since i can't edit...
james watson mentions it in his interview with michael krasney on forum/npr
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R709261000
for streaming/download link to interview. there are disincentives to
but that kind of solution is unattractive to companies. so they whine, they bitch, they lobby for more h1b. well too bad. the situation is easy to solve with the proper incentives. the industry teaches lessons through its actions, and the kids have seen. what do they expect?
unlike the previous xbox this time theyown the ip, they can and will cost reduce the console until it is either break even or profitable. as for how can they afford it, microsoft is a very profitable company. they have a mountain of cash so they can afford it. sony on the other hand bleeds out of many of its divisions so its game profits basically are bled away to nothing. you can also wonder how long they can afford that as well.
bingo, and nurses are being paid a lot to boot. there is a nursing shortage in the us. and it will only get worse. as our population increases and gets older the health care system is going to become more and more important. it is job security, and the benefits are good. there is ample opportunity there, not something that can be said for a lot of tech jobs where its all about short term thinking and uncertainty. who knows when the next bust will be, or when off shoring will become even more effective. you could become older and suddenly jobless with worthless skill sets. not something that will happen in the medical field for the foreseeable future. there is a lack of respect for tech workers, to the business managers they are just monkey workers. if theres a shortage then things may change, until then, who cares really. let the market sort it out. supply..demand. and yea its funny how every job opening requires job experience:P the companies are fighting over a subsection of possible workers, they don't want to train anyone. their complaining is mostly crying wolf.
treat workers. burn them out young, work them to the bone, then fire them when they get a little older and more expensive for a younger fresh model. sounds great right? during the bubble people hoped to get rich on options and such so they tolerated the drudgery. now? why would you choose to suffer as a disposable worker. all the work, no glory.
sure there are exceptions like google but google skims the cream of the crop of the work force, so it can afford to do this. the rest? not so much.
america and the soviets when we did this feat actually were on the cutting edge of possibility. things were unknown and had to be discovered, even our computers were pretty laughable by todays standards. the chinese are basically following in a trail that has been blazed by others, it is a much easier path to follow, let alone 40 years on with todays technology and computing power at their disposal.
to be fair the "aritifical" tcp connections limit which is easily patched was put in place to limit DOS attacks. it just happened to suck for bitorrent
oh..it sure can. sonys already bleeding from many of its other divisions, its already sold off some financial units and some fabs to save on costs:P gaming profits aren't worth squat if the rest of the company pisses it away.
well it looks like an early lead can be bought with heavy subsidy sure. but remember betamax was ahead early on as well. hddvd players are already down to $250, the deciding factor is the mainstream, not a niche. when the mainstream swings on cheap players thats when a format will become anything more than the next laser disc;)
i just don't see bluray catching on in much of the world where piracy is prevalent. too much drm, too hard to press discs. low piracy = low hardware adoption rates. low hardware adoption rates=slow price drop.
i'm not sure about your timeline, by the time ps2 was out dvd players were rapidly dropping in price. most people i know had a dvd player. they cost about as much as a vcr by then anyways. ps2 wasn't cheap on launch either. dvd launched long before ps2 came out unlike the hd formats.
its quite artificially limited in the first place. a spore planet filled with porn stars would be brilliant, but you couldn't do it based on what i've seen so far.
thats median. it doesn't take into account seniority or different ranking positions in those fields. if men stay in the work place longer they'll likely earn more wage increases within a position and thus skew the median up. if women are more likely to leave the workforce or take breaks for child rearing they are more likely to have more earning less skewing the median once again.
its misleading anyways because it is too general. you need apples to apples comparison and thats difficult. if a man is paid more to move to another state to do his job and a woman is less likely to there will be a difference. factors other than gender do matter.
the unfriendly comments aren't evidence of sexism. its evidence of the anger created by reverse sexism. don't get hung up on the term ok, u know very well what it means. when people feel targeted unfairly they do get angry. women get angry when they think men are out to get them, well guess what, men feel angry and insulted when articles are put out assuming every mans a sexist pig and that women should live their lives and view everything through a prism of assumed sexism. it is pretty progressive as it is, with lax work place environments with people trained as logical thinkers. such people probably don't like to be looked at as assumed bigots. being angry at agendas which breed disharmony brings up the comments and jokes. the evidence is not what you think it is. it is friendly to all that suffer its burdens. many in it are just unfriendly to those who have gender agendas and seek conflict and unfairness for their own side.
