Journal Pancho Pistolas's Journal: I hate stupid people... 7
So I'm listening to the radio (a rock station by chance-- I surf every time I hear commercials). And I hear a little call-in contest; they're doing a "challenging" math problem. My ears perk up. And I'm impressed that they'd actually do something mathematical, but then again, college is back in session.
So here's the problem:
A can has a diameter of three inches. It's seven inches tall. What is the volume of this can in (cubic) inches?
I chuckle, because that's not exactly rocket science, but then again, it's a rock station with a goofy DJ. And sure enough, the calls start coming in with stuff like "21 inches", and "10 inches", and the guy repeats the problem again. And again. Nobody seems to be getting this. And I start thinking about it in round-offs, then in fractions, and then thinking about 22/7 versus 3.14159 for accuracy and quickness... And surely it's not worth the time to call, because someone'll get it before I get through!
Then, finally, a guy calls who mentions decimal places, and says it's 198[garble] and the DJ says, "Close enough-- I've got 198 cubic inches written down right here".
HUH?!
So I do a sanity check... this 3-inch wide can will fit in a 3x3 box that's 7 inches tall, and that box would come out to...63 cubic inches. 198 is too big.
And it turns out that I wasn't the only one who noticed-- someone actually called in and told the DJ the correct answer (er, at least the answer that I was getting). The DJ answered that their math expert gave them the correct answer, and he'd google'ed the problem off the 'net. And when the guy tried to explain further, the DJ chided him for talking about geometry on their station.
Dude, you started it.
So either their "math expert" cribbed the right answer the wrong way, or their source was wrong from the get-go. I figure s/he probably confused radius and diameter, since, working backwards, you get (about) 198 cubic inches for a 6-inch wide can that's 7 inches tall. For a 3-inch wide can, you get...well, a LOT less than 198 (radius 1.5", etc.).
Feel free to check my math.
And you know, I don't care if a headbanger DJ doesn't know geometry off the top of his head. But passing off someone else's mistake as "right" just because he's supposed to be an expert, or (worse) because he got it off the 'net? That I care about.
Why?
1. Because math (and this also goes for science) is the great equalizer. If you get the right answer, and you can back it up, it doesn't matter if you're a Nobel prize winner or a 63-year-old janitor-- you will get mad props (at least, generally speaking). Science and math are cool like that.
2. Because these days(IMHO), people are doing too much of this [crap] with otherwise straightforward math and science. And I think our society's going to the [crapp]er because of it.
3. Because I really hate stupid people. I have nothing against someone who doesn't know better. Make an honest mistake in front of me, and I won't hold it against you. Hell, even if you repeat a mistake you've made before, if you actually try to fix it, or even just fess up to it, you'll earn a heaping measure of my respect just for that.
(In the interest of full disclosure-- it also bothers me that stuff like this gets under my skin. I'd rather it didn't...but it does!)
I'm on your side (Score:2)
though I can forgive a little bit for a stupid radio program. It really gets my blood going though when I see people here on /. (ostensibly a haven for math/CS/engineer/science types) make egregious errors in their math and dimensions and then call everyone else an idiot. I ran into that last month with a troofer who didn't even understand the difference between velocity and acceleration, but yet they just knew NIST was lying about WTC 7.
We all can make bonehead errors in math, no matter how much we know,
Re: (Score:2)
"But Officer, my acceleration was 0 at the stop sign!"
As for the conspiracy nuts... they had a show on History channel last night about the 9/11 conspiracies and then the answers from experts. Very well done I thought. Most people just don't seem to understand the amount of energy that such a large aircraft has. But American cultur
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, thanks for reminding me! As a part-time conspiracy nut (:^b), I had some opinions I wanted to put out there about another thing that's come up, just to keep my street cred.
Seriously though-- I have some "outside the box" points I'll be mentioning later about...meh...gotta wait until later.
Re: (Score:1)
We all can make bonehead errors in math, no matter how much we know, but yeah, you start it, get corrected, then argue that "well, an expert gave me the answer, so there." pretty much confirms you're a tool.
There HAS to be a way to turn that into a bumper sticker, because there's transcendent truth there. And a transcendent truth that includes the phrase "pretty much confirms you're a tool" really needs a prominent spot somewhere.
What's sadder? (Score:1)
That he told a bunch of people they were wrong, and then didn't apologize?
That he's a "rocker" (supposedly free thinking, non-authoritarian), but thinks the argument from authority trumps actual fact?
Re: (Score:1)
DOOD!
Thanks for the perspectives, but most especially that last one! The irony of it is *wicked*, especially since (now that I think about it) I actually see it fairly regularly. Now I can just laugh about it.
There's no greater gift than turning a bugbear or peeve into something one can laugh at.
Re: (Score:1)