I don't believe the Internet can make a person dumber, but it can contribute to intellectual laziness - being convinced that the answer is out there if you care enough to look for it could conceivably make you less likely to try to figure something out for yourself.
This is only part of the problem of being able to look up facts instantaneously. People who actually know a lot about something (which would necessarily include knowing a lot of random facts about that thing) are able to organize and synthesize that information more efficiently. That's the whole point of experts.
Even raw memorization has its value. Today, we often look back and laugh at exercises assigned by teachers in previous generations requiring memorization of poems, large sections of Shakespeare, etc. How quaint! But any educated gentleman back then would have had a copy of Shakespeare's complete works in his library and probably any famous poems he was required to memorize. The situation hasn't changed with the internet. We have even more facts at our fingertips.
So why were those memorization tasks assigned? In part, because the text became a "part of you." I don't mean anything mystical here -- merely that it became a resource you could meditate on and draw on in your future intellectual pursuits.
In medieval Europe, for example, when books were rare and precious, people often used complex memory aids to memorize entire books. Drawings commonly show people eating or chewing on books as a symbol of "consuming" them by memorization so that they could meditate on the wisdom therein. There are even accounts of authors who would compose their own works within their minds, essentially creating a mnemonic as they went, through meditation on all of the works they had memorized. With the expense of parchment and paper, culture still had a primary oral component, and only the truly rich could afford a place for a written "draft." Only later would it be dictated to a scribe.
With our modern access to millions of books and other materials, such an approach seems outdated. But the idea that one's understanding of material is enhanced by actually knowing it, as opposed to just being able to find it, is still very important.
Regular people can't wait to graduate high school, because then they can "quit learning", and they succeed in every way.[...] As for some people, or those with a thirst for knowledge, it has accelerated their ability to find answers...
TFA (the last link) makes some reasonable points about why a blanket euthanization policy for all birds could be extreme. But then it goes too far and wants to save everything. From the conclusion:
Because all people use oil or oil-related products in some form, I maintain that it is both ethical and responsible to try to save as many oiled birds and other wildlife as we can. [...] I think that each life is intrinsically valuable and that each animal is deserving of care and protection. In a world where life is not always respected and valued, I think that saving the life of even one bird sends an important message.
Awww... you want to save the animals? Every life is sacred! Well, you can start by saving the life of the tapeworm that took up residence in your body, or perhaps that mosquito that just bit you and gave you malaria. What? You see a breeding ground for those disease-ridden mosquitoes and want to dump the water? Don't kill the larvae! Or what about the rats that infest your house and could potentially bring disease, particularly if they are allowed to multiple and run rampant in urban areas? You might think that trapping them humanely and releasing them is doing a good deed, but be sure you release them in a habitat where they can find enough food, or you're just contributing to their prolonged starvation as they die a horrible death. Better safe than sorry -- leave food out for them and keep them in your home.
Oh wait -- I bet TFA is just talking about cute animals that aren't annoying, disease-ridden, or parasitic to humans.
I'm against unnecessary cruelty to animals, but it simply doesn't make sense to try to save every possible bird here, from either a monetary or moral perspective. Those which can be relatively easily treated, sure. But the humane thing to do for birds who are unlikely to recover and who would be completely stressed out by prolonged contact with humans is to euthanize them. Just like the humane thing to do for many pets (and even humans) with a likely terminal condition is to stop forcing treatment on them and let them die.
removed him from AP classes and stuck him in a class with low-performing students.
This is pretty outrageous. Lets say that the court finds that the school district was fully within their rights to discipline the student... they still shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Absolutely agree with this. This is a truly important point, and perhaps one that's obfuscated by a lot of the posts about the case. The school's first priority is education. AP classes are offered to enhance the education of students who are qualified. Whether or not a student gets to be in such a class should only ever be a case of academic standards. Extracurricular activities are another matter, since they generally aren't part of the primary educational mission of the school.
But purely academic matters should never be related to disciplinary procedures. Educational opportunities should be open to all students equally, whether they behave badly or like little angels.
This sounds like a teacher who gives a superior student an "F" just because he's an ass, which is just a sign of bad teaching. Perhaps behavior might play a small role in grading, as an element of "class participation" and such. But I remember at some point having "conduct" ratings in school as well as grades, thereby explicitly separating the two issues.
In any case, throwing a kid out of an AP class for bad behavior is simply inexcusable. Throw him into detention or in-school suspension if he's that disruptive. But just moving him to another class with sub-par academics is outrageous.
If you print out fliers at home calling the principle a pedophile and hand them out in the hallway, can the school punish you?
Or perhaps a better analogy to the situation at hand:
If you print out fliers at home calling the principal a pedophile and then stand on the sidewalk on a street that a large portion of students walk through handing them out on the way into school (knowing that many students will bring them to school, show to others, etc.), can the school punish you?
Personally, in this case, and in similar cases, I think we'd need to apply an extension of Tinker: did the student's actions materially disrupt the school's ability to maintain order and educate students within the school?
If everybody just thought of it as a joke and no disruptions occurred, no punishment should occur, even if such a prank is in poor taste; at best, the fliers should be confiscated when they appear on school grounds. (If the fliers were handed out on school grounds, I think the school has a case for punishment even without significant disruptions actually occurring, if they deemed the actions likely to result in disruption.)
If, however, there's evidence that it caused significant problems on campus, punishment should be considered, though preferably in consultation with parents. Generally speaking, most parents I think would agree that a student should be punished for doing something like that.
The problem would come when the parents and school disagree (for whatever reason) -- in that case, the school should probably tread lightly unless they have overwhelming and specific evidence that the behavior directly resulted in significant disruptions at school.
Overall, I think the biggest issue in most such court cases is lack of adequate communication and understanding between parents and schools. In some small percentage of such cases, the parents are trying to make a point about free speech or whatever; in some other small percentage of cases, the school administrators are clearly overbearing, out-of-line, or acting inappropriately. But given my own experience as a student (who was once inappropriately punished for an action I didn't even commit) as well as a teacher who had to deal with things from the other side, I think most such problems arise when school officials don't discuss problems adequately with parents or when parents are trying to be overprotective toward their children. In this case, ideally the parents, administrators, and students should just have sorted out a reasonable solution (which would probably involve taking down the false information and some minor punishment from the school).
I'd draw the line there, but think of it this way: The alternate interpretation is that you simply are not allowed to say anything bad about the Principal, ever, if there's the slightest chance it could make it to school.
Actually, there are plenty of interpretations in the middle. This is a false dichotomy.
The further implication is that if a student started a blog, that blog would essentially be censored by the school, even if it was hosted by the student and never intended to be viewed at the school. And remember, school is taking a huge chunk of the student's life, so they are definitely going to talk about school, and about events at school, and they should be allowed to do so.
This implication doesn't follow at all. Just because we allow a school to place restrictions on some aspects of things that happen off of school grounds (or can come onto school grounds) doesn't mean that we then have to allow the school the ability to censor anything it wants to whenever it wants to.
The Tinker doctrine of the Supreme Court already draws a line between appropriate censorship in school versus inappropriate censorship in school:
"conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."
While this is open to interpretation, it identifies specific problems -- "materially disrupts classwork," "involves substantial disorder," "invasion of the rights of others." I think one could pretty easily argue that a billboard across the street from a school calling the principal a pedophile might impact his/her reputation and thereby disrupt the principal's ability to maintain order. This might disrupt the education of children at the school as a whole.
