On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:52 PM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
<< SNIP >>
> > Many 'monied' individuals get 'spoilt' by the ease with which things fall > into their laps - they never make the effort to overcome any difficulties > or barriers. > > I worry about too many stereotypes piling up in a hurry.
I liked reading Richie Rich as a kid, a comic book (check Google Images) but have always declared my class to be middle. Mad Magazine was probably my favorite though. Is TinTin 1%? How about Snowy?
When it came to Occupy in October 2011, manifesting as "OPDX" in Portland's Chapman Square and environs , I was very much with the 99%, pulling a bike trailer to the Food Not Bombs booth every so often , but not tenting there (I preferred to rename my house the Blue Tent, old wooden, 1905).
But by world standards I *am* richie rich and uber-privileged. I realize that and don't take it for granted. I've always volunteered a huge pie slice of my time to turn the wheels of volunteer-powered organizations, be that my Quaker meeting, the local Area Center (Erhard Inc.) or the AFSC (also Quaker). See c.v.
I have that luxury of luxuries: time to devote to projects as I wish, unpaid free time, slack, whatever you want to call it. Some single mothers (for example) really don't have that. They are full time servants of others, many full time servants the same way, not to mention slaves, who remain oh so numerous by other labels.
Thanks to my privileged background and top drawer parents, I am able to both think of, and engage in, studying, as something one does "just for the fun of it". When I computed (1 + 1/n)^n i.e. "just a nano-tad more than 1 to the gazillionth power" I was simply turning wheels developed over thousands upon thousands of man-woman hours. Unlike any before my time, I have free access to machines that compute like no gear box or slide rule ever could. I am a very rich man in terms of the resources available to me, thanks to Cyberia (cyberspace).
If you remember Steve Holden, whose name I used at the start of a recent thread , he ran this source code I posted on edu-sig, doing what I describe above re (1 + 1/10000000000) ^ 10000000000 except to way more places, and getting the value of e, Euler's Number -- to 301 decimal places to be exact. No calculator is that powerful. Yet this is not such expensive hardware I'm using, and the software is free. "Why not share the wealth more widely?" (this Cascadian asks himself, as he contemplates curriculum / school reform).
From: Steve Holden Date: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:31 AM Subject: Re: A bit head-twisty... (Python4 level topics) To: Kirby Urner <email@example.com> Cc: Patrick Barton, Ben Hengst
On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Kirby Urner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
(both Python4 topics, though we probably see "with" as a keyword, sooner, and use descriptors behind the scenes without knowing it).
The second example is more convincing when you print the result (just one print() call need be added).
Before the context scope... Welcome to my world... This is the suite within the scope of the context Available from inside: Context manager object at: 4435516560 Sorry to see you leave. Come back again soon. After context... Do a big decimal computation... Default precision is: 28 Precision in suite: 500 2.71828182845904523536028747135266249775724709369995957496 6967627724076630353547594571382178525166427427466391932003 0599218174135966290435729003342952605956307381323286279434 9076323382988075319525101901157383418793070215408914993488 4167509244761460668082264800168477411853742345442437107539 0777449920681925618476090836436512408473244207960552030134 4762694962971689546667081226697324994500588794672692797910 3623059513578696555065312937867997974889806066472970080903 8036328927095243710166965126324732836 Default precision is: 28 Same to 301 places