I am extremely confused as to what you're trying to convey... all I said that the all the Toyota issues were almost certainly not simple 'human error' as implied by the original poster... and you jump in with some cryptic nonsense about church abuse? I really have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make.
Yeah, I'm sure that John Saylor who was trained as a CHP officer for driving in adverse conditions at high speeds was totally just hitting the wrong pedal when he and his family were killed.
You started by saying that the Irish, Austro-Hungarians, and Ottomans would take issue with my singling out Africa from my global view of more than a century ago. That's how that parameter started out, and it was underscored by my response wherein I noted that Africa's name changes span centuries.
Name changes do happen at a certain 'background level' in all parts of the world at all times, and occasionally at higher rates and in higher concentrations such as Eastern Europe after the collapse of the USSR, but that still is neither as broad as a continent nor as long as several centuries of consistent change. I maintain that there is no example in modern history equivalent to or surpassing Africa in terms of the scope of time or geographic expanse wherein so many countries have changed their names so many times. It is in a class by itself.
All of your counter-examples pale in comparison because none are indicative of a continent-wide phenomenon lasting throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. I didn't say that other continents were unchanged, I said that comparatively Africa was unrecognizable. You have not disproven that (nor, being a personal subjective judgment, is it something that can really be 'disproved' but you have failed even to make a compelling case or contrast).
When commodore64_love said "Africa? I thought that story happened in the U.S." (emphasis mine) he was responding to eparker05 who said "...like that town in Africa where everybody claimed to be getting sick from radio waves until they were told that the tower had been turned off two weeks prior."
commodore64_love said 'that story' in reference to the post to which he was replying, not 'this story' which would have been an antecedent for the more general context of this topic.
Please go back and retake English grammar before you try to correct people who are already right.
The reason that things get lumped into "Africa" is that you can't count on many African countries to keep the same name for more than a generation. Case in point: Congo Free State > Belgian Congo > Republic of the Congo > Republic of Zaire > Democratic Republic of the Congo
I actually have a copy of a Routledge Atlas that is over 110 years old, and the Africa portrayed therein is politically unrecognizable, whereas all the other continents in the same book are basically the same now as then, regardless of colonialism.
I suppose my grandmother imagined the shortages she saw in the USSR when she visited in the 80s. Oh, but I forgot, your experience there is the one true anecdote, and all others are liars.
Yes, clearly the images where Photoshopped. I could tell from some of the pixels and having seen quite a few Photoshops in my time... er, wait a minute...
I expect that these people buy their furniture from Ikea and wouldn't know quality if it backhanded them in the face. I've seen these first hand too, first at the Child's Play 2008 charity dinner and later at PAX. They are of a quality commensurate with the price, and if I played more tabletop I would buy one.
I don't think you're qualified to talk about China's 'historical context'.
The relative political stability of the past 60 years is pretty much unprecedented.
Uh, what about Kangxi and Qianlong of the Qing? Mu and Ping of Zhou? Wu of Han? Chongzong and Renzong of Western Xia?
China's history is extremely mixed. For every bloody revolution there have been several bloodless (or relatively so) palace coups. It's just that the latter don't get noticed so much. It is however a gross oversimplification to categorize China's history of political change as one huge bloodbath.
All powers consider themselves to be the greatest and would hardly look at other cultures and go "you know what, we should consider adapting parts of a culture which hasn't come to be as dominant as we are".
History is littered with examples of cultures that have acted much like hermit crabs. Rome is probably the most well-known. Not only did they import Greek culture wholesale, including but not limited to religion, art, literature, drama, philosophy, etc. In fact the Romans were so slavish in their aping of the Greeks that sometimes it's hard to tell which is which sometimes. Rome was neither the first nor the last. As powerful as Greek culture was, when Alexander overran the Persians, he became enamored with their culture and even started to dress like them. The Seleucid kingdom although Greek at the top remained culturally quite Persian. This same pattern occurs elsewhere, sometimes in layers. The Normans are remembered for their Francification of England following the Norman conquest, but while there was some lasting impact on the language, the actual cultural impact was shallow and temporary. And their influence was mitigated by limited numbers albeit positioned at the top. Ironically, at the top of the Norman pyramid were Vikings, as the Norman duchy was given to a Viking raider by the King of France to pacify him mere generations before the Norman Conquest.