The bar obviously needs to be set higher for intervention outside of school, but remember that school officials are not just agents of the government. They are acting in loco parentis and therefore have discretionary powers that other government officials don't. An absolute limitation of the school's power at the doors of the school makes a student's trip home like a visit to grandma's house -- suddenly all your parents' rules don't apply and you can act however you want. But, like parents, schools have to deal with the consequences of children returning to them. If the stuff that happens at grandma's begins to affect how the child acts at home, the parents could and should make some guidelines about those actions that happened elsewhere and yet impact what goes on in their home.
Obviously parents have very broad discretion in this matter. But in extreme cases, schools also may have to deal with the consequences of students' actions outside of school when the consequences of such actions "materially disrupt classwork" inside the school, create "substantial disorder" inside the school, or "invade the rights of others" inside the school. What recourse should they have?
If an action taken outside of school results in a significant disruption of the school's primary educational mission (perhaps including blatant defamation of the reputation of the school or its officials, which could significantly undermine their authority), might a course of action from the school be warranted?
I'll back away as well; this will be my last contribution to the debate.
I'll just note that your claim a few posts up was that your form was used in places with a long history of speaking English... like England. There may be some problems with the OED, but it is pretty comprehensive, and it doesn't support that claim. About the Southern US, well, it may be an older dialect form (perhaps this is what's showing up as the 19th century dialect form in the OED), but I did live in the Southern US for a few years, and I didn't hear many verbs in the form you mention.
The verbing of a noun is called, well, verbification (or conversion). It can be done with nearly any noun.
Yes, you're talking about turning a noun into a verb, which you then add an "-ing" to (forming a present participle or gerund). But that's not an "-ing form of a noun." It's an "-ing" form of a verb that is derived/converted from a noun. You wouldn't generally have an "-ing" form of the noun if the root isn't also a verb. Want proof? Ask yourself how many such "-ing" forms depend on a specific verbal meaning that isn't the same as the original noun. "Batting" or "e-mailing" already have a primary action associated with the noun. But take other words:
benching, screening, dolling, booking, walling, pencilling, chairing, etc.
These ultimately come from nouns bench, screen, doll, book, wall, pencil, chair, etc., but not directly. Instead, there are verbs that have very specific meanings, which are related to the original nouns, but often have different connotations (and often require specific idioms -- "dolling up," "pencilling in," etc.).
In essence, these aren't "forms" of a noun. They are other words derived from a noun. What's the difference? In the former case, you're just using English syntax to make a word plural, change to a different tense, mood, etc. You can do it to any word of a particular grammatical class. In the latter case, you're actually making a new word that has to have a new meaning. For some words, it may be apparent to listeners or readers what you mean, because (like "e-mail" or "bat") there is a clear associated action.
For most words, though, it's not readily apparent to a listener what you mean if the verbal form doesn't already exist. What would "desking," "dooring," "knobbing," "drawering," "bookshelfing," etc. mean? (Just to verbify a bunch of objects I see when I look around the room from my desk.) Some of these are used as verbs, but the meaning is not readily apparent -- "knobbing," for example, has been used historically in some circumstances to refer to putting knobs onto something and in other ones to taking them off/out of something. Thus, it would be inaccurate to say that there is an "-ing" form of the noun "knob," because it has never become a standard verb.
Hence, I repeat my assertion that nouns don't generally have an "-ing" form. If you wish, I'll qualify that by saying -- except when they have already been turned into verbs.
Since this post has been modded funny, I'm not sure when you're joking anymore.
And I never said it was common. I only said it was 'proper/correct'.
"Proper/correct" by whose standard? Apparently, since you appeal to "unabridged" dictionaries in your previous posts, those are the places to look. Yet such dictionaries don't list your form as correct. So how do we determine what is "proper/correct"? Do we just ask you?
And the OED is not, even remotely, the 'best' dictionary in the world. Just the most respected. Like calling Oxford or Harvard the 'best' schools. I would recommend a unabridged dictionary, which the OED is not.
The OED is an unabridged dictionary. "Unabridged" isn't in the title (as it is for some Webster dictionaries), but it is unabridged, according to the traditional meaning of the term "unabridged." It tries to track every variant of every meaning, spelling, etc. of every word that has existed in English since Old English. I don't know how it is possible to be more "unabridged" than that.
You do realize that the OED is actually 20 VOLUMES long, right? It's about as long and as big as an entire set of encyclopedias. It has its faults, and may not always be the "best" dictionary for all purposes, but it can certainly claim to be the most comprehensive (i.e., unabridged) dictionary of the English language.
But I doubt you would specifically find 'sinked' in any of them, anymore than you would find an -ing version of every noun. Just the way it's said/written in proper English conversation or correspondence.
"-ing" versions of verbs are called gerunds, and you'll find all of them listed in the OED. They often even have separate entries, with all the variant historical spellings and any specialized uses separate from the root verb. (As opposed to in Webster's Unabridged where they are generally just included in an entry as "-ING" for a primary word.) Nouns don't generally have an "-ing" form, so they wouldn't be in a dictionary.
Oh, by the way, I realized some might not be familiar with the number convention of archaic spellings in the OED. Basically, a number "1" means before the year 1100, other numbers mean the succeeding centuries -- 2 = 12th century (1100-1200), 3 = 13th century, etc.
So, "sinked" in this case is listed as "7 (9 dial.)", which means that it was common in the 17th century (1600-1700) era, and apparently was a dialect form in some regions in the 19th century. Not exactly a popular historical form.
I don't get the joke here either. Are you claiming "sinked" is correct or not? Did you intend to say "no" instead of "know" or not? I think you need [sarcasm] tags.
Secondly, I would recommend a real (e.g. physical), unabridged dictionary. However if you want you want to use an online dictionary I would recommend thefreedictionary.com as it is far more expansive on pronunciation.
Actually, the best unabridged dictionary in the world is the Oxford English Dictionary, which is available online (for a subscription fee, though). It's better than the paper form of the OED, which isn't updated as frequently.
The -ed in past tense verbs becomes more common in ares that have been speaking English for a longer period of time. For example, in the Southern US (where they have been speaking English for a long time), and in England (where English was invented) many verbs are in the -ed format: swimmed, runned, stinged, waked, sinked, etc.
I'm going to have to call BS on this part. The OED is the standard authority of English in England. Under "sink" it lists:
Pa. tense sank, sunk. pa. pple. sunk, sunken.
The OED is notorious for being a bit permissive in such matters, being a fairly descriptive dictionary. If "sinked" were a common form, it would be listed as such. Furthermore, even in the historical list of forms, "sinked" comes up short:
Here "sinked" is only listed as a relatively minor historical dialect form, hardly what is "proper/correct" as you claim. Moreover, it doesn't appear to be that historically important, and certainly not the most common "old" form.
Because they have a Dr. for a prefix and a MD for a suffix to their name they act like they are the smartest person in the world.
They've been through medical school, so yeah, I'd say they are some of the smartest people in the world. I'm not saying they have the right to be assholes, but it seems like elitism is justified here.
I know a heck of a lot of really smart people in a lot of professions. I know a lot of people who have been through 8 years of college or more in various professions (lots of Ph.D.s in engineering, science, humanities, not to mention lawyers, etc.). Doctors are about the only ones who insist on a title in most circumstances. Why is the elitist use of a title justified here?
Medical doctors are, by and large, smart people. I won't dispute that. But are they more elite than most other professions that require a doctorate? Not really. In fact, I'd say in terms of technical knowledge and ability, I've met a number of biology, genetics, biomedical engineering, etc. Ph.D.s who are leagues ahead of the vast majority of doctors in terms of understanding of the technical aspects of medicine.
