vegetables every day. Encourage people to excersize. Encourage better/cheaper public transport so you don't have 1 person per car all over the planet. Ensure cycling is safe anc convenient.

That's a start, for developed countries. The main problem is in developing problems. While Mr Bush is spending billions fighting `terrorism` many, many, many more people are dying from problems like those I mentioned before. Why not take a look at the number of people dying each year from them? How much money would it take to sort that out?

If you're obsessed with using technology then there's no reason why we couldn't spend less time exploring space - just for a few years, we'll get back to it - and more time working on desalination systems, solar power capture, wave energy capture, hybrid/alternatively powered transport - stuff like that.

Really, the problems are obvious, but because it's not in your face every single day we don't think about it. If there was a part of your town that people were dying of, say, diarreah or sleeping sickness and the cure cost a few pence you wouldn't say `oh, but they're across town, that's not my problem` - you'd probably go there this weekend and help out, like what happens when there's a hurricane or earthquake. That doesn't happen when it's happening across the world, even though thanks to jet technology (a consequence of the military angle that infects all research) you could be there this time tomorrow.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[servognome]

How is my life better off if I can just walk out of the grocery store and everything is automatically paid for? It saves me 2-10 minutes, on average, of waiting in line.

The benifits of improved productivity outweight the short term limited loss of jobs:

reduces the cost for the grocery store to run it's business...given strong competition results in lowering of prices.
employs 1 person with "more valuable" skills to maintain
Lower prices for consumers means the ability to spend that money on other goods and services, creating jobs in other areas
Releases labor to pursue more valueable job opportunities

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[zsau]

How about *when* they're getting their educations? Most of those check-out chicks are students. Unless you're going to pay for them to go to the movies, how do you think they're going to do the stuff people want to do?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Threni]

> People tend to settle in to a level of happiness based not on their current condition, but on
> what they compare it to. Find someone and compare what they would have had in the 50's to what
> they have now and see if what they have now makes them happy.

But that's not how happiness works. People never compare what they've got now compared to what they would have had 50 years ago. Older people do that - the `good old days`. People (the vast majority of them, not just rich white males reading slashdot) compare what they've got with what others have, and they *always* see richer, happier, slimmer people living luxury lifestyles while they themselves *have* to work 5 days a week (or more) to have less spare time/money (in real terms) than their parents.

Really, there have been many psychological tests of this nature carried out since the 1950's in the US at least.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Intron]

I've never seen a real framer use a book or a calculator, just a framing square is enough. All of the rafter measurements are based off the roof pitch. Anyone who has to "monkey" with a pilot rafter is not a real carpenter, just a guy with a saw. I worked summers building houses and those guys didn't waste any time.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

"ensuring people can afford and have access to fresh fruit and vegetables every day"

Oh come on. Fresh fruit/vegetables cost $1-5 a pound. The issue is not price and based on the number of grocery stores, I don't think it's availability either.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[sholden]

It's not about saving your time. The cashiers lose their jobs which reduces the costs of running the grocery store, which (if there is a competitive market, which may not be true) causes the prices to drop. This is what we call productivity growth. The real incomes of everyone, other than the cashiers, just went up a little bit.

When the cashiers find other jobs they also benefit from cheaper groceries.

Once upon a time it took dozens of men many days of employment to dig a hole in the ground. Now it takes one man an afternoon with an excavator. This is generally considered a good thing, it's part of the reason the people living in, say, the US have a better standard of living than the people living in, say, Uganda.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, a 2,500 year old technological advance cost some poor guy his job. ...sigh...

Clearly it should be illegal to use this technology. Won't somebody think of the artists^Wmigrant workers? </RIAA>

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Marsala]

PS: I think, no matter how much frickin money they make, they ALL drive beat up pickups

Maybe it's just me, but I would think taking your Porsche to a construction site is roughly on par with saying "Yeah, but two drives would have to fail, and what are the chances of that happening?" on the Feats of Monumental Hubris That Are Just Inviting A Painful and Swift World Class, All-Star Level Cosmic Bitchslap Scale.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

It will break your Computer Science/IT Geek hearts to know this, but your average Union Carpenter is skilled in math through pre-Calculus. Perhaps rather than save a few thousand on your house, you should've had it built by real carpenters. Granted, your "me-first" consumer attitude would've been curbed a bit, but perhaps you'll undestand when Ravi from India takes your job.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[thetejon]

Ahh, a statement with some other statements to back it up. Now there's something to discuss.

I agree that lower cost of business operation should be good for everyone. But are you sure the costs are lower? You may be right, but while the grocery store saves $8 an hour times however many cashiers they used to employ, what do the RFID chips cost? What do the RFID readers cost? What kind of increased costs do you have maintaining this system?

There's a lot more to this than "technology saves money for businesses, and that savings is passed on to the consumer, and everyone wins".

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[raddan]

But what happens when your educational system is barely able to keep up with the current demand for educated workers?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[hswerdfe]

People are certainly safer and richer.

I think what you want to say is SOME people are safer and richer, you and me are probably in this group, you and me do not make 6 Billion people.

random fact
Did you know that the UN revised its world population estimates downward because of Aids.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Discourage the trend towards obesity by ensuring people can afford and have access to fresh fruit and vegetables every day. Encourage people to excersize.

Hahahaha. You make it sound like fat people are so because they can't afford to eat "fresh fruit and vegetables every day".

Fat people are fat because:

1. a genetic predisposition to gain weight easily
2. no regular exercise
3. don't want the effort of exercising and/or eating less to control their weight

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[magisterx]

That's a good point. We need to lower the poverty level. I find it ludicrous to consider people with their own car and color televisions(and quite likely cable to go with it) to be in poverty.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[OldManAndTheC]

let's make you King with absolute authority. What would you do to change things?

Oh boy! Let's see:

• Raise the alcohol content of beer.
• Reinstate the practice of dwarf-tossing
• Get rid of the IRS. Replace it with knights in armor who go door to door and take all your stuff, and give it the King (me).
• Bring back droit du seigneur

It's good to be the King!

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Gwyn_232]

Get rid of all the mexicans?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[SilverspurG]

Please tell me that you're not surprised.

The parent was echoing the thoughts of many people in priveleged positions.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[hswerdfe]

why am I better of that I can buy a bag of apples at a 2% discount?
why am I better of that I can buy this bag of apples 10% quicker then 5 years ago?

why?

perhaps I would be better of this bag of apples was grown in Ontario and shipped to me a few hundred mile, rather then the few thousand it probably was.

the ability to Consume more does not make the world a better place.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[MSenhanced]

Excellent analogy! Also, if you take that and consider by digging a hole with improved technology, more houses can be built for the homeless (or people in general), infrastructure is improved... compared to several people wasting time by digging one hole. With improved technology, we can do more with better efficiency. How is that not a good thing?

Here is one question our proponents need to ask. Are we better off today because of the "Internet"? Imagine a world if it was never created. Despite all of its malfeasances, do the pro's still outweigh the con's? Of course, they do!

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[dedave]

You clearly don't know any poor people (or grad students for that matter). $1-5/lb, indeed! Sometimes $5 is all someone has for the rest of the week. You can't just buy a pound of fruit and eat that for a week.

Ramen and ground beef that's been marked down because it's about to expire is much more in line with what people are able to stretch their budgets to.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fat people are fat for a number of reasons.

unhealthy food is cheap
unhealthy food is fashionable
unhealthy food is heavily advertised (when did you last see an ad for carrots, rice etc)
unhealthy food is available in every city,town, highstreet,corner shop, school,office

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

People are living longer largely due to decreased infant mortality.

People in the first world are living longer due to medical techniques and drugs that didn't exist years ago. Now with respect to the third world this may be.

More equality of access to healthcare.

THIS is valid.

Discourage the trend towards obesity by ensuring people can afford and have access to fresh fruit and vegetables every day. Encourage people to excersize. Encourage better/cheaper public transport so you don't have 1 person per car all over the planet. Ensure cycling is safe anc convenient.

Exactly how are you going to compel people to do this stuff? Outlaw individual ownership of automobiles? Additionally, fruit and veggies aren't that expensive as far as the developed countries go.

That's a start, for developed countries. The main problem is in developing problems. While Mr Bush is spending billions fighting `terrorism` many, many, many more people are dying from problems like those I mentioned before. Why not take a look at the number of people dying each year from them? How much money would it take to sort that out?

Why is it the responsibility of the developed world to square this away? This sounds suspiciously like a hint at wealth redistribution. We won't even go into how you intend to accomplish this. If you're even thinking socialism or global taxation, go home. It would never happen. If you're thinking charity, well people in the developed countries are already showing "donor fatigue".

If you're obsessed with using technology then there's no reason why we couldn't spend less time exploring space - just for a few years, we'll get back to it - and more time working on desalination systems, solar power capture, wave energy capture, hybrid/alternatively powered transport - stuff like that.

I disagree. Peaceful space exploration must go on for the advancement of the human race. If you chose to cut military spending I could see it.

Really, the problems are obvious, but because it's not in your face every single day we don't think about it. If there was a part of your town that people were dying of, say, diarreah or sleeping sickness and the cure cost a few pence you wouldn't say `oh, but they're across town, that's not my problem` - you'd probably go there this weekend and help out, like what happens when there's a hurricane or earthquake. That doesn't happen when it's happening across the world, even though thanks to jet technology (a consequence of the military angle that infects all research) you could be there this time tomorrow.

Again with the global issues. The reality is that I share more cultural and economic bonds with my fellow citizens, therefore their well-being is more important to me. You've stated some global problems with approximately zero feasible concrete solutions to any of them.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[clkwork]

Seriously. I've been there and known people who had it worse. Guess how much money you're spending monthly on food and then actually look it up. Try living on $150 or even $200 monthly for food (per person). By the end of the month you'll never want to look at rice or ramen noodles again.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[hal2814]

If someone gets paid to be a carpenter, they are a "real carpenter." They might not be a good ones but they are putting together houses and I'd be a little worried buying one of them. You can toss out elistist terms like "real carpenter" and "real framer" all you'd like but it won't change the fact that unqualified carpenters are out there and they're growing in number and the current state of building inspections in most places is not going to stop them from building poor quality houses.

Likewise, "real framers" (by which I assume you mean good framers) don't typically need anything but a square for simple roof systems but that blue book and calculator can be helpful for doublechecking your work and figuring out what to do about some of the more complex roofing situations.

Example that I remember: A valley joining a roof with a different pitched extrusion (covered deck maybe) butting into it that extends out to the hip. Sure, you can hack it out with the square, but if you're not very careful you can end up with something that is very hard to deck and prone to leaking or even worse the extrusion might not line up properly with the hip. I know that's a silly situation, if you've ever worked on McMansions or even just larger houses in fancy neighborhood you'll see a lot of that sort of nonsense. I think the architects who design those larger houses are under too much pressure to make something complicated for the sake of being complicated. Even with trusses, that sort of thing can be a nightmare to get everything set up right.

And FWIW, I too have spent many a summer (and even a few winters) bulding houses in the southeastern US. Most of those guys certainly do waste a LOT of time. They'll show up late, leave early, and not do much in between. It was pretty nice being able to work circles around other crews just by showing up and working.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Funakoshi]

1) It was a joke.

2) Porsche? Umm...I was thinking more along the lines of a brand new truck vs. one that is 10 years old.

3) You could have just said it was stupid. :P

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Doctor Faustus]

while the grocery store saves $8 an hour times however many cashiers they used to employ, what do the RFID chips cost? What do the RFID readers cost?
If the costs are just shifted to the RFID equipment, then it's creating employment in the company that makes *that*.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[darkmeridian]

PS: I think, no matter how much frickin money they make, they ALL drive beat up pickups

I think all their pickups get beat up.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Thangodin]

There's another problem here that no one has mentioned. Unskilled entry level jobs were the lowest rung of the ladder that people would climb to success. These are what allowed immigrant labourers to work their way out of poverty; their children became tradesmen, their grandchildren professionals. What we are now doing is phasing out most of these through mechanization and outsourcing. The manufacturing industry in North America is now almost dead. The only thing left is the service industry, which requires human beings on site. Don't forget that Wal-Mart is America's largest employer. Mechanize that, and there will be no way for the lowest economic tier of society to dig themselves out.

The new jobs created are typically in another country now, as U.S. trade deficits demonstrate. The problem isn't technology itself, but the irresponsible use of it to squeeze more and more profit out without any thought of the consequences to the rest of society. The wonder of the world right now is the U.S. economy, with its staggering debts and deficits at all levels. It's been bleeding so profusely for so long, nobody can figure out why it just doesn't keel over and die.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[hal2814]

Layout isn't really an exact science (or at least it doesn't need to be). The concrete that will eventually be poured there will shift and expand to a small extent while drying. For a land surveyor, sub-centimeter accuracy can be important. When pouring a product that is going to shift more than a centimeter in some cases while drying and is goind to be covered completely by a wood or steel structure, sub-centimeter accuracy becomes somewhat less important. You can't just eyeball it, but close enough usually is as close as you'll end up even if you stake everything perfectly. This is speaking strictly from a residental building standpoint.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[MooUK]

You really think that the subcontractor will have lowered his prices? His costs, yes, but I doubt his prices will have changed one penny.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your contractor MUST be an american. Only an american can be that stupid and ignorant. Most likelly the four migrant workers all knew the better way, but they cant speak, or whenever they attempt to correct thieir supperior american masters, their head get bashed in.

This reminds me to some movie about nazis where the cheif engeneer (a Juish lasy) gets shot in the head for letting her masters known the building will collaps due to poor construction materials and design (she was hauling briks). She was shot because she was holding the job up.

And yes, you (americans) are very dumb, your education sucks to the point where it is a joke. And dont blame someone else (a common american reaction, it is never your fault) other contries might not have all the money and economy but do have education far suprassing yours. And the money you are so proud of? Well try this: You waites with intervention at the WWII till it was pretty much clear what way it will go, then came in and took al the tresuers the Nazis stole tfrom others (instead of giving it back), established the work bank from all the stollen money, and got the OPEC to sell oil only for USA dollars, so you can keep your currency inflated. The very same people who came up with this are the ones that keep avarage Joe and Jane dumb as a doornail, in poverty and tube-feeding them the fucking stupid bible, but still, avarage Joe and Jane are proud americans (whatever that is). And you call the communists brain washers... America has better propaganda than the Nazis, and better brainwashing than the Russians and stupider people than anywhere else.

The very same migrant workers that are forced to do stupid things for their uneducated american dumbass masters, will father the future doctors, engeneers, lawyers, and other members of the highly educted class, so their children and grandchildren can be proud americans...

I am pissed!!!!

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[thetejon]

Yeah, but where does that get me? It doesn't save me money on my groceries, and it doesn't employ the cashier who got fired.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[bsy_at_play]

a one guy algorithm, assuming orientation doesn't matter much since no magnetic compass etc was involved:
A--------B
|........|
|........|
D--------C

(1) compute lengths of diagonal AC.
(2) cut strings of appropiate lengths for diagonal and four sides AB, BC, CD, AD.
(3) put stake in ground for one corner, say point A.
(4) tie one end each of a diagonal string AC, aB, and AD to the stake, walk in intended diagonal direction until string AC is taut, and drive in stake for opposite corner C. you will have dropped the strings AB and AD on the ground to reach C.
(5) tie AC to stake C, and strings CD and BC to stake C. AC is our baseline.
(6) walk back along AC with strings CD and BC until you find the other ends of AB and AD.
(7) taking BC and AB, walk towards where B should be until both AB and BC are taut. tie strings to a new stake, and drive into ground at B.
(8) repeat operation for D.

since there is only one person, the free ends of strings left on the ground may have to be tied to a rock or heavy washers -- or the stakes for B and D -- to prevent them fromo blowing away while left unattended.

-bsy

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[fumblebruschi]

PS: I think, no matter how much frickin money they make, they ALL drive beat up pickups

Naturally. I spent fifteen years in the construction industry, and drove crummy third-hand pickups the whole time. I always had a lot of heavy equipment to move, and needed the space; and why would I drive a nice car to a work site?

By the way, I doubt there was as direct a cause-effect relationship as the story implies. Even where there's a high general level of education (as is the case in Massachusetts, where I did all my construction work) the huge majority of people in the building trades never went to college; most of them barely finished high school, and rarely did well there. I find it very unlikely that the poster explained the Pythagorean theorem to the contractor in five minutes in such a way that he could grasp and retain it. Probably what really happened was the guy listened in polite incomprehension, made a joke to end the conversation, and later got rid of one of his guys for some totally unrelated reason, such as the guy turned up drunk, or accidentally blew up the compressor, or got mad and shot somebody else with a nailgun (I have seen all these things happen.)

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its true that TVs are cheap and (used) cars aren't too expensive, but who cares? When it comes down to it in the U.S. there are basically three expenses you should care about:

Education (so you can earn a good living)
Housing
Medical Care

As a percentage of income these have climbed through the roof. Education and Medical Care costs have exceeded inflation for as long as I can remember. Housing has been a bear the past few years (although everyone thinks that will subside). a small 40/50 year old two-bedroom ranch house in my good-but-not-great suburb is > $350,000.

So the poor can watch TV. Great. Let them eat cake. What happens when they get sick and can't afford to go to the doctor's office? They end up in the emergency room - and we all pay.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Dielectric]

Not around here. Most of our checkers are recent immigrants or mentally handicapped.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[colinwb]

In one issue of the (alas) long defunct 1960s and 1970s undergraduates' mathematics magazine "Manifold" http://www.jaworski.co.uk/index.html there was a story (not in the issues so far put online) of a mathematician coming across two people counting - one by one - the lights in the ceiling of a newly built large room at a new university. He helped them, saying something like "there are 18 rows of lights with 12 lights in each row, so that's 216 lights", only to be met by the response: "No, we need the exact number of lights."

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[thesandtiger]

My food budget is approximately 150 a month. I have a decent amount of variety in my diet -

Pasta, rice, potatoes, beans, lentils, cous cous, oatmeal, spinach, peppers, tomatoes, banannas, pita, eggs, chicken, and maybe 2 times a month I'll have a steak or something similar. If I run out of spices, I skip the steak for a month and spend that on restocking the seasonings. Most importantly, there's no ramen in my house.

I make a lot of soups or long-cooking dishes - crockpot cooking is wonderful, as I can get it started in the morning and, by the time I get home, I've got a nice dinner waiting, and I can use the leftovers for lunch the next day or as a stock for my next dish.

It's pretty easy to eat a healthy diet on a very low budget if you're willing to learn to cook a little. $5 a day is plenty. I consume about 1250-1500 calories a day, and I don't get bored with the menu - I've got plenty of recipes, to where I could probably go at least a month without having the same thing twice (except for oatmeal at breakfast - I 3 the oatmeal).

Anyway - I learned to eat like this when I was in college and had to live on a food budget of a bit less than $100 a month (the mid 90's). I could certainly afford a much larger budget for food, but honestly I just don't feel the need, and I'd rather sock that extra money away for when I retire.

Completely off-topic, I know, but it annoys me when I see people talking about how low food budget means you have to eat ramen.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[smithmc]

  Well, I watched this with some amusement - and asked why they didn't just calculate the length of the diagonal. The boss guy said that you couldn't do that - "It's impossible". I told him about Pythagoras' theorem. With the aid of a calculator (he didn't know what that funny 'square-root' key was for), I was able to show him how easy it is to calculate the length of the diagonal and do away with all the ugly 'jiggling'.

I hope this was a joke. Anyone who's ever watched This Old House would at least know that they could square off the corners of the rectangle by marking them against a 3-4-5 right triangle.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Grind them, donate the meat to Africa and you're solving the unemployment and hunger problems in one go! :D

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[smithmc]

  droit du seigneur [wikipedia.org]

What a truly, deeply effed-up world we live in.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Fify years ago I'll bet you the percentage of unskilled labor was much higher in the US than it is now.

I have a hard time believing that ... especially in a country where the largest private employer is Wal-Mart, a country with a 60 Billion+ per month trade deficit and an economy where 75% of GDP is consumer spending. The US is nothing more than a spoiled heiress spending her inheritance.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what would you do if you were a company that needed educated workers, but you could not find any? Apprenticeships!

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Threni]

> People in the first world are living longer due to medical techniques and drugs that didn't
> exist years ago.

That statement is true, but misleading. It's just that so many children didn't make it until their, say, 2nd birthday that the average was massively lowered.

> Exactly how are you going to compel people to do this stuff? Outlaw individual ownership of
> automobiles? Additionally, fruit and veggies aren't that expensive as far as the developed
> countries go.

Didn't you read the original question? I'm the king now - you've got to do what I say otherwise I'll cut your head off! Bicycles will be freely available a la the `white bike` scheme of Amsterdam (only I'll kill bike thieves).

> Why is it the responsibility of the developed world to square this away?

We can do it, so we have a moral responsibility to do it. The developed world spends billions of dollars on the military and entertainment, which would be far more usefully spent on preventing deaths. Why not read up on sleeping sickness in Africa, to pick just one problem.

> This sounds suspiciously like a hint at wealth redistribution.

You say it like it's a bad thing. Where does wealth come from? Natural resources, or services built using them, and largely from undeveloped countries. Why shouldn't this be spread around. You're so interested in people `earning` money/property that you're prepared to allow literally millions of people to die every year from problems which cause practically no deaths at all in developed countries just to maintain your belief in an immoral method of running countries? What percentage of the US GDP is given away each year? If you don't think it should be, why not petition for less. But if it IS the moral thing to do, then compare that with the amount spent on the military.

> Peaceful space exploration must go on for the advancement of the human race.

What's the speed of light? How long does it take at that speed to get to the nearest star? Do the maths - what's the point? Sure, it's interesting - I'm into all that, but at the moment it's not a priority. Each shuttle launch is `worth` millions of human lives. Still think it's worth it? Like I said, we'll get back to it. The universe isn't going anywhere - we're certainly not.

> The reality is that I share more cultural and economic bonds with my fellow citizens,
> therefore their well-being is more important to me.

A very weak argument. On that basis you personally wouldn't find anything immoral about the Nazi genocide of the Jews - unless they had legally binding contracts with you, at which point it would suddenly become immoral.

> You've stated some global problems with
> approximately zero feasible concrete solutions to any of them.

On the contrary, you've just come up with excuses for not making the effort to change anything.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Kevin Stevens]

I spend about $100 a month on food. How do I do it? Rice and pasta are my main staples. On average I eat one meal a day. I don't buy junk food. The processed "easy" food is almost always more expensive and almost always less healthy. Eating one or two meals a day keeps me within my target weight range. I also enjoy cooking. It is not a chore to me, kind of like when you get a piece of code to work properly, sitting down to a good meal cooked with fresh ingredients is very satisfying.

Lets break it down.
One pound of pasta costs about a dollar. This will feed me for 4 meals. Sauce to be served with the pasta costs about $3, maybe $5 for a really pricey sauce or complicated homemade recipe. $6 = 4 meals. $1.50 a meal. Throw some meat in there or a veggie to make it $2.
About 10 pounds of rice costs about $5. A cup of rice is good for about 3-4 servings, and there are about 25 cups of rice in a bag. So rice costs about 5 cents for a meal. Youre going to need some veggies and meat in there to make a decent meal, so youre total cost for a meal of rice and whatever is probably going to be $2.

So even a balanced meal costs $2. Eat one time a day and you're costs for a dinner are $60. The other $40 is accounted for by things like fruit, salads for lunch, cereal, milk, bread, drinks, and the occasional seafood or steak dinner, etc. I am also a single guy living in a small apartment and don't get to benefit from buying large quantities. One big caveat is that I don't consider going out to dinner and other entertainment type meals to be a part of my regular food bill. I also don't throw out food ever. Occasionally I will make a mistake and keep milk or tomatoes too long and have to throw them out, but that is pretty rare.

If you don't like rice and/or pasta, you will probably be shit out of luck. You will also probably be overweight, have high cholesterol, and in generally bad health. People who view starch and carbohydrates as bad just floor me. Starchy foods satisfy you a great deal more than any other types of food and hence you eat less, yet still have a low calorie density.

Never want to look at rice again? In Southeast Asian countries, rice is the main staple and served with just about everything. They seem to be fine with this.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[PFI_Optix]

a small 40/50 year old two-bedroom ranch house in my good-but-not-great suburb is > $350,000.

And a 2,300 square foot 30-year-old home in my rural town is $100,000. It's only in the metro areas that the housing market is severely inflated, and that's because urban sprawl has forced people to spend whatever they have to so they can drive to work and still have time to sleep at night.

If *I* were made king, first thing I'd do is start looking for a way to stop urban sprawl and put an end to two-hour commutes. Those two related things are probably the largest consumers of resources and time in America.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Surt]

The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not everyone, on average, would be better off if we went back to having fabrics made by hand.

If you answer no, then I think you have to also assume that likewise, everyone will be on average better off if we get rid of the need for cashiers.

As one example, suppose we do away with the cost of cashiers. Now I'm saved 10 minutes in line on average per day. I alone can afford one hour of personal maid service at cashier rates based on that. Multiply that by all the other people no longer in line, and you now have a huge demand for personal maid service. And now all the cashiers have jobs as maids.

Until all of the people with jobs that pay 10x or better minimum wage have a personal maid, I can assure you that every increase in efficiency resulting in the loss of low end minimum wage jobs will just make room for more valuable low end minimum wage jobs.

When robots can do mechanical labor ... then we'll have a real problem. Then the rich will no longer need the poor, and since robots are much less likely to rise up in revolt at their poor treatment (in spite of science fiction claims otherwise) the rich will simply dispose of the poor and replace them with robots.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Y2]

I used to think like that, too. Not so much anymore. Try "Player Piano" by Kurt Vonnegut.

There's always going to be a bottom rung of people who really can't do much more than run a cash register. What happens to them?

I answer your fiction citation with another: Riders of the Purple Wage by Philip José Farmer.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I missing something?
How can you calculate the diagonals (using Pythagorous), without knowing you have right angles? And, the only way you know you have right angles, is because you've measured the diagonals...

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Y2]

If Pythagoras can get one guy fired, imagine what Goldman's Polytope is going to do!

You have obvisouly read TFA and must be requested to leave the conversation immediately.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[sammy baby]

Well, yeah, but I haven't seen it phrased so nakedly since...

Well, since this guy.

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

They let their postal employee husband earn a living, while they, in their idiocy and stupor, blog away happily at the cable modem connected computer they own believing their lives to be just happy wonderlands in which bancrupty is "the government's" problem to solve for them, not society's (sp? or is it societies?) problem. I mean, after all, everyone deserves shelter, food, and warmth, right? (Even when their own bad purchasing decisions put them in the position they're in, in the first place.)

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

> which in turn, will make it cheaper for you

Thank you. Probably the funniest thing I've read in the last month.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[thetejon]

What if I don't want a maid? What if I'd rather put that extra bit of money into my 401K? I know that putting more money in the pockets of consumers leads to a lot of things that can be beneficial to all, but "I have more money, therefore I will employ a recently fired cashier as a maid" is not the path everyone is going to take.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[TeknoHog]

Get rid of the IRS. Replace it with knights in armor who go door to door and take all your stuff, and give it the King (me).

....and say "Ni!"

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[aralin]

Man, speak for yourself. I would definitely have more fun driving the new S-Class Mercedes than my old beatup Honda Civic. And with iPod and podcasting, I even enjoy the daily commute now. And with my ReplayTV, I enjoy watching the TV again. I don't share your view of technology.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

this is slashddot - macro-evolution is at work. those people with low skills should all starve to death, fail to reproduce, die away and leave the smart folks alone... that's the LAW, isn't it?

isn't this evolutionary LAW a "good thing"?

if it isn't, where does that leave us?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[TeknoHog]

> > There's always going to be a bottom rung of people who really can't do much more than run a cash register. What happens to them?

> The society works hard to shrink them to a smaller and smaller percentage of the populace through education.

But even in a society full of PhDs, some people have to do the menial jobs. Education explosion only leads to grade inflation, IMHO.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

----
Technology is having a negative impact on the environment, jobs (wages, hours worked) etc. These are not the only result of technology, just the way it's being used. We live in an abusive social system where the minority of the worlds population controls the majority of its resources - the rest of use who are lucky enough not to live somewhere where we're likely to die from easily treatable diseases/problems like malnutrition, cholera, diarreah, malaria have to work longer and harder to take home less money to pay more for less. Technology just makes that process faster.
----

then get off the internet. it's having a negative impact on the environment, and it's (oh no!) technological. You're depriving some highschool dropout of a job by not writing letters to all of us and paying him to deliver them.

on topic: what happens if you're laying out a foundation on, say, a sloped piece of land? if you just use the standard 3-4-5 rule or the Pythagorean Theorem, you'll have square corners, but they will be square on the surface of the ground, not on a level surface. That needs to be normalized onto a horizontal plane... time to teach the contractor linear algebra and give him a graphing calculator instead of a 4-function.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[swimmar132]

I think a few studies have shown that people's "happiness levels" (however they measure it) are generally fixed. Happy people tend to be happy no matter what happens in their life, and unhappy people tend to be unhappy (even if good stuff happens to them all the time). You can probably change happiness levels temporarily (through drugs, money, girls, etc), but it's unlikely to stay at the elevated level in the long run.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Surt]

Putting money in your 401k means making an investment in something, which means you are helping to create jobs, just not local to your house, as with the maid example. Still comes to the same thing: when the least meaningful labor job is eliminated (as with weavers), some other more valuable job suddenly becomes more affordable, because there is more money around to afford it. That will always remain true so long as there are any labor intensive jobs, which in all likelyhood will be true until general purpose robots can replace any given type of labor.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Deadstick]

Yes, you're missing something. If you have the lengths of the legs, Pythagoras tells you how long the diagonals should be. Moving the stakes until the diagonals are that long makes the corners accurately perpendicular.

rj

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[wgaryhas]

I also lived on a diet like what the other 2 people responded with. Problem was, I went from 190lbs to 150lbs over the course of half a year eating about 3000 calories a day. (and I'm 6'3") Pancakes, waffles, grits, and oatmeal are also extremely cheap if you are sick of rice.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[geekoid]

to a point.

What about the money the fired guy is no longer putting into the economy?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Radius?

Arc?

x, y, PQ, A?

