Maybe philosophy majors gain an elevated opinion of themselves because, well, no one ever really understands what they're talking about. Philosophy, beyond an introductory level, quickly becomes complex and involves terms and ideas that reference many other ideas from other philosopher's work.
Only it's not philosophers or philosophy graduates who tend to be arrogant, it's the undergrads who really don't know that much. The ones who actually understand what they're talking about tend to be perfectly well-adjusted.
Have to agree with techpawn. You only learned something about those people, not modern art itself. There are a number of "schools" of MA; some are drek, some are quite deep and friggin' hard to accomplish.
Have to agree with both of you. When people criticize "modern art" as being worthless, they're usually criticizing abstract impressionism art, which is a subset of modern art. A lot of modern art you have to look at for a while before you see the artistic value.
I studied both Physics and E.E., and IMO, Physics was harder.
You know what they say, engineering is for people who weren't good enough at math to be physics majors. And physics is for people who weren't good enough at math to be mathematics majors.
Physics majors (cause they are that smart), premeds, law students and those studying to be teachers. In that order.
Hmmm, I'd rate math majors smarter than physics majors, but you're definitely right about premeds being arrogant. As a former law student I'll admit there are way too many people with too high of an opinion in that field; one of the funnest things about law school was watching some incredibly pretentious types start getting hit with Cs (got to love that law school curve).
Also, one writes "book reports" in fifth grade, not in any semi-respectable university. One gets the impression Aaron Rowe never actually took a humanities class beyond perhaps the most ludicrous one he could find to satisfy a requirement. Does he think English majors make dioramas, also?
There is a general impression on Slashdot among the more ignorant that humanities classes are a joke. I think a lot of it is based on the fact that, yes, introductory humanities classes, aimed at people just out of high school, tend to not be especially difficult. It's more likely that a science or engineering major will take these classes than the upper level ones. Taking an upper level philosophy or linguistics or history course (or even a low-level classics course) would probably disabuse them of the notion.
Also, a lot of the science/engineering types base their opinion of humanities classes not on any firsthand knowledge but rather on third-hand accounts of what humanities classes may be, filtered through jokes, anecdotes, and misinterpretations of what some humanities professor might have said. A lot of it is alien to the engineering major; a humanities class structure is not about being told what is true and retaining it, it's about being given a lot of (oftentimes conflicting) information and synthesizing it.
But I look forward to a day when engineering, science, and humanities majors can put aside their differences, come together in a spirit of unity, and make fun of business majors.
I have a lot of friends who were in Engineering when I was an undergrad. The biggest complaint that they seemed to have was that they felt like they were just being fed equations and not taught to think for themselves. The second they came across a problem that was a slight deviation from the questions mentioned in class or from the textbook, they had some trouble, because the underlying theory was lacking. I suppose it's no surprise that the students who do the best in math or programming competitions like Putnam or ACM are typically under the math faculty. Don't get me wrong, I know lots of brilliant engineering graduates, but they often feel a little cheated.
I know someone who teaches math at the university level, and she does not have a very high opinion of engineering students; she finds them arrogant, underprepared, and either unable or unwilling to apply themselves to actually learning the mathematical theory.
"Brilliant engineering students may earn surprisingly low grades while slackers in other departments score straight As for writing book reports and throwing together papers about their favorite zombie films," writes Rower. "Many of the brightest students may struggle while mediocre scholars can earn top scores."
Who cares? You're not competing against film majors for fellowships, scholarships, graduate programs and jobs. You're competing against other engineering majors. And honestly, the vast majority of engineering majors seem to have greatly exaggerated notions of their own brilliance; engineering profs do give out As, if you're not making them maybe you're not quite as smart as you think you are.
I think the only majors with a higher general opinion of themselves are philosophy majors.
Part of the problem with IT people is a spirit of libertarianism, this specific breed reminds me of that line about how libertarians are just slave owners who want police protection from their slaves.
No, those are conservatives. Libertarians are slave owners who don't want the police to interfere when they're beating their slaves.
I think an engineer, especially a systems engineer, would be a better person to be in charge of the country than a lawyer (for a change). At least the engineer can tell the difference beteen what someone told them and what they can test for themself.
In government you can't really test things yourself if you're the president, you have to rely on what people tell you. And we had an engineer for president, and his administration was generally considered to be a failure.
I've got to say, in my 10 years on slashdot, that has got to be one of the most insightful posts I've ever read. And god knows I've wasted hundreds if not thousands of hours reading slashdot posts.