Doctors have to deal with people, though. A good doctor isn't necessarily the smartest, but rather one that balances intelligence with good people skills, which are essential to get information from a patient for diagnosis, to figure out how to interpret what a patient is telling you versus what might really be going on, etc.
Do doctors deserve respect? Of course. But more respect that other people with similarly elite qualifications, credentials, and abilities?
I don't agree with the GP's decision to use first names by default unless they know the person well. That said...
ou should go to medical school. After you fail and drop out you will then understand why the get respect. I also suggest you learn what they do every day.
I know quite a few doctors. I know lots of other smart people. I know lots of other people who work hard. Out of these people, I know a lot of people who are smarter than many doctors I know and a lot of people who work harder than many doctors I know.
Lots of people work very hard and accomplish a lot. But there are only a few professions where people insist on titles to recognize those accomplishments. Politicians get them for historical and diplomatic reasons. Clergy get them because of historical and theological reasons. Military personnel get them because the hierarchy requires them. Why do doctors get them? Because they work hard and went to a tough school? Yeah... so what?
Md's are highly trained. They are experts. You are not. You're opinion in that field should never carry as much weight as theirs.
I do think the GGGP's (or whatever) solution of using first names is a bit insulting. That said, I think you're misunderstanding the point of the GP. From that post:
To address one differently then another is to assume a different value to that person over others.
Note that he didn't say "a different value to that person's opinion," he said "a different value to that person."
And, in that sense, I agree with the GP. Titles are around to force people to give a certain level of deference or respect to certain people. That may have a point in strictly hierarchical societies (like the military, where titles are very important, or perhaps in diplomatic relations), but in average everyday encounters between people, it is actually a bit weird if you stop and think about it.
That Dr has MORE VALUE in the medical industry then you do.
Just like a bridge engineer has MORE VALUE in designing bridges then you do.
Yeah, you sort of prove the point here. Why are doctors special in getting their titles? Do you say "Engineer Smith" when you address that guy with technical expertise? Hell, even if the engineer has a doctorate in civil engineering, I bet nobody calls him "Doctor" except if he were to give a talk in an academic context or something like that.
The idea of titles is to give information.
Rarely. The idea of titles is to differentiate people into different classes and force some people to respect others, as in the military, clergy, aristocracy, etc., which is where most titles came from. If you want to treat a person as an equal, you use his/her name.
In the case of medical doctors, the "information" conveyed by the title only matters in an emergency situation where someone walks up to treat you, and you want to know if that person is qualified. Even in that case, do you really just trust them on the basis that they call themselves "Doctor"? In 99% of your interactions with most doctors, you already know who they are or can easily discover it (name badge?), so the title carries no information.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no rational hate for Obama. He may have done some things you don't like, but he hasn't killed anybody.
Umm... I think thousands of Iraqis (including thousands of civilian Iraqis), thousands of Afghanis (again including thousands of civilians), people killed by drone warfare, etc. would disagree.
Obama is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States. As such, he has the ultimate responsibility for killing at least ten thousand people, probably many more, some intentionally and some indirectly by his actions, since he assumed the presidency.
I'm not an Obama-hater. But I can see reasons why some people might hate him. (Whether hate can ever be "rational" is another story.)
The disadvantage is in the opportunity cost. You could have spent the time you dedicated to memorizing words to becoming better at math...
And why exactly is getting better at math necessarily superior to getting better at spelling? The average person will never have to do math beyond being able to make up a budget and understanding the basic terms of a loan or an investment (which unfortunately is something schools don't tend to teach well, but that doesn't require a lot of time, just practice).
Most of these activities at a young age are more important for their side benefits, rather than the immediate ones. Doing a lot of extra math problems will probably increase certain logical and perhaps spatial reasoning abilities. Spending a lot of time studying for an advanced spelling bee will give you insight into etymology, which can aid in future acquisition of vocabulary and foreign languages.
Perhaps more important than any of the details is the degree of effort and perfectionism in intellectual matters that such competitions encourage, whether in math, spelling, geography, history, whatever. Like most things in primary and secondary school, these things aren't useful in the long run to most people... but the habits of learning that are developed can often carry over into other matters.
Is immaculate spelling really a useful thing these days?
It depends on your position. "Immaculate" spelling is probably only necessary for a very small percentage of people, and I'd say that has generally been the case in the past as well. I think people tend to overestimate the number of people in the past who had immaculate spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. skills.
For example, people have been complaining about misuse of apostrophes for the past century, as in plurals like "potato's for sale" or whatever. Look at grammar guides from a century ago, and you'll see the same crap about differentiating "they're" versus "there" versus "their." With spellcheck today, those problems still remain, though that's not as much a spelling problem as a grammar/usage problem.
Certainly advanced spelling of many vocabulary words you'll never use (as in these competitions) isn't important in and of itself. But "pretty good" spelling is important, as is "pretty good" grammar, punctuation, etc. And if you choose particular careers having to do with writing, or you want to move up the chain in the business world, you need to be able to write according to the "professional" standard of your field. Most such professional standards tend to change slowly, over a generation or two, so I don't think the need to spell is going away anytime soon.
Finally, I'd note the real benefits of these spelling competitions: an advanced vocabulary, a greater understanding of etymology, etc. are much more useful than the ability to spell every random word in the dictionary. An advanced understanding of etymology makes learning vocabulary and even other languages easier. While having a huge vocabulary may not help most people in everyday life, the knowledge and flexibility it grants to people at a young age can be very beneficial for learning and then getting ahead in the initial stages of their careers.
adj. Pertaining to, connected with, or used in courts of law; suitable or analogous to pleadings in court.
It comes from the Latin word "forum," as in the Roman Forum, where public debates were held and legal proceedings were carried out. With CSI and such, it seems people think "forensics" means something like "finding and analyzing evidence," but unless that evidence is meant for a courtroom, it's not "forensics."
What this person is doing is historical research, pure and simple. It's what a historian does. If I discover the subject of a historical painting, am I doing "forensic art"? If I discover the identity of a battle that is referenced in a historical poem, am I doing "forensic warfare"? No. I'm doing history -- art history, military history, whatever.
Many people think that historians just sit around telling stories about the past, perhaps digging through documents and books in archives. But there's a lot of technical stuff going on all the time -- you can figure out where a document might have originated by watermarks in the paper, many historians are pretty adept at paleography and handwriting analysis to determine the authenticity of a manuscript, analysis of ink color, paper size, pen type, and such can all narrow down the possible geographic origin, etc. Just because you're doing something dealing with science or using scientific methods doesn't mean it isn't still history.
Honestly, I'm a little suspicious whenever I see some historical argument labeled as "forensics," which usually implies either that the author is a historian trying to sound hip or that some random scientist (perhaps with forensics training) has jumped into doing historical research, often with little background in history. Either way, it can sometimes be a way to sidestep peer review and get published in the mainstream media.
Anyhow, these people are helping to write the history of astronomy, perhaps as it impacted artists, writers, and the public at large, but it's still just history. Unless someone's going to sue someone else over it, though, it's not "forensic."
Yeah, 'cause Wikipedia is the fount of all knowledge.