China itself is an interesting example, wherein the Mongols adopted Chinese culture almost immediately after their conquest, and were distinguishable from the natives only by their lack of subtlety. Then during the Manchurian occupation the reverse happened, where the Manchus essentially waged a war against Han culture even after the completion of their conquest, although many Manchurians could not resist the power of Han culture (even the less savory bits to the Western perspective like foot binding). Japan presents another interesting case where while completely convinced of their own superiority, they nonetheless made every effort to rapidly Westernize and ape Western dress, industry, government (they actually created a Parliamentary body based on the British House of Lords for their somewhat-dispossessed-by-the-Meiji-Restoration daimyo), etc.
While that wouldn't bother me since I'm bi, there was a very public discussion at PAX in Seattle last year of what female 'teabaggers' should be called, lacking 'bags'. Clam slam is my favorite.
I notice you skipped the substance (levels of social interaction) to focus on me. Very well. You know that there are many "problem children" in the public school system, do you not? Except for these children their parents lack the money or time or in some cases even the interest to send them to a private school or school them at home. What all this demonstrates is that homeschooling is, at a minimum, a superior approach for some people.
Your opinion of me is predictably negative. I didn't 'adapt'. I see it as entirely positive. If I had been a weaker, less capable, less talented, less imaginative, and less intelligent, I probably would have adapted fine. I also probably would end up making median income in some crappy make-work job. I would probably end up more shallow, less literate, and in every regard less valuable as a person.
I have a feeling you don't have kids. You don't seem to be able to put anything into context. Am I proud that my mother was forced repeatedly to listen in shame to the blather of some public servant? Of course not. Am I proud of my early abilities, even if immaturity lead me to misuse them? You're damn right I am, because while I matured out of my misuse of my abilities, the abilities themselves don't evaporate. If my daughter does something which is damaging/inconvenient/annoying whether maliciously, absent-mindedly or whatever, but that act demonstrates some kind of developing ability, yes, I will chastise her, but I will also be proud to see that she is developing an ability. She's a toddler for chrissake. With children pride can coexist with anger or disappointment.
There are different standards for different stages of life, and have been since time immemorial. If you haven't read it, I must recommend Cicero's In Defense of Marcus Caelius (though this translation is not as good as my hardcopy). It contains an excellently rendered defense of youth with all its flaws.
...you present that information with a hint of superiority over the standard educational process.
Homeschooling is superior.
Not to mention, you did not have the "standard" schooling experience, so how can you possible compare the two?
It's fun to make assumptions isn't it? I was in two public gradeschools, first in a standard program and next in a gifted program.
...but it certainly lacks in the scope of social interaction[.]
Yes, it does, but you assume the premise that the level of social interaction in public school is the 'right' level, and all other levels are wrong. I suggest that the level of social interaction is the 'wrong' level, and is unduly distracting from the educational effort.
Experiencing the social heirarchy among fellow students and the personalities of various teachers with hundreds of other students is worth something, and homeschooling can't possibly offer that.
Heh. I experienced the social hierarchy alright. I ran the social hierarchy. I was the kindergarten godfather because I had a natural, intuitive understanding of leadership and social dynamics. However, being a jerk-ass little kid, I used that to manipulate large groups of other little kids into doing my bidding, including beating up other kids for me so I didn't have to dirty my hands. My mom spent a lot of time in the principal's office thanks to my interaction with the 'social hierarchy'. Eventually she put me in a succession of two private schools (yes, I've experienced private school too, fancy that) before homeschooling me starting in 4th grade. I didn't develop a mature ethical aversion to manipulating people until round about 12-14. (Not that I haven't fallen back on it now and then to get laid, but who wouldn't?)
Sorry to tell you, but there IS a social stigma of sorts that goes along with homeschooling.
In certain circles there is a social stigma to intelligence itself. (NEEEEERD!) Does that mean intelligence should be avoided/demonized? While this is a strawman, the analogy is still sound. I don't care about stigmas if the source is ignorance, bigotry, or whatever other negative aspect of the human condition.
Slashdot Mirror
He was wearing army boots, just like your mother. Nyah!
I am extremely confused as to what you're trying to convey... all I said that the all the Toyota issues were almost certainly not simple 'human error' as implied by the original poster... and you jump in with some cryptic nonsense about church abuse? I really have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make.
Yeah, I'm sure that John Saylor who was trained as a CHP officer for driving in adverse conditions at high speeds was totally just hitting the wrong pedal when he and his family were killed.