i don't know why the above comment was modded down, passion is highly relevant to job success. do what you love is what they say after all. its true people can have equal abilities. but being able to do something doesn't result in wanting to do something. obsession with technology that goes beyond the job is not something that should be taken lightly.
yea but wheres the gender campaigning for it? based on the lop sided nature of it if feminist groups were actually fair minded they would call for quota systems to be enacted in nursing to boost male numbers.
it just goes to show that its more about warfare. revenge really, if women dominate it is fine. if men dominate, there is something wrong and must be fixed.
btw theres a book called "why men earn more" The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It
its not written by any chauvinist at all, warren farrell was one of the leaders of the national organization for women. aka NOW.
it dispells many of the myths around this issue. men do pick some really dirty and dangerous jobs at times, which is why on average they get paid more. not everything is an office job. of course theres the issue of raising children...and also ignoring the fields where women dominate or are becoming majorities and earn more. of course this is never taken into account by gender warriors who are simply political, meaning they crave power and they use arguments to win, not to get at the truth.
well it depends on what you define as sexism. much of the objection to this kind of stuff is that its more about gender warfare than equality. creating women with chips on their shoulders so they see discrimination everywhere because they interpret everything through that filter. and that is dangerous because it is actually counter productive to their cause. someone you have to tip toe around and treat as a delicate flower is actually an inferior employee. no ones for old fashioned smack on the ass sexism, but i just don't think much of that exists today really. especially in the it world. there are groups today with agendas that will spin things to meet their reality regardless of the truth, they are only out to keep themselves relevant.
hah we need some hot teachers for that version. you know, the ones that go a little too far... but lets keep it reasonable:)
do a complete chapter of math and hot teacher takes off her bra.
ace the test and hot teacher lets you cop a feel:)
instant math genius!!
merchandise?
do boys need to be told that Einstein was a hot stud? lol:) even most male scientists and math folks are ugly. frankly ask most young boys what they want to be...they'll tell you something like jet fighter pilot or baseball star, not einstein.
putting a tv actress and model as an example is insulting really. any girl smart enough to want to learn math could see right through it. lying to kids doesn't work for for anti drug programs...abstinence...and well..math is "hot" agendas.
you confuse downloads with popularity.
when somethings free, there is almost no barrier for people who just want to "see" what something is about. if your little bro even charged 20 cents to download that music it would massively cut down on downloads as people would suddenly wonder if it was worth the bother. many people just download a ton of stuff and sort through it later, or download things just to try them out. it may get deleted after listening to the first 30 seconds, you cannot know. if the bands popularity doesn't spread like wild fire and word of mouth then it just means the music wasn't popular. if people loved it they would attend concerts. and really, music companies would decend upon your brothers band like vultures if there was a real buzz around the net because people were downloading the music and talking about it because it was sooo good. the reality is people don't say much when they donwload something and its tossed in the recycling bin after a few minutes of listening.
Paris Hilton is what kids strive to be: not Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein or Jack Kennedy,
nonsense, how many kids really want to be paris hilton? some might want her inheritance sure, but mostly she and other celebs are court jesters we laugh at. frankly if a kids dumb enough to want to be paris hilton they probably can't learn math in the first place.
as for bill gates, don't confuse respect and respect of wealth with desirability. how many people would really want to look like bill gates..to be him in every way. very few women i bet. especially if he were NOT rich and were just say an academic. no ones laughing at him but much of success is luck, and there are many folks just as smart as bill mathwise or even smarter like the guys who ran the other o/s competitors that bill ran over on the way to the top and people no longer remember. those people no one laugh at either, but no one cares about them now. its not so much about math as success. we respect wealth. neither condoleeza or hilary are wealthy in the way that top business figures are so they are fair game. they are a different form of celebrity really.
as for sexlessness, um you cited bill gates, and he is totally sexless. but his wasn't given to him you see, thats the difference. politicians like thatcher are public celebrities and face such scruitiny. when was our last bald president for example. don't be so narrow cited that you only see problems for one sex. if a women started microsoft and was ugly and was worth billions it would be the same as bill, people would repect the wealth and not really desire the person.
the only man criticized for his looks was Micheal moore? this is the selective blindness i was talking about. kerry has a long face, bush looks like a devious chimp, there are no public figures who are shielded from such mocking.