Did you miss the comment where he said the guy didn't know what a square root was?
Or the part about 'migrant workers' in Texas? (Um, they don't speak much English, if you didn't know...)

Yes, I'm certain that they could prove your techniques are solid using standard Euclidian geometry.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[geekoid]

" These people, althought sad and with no job at first, will find other jobs and society will be better off in general."

So your bases for your opinion is "They will find other jobs."?

Do you relize that there is now fewer jobs available to get? That your hypothesis depends on an unlimited number of availabe jobs?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

>People are living longer largely due to decreased infant mortality.

The statement that lower infant mortality is evidence of longer lives is absolutely wrong.

You do not understand mortality rates if you think it does. Infant mortality is specifically excluded for the very reason that those industries concerned with mortality rate are dealing only with people who have made it past the age of 18 months. Talk to a competent insurance agent, or just go to the Society of Actuaries' website and look at the planned implementation of valuation tables and mortality rates.

If a person has a dim view of life, that dim view will pervade all thinking. I am opined that you are the one in need of help. If we all agreed with you, then by extension of logic, we should all die as quickly as possible to minimize pain to ourselves and others...

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

People are living longer now and that is one reason why they don't live as well. Old people hang on now taking dozens of medications which eat their life savings and prolong the least enjoyable part of their lives. Corns, bunions, arthritis, Alzheimers, a sense of uselessness, alienation and abuse from caretakers. Especially those below the poverty level. I enjoyed TV just as much when all that was available was B&w though I prefer color if I have a choice. But the grandparent post had a point. And no people won't be crippled from Polio or die from Measles nowadays. They will die from AIDS and Asian Bird Flu.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[ConceptJunkie]

Fify years ago I'll bet you the percentage of unskilled labor was much higher in the US than it is now.

I wouldn't bet that. I'd bet that the so-called "unskilled laborer" of 50 years ago was better educated than the typical burger-flipper, low-level corporate or government bureaucrat, first-teir tech support or Congressman is today.

Have you ever heard of "College education today is like high school education of 50 years ago?" Well, people have been saying that for at least 50 years and there's a lot of truth to it.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

> some people have to do the menial jobs.
sounds like we finally got back to the GP post, that was the concern, eliminating menial jobs = bad. now were back to them being needed, whew lucky.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Nutria]

People are living longer largely due to decreased infant mortality.

How does decreased infant mortality affect whether I die at 35y, 50, 65 or 80?

Sanitation, nutrition and vaccinations are why life expectancy shot up during the 20th century.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[alien_tracking_devic]

It's true. Our nation symbol is no longer the American Eagle, but Paris Hilton.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[MagikSlinger]

These people, althought sad and with no job at first, will find other jobs and society will be better off in general.

Typical libertarian clap-trap. History says otherwise. When out of a job, populations tend to go through this cycle in Western countries:

1. Massive unemployment
2. Restive population. Popular demonstrations and sometimes leading to violence against private property and factory owners. (Look up the history of the word "sabotage")
3. Law & Order crackdown which causes the disorganized to organize. In one case, they became the Luddites. The other, modern labour unions.
4. Protracted battles between the displaced and employers until the employers offer some sort of cushion until new jobs appear. The Luddites were successful in doing this through violence; labour unions through collective agreements.
5. Once peace has been re-established, the new jobs began to appear.

Simply dismissing the displaced's problems just leads to chaos which disrupts our society and economy. Now I do generally agree with you that new jobs appear, but assuming the displaced WILL find new jobs is Polyanna thinking at best. I still think society needs an adaptive cushion to help the initially displaced until they move on, and for those who CAN'T move on, help them find a place in the new world so they're less likely to join disruptive groups. It's enlightened self-interest on the part of business people too since they tend to take the brunt of the disruptions.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[strikethree]

I find it absolutely incredible that you were modded funny. How very sad.

strike

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[MickoZ]

Indeed, because only smart thief don't end up in jail and they are not qualified for that?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[lazy genes]

Everything is fun and games untill you pissoff a person that is in this country illegaly.There is no way to find these people if they harm you or your family.But they do make good slaves thou.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[ranton]

First off, the company wouldnt take the time to use the RFID equipment if it wasnt cheaper. You are trading away some customer service, so they wouldnt do it unless the savings were significant.

And second, what makes the unskilled cashier's job more important than the engineer's job? Since the engineer is more educated and skilled, I would say his job is far more important than the unskilled laborer's job.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[marklark]

Well, it's obvious, we should just make people eat better!

Duh. ;^)

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[ranton]

If they are in a competitive market, they will go down. I am a software programmer, and I put people out of work all the time by making their jobs useless. But it always either frees a company to hire engineers/salesmen/etc. or lower prices. So the net effect on society and unemployment is nothing.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[halltk1983]

when did you last see an ad for carrots, rice etc

ermmm, every time I've been to a school?
Healthy food is cheap
healthy food is fashionable
healthy food is available in every city, town, etc,etc,
also, lets not forget the "got milk" commercials...
We've been told health food is where it is at to the point where McDONALDS carries friggin salads. Don't tell me health food is unavailable. People are fat because they are lazy, moment-oriented idiots. They don't want to excericize, they'd reather sit and watch television. Ooooh, Desperate Housewives or Survivor 12? Which one should I watch... oh I'll put on on TiVo and watch it later. Give me a friggin break people. Sure, watch DH or Survivor... but do it on a treadmill. Or a stairstepper. If you have bad knees, do sit-ups, crunches and pushups. Hell, STRETCH! Move! Don't be sedentary. That's a good start.
Don't blame your friggin problems on society. It makes me sick.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[sdpuppy]

> Once upon a time it took dozens of men many days of employment to dig a hole in the ground. Now it takes one man an afternoon with an excavator.

Hmmm, From my observations, nowadays it takes one man an afternoon with an excavator and 4 men to watch him work.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you fully but would add...

Unhealthy food leaves one tired and listless... so that once one starts going down the road of an 'unhealthy' diet one becomes less and less energetic.

BTW there are a Few companies who try to market at least some healthy foods, the 'breakfast' cereal companies. although they long ago moved away from no sugar added products like corn flakes, kix, cheerios etc to 'build up' more popular and slightly less healthy sugar coated/filled cereals. they still market and sell certain popular brands, and try to formulate a few 'healthier choice' products according to what they determine demand for them is.

that being said, grains are 'energy' food, energy foods tend to cause weight gain in people already suffering from the negative effects of an unhealthy diet. still, they're not bad for you, and as long as you're getting enough of the rest of whatyour body needs they fill the vital role of providing energy for the body to start the morning right.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Vellmont]

But even in a society full of PhDs, some people have to do the menial jobs.


The original point I'm trying to make isn't to eliminate menial jobs. There's nothing wrong with a menial job. The goal of education is to eliminate people ONLY being able to do menial jobs, and thus their job being eliminated by technology.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[halltk1983]

a small 40/50 year old two-bedroom ranch house in my good-but-not-great suburb is > $350,000.

WTF?!!! I live in a 4 bedroom 2 bath house, on an acre of land 30 minutes from Austin, Tx. And the cost of the house $120K. Try moving a little farther out next time. Or not living in NY or CA

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[corngrower]

Fify years ago I'll bet you the percentage of unskilled labor was much higher in the US than it is now.

Bet not. These days there are a lot more immigrants in the U.S. from south of the border who are low-skilled or unskilled.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[selfdiscipline]

I thought when people said that they were referring to the necessity of college and high school for employment, not the educational value. Of course, if a larger percentage of the potential workforce is going to college because they feel they need to in order to acquire a good job, then the college will have to adjust its expectations for larger, less intelligent group... and thus making college less intellectually challenging... which I guess is fairly accurate from my point of view as a state college student.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[LstH0ld0ut]

I don't necesarily think it's as simple the the benefit to citizens on avg. With that idea we could have a 90 /10 scenario where 10% of the population gets 90% of the benefit. That's not going to work in a democracy. It's bound to lead to income inequalities that will hurt our society as a whole.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Cow herd]

It's not like the money just magically disappears. The money either goes to his boss/company owner, who spends the money in his stead, or get passed on as cost savings to the person that hired this guy, who can spend it on something else.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Surt]

Well of course in fact 10% of the population does hold about 90% of the wealth in this society already. And I don't think that's a good thing. That's exactly why we have minimum wage laws: to prevent the evil rich from exploiting labor any more than they already do.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[ConceptJunkie]

Which one is the cause and which the effect? I think your scenario is plausible, but you can objectively compare contemporary education material to that of 50 or 100 years ago and will see that for the most part, the modern stuff is easier for the same level (i.e. high school grade-level, undergraduate, etc).

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[drdewm]

I happen to be one of those people. The trick is that you need to swallow your pride and understand that you are not so bright and work that much harder to keep up with the bright bulbs the best that you can. Reguardless of what overly-hopeful people say not every one can be Michael Jordan or the president or an astronaut etc. Some of us suck and wishing and/or practice won't change that. You do your best, add whatever value that you can and try to be happy with it. Live this and life will be fruitful and more pleasant but if its not then you did your best: Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,. The courage to change the things I can,. And the wisdom to know the difference

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant... fscking brilliant... seriously. We're definitely in the looting stage.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[corngrower]

Increase support for higher education. Have a privatized social security option. One could invest a portion of their social security in privatized plans. Stop government support for having large families. You get tax deductions for up to the first two kids. That's it. There already are enough people in this world. Increase support for early childhood education and after-school programs. States must set statewide education standards for eighth grade and high school graduation. (Currently some states do nothave statewide standards.) The welfare program would probably change, but since I'm not currently very familiar with the current one, I couldn't say exactly how. The federal jobs program would be continued. Basic health care guaranteed for all americans. This would include annual check up, required childhood immunizations. Would not cover any proceedures or medications for conditions that are not life threatening or which don't substantially degrade the individuals quality of life. (No cosmetic surgery, no sex change operations, treatment of minor cuts & scrapes not covered.) Support research and development of a more energy efficient transportation system. Get rid of a lot of those dammed silly little laws that make people criminals when all they're really doing is annoying the neighbors a bit.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[pyite]

At McDonald's and Wendy's, you can buy salad and fresh fruit at prices comparable to burgers and fries. I don't see what the problem is.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Savantissimo]

"When the cashiers find other jobs ..."

But in the long run, they won't find other jobs. The whole point of automation (and outsourcing) is that the companies using the automation pay less out in wages. When every company does this, there are no other domestic jobs being created - even the jobs creating automation get automated or outsourced. There is less consumer income and thus lower sales and less need for production capacity - it's a vicious cycle. We're only holding on in the US because consumer borrowing is so high, allowing purchasing to continue.

Companies need to understand that eliminating jobs and paying lower wages is eating their seed corn. No one company can decide to buck the tide, though, because in the short term the other companies will eat them up. Unfortunately, the only way to make progress is through regulation. Corporations must be taxed on importing low-paid labor, whether through visas, outsourcing, or importing finished goods, and must be made to share the profits of automation with displaced workers.

Automation reduces the need for workers, but it does not fix the economic system that requires everyone have a "job". Why should all the benefits of human ingenuity go to corporations? This is a problem commonly acknowledged with intellectual property, but it has other aspects - access to effective means of production and to capital are also effectively limited to corporations. What if your supermarket checker could buy an automated checkout system, set it up at work and collect their paycheck without showing up? The system is set up to prevent that happening now, but why not turn things around and require corporations to lease all their equipment from real people? Loan them the money at cost, and then you'll see real productivity improvements without forcing workers into poverty. Perhaps that particular idea isn't practical, but some radical strategy is needed - profit from automation must not be concentrated in corporations or by and by corporations will own everything.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[benzapp]

And what Kurt never could abandon was his committment to the egalitarian fantasy.

Such people do have a place in society: Slaves.

They are born to serve, and such a life is far better than ending up in prison or living in a housing project.

Whether it is sweeping the streets, or providing amusement for those who are burdened by the demands of our complex society or the passion of the muses, such people free the more gifted from the constraints of the mundane.

In return, the inferior slave strata receive a purpose for their existence, as well as sustenance for life. Without higher forms of humanity, they would perish.

The egalitarian fantasy robs the nobility of freedom, and burdens the inferior with responsibilities they could never hope to achieve.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[msouth]

How about blacksmiths that were replaced by the automobiles?

It wasn't really fair to require the poor blacksmiths to carry around the family and a trunkload of groceries anyway. I bet the blacksmiths were glad.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[msouth]

you forgot to add:

"And they choose to bend to this pressure and indulge in unhealthy food."

You remember the concept--free will? Choice? Think back before your socialist professors conviced you that every problem in society was the fault of institutions/businesses/government. You'll remember back when you thought you could make choices, too.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Encourage better/cheaper public transport so you don't have 1 person per car all over the planet. Ensure cycling is safe anc convenient.

Exactly how are you going to compel people to do this stuff?

Well you could just build really narrow congested roadways with a top tier mass-transit system where rail terminals are within easy biking/walking distance everywhere. that's what the japanese have done, and that's what it's like in NYC owning a car is more of a hassle than anything in NYC because a good bike and a subway pass are far quicker/ convenient etc. if we designed the roadways to be such a headache to drive them daily people would flock to mass transit.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Pseudonym]

On the contrary, the parent was parodying the thoughts of many people in priveleged positions. Or, at the very least, merely stating a fact without condoning it.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Deflatamouse!]

Umm, if you want to discourage the trent towards obesity just move to a developing country.

The trend towards obesity is largely only in the US and 1st world countries, perhaps Japan excluded.

Anyway, the actual trend of the world is towards hunger, starvation, and malnutrition. The richer gets richer and the poorer gets poorer, and the 300 million people in the US are in the richer category, even if I am just a cashier, my life is 100 times better than someone from Ethiopia.

If I am King, I will move all the fast food restaurants to Africa.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Deflatamouse!]

It affects whether you die at 0y.

People have been living up to 80+ even 50 years ago.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[gg3po]

The society works hard to shrink them to a smaller and smaller percentage of the populace through education. Fify years ago I'll bet you the percentage of unskilled labor was much higher in the US than it is now.

Education? Is that what they claim to be doing in the government schools, nowadays? In reality, a much significantly higher percentage of USians were literate 50 years ago than are today. You're probably right about fewer unskilled laborers, though. What you failed to mention is that now they're all on welfare instead of laboring.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[coopex]

You forgot the most important reasons: unhealthy food is delicious, and provides the energy your body needs. A nice juicy pork chop or steak is much more appetizing than a salad to most everyone, because while I doubt anyone on this forum has memories of going to bed hungry, it wasn't that long ago that you'd be considered insane to try to cut calories or diet.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[gg3po]

I don't share your sense of gloom. People today are living longer and better than 50 years ago.

Technology is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. It is neither good nor evil, but can be used for both and has the power to amplify both. I see both more good and more evil than existed 50 years ago -- primarily due to this amplification effect of technology. Therefore, technology can be neither be construed as a saviour from evil, nor a terrible departure from good. I expect to see more of the extremes in the future as technology improves and allows for their existence.

People below the poverty line in the USA today drive their own car, [emphasis mine]

Apparently you are using a very loose interpreteation of the word own. Even many people that are considered upper-middle-class are stuck in the perrenial debt-cycle -- never owning their own vehicle. You might more accurately say that people below the poverty line are permitted to drive the Bank®'s car in exchange for thier soul as a permanent slave to debt.

they have color TV's,

This is probably more of a detriment than benefit. Try turning off the tube and reading a book.

and they are vaccinated. None of them are going to be crippled by polio or die from the measles.

Vaccination is more than 50 years old. At least back then it was much more voluntary, and didn't contain mercury.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[rmstar]

But what happens when your educational system is barely able to keep up with the current demand for educated workers?

And, in particular, what happens to those that are otherwise very nice people, but just don't get along with the education system? That is, those people that consistently fail exams, don't ''get'' any math, etc?

(I guess letting them starve is the libertarian way.)

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[coopex]

My goodness, you mean I'll actually have to buy raw materials to save money!

As a side note, home baked french bread costs about a dime a loaf, and will make you never eat wonderbread again.
Ingredients:
6 cups flour
2 tbsp wheat gluten
1 tsp salt
1 tsp dry yeast
1 egg white
Activate yeast by soaking in 1 cup hot tap water 5 minutes.
Mix yeast+water, salt, wheat gluten and 1.5 cups water together until well mixed.
Add 6 cups flour 1 cup at a time, then knead dough 10 minutes.
Cover bowl and let rise 2 hours.
Separate risen dough into quarters, form into bread shape, place on greased pan sprinkled lighly with corn meal, cover lightly with saran wrap and let rise 1-2 hours.
Brush dough loaves with water and egg white, make 3/4 diagonal slashes in top, and bake at 450 for 20-30 minutes (until golden brown).

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Dark_MadMax666]

What a piece of BS. My monthly budget for food is exactly $150-$200 .And I buy anything I want ( fruits/vegetables, meat ,juice ). I even buy frozen/prepared food diners , though pound per pound buying ingredients and cooking them would be cheaper - but premade food saves my time , which I value more than measly $20-$ 30 per month.

  If you only eat ramen and rice you can spend no more than $100 a month ( I had to live like this as well) ) . Though you would have to cut back on fruits this way.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[sandmaninator]

You give humans too much credit. We are animals too and are easily influenced by many things. Even "free-thinking", salad-eating liberals are just bowing to the social pressure and advertising that is aimed at them.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[ClamIAm]

I have my own anecdote kinda like this: my middle school (Algebra) math teacher (who told stories all the time) talked about a summer during his college years when he worked a construction job. His boss was a kinda scruffy guy that didn't look really smart. One day when they had to build the forms for the cement base of a shed or something. After they did the initial placement of the boards in one corner, the guy pulls out a tape measure. He measures three feet on one side, and makes a mark. Then he measures four feet down the other side, and makes a mark. Then, he looks at how far the marks are apart. My teacher was of course trying to get the point across to a bunch of kids that math is useful in everyday life. And, at least with me, the point definitely sunk in.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[raddan]

I agree with you, although I think a hard-core libertarian would argue that public school systems wouldn't exist in a truely free market. So although typical public school systems have problems educating the "alternative learners" (the corner cases... ok, it's a big corner), in the libertarian ideal, the market would respond to those kinds of people better than the current one.

But, of course, what we don't know, because we've never had such a system, is whether the population would be generally better-educated, or if a few privileged folks would be better-educated, and the rest of us worse-off. I really have no idea.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

You never read 1984? Orwell brought up the same topic, purposefully neglecting to explain it so that you would look it up in an encyclopedia.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[aminorex]

In my opinion, the primary practical function of public education is to destroy the higher rational capacities of the individual, to make them usefully complacent drones, to be milked.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[thesandtiger]

My favorite thing to do with bread is to bake in whole cloves (well, peeled and seperated and soaked) of garlic. Sourdough + garlic... Oh mamma!

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps I would be better of this bag of apples was grown in Ontario and shipped to me a few hundred mile, rather then the few thousand it probably was.

Huh? How could that possibly benefit you?

By allowing people to move things around before they sell them, through transportation technology and free trade laws (or, more accurately, lack of unfree trade laws), you can get your apples cheaper than you could otherwise, leaving you more money to spend on luxuries. If you don't like it, just throw some of your money away, and you'll be as badly off as you would have been otherwise.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Audacious]

Actually, fifty years ago I was born (1956). :-)

World War II saw the greatest expansion of education since....welllll World War I. It was still a boom economy in the fifties and the baby boomers were in full swing. Education was in full swing also. Many people who, as children, never had educations were getting their kids educations. Actually, not since World War II have we had so many people trying to better themselves and get an education (in the US that is). The dropout rate and educational rate of most students in today's schools is dismal compared to the 1950s. Free thinking, free love, free, free, free makes people lazy. Lazy people don't try to think and in many cases refuse to think. My wife, who teaches science, sometimes just wants to go screaming down the corridor. You teach a kid something, ask them to repeat it, and many times they either can't or won't. Last year 80% of her class graduated, this year (she got moved to 8th grade from 6th grade) only 60% of the student are passing. Of those, only 30% may make it to the end of the semester. Compare this to the 90% graduation rates of the fifties and I think you will see that although there are more people around now than before - fewer of them are graduating or even making it through school.

Now, granted, my wife is teaching in a mainly hispanic school who got a large influx of kids from Louisiana after the hurricane. Many of the kids can barely talk English, there is a high dropout rate because the families move a lot, and they have a higher percentage of kids who's parents get divorced or just one of them walks out on the other. But her school is not out of line with others where other ethnic majorities reside.

For instance, the Sharpstown school in Houston, Texas last year had a huge scandal because they falsely stated that only 5% of the kids were dropping out of school. Then it was found out that the principal and others had cooked the books and that really about 25% of the kids had dropped out of that school. The Sharpstown school is predominately white so any social bias would not apply.

So the problem isn't who you are teaching but that kids today seem to be less motivated to go to school than ever before. I can't blame them either. With all of the things the government has done and is doing about all these kids can look forwards to are scum jobs. As with Charles Dickenson's book "A Tale of Two Cities", we are becoming a country of the haves and have nots even though we already know what happens when that situation occurs. This isn't to say that there aren't people out there trying to change things. But it is to say that there are a heck of a lot more people in need than we have people to fix the problem (or even money to fix the problem).

So no. There are more people alive today than there were back in the 50s and there are more people out of work, looking for jobs, and not having the proper skills to achieve their goals today than in the 50s. Consequently, there are more people today and fewer in yesteryear who are uneducated and unskilled.

. . .

To show what I mean:

My father's father was an unskilled worker until World War I. During World War I he received an education while in the military. My father was born just after the end of World War I. His family lived in a tiny town which didn't even have running water and was near a swamp. Where exactly I won't say. His dad taught him how to hunt so he could help bring home food when he was old enough. My father went to school up to 10th grade. (Which, I think, was the highest grade at the time.) When World War II came along, he enlisted, fought, came home, and then went to college while still in the armed forces. He married my mom who had also gone to school. Both parents went through the Great Depression. My mom's family moved all the way from the northwest to the southeast where, when she was older, she met my father. No matter where we moved to - we went to school. Being military kids, our f

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[CaptainCarrot]

What do you think happened to lamplighters that were replaced by electric lamps?

Lamplighter was never a fulltime job. He either doubled as a constable or had the job as a kind of patronage or "workfare" arrangement.

How about blacksmiths that were replaced by the automobiles?

This is not an apt comparison since a cashier is an unskilled worker but a blacksmith very much is not. But really, when the horse, which takes only about 4 smallish iron parts, is replaced with a lumbering machine made primarily of iron or steel and needing frequent repair, a man who knows how to work with the material isn't going to have trouble finding work.

In other words, there will always be a market for skilled workers since skillsets are often transferrable across a range of occupations. It's the unskilled who suffer most from automation. There is no ready solution to the question unless they're willing to acquire skills.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

The trick is that you need to swallow... Some of us suck and wishing and/or practice won't change that.

People who suck can actually find themselves in a number of well-paying positions. Especially if they're also willing to swallow.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[DrCode]

I think maybe you're a little spoiled. Were you driving a car in the 60's? It was quite common then for a car to have mechanical problems, or a flat tire, requiring you to call a tow truck. And without cell phones, that wasn't always so easy.

Now and then, it strikes me that the cheap car I've had for the last 6 years has never broken down. And that does make me "happier, safer, and richer".

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[reflective recursion]

It should legally be an option.

Life is one continuous learning process. I think it's time the idea of going to school and then getting a lifelong career is put to rest. Then people will see that each person is capable of creativity and learning is an enjoyable process.

We also need to rid ourselves of the monopoly Universities have on "higher education." Not everyone can afford to play that fraudulent textbook, TI-xx calculator, laptop, etc. scheme. Especially now that things like pell grants (US, of course) are getting cut. Not that they saved students from massive debt anyhow...

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[zsau]

Interesting. What do your students do for money, particularly high-school ones?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[msouth]

I can just as easily argue that you give humans too little credit. I agree that we are animals, and that there are very powerful influences on our decisions that we have inherited from millions of years of evolution. But we are also a hell of a lot more than animals, and it is only extreme self-induced blindness that could lead us to believe otherwise. You are right, there are people who choose not to partake merely due to an unthinking acceptance of the "marketing" in the other direction. But you are still missing the fact that we can make intelligent, informed, and dispassionate choices. Even if there are only one in a thousand that choose to do it, it proves that it is possible, and emphasizes that all of the 999 who truly have a choice have still chosen the hole they are in.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[iomanip]

So 50 years ago in high school they were learning differential equations and real analysis? Crazy.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[servognome]

You may be right, but while the grocery store saves $8 an hour times however many cashiers they used to employ, what do the RFID chips cost? What do the RFID readers cost? What kind of increased costs do you have maintaining this system?

First businesses are greedy. They wouldn't invest money if the system doesn't save them money in the long run. Maybe the RFID and cashiers are a wash, but the savings could come in other forms, such as better inventory management - less inventory, easier tracking, less lost product, ensuring items that expire earlier are sold first, etc.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[servognome]

But in the long run, they won't find other jobs. The whole point of automation (and outsourcing) is that the companies using the automation pay less out in wages. When every company does this, there are no other domestic jobs being created - even the jobs creating automation get automated or outsourced. There is less consumer income and thus lower sales and less need for production capacity - it's a vicious cycle.

Yes its a vicious cycle, if people remain stagnant and do not innovate. The same arguement you make was given 150 years ago with steam powered looms, 100 years ago with the assembly line, 50 years ago with outsourcing clothing manufacturing, and 25 years ago with outsourcing electronics. Each time what happened is the new goods created new job opportunities. Computers used to be final products, high cost & high margin. Then through technology and outsourcing, computer prices came down. Computers were cheap enough, that people wanted to use them for different purposes, and hence a boom in software which created more jobs than were lost. Do you think there would be so many internet businesses if computers weren't so cheap they were in everybody's home?
Think about how many programs are made for the home user. Family tree maker, video games, calorie counters, baseball card organization, etc. That's alot of different programs, made by people working in jobs that would not have existed if only businesses could afford computers.

Companies need to understand that eliminating jobs and paying lower wages is eating their seed corn. No one company can decide to buck the tide, though, because in the short term the other companies will eat them up. Unfortunately, the only way to make progress is through regulation. Corporations must be taxed on importing low-paid labor, whether through visas, outsourcing, or importing finished goods, and must be made to share the profits of automation with displaced workers.

What about technology, how do you tax corporations on developing better technology to reduce workers, and should you even do it?So long as the quality of life of people is improving, why should $ matter? Look around your house, you think people in the 50's who may have had an inflation adjusted higher salary could afford all those things?

Perhaps that particular idea isn't practical, but some radical strategy is needed - profit from automation must not be concentrated in corporations or by and by corporations will own everything.

That comes through competition, which drives margins down. So long as we ensure strong competition through regulation, the free market drives prices down for the consumer to enjoy. Yes at a personal/local level there may be economic loss, but ultimately productivity gains produce a net benifit to the overall economy. A good example of the reverse happening is in the oil business. Higher oil prices are giving a local boon with more jobs at the expense of the overall economy.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[magisterx]

That's not really true. I've heard many people say that a college education today is like a high school education fifty years ago, but they are talking about levels of demand, not actual quality of eduction. The level of demand for a college education now is tremendously high, as opposed to fifty years ago when it was fairly easy to find labor requiring little formal eduction. Talking to people who were educated more than fifty years ago, I fear that the high schools then were generally less impressive than the ones we have now, which are less than they should be still.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[cheeni]

It's actually still more ancient Indian technology, or Egyptian or Mesopotamian or Chinese. The first mathematical proof coming from India.

Written sometime between 800 - 500 BC in India, the Sulba Sutras contain a statement of the Pythagorean theorem and a list of Pythagorean triples discovered algebraically. The Apastamba Sulba Sutra (c. 600 BC) also contains a numerical proof of the theorem, using an area computation. (Numerical proof is a proof that uses specific numbers but in such a way that it can be generalized.) Van der Waerden believes that "it was certainly based on earlier traditions". According to Albert Brk, this is the original proof of the theorem, and Pythagoras copied it. Many scholars find Brk's claim unsubstantiated, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras_theorem

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Bugmaster]

And how exactly are you going to "encourage" all these things ? Mass media campaign (hasn't worked so far) ? Extra taxes (the more you weigh, the more you pay) ? Police action (lose 10 lbs and sell the car, or we throw you into the slammer) ?

Just how far will you go in the name of your lofty goals ? Will the end justify your means ?

Is it still good to be King ?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[pilkul]

I wouldn't bet that. I'd bet that the so-called "unskilled laborer" of 50 years ago was better educated than the typical burger-flipper, low-level corporate or government bureaucrat, first-teir tech support or Congressman is today.

What are you talking about? A bottom-rung, unskilled laborer is someone who never reads a book or listens to a lecture and possesses no book knowledge whatsoever. Even a first-tier tech support guy is more educated than that. And there is no doubt that there are much fewer such people today than 50 years ago.

If 50 years ago people really were more educated than we are today, how do you explain the fact that our productivity is an order of magnitude greater?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[pilkul]

I don't believe that the great-grandparent was implying it was a desirable thing. He was just pointing out that that's where many poor people end up.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Bugmaster]

You're better off because you can buy apples at all. You don't have to grow your own apples. Someone, somewhere, is using massive amounts of technology to grow massive amounts of apples, and ship them massive distances, so that lazy people like you who don't feel like investing most of their time into agriculture can eat apples.

Think about this, for a moment: you can walk into any supermarket, anywhere in the country, and buy any kind of food any time you want. That's technology at work.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Bugmaster]

Are people happier, safer, richer etc when there is more technology around them?

Yes. It's that simple. Today, in developed countries, people don't die of plague, and they very rarely die of childbirth. They can see clearly even if they're farsighted or nearsighted. They can eat a variety of cheap, easily obtainable foods. They can travel great distances at a whim. They can speak to each other across the entire planet. They have enough leisure time to post on Slashdot. They have a very high chance of surviving through childhood. They can fly.

Are there still poor people who lack access to some or all of these powers ? Yes. Are these poor people still richer than an average Dark-Ages-grade peasant ? Also yes. Overall, technology has been a positive influence of humanity, and that's even with atomic bombs factored in.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Darby]

Interesting. What do your students do for money, particularly high-school ones?

