That's why whole Advanced Placement thing is broken---you can't teach a true college-level class with high school teachers and high school students. There just isn't enough smart-kid-to-dumb-kid ratio to make the class stimulating, even after ignoring the fact that most high school teachers (if not all) are utterly unqualified teach at that level (why would they still teach in high school if they were qualified?)
This one thing should be enough of a proof for my argument: no reputable school recognizes all AP test score for the respective required classes---and the very few that they accept (for my school, Calculus BC, for first two semesters of calculus here, and Physics C: Mechanics (only), for first semester of physics), well, they accept it with disdain, and I think the only reason they accept those scores for credit is, well, because they know we will all learn that topic again properly in upper division courses.
Changing the scale of measurement by a couple of orders of magnitude does not affect the number of constants in an equasion.
As far as electromagnetism goes, SI units and cgs units are worlds apart---this is mainly due to different definition of a unit charge in either system. Try searching google for Coulomb's law and cgs---if you happen upon a website that lists Coulomb's law both in SI and cgs, you will see that the equations themselves look different (well, by a constant, but that constant that is missing in cgs happen to be a "fundamental" (at least what was considered to be fundamental long ago) physical constant in SI).
Anyhow, giving h a defined value would be very much like the step they took when they gave c a defined value -- they did it because when techniques changed to the point where c was one of the most accurately measurable things in nature.
And that would draw a nice parallel as well. As one of my professors once said, "You can't do relativity without c, and you can't do quantum mechanics without h."
Maxwell's equations in MKS units contain expermental constants; the so-called permittivity and permeability of free space.
Eh, permeability of free space isn't an experimental constant anymore---it's been defined to be 4*pi*some power of 10... (don't want to get up and look up), by fudging with the definition of ampere. So, SI units also contain only one measured constant, namely, permittivity of free space.
But, you are right---as far as electromagnetism goes, SI and cgs units are entirely different---even equations look different, and units don't work out unless you use the correct version! I should know---'learned it the hard was the first time.
But I suppose that also introduces an ambiguity as to whether stulti is a predicate genitive or if it modifies errore.
I think the ambiguity is partly resolved by the fact that, well, a sentence that goes like, "persisting in error of a fool is" doesn't make sense (with the "be" verb, either it should me "there exists" or it needs a predicate), as I think "persistere" (and the whole phrase dependent on it) is the subject of the sentence, rather than the sentence being an impersonal (as the English example you cited is) construction.
But, thanks for the good explanation---now my question is, why are you posting AC? (because it's off-topic?...)
Well, then it's probably time to switch your ISP. I've been using broadband for quite a while (with national ISP's only, though), and I've never had anything like a download cap---the only download-cap-like thing I ever had was on the usenet usage (and it wasn't really a cap---more like they throttle you down after exceeding the cap, not cut you off).
Not sure what you mean... Leaving all caps aside, what would have been your proposed correct capitalization for the phrase?
All lower case. It's probably to some degree (who am I kidding---to a great degree) grammar nazi-ish, but, well, that's how much I liked seeing Latin sentences (or quotations) in all lower case---looks more hip than English quotes, for some reason. But, I guess this convention may not be universal.
BTW, thanks for the detailed explanation about the word order---the original quote is probably just as sensible as they can come, as you said (normal, unmarked word order would be subject + object + verb, but i'm not sure how "persistere in errore", which I thought was acting as the subject, might be treated same as regular noun subjects...). Well, leaving that aside, I should take up more Latin while I'm in school---'been neglecting it too long while I was studying other languages.
I live in Rome, and I've never seen lower-case Latin in inscriptions on monuments or anything more formal than sexual jokes graffiti on walls in Pompeii. AFAIK lower-case (which was a direct variation of the uppercase anyhow) might be used in vulgar inscriptions and possibly personal writing, but not in more formal texts.
Er... all inscriptions are in capitals---that much is indisputable. Handwritings, however, are mostly in lowercase (er...although the lowercase is probably a later invention... as is the case with Greek---in fact, older manuscripts (i.e. papyrus, etc.) are always in all-caps). So, either one has to pretend that he is copying an old manuscript verbatim, or he should make a correct transition to more modern representation---and not concoct some Anglo-Roman convention of capitalizing beginning of every Latin sentence (either all caps or all lowercase (except in particular circumstances as proper names or beginning of a paragraph), not anything in-between).
