wave-particle duality and TV reception

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 15:39:53 +0000, Indy Jess John
wrote:

I went to a co-ed school in the 1960s. On the timetable it said
"Crafts" and the choice was cookery, metalwork, needlework or woodwork
(note in alphabetical order). Anyone could opt for any craft. During
my time at school no boys did needlework, and no girls did woodwork, but
cookery and metalwork attracted both sexes.

Similarly at my school. We had basketry and weaving, domestic science,
pottery, and woodwork, and there was a free choice. The domestic
science classses appeared to be entirely girls, woodwork entirely
boys, and the other subjects were a mixture.

I left an all girls school in 1980 and we could all take typing and
shorthand and domestic science.

Biology was also standard while Chemistry was only available to those
who did well enough in that subject and maths. Only the very top pupils
in the year were allowed to take Physics!

No metal work. No wood work. No technical drawing.

My brother went to the all boys school and made the most beautiful
wooden table that my mother still has in her livingroom but of course,
he did not learn to either sew or keep house.

Had I stayed on at school (I left at 16 - with my Physics O Level - for
an engineering apprenticeship) my parents had arranged for the boys
school to take me for technical drawing lessons, although in reality I
have no idea how that would actually have panned out, if at all.

I'd have loved to have done metalwork and electronics but they weren't
available, so I had to pursue these interests on my own.

I did electronics at college which lead me to the wonderful world of
computers - I'd discovered my true love! - having only previously been
able to gawp at the one in the science museum up to that time.

Rod.

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 15:39:53 +0000, Indy Jess John
wrote:

I went to a co-ed school in the 1960s. On the timetable it said
"Crafts" and the choice was cookery, metalwork, needlework or woodwork
(note in alphabetical order). Anyone could opt for any craft. During
my time at school no boys did needlework, and no girls did woodwork, but
cookery and metalwork attracted both sexes.

Similarly at my school. We had basketry and weaving, domestic science,
pottery, and woodwork, and there was a free choice. The domestic
science classses appeared to be entirely girls, woodwork entirely
boys, and the other subjects were a mixture.

I left an all girls school in 1980 and we could all take typing and
shorthand and domestic science.

Biology was also standard while Chemistry was only available to those
who did well enough in that subject and maths. Only the very top pupils
in the year were allowed to take Physics!

In the sixties in my (co-educational) grammar school biology was an arts
subject - easy enough for girls to do I suppose - so I couldn't so it.

No metal work.

Only as an optional subject in free time.

No wood work.

Even less chance.

No technical drawing.

I managed to do some of that.

My brother went to the all boys school and made the most beautiful
wooden table that my mother still has in her livingroom but of course,
he did not learn to either sew or keep house.

In the upper streams there was a significant aversion to teaching children
to do anything of practical use in the real world. Certainly no chance of
boys learning how to cook. Home --digs -- marriage seemed to be the
assumption.

--
Max Demian

Yellow wrote:

Of course I do, but I'm making the point that sexist talk isn't purely a
problem for women,

Good grief man! I never said it was. Put me on the spot and I will claim
it is a heck of a lot more common for women to experience sexism in the
workplace but that in no way means it is limited to women and if you
unfortunate enough to be on the back end of it, your gender is
irrelevant as it as equally as nasty who ever you are.

Nastiness of all kinds is, well . . . nasty. I don't see any reason to
make a special case of sexist talk. It all comes down to manners. It's
just good manners not to say things that will clearly upset someone
else. Those of us brought up to be sensitive to the feelings of others
don't need special rules about a few selected '-isms'.

A problem with the current PC ideas is that some people develop a
heightened sense of persecution. That leads others to develop an
underground culture that can be far worse than any remarks they might
otherwise have made. Thus we have whispers behind people's backs, and a
weird public hypocrisy in which there is an 'official' standard of
behaviour and a de facto underground one. A bit like Victorian sexual
morality: very unhealthy.


I was specifically discussing what might put women off working in
engineering (as they clearly are!) and you have chosen to take it as a
personal affront to men in general and clearly, you in particular.

I am sorry if you feel that you, as a white middle class male,

Well I'm not middle class for a start, so that bit of stereotyping won't
wash!

are hard
done by but you have to fight your own battles rather than expecting me
to fight my own and then yours too.

I think that's what I was saying to you.


If you are so keen to ignore sexism why are you getting so upset that
women are just as sexist as men. Surely, you should just be ignoring it.