Internet porn?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[SamBeckett]

Life expentancy is your expected life at age 0. (You can also do it from any age with an actuarial table, but the 0-year figure is most quoted).

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[yndrd1984]

You say it like [wealth redistribution]'s a bad thing.

It certainly can be.

Where does wealth come from?

From providing things that other people want.

You're so interested in people `earning` money/property that you're prepared to allow literally millions of people to die every year from problems which cause practically no deaths at all in developed countries just to maintain your belief in an immoral method of running countries?

I can't speak for the other poster, but here's my perspective. If there weren't any people earning money/property there wouldn't be anything to use to help poorer people, meaning that without richer people to give to charity or to tax there's nothing to help the poor with.

In any case, if we could help poor countries become economically free, they wouldn't need our support and we could start griping about them stealing our jobs rather than whining that the rich aren't helping enough.

What percentage of the US GDP is given away each year?

About the same as most other developed countries. European governments give a lot more than the US government, but private donations make up for that.

> The reality is that I share more cultural and economic bonds with my fellow citizens, therefore their well-being is more important to me.

A very weak argument. On that basis you personally wouldn't find anything immoral about the Nazi genocide of the Jews - unless they had legally binding contracts with you, at which point it would suddenly become immoral.

I have no idea where you got that interpretation. He never said anything about ignoring genocide or contracts, that's just stuff you're projecting onto him.

Every person cares more about some people than others, period. He was just expressing which people that he cared more about, which differs from the ones that you care about. And before you claim moral superiority, would you really ignore your dying grandmother in order to comfort a dying stranger who's slightly more lonely?

> You've stated some global problems with approximately zero feasible concrete solutions to any of them.

On the contrary, you've just come up with excuses for not making the effort to change anything.

He was just pointing out that he feels that your solutions aren't feasible, not making excuses.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[yndrd1984]

Why am I better of that I can buy a bag of apples at a 2% discount?

Because you have more money left over for other things.

Why am I better of that I can buy this bag of apples 10% quicker then 5 years ago?

Because you have more time left over for other things.

Perhaps I would be better [i]f this bag of apples was grown in Ontario and shipped to me a few hundred mile[s], rather then the few thousand it probably was.

Why? How on earth would that make you better? (Better off?)

The ability to consume more does not make the world a better place.

The ability to do something gives you more choices, and that almost always makes you better off. Even if you think consuming is a bad thing, you still have the choice to not consume.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Annoying]

If 50 years ago people really were more educated than we are today, how do you explain the fact that our productivity is an order of magnitude greater?

It only takes one genius to design the lightbulb, which allows you to double the production from a given facility. A few smart people changing the way we work improving the productivity of masses does not say anything about the capabilities of the masses.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[mcrbids]

People in the 1950's were told that washing machines, vaccuum cleaners etc would allow housewifes/etc to get the jobs done so quickly they'd have more time for leisure, but repeated surveys of housewife's/etc show no increase in happiness.

Leisure != happiness. Also, happiness != well-being.

If you give a generally unhappy person $1,000,000, they'll be happy for a brief time, and then blow it somehow, and won't end up any happier than before.

People's happiness isn't guaged by an absolute definition of wealth except at the starvation/no place to sleep point. Once you reach a minimum level of wealth, happiness becomes an individual thing, and one's perspective of well being is based on the well being of those around you.

In short, a Pygmy with a beautiful, feathered gown probably feels about as happy and well off as a Los Angelean with a BMW, as long as they are both basically fed and sheltered.

So, if high tech doesn't make you happier, what does it give you? Well:

1) Long life - people today live longer than ever before in recorded history.

2) Enough to eat, consistently. Even in the impoverished areas, the count of average calorie consumption is and has been consistently on the rise,

3) Low pollution - yes, you read that right. Once people achieve a certain level of wealth, they have the time and energy to figure out how to clean things up so that their skies are blue and their waters fresh. Compare the various ecological measures in the first world, and compare them to, say, Rwanda. You'll get the idea pretty quick...

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[aitikin]

And while it may, "effectively [lower] the price of the subcontractors operations," it's also quite likely that the subcontractor will still charge the same amount despite the fact that he has one less person to employ. I wish I could say that I truly believed that every individual was as noble minded and honest as you are, but most people are not. They will take advantage of any situation they can, (in a few cases I am one of these). People want to save money, or at least make it, as easily as possible, and if cutting someone due to a formula will save them money, they will undoubtedly do it.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[tedgyz]

Good Story.

If you really want to stretch your math skills in construction, try building a roof.

I've built two sheds in my lifetime, which really equates to toy construction projects. Armed with a BSMA, I attempted to build my first shed roof and failed miserably. It all looked good on paper, but the end result was close to a disaster. I managed to fudge things and basically had to throw all my calculations out the window.

For my second shed, I decided to do my homework. I bought a book that focused solely on roof construction. What I learned is that all my math skills were useful, but in construction, you need to be very aware of material thickness and such. In the classroom, all points and lines have no thickness. Armed with my real-world knowledge, the second shed roof was a resounding success.

The book pointed out how most construction workers rely on pre-calculated tables and whatnot. The author carefully took that basic knowhow, and expanded it to use the mathematics that we all know and love. The most interesting concept I learned is that roof construction is easy - it is the "cutting" that is hard. Indeed!

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Nutria]

Life expentancy is your expected life at age 0.

Yes, dying at age 0 certainly does bring down the average life expectancy.

What good pediatric care does not do, though, is have any effect on whether I die at 30 from formerly common diseases like dysentary, smallpox, influenza, etc.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Peden]

Look at it the other way around. Why would you be better off if there was a person telling you to pay, rather than a machine? If its so glorious then why dont we ditch all out ATMs and bring back more bank-clerks? Exactly, its a process, I am well-aware that the laid-off people wont find new jobs the day after being laid-off. But less and less low-tech jobs means that people will get a higher incentive to get educated, and incentives matter!

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

A completely anecdotal note: We read Le Petit Prince in my 4th year high school French class. It was considered a fairly big deal (I'm 25).

My dad also read Le Petit Prince in his high school French class. Only, it was his first year freshman French class (He's 63).

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Tablizer]

"Wow!" he said. Then he thought for a moment - "Now I'll only need three guys to hold the string!"...and fired one of them on the spot! ...So, a 2,500 year old technological advance cost some poor guy his job.

Imaging a job application saying "reason for being let go: Pythagorian Theorem".

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[SamBeckett]

Right, but when you hear on the news, etc., that average life expetency is "76.4" years or whatever, it's measured from year 0. You have to dig deeper to find the true number for year 30 or 50, etc.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's going to be a clerk at the RFID issuing office?

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[yndrd1984]

unhealthy food is cheap

And healthy food is cheap, too. How much does a bag of frozen mixed veggies cost where you live? Whole wheat bread?

unhealthy food is fashionable

What? Don't you know any vegetarians?

unhealthy food is heavily advertised (when did you last see an ad for carrots, rice etc)

Health food is very heavily advertised. Most fast food places asvertise their salads, cereal advertises its nutritional value and weight-loss guarantees, even antacids advertise added calcium. Heck, half the packaged food I buy has "Low Fat" or some other ad on the container. And of the love of all that's good in the world, what are Health Food Stores advertising themselves to be?

As for carrots and rice, not very often, but I don't see ads for buckets of lard, either. Commodities don't get advertised.

unhealthy food is available in every city,town, highstreet,corner shop, school,office

So is healthy food. The place I know of that has the least health food is one chain of convienence stores, and they still have lemonade and dried fruit. Most pop vending machines have bottled water as well as diet sodas in them.

If you blame outside forces every time people do bad things, then you have to blame the same forces when they do things that are good, and any kind of responsibility disappears.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Choad Namath]

You're totally misinterpreting that statement. It means that as far as job opportunities go, you need a college degree to be competitive today, just as you needed a high school diploma to be competitive 50 years ago. It's not like high school students were taking multivariable calculus or advanced engineering courses 50 years ago.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[ConceptJunkie]

Believe it or not, there is more to being educated than taking technical courses. If we computer nerds are so well-educated then why is the spelling and grammar of a typical /. posting at about a 4th grade level (on a good day)? Outside of a very narrow range of technical fields, many posters on /. are extremely ignorant and poorly educated and unable to communicate or reason well... and once you look at the general population, you mostly have the same thing minus the technical expertise.

I hate to break it to you, but very few people in the overall college population are taking multivariable calculus or adveanced engineering. I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than 1%. How many people do you know with "communications" degrees or "business" degrees who couldn't think or communicate their way out of a wet paper bag? I have a degree in CS from 1987, and I became convinced at the time that you could bluff your way to a Bachelor's in CS without any real programming knowledge or skill if you were willing to set your scruples aside. I had to write maybe 4 papers in the course of my undergraduate degree. In my opinion, this is laughable and goes a long way to explain why your average college-educated "computer nerd" often has the literacy level of Homer Simpson. From what I've heard, many CS programs today are more just training programs for things like Java than an actual education in the "science" part of computer science.

How many software developers have you met or heard of whose resumes are totally in contradiction with the fact they have no real knowledge outside of cookbook coding (if even that)? I've been told many times over my career that my resume was a liability because I can actually back up everything I claim 100% and don't do things like list myself as a Perl programmer because I modified some Perl scripts back around 1997. And in the past 5 years, it's become even worse given that Human Resources people (and exactly what kind of education could they possibly have given the horrendous incompetence of most HR departments?) use a selection process based almost entirely on keyword searches of resumes*. So any ability to effectively communicate in a resume is totally lost, and I don't think anyone around here would not be aware of the awful effects of that.

So, yes, I stand by my assertion that a college education today is in most ways the equivalent of a high school education from 50 years ago.

* As a recent hire of AOL (doing Web infrastructure stuff), I can tell you that there are some really sharp people there, and every one of them was hired by completely circumventing HR. Having worked mostly for start-ups over the years it was amazing to me how HR is an extremely effective filter against good candidates.

Re:Ancient Greek Technology Costs Jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, that's the way it should be. Let the fat fucktards eat themselves to death as they will be so unattractive that eventually they will never reproduce, never get jobs, etc. By doing so will let natural selection take its course.

Hmmmm

[antifoidulus]

I wonder if this Neal Goldman was in the AV club during high school and had a crush on a girl named Meg.

The Pure Profession

[eldavojohn]

How has mathematics, statistics and other number driven aspects of life impacted you in the last decade?

Wow, a better question would be, "What part of my life hasn't been impacted by math?"

I've always liked math. And, in the past decade, there has been much evidence pointing toward math being a primary component in a better lifestyle. It didn't fully hit me until I was a freshman in college and my computer science courses started crossing paths with my linear algebra courses.

But even in grade school, there was evidence that those in control of mathematics sat a bit higher on the food chain. For instance, I got into an argument with my dad (an independent concrete pourer) when I was in eighth grade. He wanted to build a base for a grain silo and needed to know how many cubic yards of cement was needed. So he was having a hard time computing this. I told him it was (as we all know) pi*radius^2. After much debate, I gave him a piece of graph paper and a compass and told him to draw it and estimate the number of squares. I don't look down on my dad, he just never had an education like I was privileged to have.

And so I slowly started to realize that mathematics were the underlying principle to everything. Maybe you've seen the motion picture Pi and remember the part where the main character has a revelation that everything can be described by math. In my opinion, he was dead right.

The key to math is that the application of it is far more useful than the raw theory of it. That's why the actual profession of mathematician is rarely sought after, instead, the ideal situation is one who has a firm background in math due to classes or a minor.

After taking a statistics course, I realized that math helps us predict the future based on prior events. What is more useful to a human being than to be able to predict what is going to happen? As H.G. Wells might tell you, not much.

This article was well written as it pointed out the good and bad aspects of the power of mathematics. The funny thing about math is that it's neither good nor evil until it's applied.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Keck]

And so I slowly started to realize that mathematics were the underlying principle to everything. Maybe you've seen the motion picture Pi and remember the part where the main character has a revelation that everything can be described by math. In my opinion, he was dead right.

I'm a math/sci geek too (do you have to SAY that on /.?) but I want to point out that we are well served to be aware of the limitations of math and logic. Some people put as much faith in logic and our own mathematical knowlege as any fundamentalist zealot puts in their own religion. Reasonable people (and the smartest mathematicians and scientists I've ever seen) realize that math and even logic are human's own inventions, and are limited in what they can be applied to. That said, they are a hugely useful system of describing the natural world and even abstract ideas in a very communicable way -- we've often heard and said that Math is the true international language. Yet, there are statements in math that we know we can neither prove nor disprove -- and conversely, there are things we know to be true (by experience, which Einstein referred to as the ultimate truth) but we know for sure can't be proven!

Google for "Gödel's theorem", or maybe "metamathematics" before knee-jerk replying, please.

Re:The Pure Profession

[RalphLeon]

You know it always amazes me that when anyone talks about math they start talking statistics and calculations. This is not pure mathematics. Statistics is its own breed and calculations are for the engineers, pure mathematics is about abstractions of formal logic.

Now if we wanted to start talking about ring theory, field theory, galois theory, real analysis, topology, etc. these are examples of the pure mathematical concepts. Not number crunching. All of these other things like "statistics" and "applied math" are great things but I feel that they are certainly not pure.

Re:The Pure Profession

[eldavojohn]

I'm well aware of the Incompleteness Theorem and most of Kurt Gödel's work.

This wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, this is something I've thought quite a bit about. I'll stand by mathematics before I'll stand by any other -ism in the world. Yes, mathematics has holes. The great thing is that the community recognizes they're there and they are constantly striving to examine them. Not fix them or make them go away but understand them better.

Re:The Pure Profession

[RalphLeon]

there are statements in math that we know we can neither prove nor disprove

There called Axioms, and they are needed in all formal logic. If you really don't understand this concept visit:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html

Re:The Pure Profession

[Keck]

I didn't necessarily mean you personally, just 'readers in general' .. But at any rate, my point was you should no more stand by Math and Logic as an -ism than anything else! I'm perfectly comfortable not tying myself unto death to anyone claiming to know The Real Ultimate Truth (tm). The longer I go on, the more I think that the only "universal truth" is that there is NO "universal truth".

Also, by knee-jerk reaction I was more anticipating other's super-rational zealotry responses, not referring to your initial post. I quite agree with the initial post, as I've had the same kind of experience in my own life.

Re:The Pure Profession

[slashdotnickname]

Wow, a better question would be, "What part of my life hasn't been impacted by math?"

One would guess your sex life, but then again this is /.

Re:The Pure Profession

[jandersen]

The key to math is that the application of it is far more useful than the raw theory of it.

This is a common misconception. If you know pure mathematics, you can (and often will) become proficient in many of the apllications of you area of study; but if all you have learned is some sort of applied maths, you'll find it difficult going the other way. When you work with an application of maths, you tend to think in 'formulas' and will have difficulty learning even other, related areas of applied maths, simply because you have to learn it from scratch.

Re:The Pure Profession

[period3]

Reasonable people (and the smartest mathematicians and scientists I've ever seen) realize that math and even logic are human's own inventions

...and there are other reasonable people who believe that math is a universal truth discovered by humans, not "invented" by them.

Re:The Pure Profession

[What'sInAName]

Well, in my case at least, math definitely impacted my sex life, for the better!

See, I got my PhD in math, and while I was in grad school, I met my future wife. Had I not decided to pursue my degree, I never would have even been in the same city to meet her. (She's a (bio)stats geek, so being in a related field gave us something to break the ice with).

(I know, I know, leave it to a math geek to take a joke too seriously...)

Re:The Pure Profession

[BelugaParty]

I hate math, but that idea alone helped me get through higher level classes.

Re:The Pure Profession

[RalphLeon]

I don't need to google it, already learned it. I was giving some background for everyone else.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Jaiwithani]

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompleteness Theorem.html

Re:The Pure Profession

[ryder]

I knew I'd see you posting on this article :P

When you go to Brown Sugar today, eat some for me! :)

Re:The Pure Profession

[marcosdumay]

Mathematics are a good way to generalize stuff. You can learn less and know the same things if you know math better. It is also a very usefull language that has all science dependent upon.

But get out of this "math solves everything" attitude. It doesn't tell you anything, you had to discover how to calculate that area (did you really mean volume? You got an area.), the same way you'd need to do if you didn't know math. The only advantagge is that you discovered how to calculate the area of all circles at the same time.

Re:The Pure Profession

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

"And so I slowly started to realize that mathematics were the underlying principle to everything. Maybe you've seen the motion picture Pi and remember the part where the main character has a revelation that everything can be described by math. In my opinion, he was dead right." As I recall, part of the point of the film pi was that he was dead WRONG, and that not everything can be described by math. Hence he goes mad. Of course everything can be represented by mathematics, but that's not the same as described, in my view, and it's certainly not the same as saying it's the "underlying principle to everything". It's like saying a building is "described" by its architectural drawings. Of course, it is described by it, but not completely.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you've seen the motion picture Pi and remember the part where the main character has a revelation that everything can be described by math. In my opinion, he was dead right.

Pythagoras used to say that everything consists of numbers. After a 1000 years Galileus started to claim that the nature itself is written in mathematical language (so is our mind).
If I'm not mistaking, that is Descartes, having Galileus thinking at the basis, who developped his ideas (and proved the existence of God) thanks to Mathesis Universalis.
So Pi didn't invent nothing new.

Sorry for mispelled names. They don't teach it at schools...

Re:The Pure Profession

[tjhayes]

He wanted to build a base for a grain silo and needed to know how many cubic yards of cement was needed. So he was having a hard time computing this. I told him it was (as we all know) pi*radius^2

Your dad needed a VOLUME measurement, and you calculated it with an AREA measurement. Maybe you are not as good as math as you think you are!

Re:The Pure Profession

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried explaining the Axiom of Choice to my contractor and he punched me in the face.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Vadim Grinshpun]

You're only partially right. Axioms are statements that (1) can't be proven, and (2) you assume are true, and everything is built upon them. However, there are other, non-axiomatic, statements in any formal system that cannot be proven either true or false. That's what the parent was talking about (hence the mention of the Godel's incompleteness theorem).
BTW, if you're a CS major, you've encountered this in the form of the Halting Problem :)

Re:The Pure Profession

[Keck]

Translation: I latched to an early tread so many people would read my rant.

      Spoken like someone who knows the technique. Is it really unreasonable that I would assume that more than just the original poster would read it? It's a public site!

Translation: If a religion says pi is 3, schools should expose pupil to both viewpoints.

      Don't put words in my mouth, I said no such thing.

Translation: I don't know anything, but neither do you! Now I feel better.

      Or, maybe, I don't think I have to know everything to be satisfied .. unlike some, apparantly.

Translation: I'm getting old and my brain doesn't work as well as it used to, I may turn to a religion soon because I need a comforting view of what happens after I die.

      I'm 28. You keep jumping to the religion thing when it's not warranted. Math is 'universally true' only if you accept it's pretenses, which most do implicitly. That makes it SEEM 'universal'. It still has a reference frame, and is still subject to relativity.

Translation: No need to attack my swiss cheese of argument, I agree with your basic points. *waves hand*

      One need not disagree 100% to reply, do they? Or is that only when you post as Anonymous? You still didn't address the argument itself, you are making assumptions and attacking then attacking them. AKA a straw-man.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Doctor Faustus]

The key to math is that the application of it is far more useful than the raw theory of it. That's why the actual profession of mathematician is rarely sought after, instead, the ideal situation is one who has a firm background in math due to classes or a minor.

The only problem with that is that you forget it awfully fast if you're not using it full time. I took up through calc. 3 when I was an engineering student, before I dropped out for four years. I've been a part-time computer science student for four years now, and the only math class I've had in that time is discrete math. I need to take physics 2 and one more math class to graduate, and I'm rather worried about it, because I barely remember anything from calc 1, and my algebra abilities are about what they were a month into algebra 2 in 11th grade.

Re:The Pure Profession

[soliptic]

After taking a statistics course, I realized that math helps us predict the future based on prior events.

I assume by now you have discovered and read the "Foundation" series by Asimov. If not, do yourself a favour and read them rightaway :)

Re:The Pure Profession

[pythorlh]

Actually, Godel went even one step farther. He proved that there are statements that can produce a completely consistent logic, whether you chose to make them axiomatic, or to make their inverse axiomatic. Thus, these statements are not only logically true, but also logically false (in a sense).

Non-Euclidean geometry was the first evidence of this fact. The axiom was that any point can have only a single line that passes through it parallel to another given line. Euclid took this as an axiom, and went on to define planar geometry. The non-Euclidean geometries of curved spaces came about by taking it as an axiom that the statement is false.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the math as Truth idea, but I'm too lazy to get through a math course. The work involved to learn any of it is too much. Plus, even when I did put in enough work to pass my math courses, I lack the ability to apply ANYTHING I've learned to any kind of real world setting.

In my High School chemistry class I learned about proportions and how to use them. Then my mother was trying to teach me how to figure gas mileage, but i can never remember the formula, all i can remember is that it's a proportion, 1 gallon of gas is to (x) miles as (a) gallons of gas is to (b) miles.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Anonymous Coward]

1+1=2 is universal as far as our universe goes. One rock and one rock are two rocks on Mars and Venus. A system with one star and one star is a two star system in other galaxies as well. Basic math is something greeks, arabs and indians pulled out of their collective asses.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be: Basic math is not something greeks, arabs and indians pulled out of their collective asses.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Coryoth]

However, there are other, non-axiomatic, statements in any formal system that cannot be proven either true or false.

That's not actually true. For instance there exists a complete and consistent axiomitization of the real numbers, and of Euclidean geometry. Godel's proof required that the system provide the ability to contruct basic arithmetical (in the sen of the natural numbers) truths. It's a common misconception that Godel's theorems apply to any formal system.

Jedidiah.

Re:The Pure Profession

[mochan_s]

All of mathematics is based on set theory with the assumption that we can simply understand what a set is and what it means for things to belong to a set.

How more human can you get?

Re:The Pure Profession

[Anonymous Coward]

Didactic? Are you sure you don't mean polydactic?

Re:The Pure Profession

[What'sInAName]

You know it! Somehow I expected to see you reply.

Haven't been to Brown Sugar in a while. Mmmmmm, Thai foooooood...

(more in email...)

D

Re:The Pure Profession

[Anonymous Coward]

Reasonable people (and the smartest mathematicians and scientists I've ever seen) realize that math and even logic are human's own inventions

As is religion.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Anonymous Coward]

You state implicitly that which is an assumption in itself. There are 3 schools of thought on this. These are

constructivism
platonicism
formalism

Constructivism accepts nothing beyond 'what-you-can-verify-with-your-own-brain' (in your words - go google it). This is the weirdest of the meta-mathematical points of views, but does have some astonishing consequences.

Platonicism dictates that mathematical forms are pure and exist beyond human existence. All mathematical thought is merely a process of discovering what is merely there. Got that. Independent of our mental processes

Formalism is what you are talking about and very popular with the post-modernist brigade, who can then go around touting that the great construct of our modern society; mathematics is merely an artificial construct, shaped by the way our minds work. Therefore it is equally valid as some primitivist concept of the universe (however they still fly in planes designed by mathematicians, who's math is merely a cultural artefact - I wonder what they think at 25,000 feet, on their magic carpets?)

Now the point is, no mathematician worth his salt would state that any of the above 3 are true or not, or which is the correct point of view. In truth, most mathematicians probably are a mixture of all 3.

But since you seem to know definitely that all maths is just an aspect of formalism, do you know something I don't?

Re:The Pure Profession

[Lord Ender]

Comparing "faith in math" to religious fundamentalism is terribly misleading. Math is a system that has been shown over and over to be predictive, useful, and correct for many cases. Religion is a system that has shown over and over to be the opposite. Therefore, there is some justification for faith in math, but none for religion. The former is perhaps over zealous, while the later is insane (despite that fact that we would like it to be true).

Don't believe me? Try parying somebody to the moon. Then try the same using a mathematical model of the solar system. There is some reason to have some amount of faith in one of these systems.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Lord Ender]

parying = praying. damn you slashdot. posts at 3:30am should be automatically piped through ispell when a user hits submit.

Re:The Pure Profession

[skubeedooo]

Reasonable people (and the smartest mathematicians and scientists I've ever seen) realize that math and even logic are human's own inventions

Whilst some people agree with this, it is horrendously overstating it to say that only unreasonable people think otherwise.

If humans hadn't studied arithmetic would 2+2 still equal 4? I think most "reasonable" people would agree. If humans hadn't studied geometry would it still be true that "If in a triangle two angles equal one another, then the sides opposite the equal angles also equal one another."?

IMO the distinction as to whether maths is invented or discovered is personal. Some mathematics consider themselves as discovering already existing structure, like someone mining for diamonds, whereas others think they are constructing the maths themselves, like someone building a cathedral. Which metaphor you choose is highly correlated to what field of maths you are in; geometers are often miners whereas analysts are usually builders.

But I agree with your overall point, maths doesn't answer everything and certainly fails if applied to reality in a naive way.

Re:The Pure Profession

[skubeedooo]

I don't really know much about this, but wouldn't the construction of the real numbers lead to the construction of the natural numbers and arithmetic?

Re:The Pure Profession

[skubeedooo]

So presumably Category Theory doesn't exist?

Re:The Pure Profession

[Coryoth]

It depends on how you look at it. To construct the real numbers you generally need to have first constructed the natural numbers, but to axiomitize the real numbers you simply need to provide a set of rules that will uniquely define the real numbers, and those rules may not uniquely define the natural numbers - that is, you can describe the real numbers as a whole, but require extra information/rules to actually be able to pick out the natural numbers. If you can't actually pick out the natural numbers then natural number arithmetic can't be constructed. What do I mean? Well take the Goldbach conjecture as a nice "hard to prove" problem that could well fall into the "unproveable" category: Every even number greater then 2 can be expressed as the sum of two (not necessarily different) prime numbers. While all even numbers and primes are real numbers, an axiomitization of real number arithmetic need not define "even" or "prime" - these are properties that require you to be able to pick out the natural numbers: without defining 2 you can't define "even", and every real number is divisible by every other real number, so without being able to say "divisible by a natural number" you can't define "prime". Within the domain of real numbers, with no way to pick out numbers as being natural numbers, the problem makes no sense. In this sense the behaviour of natural numbers, even though they are a subset of the real numbers, is, in fact, considerably more complicated.

Jedidiah.

Re:The Pure Profession

[skubeedooo]

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

Re:The Pure Profession

[Tekgno]

Concreters and their ilk (be it laying cement, gravel, sand, whatever) tend to think in "squares". Calculating the AREA is what they really need, converting this to volume is trivial.

Math vs Maths?

[thogard]

Were did the plural Maths come from? Its common in the UK, Aus and NZ.

Re:Math vs Maths?

[smittyoneeach]

Mathematics - ematic = Maths

Re:Math vs Maths?

[thogard]

But Mathematics is the science of Math.

Re:Math vs Maths?

[AkA lexC]

I think its a contraction rather than just lopping the 'ematics' bit off.. it doesnt seem to follow into other subjects or we;d be learning chemy and geogy. If ur english, even saying math sounds rediculous, as im sure the S does to americans. i dont think either is more correct as they are just colloquial abbreviations

Re:Math vs Maths?

[el_womble]

Because when you shorten a word you carry the plural, otherwise you change the meaning. The parallels between Maths and English in this particular situation are almost ironic.

Re:Math vs Maths?

[lju]

That's assuming the plural form of "Math" is "Maths", and not just more "Math." Having been born and raised in the US, seeing "Maths" seems odd to me, it's like seeing someone write about "the Internets."

Re:Math vs Maths?

[soundoff]

"Mathematics" is the study of numerous mathematical practices. It's like studying "the arts", which does not simply account for fine art, but many other creative disciplines as well. When the word was first truncated, the "s" remained to indicate that there were still many facets to the subject. The real question is where the word "math" came from. It was probably, in the same way as "colorize", changed for simplicity's sake without much thought.

Re:Math vs Maths?

[drooling-dog]

On the other hand, back when I studied economics, we called it "econ" rather than "econs". Of course, this was in the States...

Re:Math vs Maths?

[Anonymous Coward]

And who is this Math guy and why did he got his own science?

Re:Math vs Maths?

[belg4mit]

I think North Americans tend to think of Math as a collective noun, like fish.
Of course there are very rare occurences where it is appropriate to say fishes,
but they are few and far between and it still sounds wrong.

Compare Math & Science and Maths & Sciences.

Re:Math vs Maths?

[gihan_ripper]

This may surprise those of you who assumed that the British contraction is older than the N. American one, but the opposite is in fact true.

The first use of 'math' recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary is in 1849, whereas its earliest recorded entry for 'math' is in 1911, penned by the English War Poet Wilfred Owen

1911 W. OWEN Let. 14 Sept. (1967) 81 The Answers to Maths. Ques. were given us all this morning.

The well-known plural form 'mathematics' is to be compared with terms such as physics and metaphysics. In early use, the subjects were often referred to in the singular, as matamatik, fiskyke, and metaphesyk. In plural, they connoted something entirely different. For instance, physics was the title of Aristotle's collected physical treatises. 'Mathematics' would be used to denote the collection of the various branches of mathematics, such as geometry, algebra, etc. In modern usage, 'mathematic' and 'physic' have fallen by the wayside and the plural forms have taken their place.

Re:Math vs Maths?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actualy
Mathematics - ematic = ematic(Maths + 1).

Therefore
Maths = (Mathematics - ematic)/(ematic) - 1.

Re:Math vs Maths?

[protocoldroid]

Speaking of the UK/OZ/NZ "maths", I have an Aussie client who refers to any mathematics I do (for him) as "sums" (doesn't matter if it's addition or what). Granted, he's not a mathematician (neither am, i'm a programmer and rely on mathworld to remind me of all the math I didn't pay attention to in school while busy oogling over girls I couldn't get with), but he is quite a shrewd businessman.

Speaking of school and math... I was in highschool less than 10 years ago, and we were allowed to use graphing/programmable calculators for our math classes (including tests). I consistantly failed math tests. Not because I would get the answers wrong, quite the contrary -- I would get all the answers right. Using the programming capabilities of my calculator, I would write small applications to essentially do my homework and complete tests with speed. The teachers failed me due to the fact that I didn't show my work. Then treated me like a wise guy when I started to print out the application code prior to tests and hand it in along with the completed tests. Oddly, it turns out... I do math and programming every day in the "real world", so it's too bad that they didn't embrace the method I had for completing my tasks. (Later on I found out that, other kids would use the programming cabilities of their calculators just to make crib sheets for science courses... so I really think it was a good way to apply my calculator in class in the long run, and it was overlooked by my teachers).

