And remember that we were using other kinds of oil, as well as other fossil fuels (natural gas, coal) before petroleum as well. In all likelihood, without the oil boom, technology would have simply made use of an alternate fuel source. Not as cheaply, for sure, but still.You mean, like coal-fired ships, the kind that dominated the oceans for nearly a century prior to the oil boom?
Hint, for those who think oil is necessary for large ships: How do you think the Titanic was powered? Or the Lusitania?
You realize those are small by today's standards, right?
And that oil/diesel is far more efficient than coal? Not in cost, necessarily, but in usable energy per volume and weight.Sure, you could have done a lot with coal. Even cranes. Maybe coal powered steam trucks to take the containers to their destination? Actually trains would have been the solution for the next stage.
I dunno, maybe you're right. Maybe cheap energy wasn't the driver of the late 20th century economy. Maybe it really was standard shipping containers and if someone had just had that idea 500 years ago, we would have had the same kind of boom without all the carbon pollution.
:-P Coal pollution is so bad that there are scientific papers documenting its effects as evolutionary pressure in London in the 19th century. (Essentially, being a pitch black bird was beneficial in hiding among the soot that literally caked every surface in the city.
containerization, whatever, I still think it was mostly oil
(summary by Coriat)
Your apparently research-free gut feelings - about shipping (see meatrace's post), economics, education, history, or whatever - don't seem to be particularly accurate. Showing that is kind of the entire point of this two-thread long extended exercise, for me.
Non-summary response can probably go in a spoiler at this point, I think the above exercise is largely concluded, so for me the discussion is just continuing for recreational and, heh, educational value. It's been a while since I read as much about modern economics as your various claims have prompted me to.
When you can mine raw material in Chili, ship it raw across the Pacific to China, process it, make something out of it, ship the product across the Pacific, through the Panama Canal, up the Atlantic, up the St. Lawrence, and sell it in Chicago for less money than mining in the Upper Peninsula of Minnesota and-moving/processing/making/moving/selling the similar end product in Chicago, I think something other than JIT delivery and standard shipping containers is at work facilitating this.
I'm sure that nothing remotely comparable existed before sixty or seventy years ago, so if we look at, say, the 1850s, we won't find cotton grown in the South, shipped overseas, made into clothes in a factory in England, and shipped overseas again to be sold in Berlin or Amsterdam or indeed Buenos Aires and New Orleans? ;)
You could always get raw materials one place, manufacture in another place, and sell in yet other places - if your goods were easy to put on a ship. Throughout history, even in the Age of Sail, just moving a ship around the ocean has always been extremely cheap relative to the value of actual cargoes. But it wasn't possible or cheap to get things onto and off of the ship in timely fashion, and a lot more so for certain types of product. Now it is really easy for everything.
Our modern economy is based on the available energy from oil. Not coal. Not natural gas. Not solar. Not hydro. Not wind.
And all those other innovations - banking/rationalization/structural - depend on crude oil. All those ideas are good ideas without oil, but they are not feasible in the way we've seen without oil. Oil may not be the direct driver of all these innovations but it is the foundation upon which they are built.
You might as well say that education is the foundation upon which everything is built because without geologists we wouldn't be getting any oil. Or steel, because without steel we wouldn't have rails for trains to run over or hulls for oil fired engines to propel. Or cheap gas lighting, later electric lighting, because without electric lighting most mines in Chile wouldn't be working at all at modern depths - let alone cheaply - or the factory in China either. In fact without the Edison lightbulb, and later developments of such, neither of us would be awake right now to discuss oil. Is electric power generation - where coal outweighs oil eight to one - the foundation on which it all is built, then?
Sure, but that's misleading because the search for a single foundation is itself over-simplistic to the point of uselessness. There is no chief foundation. It's interconnected all the way down. Cheap oil is a foundation. As are educated workers, as is rationalization of labor, cheap coal, reorganized industrial logistics, computing, lighting, etc, etc, etc.
You think those are large ships, that's cute.
And remember that we were using other kinds of oil, as well as other fossil fuels (natural gas, coal) before petroleum as well. In all likelihood, without the oil boom, technology would have simply made use of an alternate fuel source. Not as cheaply, for sure, but still.You mean, like coal-fired ships, the kind that dominated the oceans for nearly a century prior to the oil boom?
Hint, for those who think oil is necessary for large ships: How do you think the Titanic was powered? Or the Lusitania?
