|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 743 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-01-11
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Annie>
Aha! Thanks for that difficult technical information which I didn't know. However, here is a photo proving that I now understand: http://data.whicdn.com/images/99423... |
|
Aug-01-11
 | | Domdaniel: <Annie> I only *do* - as in recall - birthdays to a first approximation. Months, I think they're called. Happy retro belated thing anyhoo. This is a vital defence mechanism for me, being raised in a family where countless birthdays, anniversaries etc were ... not so much 'celebrated' as *occasions of anxiety* ("It's the Nth of Squab, must send a card to X for tomorrow, and after that comes ..."). Terrifying. I opted out. If people wanna attach signif to the fact that from a calendrical perspective we've looped another loop, fine. I'm not entirely sure what the date is now, either, without checking the comp screen. Oh, are we in August already? Oops. The 'we' is the corporate 'we', not the royal we. The corporate we implies that the board has voted, it's a done deal, the speaker is just passing on the message - albeit as an insider - and bears no personal responsibility, ill-will, or anything else that gets asses sued. BTW, I presume that was the Lemming making a token appearance as 'Rowson' yesterday? Well-behaved, but identical phonetic patterns. |
|
Aug-01-11
| | Domdaniel: <Ohio> I think Annie means you need a different cookie cutter ... a Quiche-sized one rather than your usual Quince model, maybe? I love the way quiz shows divide up the world of information -- like an encyclopedia, but sillier. I mean - popes, books of the bible, and foods beginning with Q ...? No wonder the rocket scientist got left behind.
On the show 'Mastermind' contestants get to choose their own 'expert' categories. Some (no doubt very highly educated) types pick something vast, like 'The Renaissance' or 'Ancient Rome', and are stumped by questions from angles they hadn't even imagined. Other, cannier, ones narrow it down to, say, "Villains in Superman comics since 1960" or "The films of Quentin Tarantino" and rattle off every answer. |
|
Aug-01-11
| | Domdaniel: <Number Madness> I was reading about tricks that 'human calculators' use, and one easy example given was: multiply 89 by 62. Which I did in my head in a few seconds, as follows - not a method in the book. 'Simplify' it to 2 x 31 x 89, and forget the 2 for now. Notice that 60 is midway between 31 and 89, so: 31 x 89 = (60 + 29)(60 - 29)
Which, of course, is the difference of their squares: 3600 - 841. That's 2800 - 41 = 2759.
Now bring back the 2, by doubling 2759. I do this from the 'wrong' end: 5400 + 118 = 5518 Voila. 89 x 62 = 5518. And I didn't even have to convert them into base-2 logarithms. Here's some science fiction ...
<The space man landed his space ship in a field of corn. He had missed the space port, so he took out his slide rule to calculate the reason. Then he walked until he reached a phone booth, where he picked up the receiver and asked for his wife's number. She'd want to know, he thought, that he might be late for dinner. But the operator told him there was no reply. "Out shopping, I guess", he said.
Then a thought struck him. "Say", he asked the operator, "would you like to have dinner with a space man?"> |
|
| Aug-02-11 | | mworld: lmao - i know some programmers that use 'tricks' like that. Very annoying! |
|
| Aug-02-11 | | hms123: <Dom>
Why do you do things the hard way?
I just took 100*62=6200 then figured that 11*62=682 (I am sure you know the trick for that one) Then I calculated 6200 - 700 + 18 = 5518.