You're right, we don't know for absolute certain that Copernicus wasn't a priest. But if you actually read scholarly articles about the period (like I do), you'll find that people have dug through thousands of documents, and Copernicus was never referred to as a priest in his lifetime... and in fact, in a number of places where he was mentioned with priests or in other official correspondence where he'd be given a title, he wasn't given the title of priest. So, all the circumstantial evidence suggests that he was not a priest, hence my assertion "Copernicus was probably not a priest..." The first person who apparently makes that assertion is Galileo, who was trying to argue against censorship of Copernicus's materials and apparently made up the "priest" story.
Normally I wouldn't respond to a troll, but I have hope sometimes that people will have the curiosity to go out and learn something.
I have news for you. No one and no group is infallible just because they claim to be. It is fantasy. It is insanity. It is the basis on which you do great acts of harm.
Did I ever say I believed in infallibility? I don't. I wouldn't even consider myself to be religious. But I am a historian. Don't assume things. You're the one who brought up "infallibility." I was just pointing out that your use of the term is anachronistic.
I quite frankly don't want to study your church or it's works of fantasy in more detail.
"My" church? I'm not Catholic. But if you're going to make assertions about history, whether about a church, a scientist, or whatever, you need to back up your assertions with facts. If you don't want to learn about the things you're talking about, don't talk about them. (And by the way, "it's" means "it is." "Its" is a possessive.)
Okay, first off -- you're conflating a whole bunch of stuff between Copernicus and Galileo. Copernicus lived about a century before Galileo, was a priest, wrote his book, dedicated it to the pope, and nothing happened to it for about 75 years after his death. That hardly qualifies as trying to "bury" the science, and Copernicus was certainly never persecuted.
You've just finished telling me to check my facts and then launched into a tirade of misinformation.
Okay, let's see what you have to say...
First of all Galileo was born in 1564. Copernicus died in 1543. Now that's 21 years by my count, not 100. Even if you allow another 20 or 30 for Galileo to mature to adulthood your exaggeration of a century is preposterous.
Copernicus: 1473-1543. Galileo: 1564-1642. Copernicus was born 91 years before Galileo was born, and he died 99 years before Galileo died. Copernicus's mature work was mostly written in the 1530s. Galileo's in the 1620s-early 1630s. Sounds like according to a reasonable interpretation of "lived a century before," that's pretty accurate. Yeah, they weren't a century apart between the death of one and the birth of another, but in terms of their overall lifespans, they lived approximately a century apart.
Secondly, Copernicus did not publish his work, even when he was old and frail BECAUSE he feared retribution from the church (like taking away his lands even after his death). Yes he was never persecuted because he was more careful than Galilieo to hush up what he had discovered. That's a further indictment of the church.
This is an absolute crock -- a story essentially made up in the 19th century. Go read a real history book. He didn't "hush up" anything. Hell, he dedicated his book to the pope. And the reason he didn't publish earlier had to do with his personality, sort of perfectionist -- he didn't think he had the final theory in place. Not to mention that the publication of a technical work of that length was rather arduous in those days. It was a young scholar who came to study with him who convinced him that he should publish, and a few years afterward, the book came out.
Even in the early 1600s, Copernicus's book wasn't banned -- just a few short sections that asserted that heliocentrism was actually true as opposed to a mathematical model were censored.
Oh well that's alright then isn't it? That his most important discovery was censored. Just as long as the rest of the book was permitted. Idiot.
The discovery wasn't censored. The "discovery" was the mathematical model. People at the time were still into astrology (both the church and your scientists) and predicting the locations of the planets was important. There were a few sentences that essentially said, "Heliocentrism is true." Those were redacted.
Fashion is an interesting case because it's exempted from copyright laws, and the legal reasoning for that exemption is specious. Think about it: fashion is too utilitarian to be copyrighted, but *software* is not? I can design an evening gown for somebody to wear to the Oscars, and that's *utilitarian*, but if I write a spanning tree algorithm for a a network hub, that's *creative*?
I don't think you're getting at the basis for copyright law, at least in the U.S. To quote the Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Notice the rationale for copyright, given in the first clause: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Whatever copyright law has subsequently become, it traditionally has absolutely nothing to do with artistic "creativity." It's main purpose is to advance society by promoting scientific and useful creative endeavors. (I should note that the word "Arts" in the 18th century had slightly different connotations than today; it still had a lot to do with skilled crafts.)
Fashion is actually not "useful" in that sense, and therefore should not be protected by copyright. Quite a bit of software, on the other hand, has been used to promote technological progress, and therefore at least some of it should be protected.
All a human -really- needs to know is how to read/speak a popular language and critical thinking skills. The rest, in the 21st century will fall into place.
Yeah, except that true understanding generally comes from actually knowing something. Just because I can look up atomic facts in Google doesn't mean that I can actually understand anything about them, or know whether they're important, or even be able to detect whether someone is BS'ing.
I love Google and instant access to facts nowadays just as much as the next person. But I run into more and more people these days who read one or two articles or blogs on the internet and think they know everything there is to know about a topic or issue. This isn't a new trend -- it used to be the guy who read some magazine article, but while there was always junk in magazines as well, a lot of crap got filtered out by publishers. Stuff on the internet, on the other hand, can be insightful but can also be free-range idiocy. In particular, it's much easier for someone to come up with half a dozen sources that seem to support their crazy-ass theory of something, no matter what that preconceived theory is.
There's a reason why we should still pay attention to the engineer or the historian (in your examples) beyond the fact that they may have memorized certain facts they use every day -- "critical thinking skills" are great, but the ability to map them onto unfamiliar topics well is pretty rare, in my experience. Most people gradually develop specific critical thinking skills needed to do their profession over time, and part of that process is assimilating a lot of knowledge about that profession.
In essence, the reason to know something is because it means you've gone beyond the basic recitation of facts sorted by some vague "critical thinking" filter that doesn't understand the subject matter.
That unconscious guy in the burning building doesn't *care* that you're female, and can only drag 150 pounds; he still weighs 200.
Not to be pedantic, but there are women who can carry a 200-pound man, so, in way, your "female" descriptor is irrelevant. The unconscious man only needs you to get him out of the building; if you can, you should be able to be a firefighter. If you can't, whether because you're a small female, disabled in some way, or simply a scrawny guy with no muscle... well, you have no business on the job.
In any case killing the author did not gain anything for the murderer..... it would still expire at 14 years.
Umm... not that I think such a murder scenario is likely, but on the logic of the GP's argument, you're wrong. Most works make most of their money in the first few years after they are released. There are a precious minority that are well-known decades later, but people who want to make money off of derivative works (for example) probably want to do it as soon as possible after a work becomes popular, hence Hollywood adaptations of recent novels, for example. It's pretty rare to see a Hollywood adaptation of a new work of literature more than 14 years after it was published, except for works that have become "classics."
So in theory the copyright would extend beyond the author's death but in most cases the copyright expired several years prior.
It wasn't just "in theory" that copyright went beyond the author's death. If you read a bit about the history of copyright in the 19th century, you'll quickly uncover debates and people arguing about providing for widows and children in the event of an author's death. When the average lifespan of children who survived infancy was about 55-60 years, 28 years was a significant chunk of an author's life, if not his/her entire adult life. It was quite likely that an author would die before those 28 years had passed.
Good idea and I would like it implemented. But then, there still would be abuses of the practice such as The Beatles "White Album" re-reissue with absolute rarities such as "Paul coughs in the microphone," "George breaks a string," and "Ringo punches John in the groin after John tells him Paul's a better drummer."
Even if this were true, how is this an "abuse" of the practice? The original version would then be copyright free, so you could get it without worrying about copyright. If you actually give a damn about some random crap on a recording, some out-take, or whatever, you can buy the new version. But nobody's forcing you, and you can get/use/distribute the original for free.