For the 1920s? Or even 1950s?
You realize those are small by today's standards, right?
If you're doubtful, well, such ships aren't speculation, super size coal fired ships have actually been ordered during high oil price periods. Whenever that sort of thing gets going, though, the Saudis flood the market with cheap oil. And lately a few other factors have contributed as well, notably environmentalism since coal tends to be very dirty.
(never mind that power plants burn orders of magnitude more coal than a fleet of ships could; smokestacks on a big ship mean a big prominent bullseye to attract environmental attention)
But it seems that then as now, the Saudis weren't about to give up market share.
Oil seems clearly better than coal at powering ships. Not arguing that point. It is indeed more efficient in terms of fuel space, so as long as oil is around and reasonably priced, oil will be preferred. But fuel space is already only a marginal concern. The last coal-burning coal carriers, Google tells me, were efficient enough to burn around 1% of their cargo on international routes. Sure, if you only need to spend half a percent, everyone will do that instead, but 1% would not shut down international shipping with its immense burden.
If a wizard cast a spell tomorrow that caused all ship-based oil power plants to spit out canaries instead of power, it seems fairly clear that world's fleet could be converted back to coal and still run modern ships. Certainly with less of an impact on shipping than if you went back to the days when unloading the ship in port took longer than the voyage.
You think those are large ships, that's cute.
And remember that we were using other kinds of oil, as well as other fossil fuels (natural gas, coal) before petroleum as well. In all likelihood, without the oil boom, technology would have simply made use of an alternate fuel source. Not as cheaply, for sure, but still.You mean, like coal-fired ships, the kind that dominated the oceans for nearly a century prior to the oil boom?
Hint, for those who think oil is necessary for large ships: How do you think the Titanic was powered? Or the Lusitania?
For the 1920s? Or even 1950s?
No, for cargo ships that spurred on globalization.
As much as I dislike oil, it's better economically, environmentally, and powerwise than coal is. I hate coal. Bleh. Rather have oil fired container ships running around than coal fired container ships. Granted, I am intrigued by the possibility of biodiesel for shipping, or maybe a biodiesel/electric (solar or wind would be my choice, since those can be generated aboard ship) hybrid. Be nice if we could use those instead of oil.
** spoiler omitted **...You realize those are small by today's standards, right?
Coal certainly would be the goto to staunch the bleeding caused by the loss of oil, but it just isn't long term viable. (Mostly because on top of the other issues brought up, it is so much more dangerous.) What you would really see is a mad dash to develop the electric technology of the next 200 years.
Just because of the state of technology today it would probably be solar electrolysis of water and then either burning hydrogen gas or using a hydrogen fuel cell.
No, for cargo ships that spurred on globalization.You think those are large ships, that's cute.
And remember that we were using other kinds of oil, as well as other fossil fuels (natural gas, coal) before petroleum as well. In all likelihood, without the oil boom, technology would have simply made use of an alternate fuel source. Not as cheaply, for sure, but still.You mean, like coal-fired ships, the kind that dominated the oceans for nearly a century prior to the oil boom?
Hint, for those who think oil is necessary for large ships: How do you think the Titanic was powered? Or the Lusitania?
For the 1920s? Or even 1950s?
Just running the numbers found here tells me that while the biggest container ships are far, far larger than the Titanic, the average container ship, at ~40,000 tons, is pretty much Titanic sized, maybe a little smaller.
Which suggests to me that while the monster ships are important, a lot of global trade is still handled by ships that can fit into a bit smaller harbors and waterways.
As much as I dislike oil, it's better economically, environmentally, and powerwise than coal is. I hate coal. Bleh. Rather have oil fired container ships running around than coal fired container ships. Granted, I am intrigued by the possibility of biodiesel for shipping, or maybe a biodiesel/electric (solar or wind would be my choice, since those can be generated aboard ship) hybrid. Be nice if we could use those instead of oil.
I don't think anyone has claimed that oil propulsion (for example) was not an advance. I just know that I have claimed that it is myopically foolish to attribute basically everything good about the postwar period to oil, and that while (in a representative case study) oil shipping was an advance, there were other, even bigger advances in shipping that have more to do with the postwar boom.
Particularly since oil powered shipping wasn't a postwar development to begin with, and the other more important developments were.
Take a trip back in my time machine.
Heh, I'm sure that the gradually improving ancient precursors of modern containerization made a big impact on the shipping of their day, too.