I did like your version, though, but I am lazy about these things. |
|
| Aug-02-11 | | dakgootje: I generally merely approximate. In this case 'somewhat more than 5400' - simplifying via 90*60 + change. Really trying calculating it through [without tricks] takes relatively long and isn't all that error-free. That said, dom's fancy trick does not seem like something I'd learn. ever. Would rather use H's lazy version. ;D |
|
| Aug-02-11 | | mworld: i've always thought the normal just multiply them like you would do on paper, but in your head works fastest. Although remembering the count 'back from 100 on your fingers' trick is pretty nifty. |
|
| Aug-02-11 | | hms123: <dak>
The trick is that fast calculation is all tricks. <Dom> knows them all. I know quite a few myself. If you know them, then accuracy is not a concern. It just comes with the territory. |
|
Aug-02-11
 | | OhioChessFan: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/asset... |
|
Aug-02-11
| | Domdaniel: <mworld> No, though it might depend what you do on paper. Apparently imitating an abacus mentally is fast - Japanese children are taught that one. |
|
Aug-02-11
| | OhioChessFan: User: abacus |
|
Aug-02-11
| | OhioChessFan: <Domastermind: On the show 'Mastermind' contestants get to choose their own 'expert' categories. Some (no doubt very highly educated) types pick something vast, like 'The Renaissance' or 'Ancient Rome', and are stumped by questions from angles they hadn't even imagined.> I don't recall what game show it was, but 30 some years ago I saw a strange example of that. The guy's area was opera. As they chatted with him before his turn, it was obvious the guy's credentials were impeccable. Then they started asking questions. He stumbled through the very first questions. It was painful. Sort of like a person needing to call a friend on the first or second question on Millionaire. I didn't know enough about opera to judge how tough the questions were, but in asking around, some people told me the questions were off the charts hard. I suppose some assistant with no understanding of opera went out and researched a set of questions, blithely unaware how difficult they were. |
|
| Aug-02-11 | | dakgootje: <Apparently imitating an abacus mentally is fast> Ye, because they become 'internalized' if you will. Instead of having to rely on a real abacus, they can use a mental one. An abacus generally has 4 beads per row for 1-4 and a seperate one for the 5's. So it was shown the Asian [taiwanese in this case] kids were far more likely to be off by exactly 5 in their answer or missing one row [eg 4376 instead of 49376] - whenever they made mistakes. Think even I am too old now for using that technique to improve my calculation though - probably some semi-critical age to have a substantial effect. |
|
Aug-02-11
| | Domdaniel: <dak> - <Think even I am too old now>
Oh, indeed, age is a terrible thing. All that *hardening* ... arteries, opinions, everything. But don't worry, everything goes soft again later. |
|
| Aug-03-11 | | dakgootje: Such as bladder-control.
Did read about some research about a year ago which showed people don't get more stubborn when they grow old. Don't know how they got the stigma though. Perhaps at earlier age, they just don't bother others with it ;) |
|
| Aug-03-11 | | Thanh Phan: Math tricks? Like point at sister + sister points at calculator = problem solved. lol Also found: Early Alfred Hitchcock effort discovered
discovery of the first 30 minutes of a 1923 British film, "The White Shadow," considered to be the earliest feature film in which Alfred Hitchcock has a credit. ~
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen... |
|
Aug-03-11
| | Domdaniel: <Thanh Phan> -- < Like point at sister + sister points at calculator = problem solved> Heh heh. Excellent. I wish I had one of those -- a fully programmable sister ... |
|
| Aug-03-11 | | mworld: The chinese have a win-win proposition for you then. |
|
| Aug-03-11 | | mworld: <Thanh Phan: <mworld:...Lady Mondegreen> Very interesting to read. And something to say I learned from here, thanks much. ~Not much worry about the sockpuppet vs sockpuppet chats/arguments, they most times link to the same isp. lol> If M theory weren't quite true I'd have to say oh be a fine girl, kiss me, but i'll let dom field that one. |
|
Aug-04-11
| | Domdaniel: Q. Why is a farmer like a Nobel prizewinner?
A. Each is out standing in their field.
Which is all the 'fielding' I'll do ... wouldn't mind a Fields Medal, though. |
|
| Aug-04-11 | | dakgootje: Hey domd - got a grammatical issue regarding adverbs and adjectives. Which I thought I understood - but then I came across 'more slowly' and I thought "wait, what?" - even though I've probably encountered the use more often. Anyway, would the following examples be proper and grammatically correct?: - You should drive <more slowly>. - You should drive <slower> than John. Simply because in the second case you make a comparison between 2 nouns? |
|
Aug-04-11
| | Domdaniel: <dak> You got it: 'slower' is the comparitive of an adjective, and so applies to nouns; 'more slowly' (I *may* have heard 'slowlier' in speech, but I can't reccommend it) is a comparitive adverb, applicable to verbs/actions etc. When you drive more slowly (than usual) your vehicle is slower (than it might otherwise be). Drive carefullierly. |
|
| Aug-04-11 | | dakgootje: allllllso, while I'm at it - I wonder whether you know the following [look how I cleverly make it seem like this is an <challenge> which you have to <overcome>] Why is it
I heard about <his> winning the award. instead of
I heard about <him> winning the award. After all, you say "I heard about him" and I suppose "I heard about him being foolish". Or am I now making a fool of myself instead? ;) Perhaps I am, by adding an emoticon. |
|
| Aug-04-11 | | dakgootje: Jinx-of-some-kind-caused-by-me-typing-very-slowl-
y |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 743 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