Also... Another point is, if you're a street smart person who maybe doesn't directly use mathematics... You DO rely on others for your mathematics needs at some point. If it's just the cash register at 7/11 or if you hire a team of programmers, somehow, somewhere you DO rely on math and it's a part of your everyday life. I believe mathematics were developed by mankind out of sheer necessity and to describe things in everyday life ("How many units of grain will we need for the winter given a population of X people?", "How far is it from point A to point B?", etc etc) and you are doing some amount of math in your head throughout the day.

Lastly... Turns out that the word "sums" is being used properly by my client according to merriam-webster, check out Sums, defintition 5b

Re:Math vs Maths?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mis-spell 'actually', and then proceed to get pedantic on me, mister!
With appropriate operator overloading, the minus sign could indeed perform the substring elision described.
Neener, neener, neener!

Re:Math vs Maths?

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG

Mathematics / ematic = Maths

Statically speaking...

[Elitist_Phoenix]

It helped me work out my chances of getting first post on Slashdot. Its very low. However to counter this obvious grief I do more maths, my spirts improve. I then realise with all the maths in my life and trying to get first post on slashdot, I won't get a girlfriend, my spirts drop off the charts.

English skills?

[tehshen]

"We'll have systems that tap our knowledge by the minute," [Pierre Haren] says. "Productivity could rise by a factor of 10."

That's nice, but which factor? 1 is a factor of 10 :)

Re:English skills?

[bilbravo]

Regardless of how correct it is, I think we all know he meant that 10 will be the factor by which it will raise. Wow, my english skills are lacking too!

Re:English skills?

[bp m_i_k_e]

1 is a factor of 10 :)

...only in math. ;)

Re:English skills?

[smithmc]

  Regardless of how correct it is, I think we all know he meant that 10 will be the factor by which it will raise.

Whereas if he'd said "by an order of magnitude", about 2% of Americans (warning: made-up statistic!) would've known what he meant.

Re:English skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

you fool, 1 is a trivial factor. 2 and 5 are the only important factors of 10.

Calculator

[genbitter]

I guess I better replace the batteries in my calculator.

well lets just say

[scenestar]

How has mathematics, statistics and other number driven aspects of life impacted you in the last decade?

It hasn't gotten me laid yet.

Re:well lets just say

[massivefoot]

Perhaps you should integrate more.

Re:well lets just say

[sgant]

How has it impacted me in the last decade? Well, in the last 2 weeks it impacted me when I was at the checkout at a supermarket and my bill was $115 and I handed the cashier $120...only thing is there was a $50 in there and 3 $20s and a $10.

She spent a good minute trying to figure out how to count them...I kid you not! She even tried to get the bag guy to help. Finally I showed her how to count them out to show it was $120.

I didn't even know how to feel. A little shocked I suppose.

Re:well lets just say

[ezpei]

There are at least two ways math can get you laid.

1) If you're an applied math guy, you can use it to make enough money to attract the kind of women who like money
2) If you're a theoretical math guy, you can use it to make interesting small talk involving some loose homomorphism between something you know a lot about and one of the woman's interests, assuming she's smart enough to follow what you're saying

Option (2) works particularly well with hippie chicks, artists, and architects. Fortunately, my wife is and/or was all three of those things ;)

Re:well lets just say

[pjy]

The staff at /\/\cDonalds get confused when I ask for a dozen chicken nuggets. They only sell them in lots of 3,6 or 9.

Re:well lets just say

[jthayden]

Maybe they are trying to figure out the cheapest or most expensive way to ring them up? 4*3, 2*6, 1*9 + 1*3, 1*6 + 2*3? Which is it?

Re:well lets just say

[dragonator]

I guess you never tutored that hot little chick who was having such problems when you were in school then.

Or maybe the geek factor isn't really what was preventing your advancement in that area. :)

Re:well lets just say

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

No, he should differentiate himself more; put out the right sines, get a tan, that sort of thng.

Re:well lets just say

[Anonymous Coward]

First, he should sum a group. Then, divide and take the remainder. Then divide the 2 parts of the remainder and integrate to infinity. The net result should be a multiple greater than 1.

You think I should get out more?

/feeling a little derived

Re:well lets just say

[scotch]

A local fast food place, Arby's I think, had a sign up for ages promoting some deal: 1 for $0.99, 2 for $1.99. Yes, it was more expensive to buy two together than individually.

Re:well lets just say

[massivefoot]

Speaking of which, did you ever get told the neumonic for Sin - Opposite/Hypotenuse, Cos - Adjacent/Hypotenuse, Tan - Opposite/Adjacent?

Sex On Horseback Can Always Have Two Obvious Advantages

Re:well lets just say

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that about sums it up.

Re:well lets just say

[metallic]

Try this pickup line:

Let's go back to my place and do math. We can add a bed, subtract our clothes, divide your legs, and multiply.

Re:well lets just say

[Anonymous Coward]

just as long as you don't drink and derive.

Re:well lets just say

[pablodiazgutierrez]

All the functions get together at a party, and they're all playing around. The cosines trying to get into the sines' pants, all the polynomials drinking and chatting, and someone sees the exponential alone in its corner, talking to nobody:
- Hey, buddy, come here! Integrate yourself!
- Why? What for?

Thanks everybody, you've been great! I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip the waiters!

Re:well lets just say

[Anonymous Coward]

or at least find the area under the curve

Re:well lets just say

[Nivag064]

Probably he had reached his Least Upper Limit, he might need to learn how to effectively Interpolate more, or at least be more Discrete about his attempts, but he might feel better if he was careful with his Latus Rwctum, lest he go Hyperbolic! -Nivag

Re:well lets just say

[raoul666]

I believe it's multiplying he's after.

Re:well lets just say

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed...that way he can lay tangent to someones curves

Be pushed around

[PietjeJantje]

They always advertise it as a field, and sure it's interesting, but as a job, to be a mathematician you're typically in a position where you are a tool for the non-mathematician's. Of course the non-math's want more math's to do the work for them and tell them what to do... but is it a good carreer?

Re:Be pushed around

[systmoadownfreak]

Honestly I do think that it would be a good career. I know that while I've always been more oriented toward the social studies/english aspect of school, the maths/sciences are something that hold great importance to advancing our technology as a whole. This is one of the main reasons that Japan has excelled in recent years. Their educational system is very effective in teaching the subjects related to math. In the US however, it seems that we go for every new educational fad that comes out. We spend so many of our resources on trying to promote the new political agendas to students that a lot of the focus is lost.

On the subject of mathmeticians always being told what to do by other people, well a lot of careers are like that. Doctors and lawyers both have to do as their clients want. Mathmaticians are a large part of ensuring accurate information without forcing other resources to be used on performing such calculations.

The way that I see it, I don't think that it would be such a bad job to have. Nor do I just think that it's a job where all you do is other people's dirty work.

Re:Be pushed around

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the best thing is to go into a purely technical/scientific job knowing you're going to be a tool other people use to get rich. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can bury yourself in your work and end up just as rich as the business-heads, even if you're the best in the world at what you do and make the company [mb]illions of dollars. Sure, you might get lucky and work with some business-oriented people that value and compensate your work appropriately, but I wouldn't count on it.

If you're not going to learn and participate (a lot) in the business games, you're probably not going to make as much off your own labor as other people will. So just accept all that up front and maybe it will cut down on the stress. :)

Re:Be pushed around

[Mr. Underbridge]

They always advertise it as a field, and sure it's interesting, but as a job, to be a mathematician you're typically in a position where you are a tool for the non-mathematician's. Of course the non-math's want more math's to do the work for them and tell them what to do... but is it a good carreer?

You'll probably want to choose a sane minor or two, say CS and physics. Get a job in a company that does physics-y stuff, start learning more and more about their business, and pretty soon you'll have the best of both worlds - you'll know the field and have more of a mathematical background than your coworkers.

Re:Be pushed around

[PietjeJantje]

Good point. Personally it's not so much the top of management that annoys me, although their compensations are often outrageous. The perils of middle-management however...

Re:Be pushed around

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Doctors and lawyers both have to do as their clients want.

Doctors and lawyers are not subject to wage deflation because they have little competition globally. Mathematicians, chemists, engineers, computer scientists can perform there jobs anywhere, which means outsourcing and a narrowing of the wage gap between the West and the rest of the world.

Re:Be pushed around

[systmoadownfreak]

That is a very true point, but then again we're importing quite a few of our doctors these days. There there will probably always be a greater demand for doctors than mathmaticians.

As for the outsourcing, again I think it's the product of our country being so ready to save a buck, that we become reliant on other nations (**coughs about oil**) and that higher efforts should be made to promote the hiring of Americans.

Re:Be pushed around

[PietjeJantje]

Mathematicians, chemists, engineers, computer scientists can perform there jobs anywhere, which means outsourcing and a narrowing of the wage gap between the West and the rest of the world.

Indeed. This is really a point I miss in this article. More than ever, students are making choices based on the future stability of the field and knowledge, and those who are least likely to inflation. Hell, we won't go to Clothing Manufacturing College, neither do we go for Porn Movie Reviewer PhD if we only aim for what's "interesting". Maybe the examples are over the top, but this article doesn't even touch the surface of what students are really thinking about in terms of their FUTURE! From this perspective I can say: A good thing about maths is that the knowledge does not inflate. Bad is that it is typically a powerless carreer. Very bad is that anyone in the world, with the only tool required the free brain, can compete.

Re:Be pushed around

[cerberusss]

Of course the non-math's want more math's to do the work for them and tell them what to do... but is it a good carreer?

De enige goede carrière mijns inziens is die waarin je het naar je zin hebt. In vrijwel elke baan is er een hierarchie oftewel iemand die zegt wat je moet doen. Maar op HBO/universitair niveau wordt alles al gauw een overleg situatie, ook al is er formeel een manager-medewerker relatie. Ligt uiteraard ook aan je eigen opstelling.

Re:Be pushed around

[gihan_ripper]

Unless you're an academic.

Re:Be pushed around

[Austerity Empowers]

Doctors and lawyers tend to be well paid, mathematicians not so much. If you're in the right spot, you'll do OK, but $300/hr is unlikely (for most).

You're right though, one persons dirty work is another persons dream job. I'd hate travelling around the world talking to people...it involves my two least favorite things: a) people b) travel. But marketing & sales people love it up.

Getting bossed around is something we all share, and in publicly traded companies, it extends even to the CEO. I think we all mean "getting bossed around by people stupider than we are", but stupid people tend to have great charisma, hence they can run interference while we do important work.

Re:Be pushed around

[gihan_ripper]

Let me be a little more verbose ;)

I mean that you're focusing on mathematicians who work in the industry. An academic mathematician is responsible to no one, except perhaps the rest of the mathematical community in the sense that they must keep publishing good work in order to maintain their job. Even this responsibility is essentially minor as academic mathematicians choose their career path because they want to publish good work!

Yes, the job is relatively poorly paid, but that is the trade-off for the freedom to pursue your own goals and ambitions instead of being coralled into doing the work of others. There is also the potential to make a lasting impact on the subject, and to have your name echoed for aeons (e.g. Andrew Wiles for his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem).

Re:Be pushed around

[elstumpo]

Yes, it is a great career. I have been a corporate mathematician doing various things like the article talks about, for the last 10 years. My job is always interesting enough to make me want to go. Not too many other people can do my job, so I have security. And, there's sufficient demand for my services that if my employer upsets me, I can go elsewhere. And it pays a lot. The whole point of my jobs is that I am expected to be provably correct, and that my suggestions will be followed without much room for debate. The problems only come when people feel threatened, and there is politics and so forth. But if the organization is capable of acting in its best interests, that is exactly what the mathematician is figuring out. S/he says "this is the path of our best interest. I can prove it." Eventually, the business has to do what we say, or go out of business.

To the extent that we're often modeling something, there's wiggle room in the models. Models could be built well or poorly. And the above paragraph is only true if you do a sufficiently good job modeling.

Re:Be pushed around

[modmans2ndcoming]

wow... how much work did it take to get that job?

Re:Be pushed around

[bfields]

Whether or not you want a mathematician's career, whatever that is, math is one of those things, like good writing skills, that just tends to be useful background for a lot of things.

Re:Be pushed around

[ph1ll]

"A good thing about maths is that the knowledge does not inflate. Bad is that it is typically a powerless carreer. Very bad is that anyone in the world, with the only tool required the free brain, can compete."

A brain is the only tool required to compete globally for management positions but that doesn't stop it being the World's most lucrative career.

The older I become, the more I believe that financial success depends not on hardcore brain power but on one's ability to work the system. Mathematic PhDs generally don't, MBAs generally do. That's the only explanation for the difference in wages.

The main impact on me

[Snamh Da Ean]

How has mathematics, statistics and other number driven aspects of life impacted you in the last decade?

It made me go made hairline recede like crazy as I studied calculus in school and at college.

Computational Linguistics

[Vann_v2]

The technique in this article is actually used, too, and can be used on different levels. That is, the BW article says this company uses it to measure the distance between two articles, but you can use it to compare the distance between two words. Here's how.

Let's say you have some corpus with N distinct words in it. For each word w you create a "context vector" vw of length 2N. In the first N positions there are counts for the number of time each word in the corpus appears immediately to the left of the word w, and for the second N positions there are counts of the same for the right context. The angle between any two vectors in this 2N-dimensional vector space produces a measure of the distance between the two words. If you use some kind of dimensionality reduction technique to get a 2-dimensional representation, you can see that although this technique is pretty crude linguistically speaking it does pretty well. Each language has a distinct "shape" in this regard, with similar words grouped together, i.e., in English there might be a cluster of points consisting of "singular nouns," or specific parts of speech, like prepositions. It can sometimes even group words by semantic domain, depending on your corpus.

Remember kids, computational linguistics is fun!

Re:Computational Linguistics

[19061969]

Are you discussing latent semantic analysis by any chance? ;^)

It performs well in certain areas (for example, completing certain MCQ's to the same level as humans), automatic essay marking (but read the Powers et al study for more), and other things. It's surprising how well it does despite there being a complete absence of grounding (grounding in artificial intelligence terms).

Re:Computational Linguistics

[gol]

already been done, many years ago
this guy presents nothing new. there are a host of such vector-space techniques, such as Latent Sematnic Analaysis, which all depend on this crucial reduction of dimensions to collapse similar vectors in such a way that they move closer to each other. article here. Not a great article to be honest, but I can't be bothered to edit it.

Re:Computational Linguistics

[weierstrass]

"Latent Sematnic Analaysis"
How clever of you to have worked out how to foil these evil Big Brother-type mathematical techniques.

Re:Computational Linguistics

[gol]

doh! spelling mistake! ;-)
you're absolutely right, spelling mistakes do throw techniques such as this off a little

Re:Computational Linguistics

[weierstrass]

that's my excuse for compulsively correcting them. to safeguard the searchability of the world's useful information.
and i'm sticking to it.

Re:Computational Linguistics

[Vann_v2]

Well, LSA came around in the late 80s/early 90s, so it wasn't really "many years ago." In any event, I wasn't saying that these techniques were new or that I had some special insight into them. Am I "this guy?" If you meant the article, the point was to show in what ways businesses are using mathematics. LSA and other NLP techniques are certainly a good example (e.g., Google).

Re:Computational Linguistics

[lilmouse]

For each word w you create a "context vector" vw of length 2N.

You mean of rank or size 2N, not length, right? Should I trust that this gives an accurate "measure" or "distance?" [goes to drag out his analysis books]

--LWM

Re:Computational Linguistics

[Vann_v2]

Pedantry, the last resort of the boring.

But yes, "size" is a more accurate word, although what I said was still perfectly clear. The "rank" of a vector is nonsensical, though.

How much more?

[republican gourd]

Article is missing the most important part....

is it 2x more? 3x more? Maybe 5(log n)x^2 more? sin(cos(log (pi) * -1/2)) + e? More importantly, how much has the standard deviation moved from previous years to this one?

Re:How much more?

[Ztream]

It's 2x more. The world now needs a whopping 6 mathematicians.

Re:How much more?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a statistician, good sir, I pee in your hat.

Statistics are essential

[Sockatume]

My outlook on the everyday world (especially marketing and the media) has changed immensely since I started getting Stats lectures in my second year at Uni. H. G. Wells was right:

Statistical thinking will one day be as necessary for efficient citizenship as the ability to read or write

It's just unfortunate that so few people do have an understanding of statistics. I've lost count of the newspaper stories, even years-long media-fuelled "controversies"-, which are based entirely on misunderstood, misrepresented, or malformed statistics. "How to Lie with Statistics" should be required reading in high school.

Re:Statistics are essential

[blank101]

Another good one for required reading would be "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos. It does well illustrating the consequences and pitfalls of mathematical ignorance in general, not just regarding statistics.

Re:Statistics are essential

[midicase]

I recall one of my favorite MOTD:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".

-Mark Twain?

Re:Statistics are essential

[David Horn]

It was at my school. The book had about 3 chapters on how to manipulate statistics, and this was a standard A-Level statistics textbook.

Re:Statistics are essential

[cafeman]

Close - Benjamin Disraeli.

But....

[Anonymous Coward]

A rise in Maths and Mathematicians? It just doesn't add up!

A calculator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't they have 3,4,5 triangles where you live?

Re:A calculator?

[Anonymous Coward]

that only works with metric units

Re:A calculator?

[Annoying]

Actually, it works with any units so long as the units are the same. Three feet by four feet by 5 feet is still all feet. If you go 36 inches by 48 inches by 50 inches then you'd factor out a 12 and get the same 3, 4, 5 ratio. Reduce any set of numbers to the lowest common denominator and if it is 3:4:5 and refers to the length of the sides of a triangle then it is square.

Another application for math

[jimand]

statistics, advertising, search engines, and algorithms.

and Texas Hold'em.

Re:Another application for math

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably offtopic, but I don't understand why this particular type of poker (the Texas whatsis) is so popular. It's like 7-card stud except everybody's playing the same hand. That reduces the number of variables involved, I would think, making for a less complex game.

Am I missing something?

Re:Another application for math

[Anonymous Coward]

By reducing the number of variables, and since everyone can observe part of the other players' hand, it's actually possible to estimate your odds of winning. There's skill involved. Without the shared cards, it's too complex and winning is just kind of random.

Re:Another application for math

[Anonymous Coward]

In stud there are also visible cards (though not shared) so the probabilities can still be calculated, I think the popularity of hold'em is due to the added simplicity which allows people to concentrate more on betting strategy, which is the real key to the game. You may know the probabilities but can still be bluffed or bluff others in the absence of an unbeatable hand

Re:Another application for math

[nganju]

The funny thing is, even people that know basic probability theory do things in poker that they would never do in other games. Like chasing a flush draw when the opponent bets the pot. In roulette, you wouldn't bet on the numbers if they only paid even money, instead of 36-to-1. But even people who understand that idea make the equivalent terrible bets in poker all the time. Oh well, more money for me :) .

Re:Another application for math

[Enigma2175]

In roulette, you wouldn't bet on the numbers if they only paid even money, instead of 36-to-1.

Or, if you know how to do math you wouldn't play roulette at all.

Re:Another application for math

[colinrichardday]

But how do eight people play seven-card stud? Texas Hold 'Em allows for twenty-three players.

Re:Another application for math

[eh2o]

Yeah. Marketing. Hold'em is a fast game. Its been marketed into ubiquity because its the most profitable type of poker game that a casino can run.

Re:Another application for math

[Dragon218]

If all 8 players make it to the last card, a community card is delt, instead of consealed river cards.

If all 8 players make it to the last card, at least 3 of them are morons 98% of the time.

Re:Another application for math

[Anonymous Coward]

depends on how you define complexity, but:

In 7 card stud there are a lot more situations (relative to holdem) where you know you probably have the inferior hand but the correct strategy is to go ahead and try to get lucky. And the other guy knows this, and he knows that you know this. So ends up being a lot more like "War". Not really that complex.

Re:Another application for math

[colinrichardday]

Maybe, but you still have more exposed cards than with Texas Hold 'Em, which alters the bluffing. Also, you might have more than eight players.

Is this news?

[GenieGenieGenie]

...the rise of maths and mathematicians in a world that is increasingly obsessed with statistics, advertising, search engines, and algorithms

This is news only in the retarded world of business. I think we in the natural sciences have capished this quite a while ago.

From TFA:

This has happened before. In past decades, the marriage of higher math and computer modeling transformed science and engineering.

Re:Is this news?

[jfengel]

I think we in the natural sciences have capished this quite a while ago.

But in their favor, their grasp of Italian is rather better.

Re:Is this news?

[GenieGenieGenie]

You're right, I should have used ee (I understand you think I was writing in Italian, but I was actually using English). Such a nice thing, the dictionary

Re:Is this news?

[jfengel]

Actually, I was just having a bit of fun. The Italian root word with the English suffix struck me as funny; I'd only ever heard "capiche" used in the present interrogative to make it understood that the preceding sentence was not so much a statement of fact as a threat.

Excluded middle

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be just me, but it seems that lots of the traditional computer science curriculum has changed. I remember there being some calculus and statistics with calc requirements. Recently I looked at some school catalogs and was surprised to see that the math requirements for a computer science degree had changed substantially to the point that calc II or III was no longer needed. If the article is true then we're in for a real shortage of programmers who understand the mathematics.

At the same time I'm seeing mathematics positions than seemingly didn't exist before. The odd thing is that they were primarily math positions with some computer language requirements instead of the reverse. Instead of some actuarial positions, there are openings in software houses, animation studios, civil sector, etc..

Guess geeks will have their time in the spotlight again soon. Yay for me.

KLL

Re:Excluded middle

[aetherspoon]

That tends to happen when CS gets taught by engineering departments rather than mathematics departments. Originally, all CS departments were an extension of the mathematics departments. Later on, most shifted towards engineering. Of those that shifted to engineering, the CS fields are taught more from an engineering point of view (design/build your code and produce the product) rather than a mathematics/science point of view (learn of the theories of your code, think about how to design some abstract concept instead of a final product). In the former point of view, mathematics ends up being skimmed over more than the latter.

Not to say that all engineering departments are like that - obviously there are quite a few exceptions. However, that's how it is - Engineering is applied mathematics after all. My CS degree consisted of probably just as much math as computers, if not more. Calc 1/2/3 and lots of mathematical electives.

(Disclaimer: I'm a CS/Math major)

Re:Excluded middle

[Anonymous Coward]

For two years now as a programmer I've not used any math more complicated than algebra, if that. Calc2 and 3 were fun to take, but not relevant at all to what i'm currently doing. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Re:Excluded middle

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this perhaps a reason why:

Comp Sci : Comp Engineering :: 'Life Sci' : HS AP Bio?

Besides, as you point out, the need for computer expertise in traditionally non-mathematical areas, whereas traditionally, computers were primarily used for intense mathematical calculation?

Re:Excluded middle

[scottsk]

Never been sure what Calc II adds to comp sci; something like discrete math would be more useful if you're required to take higher math. I guess if you're going into a domain that uses calc, you'd need it.

Re:Excluded middle

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember there being some calculus and statistics with calc requirements. Recently I looked at some school catalogs and was surprised to see that the math requirements for a computer science degree had changed substantially to the point that calc II or III was no longer needed. If the article is true then we're in for a real shortage of programmers who understand the mathematics.

Well, I had the same view about one of our local state universities until I realized what they had done. They operate on a semester system and everybody (all CS that is) takes a five semester hour Calc I. Calc II can be taken in its full five hour version, or an abbreviated three hour version aimed at CS majors. They then ADDED requirements for linear algebra (which is application oriented) and calc based statistics, and of course discrete has always been part of the plan. One prof I spoke to mentioned that the only reason they require Calc II at all is that some of the subject matter dovetails into linear (I think they talk about matrices at the end of Calc II). So in the end, I think people are taking "different" math than many of us took, but it might be more relevant. Not every CS major wants a math minor, so it might be good to establish a baseline of math more relevant to CS than calculus. Are they going to rival math majors at math? Hell no, but eighteen semester hours of math (or around twenty four quarter hours if you prefer) isn't that bad for a working class CS generalist.

Sure, if you want to write code for mechanical engineers or something drive on right through third semester calc, diffeqs and then analysis. You crypto guys take whatever crypto guys take. Some of us like systems coding more (or gasp business apps) and this stuff really doesn't do anything for us.

Re:Excluded middle

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing my Uni requires Discrete Math && Calc II for CS. I'm having LOADS of fun!

Re:Excluded middle

[StandardDeviant]

Originally, all CS departments were an extension of the mathematics departments.

Whether a CS department originally descended from the maths or engineering sections of a school (and the corresponding implications that has for emphasis in curricula) depends on the school. For example, at the University of Texas - Austin, it is plainly descended from the mathematics department, and at the Dallas branch of UT (which historically had much closer ties to industry and thus a much strong applied focus than the more theoretical/pure-research focus of the Austin campus) they're descended from the engineering faculty, to the point that they offer a separate degree in Software Engineering at the undergraduate and graduate level, in addition to a normal CS program.

I don't say this to denigrate mathematics or the usefulness thereof, but to imply that engineering/applied approaches to the field are somehow lesser is kind of off base. Both approaches have merit and are required to do excellent work. For example, you can prove the formal validity of your software until the cows come home, but if your requirements gathering phase sucks your customers will hate you regardless. ;) Which approach you favor depends more on temperment than any objective measure of utility.

Re:Excluded middle

[Coryoth]

Not to say that all engineering departments are like that - obviously there are quite a few exceptions. However, that's how it is - Engineering is applied mathematics after all. My CS degree consisted of probably just as much math as computers, if not more. Calc 1/2/3 and lots of mathematical electives.

It's interesting that math teaching hasn't caught up with modern needs. Engineers need math, and there is a lot of focus on engineering mathematics. In practice that means lots of calculus and probably some linear algebra. That's ideal if you're going into civil or mechanical engineering, but modern electrical engineering or software engineering has very different needs in the way of mathematics. There is a real need to get serious abstract algebra considered as vital engineering mathematics for electrical and software engineers. If you're doing more CS focused software engineering then courses in category theory really ought to be in there too. Hopefully such a shift will be occurring in the next few years (or decades - sometimes it's baffling how slow things move).

Jedidiah.

Re:Excluded middle

[hanavi]

Its not nesissarily true of all colleges. I am currently at a small community college where I started taking classes so i could transfer to a major college and get a degree in CS. The classes that are recommended/required are mostly math. There is so much math involved that I have begun to consider switching to a Math degree or at least a double major in Math and CS.

Re:Excluded middle

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sort of nonplussed by this.

You should take through vector calculus, linear algebra, discrete mathematics, statistics, and at least one abstract algebra class. Preferably you should study enough algebra that you can understand cryptography, coding, and compression. That should be your _minimum_ commitment to mathematics to be a computer science grad. What you intend to specialize on will only increase the math classes you should be taking. If you intend to apply computation to finance you should take real analysis and several analysis-based statistics classes. Computational physics and chemistry will want analysis, numerical analysis, and geometry classes. You get the idea.

Re:Excluded middle

[GileadGreene]

Engineering is applied mathematics after all.

No, it really isn't. Engineering is fundamentally a pragmatic approach to producing things that are "fit for purpose" (or, more generally, an approach to solving problems). Now, part of that pragmatism is the realization that applying knowledge from the sciences and from mathematics during the design process makes it much more likely that the resulting product will actually function that way it is intended to. Hence the importance of mathematics in the eductaion of engineers. But math (and science) is only one tool in the engineer's toolkit. Some things simply aren't (yet) understood well enough in a scientific or mathematical context to provide useful predictions of behavior. So engineers also use a lot of other tools to get their job done. These tools include empirical (but not necessarily scientific) experience, intuition, reuse of existing designs, and plain old trial and error.

Please note that this comment isn't intended to denigrate the importance of mathematics to engineering. In fact, I personally believe that the application of mathematics is quite neglected in some areas of engineering (especially software engineering). But the successful application of mathematics in engineering is unlikely if we don't properly understand the place of mathematics within the larger practice of engineering.

Re:Excluded middle

[ivekford]

At the college i will be attending, a computer science degree requires calc 1-3, differential equations, and linear algebra as the pure mathematics courses. Not all schools are this way, i have looked at some that only require applied math such as discrete math. It all depends on the schools you look at. Just make sure they are an accredited school.

Sounds good now

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine:

1. Having your TV programming automatically fed to your house based on your previous preferences
2. Having web sites sent to your browser based on predictive algorithms sitting at Google
3. Receiving even more targeted advertising sent to your mail box and telephone (during dinner)
4. Etc.

One of the (many) problems with predictive algorithms and maths is that it requires input as a training set to determine the output. The implication is that all of this targeted marketing will make it harder to find new and different things and experiences. I already get this crap with Amazon, which seems to regurgitate suggested reading titles for books I've already bought (many from Amazon).

Part of the spice of life is finding new things. The trend towards compartmentalization and specializationg driven by marketers and business interests will make life more boring.

That's EASY..

[Young Master Ploppy]

"How has mathematics, statistics and other number driven aspects of life impacted you in the last decade?"

Stopped me getting laid for most of it.

Next question...?

how numbers have helped me...!

[ladyKae]

How has mathematics, statistics and other number driven aspects of life impacted you in the last decade?

Oooo well lets see, they've helped me;

• tell the time
• pay for stuff
• catch a train
• count calories
• age
• give the alcohol I've consumed a value

I could *erm* go on & on....

Fizix is good

[inphizzible_friend]

"How has mathematics, statistics and other number driven aspects of life impacted you in the last decade?"
With the full force of an electron accelerated to .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999 times the speed of light...

Paycheck

[Bad D.N.A.]

The mechanism through which I get paid

technology needs math!

[qwertphobia]

Many of today's technologies wouldn't be possible without modern mathematical topics like Fourier Analysis, the Shroedinger equation, and Symbolic Logic just to name a few.

Most of us use these technologies on our ipods, cars, and computers without even thinking about them.

Yay, Math!