It might even be like Kain said to Quark a while ago.
Second off, history has shown repetition and progress throughout its span. For you to claim that a cycle of history will undo any solution is, once again, ignoring history and its tales of solutions that have stuck, and which are around with us even today. We make use of breakthroughs that are over thousands and even tens of thousands of years old every day. They haven't been washed away yet. Would you care to offer some evidence that you can determine that which will remain and that which will fade?
2) To the extent that the problem is solvable, the next cycle of history* will wash back solutions the other way.
Only if we stop the nonsense that standardized shipping containers were somehow the major breakthrough responsible for the modern world.
:/ Please quote where that claim is made. It really doesn't sound like anything I have read in this thread, much less the kind of things I have been writing.
I think a lot of the pie to divvy up came from structural improvements and rationalizations of industry in the postwar era. Not all, sure. But the shipping and long distance/international trade industry, just to throw a dart at the board, that postwar revolution is a revolution of structure and organization, not an energy revolution. Rationalization in the labor market too. There are a fair few examples here. The mass standardization and economies of scale deployed in the war inspired a lot of postwar innovations in the civilian economy.
Some also came from energy improvements. Some from stabler postwar national and international organization of finance, so that payments from strangers in a different place were more reliable. I tend to think some came from government interventions to promote the middle class, and indeed union ones too. And so on.
I think it's a mistake to focus myopically on one factor such as oil as a sine qua non and declare that that makes it the chief factor. If you take away all the fuel in the ships, you won't see the same postwar shipping boom, sure (Although plenty were coal-fired). But if you take away containerization and mass rationalization of routes and schedules, you won't see the same postwar shipping boom either.
And in a lot of cases, the cheap oil or the mechanization or whatever isn't the biggest thing, or sometimes even a significant thing, that changed about the postwar situation, it is the organization, or the social intervention, or the financial structure, or etc. etc. There was cheap oil in the ships prewar, but they were moving weird shaped nonstandardized packages that therefore had to be hand-loaded at slow paces, and the routes and timing were often ad-hoc. That's what changed.
Can you point it out? I'm pretty certain that what I've been saying is just that shipping is one (of many) examples where oil was not the be all and end all of modern improvements that Quark was claiming it was.
I know this digression has been going on for a while, now, but let's keep track of our premises. International shipping is a case study of a major industry where cheap oil was not the biggest change of the century. Nobody is claiming it is now the sole underpinning force of the entire human race.
As much as I dislike oil, it's better economically, environmentally, and powerwise than coal is. I hate coal. Bleh. Rather have oil fired container ships running around than coal fired container ships. Granted, I am intrigued by the possibility of biodiesel for shipping, or maybe a biodiesel/electric (solar or wind would be my choice, since those can be generated aboard ship) hybrid. Be nice if we could use those instead of oil.I don't think anyone has claimed that oil propulsion (for example) was not an advance. I just know that I have claimed that it is myopically foolish to attribute basically everything good about the postwar period to oil, and that while (in a representative case study) oil shipping was an advance, there were other, even bigger advances in shipping that have more to do with the postwar boom.
Particularly since oil powered shipping wasn't a postwar development to begin with, and the other more important developments were.
I just felt like saying I hate coal and kind of want to see a hybrid container ship.
As much as I dislike oil, it's better economically, environmentally, and powerwise than coal is. I hate coal. Bleh. Rather have oil fired container ships running around than coal fired container ships. Granted, I am intrigued by the possibility of biodiesel for shipping, or maybe a biodiesel/electric (solar or wind would be my choice, since those can be generated aboard ship) hybrid. Be nice if we could use those instead of oil.I don't think anyone has claimed that oil propulsion (for example) was not an advance. I just know that I have claimed that it is myopically foolish to attribute basically everything good about the postwar period to oil, and that while (in a representative case study) oil shipping was an advance, there were other, even bigger advances.
Particularly since oil powered shipping wasn't a postwar development to begin with, and the other more important developments were.
While I do think it's hardly possible to overstate the importance of cheap energy, mostly but not entirely oil (with coal as the primary precursor) to the development of the modern world, I'd lay most of the actual responsibility on social movements - including the threat of communism.
Cheap energy did a lot to create unprecedented wealth, but it was people who demanded it be distributed more fairly. That in turn led to more education and creativity and spurred demand leading to even more growth in wealth.