A fit, attractive young boy might feel pathetic in comparison with some famous guys who started with good genes, work out quite a bit, and then spent several months preparing for one particular day. (You know those photos where every single muscle stands out through the skin? How bodybuilders look in competition? Yes, those guys spend months to look like that on one particular day. They dehydrate themselves for the last couple of days too, to get the so-called "dry look". More info here [wikipedia.org].) The famous guys don't look that ripped all the time, but those are the only images the young boy sees, and he feels hopelessly pathetic.
but they don't feel pathetic. do you know why? they aren't constantly being told by society and gender warriors that they are weak delicate flowers that are easily crushed by such things. they are told to buck up and be a man.
thats what we need more of. many feminists think they are fighting the good fight by ranting about marketing and media but really they are just reinforcing victimhood and mentality of inferiority and weakness. that is the real problem. grow a spine, some thicker skin, live in the real world, be rational, don't over do things, have self control. don't blame others when you do not. you failed yourself and thats it.
male homemakers?
do you know why this is unpopular? do you????
WOMEN DON'T WANT SUCH MEN!!
surveys show women only want to date men with equal or higher education with higher salaries than themselves. very few want to marry down to get a man willing to be the wife. its a problem that is easily solved by marrying down, but women don't "want" that. you say male homemakers aren't respected, well main lack of disrespect is from the women. men do what they need to do to become successful so they can marry a good woman, there is no current incentive to do anything different. its unrealistic to believe its going to change anytime in the near future. we are talking human nature here after all, women have been competing for the most powerful men for the longest time. women that can offer beauty and personal sacrifice are going to out compete some chick with a math degree and no time to raise children any day. thats just the ugly reality.
Leaving morons to turn their offspring into morons was society's worst mistake in some centuries - almost on a par with accepting the notions of the state and religion.
Until those three notions are reversed, things are going to continue to get worse, not better.
whats moronic? spending all your time at work until you are unfertile and old? or having children and a balanced life?
evolution certainly considers one superior to the other. "smart" isn't always what you think.
You should not feel badly about paying someone to clean for you. First, it gives you time to do other things in life that add to your well being, which will make you and society better. Second, it provides income to another person who can then use the money to improve his or her situation. Everybody wins.
I also pay someone to clean, though it is every week because I have a dog that sheds like crazy.
actually you should, because by the reasoning being pushed you are oppressing them. you should be teaching them high level math so they can become liberated instead of making them your slave.
Time for some mental vomiting...
If _everything_ has more internal energy, that leads to several quandaries:
i) What's important in energy transfer of any type, but especially with degraded energy types like heat, is an energy *difference* between the hot and cold regions. If you've added a fixed amount of energy to every object, then the transfer rate would still be the same as before, leading to no change. (However, see pt. ii, below). This assumes something like Newton's law of heating and cooling (or just dE/dt = k1(E2-E1), where k1 is roughly constant at a given energy).
If the energy was bumped up by an amount proportional to the energy already in the object, then the 25 degree difference mentioned by the parent makes some sense, because hotter (more energetic) objects would lose/absorb heat even faster to/from their surroundings (dE/dt = a*k1*(E2 - E1). Here, a>1, and was just factored out of the 'original' energies E1 and E2 mentioned above).
ii) More energy really does lead to more gravitational attraction due to E = mc^2. This would be absolutely negilible at our scales, but it would tend to make black holes more sucky, and might change galactic dynamics on long time scales.
iii) Most interesting to me is the fact that the Third Law of Thermodynamics defines a perfect crystal as having _no_ entropy at zero Kelvins (neglecting quantum effects like zero-point energy). Bumping up the energy of everything including this hypothetical crystal would lead to a breakdown of the temperature scale just above zero Kelvins. That might happen if everything except some hypothetical crystal were to have energy somehow magically added to it.
I dunno. Time to go clean more floors.
dunno...write a book called "harry potter" and make a bagillion dollars. but you know...not enough math in harry potter, she's not a feminist at all. her achievement is meaningless.
dunno...act in a tv show like winnie did and make tv money..then pose in magazines for more ridiculous money, then write a book on math for even more:P wonder how she paid or her fancy education???? IT WASN'T MATH!
the math or clean floors thing is bullsh*t.