Perceptions of maths

[massivefoot]

It's true that mathematics is very much in demand, but unfortunately in the UK that hasn't translated into a greater interest in mathematics. I don't know how things are abroad, but here it's considered shameful to be illiterate, but almost embarrassing to be numerate.

I'm currently at uni studying maths, and a huge number of the people on my course are from overseas. Is it only the UK which seems to suffer from some sort of violent social allergy to mathematical competence?

Re:Perceptions of maths

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

I grew up in rural North Carolina, where any knowledge beyond that needed to operate equipment in a hosiery mill was considered a waste of time by many. So apparently the UK isn't special in this regard. :)

Re:Perceptions of maths

[BenjyD]

I always find it odd that in intelligent UK middle-class society it is assumed people know some literature, geography, history, politics and classical music, all relatively complex areas, but even the simplest mathematical or technical ideas are unknown.

Re:Perceptions of maths

[massivefoot]

Do you live in the UK? I'd say it's not uncommon to know some simple scientific or technological ideas. People just don't seem to have any comprehension of how big an impact maths has on technology, or on how their lives are organised. Then again, my college is about one third mathematicians, and another third engineers and scientist, so it's quite a cuture shock for the art students here.

Re:Perceptions of maths

[BenjyD]

I live in Norfolk and I come from Sussex, so I guess my view might be a bit slanted :-)

What math could have done for me.

[Funakoshi]

I would skip the Dual Major, Comp Sci/Business Admin undergrad & MBA combo I did and do an undergrad with a major in Math, minor in Finance, then a Masters in Financial Mathematics and be a broker right now, making millions (or at least hundreds of thousands). Thats what math could've done for me; I only wish someone had told me.

Why math is the greatest of all subjects

[nandu_prahlad]

Math is truly the most awsome among all subjects. Learning it offers you the kind of freedom that is unmatched by learning any other subject. Have you noticed how a mathematician can switch easily between multiple areas of study? That's cuz one can apply math to almost every field imaginable from Language (Computational Linguistics) to Biology (Computational Biology). I don't mean to dismiss learning other subjects (it's important to be well rounded) but can any other subject gift you you with such amazing flexibility?

There's beauty and elegance in a mathematical result which will always remain true forever. School kids even today, study about the Pythogoras theorem - a mathematical result that was established more than 2 thousand years ago. You're learning Calculus that was discovered by Newton & Liebniz several hundred years ago. Compare this with other fields like Management where the MBA syllabus keeps changing as newer management techniques and new buzzwords/MBA jargon are invented.

Again, I don't mean to dis MBA dudes. It's just that in an fast paced information age where paradigms are constantly being challenged and new ones being invented, it is reassuring to have a body of knowledge that you can always depend on no matter what.

Seriously! You don't have to be good at math (I'm just a lowly Master's and that too in CS :)) to appreciate the beauty and elegance of this amazing subject.

Re:Why math is the greatest of all subjects

[pogson]

I am teaching lately and I tell all my students that mathematics is the one subject where it is possible to get 100% even if the teacher is a cruel, ugly, old bastard. By this, I mean mathematics is one of the most objectively evaluated subjects. If a problem is completely described, the solution set is often unique. On the other hand there is Language Arts where the teacher is always thinking wierd thoughts and downgrades students who do not toe some imaginary line. I remember being marked down because my English teacher thought my work was too good to have been done by me. Another classmate killed himself because the same teacher gave him too low a mark to enter university. That student's favourite subject was English.

Re:Why math is the greatest of all subjects

[Anonymous Coward]

You are comparing apple to orange. It is understandable that very specialized fields like Management would go through changes much faster and some of it's theories would be obsolete much sooner when compared with basic field such as Mathematics.

Might as well say Programming keep having newly hyped languanges, newly introduced techniques and buzzwords so you are better off learning Mathematics.

Re:Why math is the greatest of all subjects

[Bitwaba]

I am teaching lately and I tell all my students that mathematics is the one subject where it is possible to get 100% even if the teacher is a cruel, ugly, old bastard. In the Spring, I was taking my Intro to Advanced Mathematics class. I didn't get my 100% on 3 of my tests because I had comma splices in a few of my proofs on the tests. Ugly, Old Bastard? No. Cruel? Not completly. Am I still pissed? Yes.

Re:Why math is the greatest of all subjects

[nandu_prahlad]

you wrote: It is understandable that very specialized fields like Management would go through changes much faster and some of it's theories would be obsolete much sooner when compared with basic field such as Mathematics.

I don't think that you can call a field specialized merely on account of the changes that occur in it. By your reasoning, something like History would be an extremely specialized, exotic field on account of it constantly being in flux :-)

you wrote: Might as well say Programming keep having newly hyped languanges, newly introduced techniques and buzzwords so you are better off learning Mathematics.

Well, Math teaches you the underlying principles behind those programming languages so they don't seem new and unfamiliar. Shunning stuff like Turing machines, Finite State Automata merely on account of them being very mathematical isn't so great. So yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying. Having a good background in math, does help you understand CS better.

Re:Why math is the greatest of all subjects

[Elad Alon]

Comma splices?

Re:Why math is the greatest of all subjects

[geekoid]

Being able to write is pretty important to anyplace you word as well.
So by your logic, writing is the greatest subject of all.

Re:Why math is the greatest of all subjects

[mochan_s]

Absolute bullshit.

First of all Language (Computational Linguistics) to Biology (Computational Biology) are not branches of mathematics. Maybe you could say algebra and analysis are. I seriously doubt you'll see an number theorist suddenly turn into functional analyst.

Mathematics is ridiculously vast and you have to specialize in a limited function types in some special space to do any research.

Re:Why math is the greatest of all subjects

[nandu_prahlad]

you wrote: First of all Language (Computational Linguistics) to Biology (Computational Biology) are not branches of mathematics. Maybe you could say algebra and analysis are. I seriously doubt you'll see an number theorist suddenly turn into functional analyst.

Hey buddy! Nowhere in my writing have I claimed that they are branches of Math. I've said that learning math allows people the freedom to work in plenty of other subject areas and offered Computational Linguistics and Computational Biology as examples.

Re:Why math is the greatest of all subjects

[Anonymous Coward]

"Compare this with other fields like Management where the MBA syllabus keeps changing as newer management techniques and new buzzwords/MBA jargon are invented.
Again, I don't mean to dis MBA dudes. It's just that in an fast paced information age where paradigms are constantly being challenged and new ones being invented, it is reassuring to have a body of knowledge that you can always depend on no matter what."


you do realize that you made fun of the jargon of the mba people, and then used mba jargon to make your own point.

Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[192939495969798999]

I can't imagine how many more kids would learn math and be good at it if it weren't for the whole "math is hard and dumb" attitude of the general public in the USA. I don't think kids go into math thinking it's all that hard, but teachers even tell them it is. When that kid goes home, his parents tell him it is. The media makes math "stupid" and even in cartoons, portrays people that are good at it as social outcasts. How is this helping us in any way? I think the best advance that Math could take is to achieve a positive image in society. If that happened, then its advancements in science could only increase faster.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[pogson]

I usually teach high school students maths/science/computers. One year, I had a class of grade seven students who came in and looked very serious. I asked them what they thought of maths and the unanimous opinion was that maths was hard to learn and they often obtained the wrong answers. I promised them that my classes would be fun and to prove it I promised they would be able to multiply phone numbers in their heads and write down only the final product within the hour. They refused to believe it, but when showed the algorithm, three quarters succeeded and went home to tell their mommies what a great maths teacher they had.

I think there is an environmental inheritance of maths anxiety. Given a teacher who loves maths and understands and explains clearly, I believe maths anxiety would disappear. I did not enjoy maths as a student but I have always enjoyed solving problems. Later in life, I realized many problems are not soluble by maths but many are and knowing the difference has given me confidence to develop algorithms in minutes that used to take me hours to do. Computers can reveal the solution in microseconds. It is a great time to be numerate and logical.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[MobyDisk]

Too many teachers don't teach applied mathematics, so math becomes boring and hard. Every single forumla you learn from Algebra I to Multivariable calculus and beyond can be used to solve a problem in the very room the student sits. Teachers need to show the students how to calculate the position of satellites, the amount of power flowing into the room, how far they can throw a ball, or how hard I could bury my fist into the jerk sitting next to me.

As a programmer, I found that I was using maths beyond my grade level and didn't even know it. But my teachers weren't supportive of my applied uses of math. They actually scorned me for using a computer to solve problems. It was only "learning" if I did all the work by hand. They missed whole the point of education.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[dkleinsc]

As far as I can tell there are 3 major sources of math anxiety:
1. Parents who don't know math, and thus can't teach mathematical concepts to their kids beyond counting.
2. Elementary school teachers who deemphasize math in favor of reading and 'riting.
3. Popular culture.

The first cause is really only solveable if you solve the other 2 causes, because you need a generation of mathematically literate parents.

If you look at the people who are doing elementary school teaching, their primary focus tends to be teaching reading, handwriting, neatness, respect for authority, etc. Arithmetic tends to be taught more as rules to memorize than as ideas to understand (for instance memorizing that 3+4=7 rather than taking 3 things, taking 4 more things, and counting how many you have when you're done), leaving students with very little connection between math and reality.

Popular culture contributes as well. For instance, it creates an image of math as the province of strange or crazy people who work with ideas us peons can only dream of understanding. Even places where math comes into play, such as sports statistics, business news, government budgets, etc there's a big effort to avoid making the math understandable.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[swillden]

I promised they would be able to multiply phone numbers in their heads and write down only the final product within the hour.

Hmm. I have a BS in pure math, and have always been pretty good at juggling numbers in my head, but I can't think of an algorithm that would make this easy enough that 3/4 of the class could do it.

What's the algorithm? I'd really like to teach it to my kids (I'm always looking for cool math things to show them).

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[Coryoth]

Too many teachers don't teach applied mathematics, so math becomes boring and hard. Every single forumla you learn from Algebra I to Multivariable calculus and beyond can be used to solve a problem in the very room the student sits.

You know I would say that too many teachers don't teach pure mathematics, so the joy of exploration and discovery and logical thought is lost. Mathematics becomes rote mechanical rules that you unthinkingly chug through to produce some number which is supposed to be important. There is no questioning of why those rules are what they are, why the methods work, and what the structure actually is. The focus is on teaching kids the applications of math and they never get to understand how to think about math, how to think logically, how to explore the structure of our own mental creations. Mathematics is taught with absolutely no sense of wonder, or curiousity.

Teaching kids how to apply mathematics is important, but really not that hard. Teaching kids to see math as something other than a whole list of rules and methods and mechanical applications of formulas - now that takes some real effort. That, however, is what pure mathemathatics can get you.

Jedidiah.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[SeanAhern]

Amen, brother.

A deficiency in mathematics skills is "innumeracy," a counterpart to "illiteracy." The scary part is that people nurture innumeracy as if it were a thing to be proud of. Imagine if people took innumeracy as seriously as they did illiteracy. The literacy rate is well trumpeted as a measure of a society's success. Imagine if the numeracy rate were as widely reported and remarked upon.

Re: Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[Black Parrot]

Well, if people would just learn to take the absolute value of that image, the problem would go away.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[mochan_s]

Yeah right!

Look at the students' reaction when you give then a "story-problem"

Imagine basing all of mathematics around story like problems.

Anyway, teaching mathematics as applied mathematics is like teaching kids to play piano by teaching them Coldplay songs. Sure, it will be fun and all and develop some basic skills, but it's far from real piano playing.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[MobyDisk]

You know I would say that too many teachers don't teach pure mathematics, so the joy of exploration and discovery and logical thought is lost.

Fact: 98% of students don't enjoy pure mathematics. It's not concrete enough, and it doesn't work. The problem is that what the teacher enjoys isn't what the average human being enjoys. I know it gives you great pleasure, and the joy of solving an equation is a high. I know that feeling. I've had it before. But it is easy to teach those people. So this approach doesn't work. To teach, you have to learn how OTHER people think and feel.

The focus is on teaching kids the applications of math and they never get to understand how to think about math, how to think logically, how to explore the structure of our own mental creations/

That's what applications of math are: a chance to understand, think logically, and explore. It's not teaching formulas!

Applied mathematics means problem solving. It means making them derive the "pure math" by giving them a reason to do it. If you tell an Algebra student to derive the quadratic equation they will fall asleep. But if you tell them there is a secret formula that can solve any ballistics equation without factoring, and they will be intrigued.

Tell them to figure out how to compute the volume of a solid of rotation and they are miserable. Tell them to compute the volume of Mrs. StinkyTeacher, given the equation for her gut. Now they get it.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[Coryoth]

Fact: 98% of students don't enjoy pure mathematics.

Really? You've done studies have you? A large percentage of people have never really been exposed to pure math, and often when they have its been taught in very poor fashion. I've done a fair bit of teaching in mathematics, and I've dealt with plenty of struggling students who find it boring and uninteresting. Oddly enough I've found that actually exposing them to some of the wonders of pure math inspires much more interest in mathematics than yet more arbitrary word problems.

That's what applications of math are: a chance to understand, think logically, and explore. It's not teaching formulas!

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Being asked to work out how much change Sue should get after buying her stereo at 30% off doesn't help kids understand, doesn't require them to think logically except possibly as an accidental byproduct, and really doesn't encourage exploration.

If you tell an Algebra student to derive the quadratic equation they will fall asleep. But if you tell them there is a secret formula that can solve any ballistics equation without factoring, and they will be intrigued.

Tell them to figure out how to compute the volume of a solid of rotation and they are miserable. Tell them to compute the volume of Mrs. StinkyTeacher, given the equation for her gut. Now they get it.

The juxtapositions you present there are all applied math problems, you're just putting the latter versions in fancy dress to make them appear "cool". There's no pure math there at all. The problem is that kids get sick of all the different ways you try to dress up a problem. Eventually it all starts to wear thin and you're trying to come up with ever more ouytlandish ways to couch the same problem, but not really achieving anything.

Jedidiah.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[MobyDisk]

Well, I guess maybe the problem was just me. Let me tell you something about myself. Maybe you can help:

In high school, when I was at home and bored, I wrote code to get objects to move around in 3D space on the screen. I figured out how to make smooth curves with cubic equations. I toyed with fractals because they looked cool. I made eclectic music by playing with trig functions.

The same year I was writing 3D transforms I was sent back a grade from trig back to algebra because I couldn't keep up. The teacher thought I was wasting my time on these programs until I had a solid foundation. To this day I want to go back and kick her ass. Despite years writing 3D games I barely squeaked though linear algebra in college. If only somebody had explained to me that those equations I used were based on 3x3 and 4x4 matrix multiplications I might have done better. Maybe I wouldn't have failed Calc if someone pointed out that the smooth curve functions that I wrote were based on the principle of keeping the derivitive of the curve continuous.

This is why I want applied math. All my life I solved math problems, learned new math myself, and applied it. All while my teachers couldn't even connect what I was doing to the theory they taught.

Call it applied math. Call it pure math. Whatever. Here's my request: Just don't let another student go through what I did.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[srite]

Hint : Only the Area Code un the phone number

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[srite]

Another Hint : one of the digidts is always zero.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[Coryoth]

Would the sort of teaching I have in mind told you that linear algebra was the same as what you were doing with your graphics programming? Probably not no. But really the issue is not whether the math was applied or not, because apparently what you were taught was taught in a very applied mode. The reason it didn't click with you, from the sound of it, is becausse there are lots of different applications, and the ones the teachers chose weren't the ones that happened to fit with you.

What I would have preferred to see happen is more time spent trying to understand the deeper questions and less on the mechanics of solving immediate applications. By trying to figure out what a matrix is, what it means how it acts as a linear transform on a vector space (and what that really means), and doing the same things with algebraic equations, I would hope that you would develop the tools yourself to see the connections between matrices and the equations you were programming on computer rather than having to have someone tell you. If you understand how and why these things behave and work the way they do you have a much better chance of seeing how the underlying structure connects with so many other things, and how that structure can be applied in different, new, and potentially unexpected ways.

Jedidiah.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[rob_squared]

I think you've hit on an important point. Its the difference between astronomers and astronauts. The pure mathmaticians are astronomers because the ideas focus on the abstract and applied mathmatics focus on things with immediate use.

One of my favorite math classes was trig because I could quickly apply the ideas to real life. The first thing I did when learning "Soh Cah Toa" was to measure the hight of my apartment building using a tape measure and a protractor.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[Coryoth]

I'll put it another way: applied math has a tendency to look at things through a keyhole, or through the particular lens of the application being used. As long as you focus on the applications you only understand the small amount you can see clearly through that particular lens. Pure math is about trying to take the lens away and study what is behind it. If you understand clearly what you're actually looking at, rather than one particular view of it. By understanding what's actually there you have a far better chance of understanding that something else you're doing, looking through some other lens, is actually looking at exactly the same thing. In some sense it is precisely because you were taught applied math that you failed to make the connections between what you were being taught and what you were doing.

Jedidiah.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[Analog Squirrel]

I just done with a stint teaching Pre-calc at the local community college (now *there's* a tragedy of education in the USA - it is far more worth my time to work for a semi-enjoyable IT job than to continue teaching, which was actually quite satisfying even with all the bureacratic crap that goes with it) where the currect philosophy behind teaching math is to progress from lesser abstraction to higher abstraction. The justification is that this is simply how most people learn these things. Those of us who are "good" at math are able to do this more quickly than the others, but, if taught well, it should be accessible to the majority of students. This is why the emphasis is, at first, on applied math. After all, don't we start with adding apples and combining coinage and the procede to more abstract numbers and arithmetic. There's no reason for this not to continue into all levels of mathematics: go from concrete (application or well-understood abstraction) to more abstract. The skills and logical abstract reasoning develop *because* of the applied mathematics, not *instead* of it.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[JaxWeb]

I think maths is hard.

On the whole, when people think an area of maths is simple and understandable, they haven't thought about it enough.

Re:Math is hurt in the USA by its negative image

[MobyDisk]

You are backwards. You are teaching EXACTLY like the teachers I had. Is our definition of the word applied completely backwards? You are really confusing me.

You say "...apparently what you were taught was taught in a very applied mode..." when all I got was theory. I wish my linear algebra teacher could have given me one single real-life example of how linear algebra was applied. Just one is all I want. Then, I might have seen where it was going.

I would love to have this conversation with a gym teacher. :-) Imagine if they started by explaining what a ball was. And how to compute scoring. Then they could talk about teamwork, and showering. Some time in college you would get to see a baseball game. Or do you think that it would be better to show the student a baseball game before explaining how to throw the ball?

You have to start with an example so that the student has a chance to say "AHA!" and become interested. Then they hunger for more knowledge.

Fantasy Sports

[Anonymous Coward]

i know that fantasy sports keep me doing a bit more math/stats than usual... not that these are very important uses and such, but i would say that since playing fantasy sports since 14 (25 now) it would qualify as an impact on my life...by getting used to stats at an early age you kinda just start playing with numbers more...i think its a good thing

Humans create, Computers execute

[digitaldc]

Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater. - Albert Einstein

I have learned that you can do wonderful and amazing things with machines and math, but machines themselves will never reproduce the creativity, insight, and wonder of the human mind.

Re:Humans create, Computers execute

[djmurdoch]

You seem to be equating math with arithmetic. Computers can do arithmetic, but they aren't very good at math. To do math you need creativity and insight.

Re:Humans create, Computers execute

[recharged95]

"Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater. - Albert Einstein "

Because all Physicists know they suck in Math. Too much disclipine involved! Ugh!

All we need is a computer that reacts accordingly when subjected to the theory of 'sensitivity to small initial conditions', that's non-linear behavior and our current computing methodology needs to change to that paradigm from the linear/procedural methodology--that's why AI currently is a pipe dream (using linear methods and technology based on linear theory to solve a non-linear problem). Going non-linear is when creativity will be achieved.

Re:Humans create, Computers execute

[sgt101]

Never is a long time.

And who said anything about reproducing the human mind?

Re:Humans create, Computers execute

[ahmusch]

Insight and creativity are necessary, but not, in all cases, sufficient. Reference the initial Apple-Haken proof of the Four Color Theorem.

I know, semantics. But if anything is based on semantics, it's math.

Re:Humans create, Computers execute

[djmurdoch]

I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. Of course insight and creativity aren't sufficient to do math. If they were, all good novelists would be good mathematicians. My claim is that insight and creativity are necessary, which the original poster didn't seem to recognize.

The 1976 computer-based proof of the Four Color Theorem relied on insight, creativity, and mathematical and computational ability.

Re:Humans create, Computers execute

[ahmusch]

I don't know how much clearer I could be, considering the use of the phrase "necessary but not sufficient" in a discussion about math.

Re:Humans create, Computers execute

[djmurdoch]

Okay, sorry, I just thought there might have been something creative or insightful in what you wrote. I didn't realize that it was a simulation of a computer-generated comment.

Re:Humans create, Computers execute

[ahmusch]

Fine. Allow me to be more pedantic^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthorough, since you've decided to try to be clever. I'll try not to use words loaded with overtones of logic.

One needs more than insight and creativity to excel at mathematics. One also needs discipline, endurance, and the ability to perform arithmetic. I posit that computers exceed humans in all three of the latter traits provided a sufficiency of resources. Feel free to disagree.

Computers provide all of those latter traits, and are a valuable tool to mathematicians. We've already established that there are truths we would not know to be truths without the use of computers.

How about this for a simpler way of putting it:

Not all mathematics are possible without computation.

Re:Humans create, Computers execute

[khallow]

It may not be all that long till the greatest minds are working on how to reproduce their creativity, insight, and wonder in the human mind. Frankly, I'm surprised that the human mind is as good as it is. But it is limited in several crucial ways. First, it is limited in size and power. Second, it has limited I/O. Third, it has a lot of extraneous programs (instincts and behaviors as well as weird biological systems like "flight or fright") that get in the way of mathematical work and insight. And finally, the human body is very fragile lasting less than a century on average.

Machines need not have any of these restrictions.

I know about the theorem.

[Inoshiro]

It has deeper implications than "just math". I don't know how far you've gone with computer algorithms, but I attended a wonderful talk given at my University by a gentleman who has been related the logic behind that statement to other things.

It has very deep implications on what can and can't be proven or computed within the lifetime of the Universe, not "just" math axioms. It's not that math is limited, it's that information theory is complex. You imply that math is a creation like a telephone (" realize that math and even logic are human's own inventions, and are limited in what they can be applied to.") when, in fact, we are merely describing underlying features of the Universe.

Go learn about NP vs. P and other parts of algorithm theory, then talk to me.

Re:I know about the theorem.

[Keck]

1. My background is an undergrad degree in Mech. Eng + Comp Sci; I don't claim to be a professional mathematician. You could call me a math enthusiast .. I apply it at every opportunity and spend a good bit of time thinking about math.
   
2. I certainly didn't mean to imply that math is an invention like the telephone is an invention; But it is an invention nonetheless. From the fact that we can make new mathematical systems, we can see that we limit our own understanding by putting it in any particular mathematical reference frame. It's always a trade-off, and there's an art to picking the right trade-off for any given problem. Physics equations give us a way to understand physical phenomena ON AVERAGE within a given set of assumptions -- it's still based on empiricism.
3. 'Math' itself may not be 'limited' because anytime someone develops a new branch of mathematical thought, it gets put under the Math umbrella. But it's also useless to us except as it helps us understand the world around us, or model something we've obvserved, etc. There are still things it is wholely unconcerned with (but can be applied to in various situations).
4. I do have a pretty useful understanding of P/NP and information theory, it doesn't preclude what I've said about limitations of logic.
   Is there a recording or notes from that seminar? It looks interesting.

Re:I know about the theorem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mathematics has rather little do with the studying the "underlying features of the universe." If applying the results of deductive systems to models for solving real problems is possible, that's merely interesting.

Vague

[Anonymous Coward]

(feel good, low on detail, vague numbers) on the rise of maths and mathematicians

How ironic.

Re:Vague

[Anonymous Coward]

...dont u think!

ITs like raiieieien on a weading day!

bla blah blah ..paid
..good advice .. blah DIDNT take

sumthin sumthin .....just figuuurrrs!

Thank you

Laying Tile

[IAAP]

The 3-4-5 rule for getting the grout lines square to the reference wall. Measure 3' along the outside wall, mark a small line 4' perpendicalur to that line, then from the end of the 3' measure 5' until it intersects with the 4' mark. Now you have a right angle for laying out you tile.

It's funny, but I've used more math (especially geometry) doing home improvement projects than I ever did programming computers. Granted, I've never did any intense graphics programming, but a little bit of UI type of stuff.

Re:Laying Tile

[Anonymous Coward]

When is there going to be a Firefox extension for spellchecking /. posts?

http://www.svarteper.com/ff/aspellfox/?

Re:Laying Tile

[voidphoenix]

The 3-4-5 rule for getting the grout lines square to the reference wall. Measure 3' along the outside wall, mark a small line 4' perpendicalur to that line, then from the end of the 3' measure 5' until it intersects with the 4' mark. Now you have a right angle for laying out you tile. If you can mark a perpendicular to a line, why do you need the 3-4-5 rule to make a right angle? If you have a perpendicular then you have a right angle.

Re:Laying Tile

[Deadstick]

Until you measure off the 5 feet you don't have a perpendicular. You have an eyeball perpendicular, and the diagonal measurement corrects it to a real one.

rj

Math can be useful like for this FoxTrot cartoon!

[antdude]

View FoxTrot cartoon and figure out its Easter Egg. I suck at math, but at least I knew it was binary and had to decode it. You can view AQFL for the analysis and answer. :)

Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[Lakedemon]

I would like to know if there is a way to make money out of maths skills, as a freelancer.

I mean, I have a phd and I'm quite good at maths, having solved the 3 problems who where thrown at me in 1 year and a half (instead of the regular 3 years) but what I would like to do is :
solve mathematical problems/bring solutions to people/firms in exchange for hard coin.
Kind like a mathematician freelancer/mercenary : You do the job, you get the money and that's it.

I mean, there are web sites for freelancer artists/web developer/coder. But there isn't one for mathematicians.

So, the only way to make money out of maths (in france) is either to teach it or to research in an university. Either way, you are a salary man.

Man, that sucks.
What is the use for those monsters maths skills, that I patiently honed all these years if I can't even make a little cash out of it/or make more money out of it that the average teacher (that really sucks at research/high lvl maths) ?

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[jetxee]

There is a joke, attributed to Landau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Davidovich_Landau , that `Science is the best way to satisfy your own curiousity at the expense of the state' :)

Mathematics, as a science and as an art, is not about yielding money for anyone, and true problems may have no solution, and the value of the solutions, if found, is not evident from a short-term perspecitve of the business. So, long live universities.

Though, being mathematically literate certainly allows to offer businesses something that would otherwise be impossible. This service should have the price, but this service is not mathematics, like a courier service is not a marathon.

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[snwobird122]

This is an interesting question. I think that you have to find a way to apply the advanced math that you know to some problem that people care about. You have to be an entrepreneur. Perhaps you could create a new algorithm that can be applied to a particular problem that people care about - then, build a basic application around that algorithm. Profit.

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[Anonymous Coward]

To my knowledge there are very few well-payed jobs out there that require deeper knowledge of, for example, operators on Hilbert Spaces, Lie Algebra, Differential Geometry and so forth. When we talk about math, what do we mean? Some average high school calculus, or deeper insight into groups, rings, and operators? Most mathematicians I know are either jobless or teach.

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[Anonymous Coward]

how does mathforhire.com sound??

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[Valafar]

Financial Insdustry, paricularly credit analysis and credit scoring. Building custom score cards using analytics is big business here in the US. The really good thing about it is that every finance company has a score card used to determine credit worthiness but they are ALL custom. It would be suicide for the company to share their credit decisioning work, so they hire private consultants to constantly reinvent the wheel.

I should know, it's been working great for me! I'm sure that Europe (if not France) has a similar situation...

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[Valafar]

Ugh... sorry for the nasty typos. Have a new keyboard and the fingers haven't adjusted. :s/Insdustry/Industry :s/paricularly/particularly

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that one of my professors in undergrad made some cash on the side providing expert testimony in court as a mathematician. If I recall correctly, he claimed he made $100/hr for analysis, and $400/hr for time on the stand.

This was in civil court, usually hired by the defense team for corps with deep pockets. I have no idea how you'd break into it, though...

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[latroM]

I mean, I have a phd and I'm quite good at maths, having solved the 3 problems who where thrown at me in 1 year and a half (instead of the regular 3 years) b

Those were interesting problems I presume.

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[forkazoo]

So, the only way to make money out of maths (in france) is either to teach it or to research in an university. Either way, you are a salary man.

If I ever get around to making the animation studio of my dreams, I'll have a staff mathematician, but I probably wouldn't need a freelancer. I imagine there are a lot of things like that. A company wants to have the services of a mathematician, but it's only worth it if he is right down the hall. If you have to find a freelancer, and arrange a meeting, you probably wind up waiting so long that a non-mathematician could have figured out a reasonable solution before ever seeing a freelancer.

That said, I think you may be able to pull it off. You need to do a ton of self promotion, but you might be able to sell your services effectively. Do analysis on whether or not the last ad campaign was effective, or projected cost growth. Sort of a consultant that deals peripherally with accounting, marketing, all sorts of stuff to help companies get a concrete handle on things, with an unbiased mathematical view. You have to create the job, rather than just looking for existing postings.

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[Lakedemon]

It looks like mathforhire.com is for small fries :)

Well, I'm not looking for tutoring/teaching/help my neighbor to do his home work:
This kind of work isn't hard to find and basically nearly anybody can do/does it.

What I'm looking for is a kind of consulting job in maths/or to solve problems for tech firms/engineer teams
(they are great at their stuff, but aren't that good at research in maths)

The ideal would be to have a place with lots of math problems with a bounty
The harder the problems the greatest the bounty

(it already exists : you can get 1 million $ for solving Riemann's hypothesys, but lots of people have been trying unsuccessfully to do just that for the past 150 years).

Oh well...

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[fliptout]

The first thing that comes to my mind is that you can set up a business that does consulting. You can build up a portfolio of intellectual property- develop algorithms to solve real world problems and then create implementations of your algorithms. License what you produce.

For example, I am no math genius, but I am trying to make my own software that will extract tone information from a recording. The intended application is very marketable, and I have a customer waiting already.