Heh, while 'cheap energy' is a much bigger field than oil, within that field, I'd actually be inclined to put more revolutionary importance on the (still mostly coal-powered) lightbulb than on any single thing oil has brought us.
But that's a whole new digression! And it would detract from my main point, which is that the actual importance lies with a whole host of changes in all sorts of fields, some of which are heavily dependent on oil (like, say, farm mechanization), some of which are somewhat linked to it (like, say, farm consolidation), and some of which are relatively independent of it (like, say, major farms hiring agricultural degree holders to run them scientifically).
So I'll try not to get too far into it. I will, however point out that oil does not provide most of our cheap energy, it provides about 35% of it here in America. Plurality, not majority.
PS: As I see that the discussion is not about to return to solely education, I'm giving up on keeping the digression in spoilers. I did what I could. :p
And remember that we were using other kinds of oil, as well as other fossil fuels (natural gas, coal) before petroleum as well. In all likelihood, without the oil boom, technology would have simply made use of an alternate fuel source. Not as cheaply, for sure, but still.You mean, like coal-fired ships, the kind that dominated the oceans for nearly a century prior to the oil boom?
Hint, for those who think oil is necessary for large ships: How do you think the Titanic was powered? Or the Lusitania?
You think those are large ships, that's cute.
Edit: on a serious note, diesel has almost twice the energy density of coal (45 MJ/Kg ; 24 MJ/Kg) which is actually closer to wood (18MJ/Kg).
Plus steam systems are WAY less efficient. AND coal requires WAY more energy to extract than oil so it is even less efficient from a cost standpoint.
And we finally get down to the end of the issue; peak coal. We simply couldn't produce the amount of coal required to replace oil in the energy market today. Hell, we can barley produce enough oil to to keep up with the demand on oil.
Big cargo ships don't run on diesel. They run on heavy oil, aka bunker fuel. Which has an energy density barely above coal. It actually had a lower density than crude because it's basically the waste from distilling crude.
Also the biggest ships in the world run on steam turbines.
The largest cargo ship afloat today is the CSCL Globe and is powered by a MAN B&W 12S90ME-C, which is most certainly a Diesel engine.
Me and Frank Subotka agree: Down with containerization!
Also, school sucks!
The largest cargo ship afloat today is the CSCL Globe and is powered by a MAN B&W 12S90ME-C, which is most certainly a Diesel engine.Big cargo ships don't run on diesel. They run on heavy oil, aka bunker fuel. Which has an energy density barely above coal. It actually had a lower density than crude because it's basically the waste from distilling crude.
Also the biggest ships in the world run on steam turbines.
Hum, can you cite?
I tried to look it up, and could not find the manual for this specific model online, I was able to find the manual for a similar thing (same thing? Not quite sure. Engine specifications are quite out of my depth), the MAN B&W S90ME-C9.2-TII. For this engine, while it is labeled as a diesel engine and is capable of running on diesel, the manual, on page 7.01, says that it is actually intended to run on heavy fuel.
I'm not sure that is quite the same engine, but it makes me suspect the situation is likely the same.
Fuel considerations
When the engine is stopped, the circulating
pump will continue to circulate heated heavy fuel
through the fuel oil system on the engine, thereby
keeping the fuel pumps heated and the fuel valves
deaerated. This automatic circulation of preheated
fuel during engine standstill is the background
for our recommendation: constant operation on
heavy fuel.In addition, if this recommendation was not followed,
there would be a latent risk of diesel oil and
heavy fuels of marginal quality forming incompatible
blends during fuel change over or when operating
in areas with restrictions on sulpher content
in fuel oil due to exhaust gas emission control.
In special circumstances a changeover to diesel
oil may become necessary – and this can be performed
at any time, even when the engine is not
running. Such a changeover may become necessary
if, for instance, the vessel is expected to be
inactive for a prolonged period with cold engine
e.g. due to:• docking
• stop for more than five days
• major repairs of the fuel system, etc.
Emphasis theirs.
Okay, after poking around their main site, as far as I can tell the 12 in front is just the number of cylinders in that particular engine on the CSCL Globe, but the documentation I found is indeed for that same system.
So yeah, it appears she actually does run on heavy fuel, not diesel.
Wikipedia is no substitute for research!
(Or for actual knowledge, I suppose, but I don't have that :P )
In any event, the energy density of crude oil is 46MJ/Kg so it is actually higher than diesel. Also, the engine is most certainly NOT coal.