Slashdot Mirror
wrong, its because microsoft isn't a European company. its a bit of the old economic warfare.
since i can't edit... james watson mentions it in his interview with michael krasney on forum/npr http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R709261000 for streaming/download link to interview. there are disincentives to
but that kind of solution is unattractive to companies. so they whine, they bitch, they lobby for more h1b. well too bad. the situation is easy to solve with the proper incentives. the industry teaches lessons through its actions, and the kids have seen. what do they expect?
unlike the previous xbox this time theyown the ip, they can and will cost reduce the console until it is either break even or profitable. as for how can they afford it, microsoft is a very profitable company. they have a mountain of cash so they can afford it. sony on the other hand bleeds out of many of its divisions so its game profits basically are bled away to nothing. you can also wonder how long they can afford that as well.
they also have too many, using one to run on a giant hamster wheel to power the others olpc would work just fine!
bingo, and nurses are being paid a lot to boot. there is a nursing shortage in the us. and it will only get worse. as our population increases and gets older the health care system is going to become more and more important. it is job security, and the benefits are good. there is ample opportunity there, not something that can be said for a lot of tech jobs where its all about short term thinking and uncertainty. who knows when the next bust will be, or when off shoring will become even more effective. you could become older and suddenly jobless with worthless skill sets. not something that will happen in the medical field for the foreseeable future. there is a lack of respect for tech workers, to the business managers they are just monkey workers. if theres a shortage then things may change, until then, who cares really. let the market sort it out. supply..demand. and yea its funny how every job opening requires job experience:P the companies are fighting over a subsection of possible workers, they don't want to train anyone. their complaining is mostly crying wolf.
treat workers. burn them out young, work them to the bone, then fire them when they get a little older and more expensive for a younger fresh model. sounds great right? during the bubble people hoped to get rich on options and such so they tolerated the drudgery. now? why would you choose to suffer as a disposable worker. all the work, no glory. sure there are exceptions like google but google skims the cream of the crop of the work force, so it can afford to do this. the rest? not so much.
america and the soviets when we did this feat actually were on the cutting edge of possibility. things were unknown and had to be discovered, even our computers were pretty laughable by todays standards. the chinese are basically following in a trail that has been blazed by others, it is a much easier path to follow, let alone 40 years on with todays technology and computing power at their disposal.
to be fair the "aritifical" tcp connections limit which is easily patched was put in place to limit DOS attacks. it just happened to suck for bitorrent
oh..it sure can. sonys already bleeding from many of its other divisions, its already sold off some financial units and some fabs to save on costs:P gaming profits aren't worth squat if the rest of the company pisses it away.
well it looks like an early lead can be bought with heavy subsidy sure. but remember betamax was ahead early on as well. hddvd players are already down to $250, the deciding factor is the mainstream, not a niche. when the mainstream swings on cheap players thats when a format will become anything more than the next laser disc;) i just don't see bluray catching on in much of the world where piracy is prevalent. too much drm, too hard to press discs. low piracy = low hardware adoption rates. low hardware adoption rates=slow price drop.
i'm not sure about your timeline, by the time ps2 was out dvd players were rapidly dropping in price. most people i know had a dvd player. they cost about as much as a vcr by then anyways. ps2 wasn't cheap on launch either. dvd launched long before ps2 came out unlike the hd formats.
its quite artificially limited in the first place. a spore planet filled with porn stars would be brilliant, but you couldn't do it based on what i've seen so far.
thats median. it doesn't take into account seniority or different ranking positions in those fields. if men stay in the work place longer they'll likely earn more wage increases within a position and thus skew the median up. if women are more likely to leave the workforce or take breaks for child rearing they are more likely to have more earning less skewing the median once again. its misleading anyways because it is too general. you need apples to apples comparison and thats difficult. if a man is paid more to move to another state to do his job and a woman is less likely to there will be a difference. factors other than gender do matter.
the unfriendly comments aren't evidence of sexism. its evidence of the anger created by reverse sexism. don't get hung up on the term ok, u know very well what it means. when people feel targeted unfairly they do get angry. women get angry when they think men are out to get them, well guess what, men feel angry and insulted when articles are put out assuming every mans a sexist pig and that women should live their lives and view everything through a prism of assumed sexism. it is pretty progressive as it is, with lax work place environments with people trained as logical thinkers. such people probably don't like to be looked at as assumed bigots. being angry at agendas which breed disharmony brings up the comments and jokes. the evidence is not what you think it is. it is friendly to all that suffer its burdens. many in it are just unfriendly to those who have gender agendas and seek conflict and unfairness for their own side.