Now, a question: so do you think that it is correct usage to begin this particular sentence with "est"? Is it possible for "est" at the beginning of sentence to mean anything other than "there is"? (which is quite different meaning than when "est" is used with subject-predicate)
PS. Ah, now I recall the use: Genitive of Characteristic---a more common and less frivolous classification than Genitive of Military Accompaniment.
That awful culture continues growing and growing, and now it's really a pain in the... posterior... to see major South Korean webpage with non-WinIE browser. I really wonder if Korean web develoopers have ever heard of W3C. A handful of my friends and myself continue to protest and struggle, but things are never improving.
Well, 'glad to know I'm not the only one feeling that way. I tried going to a few Korean websites, but before too long, I got tired of their overloaded (with Flash and other unnecessary junk, not to mention ActiveX) websites. It's been a really long time since I've seen a good Korean website with clean, nice design. Even webmail services (like hanmail (accessible from daum.net)) are so bloated that I recently moved my dad off of his old e-mail address at hanmail and gave him a POP3-accessible Gmail account.
One of the worst website (popular in Korea, obviously) was cyworld.com. The website doesn't work at all (well, at least one of the major functions, i.e. requesting to be someone's "relation", doesn't work) in any browser but IE. I thought of accessing it at school (since my sister and all my cousins use it), but, bah, it got to be too much of a hassle.
So, nowadays, I just hang around good old English websites---it's not like I'm missing anything useful by not going to Korean websites, and the ones that might be worth going to are offshoots of well-known English projects (Wikipedia, TLDP... if that's still alive) anyway.
Not sure if I matched the original word order (which doesn't really matter due to the way Latin works), but that means "It is characteristic of a fool to persist in error." I thought that phrase was suitable for this situation.
I haven't seen that quote, and my Latin is a bit short and rusty (took one-year grammar course, and it's been a year since), but I don't think "est" should be come at the beginning (or be capitalized, for that matter---capitalize only at the beginning of a paragraph, which you don't have here).
"est" (or "sum, esse"), when it comes at the beginning of a sentence, means "there exists," rather than "is" (as a linking verb). Since here, it seems "persistere" is the subject (er... if I got it correctly that "stulti" is in dative... but it's pure guess...I guess it could be genitive, too---probably genitive, but that would still make "persistere" the subject), that can't be the sense of "est".
But then, word order is nothing fixed in Latin (as you said), so it could be as you quoted, and I could be wrong. But I just wanted to point out that word order can change meaning (and definitely emphasis) in Latin.
Now, if I am right, will you take your own advice?
If the majority of spam is in English targeting US systems then They should bloody well us Babel fish to translate the email.
When my company gets an email in Spanish, German, or Italian we do our best to get it translated.
I'm not sure if Babel fish would work at all with Korean (well, I don't use that junk, so I don't know). Note that Spanish, German, Italian, and English are all very closely related (at least grammar wise) Indo-European languages and more often than not, simple word-substitution by dictionary gives comprehensible result, whereas, if something like that was done in Korean, it will give a garbled gibberish.
Not to say they couldn't have done some translating (and given all that English-push in Korea, I would expect any respectable, sizable company to have at least one person who can understand English a bit), but where's the incentive for them to take that extra effort?
Because the entire country's resources aren't concentrated on ONE of the fifty states, you stupid fuck.
Egh... are you comparing the entire resources of US with that of S. Korea? US has more raw resources and capital to be more efficient---it's just that we are wasting too much of that on politicians and CEO's, whereas Koreans are doing less so.
Now, my question is, who wasted his mod point on this AC?
I hope this doesn't mean it will be based entirely on the user interface of vi.
IMO, an OS that can be controlled (adequately) entirely with keyboard (er, the QWERTY part of keyboard only, like vi) might be nice---no need to move my hands around at all.
If only we did a "clean re-write" of English spelling.
You mean like spelling fish "ghoti"?:)
English grammer is mostly not too bad, although some of the tenses are, in that we have some very strange irregular conjugations, but English spelling is more or less a random act of violence committed on an unsuspecting alphabet.
Yes, it is somewhat problematic---and one reason I like German is precisely for this reason: German spellings (at least those of "proper" German words) are extremely phonetic; not only each letters correspond a specific sound (subject to a relatively regular pronunciation rule...that can... vary slightly), you can also tell the length of a vowel from the orthography!
I suspect that the spelling problems English has is due to the fact that it is more or less a fusion of a Germanic language and Romance language (i.e. French, and we all know that French is not phonetic).