Wouldn't those be software engineers and hence still engineers?
You started by saying that the Irish, Austro-Hungarians, and Ottomans would take issue with my singling out Africa from my global view of more than a century ago. That's how that parameter started out, and it was underscored by my response wherein I noted that Africa's name changes span centuries.
Name changes do happen at a certain 'background level' in all parts of the world at all times, and occasionally at higher rates and in higher concentrations such as Eastern Europe after the collapse of the USSR, but that still is neither as broad as a continent nor as long as several centuries of consistent change. I maintain that there is no example in modern history equivalent to or surpassing Africa in terms of the scope of time or geographic expanse wherein so many countries have changed their names so many times. It is in a class by itself.
Less than a century. Fails parameters. Sorry.
All of your counter-examples pale in comparison because none are indicative of a continent-wide phenomenon lasting throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. I didn't say that other continents were unchanged, I said that comparatively Africa was unrecognizable. You have not disproven that (nor, being a personal subjective judgment, is it something that can really be 'disproved' but you have failed even to make a compelling case or contrast).
When commodore64_love said "Africa? I thought that story happened in the U.S." (emphasis mine) he was responding to eparker05 who said "...like that town in Africa where everybody claimed to be getting sick from radio waves until they were told that the tower had been turned off two weeks prior."
commodore64_love said 'that story' in reference to the post to which he was replying, not 'this story' which would have been an antecedent for the more general context of this topic.
Please go back and retake English grammar before you try to correct people who are already right.
The reason that things get lumped into "Africa" is that you can't count on many African countries to keep the same name for more than a generation. Case in point: Congo Free State > Belgian Congo > Republic of the Congo > Republic of Zaire > Democratic Republic of the Congo
I actually have a copy of a Routledge Atlas that is over 110 years old, and the Africa portrayed therein is politically unrecognizable, whereas all the other continents in the same book are basically the same now as then, regardless of colonialism.
How do you control for the possibility that your experience is psychosomatic?
eparker05 is correct, it was Africa.
Which is not to say that similar events have not happened in many places.
I suppose my grandmother imagined the shortages she saw in the USSR when she visited in the 80s. Oh, but I forgot, your experience there is the one true anecdote, and all others are liars.
As Dr. McCoy once said, 'You mean I have to die to discuss your insights on death?'
Your insistence on a posteriori knowledge is irrational, and wtbname handed you your rhetorical ass already.
Congratulations on not watching the whole video, you twit.
Yes, clearly the images where Photoshopped. I could tell from some of the pixels and having seen quite a few Photoshops in my time... er, wait a minute...
I expect that these people buy their furniture from Ikea and wouldn't know quality if it backhanded them in the face. I've seen these first hand too, first at the Child's Play 2008 charity dinner and later at PAX. They are of a quality commensurate with the price, and if I played more tabletop I would buy one.
The relative political stability of the past 60 years is pretty much unprecedented.
Uh, what about Kangxi and Qianlong of the Qing? Mu and Ping of Zhou? Wu of Han? Chongzong and Renzong of Western Xia?
China's history is extremely mixed. For every bloody revolution there have been several bloodless (or relatively so) palace coups. It's just that the latter don't get noticed so much. It is however a gross oversimplification to categorize China's history of political change as one huge bloodbath.
All powers consider themselves to be the greatest and would hardly look at other cultures and go "you know what, we should consider adapting parts of a culture which hasn't come to be as dominant as we are".
History is littered with examples of cultures that have acted much like hermit crabs. Rome is probably the most well-known. Not only did they import Greek culture wholesale, including but not limited to religion, art, literature, drama, philosophy, etc. In fact the Romans were so slavish in their aping of the Greeks that sometimes it's hard to tell which is which sometimes. Rome was neither the first nor the last. As powerful as Greek culture was, when Alexander overran the Persians, he became enamored with their culture and even started to dress like them. The Seleucid kingdom although Greek at the top remained culturally quite Persian. This same pattern occurs elsewhere, sometimes in layers. The Normans are remembered for their Francification of England following the Norman conquest, but while there was some lasting impact on the language, the actual cultural impact was shallow and temporary. And their influence was mitigated by limited numbers albeit positioned at the top. Ironically, at the top of the Norman pyramid were Vikings, as the Norman duchy was given to a Viking raider by the King of France to pacify him mere generations before the Norman Conquest.