Sorry -- I'll correct my own error. Copernicus was probably not a priest (even though many historians still claim he was, even Steven Hawking), though he held official positions in the church.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe the Internet can make a person dumber, but it can contribute to intellectual laziness - being convinced that the answer is out there if you care enough to look for it could conceivably make you less likely to try to figure something out for yourself.
This is only part of the problem of being able to look up facts instantaneously. People who actually know a lot about something (which would necessarily include knowing a lot of random facts about that thing) are able to organize and synthesize that information more efficiently. That's the whole point of experts.
Even raw memorization has its value. Today, we often look back and laugh at exercises assigned by teachers in previous generations requiring memorization of poems, large sections of Shakespeare, etc. How quaint! But any educated gentleman back then would have had a copy of Shakespeare's complete works in his library and probably any famous poems he was required to memorize. The situation hasn't changed with the internet. We have even more facts at our fingertips.
So why were those memorization tasks assigned? In part, because the text became a "part of you." I don't mean anything mystical here -- merely that it became a resource you could meditate on and draw on in your future intellectual pursuits.
In medieval Europe, for example, when books were rare and precious, people often used complex memory aids to memorize entire books. Drawings commonly show people eating or chewing on books as a symbol of "consuming" them by memorization so that they could meditate on the wisdom therein. There are even accounts of authors who would compose their own works within their minds, essentially creating a mnemonic as they went, through meditation on all of the works they had memorized. With the expense of parchment and paper, culture still had a primary oral component, and only the truly rich could afford a place for a written "draft." Only later would it be dictated to a scribe.
With our modern access to millions of books and other materials, such an approach seems outdated. But the idea that one's understanding of material is enhanced by actually knowing it, as opposed to just being able to find it, is still very important.
Regular people can't wait to graduate high school, because then they can "quit learning", and they succeed in every way.[...] As for some people, or those with a thirst for knowledge, it has accelerated their ability to find answers...
There, fixed that for you.
Because all people use oil or oil-related products in some form, I maintain that it is both ethical and responsible to try to save as many oiled birds and other wildlife as we can. [...] I think that each life is intrinsically valuable and that each animal is deserving of care and protection. In a world where life is not always respected and valued, I think that saving the life of even one bird sends an important message.
Awww... you want to save the animals? Every life is sacred! Well, you can start by saving the life of the tapeworm that took up residence in your body, or perhaps that mosquito that just bit you and gave you malaria. What? You see a breeding ground for those disease-ridden mosquitoes and want to dump the water? Don't kill the larvae! Or what about the rats that infest your house and could potentially bring disease, particularly if they are allowed to multiple and run rampant in urban areas? You might think that trapping them humanely and releasing them is doing a good deed, but be sure you release them in a habitat where they can find enough food, or you're just contributing to their prolonged starvation as they die a horrible death. Better safe than sorry -- leave food out for them and keep them in your home.
Oh wait -- I bet TFA is just talking about cute animals that aren't annoying, disease-ridden, or parasitic to humans.
I'm against unnecessary cruelty to animals, but it simply doesn't make sense to try to save every possible bird here, from either a monetary or moral perspective. Those which can be relatively easily treated, sure. But the humane thing to do for birds who are unlikely to recover and who would be completely stressed out by prolonged contact with humans is to euthanize them. Just like the humane thing to do for many pets (and even humans) with a likely terminal condition is to stop forcing treatment on them and let them die.
removed him from AP classes and stuck him in a class with low-performing students.
This is pretty outrageous. Lets say that the court finds that the school district was fully within their rights to discipline the student ... they still shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Absolutely agree with this. This is a truly important point, and perhaps one that's obfuscated by a lot of the posts about the case. The school's first priority is education. AP classes are offered to enhance the education of students who are qualified. Whether or not a student gets to be in such a class should only ever be a case of academic standards. Extracurricular activities are another matter, since they generally aren't part of the primary educational mission of the school.
But purely academic matters should never be related to disciplinary procedures. Educational opportunities should be open to all students equally, whether they behave badly or like little angels.
This sounds like a teacher who gives a superior student an "F" just because he's an ass, which is just a sign of bad teaching. Perhaps behavior might play a small role in grading, as an element of "class participation" and such. But I remember at some point having "conduct" ratings in school as well as grades, thereby explicitly separating the two issues.
In any case, throwing a kid out of an AP class for bad behavior is simply inexcusable. Throw him into detention or in-school suspension if he's that disruptive. But just moving him to another class with sub-par academics is outrageous.
If you print out fliers at home calling the principle a pedophile and hand them out in the hallway, can the school punish you?
Or perhaps a better analogy to the situation at hand:
If you print out fliers at home calling the principal a pedophile and then stand on the sidewalk on a street that a large portion of students walk through handing them out on the way into school (knowing that many students will bring them to school, show to others, etc.), can the school punish you?
Personally, in this case, and in similar cases, I think we'd need to apply an extension of Tinker: did the student's actions materially disrupt the school's ability to maintain order and educate students within the school?
If everybody just thought of it as a joke and no disruptions occurred, no punishment should occur, even if such a prank is in poor taste; at best, the fliers should be confiscated when they appear on school grounds. (If the fliers were handed out on school grounds, I think the school has a case for punishment even without significant disruptions actually occurring, if they deemed the actions likely to result in disruption.)
If, however, there's evidence that it caused significant problems on campus, punishment should be considered, though preferably in consultation with parents. Generally speaking, most parents I think would agree that a student should be punished for doing something like that.
The problem would come when the parents and school disagree (for whatever reason) -- in that case, the school should probably tread lightly unless they have overwhelming and specific evidence that the behavior directly resulted in significant disruptions at school.
Overall, I think the biggest issue in most such court cases is lack of adequate communication and understanding between parents and schools. In some small percentage of such cases, the parents are trying to make a point about free speech or whatever; in some other small percentage of cases, the school administrators are clearly overbearing, out-of-line, or acting inappropriately. But given my own experience as a student (who was once inappropriately punished for an action I didn't even commit) as well as a teacher who had to deal with things from the other side, I think most such problems arise when school officials don't discuss problems adequately with parents or when parents are trying to be overprotective toward their children. In this case, ideally the parents, administrators, and students should just have sorted out a reasonable solution (which would probably involve taking down the false information and some minor punishment from the school).
I'd draw the line there, but think of it this way: The alternate interpretation is that you simply are not allowed to say anything bad about the Principal, ever, if there's the slightest chance it could make it to school.
Actually, there are plenty of interpretations in the middle. This is a false dichotomy.
The further implication is that if a student started a blog, that blog would essentially be censored by the school, even if it was hosted by the student and never intended to be viewed at the school. And remember, school is taking a huge chunk of the student's life, so they are definitely going to talk about school, and about events at school, and they should be allowed to do so.
This implication doesn't follow at all. Just because we allow a school to place restrictions on some aspects of things that happen off of school grounds (or can come onto school grounds) doesn't mean that we then have to allow the school the ability to censor anything it wants to whenever it wants to.
The Tinker doctrine of the Supreme Court already draws a line between appropriate censorship in school versus inappropriate censorship in school:
"conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."
While this is open to interpretation, it identifies specific problems -- "materially disrupts classwork," "involves substantial disorder," "invasion of the rights of others." I think one could pretty easily argue that a billboard across the street from a school calling the principal a pedophile might impact his/her reputation and thereby disrupt the principal's ability to maintain order. This might disrupt the education of children at the school as a whole.