There's one nice thing about it, though---the spelling, while it may not be a perfect representation of the sound, precisely for that reason, it is a relatively good representation of its etymology.
Such a language could become a standard for international communications, like a protocol.
We already have one: English.
Seriously, English is one of the easiest language I know (I can claim to know 5 languages, be able to read at modest level in 4, speak 3, and be fluent enough in 2 to live in a country speaking the language)---most sounds in English are not terribly difficult for many speakers (although the r,l distinction has caused difficulty for some group of people, but it seems to me that particular difficulty isn't as bad as having to "roll" r, or even worse, the standard German r, not to mention the clicks in some languages), and the grammatical rules can't be much simpler and still be considered fit for intelligent communication.
The only reason we might want a "neutral" language for international communication is for political reasons---and for that, we will have to wait until the end of World War III, in which U.S. commits an unspeakable atrocity.
22,514 decimal places. It should be obvious that we're not talking about people to whom minor concerns such as size and shape apply.
That was done in his head---assembling the pieces must done with his hand. It's two different areas of body, two different abilities.
Tell me, if I can imagine a cube 1 nm on each side and manipulate it in my mind, turning it into butterfly, etc., then I can handle a cube that small and do whatever I want to do with it?
Even a savant has physical (as opposed to cognitivie) limitations.
Too regular? Too small and long? Perhaps for you, but you don't have autism, do you? I wouldn't underestimate a savant's capabilities by immediately assuming any such task is "too" anything.
And I suppose you would know that because you are....autistic? That would explain your post.
To clarify myself, a shreder shreds papers into a piece narrow than 1/2-inch width, and since the blades are positioned regularly (as produced at the factory) the cuts have identical (to the limit of precision of a human eye, or even a ruler) width. That's what I mean by regular---even if they weren't the same width, since it would still be a straight-cut, no information can be gathered (not even if you were savant; not even if you are a supercomputer connected to the world's most high-res scanner) from the shape of the piece of paper.
Then, perhaps a savant, presumably a being of much superior ability than our own, could garner some information from what is actually written on the pieces and use those to match them? Not likely---as I said, the shape and size of the pieces is the barrier, not the amount of information to be procesed. I have no doubt of a talented savant's ability to remember exactly what (be it a picture, shape, fragments of a writing) is on each of one million pieces of paper---I only doubht his ability to collect them all by hand, in enough time to be of any use.
And, as I said, if it's only his extraordinary memory that will be useful, for all practical purposes, computers are better.
Too many people think that computers are the "ultimate" in "thinking" machines.
No, I think the GP thought computers are "ultimate" in "computing" (i.e. calculating) machines. That's what they were made for, and that's what they are best at. No human can equal a computer's ability in computation, and NSA would be foolish to employ savants for the mere purpose of computations (as in factorization into large primes)
I think he is talking about intuitive thinking. Your brain knows the answer without conscious thought.
That's exactly how multiplication table works! You memorize what 7*6 is---sure, you can "derive" it by adding 7 six times, but no one does that in practice.
Perhaps that's how savants do it---sheer recall...?
But then, I (as any other sensible person would) doubt that they have tried all the possible combination of numbers and memorized them all....
PS. Even a non-savant, normal mathematics students are known to know by heart (i.e. memorize) squares and cubes of numbers up to two digits, as a matter of convenience.
Maybe I've watched too much sci-fi, but I would reckon the goverment could find some use for her.
I don't think puzzle-solving abilities work with shredded (as any proper corrupt CEO should be doing, instead of cutting by hands) documents. One, the pieces are too regular---fitting them by shape won't do a thing for you; two, the pieces are too small and long to deal with (i.e. to match them by matching the cut letters)---and that has more to do with coordination and motor skills than, well, brains (i.e. remembering how some pieces looked in different places, etc.).
If anything, scanning in all the pieces and developing a computer software to match the edges will be more efficient.
Not to mention that this isn't the first time somebody invented a language---so, nothing new here. If Criole Languages or Twin Languages aren't worth mentioning (since those are more or less spontaneous processes), it should be worth noting that one of the languages he can speak (i.e. Esperanto) is actually an invented language, rather than a naturally developed language, and any geek knows that Tolkien, a philologist, invented a few languages himself.
Overall, TFA looked like a really bad writing by some sensationalist author who ought to look for other careers.