Identify your strengths, identify what interests you, identify some need in the marketplace, and take all of these into consideration.

Off the top of my head, there is a market for developing algorithms for signal processing(audio, video,whothehellknows), financial analysis, statistics.. Or you can develop optimizations on existing algorithms.

Cheers, bonne chance. :)

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[Lakedemon]

This is indeed a piece of sensible advice or I never heard one :
Don't wait for your chance...Work and make it happen !

Thanks for the insight....

Good luck to you too :D

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[cavemanf16]

Learn the fancy new business usage of mathematics: Six Sigma. Ultimately it's just applying logical, methodical thinking to business processes to understand (mostly with statistics) how best to improve sales, reduce operations costs, and improve processes. With your background in Math, getting the "Black Belt" certification shouldn't be too hard for you if you can find a company willing to use your skills in pursuit of you getting that Black belt certification. After that, there are more and more businesses with Six Sigma Black Belt consultants that you could work for. Maybe that's not exactly what you're looking for, but hopefully that helps point your thoughts in the right direction.

I'm no programmer, and I'm no pure sales guy, but my background in computer engineering and my ability to pick up quickly on math concepts has certainly helped me in my job and in attaining one step down from that black belt six sigma cert.

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[akuma(x86)]

Go to Wall Street.

They have tremendous demand for mathematicians that can develop models to quantify risk.

This is not a trivial problem. It is quite technically challenging and requires very sophisticated mathematical skills. Oh, and you'll make more money than God.

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the use for those monsters maths skills, that I patiently honed all these years if I can't even make a little cash out of it/or make more money out of it that the average teacher (that really sucks at research/high lvl maths) ?

Well, my dad started out teaching the a 7th-grade math class (with the "bad kids") in a small midwestern US town in the early 1960s. His salary was about $3000/year.

He parlayed a love and talent for math education into multiple millions of dollars by becoming a textbook and classroom materials author and publisher. When I was a teenager (the mid-'80s), he was pulling in around $500K/year from book royalties. Later, he and a writing partner formed a publishing company of their own that did well until they wanted to retire and sold it off. You can still find some of his stuff on Amazon.com, but I'm not going to shill the links.

And the royalty checks still roll in occasionally, a dozen years after retirement.

Note that his passion was more about being an "educator" than a "mathematician", though he is one of the best of both.

Re:Making money as a freelancer mathematician

[skubeedooo]

Someone else has already said it, but I strongly recommend you look at the field of financial maths. I'm currently studying for a phd in theoretical physics and by random fortune i'm in the "Financial Maths and Applied Probability" group. Whilst many of my non-FM friends have languished unemployed for a year after finishing, my FM friends have been snapped up almost straight away with starting salaries uniformly greater than $100,000. I'm doing only a little research in FM, am 9 months away from completion and I'm getting headhunters phoning me every week or so.

The maths is also quite deep and elegant, although by the time it gets used by banks it ends up being pretty dirty. I would recommend you take a look at An Introduction to Derivative Pricing for a gentle introduction to the maths and Against The Gods for a non mathematical acount of why it is useful.

Re:Math can be useful like for this FoxTrot cartoo

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

If you have a Python 2.4 interpreter handy:

>>>l = ['01011001', '01001111', '01010101', '01001110', '01000101', '01010010', '01000100']
>>>''.join([chr(int(i, 2)) for i in l])
'YOUNERD'

How has math affected me?

[Deanasc]

I had to study a lot of calculus as part of my degree. Now I barely use it. And even then it's just the occasional exercise for fun, just to keep those skill sharp.

amused at fast food registers

[peter303]

I am amused that the average US consumer cant do arithmetic worth sh*t. I see this while in line in grocery stores and fast food places. The clerk or scanner makes an error about one in ten or twenty times on average. Randomly the errors cluster sometimes exceeding a couple dollars per transaction. Neither the customer or clerk notices this.

Re:amused at fast food registers

[fumblebruschi]

Neither the customer or clerk notices this.

As far as you know. On the one hand, as a customer, when I'm given incorrect change, I just take it, because trying to explain to a bored high-school kid that 11.01 minus 5.76 equals 5.25 just isn't worth a few cents. Easier to forget about it and keep my blood pressure down.

On the other hand, if a cashier made a mistake and realized it, probably most of the time he'd keep quiet and hope the customer wouldn't notice, especially if he's already automatically shut the drawer, so to fix it he'd have to call over a supervisor and tell him he's made a mistake.

Where?

[weierstrass]

>Instead of some actuarial positions, there are openings in software houses, animation studios, civil sector, etc..

i am a final year mathematics student whose dream isn't to work as an actuary or for a merchant bank. if anyone has advice on interesting fields where mathematicians are required rather than tolerated, i would appreciate it. or in general, advice on where to look.

i have studied almost exclusively pure maths, mainly analysis and number theory with some algebra and computational stuff, and can program C, some Fortran and some C++.

Re:Where?

[Anonymous Coward]

NSA Mathematicians spend their days focusing on some of today's most distinctive challenges and problems. They apply Number Theory, Group Theory, Finite Field Theory, Linear Algebra, Probability Theory, Mathematical Statistics, Combinatorics, and more. We encourage our Mathematicians to participate in interdisciplinary assignments and train with professionals in such fields as Computer Science and Signals Analysis.

Your education is far from complete when you join NSA. Both formal and informal seminars are routinely organized among our scholars to study specific, timely, Mathematics-related topics, while professional organizations sponsor regular discussions on issues of broader interest.

Career Paths in Mathematics
NSA Mathematicians apply their skills to such tasks as:

        * Designing and analyzing complex algorithms
        * Expressing difficult cryptographic problems in Mathematic terms
        * Applying your work to find a solution or demonstrating that a solution cannot be found, given certain computational limitations and reasonable time limits

http://www.nsa.gov/careers/careers_3.cfm

Re:Where?

[geekoid]

Government.

Too late

[liangzai]

When I tell a potential employer I know Galois theory, he stares at me for a few seconds, and then asks me "Do you know how to use Excel?". To which I reply that I prefer Mathemathica and rarely touch Microsoft products. Then the interview is over.

When I tell a girl I admire her Riemannesque topology and say her virtues are greater in number than those of the girls of Lesbos combined and raised to the googoolth power, she says: "Dude, you are such a sweetie, but I have to go now".

When I tell my neighbor he can make his wine cellar temperature independent by putting it y meters below the ground, he says "Well, aren't you a smarty, boy!", grins, and then returns home to put on the missis.

Re:Too late

[aquatone282]

In other words:

--You're unemployed
--You're a virgin
--You have no friends

Welcome to Slashdot - you're in good company here.

Re:Too late

[radtea]

When I tell a potential employer I know Galois theory, he stares at me for a few seconds, and then asks me "Do you know how to use Excel?". To which I reply that I prefer Mathemathica and rarely touch Microsoft products. Then the interview is over.

This is absolutely accurate. Most people working in technology are a) not very smart and b) have incredibly fragile egos. Not so different from most people in general, in fact. This makes life hard for anyone with actual skills.

I know not a few "data analysts" with Ph.D.s who use Excel, and get all touchy if you suggest there are more appropriate tools for the job. Octave/Matlab is considered "advanced" and no one touches Mathematica, still less things like Perl (which is surprisingly fast--I once used an R-K solver in Perl that ran almost as fast as my first naive C++ implementation.)

The fact is that math is way too powerful to make much of a living at. Most technology problems require a tiny amount of math and a lot of engineering. Most people are either too stupid to see the value of the math or are threatened by the power of something they don't understand, so they adopt various heuristics that lower their productivity, as we've seen discussed in the thread on construction workers.

Re:Too late

[Anonymous Coward]

When I tell a girl I admire her Riemannesque topology

You mean geometry, not topology.

Re:Too late

[Elad Alon]

Have you seen the girl in question? He meant topology alright.

Re:Too late

[thisissilly]

When I tell a girl I admire her Riemannesque topology and say her virtues are greater [...]

Dude! There is your mistake right there, you praised her virtues. You don't want to remind a girl she is supposed to be being virtuous. Instead, you should let her know in explicit terms what you are looking for.

Next time, tell her you want to manipulate her peicewise smooth manifold.

Re:Too late

[kadathseeker]

"virtues are greater in number than those of the girls of Lesbos combined"

Lesbos is the historical root of the word lesbian. Virtuous indeed. My kind of virtue.

Re:Too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Mathematica is a piss-poor substitute for Excel. MINITAB for some things, R for others. Maybe you should learn how to diversify your skillset to include useful (if not inappropriately used) tools.

Given that your boss probably isn't going to assign you to do proofs in modern algebra, he has little reason to care that you took a few algebra classes along with every other math major in the world.

Re:Too late

[K-Man]

If you think that's bad, look what happened to Galois.

Re:Too late

[cynical kane]

Actually, there's a very big discontinuity down the middle.

Re:Too late

[try_anything]

Wow, I never thought of using my math skills as a social chastity belt. I find that waving my arms and yelling "booga booga!" works pretty well, but it sometimes attracts unwanted attention. Next time I'll try functional analysis instead. Thanks for the idea!

Re:Too late

[Darby]

When I tell a potential employer I know Galois theory, he stares at me for a few seconds, and then asks me "Do you know how to use Excel?". To which I reply that I prefer Mathemathica and rarely touch Microsoft products. Then the interview is over.

If you *really* got Galois theory you would have challenged his dumb ass to a duel...or slept with his wife...however that story went.
I only learned enough Galois theory to prove the Greeks wasted a lot of our time with bogus constructions ;-)

You should know

[bobbuck]

It doesn't matter. 93.7% of all statistics are made up.

Learning in general is taking a hit

[Shivetya]

When you have so many news stories about anti-competitve rules being put in place in public schools it gets depressing. From schools where getting the responses to questions right isn't as important as understanding who you are. Where schools that don't require you to graduate to get handed a diploma to ones where you have multiple class valedictorians. To read about stories that students put a stigma on success in school because its too much being like "the other race" or such non-sense. Where teacher unions are more to protect themselves than promote the education of children to school boards where the administrative salaries outweigh those of the teachers.

Education in this country needs a serious reform. The primary focus should be making our children the brightest and best in the world. If this means putting public schools into competition with private schools for taxpayer dollars then do it, its done in parts of Europe to this day! Instead we have a system which is run by people only concerned about their welfare and shoving their correctness down societies throat. The schools are not used to educate but to condition. When steps are taken to hold them accountable they run to the courts scream racism, fairness, and about religion. The people teaching our children should never have become second to the people who oversee them just as the children should never have become second to those who teach them.

First and formost disruptive students should not be allowed to force the system to adjust to them.
Next teachers who cannot meet the requirements should not have the "right" to stay simply because of tenure and union muscle
Schools should not have an absolute right to taxpayer money.
Public, private schools, and even home schooling should all be held to the same standards. (currently some areas pass laws that are more strict on anyone but the public school!)
Students who do excell need to be encouraged, not dragged down by anti-competitive practices
Religon should be the domain of private or home schooling. However its existance there should not be grounds for withholding funding. The standards for funding should not even hint about requiring or disallowing religon. (again, all schooling should have the same neutral standards)
Testing must be mandatory at all grades. This allows for quicker identification of students who need more help and systems than need changing.

Its been far to long that people just send their kids off to "public daycare". We do a disservice to our children and society as a whole by not pushing for the best we can have. Throwing money at the problem will not work and has proven so. We must also set levels of achievement that all sides can understand.

Re:Learning in general is taking a hit

[Rakishi]

They tried fixing education (specifically regarding gifted students) in the 80s, they got a half assed solution in place (in numerous states) before the media got bored and people stopped caring.

Education in this country needs a serious reform. The primary focus should be making our children the brightest and best in the world.

Schools aren't the problem, it is society. Parents don't give a damn too often or think their kids are a gift from god and can never do wrong. There is little societal push for education, look at Asians and how much their whole society pushes for education.

Part of the problem is that we have it too good, no desire or perceived need for education in too much of the population.

Next teachers who cannot meet the requirements should not have the "right" to stay simply because of tenure and union muscle

Sadly some areas are lacking teachers period, throw out the bad ones and no one is left to teach the kids.

Testing must be mandatory at all grades. This allows for quicker identification of students who need more help and systems than need changing.

Ah, yes the reason half the schools don't teach anything useful anymore. Any sort of standardized test creates the following problem: the test is the only thing that matters, the test's structure is pre-known, teaching for the test and only the test is the most efficient use of time.

I'm sure in the long term it could lead to some fun systems: kid gets 99% on test in grade x but is bored, he is expected to get a 80% on the test in grade x+1, most efficient method: keep the kid in grade x so he pulls the average up.

Also, current standardized tests are a joke for anyone with any intelligence and they will always be so since lowering standards keeps the bottom 50% from being indefinitely held back. I mean, it took me a whole 2 weeks (of mostly not studying) to learn the physics that NY State regards as sufficient for a High School diploma.

Re:Learning in general is taking a hit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Next teachers who cannot meet the requirements should not have the "right" to stay simply because of tenure and union muscle

Schools should not have an absolute right to taxpayer money."

There's your problem buddy, the reason there are so many retarded teachers is because your politics there in the US means that you pay so little to teachers that you get what the market provides. How about raising the standards of university teaching courses and paying teachers more. Supply and demand, pay penuts and get monkeys.

"impacted"

[Anonymous Coward]

It hasn't "impacted" me at all -- unless it screwed with my wisdom teeth or made me constipated. It might, however, have affected me in some way.

The illiterate slashdot hordes... resist the evil of corporatespeak. Impact, leverage, transition... they're all nouns, people.

Re:"impacted"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear!

I applaud your comment.

It is almost as if the words effect and affect have disappeared from the english language altogether. Perhaps it is because people cannot figure out which one to use in a particular sentence.

Sigh, this really irks me so.

I suppose, "at the end of the day", "its all good"... oops, "my bad"!

These linguisitic memes are genuinely powerful, I have often thought of harnessing them for mass mind control in a Seldonesque psychohistorical fashion. If I've thought of it, you can rest assured others have as well.

Re:The Pure Profession - Doesn't get it

[blank101]

As an undergrad math major, I thoroughly enjoyed my Mathematical Logic course, including Goedel's Theorem (as a sidenote, I recommend the professor's textbook, though it's now out-of-print I think).

But so-called "Ivory Tower" mathematicians don't get it. The statement used in Goedel's theorem is not a useful one (despite being true) - and Goedel's theorem says little about our ability to prove or not prove useful statements in mathematics. It is an interesting sidenote (one often abused by philosophers and "intellectual" opponents of mathematics), but says little about the tool-other than it is limited in some way. Is it an important way, a way that will inhibit our ability to use the tool? That's not clear based on the Goedel's results.

Statistics, algorithms do not need mathematicians

[master_p]

In order to use statistics and algorithms, one does not have to be a mathematician. The only time one needs to be a mathematician is when there is a need to work on the statistics or computer science. Of course it helps being a mathematician, but in order to use statistics effectively, one has to have knowledge of the measured items as well...the same is valid with algorithms: one can use algorithms, but he/she does not have to understand lambda calculus.

I really doubt, without RFTA, that mathematicians are in demand. What is in demand is people that can incorporate and work with statistics and algorithms...although I am not sure about the latter either, because with the latest bunch of programming languages, many things are already laid out for the programmer.

Math vs. UFO's and Witchcraft

[KevinGlenRoyGreer]

While browsing the stacks at my local library I came upon the mathematics section. It only contained about five or six books: two grade four or five textbooks and a couple books on math puzzles. I found this very disappointing given the importance of mathematics in so many fields, but then, to make things even worse, I happened to notice that the nearby sections on U.F.O's and Witchcraft were actually far better stocked. It made me wonder if this was caused by society's indifference towards mathematics or if it was merely caused by the liberal arts bias of most librarians.

Re:Math vs. UFO's and Witchcraft

[Stroman Rebar]

It's actually the aliens and the witches. They are working in concurrence with The Man (tm) by attacking our maths in an effort to keep us down.

Re:Math vs. UFO's and Witchcraft

[geekoid]

or maybe people are keeping there math books and donating boks they don't want?

YOu do know those books aren't the librarians personal collection, don't you?

Since this is a math discussions, perhaps you should consider how the numbers of each catagory you mention are sold, then figure out if it is an accurate reporestation?

no, that would require thinking, and you would rather think that leberal arts people ahve some agenda to push witchcraft and that they all believe in UFOs.

Re:Math vs. UFO's and Witchcraft

[d3m057h3n35]

The situation may be disappointing, but here's a suggestion: remedy the problem yourself. Spend some money to make that selection better; with $100 you could go out and buy six Dover math books at about $15 and donate them to the library. Or you could request the purchase of fundamental math titles; every library has a provision for this. Just get on a catalog terminal or go to the front desk and let them know that the library would be better off with

Calculus (Apostol)
Calculus (Spivak)
Principles of Real Analysis (Rudin)
Introduction to Analysis (Rosenlicht)
Number Theory (Andrews)
Number Theory for Beginners (Weil, maybe no longer available, but a great primer)
Introduction to the Theory of Numbers (Hardy & Wright)

and other classics, both elementary and advanced, on their shelves. One of the reasons why so many libraries have such horrible math selections is that there is no demand. Don't bemoan it; get involved and create demand.

Re:Math vs. UFO's and Witchcraft

[KevinGlenRoyGreer]

I'm not saying that "liberal arts people" have some agenda to push witchcraft or UFO's, but rather, that they do not appear to have an agenda to push mathematics. Or perhaps, they simply cater to the demands of library patrons, who themselves have not expressed a desire for mathematics resources. In either case, mathematics seems to be greatly under represented (in my local library at least).

Re:Math vs. UFO's and Witchcraft

[Darby]

Principles of Real Analysis (Rudin)

Those other books must be cheap, because I spent like $50.00 on that puppy *used*.

I would donate it to my local library if I didn't have so much fun scaring friends with it late night when we're all drunk reminiscing about difficult college classes.

Seriously, that book will win you every "my classes were so hard" discussion you ever get into.

Re:Math vs. UFO's and Witchcraft

[sbaker]

You know - it's possible that all the math books were checked out by fascinated readers, yet all the UFO books are of little interest and therefore sitting on the library shelves.

Hey! It's *possible*.

OK - well at least I tried.

Re:Math vs. UFO's and Witchcraft

[d3m057h3n35]

Better yet, bust out his Real and Complex Analysis. Principles is rightfully called "Baby Rudin."

Re:Math vs. UFO's and Witchcraft

[Darby]

Better yet, bust out his Real and Complex Analysis. Principles is rightfully called "Baby Rudin."

OK, you made me go here. In a deep dark cupboard I have a copy of Gert Pedersen's Analysis NOW! which we used for graduate Real Analysis. That guy makes Rudin look verbose ;-)

Re:Math can be useful like for this FoxTrot cartoo

[belg4mit]

That's not math, this is math (Jason's Nerd Search).

Impact of mathematics in my life

[Anonymous Coward]

> How has mathematics, statistics and other number driven aspects
> of life impacted you in the last decade?"

I don't get laid. http://jwz.livejournal.com/284187.html

Financial industry

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised no one's brought this up yet--but the past decade or so, math has become super attractive in the financial industry.

Math majors from top schools are being recruited (along with other hard sciences, physics and CS) by banks, hedge funds, etc. and getting 6 figures right out of college. No kidding. The story is, about a decade or so ago, some hedge funds decided to try letting some really smart people (i.e. math majors from top schools) handle money. They did so well, they made a fortune and it turned the industry upside-down. Well, that might be an exaggeration, but it's more or less true.

Markets had a number of pricing inconsistencies, etc. in them, and these smart mathy people figured out how to take advantage of them. Lots of algorithms and computer programming found application to managing these hedge funds. To correct for these abuses, the markets had to close the gaps and inconsistencies these hedge funds were abusing.

Although a lot of the market problems have since been cleaned up, a lot of math is going into managing funds to maximize profit. There aren't as many people making millions off of just trading, but there's a lot of jobs in the financial industry for smart math people that still pay extremely well.

The financial industry learned its lesson: math is incredibly useful. This has already been obvious in industries like computer programming, where sophisticated math goes into designing algorithms. In the future, I think we'll continue to see other industries finding out how huge the benefits of math can be.

Re:Financial industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Many universities now have specialized programs for that area of (applied) mathematics. So you can't just be a mathematician and get those jobs anymore -- at least not the well-paid ones.

Plus (from a North American's point of view) there's tough competition from people educated in the former Eastern Bloc, where applied mathematics is/was perhaps given higher priority throughout the education system than it is in the West. Due to differing expectations (and inevitable discrimination against immigrants, particularly math types who may not pick up English as quickly) those people can also, often, be hired for less money (less than a US-born person's idea of a "hot job", that is).

So YMMV, remember to hedge, no free lunch, etc.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The Pure Profession - Doesn't get it

[Keck]

First let me say that I am not an opponent of mathematics, and hope you aren't calling me an 'intellectual' :)

Second, I agree with what you're saying -- Goedel's statements have more value to the intersection of math and philosophy than in the work of a Mathemetician. My own feeling as to why that is, is this: Realizing that using the framework we have established, within the limits of our own understanding, as Math (or substitute Logic) means that we might be precluding our own understanding of some OTHER things, but it's not always clear what those things are. (Because we're stuck in the box of the Math we know). It's a bit like having the uneasy feeling that by taking one course of action, you prevent yourself from discovering others that were options at the time you started down the path you're on.

Some bits of quantum theory seem to echo this .. we change the forward possibilities of the universe in ways that we don't perceive, even by OBSERVING something happen, or not. The many possibilities for reality collapse to one with the passing of time.

I agree that Goedel, like much of science, raises more questions than it answers.

Re:The Pure Profession -- Still is.

[igrigorik]

May I point out that not all reasonable people believe that math is our own creation per se. (No, I don't support Intelligent Design). You will find textbooks filled with discussions on the nature of mathematics, varying from pure Platonistic arguments down to Positivism and a plethora of other ideas. Godel himself was more of a Platonist than most of us would anticipate. In fact, most of us carry an implicit Platonistic attitude. As a great example, almost every science headline resorts to "X discovers Y!". Now, in order to be discovered it had to be there in the first place! There they are, the per Our scientific community has an implicit Platonistic view and I think most people don't realize that until you expose it. (Well now you should know!)

As for Godel's Incompleteness, it is an amazing result but it's not a silver bullet for math. It killed Hilbert's program, that's for sure, but it's hardly the end of math. Technically speaking, we can disallow Godel's result by fiat through some clever limitations, but the problem with that of course is the very fact that we're disallowing by fiat. And not to mention, not all of mathematics is affected either (ex. third order logic seems to be doing fine).

I've listened to dozens of arguments trying to outright discredit math based on Godel's results, and I must say, 99% of the time the speakers only have superfluous knowledge of the result and yet they extrapolate to derive amazing results. It reminds me of AI (Artificial Intelligence) where every other psychologist talks about the 'limitations of machines' blatantly unaware that what they are really referring to is the 'limitations of algorithms'. It's a succinct point, but before you build your mansion, might as well check the foundations first, right?

Most people don't even notice

[kryzx]

"How has mathematics, statistics and other number driven aspects of life impacted you in the last decade?"

I think that while daily life these days is saturated with mathematics, most people don't even notice it.

When you Google, when Amazon makes a recommendation for you, when a credit card company decides to send you an offer, when you hear the latest economic/housing/employment/crime/you-name-it figures on the news, when your doctor suggests a particular treatment, when you take a picture with your digital camera, when you use your cell phone, when you enter your password on your computer, when your car controls engine timing and fuel mix, when you use your garage door opener ... and a thousand other things.

These things are driven by statistical algorithms, compression algorithms, encryption algorithms, random number generator algorithms, and a host of other mathmatics. We utilized these math driven tools every day, and 98% of people don't even realize it. If you asked them they would say "math? stats? Booo-ring. Who needs it?"

Re:The Pure Profession -- Still is.

[igrigorik]

Hmm, ./ garbled one of my sentences. Should say:

"There they are, the perfect performs!. Ah, Noesis!"

Re:The Pure Profession - Doesn't get it

[Keck]

. After all, it's hard to even imagine how human language could fail to describe a truth condition. And of course if that's the case, human language must be something truly and completely different than formal language.

GREAT point. I meant to bring this up with the original Parent post, but didn't want to get too off-topic. The idea from linguistics that our thoughts have some inherent limits due to the language we think in (and also our skill with that language) has always rang true for me. aWhen I was in school and taking Spanish I often dreamed in fluent Spanish (and spoke it in my sleep, reportedly). A linguistics professor in college brought up this idea, and I realized that I don't always think in ENGLISH (or Spanish) but sometimes just abstract forms. I wondered if this was an echo of the linguist's "formal language".

Science of Maths?

[wild_berry]

Surely that's mathology. Mathematics is the doing of maths.

Ho! Ho! Ho! That's what they said in the 90's

[another_drone]

I have heard this before. When I was working on a math PhD in the 90's they said the same thing. But then, it was Wall Street calling.

Know math... Yes... But as a platform to an applied field where you will stand tall with a strong math background.

Otherwise, get ready for low pay unless you graduated from MIT, NYU , or Cal Tech in a program designed specifically for the "latest" applied math craze. I watched graduates from a top 10 Applied Math Program grovel for 1 year post-docs. Many went into Comp Sci AFTER receiving their PhD because they did not want to enjoy the bountiful $35K they would get as a post-doc.

By the time a place like Business Week has an article on this, the top math programs located nearby the trend (Read that Boston, NY or Silicon Valley) already have a specialized sub-degree for the trend.

Also, be aware that PhD's tend to prefer hiring students from their adviser or their academic friends. Also a limiting factor for getting a job offer as these high end applied research jobs.

Yep, stick with your applied field and a strong math background.

Re:Ho! Ho! Ho! That's what they said in the 90's

[sgt_doom]

Thanks for elucidating this for the masses. By the time something finally appears in Business Week, it's usually spread throughout the known universe......

*sigh* Yet another derivative joke.

[wiredog]

Filler
Important Stuff

        * Please try to keep posts on topic.
        * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
        * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
        * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
        * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Not "win-win" *unless*...

[rmcd]

This is a widely-cited and often misquoted (and misunderstood) theorem in economics. "Win-win" in this situation requires that the winners compensate the losers. If you don't pay compensation for the loss (e.g., the salary they would have earned), then you have a winner and a loser, period. You have no way to say that one's gain offsets the other's pain.

The economic theorem says that the monetary gain for the winners is great enough that it is *possible* for the winners to compensate the losers so to leave as well off as before. In this case everyone is at least as well off. But if you don't compensate the losers, you can't say a thing.

Re:Not "win-win" *unless*...

[modmans2ndcoming]

isn't that Nash's Theorem? or one based on his?

Re:Not "win-win" *unless*...

[Shisha]

My understanding of this is twofolds. On the local (individual level), there's the winner (the guy who needs one less employee). And there's the loser; the employe who got fired. And no mainstream economic model assumes that the winner compensates the loser. It's a cold hard world, unless you've got something to offer, you don't get anything.

On the global level, the average person is better of, because he can get more for less. I believe that this division is what confuses many people.

Re:Not "win-win" *unless*...

[rmcd]

It's sounds sort of the same, but it's different. A Nash equilibrium is one where each party does the best he can, taking the behavior of the other as given. For it to be an equilibrium, the anticipation of the other's behavior must be correct.

The economic term for "making everyone better off" is that the change is "Pareto optimal". "Making everyone better off" can include transfers from one party to another. In the OP's example, the job can be accomplished with less labor. It would therefore be possible for the surveyor boss to continue to pay the person he laid off (since the bid included that person's labor), and the laid off person can find more employment. Thus, the owner and the surveryor boss are the same financially, and the person laid off is (in this hypothetical) strictly better off. There are other ways to allocate the gains to achieve pareto optimality.

Re:Not "win-win" *unless*...

[skubeedooo]

The 'loser' is compensated by getting another job. As someone else pointed out, if the 'losers' remained unemployed, then after thousands of years of technology improvements, nobody would have a job anymore, except farmers. In fact, almost all developed nations (i.e. with the most advanced technology) have unemployment less than 15%. Since these countries do not have 85% working in agriculture there is clearly some 'compensation' going on. And further, in most developed nations even the unemployed are compensated by more than a fully employed person of a few thousand years ago.

Re:Not "win-win" *unless*...

[TuringTest]

I'm not an economist, but I wouldn't call a "win-win" situation one in which "the average person" is better, but one in which every player wins something.

Re:Not "win-win" *unless*...

[TuringTest]

I wonder why those models *never* seem to take into account the nuisances of the unemployed one, not even as a cost that should somehow be compensated.

Re:Not "win-win" *unless*...

[skubeedooo]

There are many theoretical and phenomenological studies of the effect of unemployment on society and the individual. I refer you to wikipedia. As it happens the first section is titled "Impact on society and the economy", and the first subsection is titled "Cost".

But anyway, my point is that low unemployment in technologically advanced nations proves that whilst new technology sometimes gets rid of existing jobs (usually unskilled), people figure out other ways of providing value, and hence employment. The cause of unemployment is much more to do with how society is organised than it is to do with technology.

Re:Not "win-win" *unless*...

[TuringTest]

Thanks for the link, it seems a good summary on the subject.

The cause of unemployment is much more to do with how society is organised than it is to do with technology.
I know that. In turn, my point was that those simple arguments always assume that the-fired-one-will-find-another-job, while the only economic truth is that the level of production might rise in the long term. But it have little use for the unemployed that in 100 years there will be more work for people with his job.

Also the arguments from liberalism that I've read say that a free market optimizes the economy and makes the best deal for everyone involved, but then fail to address those needs of the individuals - only measuring the aggregate economy of the system as a whole.

Re:Not "win-win" *unless*...

[skubeedooo]

Also the arguments from liberalism that I've read say that a free market optimizes the economy and makes the best deal for everyone involved, but then fail to address those needs of the individuals - only measuring the aggregate economy of the system as a whole.

Well, there is a lot of literature on the subject of Welfare Economics, which I believe is what you are talking about. What some politician or blogger (or me) talks about should not be assumed to be what economists think.

I notice you use the word 'aggregate' rather than 'sum' or 'average'. Is this because you believe all methods of aggregation are bad? As far as i know, allowing utility functions to be nonlinear and thinking about marginal utility can be extremely useful.