My mistake in the engine furl itself, the name of the company that makes it has "Diesel engines" in the name and threw me off.
Yeah, you know, I'm willing to be critical about failing to do easy fact-checking, but stopping at the name instead of wading 200 pages into a container ship engine manual to find the fuel is entirely reasonable behavior for a message board discussion. No foul. :)
Only if we stop the nonsense that standardized shipping containers were somehow the major breakthrough responsible for the modern world.
Agreed. Let's just agree that there is no SINGLE factor that everything can be pinned on.
Me and Frank Subotka agree: Down with containerization!
Also, school sucks!
What? A Wire reference from the gobbo?
I'm impressed.
But if one makes the other possible, the growth following the second is still dependent on the first, even if the later spike is larger.I don't see any reason to believe that "standardized shipping containers" are dependent upon oil or that oil somehow makes it possible to ship different goods in the same size and shaped containers.Without the level of mechanization we've got, you're going to have to, at the very least use much smaller containers, since you'll have to maneuver them much more manually. Not much point in standard containers, if you're loading everything by hand, or manual windlasses.
So use cranes, which were known to the ancient Egyptians. Using coal-fired steam power, if you like -- which was known in the 18th century.
Will a coal-fired crane and standard shipping containers be better than hand-lifting sacks of coffee beans out of the hold of a ship? Almost certainly.
Nothing about oil "makes possible" standardized shipping containers.
Take a trip back in my time machine.
16th century Caravel... used the standardized shipping container known as the "barrel" for shipping grains, oils, and other liquids such as ale, beer, and rum. land transportable by weapon... stackable. created by professionals known as coopers.
5th century B.C.E. Phoenician sailing vessel. Standardized shipping container .. clay amphorae... used to transport wine, oils, and grain. created by professionals known as .. people who worked in clay.
So can we stop the nonsensical idea that shipping containers depended on the existence of petroleum fueled ships?
It helps to understand what was actually the genius of containerization.
It wasn't the concept of "putting things in a container". That is a well known fact to have a very ancient history. It was the concept of an international standard of container combined with a structure designed to be intermodal.
Shipping containers are useful for 2 reasons:
1) they're all the same size (which can't be said of clay pots or barrels)
2) You can change modes of transport just by moving the container
The ability to unload the container with a crane and either stack it if necessary, or put it directly on a truck/train is huge. Plus, since it is in a sealed metal container, you don't have to put it inside a building to protect the contents, allowing you to store them outdoors, removing the need for massive numbers of warehouses around a port.
Prior to containerization goods were transported as break bulk cargo. A lot of dockworkers lost their jobs when containerization happened because it was so much faster and took fewer people to accomplish.
Containerization is not the sexiest of modern innovations, but it is none the less an innovation. It's more than just putting things in boxes though.
Further reading.
And that's written over a time when other transport-related costs, such as our fuel oil, had been rising. The chapter cites direct cost reductions for containerization of ~20x.
(published in $100-a-barrel 2013)
Sounds right to me. I only know about it through reading articles about the International Longshoreman's Association and National Maritime Union in commie newspapers from the early seventies.
Me and Frank Subotka agree: Down with containerization!
Also, school sucks!
What? A Wire reference from the gobbo?
I'm impressed.
Possible Contender for Politroll Theme Song: The Musical Interlude
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possible Contender for Politroll Theme Song: The Musical InterludeMe and Frank Subotka agree: Down with containerization!
Also, school sucks!
What? A Wire reference from the gobbo?
I'm impressed.
Frank Subotka for Secretary-Treasurer!
I like Steve Earle, too.
|
Or just make college free here to citizens and aliens alike, then you'll massively brain drain the rest of the world as all the smart folks come here.
Germany did something similar recently and I'm sure they're working the same strategy.
Germany is also very selective about who they admit into a regular university type setting. They don't let just anybody get free college. If you don't have the academic chops you don't get to go. Period. No remedial classes for illiterates in German universities. That seems to be an American thing exclusively.
|
|
Perhaps we could set it up so that minors are no longer given a first name, and only those with names are citizen, with human rights. The only way to receive a name is to earn it by demonstrating knowledge, skill, or bravery. High school will go from basic daycare to a testing ground designed to weed out the rest and pass only the best. Fight for your right to exist.
Wait, that's that's not my education idea, it's my idea for the plot of a YA novel series (working title: Nomenclasher).
One of the Grognards here says Heinlein has already done that. He was apparently all about tests for citizenship.