Certainly I will explain it. Certainly certainly indeed. I will explain it, explain it I will certainly do...
That's exactly how I felt reading TWFA. They briefly mention, "oh, yeah, he does it because it just comes to him; 'don't even have to think," and then go on to talk about his personal history and just quote him on irrevelant things. The subject of TFA is either bad writing or false advertising.
Perhaps it is true---savants don't know how they do what they do; they don't know how they arrived where they are, and if they had the history's most articulate orator's skill, they wouldn't be able to explain how they do it.
On the other hand, there's the always Homo Supersus theory---maybe they are keeping something from us on purpose... (adjusts tinfoil hat).
Doesn't mass itself even move under dual nature, just with a REALLY long wavelength?
If by "mass" you mean macroscopic objects, then, if anything, it would be short wavelength---hence we cannot observe the wave-nature of the object.
BTW, it wouldn't be right to say "mass moves under..." since mass (or lack of it) is an intrinsic property of a physical object (particle, etc.). It's particles with mass (like electrons) that have dual nature.
PS. Well, I got confused while writing so I checked De Broigle wavelength: wavelength = h/mv. So, given a fixed velocity, more massive particles have shorter wavelength.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why whole Advanced Placement thing is broken---you can't teach a true college-level class with high school teachers and high school students. There just isn't enough smart-kid-to-dumb-kid ratio to make the class stimulating, even after ignoring the fact that most high school teachers (if not all) are utterly unqualified teach at that level (why would they still teach in high school if they were qualified?)
This one thing should be enough of a proof for my argument: no reputable school recognizes all AP test score for the respective required classes---and the very few that they accept (for my school, Calculus BC, for first two semesters of calculus here, and Physics C: Mechanics (only), for first semester of physics), well, they accept it with disdain, and I think the only reason they accept those scores for credit is, well, because they know we will all learn that topic again properly in upper division courses.
As far as electromagnetism goes, SI units and cgs units are worlds apart---this is mainly due to different definition of a unit charge in either system. Try searching google for Coulomb's law and cgs---if you happen upon a website that lists Coulomb's law both in SI and cgs, you will see that the equations themselves look different (well, by a constant, but that constant that is missing in cgs happen to be a "fundamental" (at least what was considered to be fundamental long ago) physical constant in SI).
And that would draw a nice parallel as well. As one of my professors once said, "You can't do relativity without c, and you can't do quantum mechanics without h."
And, now, they will both be defined constants!
Eh, permeability of free space isn't an experimental constant anymore---it's been defined to be 4*pi*some power of 10... (don't want to get up and look up), by fudging with the definition of ampere. So, SI units also contain only one measured constant, namely, permittivity of free space.
But, you are right---as far as electromagnetism goes, SI and cgs units are entirely different---even equations look different, and units don't work out unless you use the correct version! I should know---'learned it the hard was the first time.
I think the ambiguity is partly resolved by the fact that, well, a sentence that goes like, "persisting in error of a fool is" doesn't make sense (with the "be" verb, either it should me "there exists" or it needs a predicate), as I think "persistere" (and the whole phrase dependent on it) is the subject of the sentence, rather than the sentence being an impersonal (as the English example you cited is) construction.
But, thanks for the good explanation---now my question is, why are you posting AC? (because it's off-topic?...)
Well, then it's probably time to switch your ISP. I've been using broadband for quite a while (with national ISP's only, though), and I've never had anything like a download cap---the only download-cap-like thing I ever had was on the usenet usage (and it wasn't really a cap---more like they throttle you down after exceeding the cap, not cut you off).
All lower case. It's probably to some degree (who am I kidding---to a great degree) grammar nazi-ish, but, well, that's how much I liked seeing Latin sentences (or quotations) in all lower case---looks more hip than English quotes, for some reason. But, I guess this convention may not be universal.
BTW, thanks for the detailed explanation about the word order---the original quote is probably just as sensible as they can come, as you said (normal, unmarked word order would be subject + object + verb, but i'm not sure how "persistere in errore", which I thought was acting as the subject, might be treated same as regular noun subjects...). Well, leaving that aside, I should take up more Latin while I'm in school---'been neglecting it too long while I was studying other languages.