I'm making the point that it cuts both ways, and that unless it's
grossly offensive the individual is best advised to ignore it. To be
pragmatic, why be a pain in the arse in the workplace or anywhere else,
if you can reasonably avoid it?

You're arguing with the wrong person here, you know. You should be
seeking out the guys who regard women as inferior creatures, not someone
like me, who holds them in high regard. Just to let you know me a bit
better:
1. I have two daughters in high powered careers, and I would be pretty
mad if either of them suffered real sexual discrimination.
2. Part of the reason they have good jobs is that I pushed them hard and
told them that their gender should not be allowed to hold them back.
3. I am strongly opposed to any sort of discrimination that results from
something that isn't the individual's fault.
4. It's my view that as a generalisation women have an innate advantage
over men when it comes to many occupations. And of course the opposite
applies. But it's a generalisation. Individuals can prove it wrong in
their own case.
5. I'm one of those odd blokes who seem to make friends with woman more
easily than I make friends with men. Women do seem to like me, and enjoy
chatting. I'm confident they don't find me oppressively sexist!
6. You know how it is, over the years we all (if we are wise) gather
around us a circle of trusted tradespeople and professionals. Obviously
the ones that stay in that circle are the ones that perform, and that
should of course be irrespective or gender or any other irrelevant
characteristic. In my circle there are several females: especially Sally
the cabinet maker, an electrician, a local private hire driver, and
others that I don't want to list here. But take a look at this website.
No one, not even the most dyed in the wool reactionary sexist bigot
could deny that this person is at the top of her profession. What's more
she's a bloody nice lass! Ohh, was that sexist? Oh dear, better have me
shot!

http://www.sallyclarkefurniture.co.uk/

Bill

Roderick Stewart wrote:

It requires learning stuff and actually getting it right, otherwise
things don't work. You can't bluff your way through the laws of
physics, or hide things from them, or appeal to their better nature,
the way you can sometimes get away with when dealing with people.

Well the thing about arts subjects is, let's be honest, you can get away
with writing the most appalling ********, and if it fits the current
orthodoxy you're OK.

Bill

Norman Wells wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:

I'd have loved to have done metalwork and electronics but they weren't
available, so I had to pursue these interests on my own.

Like me and sex then?


I think with sex it was better to work in pairs, you know like when
there weren't enough textbooks to go rounds

No, thinking about it, not like that really. And now I come to think of
it, in my boys only school learning about sex in pairs was actually
frowned on.

Bill

Yellow wrote:

Biology was also standard while Chemistry was only available to those
who did well enough in that subject and maths. Only the very top pupils
in the year were allowed to take Physics!

No metal work. No wood work. No technical drawing.

Ridiculous. We lads weren't allowed to do Home Economics even at the
mixed school. And we only did French for a term after the two single sex
schools were amalgamated.(Bit of a story there)


My brother went to the all boys school and made the most beautiful
wooden table that my mother still has in her livingroom but of course,
he did not learn to either sew or keep house.

My friend Sally was allowed to join the lads and do woodwork, and she
made a career out of it in the end.

Bill

Max Demian wrote:

In the upper streams there was a significant aversion to teaching children
to do anything of practical use in the real world. Certainly no chance of
boys learning how to cook. Home --digs -- marriage seemed to be the
assumption.

The thing is, most teachers, particularly when we were at school, were
pretty useless at practical things. I exclude from this the emergency
trained ones.

Bill

Well the thing about arts subjects is, let's be honest, you can get
away with writing the most appalling ********, and if it fits the
current orthodoxy you're OK.


The same is now true of some GCSE physics papers
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 14/12/2014 13:53, wrote:
On Saturday, 13 December 2014 17:12:41 UTC, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 11/12/2014 05:25, Bill Wright wrote:
The whole science of RF seems to be based on wave theory. Does particle
theory have any place?

Discuss.

This a good starting point.

How to teach quantum physics to your dog.

ISBN 1851687793

If a dog can understand it......................

--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

£6.29 from BookDepository Thanks for the tip.
Cheeers, Ian.

You are welcome. I would be interested to hear how you get on with it.
It is an incredibly difficult concept to understand and I am not sur if
I do having read several books on the subject.


--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Max Demian wrote:

In the upper streams there was a significant aversion to teaching
children to do anything of practical use in the real world. Certainly
no chance of boys learning how to cook. Home --digs -- marriage
seemed to be the assumption.

The thing is, most teachers, particularly when we were at school, were
pretty useless at practical things. I exclude from this the emergency
trained ones.

Weren't you a teacher once, Bill?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18