The bar obviously needs to be set higher for intervention outside of school, but remember that school officials are not just agents of the government. They are acting in loco parentis and therefore have discretionary powers that other government officials don't. An absolute limitation of the school's power at the doors of the school makes a student's trip home like a visit to grandma's house -- suddenly all your parents' rules don't apply and you can act however you want. But, like parents, schools have to deal with the consequences of children returning to them. If the stuff that happens at grandma's begins to affect how the child acts at home, the parents could and should make some guidelines about those actions that happened elsewhere and yet impact what goes on in their home.
Obviously parents have very broad discretion in this matter. But in extreme cases, schools also may have to deal with the consequences of students' actions outside of school when the consequences of such actions "materially disrupt classwork" inside the school, create "substantial disorder" inside the school, or "invade the rights of others" inside the school. What recourse should they have?
If an action taken outside of school results in a significant disruption of the school's primary educational mission (perhaps including blatant defamation of the reputation of the school or its officials, which could significantly undermine their authority), might a course of action from the school be warranted?
I'll back away as well; this will be my last contribution to the debate.
I'll just note that your claim a few posts up was that your form was used in places with a long history of speaking English... like England. There may be some problems with the OED, but it is pretty comprehensive, and it doesn't support that claim. About the Southern US, well, it may be an older dialect form (perhaps this is what's showing up as the 19th century dialect form in the OED), but I did live in the Southern US for a few years, and I didn't hear many verbs in the form you mention.
The verbing of a noun is called, well, verbification (or conversion). It can be done with nearly any noun.
Yes, you're talking about turning a noun into a verb, which you then add an "-ing" to (forming a present participle or gerund). But that's not an "-ing form of a noun." It's an "-ing" form of a verb that is derived/converted from a noun. You wouldn't generally have an "-ing" form of the noun if the root isn't also a verb. Want proof? Ask yourself how many such "-ing" forms depend on a specific verbal meaning that isn't the same as the original noun. "Batting" or "e-mailing" already have a primary action associated with the noun. But take other words:
benching, screening, dolling, booking, walling, pencilling, chairing, etc.
These ultimately come from nouns bench, screen, doll, book, wall, pencil, chair, etc., but not directly. Instead, there are verbs that have very specific meanings, which are related to the original nouns, but often have different connotations (and often require specific idioms -- "dolling up," "pencilling in," etc.).
In essence, these aren't "forms" of a noun. They are other words derived from a noun. What's the difference? In the former case, you're just using English syntax to make a word plural, change to a different tense, mood, etc. You can do it to any word of a particular grammatical class. In the latter case, you're actually making a new word that has to have a new meaning. For some words, it may be apparent to listeners or readers what you mean, because (like "e-mail" or "bat") there is a clear associated action.
For most words, though, it's not readily apparent to a listener what you mean if the verbal form doesn't already exist. What would "desking," "dooring," "knobbing," "drawering," "bookshelfing," etc. mean? (Just to verbify a bunch of objects I see when I look around the room from my desk.) Some of these are used as verbs, but the meaning is not readily apparent -- "knobbing," for example, has been used historically in some circumstances to refer to putting knobs onto something and in other ones to taking them off/out of something. Thus, it would be inaccurate to say that there is an "-ing" form of the noun "knob," because it has never become a standard verb.
Hence, I repeat my assertion that nouns don't generally have an "-ing" form. If you wish, I'll qualify that by saying -- except when they have already been turned into verbs.
The whoosh was regarding the 'no'.
Since this post has been modded funny, I'm not sure when you're joking anymore.
And I never said it was common. I only said it was 'proper/correct'.
"Proper/correct" by whose standard? Apparently, since you appeal to "unabridged" dictionaries in your previous posts, those are the places to look. Yet such dictionaries don't list your form as correct. So how do we determine what is "proper/correct"? Do we just ask you?
And the OED is not, even remotely, the 'best' dictionary in the world. Just the most respected. Like calling Oxford or Harvard the 'best' schools. I would recommend a unabridged dictionary, which the OED is not.
The OED is an unabridged dictionary. "Unabridged" isn't in the title (as it is for some Webster dictionaries), but it is unabridged, according to the traditional meaning of the term "unabridged." It tries to track every variant of every meaning, spelling, etc. of every word that has existed in English since Old English. I don't know how it is possible to be more "unabridged" than that.
You do realize that the OED is actually 20 VOLUMES long, right? It's about as long and as big as an entire set of encyclopedias. It has its faults, and may not always be the "best" dictionary for all purposes, but it can certainly claim to be the most comprehensive (i.e., unabridged) dictionary of the English language.
But I doubt you would specifically find 'sinked' in any of them, anymore than you would find an -ing version of every noun. Just the way it's said/written in proper English conversation or correspondence.
"-ing" versions of verbs are called gerunds, and you'll find all of them listed in the OED. They often even have separate entries, with all the variant historical spellings and any specialized uses separate from the root verb. (As opposed to in Webster's Unabridged where they are generally just included in an entry as "-ING" for a primary word.) Nouns don't generally have an "-ing" form, so they wouldn't be in a dictionary.
So, "sinked" in this case is listed as "7 (9 dial.)", which means that it was common in the 17th century (1600-1700) era, and apparently was a dialect form in some regions in the 19th century. Not exactly a popular historical form.
First of all...whoosh.
I don't get the joke here either. Are you claiming "sinked" is correct or not? Did you intend to say "no" instead of "know" or not? I think you need [sarcasm] tags.
Secondly, I would recommend a real (e.g. physical), unabridged dictionary. However if you want you want to use an online dictionary I would recommend thefreedictionary.com as it is far more expansive on pronunciation.
Actually, the best unabridged dictionary in the world is the Oxford English Dictionary, which is available online (for a subscription fee, though). It's better than the paper form of the OED, which isn't updated as frequently.
The -ed in past tense verbs becomes more common in ares that have been speaking English for a longer period of time. For example, in the Southern US (where they have been speaking English for a long time), and in England (where English was invented) many verbs are in the -ed format: swimmed, runned, stinged, waked, sinked, etc.
I'm going to have to call BS on this part. The OED is the standard authority of English in England. Under "sink" it lists:
Pa. tense sank, sunk. pa. pple. sunk, sunken.
The OED is notorious for being a bit permissive in such matters, being a fairly descriptive dictionary. If "sinked" were a common form, it would be listed as such. Furthermore, even in the historical list of forms, "sinked" comes up short:
pa. tense. {alpha}. sing. 1, 3-4 sanc, 5 sanck; 4-5 sanke, 4-5, 8- sank. pl. 5-7 sanke, 6 sancke, 9- sank. {beta}. sing. 1 sonc, 4 sonk. pl. 3-5 sonken, 5-6 sonke, 6 soncke, 6-7 soonke. {gamma}. pl. 1 suncon, 3 sunken, sunke, 5 sunkyn; also sing. 6 suncke, 6-7 sunke, sunck, 7- sunk. {delta}. 5 synked, 7 (9 dial.) sinked. pa. pple. {alpha}. 1 suncen, 3 i-sunken (Orm. sunnkenn), 3- sunken, 4 sunkin, -yn, 6 suncken; 4-7 sunke, 6-7 sunck(e, 7- sunk. {beta}. 4-5 sonken, 5 sonkyn; Sc. 5 sonkine, -yne, 6 sonkin; 4 i-sonke, 6 son(c)ke, soonke, 7 soonk. {gamma}. 9 sank, dial. sinken.