Er... all inscriptions are in capitals---that much is indisputable. Handwritings, however, are mostly in lowercase (er...although the lowercase is probably a later invention... as is the case with Greek---in fact, older manuscripts (i.e. papyrus, etc.) are always in all-caps). So, either one has to pretend that he is copying an old manuscript verbatim, or he should make a correct transition to more modern representation---and not concoct some Anglo-Roman convention of capitalizing beginning of every Latin sentence (either all caps or all lowercase (except in particular circumstances as proper names or beginning of a paragraph), not anything in-between).
Now, a question: so do you think that it is correct usage to begin this particular sentence with "est"? Is it possible for "est" at the beginning of sentence to mean anything other than "there is"? (which is quite different meaning than when "est" is used with subject-predicate)
PS. Ah, now I recall the use: Genitive of Characteristic---a more common and less frivolous classification than Genitive of Military Accompaniment.
Well, 'glad to know I'm not the only one feeling that way. I tried going to a few Korean websites, but before too long, I got tired of their overloaded (with Flash and other unnecessary junk, not to mention ActiveX) websites. It's been a really long time since I've seen a good Korean website with clean, nice design. Even webmail services (like hanmail (accessible from daum.net)) are so bloated that I recently moved my dad off of his old e-mail address at hanmail and gave him a POP3-accessible Gmail account.
One of the worst website (popular in Korea, obviously) was cyworld.com. The website doesn't work at all (well, at least one of the major functions, i.e. requesting to be someone's "relation", doesn't work) in any browser but IE. I thought of accessing it at school (since my sister and all my cousins use it), but, bah, it got to be too much of a hassle.
So, nowadays, I just hang around good old English websites---it's not like I'm missing anything useful by not going to Korean websites, and the ones that might be worth going to are offshoots of well-known English projects (Wikipedia, TLDP... if that's still alive) anyway.
What, because it has +5 immunity?
Seriously, though, wouldn't the traffic be slightly higher than normal---and the server might buckle...?
Not sure if I matched the original word order (which doesn't really matter due to the way Latin works), but that means "It is characteristic of a fool to persist in error." I thought that phrase was suitable for this situation.
I haven't seen that quote, and my Latin is a bit short and rusty (took one-year grammar course, and it's been a year since), but I don't think "est" should be come at the beginning (or be capitalized, for that matter---capitalize only at the beginning of a paragraph, which you don't have here).
"est" (or "sum, esse"), when it comes at the beginning of a sentence, means "there exists," rather than "is" (as a linking verb). Since here, it seems "persistere" is the subject (er... if I got it correctly that "stulti" is in dative... but it's pure guess...I guess it could be genitive, too---probably genitive, but that would still make "persistere" the subject), that can't be the sense of "est".
But then, word order is nothing fixed in Latin (as you said), so it could be as you quoted, and I could be wrong. But I just wanted to point out that word order can change meaning (and definitely emphasis) in Latin.
Now, if I am right, will you take your own advice?
I'm not sure if Babel fish would work at all with Korean (well, I don't use that junk, so I don't know). Note that Spanish, German, Italian, and English are all very closely related (at least grammar wise) Indo-European languages and more often than not, simple word-substitution by dictionary gives comprehensible result, whereas, if something like that was done in Korean, it will give a garbled gibberish.
Not to say they couldn't have done some translating (and given all that English-push in Korea, I would expect any respectable, sizable company to have at least one person who can understand English a bit), but where's the incentive for them to take that extra effort?
Egh... are you comparing the entire resources of US with that of S. Korea? US has more raw resources and capital to be more efficient---it's just that we are wasting too much of that on politicians and CEO's, whereas Koreans are doing less so.
Now, my question is, who wasted his mod point on this AC?
IMO, an OS that can be controlled (adequately) entirely with keyboard (er, the QWERTY part of keyboard only, like vi) might be nice---no need to move my hands around at all.
Oops---I meant "Therefore, the prime that divides N!+1 is greater than N."
You mean like spelling fish "ghoti"? :)
English grammer is mostly not too bad, although some of the tenses are, in that we have some very strange irregular conjugations, but English spelling is more or less a random act of violence committed on an unsuspecting alphabet.
Yes, it is somewhat problematic---and one reason I like German is precisely for this reason: German spellings (at least those of "proper" German words) are extremely phonetic; not only each letters correspond a specific sound (subject to a relatively regular pronunciation rule...that can... vary slightly), you can also tell the length of a vowel from the orthography!
I suspect that the spelling problems English has is due to the fact that it is more or less a fusion of a Germanic language and Romance language (i.e. French, and we all know that French is not phonetic).