i don't know why the above comment was modded down, passion is highly relevant to job success. do what you love is what they say after all. its true people can have equal abilities. but being able to do something doesn't result in wanting to do something. obsession with technology that goes beyond the job is not something that should be taken lightly.
yea but wheres the gender campaigning for it? based on the lop sided nature of it if feminist groups were actually fair minded they would call for quota systems to be enacted in nursing to boost male numbers. it just goes to show that its more about warfare. revenge really, if women dominate it is fine. if men dominate, there is something wrong and must be fixed. btw theres a book called "why men earn more" The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It its not written by any chauvinist at all, warren farrell was one of the leaders of the national organization for women. aka NOW. it dispells many of the myths around this issue. men do pick some really dirty and dangerous jobs at times, which is why on average they get paid more. not everything is an office job. of course theres the issue of raising children...and also ignoring the fields where women dominate or are becoming majorities and earn more. of course this is never taken into account by gender warriors who are simply political, meaning they crave power and they use arguments to win, not to get at the truth.
well it depends on what you define as sexism. much of the objection to this kind of stuff is that its more about gender warfare than equality. creating women with chips on their shoulders so they see discrimination everywhere because they interpret everything through that filter. and that is dangerous because it is actually counter productive to their cause. someone you have to tip toe around and treat as a delicate flower is actually an inferior employee. no ones for old fashioned smack on the ass sexism, but i just don't think much of that exists today really. especially in the it world. there are groups today with agendas that will spin things to meet their reality regardless of the truth, they are only out to keep themselves relevant.
hah we need some hot teachers for that version. you know, the ones that go a little too far... but lets keep it reasonable:) do a complete chapter of math and hot teacher takes off her bra. ace the test and hot teacher lets you cop a feel:) instant math genius!!
merchandise? do boys need to be told that Einstein was a hot stud? lol:) even most male scientists and math folks are ugly. frankly ask most young boys what they want to be...they'll tell you something like jet fighter pilot or baseball star, not einstein. putting a tv actress and model as an example is insulting really. any girl smart enough to want to learn math could see right through it. lying to kids doesn't work for for anti drug programs...abstinence...and well..math is "hot" agendas.
you confuse downloads with popularity. when somethings free, there is almost no barrier for people who just want to "see" what something is about. if your little bro even charged 20 cents to download that music it would massively cut down on downloads as people would suddenly wonder if it was worth the bother. many people just download a ton of stuff and sort through it later, or download things just to try them out. it may get deleted after listening to the first 30 seconds, you cannot know. if the bands popularity doesn't spread like wild fire and word of mouth then it just means the music wasn't popular. if people loved it they would attend concerts. and really, music companies would decend upon your brothers band like vultures if there was a real buzz around the net because people were downloading the music and talking about it because it was sooo good. the reality is people don't say much when they donwload something and its tossed in the recycling bin after a few minutes of listening.
Paris Hilton is what kids strive to be: not Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein or Jack Kennedy, nonsense, how many kids really want to be paris hilton? some might want her inheritance sure, but mostly she and other celebs are court jesters we laugh at. frankly if a kids dumb enough to want to be paris hilton they probably can't learn math in the first place. as for bill gates, don't confuse respect and respect of wealth with desirability. how many people would really want to look like bill gates ..to be him in every way. very few women i bet. especially if he were NOT rich and were just say an academic. no ones laughing at him but much of success is luck, and there are many folks just as smart as bill mathwise or even smarter like the guys who ran the other o/s competitors that bill ran over on the way to the top and people no longer remember. those people no one laugh at either, but no one cares about them now. its not so much about math as success. we respect wealth. neither condoleeza or hilary are wealthy in the way that top business figures are so they are fair game. they are a different form of celebrity really.
as for sexlessness, um you cited bill gates, and he is totally sexless. but his wasn't given to him you see, thats the difference. politicians like thatcher are public celebrities and face such scruitiny. when was our last bald president for example. don't be so narrow cited that you only see problems for one sex. if a women started microsoft and was ugly and was worth billions it would be the same as bill, people would repect the wealth and not really desire the person.
the only man criticized for his looks was Micheal moore? this is the selective blindness i was talking about. kerry has a long face, bush looks like a devious chimp, there are no public figures who are shielded from such mocking.