Maybe not YA though… you might have something there.
I love people that completely miss Heinlein's point. ;-)
Looking at that it seems that containerization only developed in the late 60s and really took over in the 70s? Is that right?Further reading.
And that's written over a time when other transport-related costs, such as our fuel oil, had been rising. The chapter cites direct cost reductions for containerization of ~20x.
(published in $100-a-barrel 2013)
No, you want to look about eight to twelve years earlier. The linked article focuses on the late 60s because that's when container shipping really took off, not when it was first developed. Container shipping developed in the mid fifties based off of copying military logistics of WWII and Korea, started taking off in the sixties, and was well established, with growth in required infrastructure and major ISO standards implemented by 1970. Though of course modifications are always occurring.
commie stuff
You'd probably like a quote from '56:
As the Ideal-X left the Port of Newark, Freddy Fields, a top official of the International Longshoremen's Association, was asked what he thought of the newly fitted container ship. Fields replied, "I’d like to sink that son of a b!#+$."
Seems like the shipping revolution falls within the economic 'postwar' period.
But sure, I'll reiterate another time that I'm offering a case study with one (big, highly integrated with the whole economy) example of an industry in which all the prosperity of the last sixty to seventy years isn't down to cheap oil. I'm not claiming that container shipping is itself the single root of everything prosperous about society, postwar or now, and in fact I have said the opposite from the start, that it is foolish to look for one single root, whether oil or containers or otherwise.
I feel like I've repeated that last bit a lot lately, but maybe one more time will do the trick. You need not argue against 'Containers were the primary cause of 50s and 60s prosperity' unless you are more interested in arguing against a straw opponent than me :)
On the other hand, if you wish to keep up the position from Quark that cheap oil should be regarded as important above and beyond all other things in the important social and economic changes of the last 60-70 years, rather than as one key foundation out of of many key foundations of modern society, then we can certainly continue that disagreement.
But since I don't seem to have been clear enough before, I want to be as excessively clear as possible now that my position is the "modern society has many key foundations besides cheap oil" one, not some made-up "containers are THE key foundation of modern society!" one.
Possible Contender for Politroll Theme Song: The Musical InterludeMe and Frank Subotka agree: Down with containerization!
Also, school sucks!
What? A Wire reference from the gobbo?
I'm impressed.
OK now you're linking me my favorite bands.
Seriously, are you, like, watching my every move?
Or just make college free here to citizens and aliens alike, then you'll massively brain drain the rest of the world as all the smart folks come here.
Germany did something similar recently and I'm sure they're working the same strategy.
Germany is also very selective about who they admit into a regular university type setting. They don't let just anybody get free college. If you don't have the academic chops you don't get to go. Period. No remedial classes for illiterates in German universities. That seems to be an American thing exclusively.
Any halfway-decent school in the US is just as selective.
I mean, sure, any old boob can get into University of Nebraska at Bumf~%+, but you'll probably get about the same level of education as a community college.I've never heard of classes for illiterates at university though, so you'll have to elucidate me.
Or just make college free here to citizens and aliens alike, then you'll massively brain drain the rest of the world as all the smart folks come here.
Germany did something similar recently and I'm sure they're working the same strategy.
Germany is also very selective about who they admit into a regular university type setting. They don't let just anybody get free college. If you don't have the academic chops you don't get to go. Period. No remedial classes for illiterates in German universities. That seems to be an American thing exclusively.
Germany has a good trade school system for those kids who don't get to go to university, though. Interestingly enough, free community college in America is a way to schieve that, since community colleges have trade programs. Shifting a lot of students over to the trades isn't a bad idea. Just need to get Americans to cut all this looking down on members of the trades.
Per his war stories, when asked why you can't divide a number by zero the response he got from someone applying to teach college mathematics was "Because it would anger the Math Gods." Not "it's undefined", not "you can't take X things and divide them into no piles". "Anger the Math Gods".
I'm amazed he doesn't drink more.
To be fair, that's what my friend tells his students, and he teaches AP Calc. Math teacher humor is an acquired taste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possible Contender for Politroll Theme Song: The Musical InterludeMe and Frank Subotka agree: Down with containerization!
Also, school sucks!
What? A Wire reference from the gobbo?
I'm impressed.OK now you're linking me my favorite bands.
Seriously, are you, like, watching my every move?
Were you working off any assumption OTHER than the goblin being a government plant?