China itself is an interesting example, wherein the Mongols adopted Chinese culture almost immediately after their conquest, and were distinguishable from the natives only by their lack of subtlety. Then during the Manchurian occupation the reverse happened, where the Manchus essentially waged a war against Han culture even after the completion of their conquest, although many Manchurians could not resist the power of Han culture (even the less savory bits to the Western perspective like foot binding). Japan presents another interesting case where while completely convinced of their own superiority, they nonetheless made every effort to rapidly Westernize and ape Western dress, industry, government (they actually created a Parliamentary body based on the British House of Lords for their somewhat-dispossessed-by-the-Meiji-Restoration daimyo), etc.
Yes that was the popular favorite, but I could see the pain in Jerry Holkins face every time somebody brought it up at the Q&A.
Completely coincidental. I blame Slashdot for my unyielding pedantry.
I'm married actually, so I don't date much... so I guess you're technically accurate in your attempt at humor.
Oh, but if it were a wholly-straight innuendo I bet that would be fine, wouldn't it?
While that wouldn't bother me since I'm bi, there was a very public discussion at PAX in Seattle last year of what female 'teabaggers' should be called, lacking 'bags'. Clam slam is my favorite.
I notice you skipped the substance (levels of social interaction) to focus on me. Very well. You know that there are many "problem children" in the public school system, do you not? Except for these children their parents lack the money or time or in some cases even the interest to send them to a private school or school them at home. What all this demonstrates is that homeschooling is, at a minimum, a superior approach for some people.
Your opinion of me is predictably negative. I didn't 'adapt'. I see it as entirely positive. If I had been a weaker, less capable, less talented, less imaginative, and less intelligent, I probably would have adapted fine. I also probably would end up making median income in some crappy make-work job. I would probably end up more shallow, less literate, and in every regard less valuable as a person.
I have a feeling you don't have kids. You don't seem to be able to put anything into context. Am I proud that my mother was forced repeatedly to listen in shame to the blather of some public servant? Of course not. Am I proud of my early abilities, even if immaturity lead me to misuse them? You're damn right I am, because while I matured out of my misuse of my abilities, the abilities themselves don't evaporate. If my daughter does something which is damaging/inconvenient/annoying whether maliciously, absent-mindedly or whatever, but that act demonstrates some kind of developing ability, yes, I will chastise her, but I will also be proud to see that she is developing an ability. She's a toddler for chrissake. With children pride can coexist with anger or disappointment.
There are different standards for different stages of life, and have been since time immemorial. If you haven't read it, I must recommend Cicero's In Defense of Marcus Caelius (though this translation is not as good as my hardcopy). It contains an excellently rendered defense of youth with all its flaws.
...you present that information with a hint of superiority over the standard educational process.
Homeschooling is superior.
Not to mention, you did not have the "standard" schooling experience, so how can you possible compare the two?
It's fun to make assumptions isn't it? I was in two public gradeschools, first in a standard program and next in a gifted program.
...but it certainly lacks in the scope of social interaction[.]
Yes, it does, but you assume the premise that the level of social interaction in public school is the 'right' level, and all other levels are wrong. I suggest that the level of social interaction is the 'wrong' level, and is unduly distracting from the educational effort.
Experiencing the social heirarchy among fellow students and the personalities of various teachers with hundreds of other students is worth something, and homeschooling can't possibly offer that.
Heh. I experienced the social hierarchy alright. I ran the social hierarchy. I was the kindergarten godfather because I had a natural, intuitive understanding of leadership and social dynamics. However, being a jerk-ass little kid, I used that to manipulate large groups of other little kids into doing my bidding, including beating up other kids for me so I didn't have to dirty my hands. My mom spent a lot of time in the principal's office thanks to my interaction with the 'social hierarchy'. Eventually she put me in a succession of two private schools (yes, I've experienced private school too, fancy that) before homeschooling me starting in 4th grade. I didn't develop a mature ethical aversion to manipulating people until round about 12-14. (Not that I haven't fallen back on it now and then to get laid, but who wouldn't?)
Sorry to tell you, but there IS a social stigma of sorts that goes along with homeschooling.
In certain circles there is a social stigma to intelligence itself. (NEEEEERD!) Does that mean intelligence should be avoided/demonized? While this is a strawman, the analogy is still sound. I don't care about stigmas if the source is ignorance, bigotry, or whatever other negative aspect of the human condition.