Here "sinked" is only listed as a relatively minor historical dialect form, hardly what is "proper/correct" as you claim. Moreover, it doesn't appear to be that historically important, and certainly not the most common "old" form.
Because they have a Dr. for a prefix and a MD for a suffix to their name they act like they are the smartest person in the world.
They've been through medical school, so yeah, I'd say they are some of the smartest people in the world. I'm not saying they have the right to be assholes, but it seems like elitism is justified here.
I know a heck of a lot of really smart people in a lot of professions. I know a lot of people who have been through 8 years of college or more in various professions (lots of Ph.D.s in engineering, science, humanities, not to mention lawyers, etc.). Doctors are about the only ones who insist on a title in most circumstances. Why is the elitist use of a title justified here?
Medical doctors are, by and large, smart people. I won't dispute that. But are they more elite than most other professions that require a doctorate? Not really. In fact, I'd say in terms of technical knowledge and ability, I've met a number of biology, genetics, biomedical engineering, etc. Ph.D.s who are leagues ahead of the vast majority of doctors in terms of understanding of the technical aspects of medicine.
Doctors have to deal with people, though. A good doctor isn't necessarily the smartest, but rather one that balances intelligence with good people skills, which are essential to get information from a patient for diagnosis, to figure out how to interpret what a patient is telling you versus what might really be going on, etc.
Do doctors deserve respect? Of course. But more respect that other people with similarly elite qualifications, credentials, and abilities?
ou should go to medical school. After you fail and drop out you will then understand why the get respect. I also suggest you learn what they do every day.
I know quite a few doctors. I know lots of other smart people. I know lots of other people who work hard. Out of these people, I know a lot of people who are smarter than many doctors I know and a lot of people who work harder than many doctors I know.
Lots of people work very hard and accomplish a lot. But there are only a few professions where people insist on titles to recognize those accomplishments. Politicians get them for historical and diplomatic reasons. Clergy get them because of historical and theological reasons. Military personnel get them because the hierarchy requires them. Why do doctors get them? Because they work hard and went to a tough school? Yeah... so what?
Md's are highly trained. They are experts. You are not. You're opinion in that field should never carry as much weight as theirs.
I do think the GGGP's (or whatever) solution of using first names is a bit insulting. That said, I think you're misunderstanding the point of the GP. From that post:
To address one differently then another is to assume a different value to that person over others.
Note that he didn't say "a different value to that person's opinion," he said "a different value to that person."
And, in that sense, I agree with the GP. Titles are around to force people to give a certain level of deference or respect to certain people. That may have a point in strictly hierarchical societies (like the military, where titles are very important, or perhaps in diplomatic relations), but in average everyday encounters between people, it is actually a bit weird if you stop and think about it.
That Dr has MORE VALUE in the medical industry then you do.
Just like a bridge engineer has MORE VALUE in designing bridges then you do.
Yeah, you sort of prove the point here. Why are doctors special in getting their titles? Do you say "Engineer Smith" when you address that guy with technical expertise? Hell, even if the engineer has a doctorate in civil engineering, I bet nobody calls him "Doctor" except if he were to give a talk in an academic context or something like that.
The idea of titles is to give information.
Rarely. The idea of titles is to differentiate people into different classes and force some people to respect others, as in the military, clergy, aristocracy, etc., which is where most titles came from. If you want to treat a person as an equal, you use his/her name.
In the case of medical doctors, the "information" conveyed by the title only matters in an emergency situation where someone walks up to treat you, and you want to know if that person is qualified. Even in that case, do you really just trust them on the basis that they call themselves "Doctor"? In 99% of your interactions with most doctors, you already know who they are or can easily discover it (name badge?), so the title carries no information.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no rational hate for Obama. He may have done some things you don't like, but he hasn't killed anybody.
Umm... I think thousands of Iraqis (including thousands of civilian Iraqis), thousands of Afghanis (again including thousands of civilians), people killed by drone warfare, etc. would disagree.
Obama is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States. As such, he has the ultimate responsibility for killing at least ten thousand people, probably many more, some intentionally and some indirectly by his actions, since he assumed the presidency.
I'm not an Obama-hater. But I can see reasons why some people might hate him. (Whether hate can ever be "rational" is another story.)
The disadvantage is in the opportunity cost. You could have spent the time you dedicated to memorizing words to becoming better at math...
And why exactly is getting better at math necessarily superior to getting better at spelling? The average person will never have to do math beyond being able to make up a budget and understanding the basic terms of a loan or an investment (which unfortunately is something schools don't tend to teach well, but that doesn't require a lot of time, just practice).
Most of these activities at a young age are more important for their side benefits, rather than the immediate ones. Doing a lot of extra math problems will probably increase certain logical and perhaps spatial reasoning abilities. Spending a lot of time studying for an advanced spelling bee will give you insight into etymology, which can aid in future acquisition of vocabulary and foreign languages.
Perhaps more important than any of the details is the degree of effort and perfectionism in intellectual matters that such competitions encourage, whether in math, spelling, geography, history, whatever. Like most things in primary and secondary school, these things aren't useful in the long run to most people... but the habits of learning that are developed can often carry over into other matters.
Is immaculate spelling really a useful thing these days?
It depends on your position. "Immaculate" spelling is probably only necessary for a very small percentage of people, and I'd say that has generally been the case in the past as well. I think people tend to overestimate the number of people in the past who had immaculate spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. skills.
For example, people have been complaining about misuse of apostrophes for the past century, as in plurals like "potato's for sale" or whatever. Look at grammar guides from a century ago, and you'll see the same crap about differentiating "they're" versus "there" versus "their." With spellcheck today, those problems still remain, though that's not as much a spelling problem as a grammar/usage problem.
Certainly advanced spelling of many vocabulary words you'll never use (as in these competitions) isn't important in and of itself. But "pretty good" spelling is important, as is "pretty good" grammar, punctuation, etc. And if you choose particular careers having to do with writing, or you want to move up the chain in the business world, you need to be able to write according to the "professional" standard of your field. Most such professional standards tend to change slowly, over a generation or two, so I don't think the need to spell is going away anytime soon.
Finally, I'd note the real benefits of these spelling competitions: an advanced vocabulary, a greater understanding of etymology, etc. are much more useful than the ability to spell every random word in the dictionary. An advanced understanding of etymology makes learning vocabulary and even other languages easier. While having a huge vocabulary may not help most people in everyday life, the knowledge and flexibility it grants to people at a young age can be very beneficial for learning and then getting ahead in the initial stages of their careers.
adj. Pertaining to, connected with, or used in courts of law; suitable or analogous to pleadings in court.
It comes from the Latin word "forum," as in the Roman Forum, where public debates were held and legal proceedings were carried out. With CSI and such, it seems people think "forensics" means something like "finding and analyzing evidence," but unless that evidence is meant for a courtroom, it's not "forensics."
What this person is doing is historical research, pure and simple. It's what a historian does. If I discover the subject of a historical painting, am I doing "forensic art"? If I discover the identity of a battle that is referenced in a historical poem, am I doing "forensic warfare"? No. I'm doing history -- art history, military history, whatever.
Many people think that historians just sit around telling stories about the past, perhaps digging through documents and books in archives. But there's a lot of technical stuff going on all the time -- you can figure out where a document might have originated by watermarks in the paper, many historians are pretty adept at paleography and handwriting analysis to determine the authenticity of a manuscript, analysis of ink color, paper size, pen type, and such can all narrow down the possible geographic origin, etc. Just because you're doing something dealing with science or using scientific methods doesn't mean it isn't still history.