IKEA lamps

[uweg]

Considered the fact that the only time in my life when I needed trigonometry was the day when I wanted to fix an IKEA lamp diagonally across the room.....oh wait.. last decade he said. No. nothing.

When has anyone ever used math in the real world?

[bk4u]

Guy on Street #2: It's 3:00. Where the hell is Louie?

Guy on Street #1: Well, you tell me. Louie left his house at 2:15 and had to travel a distance 6.2 miles traveling at a rate of five miles a hour. When will Louie get here?

Guy On Street #2: Depends if he stops to see his ho.

Guy on Street #1: That's what we call a "variable".

WOO HOOO

[modmans2ndcoming]

Hell yeah, I knew my mathematics degree would make me money :-)

Mel Brooks

[Anonymous Coward]

let's make you King with absolute authority. What would you do to change things?

Knight jumps queen! Bishop jumps queen! Pawns jump queen! Gangbang!

It's good to be the king.

Dupe

[drsquare]

I remember reading this exact same post in a story months ago.

ok but where do you get the jobs

[0010]

my wife has a math degree and cant find a job anywhere... can anyone tell me where, in real life, to find these jobs?

Re:ok but where do you get the jobs

[another_drone]

For applying math in a somewhat direct manner, have your wife try actuarial science.

Having done software engineering in the "real world" for almost a decade, I have never really used anything from my math background. The only aspect I have applied is the experience of writing papers to writing clear software design documents.

If your wife want's to pursue an M.S. in stats, there are many more jobs in stats that really do use the course work in stats. And they pay better, too.

Re:ok but where do you get the jobs

[mochan_s]

Bachelor in math is only good for teaching below college level.

Master in math is only good for teaching first year college courses and acturial sciences.

Now, PhD in math is useful but only for the research topic.

So, only time I can think of a mathematician looking for a job would be as a professor. Otherwise, he or she would know where exactly to work.

Re:ok but where do you get the jobs

[0010]

you lost me at hello...

Re:The Pure Profession -- Still is.

[igrigorik]

I must be on crack OR ./ is playing mindgames on me.

Not "performs", but "forms".

*Puts down the coffee mug*

How Long Is It?

[Ranger]

Why are slashdotters so bad at math? Because they keep telling their hand it's six inches.

Wahoo!

[kurth]

Better math geeks = Better visualization plug-ins for various media players! /me gets his pipe and lighter.

I work in accounting...

[josepha48]

.. do I need to say more?

Okay I program accounting software. IBL's are a b****.

Unprovable Statements

[pinka]

You're only partially right. Axioms are statements that (1) can't be proven, and (2) you assume are true, and everything is built upon them. However, there are other, non-axiomatic, statements in any formal system that cannot be proven either true or false. That's what the parent was talking about (hence the mention of the Godel's incompleteness theorem). BTW, if you're a CS major, you've encountered this in the form of the Halting Problem :)

In fact, much work has been done in the last few decades in the model-theory literature. It used to be believed that Goedel like unprovable, unfalsifiable statements were somehow unnatural and would never surface in "ordinary" mathematics. After all, except for theoretical computer science classes, where does the halting problem show up in ordinary computer science? Then came the Paris Harrington theorem, a result from generalized ramsey theory which was proved to be unprovable in peano arithmetic. Since then other natural unprovable results have been found as well.

Re:Unprovable Statements

[Anonymous Coward]

where does the halting problem show up in ordinary computer science?

It's very closely related to the problem of automatically checking that a program does what you want it to do. If you cannot prove that it doesn't loop eternally, how can you prove that it gives a correct answer ?

And you would think that being able to prove the correctness of a program is a pretty natural problem :)

Math is a modeling language, nothing more.

[Anonymous Coward]

And so I slowly started to realize that mathematics were the underlying principle to everything.

No. Math is currently man's best attempt at describing the underlying principles to everything.

The difference is important. If we confuse the map for the terrain we start limiting our own options for innovation and production.

The high level of isomorphism between math and reality is a product of centuries of trial, error, and refinement. This process must continue, and in order for it to do so an understanding of the limitations of mathematics must be kept firmly in mind.

Math should be thought of as a tool, not a religion.

Re:Math is a modeling language, nothing more.

[Stalyn]

What "reality is" or the ultimate nature of the universe is inaccessible to us. All we have is our varieties of languages that describe this reality. If the description(model, language, ..) produces the same informational content as the empirical perception (we assume the perception is true and not distorted) of the domain being investigated, it is safe to assume their respective structures are isomorphic.

However mathematics recursively defines and creates its own structures which have informational contents which appear to map to itself. There is no empirical perception or content. I think mathematics is a way to move information around like memory functions in computers. We shift around structures and information until we are ready to apply it to some empirical content. However my own feeling that the operations in mathematics have some real physical existence. That without some physical laws in place, mathematics itself would be impossible. But also that all mathematical operations have some dual in the physical world.

Soylent Green?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's either that or the old tradition of exposure.

Re:Soylent Green?

[Anonymous Coward]

If only... you get arrested for exposure round here...

Joke theif!

[Anonymous Coward]

You stole that from Letterman!

Re:The reason

[symbolic]

Back when computers were first put into use, their primary function was highly math-intensive - in fact, that's about all they did. I'd argue that much of what computers do today have little to do with math- much of the effort is focused on "e"-izing procedures that were formerly manual, or that require restructuring to accommodate a changing bsuiness climate. To be sure, there are still specialized pockets that rely on heavy math (like weather forecasting, statistical analysis, graphics, etc), but a degree in math certianly isn't a requirement in order to write a halfway decent business-related web app.

Re:The Pure Profession - Doesn't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Disregarding people deeply entrenched within Philosophy is easy, because rarely is it the case that they have the mathematical maturity to discuss subjects that they freely think they do.
Take for example you.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem deals with consistent systems in first-order logic. Please provide a proof that "the human mind" is a consistent system.

Being able to claim something is true is easy in any system.

A "corporate mathematician" without Ph.D. ?

[fizteh89]

Just give me a break, Cody...

I know some guy in his 40's who works for some well-known company and
has "Research Scientist" written on his official company's card.
The guy has an Associate degree from some sort of community college...
While your education listed on your resume is much better that his,
it is far from being impressive. Well, maybe it is here, on /.
Tell your stories of "corporate mathematician's success" to somebody else.

Statistics and the interpretation of probability

[Stygius]

One great difficulty in the adoption of statistical methods and statistical thinking is the question of the interpretation of probability theory. Most statisticians and physicists favour the frequentist interpretation (at least according to Wikipedia), but in computer science we often see the subjective interpretation as well, mostly in its Bayesian form.

In using and understanding statistics, I believe it is crucial to consistently adhere to one interpretation of probability. In media, I have often seen frequentist statistics being presented as if it were to be interpreted subjectively. I think honest presenters of statistics must acknowledge that there is a mile-wide gap between asserting that the relative frequency of some event is high in a certain sequence, and asserting that the degree of rational belief that a certain event will happen is high. Even if everybody read "How to Lie with Statistics", I think the problem of the interpretation of probability would continue to be a source of confusion for both the general public and statisticians.

In my probability and statistics class, I was frustrated by the fact that they did not even mentioned the problem. We were simply given the Kolmogorov axioms and some set theory and told to get to work. However, I suspect this is the common case for such entry-level courses.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[eepok]

I think you over-estimate the quality of life at the poverty line and all the problems that go along with it. The sense that you give is that people who live under the line have all the amenities everyone else has, but only to a lower quality.

Let me help you out here. I lived with a family of 6 whose yearly average of taxable income of $14,000 (c.2000). We received welfare ($600/month), food stamps ($250/month), and received subsidized rent via HUD ($-400/month). As you can tell, we were below the poverty line.

Now consider the average education level of those under the line. I think my family was a good example having a Vietnam-vet with a GED as a father and a middle-school-educated mother. They were not capable of finding significant income in an area that would allow "people like us" to live.

They eventually got a car-- an '80s junker on a 16% interest loan. We had 2 color televisions with cable. "Why?," you ask? because there is literally NO OTHER WAY OF ESCAPE in a society that focuses around entertainment! A one-time cost of $200 and a monthly cost of $25 is damn reasonable when you consider that most Slashdotters rarely think more than twice about upgrading their system (or buying a new one) with a pricetag of 200+.

Lastly, there's all the qualitative differences in a family that lives below the poverty line. There's frustration (an extreme understatement here) of being stuck and unable to provide. This anger is, more often than not, expressed physically with women and children on the receiving end. There's depression, lack of confidence, in ability to socialize outside of your born-in group as other groups cost money to associate with, no culture of education... there is no hope.

So, before you rain judgement from upon high based on severly miscalculated eyeball-assumptions, give it a shot.

--Ps. The polio thing made me laugh. If you're poor and living in California, you have a limited number of times you can see a physician, emergency room, dentist, or an optometrist in a year. When I was in high school ('96-'00) we had 6 stickers on our Medical tickets. 1) Glasses, 2) Fillings, 3) busted thumb in PE, 4,5,6) Tonsilitis. After that, and with a 104-fever, I was SOL.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't caused by technology though. This is caused by America's capitalist attitude and the notion of 'survival of the fittest'.

Look at Europe and, primarily the UK, you will see a largely different picture with more socialist ideals. I agree this doesn't stop people being below a poverty line in respect to the majority but it does ensure everyone can at least have a roof, food and healthcare provided. If they want more than just the essentials the idea is you then seek employment.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[MyNymWasTaken]

We had 2 color televisions with cable. "Why?," you ask? because there is literally NO OTHER WAY OF ESCAPE in a society that focuses around entertainment!

I call utter BS!

They're called libraries. You walk in, get a library card and walk out with a book *AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO YOU*. After you've finished that book, return it and get another one - *still free*! Nowadays, there are almost always free internet connections available as well.

Don't give me that crap about "You just don't know what it's like." I used to have to take my showers, so I could look presentable at menial labor job interviews, at the local campground because I couldn't afford to pay the water bill - much less the cable TV bill.

Stop blaming society for not holding your hand through *every* point in your "oh, woe is me - I'm so pathetic" life.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[GileadGreene]

We had 2 color televisions with cable. "Why?," you ask? because there is literally NO OTHER WAY OF ESCAPE in a society that focuses around entertainment! A one-time cost of $200 and a monthly cost of $25 is damn reasonable...

No other way of escape? Isn't a library card free? Might help with that whole "education" thing too.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to read a refreshing perspective, great post. Unfortunately your experience and depth of understanding of what it is like to really be poor will be lost on the "let them eat cake" shashdot crowd. To many readers of this forum a 6 month old video card is considered poverty.

From reading your post, our childhood experiences seem rather similar. In my case my father's escape was beer and drugs and not TV.

You seem like an intelligent fellow and I wish you the best in the future.

Ben

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[gfody]

I think his point was that poor people also tend to be stupid.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[Frenchy_2001]

I lived with a family of 6 whose yearly average of taxable income of $14,000 (c.2000).[...]We had 2 color televisions with cable.[...] A one-time cost of $200 and a monthly cost of $25 is damn reasonable[...]

So, let me get this straight. You are with a ploor family, desperate for money, below the poverty line and getting helped by the state BUT they blow 20% of their income on cable? Did they also eat out at McDo regularly and buy cigarettes? Because for entertainment value, it does not get any better either.

However, i have new for you: Entertainment does not further anything. It does not allow you to grow, get better and get out of a bad situation. It is just a legal drug that helps you forget your trouble. Troubles dont go away by themselves, you need to face them to solve them, so staying in front of a TV wont solve anything. Neither will bitching or posting on /.

I know people that started with nothing (kicked out of their family home at 16 after being beaten by their dad), but they are successful today. How? They made their choice, got loans and credits, got an education and worked it out. Worked to pay their tuitions and boards, worked in class to succeed and worked and innovated to pay their bills. They could do it, but of course, it was a LOT more difficult than sitting on their butts watching TV and saying how desperate they were.

Life does not always deal you a fair situation and some needs to make more efforts to reach a given point, but USA is a land of opportunities. You can get an education and a job, but it will need LOTS of efforts if you dont get any help (family mostly).

Hope is how you look at things, not what is passed down to you. Every problem has a solution. Some required ungodly efforts to reach it...

(now, let's start the karma bashing...)

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[Anonymous Coward]

This Slashdot thread is about numbers, right?

I would suggest that level of income and motivation (e.g., going to the library as a form of entertainment and education) interact in the statistical sense. Consider two groups - the poor & middle class and take any number of measurements associated with motivation at two times with a significant interval. If income remains constant I would propose thas the lines on the graph significantly diverge. Yes, there are exceptions but the interaction of the 2x2 anova and potentially one of the main effects will be significant.

That's what I hypothesize. You on the other hand suggest a model based on a testimonial view of the world.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[edbulldog]

Funny. Where I live, the poverty line is below the $3,000 dollars a year for a whole family. No welfare, no food stamps, no subzides, no nothing. No TV, either.

"Society made me do it" is not and will never be a completly valid excuse.

People just can't realize their good luck, do they?

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but if you're a girl, and you're hot, it doesn't matter if you're broke. Because you won't be broke for long.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your argument is essentially the substantive point made by the phrase "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Of course, if you don't have boots to begin with it's certainly a lot harder, and it also helps if your parents own a boot-making company. Point is, just because it's possible and *some* people manage to rise above factors that play against them, there are *many* more who never do... and that should be expected.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[eepok]

It really seems as though you missed the whole part about the lack of push for education. Luckily, my escape from that life was education. I did well, went to college, graduated, and am currently working for a public university system increasing the college going culture in underpriveleged neighbohoods and poverty-stricken cities.

I never said anyone didn't know what it's like. Anyone can so long as they take a second, remove the blinders from their current states of mind, and simply imagine what it would be like living in that situation without the educational or social capital that you obviously have now. We all do it by reading books and imagining ourselves as the hero, villian, etc. Try it in this situation.

No one blamed society. My testimony apparently struck an off-topic cord with you. My response to the parent of my post was a contradiction of HIS/HER incorrect observation that he was passing on as fact. Yes, I can easily consider this flamebait, but it really seems as though this affected you in a very offensive way so I decided to further clarify.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[eepok]

Seriously, that is a pretty good summary. In my experience (life and work), peoples' futures are just as endangered by their actual situation as they are their ignorance of ways to help themselves. Poor and uneducated parents rarely raise kids that respect the powers of education without a strong outside influence.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[eepok]

Very well put. If I had mod points, I would mod you up.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[eepok]

You know, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were wholeheartedly agreeing with my post. The only problem is that you convey it in such a disdain for people in poverty, you pollute what the moral of the story is.

You're right about entertainment. I never said it was good. I explained why poor people (like my old family) have cheap entertainment (cable TV). There's a big difference between reasons and justification.

Yes, fast food and McDo = bad. I never had McDo until I went to college. Never had the money to pay for it. Cigarettes on the other hand are smoked on the basis of addiction and thus their purchase could be understood (though not justified).

Some people make it out. I did. But you're still missing the point of my post which was to argue the parents lack of comprehension that life below the poverty line is not easy.

You make a mostly true post, but you wrote it in a tone that would convey that you are arguing against me, when you actually wrote for the same points I did.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[eepok]

A couple points real quick:

You missed the whole lack of culture of education part. Poor uneducated families bring up similar children because their survival situations often require other actions to be taken. Example: Getting a long-hour afterschool job to help support the family.

How would you even expect uneducated and depressed parents to walk their kids to a library? It's different. You can imagine it. It's not difficult. You imagine all the time within books and games and movies.

Imagine having no social capital, no money to move out of a poverty-stricken city. Imagine not having no marketable skills. Now imagine having children. Imagine what it would be like to not get a job in a city of no jobs. Imagine what it would be like to have your children be ill and not be allowed to see a doctor because you used up all your doctor points already.

See, it's not hard. Now, in your honest opinion, can you say that it would be probable that a parent in this situation would come to an epiphany of "Oh! Let me send my kids to the library."

Ya, didn't think so.

Next time try writing a useful post.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA

[Magius_AR]

I lived with a family of 6 whose yearly average of taxable income of $14,000 (c.2000). We received welfare ($600/month), food stamps ($250/month), and received subsidized rent via HUD ($-400/month). As you can tell, we were below the poverty line.

Your parents were retards and you were made to suffer for it. You should have been taken from your parents and given to a sane family instead of one of neglect.

First of all, if someone is damn near broke in the first place, why are they having 6 kids?
Secondly, that $1250/month in FREE MONEY you just accounted for is nothing to scoff at...that's $15,000 in post-tax income a year...and not even WORKING for it.

I'm not in the poverty category...I'm decently well off. I bring in maybe $3000 a month post-tax, $500+/month of which goes to college debt which I'll be laden with for a good 15 years.

So couple your stated existing ~$1000/month salary with the $1250/month in free money you get, and our "family incomes" aren't too different, especially since my taxes are guaranteed to be higher.
The difference is that I wasn't dumb enough to have 6 kids and try to support them on such a salary.

Lastly, why not get a different job? Higher salaries can EASILY be found, even for the uneducated. Hell, waiters/waitresses easily made that kind of salary circa 2000 PRE-tips. And all the rest of their tip income is under-the-table and untaxed!

There's ALWAYS options...move to a cheaper area (what the hell are you doing living in California?!?), get a higher paying job, have both parents work, stop fucking breeding.
Instead, we have security blankets like welfare around to give people just enough leech money to have a few more kids.

The only pity you'll get from me is pity that your parents were so freakin dumb that you children had to suffer for it.
They, on the other hand, deserve their fate. Frankly, they probably deserve worse...they're leeching off society and harming children in the process.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct formula is

(Mathematics)/(ematic) = Maths

Ignorant comments

[fizteh89]

Have you ever worked in academia ? Apparently not.

Most of the mathematical publications coming out of universities these days are complete and utterly useless junk.
The only goal is to get tenure by publishing a lot of junk.
What lasting impact on humanity are you talking about ?
The thing (academic career in math) is f****** broken...

Re:Ignorant comments

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say, I basically agree with you. The academic math situation is a mess right now. And yes, I am currently employed as a mathematician in academia.

The "publish or perish" mentality occurs throughout academia, not just in math, but it seems to be worse in math. At least in other fields there may be something socially useful in the hurried reserach that gets churned out as professors attempt to meet the quotas for publishing to get tenure. It just doesn't seem to be the case in math. The vast majority of it is just terrible. People will claim that you can't always know if something that appears useless now will have some application later, and while that is technically true, the "rate of return" in the case of modern "pure" mathematics just isn't very high, and I doubt it ever will be. The few success stories (e.g. algebraic geometry, differential geometry) of old fields with newfound applications mask the fact that the vast majority of mathematics still hasn't found any use, besides allowing math professors to get tenure.

At some point society is bound to ask "Is it worth spending our tax dollars to fund all this pure math research on the hope that someday a very small percentage of it will produce some tangible benefits to society?". It appears to me that this is happening right now, and the answer seems to be "no". I've already seen some evidence of universities trying to move in a more "applied" direction, as they compete for funding. For example, my alma mater (which shall remain nameless:) just hired a bunch of professors from the ranks of private industry (all from the same company, in fact). These were all people with Ph.Ds in math who were working in applied math fields. I think this trend will only continue, especially now with all the downsizing in large companies. A lot of highly educated people with years of practical experience are running for the (perceived) job safety of academia over private industry.

Personally, I'd like to see much more collaboration of mathematicians with people in other fields. There have been some interesting results with that in the area of biology, which is great. I think it would also spur entirely new and interesting fields of math that would've been hard to come up with by following a "pure" approach.

Yes

[tacokill]

Yea, it'll be even funnier when the rest of the world leapfrogs us.

I don't seem to see that "bias" over in Korea. Or India. Or half a dozen other "asian tigers". But of course, since we're American, we're the best.

Right? RIGHT?

Re:The Pure Profession - Doesn't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

That looks vaguely like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, except that Whorf was predominately discussing the limitations imposed because of the natural language that you think in. You latter go on to dismiss a big part of this by suggesting that you in fact think in abstract concepts. You then convert those 'ideas' into language to communicate them. You probably find at times that it can be difficult to express the concepts in your mind using the language you're using to communicate, so that others can understand them. This is one of reasons Sapir-Whorf has fallen out of favor, because while language can culture as any experience likely influences the manner in which you process reality, it does not limit your ability to process reality. There's that and the intellectual dishonesty of Whorf and his Eskimos have Four Bajillion Words for Snow fabrication, that still gets dragged around today by people that don't know any better.

Yeah, that sucks...

[fizteh89]

Being a Ph.D. sucks the most.

Flush your Ph.D down the toilet, get into some IT and software related consulting venture and your financial prospects will greatly improve...

Re:Yeah, that sucks...

[Lakedemon]

I guess so :D I actually flushed the PH D down the toilet (damn useless thing). I ended up teaching for wannabe engineer student = good pay for 15 hours of work a week, and I use my hoard of free time to work on other projects (music at the moment :D..., but would n't be against mathematician for hire consulting work....greedy me :D )

Math has always been a necessity

[cnerd2025]

The simple fact is that only a small percentage of the population has the requisite knowledge of mathematics, and only a small percentage of them have the passion and drive to pursue math even further. I am one of those mathephiles, and I'm proud of it. The problem with the article is that non-mathletes don't necessarily understand mathletes. It raises privacy problems and such as problems in the mathematical world, but the real fact is, math really does nothing to avert privacy. Maty can be used to devise algorithms which may or may not undermine privacy. The real fact is, however, that overzealous entrepreneurs will attempt to bastardize the good applications of math for their own ill gain. I don't really see a problem with the mathematical progress we make. I personally think that if businesses use math, and consumers are too stupid to realize they are being pimped, for lack of a better term, by industry, then they deserve what they get. I will still be an alert person and protect my privacy by being careful. There is no substitute for common-sense.

The other problem I have is that we need to lure women and "ethnic minorities" into mathematics. Sure, it would be wonderful if there were more female mathematicians. But we can't simply set up a quota system for mathematicians. This is more of a society problem than education or anything. Big entertainment has put out this message that being intelligent is "uncool," especially when one is good at math. In fact, society scorns illiterates, but people brag about inneptities in mathematics. Look at the news media. They are preaching about this avian flu, but their already fragile case for hysteria is flattened by their fouled up statistics (no pun intended). They say the mortality rate is something like 75%. With a logistic growth model, that would knock off huge amounts of the population in its second stage, which has definitely not happened yet. But if you look at the sources of their statistics, they only accounted for people who have been confirmed with avian flu, and specifically those who died or were critically ill. The actual numbers of people who have been infected is probably much higher, and in past years many people have probably been affected by it and then overcame it, thinking it was a "normal" flu. With these people taken into account, the true mortality rate is probably much less. The lack of math knowledge in the media is terrible, because these people just utter words that they think they understand. "Mortality rate" is the ratio of deaths (with respect to something) per 1000 people. If you looked up infant mortality rate, it would be quoted as "n deaths per 1000 live births". When society en masse becomes more attentive to mathematics, then we will start to see women enter the field.

'Ethnic minorities' was the phrase that stumped me. Why do we beat around the bush and use this PC "ethnic minority" crap? I work in a physics lab with physicists, enginneers, and mathematicians. Its like the friggin' UN in there. A guy from Thailand, one from India, a Pacific Islander, a guy from China, a black guy, then two white guys (another guy and I) all work in an office. There is no clear majority! The only real fact is that we're all men. What pisses me off is that we can't say "we wish more blacks would enter the mathematics field," we have to say "we hope 'ethnic minorities' enter mathematics." Ethnic minorities are distributed all throughout mathematics in the US. Asians, Indians, and Arabs are all present in mathematical fields. Maybe when ignorance by the media is overcome, and the real truth is confronted, then we'll see mathematics interest really spike across the board.

Re:The Pure Profession (OT)

[voidphoenix]

Love the sig, cracked me up. Thanks XD

you should read:

[YesIAmAScript]

When Genius Failed by Roger Lowenstein
and
Fortune's Formula by William Poundstone

Both speak of how Wall Street (and hedge funds in particular) use mathematicians. Both show how those legends you speak of really turned out. Both are very good books (one of them is great), although it sounds like you might be turned off by the general tone of them and the conclusions reached.

I have to warn you, the story isn't pretty. Frankly, I think the major thing Wall Street does is use mathematicians to devise systems (the 18th century France definition of system) to "make money" on the market. In reality, just like martingale, they're creating systems that appear to make money but in reality just yield tiny profits countered with the occasional enormous loss that is much larger than the profits. They're still losing money, it just appears they're not when the mathematical series hasn't run its course.

Re:you should read:

[Anonymous Coward]

Except in the case of LTCM, the models were right. The prediction that the market would correct itself did eventually happen. The problem was that the model did not take into account that the fund would run out of capital before that happened.

"Pocketing" money

[SeanAhern]

One thing that I don't get... Why is "pocketing" money a bad thing? No one ever actually "pockets" money. They just about always spend it on something else. Even if it's just putting it in the bank so they can build up interest for later, it's actually giving it to the bank to spend on something else. Money never sits in once place, unless you actually secret it away in your mattress.

And it's that movement of money that helps everyone. The increase in the movement of money, the "acceleration" of the economy, as it were, helps increase the economy and provide the resources for better wages, better technology, all of the "better" things that people have been mentioning in this discussion.

some friendly advice

[fliptout]

Seriously, I have this same sort of problem, but the problem is not what you say, it is in the delivery. People are not receptive to intellectual snootiness, even if you did not intend it that way. Instead of a terse "excel is crap, mathematica is much more leet" type of reply, say something along the lines of "I can use Excel, and it is a very useful tool. However, oftentimes I need some extra functionality I can get with only with Mathematica, like the ability to solve differential equations." Learn to talk with people, not down to people. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but get over it and yourself.

I'm trying to do the same.

The "color tv" argument again

[g0hare]

I gave away 3 working color tv's last year. Of course poor people have a color TV, a "color tv" is WORTHLESS, unless it's brand new and over 32", hell, I bought a 32" at a yard sale for $5.

Re:The "color tv" argument again

[yndrd1984]

Which is the whole point. Things that were expensive or even non-existant 50 years ago are now, for all practical purposes, free. Even poor people benefit from technological progress.

Re:The Pure Profession - Doesn't get it

[danlex]

"In "Incompleteness" by Rebecca Goldstein, she talks about writers in the philosophy of mind that have taken the Incompleteness Theorems to mean that the human brain computes in a fundamentally different manner than a Turing machine. After all, it's hard to even imagine how human language could fail to describe a truth condition. And of course if that's the case, human language must be something truly and completely different than formal language."

One simple counterargument against this is that all the incompleteness results are talking about infinite sets of formulas. The set of all true sentences of arithmetic with less than n symbols, where n is, say, the number of particles in the universe, is decidable (because it is finite).

So are these people are claiming that humans can decide the truth of sentences of arbitrary length? Human lifetime or number of neurons should lead to an upper bound.

(Sorry if I got something wrong technically; it has been a while since i last looked at logic/computability)

extract tone information from a recording...

[fizteh89]

"extract tone information from a recording"...

Hm, how many US patent are you infringing ?
Never mind, just joking...

Good luck with selling your software to an eagerly waiting customer...

Hard to credit it

[MegaFur]

Man, either this thing is made up, or that contractor was immensely stupid. Yeah, I realize not everyone is a geek, but like other people here have mentioned there's the good ol' 3, 4, 5 right triangle for squaring an angle. See, I'm not in construction, but I used to listen to Adam Carolla who has done a lot of construction work and he mentioned the 3-4-5 rule.

There's this general principle that people tend to learn and remember things that help them do their job better, regardless of whether they know or care about math or science at all. So maybe that guy learned something new that day, but if so, it's really kinda sad. I would've thought that he would have picked up the rule quite a long while ago already. Oh well.

Learning more math

[swimmar132]

My highest level of math was Calculus 3. But, when I was in school, I'd learn just enough to do well on the tests. I never really "understood" the math at a deep level. So now, when I'm doing stuff that would actually use it, I feel disadvantaged. Hell, I've forgotten what sine and cosine mean completely.

What's a good way for people like me to go back and relearn math to really understand it?

Re:Learning more math

[jim_deane]

I would highly recommend the Schaum's Outline series. I'm a physicist, and I have quite a few of them on my shelf next to my textbooks.

They are extremely useful for reviewing material that you once new, and they're not too bad as a text for exploring things you've never formally learned.

Jim

Re:Learning more math

[jim_deane]

They are extremely useful for reviewing material that you once new...

I can not believe that I made such a brain-melting spelling error. I can't even attribute it to mis-typing, unless my K key stuck. Oh, the embarassment...

About the math "bounty"

[fizteh89]

There is a "bounty" for solving any really useful math problem:
it's called US Patent..

But to claim this bounty you have to be rather well-to-do financially in the firsty place and live long enough...

I am not aware of any other kind of "bounty" in existence...

I am a freelancer mathematician

[coult]

I am a freelancer mathematician (see http://www.northcountrynumerics.com/) . I work in seismic exploration, and also defense-related industries. I don't think it is possible to do this kind off work without having lots of personal connections, though; clients don't want to entrust some random person they've met once with a difficult and important mathematics problem. My work with my clients is much more like an academic collaboration (without the annoying emphasis on publications, though ironically I have more time for publication now than I did when I was in academia) than it is like an engineering or software development task.

The projects are also usually quite specialized, so you can't really walk in and solve someone's problem unless you aren't already quite knowledgeable in that particular sub-field of mathematics, and have a proven record of solving problems in that area.

Re:I am a freelancer mathematician

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the above poster. I am friends with a freelance mathematician. He works for the nuclear industry, and knows a great deal about computer programming, nuclear physics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and chemistry. On top of that he has many personal connections.

So yeah, it seems possible but you really need to be knowledgeable in other fields as well.

Re:FIRST POST EAT SHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

They do? Okay, I'll take your word for it.

Check your garage

[fizzyabbo]

I'm no geometry expert, but the reason that they actually measure the diagonals and make them equal is to ensure that the square shape that they measure out is actually square -- or that there are 90 degree corners. Not doing so wiil result in huge problems.

By instructing them to use the pythagorean theorem, you are allowing them to implicity assume that your corners are in fact true. Perhaps you should double check your garage's corner angles.

