Don't Study Shakespeare The Anti-Semite...

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
The guys who run Google are where they are because they were good businesspeople. If they had been just as good mathematicians, but had your people skills, they would have gotten a good cut, but been replaced a while ago.

You've no idea what it takes to run a business. You don't think I've got good people skills? Read up on people like Steve Jobs, Ballmer, Gates, etc. You'll find all of them are described as a bit abrasive (at best). Being polite is key when you're a civil servant, but when you're in business what's important is results and cutting through the bull****. The senior management at the investment banks I'm under contract to right now are all a lot more like me than you'd like to admit.

I have people skills (~5 year relationship can attest to that), I just choose not to waste my time with pleasantries for people that don't need it.

But to your original point, there's no doubt that the Google boys are brilliant businessmen. But you cannot tell me Google would be where it was if Google.com wasn't the product it is.

Wow, for someone who claims to be so smart, you sure as hell can't put together a thinking experiment worth a damn.

It's really quite simple. In fact, a quick look at any salary survey will show you that the arts people make less.

Lets see, first, where did science come in, all of a sudden? You had said nothing about it earlier, now you decide to plop it in? Cute. Then of course, where would you put in business sectors like retail or agriculture? Sure, not art, but math and science?

Who said it was a dichotomy? Why do you make so many assumptions, GePap? Clearly, science was not your strong suit.

Oh, and arte the add guys for google mathematician, scientists?

People who work with technology development are absolutely scientists. This is obvious.

(Did you ever notice the second word in "computer science"?)

And are the special effects guys for Dreamworks artists only?

The guys who write the software and do the technical work for Dreamworks/Pixar are scientists.

The guys who write the story and model the graphics are artists.

Again -- obvious.

Why not a simpler question, the combined incomes of people who work as mathematicians vs. those that work as actors?

Because that's stupid. Very few work as mathematicians.

Maybe you don't realize this, but many people use mathematics as vital parts of their job on a daily basis other than mathematicians. For example, engineers and computer scientists.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

Disagree completely, especially in the case of Google. Google got where they are today as a direct result of the superiority of their search product, which is a direct result of applied mathematics.

Bill Gates got there based on business acumen alone.

But most of the tech people on the list have tech reasons for being there, which all boil down to mathematics. They used this as a competitive business advantage, but the reason boils down to applied mathematics.

So what about Ingvar Kamprad (#4 richest person in the world), or Roman Abramovich (#11), or Li Ka-shing (#10)? The last two are high school dropouts, and Mr. Kamprad was a salesperson. Yet all of them are richer than either of the Google guys.

Artists, no, but good business people, which is what makes someone immensely rich.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Asher, I presume you consider yourself a good mathematician.

Do you think you get paid more than say, the "mighty oak of acting", Ben Affleck?

Terrible example.

Take your average 24-year old actor and compare it to what I'm making as an 24-year old software consultant. I bet you I not only make more, but a lot more.

Do I make more than top-end actors? No.
Do top-end actors make more than top-end computer scientists in general terms? No.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
So what about Ingvar Kamprad (#4 richest person in the world), or Roman Abramovich (#11), or Li Ka-shing (#10)? The last two are high school dropouts, and Mr. Kamprad was a salesperson. Yet all of them are richer than either of the Google guys.

Artists, no, but good business people, which is what makes someone immensely rich.

Keep up, GePap, Christmas already tried this approach.

The point was not you need to be a mathematician to be rich. Just that it helps.

The other point is this -- what was most useful to Ingvar Kamprad in setting up Ikea -- basic math or acting?



(It's an equally terrible example because Ikea's success is not only in business, but in the brilliance of its storage/logistics model which is actually quite math-heavy).

((And Ingvar Kamprad is 7th richest, not 4th))

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Asher

Terrible example.

Well, I was going for comedy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
People who work with technology development are absolutely scientists. This is obvious.

(Did you ever notice the second word in "computer science"?)

Wow, when did advertising become a scientific thing?

Because that's stupid. Very few work as mathematicians.

Who would have guessed? I mean, its a field in such demand by functioning societies....

Maybe you don't realize this, but many people use mathematics as vital parts of their job on a daily basis other than mathematicians. For example, engineers and computer scientists.

I know far better mathematicians than you, and thankfully, those people were far more rounded human beings than you are, probably because they actually enjoyed receiving a rounded education that included the humanities.

These arguments with you are always the same. Thankfully your mindset forms a small and usually ignored minority.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Asher
The point was not you need to be a mathematician to be rich. Just that it helps.

Well, at least we agree it's business ability that counts most.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Wow, when did advertising become a scientific thing?

Since people like Google took over. You seriously have no idea how complex Google's ad technology is, do you?

Who would have guessed? I mean, its a field in such demand by functioning societies....

It is, in the applied mathematics. Holy ****, GePap.