Second, since the Supreme Court is... Supreme, they get to decide which is greater, the DMCA or the doctrine of 1st sale and then they are free to strike out or create exceptions to whatever portions of the DMCA they feel is necessary, assuming they decide the DMCA needs more exceptions.
I don't think they'd see it that way, though; they would say their job is to interpret the law, not create it. Since the doctrine of first sale was based on a statutory provision of the U.S. Code rather than some inherent aspect of the Constitution, a later law, such as the DMCA, could alter it.
Linux fanboys seem like they turn a blind eye to any "non technical" problem.
The thing that always annoys me the most about Linux fanboys is their unwavering belief that Linux is just the most unique thing in the history of the universe as a technical platform. Linus apparently invented UNIX, there's no such thing as FreeBSD, and any criticism of any aspect of Linux is meant with a ferocious counter-attack criticizing Windows, as if those are the only two options.
They've been on the verge of citywide wireless here in Miami Beach for that past two years, but I'm starting to suspect it will never happen. It's too bad, I was looking forward to just canceling my own internet and living off the public dime...
I've heard of some crazy stretches for comparison, but come on, a journalist actually comparing a group of people that have an affinity for a company's products to a deeply-complicated bloody 60+ year old conflict? Talk about going off the deep end.
I think the journalist used that as an example because of the research study cited in the article, which had used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as their test question.
According to commentator Therese Polletti at Dow Jones MarketWatch, 'the RIAA's tactics are nearly as bad as the actions of mobsters, real or fictional. The analogy comes up easily and frequently in any discussion of the RIAA's maneuvers.'
It's also a horrible analogy in that the RIAA doesn't KILL PEOPLE. Have some perspective, people.
Re:really, i didn't make it up
on
Matter
·
· Score: 1
Not really, he's not -- not compared to the killer-Bs, for example, or Neal, or the "older" generations. "Extremely prominent" is a difficult thing to quantify (just as "less known than he deserves to be"), but here's one metric: Myopic Books, a used book store in Chicago with an excellent sci-fi section, currently has no Banks on the shelves -- but plenty of the more usual suspects from America.
If you do a search for Iain Banks on rec.arts.sf.written or rec.arts.sf.fandom, you'll find a huge number of posts; he's been one of the most talked-about scifi writers on those groups for many years, and those groups represent a good cross-section of the SF fan community, from hardcore casual. If you do a search on the New York Times for "Iain Banks" and "Iain M. Banks" you get plenty of hits, which is not something you could say about 95% of American science fiction writers, and it is clear that the critics give Banks a lot more respect than they give to the vast majority of American science fiction authors. If you want to present anecdotal evidence I have never had any trouble whatsoever finding Iain Banks on the shelf; everytime I've gone to a bookstore and specifically looked for his works I've inevitably found several of his novels on the shelves. As for Myopic Books, if it's a used bookstore it's going to be a lousy metric; they'll have what people have sold, no more, no less. Just because at this one point they don't have any on the shelves doesn't mean much. I'm sorry if you think I'm being mean, I just think the statement in the review is not supportable.
argh why do people just make up stuff on slashdot?
on
Matter
·
· Score: 1
Less known than he deserves to be among American science fiction readers is Iain M. Banks
What are you talking about? Banks is extremely prominent in US science fiction circles. Or is this that typical slashdot thing where you can't have a book review without the reviewer trying to spin it so he looks ahead of the curve?
In his native United Kingdom, Banks' work is released in hardcover at the front of bookshops; here, those seeking his science fiction work, at least, must dig down into the trade paperbacks -- and often find things out of print.
"Dig down" into the trade paperbacks? In the US trade paperbacks have apparently become the most prominent format, which I certainly don't mind. They're more portable than a hardcover and have better typeface and printing than a paperback, and last longer too. Banks' works are on the science fiction shelves, generally. Under "B." No digging required.
And he has plenty of books in print, far more than most SF authors. And some of those are in hardcover as well.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, there is a fellow who is just bad at math and wants to keep his grant money coming.
You can get grant money for being bad at math?? Sign me up!
Maybe philosophy majors gain an elevated opinion of themselves because, well, no one ever really understands what they're talking about. Philosophy, beyond an introductory level, quickly becomes complex and involves terms and ideas that reference many other ideas from other philosopher's work.
Only it's not philosophers or philosophy graduates who tend to be arrogant, it's the undergrads who really don't know that much. The ones who actually understand what they're talking about tend to be perfectly well-adjusted.