A fit, attractive young boy might feel pathetic in comparison with some famous guys who started with good genes, work out quite a bit, and then spent several months preparing for one particular day. (You know those photos where every single muscle stands out through the skin? How bodybuilders look in competition? Yes, those guys spend months to look like that on one particular day. They dehydrate themselves for the last couple of days too, to get the so-called "dry look". More info here [wikipedia.org].) The famous guys don't look that ripped all the time, but those are the only images the young boy sees, and he feels hopelessly pathetic. but they don't feel pathetic. do you know why? they aren't constantly being told by society and gender warriors that they are weak delicate flowers that are easily crushed by such things. they are told to buck up and be a man. thats what we need more of. many feminists think they are fighting the good fight by ranting about marketing and media but really they are just reinforcing victimhood and mentality of inferiority and weakness. that is the real problem. grow a spine, some thicker skin, live in the real world, be rational, don't over do things, have self control. don't blame others when you do not. you failed yourself and thats it.
male homemakers? do you know why this is unpopular? do you???? WOMEN DON'T WANT SUCH MEN!! surveys show women only want to date men with equal or higher education with higher salaries than themselves. very few want to marry down to get a man willing to be the wife. its a problem that is easily solved by marrying down, but women don't "want" that. you say male homemakers aren't respected, well main lack of disrespect is from the women. men do what they need to do to become successful so they can marry a good woman, there is no current incentive to do anything different. its unrealistic to believe its going to change anytime in the near future. we are talking human nature here after all, women have been competing for the most powerful men for the longest time. women that can offer beauty and personal sacrifice are going to out compete some chick with a math degree and no time to raise children any day. thats just the ugly reality. Leaving morons to turn their offspring into morons was society's worst mistake in some centuries - almost on a par with accepting the notions of the state and religion. Until those three notions are reversed, things are going to continue to get worse, not better. whats moronic? spending all your time at work until you are unfertile and old? or having children and a balanced life? evolution certainly considers one superior to the other. "smart" isn't always what you think. You should not feel badly about paying someone to clean for you. First, it gives you time to do other things in life that add to your well being, which will make you and society better. Second, it provides income to another person who can then use the money to improve his or her situation. Everybody wins. I also pay someone to clean, though it is every week because I have a dog that sheds like crazy.
actually you should, because by the reasoning being pushed you are oppressing them. you should be teaching them high level math so they can become liberated instead of making them your slave.
Time for some mental vomiting... If _everything_ has more internal energy, that leads to several quandaries: i) What's important in energy transfer of any type, but especially with degraded energy types like heat, is an energy *difference* between the hot and cold regions. If you've added a fixed amount of energy to every object, then the transfer rate would still be the same as before, leading to no change. (However, see pt. ii, below). This assumes something like Newton's law of heating and cooling (or just dE/dt = k1(E2-E1), where k1 is roughly constant at a given energy). If the energy was bumped up by an amount proportional to the energy already in the object, then the 25 degree difference mentioned by the parent makes some sense, because hotter (more energetic) objects would lose/absorb heat even faster to/from their surroundings (dE/dt = a*k1*(E2 - E1). Here, a>1, and was just factored out of the 'original' energies E1 and E2 mentioned above). ii) More energy really does lead to more gravitational attraction due to E = mc^2. This would be absolutely negilible at our scales, but it would tend to make black holes more sucky, and might change galactic dynamics on long time scales. iii) Most interesting to me is the fact that the Third Law of Thermodynamics defines a perfect crystal as having _no_ entropy at zero Kelvins (neglecting quantum effects like zero-point energy). Bumping up the energy of everything including this hypothetical crystal would lead to a breakdown of the temperature scale just above zero Kelvins. That might happen if everything except some hypothetical crystal were to have energy somehow magically added to it. I dunno. Time to go clean more floors. dunno...write a book called "harry potter" and make a bagillion dollars. but you know...not enough math in harry potter, she's not a feminist at all. her achievement is meaningless. dunno...act in a tv show like winnie did and make tv money..then pose in magazines for more ridiculous money, then write a book on math for even more:P wonder how she paid or her fancy education???? IT WASN'T MATH! the math or clean floors thing is bullsh*t.