I know far better mathematicians than you

Sorry, GePap, you don't know **** about my math skills here. Even if I did do math on this site (which I don't), you are in NO position to evaluate it.

The other amazing thing is you think anyone who uses math is a mathematician. This is nonsense! I am a computer scientist, which is a form of applied mathematics.

You can't say that all people who depend on the field of mathematics in their job are mathematicians. Math is a tool that I use, I am not a mathematician.

This is a distinction most people understand, but you don't. Apparently in the world of GePap, the only time math is used is by a mathematician...which is unreal. How can you think that?

These arguments with you are always the same.

It always ends up with me undressing you and your profound ignorance.

Since when are google's ad technologists scientists.

Do you even know how Google works, GePap? Where their money comes from? What their products are?

One of the reasons they are as successful as they are is they cut lots of art out of the picture, they went with text-only ads...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Asher


It depends. I think several of the posters here who supposedly embody the arts at the highest levels are some of the most soul-sucking voids of dullness that I've ever seen.

I also think you can study literacy and math and still have a soul. Which, if you actually look at what was being discussed, was the original point...

But then it's equally important with art and maths? Correct? If you consider maths a work of art (which it can be in all its subtle elegance) and if you percieve the math with your soul as well as your brain, doesn't that make both things equally important? Say you write a piece of code or come up with an equation that is so elegant that it should be hung in The Louvre. Now, if you look at it with just your analytical logical mind it's a well suited stringently argued piece of mathematics. But if you also look at it with your soul (the artsy part) it becomes so much more. Thus art and mathematics are equally important 'cause without it we're not whole.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Asher
Take your average 24-year old actor and compare it to what I'm making as an 24-year old software consultant. I bet you I not only make more, but a lot more.

Can we compare a 10 year old actor's salary to a 10 year old software consultants salary?

Not because I think it will prove anything, I just thought it might be fun.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Zoid
But then it's equally important with art and maths? Correct?

No.

Look -- can you function in society today without any math? No, how would you engage in commerce of any kind without it?

Can you function in society today without literacy? Sure, but at a severely reduced functionality.

Can you function in society today without acting, painting, singing, etc? Yes, at full level.

Art supplements life in society today. If you want to argue life isn't worth living without art, that's your problem, but it's not as important to be a functional member of society as math and literacy.

If you consider maths a work of art (which it can be in all its subtle elegance) and if you percieve the math with your soul as well as your brain, doesn't that make both things equally important?

See, this is the kind of **** that is useless. It does nothing but waste time.

Thank you for that illustration.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Can we compare a 10 year old actor's salary to a 10 year old software consultants salary?

Not because I think it will prove anything, I just thought it might be fun.

Sure. You'd be surprised how little most 10 year old actors make and how much 10 year old computer wizkids can make. I was making a pretty penny at 10 fixing computers for people and eventually getting into website coding. Moreso than your typical 10 year old actor who shoots the odd commercial for Frosted Flakes.

[GePap]

I don't give a **** how Google works, and in fifty years, it won't matter because it will likely have been replaced by some new hot shot company and its work today will be outdated. The same for the work you do know.

And in fifty years another person like you will still be talking about how education is all about utility because they will still be teaching Shakespeare to kids all over the world.

Which is the point of this discussion, if you forgot.

Higher education is not know, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be (because again, people with myopic views like yours are a minority) simply a functional thing.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Asher


See, this is the kind of **** that is useless. It does nothing but waste time.

Thank you for that illustration.

Well, excuse me for trying to bring some beauty into this cesspool of arrogance...

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap


I don't give a **** how Google works, and in fifty years

So maybe you shouldn't have tried to use it as an example, 'cause it backfired.

it won't matter because it will likely have been replaced by some new hot shot company and its work today will be outdated. The same for the work you do know.

Please. You don't know how it works, so how would you know what impact it has?

Listen -- what computer scientists have done for society in the past 50 years FAR surpasses what any artist has done for society in the past 50 years. A lot of people such as yourself may not be capable of understanding it, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

It's not about the specific product, GePap, it never has been. It's about the transformation of society, and as much as you may hate it, computer scientists have transformed society before your eyes and you don't even know it. That's your problem.

And in fifty years another person like you will still be talking about how education is all about utility because they will still be teaching Shakespeare to kids all over the world.

Which is the point of this discussion, if you forgot.

So in 50 years, we won't be teaching kids literacy and math? That's the point of the discussion, which you clearly forgot...

You seem to think it's about a longevity pissing contest. Shakespeare never changes and will likely still be read in the future, so to you that proves its utility to society.

To me, Shakespeare bores 90% of kids to death and teaches the other 10% of kids how to be pompous asses online by quoting it all the time to sound intelligent. On the other hand, kids who learn computer science go on to transform society more in 10 years than Shakespeare has done in 400.