Have to agree with techpawn. You only learned something about those people, not modern art itself. There are a number of "schools" of MA; some are drek, some are quite deep and friggin' hard to accomplish.
Have to agree with both of you. When people criticize "modern art" as being worthless, they're usually criticizing abstract impressionism art, which is a subset of modern art. A lot of modern art you have to look at for a while before you see the artistic value.
No, math majors are weird :)
Oh you're right on that. Though my girlfriend will probably punch me if she found out I agreed to that statement.
I have a well-paying job, while my friend who majored in philosophy is shelving books at a library at age 40.
Which one of you is happier?
I studied both Physics and E.E., and IMO, Physics was harder.
You know what they say, engineering is for people who weren't good enough at math to be physics majors. And physics is for people who weren't good enough at math to be mathematics majors.
Physics majors (cause they are that smart), premeds, law students and those studying to be teachers. In that order.
Hmmm, I'd rate math majors smarter than physics majors, but you're definitely right about premeds being arrogant. As a former law student I'll admit there are way too many people with too high of an opinion in that field; one of the funnest things about law school was watching some incredibly pretentious types start getting hit with Cs (got to love that law school curve).
Also, one writes "book reports" in fifth grade, not in any semi-respectable university. One gets the impression Aaron Rowe never actually took a humanities class beyond perhaps the most ludicrous one he could find to satisfy a requirement. Does he think English majors make dioramas, also?
There is a general impression on Slashdot among the more ignorant that humanities classes are a joke. I think a lot of it is based on the fact that, yes, introductory humanities classes, aimed at people just out of high school, tend to not be especially difficult. It's more likely that a science or engineering major will take these classes than the upper level ones. Taking an upper level philosophy or linguistics or history course (or even a low-level classics course) would probably disabuse them of the notion.
Also, a lot of the science/engineering types base their opinion of humanities classes not on any firsthand knowledge but rather on third-hand accounts of what humanities classes may be, filtered through jokes, anecdotes, and misinterpretations of what some humanities professor might have said. A lot of it is alien to the engineering major; a humanities class structure is not about being told what is true and retaining it, it's about being given a lot of (oftentimes conflicting) information and synthesizing it.
But I look forward to a day when engineering, science, and humanities majors can put aside their differences, come together in a spirit of unity, and make fun of business majors.
I have a lot of friends who were in Engineering when I was an undergrad. The biggest complaint that they seemed to have was that they felt like they were just being fed equations and not taught to think for themselves. The second they came across a problem that was a slight deviation from the questions mentioned in class or from the textbook, they had some trouble, because the underlying theory was lacking. I suppose it's no surprise that the students who do the best in math or programming competitions like Putnam or ACM are typically under the math faculty. Don't get me wrong, I know lots of brilliant engineering graduates, but they often feel a little cheated.
I know someone who teaches math at the university level, and she does not have a very high opinion of engineering students; she finds them arrogant, underprepared, and either unable or unwilling to apply themselves to actually learning the mathematical theory.
"Brilliant engineering students may earn surprisingly low grades while slackers in other departments score straight As for writing book reports and throwing together papers about their favorite zombie films," writes Rower. "Many of the brightest students may struggle while mediocre scholars can earn top scores."
Who cares? You're not competing against film majors for fellowships, scholarships, graduate programs and jobs. You're competing against other engineering majors. And honestly, the vast majority of engineering majors seem to have greatly exaggerated notions of their own brilliance; engineering profs do give out As, if you're not making them maybe you're not quite as smart as you think you are.
I think the only majors with a higher general opinion of themselves are philosophy majors.
Part of the problem with IT people is a spirit of libertarianism, this specific breed reminds me of that line about how libertarians are just slave owners who want police protection from their slaves.
No, those are conservatives. Libertarians are slave owners who don't want the police to interfere when they're beating their slaves.
He's also the only candidate whose platform is 100% in agreement with slashdot group think.
You're trying to get us to vote against him, huh?
Sitting here in Europe,an US libertarian sounds like yet another type of right wing nut job that should not be in any position of power.
Yes, that's what they look like from here in the US as well.
I think an engineer, especially a systems engineer, would be a better person to be in charge of the country than a lawyer (for a change). At least the engineer can tell the difference beteen what someone told them and what they can test for themself.
In government you can't really test things yourself if you're the president, you have to rely on what people tell you. And we had an engineer for president, and his administration was generally considered to be a failure.