There's one nice thing about it, though---the spelling, while it may not be a perfect representation of the sound, precisely for that reason, it is a relatively good representation of its etymology.
We already have one: English.
Seriously, English is one of the easiest language I know (I can claim to know 5 languages, be able to read at modest level in 4, speak 3, and be fluent enough in 2 to live in a country speaking the language)---most sounds in English are not terribly difficult for many speakers (although the r,l distinction has caused difficulty for some group of people, but it seems to me that particular difficulty isn't as bad as having to "roll" r, or even worse, the standard German r, not to mention the clicks in some languages), and the grammatical rules can't be much simpler and still be considered fit for intelligent communication.
The only reason we might want a "neutral" language for international communication is for political reasons---and for that, we will have to wait until the end of World War III, in which U.S. commits an unspeakable atrocity.
That was done in his head---assembling the pieces must done with his hand. It's two different areas of body, two different abilities.
Tell me, if I can imagine a cube 1 nm on each side and manipulate it in my mind, turning it into butterfly, etc., then I can handle a cube that small and do whatever I want to do with it?
Even a savant has physical (as opposed to cognitivie) limitations.
And I suppose you would know that because you are....autistic? That would explain your post.
To clarify myself, a shreder shreds papers into a piece narrow than 1/2-inch width, and since the blades are positioned regularly (as produced at the factory) the cuts have identical (to the limit of precision of a human eye, or even a ruler) width. That's what I mean by regular---even if they weren't the same width, since it would still be a straight-cut, no information can be gathered (not even if you were savant; not even if you are a supercomputer connected to the world's most high-res scanner) from the shape of the piece of paper.
Then, perhaps a savant, presumably a being of much superior ability than our own, could garner some information from what is actually written on the pieces and use those to match them? Not likely---as I said, the shape and size of the pieces is the barrier, not the amount of information to be procesed. I have no doubt of a talented savant's ability to remember exactly what (be it a picture, shape, fragments of a writing) is on each of one million pieces of paper---I only doubht his ability to collect them all by hand, in enough time to be of any use.
And, as I said, if it's only his extraordinary memory that will be useful, for all practical purposes, computers are better.
No, I think the GP thought computers are "ultimate" in "computing" (i.e. calculating) machines. That's what they were made for, and that's what they are best at. No human can equal a computer's ability in computation, and NSA would be foolish to employ savants for the mere purpose of computations (as in factorization into large primes)
That's exactly how multiplication table works! You memorize what 7*6 is---sure, you can "derive" it by adding 7 six times, but no one does that in practice.
Perhaps that's how savants do it---sheer recall...?
But then, I (as any other sensible person would) doubt that they have tried all the possible combination of numbers and memorized them all....
PS. Even a non-savant, normal mathematics students are known to know by heart (i.e. memorize) squares and cubes of numbers up to two digits, as a matter of convenience.
I don't think puzzle-solving abilities work with shredded (as any proper corrupt CEO should be doing, instead of cutting by hands) documents. One, the pieces are too regular---fitting them by shape won't do a thing for you; two, the pieces are too small and long to deal with (i.e. to match them by matching the cut letters)---and that has more to do with coordination and motor skills than, well, brains (i.e. remembering how some pieces looked in different places, etc.).
If anything, scanning in all the pieces and developing a computer software to match the edges will be more efficient.
Overall, TFA looked like a really bad writing by some sensationalist author who ought to look for other careers.
That's exactly how I felt reading TWFA. They briefly mention, "oh, yeah, he does it because it just comes to him; 'don't even have to think," and then go on to talk about his personal history and just quote him on irrevelant things. The subject of TFA is either bad writing or false advertising.
Perhaps it is true---savants don't know how they do what they do; they don't know how they arrived where they are, and if they had the history's most articulate orator's skill, they wouldn't be able to explain how they do it.
On the other hand, there's the always Homo Supersus theory---maybe they are keeping something from us on purpose... (adjusts tinfoil hat).
If by "mass" you mean macroscopic objects, then, if anything, it would be short wavelength---hence we cannot observe the wave-nature of the object.
BTW, it wouldn't be right to say "mass moves under..." since mass (or lack of it) is an intrinsic property of a physical object (particle, etc.). It's particles with mass (like electrons) that have dual nature.
PS. Well, I got confused while writing so I checked De Broigle wavelength: wavelength = h/mv. So, given a fixed velocity, more massive particles have shorter wavelength.