Re:Check your garage

[yndrd1984]

Maybe I misunderstood you post, but the point of using the pythagorean theorem was to determine the length of the diagonal so they only have to measure it once, rather than measure both a bunch of times.

Income =asskissing +taking abuse+stealing

[lazy genes]

There is no other way to profit in this closed system we call earth.It is how evolution works.Nothing more please move along.

*Sigh*

[Stalyn]

I quote from [1].

1. The class of axioms and the rules of inference (i.e. the relation "immediate consequence of") are recursively definable (as soon as basic signs are replaced in any fashion by natural numbers).
2. Every recursive relation is definable in the system P (in the sense of Proposition V).
Hence in every formal system that satisifies assumptions 1 and 2 and is omega-consistent, undecidable propositions exist of the form (x)F(x), where F is a recursively defined property of natural numbers, and so too in every extenstion of such a system made by adding recursively definable omega-consistent class of axioms. As can be easily confirmed, the systems which satisfy assumptions 1 and 2 include Zermelo-Fraenkel and the v. Neumann axiom systems of set theory, and also the axiom system of number theory which consists of the Peano axioms, the operation of recursive definition [according to schema ] and the logical rules.

This is normally referred to as Gödel's first incompleteness theorem. Which you incorrectly summarized as Yet, there are statements in math that we know we can neither prove nor disprove

Provablity is rather a quality possesed by a proposition within a formal system. If a proposition cannot be proved or disproved within a system we call it independent (or undecidable). An example is the continuum hypothesis, c=aleph 1. This statement can not be proved or disproved within Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with(out) the Axiom of Choice. Also it must be noted not all axiom systems are strong enough to include undecidable statements.

What Gödel's first incompleteness theorem states is that we will never have a finite list of axioms which constitutes a consistent system that can prove or disprove every mathematical statement. It means we will have a plurality of deductive systems which cover many different domains. However there will always be some statement, known or not, out of our reach. In other words, knowledge is limitless.

I don't think this in any way takes away from the power of mathematics. But shows the limited abilities of human beings or rather the immensity of the universe.

[1] Gödel, Kurt. On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems. Dover Publications, New York. pg 62

Re:*Sigh*

[Tyler Durden]

What Gödel's first incompleteness theorem states is that we will never have a finite list of axioms which constitutes a consistent system that can prove or disprove every mathematical statement. It means we will have a plurality of deductive systems which cover many different domains.

But that means we can have different axiomatic systems such that the answer to a statement can be "true" in one and "false" in another. Then if someone wants to ask, "But what is the real answer?" all we can do is shrug our shoulders and reply, "Mu." This can be disconcerting to some who believe in the certainty of mathematics.

I don't think this in any way takes away from the power of mathematics. But shows the limited abilities of human beings or rather the immensity of the universe.

Wrong. It has nothing to do with the limited abilities of human beings but the limitations of pure logic itself. It doesn't matter if the beings trying to figure shit out is us, some advanced alien race or God Almighty Himself. There are limitations to the set of things that can be known.

Re:*Sigh*

[Stalyn]

But that means we can have different axiomatic systems such that the answer to a statement can be "true" in one and "false" in another. Then if someone wants to ask, "But what is the real answer?" all we can do is shrug our shoulders and reply, "Mu." This can be disconcerting to some who believe in the certainty of mathematics.

What it means is we can have multiple deductive systems to describe different domains. I see this as an expressive power. We not only have Euclidean geometry but also non-Euclidean geometries which proved to be crucial in the theory of relativity. If someone asks "what is the real answer?" it depends on the question itself. It depends on what domain you are talking about. This idea of "global" mathematics is what Gödel defeated.

Wrong. It has nothing to do with the limited abilities of human beings but the limitations of pure logic itself. It doesn't matter if the beings trying to figure shit out is us, some advanced alien race or God Almighty Himself. There are limitations to the set of things that can be known.

What Gödel's incompleteness theorem states can also be said for every human endeavor. As for God, I'm not going to try to figure out what are the limits of an infinite being. Because partly Gödel showed those things to be inaccessible to us.

Re:Statistics and the interpretation of probabilit

[Sockatume]

I see your point, even with the Wikipedia articles that went straight over my head.

It Got Me Laid!

[Anonymous Coward]

One day while studying with for calculus class a hot chick classmate, I sang (apologies to Oscar-Meyer Wieners, Inc.):

I wish we were continuous functions,
that is what we really ought to be,
for if we were continuous functions,
we could be integrated legally.

She immediately suggested we leave off the higher-order terms in my Taylor's expansion and integrate anyway!

This same babe who got turned on by "insertion sorts" but that's a story for another day.

My preview key is "climax"! Amazing!

just like martingale...

[YesIAmAScript]

If you have unlimited capital and no betting limit, you cannot lose.

But LTCM didn't have unlimited capital and did have a betting limit (you can't make a bet larger than the rest of the world is willing to take the other side on).

LTCM was betting martingale. That they had two Nobel prize winners and 250 more years of advancement and still ended up with a system that only works as well as martingale is both in indication of the level of foolishness on Wall Street and a real indication of the difficulty (possibility?) of beating the market with a system.

Anyway, if you read the book (better yet, both), you can see that even if they had a few mathematical equations saying they were right, there's a lot more reasons they were actually wrong. The complexity of the markets is sufficient that you can make an equation showing how safe you are and still be wrong. Your equation is either built on incorrect assumptions or fails to include other factors that turn out to be important.

LTCM was wrong mainly because they were using far too much leverage and thought it was okay because they thought they had multiple independent "wagers" that thus lowered their risk, because the likelihood of two independent failures of their system was very low, and they figured they could survive 3 or more! The problem is their wagers were not really independent and so more than 3 went south at once. They fooled themselves. They were fools, not victims of circumstance.

Here's the one most importance in "When Genius Failed". LTCM's return on working capital was smaller than that of a savings account. Their real trick was being able to borrow capital at such low prices. If they had deposited their borrowed capital in savings accounts they would have made more money faster and not lost their butts either. What geniuses.

Re:just like martingale...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. The problem with LTCM is that they (and hence their models) only understood price risk--not liquidity risk. When liquidity dried up, so did LTCM.

Impact?

[AiY]

The impact was to cause me to get a BMath degree...

Parent's Fault, not Society

[ranton]

I am sorry that your child life was so horrible, but there is no way that it was society's fault that you had it so bad. In your case it is very obvious that it was your parent's fault. Families like these are a drain on our society, and I do not think it is the job of the government to help them out.

First off, 6 KIDS !?!?!?! Stop having kids damn it. If you can barely feed yourselves then do not have kids. I can understand having a couple of "mistakes", but 6 kids? That is both irresponsible and reckless. Instead of trying help their children have better lives, they kept popping out more kids so that you all could have as few opportunities as possible. Maybe some of you turned out fine, but that would be nothing but luck and statistical anomolies.

And a total income of $14000? One parent working full time at $6.75 an hour makes $14k a year. I started working at the age of 15 at a fast food place making $5.75 in 1995. Any adult that cannot make more than $6.75 an hour is incompetent. I worked in fast food for about 5 years total in my life, and knew many adults still stuck in basically minimum wage jobs. Every last one of them were in such positions because they were incapable of actually being useful citizens and holding a decent job.

Any family making $14k a year total is lazy. You cannot blame society or technology because 2 people are irresponsible and lazy.

And before you start calling me some spoiled rich kid, my dad was a small farmer and we did not have much money until I was a teenager. My mother is intelligent, but my father isnt exactly a smart guy (he never got past arithmetic in high school). But my dad was a very hard worker and at least made more than enough to provide for us, even though he didnt own the land he worked on.

I am sure there were factors that would have made it very difficult for your parents to become middle class. But there was nothing keeping them that poor other than themselves.

Re:Parent's Fault, not Society

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of your social commentary may be right on the mark...but let me think for a moment.........and the word "testimonial" comes to mind. What did I hear about the demand for mathematical and statistical skills. Yours was an editorial from the pulpit.

Re:Parent's Fault, not Society

[ranton]

Wow, I have to say that I do not understand what you mean by your post. Many of the words you choose to use have so many connotations that I cannot tell what you are trying to communicate.

First you seam to agree with me, but that may just be sarcasm that is hard to pick up on with your short post. Your comment about my post being a "testimonial" shows that you may think I am just trying to affirm my own beliefs regardless of what the GP posted.

Then you talk about "the demand for mathematical and statistical skills." I dont see what that had to do with either my post or the GP, other than maybe the fact that I used math to figure out how little his parents must have earned.

Lastly you refer to me as speaking from a "pulpit", which means you probably think I am just lecturing. That may be true, but I do not think that means my point is not valid.

Do you have any further insight as to what your post meant?

--

Re:Parent's Fault, not Society

[HyperTiger]

"Then you talk about "the demand for mathematical and statistical skills." I dont see what that had to do with either my post or the GP, other than maybe the fact that I used math to figure out how little his parents must have earned." The mathematical skills comment is probably trying to relate your post to the main article.

Re:Parent's Fault, not Society

[eepok]

A couple of your comments (between the emotional outbursts) were pretty on spot. The problem with your response to my post is that it strayed too far from my argument on my comment's parent post. --I never said 6 kids. It was father, mother, 3 kids, and the eldest's bastard child. The father was a disabled Vietnam vet, the mother was a middle-school educated seasonal worker at a state park, the eldest couldn't work as she was taking care of her newborn, I worked in the summer while keeping myself competitively eligible for university application, and the youngest had just gotten into middle school. --- You didn't care to leave anything thing open, ranted, and then sounded like a looney. -- Ya, 14k. She was a seasonal worker making a little more than minimum wage. Why couldn't they provide better? They had zero qualifications and limited reading abilities. Beyond that, it was a poverty stricken area. If sufficient jobs were available, it wouldn't be so poverty stricken, would it? The lack of ability to provide sufficiently drove them to many forms of escape. But, my response to the parent (nor this response to a response) isn't about me, it's about the numbers of households that are very similar due to their living below the poverty line. --- You really have to remember that we are talking about my comment's parent who said that living below the poverty line is not difficult and easy to leave. You in no way intended to argue my views, so why respond? -- Key words that make your post easily ignorable: lazy, blame, nothing .... you used these hyperboles in places that only hurt your argument. Come on... make a useful post.

Re:Parent's Fault, not Society

[ranton]

While I see that I made a mistake regarding how many kids there were in the family, that doesnt change anything in my post. While 3 kids is not as irresponsible as 6 kids, it is definetly not responsible to have 3 kids when you are in such poverty.

First off, use protection (it is incredibly cheap if not free in some cases). Second, you can have an abortion. It probably isnt cheap, but I bet it is alot less expensive than raising a child until they are 18. If you are against abortion, you can put a baby up for adoption. A baby will be adopted incredibly easily, it is 2/3 year olds that are tough. That goes for your oldest sister too, not just your parents.

And if your father was actually disabled, then you would have been recieving money from the government. One of my uncles and a friend's dad were both disabled in Vietnam (though they could still hold a job), and they got some disability payments. Average disability payments are about $8k a year. If you are 100% disabled (meaning you cannot hold a job), it is about $26,000 a year.

The problem with your response to my post is that it strayed too far from my argument on my comment's parent post.

My post did not stray any further from your post than you did from the GP post. All he implied was that people below the poverty line still have opportunites that people in most of the world would kill for. He just said that "poor" people still usually have cars and TVs and medical care. He never said that being poor was easy. The point of the GP post that you first responded to was that we throw around the term "poverty" far too freely.

The entire point of all of these posts is in response to the GGP post, which stated that technology takes jobs away from the poor and gives them to the educated. I agree that this is true, but my post was in response to my belief that this is not a bad thing. It is not the job of society to help the "poverty" stricken any more than we already do. Life is still not that bad for the "poor", and most of the time it is their own fault that they are "poor" in the first place.

I still do not see why my post was irrelevant. I agree that I did not argue against you, I merely added insight. I think that makes it a valid post.

Key words that make your post easily ignorable: lazy, blame, nothing

Why do these words make it ignorable? I think I gave very valid reasons why I believe that your parents were probably lazy, that they were the only ones to blame, and that society had nothing to do with your situation.

So why again why my post not useful?

--

Impact vs Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

"How has mathematics, statistics and other number driven aspects of life impacted you in the last decade?""

Not at all. It has had an effect on me however.

It is physically impossible for mathematics to impact anything. Mathematics is an abstract concept, not a physical object.

Meteors and molars can impact, mathematics cannot.

Very Good!

[Tibor the Hun]

Now if only you can learn to coach baseball you'd have all the makings of a great Highschool math and typing teacher!

Bah

[Xophmeister]

I am a recent mathematics graduate and obtained a masters from one of the best departments in England... Don't give me any of that "in demand" bull - it took me months to get a job that any idiot could do. They wouldn't even let me be a teacher (those who can do, those who can't teach!). I'm still looking for something better!

Aha!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Some of us like systems coding more (or gasp business apps) and this stuff really doesn't do anything for us.

So you're the reason that the code running our machines has a section of 60ish lines like this:

if (i==0) k=0;
if (i==1) k=4; /* 60 or so more lines snipped */

Rather than k=i*4;

And no, I'm not kidding. I wish I were...

Re:Aha!

[Anonymous Coward]

if (i==0) k=0;
if (i==1) k=4; /* 60 or so more lines snipped */

And no, I'm not kidding. I wish I were...

Dammit... you caught me! Next time I'll use a switch statement.

Before I do a masters I'll go back and take number theory, advanced analysis, and abstract algebra.

Agreed

[jgardn]

My 4 year-old son can add, subtract, and multiply. He even understands how to add, subtract, and multiple negative numbers. He is always pestering me to teach him more. We bought a book for 1st graders on math and reading. He cracks it open and points to a page and demands that I teach it to him so he can do the work.

I think there is a chemical released in the brain upon learning a new principle that is addictive. The "smart" kids have discovered this and are addicted to it. They have an insatiable thirst for knowledge. I find myself up to 1 o'clock in the morning reading a book on parsers not because I need to learn it but because I want that high from learning.

School should be about bringing this chemical out, and getting kids addicted to it. It should be about opening horizons and teaching skills necessary for learning more. Unfortunately, one of the industries in our country that has mastered this is the video gaming industry. I play video games to learn new skills, like how to play a particular game. These skills are largely irrelevant in real life, however. That is, unless I want to be a race-car driver or a fighter pilot.

In my experience, the reason kids hate school is not because learning is no fun, but because no learning takes place at school. As I work with the school board and district in our local town to encourage them to challenge the students, I see a tremendous amount of inertia in the teachers. They know they are not doing a good job, but any criticism is unwarranted, and anything that might make their jobs better and more enjoyable and more productive is anti-teacher. New teachers have some energy, some spark of wanting to do something right, but the culture in our schools quickly extinguish that.

As a mechie...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a mechie, I'm required to take:

* Calc I-III
* Linear algebra
* ODE
* Vector calc
* PDE
* Numerical methods
* "Signals," which is really just a class on transform methods in disguise

I've also done a finite element class that involved no software, definitely some higher math there. Out of the above, I would say that linear algebra is the most critical to master. A survey of recent grads supports that, as apparently linear algebra and ODE are the most important branches of math to the mechanical engineer practicing in industry.

Two years out of pure calculus, I was unpleasantly surprised yesterday by a signals review involving ugly integrations -- the focus in ME is much more on differential calculus than integral calculus, and the more I thought about that, the more I realized how true it is. Any potentially nasty integrals are almost always trivialized by geometry, i.e. this is a sphere, this is a cube, this is a pipe. Sure, I can understand why this is done -- they want you to do 10 problems per week instead of four. And it didn't take me long to review for signals, either. But I wasn't nearly as off-the-cuff as I was expecting.

I often feel kind of cheated, because when I see the way stuff is presented at the graduate level, even though it's much more complex on the surface, at the end it almost always makes more sense than the sanitized crap that makes its way into undergraduate courses. I really strongly feel that I need to go to graduate school in order to be useful. I was looking at exam prep books for the Engineer In Training exam, and while the breadth is somewhat intimidating, the depth is almost pathetic. I guess that's kind of the point, though.

Unfortunately, even armed with all of this theory, my friends with internships tell me that most of the "engineering" work they do is back of the envelope type stuff that then gets fed into NASTRAN or something. Which kind of makes me not want to go be a design engineer...

Lower cost? Not to the customer, it didn't!

[hlh_nospam]

The subcontractor in question already had his bid accepted, so the money he saved by firing one of his helpers went directly to his bottom line, not to the person who taught him how to do it. In the long run, the cost reductions might lead to winning more bids by being able to bid lower, but this time (and probably for the next several times), the subcontractor just made more money. The phenomenon you cited only occurs in a "frictionless" marketplace, which does not actually exist anywhere.

Very interesting article

[LarryIsMe]

This was a very interesting article. It explains the trends that I am seeing. In April of last year, I started a math-focused blog: http://fermatslasttheorem.blogspot.com/ To be honest, I thought that no one would be interested. Instead, I am seeing the number of unique visitor rise by 10-20% each month. I think that the bar is rising on the amount of mathematics that each of us are expected to know. It will be very interesting to see what happens with Google Analytics, Omniture, and other web-based analytical engines. Cheers, -Larry

Math after school

[Lord_Dweomer]

I've never been great at math and haven't taken it since high school (thank you art college!)...but I've wanted to give it another shot, having never taken calculus. I was wondering if anybody could recommend some books on algebra and calculus for adults. Preferably a visual guide since just reading about numbers does not work for me. I need visual representations.

Re:Math after school

[nandu_prahlad]

I highly recommend Finney and Thomas' Calculus. It's very visual and easy to understand. Good luck.

Re:Math after school

[aduzik]

I think the thing that would help you understand mathematics better is altering your approach to it. When I was in 8th grade, I took Algebra and while I did well in the course and came out with a good grade, I didn't really understand it. Imagine my surprise, then, as a freshman in high school taking Geometry -- a far more rigorous and abstract course. About halfway through the year I started to learn that the trick to understanding geometry was not to memorize postulates and theorems -- although that certainly doesn't hurt -- but instead to think on a more abstract level. Instead of "three lines that intersect" I started to see a triangle with three sides and three vertices. Once I got to that level the properties began to fall into place. I started to really "get" geometry.

As an undergrad, I took two geometry courses -- I was lucky enough to go to a university that offered two geometry courses to undergrads -- and I did really well in both of them. As time went on I really started to regard mathematics as far more powerful and beautiful.

All romantic notions about mathematics aside, I can offer you a few good pieces of advice about learning about mathematics as an adult. There are a number of "for Dummies" books out there dealing with algebra, trigonometry, analysis (my personal favorite) and calculus. Spend a day at Barnes and Noble or someplace, or maybe even your library if your town has a good one and browse through these books. Look for books that give a lot of examples but are also rigorous. Even though the word "proof" makes most of the people I know recoil in horror, mathematical logic is the foundation for all of mathematics. Look for books that give you a good set of exercises (complete with solutions and perhaps even explanations of the solutions). You don't need tons of exercises, but you do need some that are really hard to really get you to think about mathematics in the right way.

The problem with "visual" guides is that the author's visual representation of an object isn't necessarily meaningful to all readers. Since you say that you like to learn things visually, you should try to build up your own representations of concepts. Mathematics beyond arithmetic becomes increasingly less involved with numbers and increasingly more a system about manipulating symbols. Many types of symbols don't lend themselves well to visual depiction, although you might be able to find a way that works for you. I actually think that calculus textbooks would do well to include more visual representations of certain fundamental concepts. I didn't really understand how limits worked until I drew some pictures for myself. Now if I were to look back on those pictures I'd probably laugh at them as a gross oversimplification of the way things work, but they can be a helpful learning tool in the beginning.

Another ingredient you will definitely need is patience. Learning about mathematics doesn't happen overnight. If you have the resources, you might check with your local college or university to see if you can hire a math tutor to help guide you through your studies. Then again, if you have the resources it might be best to take a course or two in the foundational stuff. I don't think I would want to try to learn calculus without an instructor of some kind to help me out. Maybe you're lucky enough to have a friend who, like me, could talk about mathematics (or computer science especially in my case) for hours and hours and would be excited to know that you want to improve your understanding of mathematics.

As your skills improve, you'll find that there are fewer and fewer "how-to" books for mathematics available and more textbooks. That's OK; by that point you should have an intuitive understanding of what you'll need to know to really understand a particular topic. You'll be better able to choose exercises from textbooks that will help you understand the concepts. You should work with the ideas in those books until you have an intuitive "feel" for them. It's hard to expl

Re:FIRST POST EAT SHIT

[drdewm]

I must admit that I detest and I am amused by these sorts of stupid first posts. Why people take the time and put forth the effort eludes me. But as I said it is somewhat amusing.

I would disagree

[another_drone]

I would disagree

With a bachelor or MS in math, you can go into actuarial sciences or software development. If you are looking at software development, you should consider getting a certification in whatever arena you are interested in. This will indicate to employers that you are serious and have some relevant background.

With an MS, there is such a glut of PhD's, it is very difficult to get a job teaching at any College or University. Again, I know this from personal experience and the many fellow Math graduate students (both MS and PhD) that I know.

Your best bet with an MS is essentially the same as a bachelors.Though you could pursue an applied graduate degree, e.g. MS in CS, an MBA, ect. Then you have demonstrated technical expertise along with more practical knowledge.

With a PhD... You can pursue high caliber jobs, but the supply/demand curve is so skewed get ready for teaching at a 2 year college. Then there are the previous options for listed for an MS.

Apparently math is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoth someone:

yearly average of taxable income of $14,000 ... a monthly cost of $25

Quoth the parent:

So, let me get this straight. You are with a ploor family, desperate for money, below the poverty line and getting helped by the state BUT they blow 20% of their income on cable?

Uh, that's about 2%, not 20%. Perhaps with better budgeting skills, you too could get by on a smaller budget.

More Vector Calculus, Less Financial BS!

[Bushido Hacks]

More people would be interested in Math if math teachers would teach more vector calculus instead of pussing out and making us study all this financial crap. I want to use math for Science not for Money!

Man as model builder

[smartmatterman]

Man/Woman is not only a tool builder; He/She is also a model builder. We build models to understand, predict, plan ... be these models in hour heads or via our machines: be they a small implementation of some physical effect, drawings on a cave wall, paper and pencil, an equation, or a simulation on a computer.

Recently I have been quite interested in "models" (I am not referring to the covergirl/coverboy kind). From one perspective, mathematics allows one to model "reality". There is always the concern of "truthfulness" or how well models afford us to "reason" about the real world. Here I am using the term "reason" to mean understanding and predicting in the "real world", both seen and unseen, by the human senses.

In the engineering sense, a model that allows a problem to be solved is usually good enough, whether or not it actually represents the real world.

Please more intelligent discussion!

smm

--

"Do not try to bend the spoon--that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the TRUTH." --The Matrix (Warner Brothers/Village Roadshow Pictures, 1999)

you can say that again

[Debiant]

Problem with statistics is that people are taugh diffrently how to interprenet them. Person who studies statistics may have diffrent kind of perspective than one who is mainly taugh how to apply them in business. Business schools cut corners in here lot.

But even that is not the whole story. There is huge diffrence how they are used. Lot of companies and organizations do lot of statistic and surveys that use them for pretty obscure reasons. I don't live in US, but a teacher in university told my friend in a course of statistics, that he stopped doing statistics for corporations as a consult because they mostly ended to trash bin. Some companies apparently just grew their R&D budget by doing research they really didn't have need, while others simply didn't want to even look them for some other reason. So he rather taugh in school than ended doing statistics for no apparent reason.

I'm also inclined to think that lot of CEO's and other decision makers have need to show some statistics of anything, just it looks they're top of something. Even if they aren't.

So there isn't necessary isn't awful lot of utilization of new statistic tools to something sensible. Lot of it can driven by sheer belief to statistic and need to look good. There is a demand sure, but is there a corresponding gain too?

Anyone got statistic for this?

This was first 'discovered' in, (sigh), 1950s...

[bsharma]

And it was called "Operation Research" - Short for "Military Operations Research" (yes, WWII era military). Folks studied, more than 20 years back: Linear programming, dynamic programming, queueing theory, simulation, inventory theory, game theory, miriad other optimization strategies/algorithms/heuristics. BW article is 50 years late! Without all that "math" how does IBM machine beat chess grandmaster, map human genome and discover drugs or heck, just how do you think a (CDMA - Code Division Multiple Access) cell phone works? using Fourier transforms, Viterbi (maximum likelihood estimator) coding, pseudo random numbers etc.,

Are you photogenic?

[Stoffel67]

...and do you have a brother in the FBI? Freelance crime solving--with math!

he could have laid off both ...

[Bananenrepublik]

He could have laid off both if you had told him that he doesn't need people holding both ends to get the triangle right -- the lengths of the sides determine the angles. The most efficient procedure would thus be: attach cord to a stake; measure desired length in one direction; attach measured length cord to another stake; measure two more cords to the two other lengths of the triangle; attach each one to a stake, it doesn't matter which; hold them tight, find the spot where they meet; voila, you've constructed a right-angled triangle with the desired sides. The fourth corner can be determined the same way again. Nowhere do you need a second person helping you.

Excellent.

[Inoshiro]

I will agree that mathematical models that we produce will be flawed and will have problems, but (with some exceptions) we can generally get "close enough" (such as in statistical applications, where a 95% confidence interval is enough, as you mentioned). However, I do not believe that math in general is flawed -- although our understanding may be.

Math, like physics or chemistry, is imuteable. We do not change it by understanding of it. What we consider math is just our understanding of what actually happens.

"But it's also useless to us except as it helps us understand the world around us, or model something we've obvserved, etc. There are still things it is wholely unconcerned with (but can be applied to in various situations)."

That is where I think you have something to learn. While math may seem, at first, to be unconnected except for use in models, it is not. Goedel's incompleteness theorem seems like it is not useful to someone with your point of view. However, Dr. Jurgensen has the CS POV where we see that not only do we have axiomatic systems about number theory, we see that when we organize problems into classes of ones we can solve in finite steps, we run across similar odd issues.

He has lecture slides up somewhere. His major findings are also published. I can't find the specific reference at the moment, but there is a string of publications up until 2005 that are mentioned in his most recent work.

From my own notes on his lecture slides:
"What does this mean?

* Independence is a wide-spread phenomenon.
* Independence seems to be a consequence of a deficit of information (we cannot gain information by deduction).
* The measure of information must be relativized ( instead of H).
* Proving (computing) cannot generate information, but can only make hidden information explicit. GIGO -- you only work with what is given.
* True and independent statements are no artifacts; independence is essentially independent of the particular formalization of the theory.

The question of whether there are many "interesting" true and independent statements remains unanswered.

Conjecture: It could be possible to prove that statements are correct merely in terms of their size and length related to the work."

So, as you see, an artifact of math affects information theory (indeed, they are almost the same once you get into the details). This affects the kinds of systems of logic we can build in computer science, and also what kinds of brain activity can exist if the human mind is at all like a Turing machine in terms of its ultimate implementation. I think that's important.

Math can seem to be unconnected, but the relationships are there.

Re:Excellent.

[Keck]

However, I do not believe that math in general is flawed -- although our understanding may be. Math, like physics or chemistry, is imuteable. We do not change it by understanding of it. What we consider math is just our understanding of what actually happens.

Here we maybe just have a semantic argument. (not to be confused with pedantic :) )
When I say 'Math' I don't mean "The immutable truth behind the universe, should one exist", I mean "the collection of things that have been discovered, realized, or approximated in such a way that they all got labeled 'math'". I think people with the former point of view are assuming a lot about the nature of what they're studying, with significant consequences at some point. I accept more readily the view that personal experience is the most real kind of reality, which has vast implications.

I'd argue the point that physics and chemistry don't change, too! It may just be that they change much too slowly for us to notice in our lifetimes, but that doesn't make it an insignificant point. There is a study that comes to mind that suggests that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is changing ever so slightly through time. This comes from the fact that all the major measurements (approximations) have all been increasing in direction, never backtracking! That's exciting to me, for some reason:

• http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalsci ence/constant_changing_010815.html
• http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/S peedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
• http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092

The notes you posted: half of it I find 'intuitively obvious', (which in my Physics classes meant the prof didn't have time or desire to prove something); the other half makes me want to read more of the original talk. If you find it let me know, I'll search otherwise.

I certainly don't find Goedel useless; Information Theory is just as useful to my mind as building bridges -- I don't consider the realm of the mind any less real than the physical world outside of it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I listed that...

[YesIAmAScript]

In that they didn't understand they couldn't always make the investements they wanted.

But you're wrong. Yes, they had serious problems with liquidity after things went bad. The market even conspired against them after they got in bad shape (that's even worse than no liquidity).

But the start of the problem was they made multiple wagers at the same time, assuming they couldn't all go south at once. They could survive one or even more going against them, but instead it turns out their bets were correlated and a large percentage did actually go south at once.

Since they were so highly leveraged that caused a serious problem with cash flow. They increased their leverage instead of unwinding their positions. Once they did decide to unwind their positions, they ran into liquidity problems (and worse).

So, their liquidity problems may have exacerbate their losses, but their foolishness was already shown by their monetary losses; they were already ruined.

I'm sure some people would reach a different conclusion, especially those who make their livings on Wall Street or hope to some day. But frankly, I think they're just deluding themselves too.

Wrong.

[C0llegeSTUDent]

>>But even in a society full of PhDs, some people have to do the menial jobs. Education explosion only leads to grade inflation, IMHO.

Imagine if all the people working at Wal-Mart had PhD's in computer science and electrical engineering. Do you think that "education explosion" would only lead to "grade inflation?"

We would probably see lots of sweet robots.

Where are these jobs?

[magisterx]

Where are all these jobs the article is talking about? I am about to leave the Army, and I have a degree in mathematics. While I have just started my job search(I still have more than 4 months before I'm available), I have not exactly had offers rolling in.

i think grandparent was joking -nt

[AndreyF]

If I were King...

[run2stone]

If I were a good King, I would first care about the current and future well being of my people and kingdom. Therefore, my metrics for decision making would begin with, "will this expand and improve the quality of my middle class?" This appears to be at the bottom of your logic as we are experiencing the largest shift of wealth from the middle class to the a very small, super wealthy class and the rest are heading south.