I've got to say, in my 10 years on slashdot, that has got to be one of the most insightful posts I've ever read. And god knows I've wasted hundreds if not thousands of hours reading slashdot posts.
Because companies in the United States care about the $$$, not about innovation or advancing technology.
While countries elsewhere in the world are altruistic, caring little about money?
Second, since the Supreme Court is... Supreme, they get to decide which is greater, the DMCA or the doctrine of 1st sale and then they are free to strike out or create exceptions to whatever portions of the DMCA they feel is necessary, assuming they decide the DMCA needs more exceptions.
I don't think they'd see it that way, though; they would say their job is to interpret the law, not create it. Since the doctrine of first sale was based on a statutory provision of the U.S. Code rather than some inherent aspect of the Constitution, a later law, such as the DMCA, could alter it.
Linux fanboys seem like they turn a blind eye to any "non technical" problem.
The thing that always annoys me the most about Linux fanboys is their unwavering belief that Linux is just the most unique thing in the history of the universe as a technical platform. Linus apparently invented UNIX, there's no such thing as FreeBSD, and any criticism of any aspect of Linux is meant with a ferocious counter-attack criticizing Windows, as if those are the only two options.
They've been on the verge of citywide wireless here in Miami Beach for that past two years, but I'm starting to suspect it will never happen. It's too bad, I was looking forward to just canceling my own internet and living off the public dime...
EarthLink announced on Feb. 7 that 'the operations of the municipal Wi-Fi assets were no longer consistent with the company's strategic direction.'
Wow, EarthLink is still in business??
I've heard of some crazy stretches for comparison, but come on, a journalist actually comparing a group of people that have an affinity for a company's products to a deeply-complicated bloody 60+ year old conflict? Talk about going off the deep end.
I think the journalist used that as an example because of the research study cited in the article, which had used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as their test question.
In Soviet Russia they say that because Americans were so poor mathematicians, they had to invent the computer...
I hear that Russians are such poor computer scientists, they had to get good at math...
According to commentator Therese Polletti at Dow Jones MarketWatch, 'the RIAA's tactics are nearly as bad as the actions of mobsters, real or fictional. The analogy comes up easily and frequently in any discussion of the RIAA's maneuvers.'
It's also a horrible analogy in that the RIAA doesn't KILL PEOPLE. Have some perspective, people.
Not really, he's not -- not compared to the killer-Bs, for example, or Neal, or the "older" generations. "Extremely prominent" is a difficult thing to quantify (just as "less known than he deserves to be"), but here's one metric: Myopic Books, a used book store in Chicago with an excellent sci-fi section, currently has no Banks on the shelves -- but plenty of the more usual suspects from America.
If you do a search for Iain Banks on rec.arts.sf.written or rec.arts.sf.fandom, you'll find a huge number of posts; he's been one of the most talked-about scifi writers on those groups for many years, and those groups represent a good cross-section of the SF fan community, from hardcore casual. If you do a search on the New York Times for "Iain Banks" and "Iain M. Banks" you get plenty of hits, which is not something you could say about 95% of American science fiction writers, and it is clear that the critics give Banks a lot more respect than they give to the vast majority of American science fiction authors. If you want to present anecdotal evidence I have never had any trouble whatsoever finding Iain Banks on the shelf; everytime I've gone to a bookstore and specifically looked for his works I've inevitably found several of his novels on the shelves. As for Myopic Books, if it's a used bookstore it's going to be a lousy metric; they'll have what people have sold, no more, no less. Just because at this one point they don't have any on the shelves doesn't mean much. I'm sorry if you think I'm being mean, I just think the statement in the review is not supportable.
Less known than he deserves to be among American science fiction readers is Iain M. Banks
What are you talking about? Banks is extremely prominent in US science fiction circles. Or is this that typical slashdot thing where you can't have a book review without the reviewer trying to spin it so he looks ahead of the curve?
In his native United Kingdom, Banks' work is released in hardcover at the front of bookshops; here, those seeking his science fiction work, at least, must dig down into the trade paperbacks -- and often find things out of print.
"Dig down" into the trade paperbacks? In the US trade paperbacks have apparently become the most prominent format, which I certainly don't mind. They're more portable than a hardcover and have better typeface and printing than a paperback, and last longer too. Banks' works are on the science fiction shelves, generally. Under "B." No digging required.
And he has plenty of books in print, far more than most SF authors. And some of those are in hardcover as well.