Honestly, I'm a little suspicious whenever I see some historical argument labeled as "forensics," which usually implies either that the author is a historian trying to sound hip or that some random scientist (perhaps with forensics training) has jumped into doing historical research, often with little background in history. Either way, it can sometimes be a way to sidestep peer review and get published in the mainstream media.
Anyhow, these people are helping to write the history of astronomy, perhaps as it impacted artists, writers, and the public at large, but it's still just history. Unless someone's going to sue someone else over it, though, it's not "forensic."
You're right, we don't know for absolute certain that Copernicus wasn't a priest. But if you actually read scholarly articles about the period (like I do), you'll find that people have dug through thousands of documents, and Copernicus was never referred to as a priest in his lifetime... and in fact, in a number of places where he was mentioned with priests or in other official correspondence where he'd be given a title, he wasn't given the title of priest. So, all the circumstantial evidence suggests that he was not a priest, hence my assertion "Copernicus was probably not a priest..." The first person who apparently makes that assertion is Galileo, who was trying to argue against censorship of Copernicus's materials and apparently made up the "priest" story.
I have news for you. No one and no group is infallible just because they claim to be. It is fantasy. It is insanity. It is the basis on which you do great acts of harm.
Did I ever say I believed in infallibility? I don't. I wouldn't even consider myself to be religious. But I am a historian. Don't assume things. You're the one who brought up "infallibility." I was just pointing out that your use of the term is anachronistic.
I quite frankly don't want to study your church or it's works of fantasy in more detail.
"My" church? I'm not Catholic. But if you're going to make assertions about history, whether about a church, a scientist, or whatever, you need to back up your assertions with facts. If you don't want to learn about the things you're talking about, don't talk about them. (And by the way, "it's" means "it is." "Its" is a possessive.)
Okay, first off -- you're conflating a whole bunch of stuff between Copernicus and Galileo. Copernicus lived about a century before Galileo, was a priest, wrote his book, dedicated it to the pope, and nothing happened to it for about 75 years after his death. That hardly qualifies as trying to "bury" the science, and Copernicus was certainly never persecuted.
You've just finished telling me to check my facts and then launched into a tirade of misinformation.
Okay, let's see what you have to say...
First of all Galileo was born in 1564. Copernicus died in 1543. Now that's 21 years by my count, not 100. Even if you allow another 20 or 30 for Galileo to mature to adulthood your exaggeration of a century is preposterous.
Copernicus: 1473-1543. Galileo: 1564-1642. Copernicus was born 91 years before Galileo was born, and he died 99 years before Galileo died. Copernicus's mature work was mostly written in the 1530s. Galileo's in the 1620s-early 1630s. Sounds like according to a reasonable interpretation of "lived a century before," that's pretty accurate. Yeah, they weren't a century apart between the death of one and the birth of another, but in terms of their overall lifespans, they lived approximately a century apart.
Secondly, Copernicus did not publish his work, even when he was old and frail BECAUSE he feared retribution from the church (like taking away his lands even after his death). Yes he was never persecuted because he was more careful than Galilieo to hush up what he had discovered. That's a further indictment of the church.
This is an absolute crock -- a story essentially made up in the 19th century. Go read a real history book. He didn't "hush up" anything. Hell, he dedicated his book to the pope. And the reason he didn't publish earlier had to do with his personality, sort of perfectionist -- he didn't think he had the final theory in place. Not to mention that the publication of a technical work of that length was rather arduous in those days. It was a young scholar who came to study with him who convinced him that he should publish, and a few years afterward, the book came out.
Even in the early 1600s, Copernicus's book wasn't banned -- just a few short sections that asserted that heliocentrism was actually true as opposed to a mathematical model were censored.
Oh well that's alright then isn't it? That his most important discovery was censored. Just as long as the rest of the book was permitted. Idiot.
The discovery wasn't censored. The "discovery" was the mathematical model. People at the time were still into astrology (both the church and your scientists) and predicting the locations of the planets was important. There were a few sentences that essentially said, "Heliocentrism is true." Those were redacted.
Fashion is an interesting case because it's exempted from copyright laws, and the legal reasoning for that exemption is specious. Think about it: fashion is too utilitarian to be copyrighted, but *software* is not? I can design an evening gown for somebody to wear to the Oscars, and that's *utilitarian*, but if I write a spanning tree algorithm for a a network hub, that's *creative*?
I don't think you're getting at the basis for copyright law, at least in the U.S. To quote the Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Notice the rationale for copyright, given in the first clause: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Whatever copyright law has subsequently become, it traditionally has absolutely nothing to do with artistic "creativity." It's main purpose is to advance society by promoting scientific and useful creative endeavors. (I should note that the word "Arts" in the 18th century had slightly different connotations than today; it still had a lot to do with skilled crafts.)
Fashion is actually not "useful" in that sense, and therefore should not be protected by copyright. Quite a bit of software, on the other hand, has been used to promote technological progress, and therefore at least some of it should be protected.
All a human -really- needs to know is how to read/speak a popular language and critical thinking skills. The rest, in the 21st century will fall into place.
Yeah, except that true understanding generally comes from actually knowing something. Just because I can look up atomic facts in Google doesn't mean that I can actually understand anything about them, or know whether they're important, or even be able to detect whether someone is BS'ing.
I love Google and instant access to facts nowadays just as much as the next person. But I run into more and more people these days who read one or two articles or blogs on the internet and think they know everything there is to know about a topic or issue. This isn't a new trend -- it used to be the guy who read some magazine article, but while there was always junk in magazines as well, a lot of crap got filtered out by publishers. Stuff on the internet, on the other hand, can be insightful but can also be free-range idiocy. In particular, it's much easier for someone to come up with half a dozen sources that seem to support their crazy-ass theory of something, no matter what that preconceived theory is.
There's a reason why we should still pay attention to the engineer or the historian (in your examples) beyond the fact that they may have memorized certain facts they use every day -- "critical thinking skills" are great, but the ability to map them onto unfamiliar topics well is pretty rare, in my experience. Most people gradually develop specific critical thinking skills needed to do their profession over time, and part of that process is assimilating a lot of knowledge about that profession.
In essence, the reason to know something is because it means you've gone beyond the basic recitation of facts sorted by some vague "critical thinking" filter that doesn't understand the subject matter.
That unconscious guy in the burning building doesn't *care* that you're female, and can only drag 150 pounds; he still weighs 200.
Not to be pedantic, but there are women who can carry a 200-pound man, so, in way, your "female" descriptor is irrelevant. The unconscious man only needs you to get him out of the building; if you can, you should be able to be a firefighter. If you can't, whether because you're a small female, disabled in some way, or simply a scrawny guy with no muscle... well, you have no business on the job.
In any case killing the author did not gain anything for the murderer..... it would still expire at 14 years.
Umm... not that I think such a murder scenario is likely, but on the logic of the GP's argument, you're wrong. Most works make most of their money in the first few years after they are released. There are a precious minority that are well-known decades later, but people who want to make money off of derivative works (for example) probably want to do it as soon as possible after a work becomes popular, hence Hollywood adaptations of recent novels, for example. It's pretty rare to see a Hollywood adaptation of a new work of literature more than 14 years after it was published, except for works that have become "classics."
So in theory the copyright would extend beyond the author's death but in most cases the copyright expired several years prior.
It wasn't just "in theory" that copyright went beyond the author's death. If you read a bit about the history of copyright in the 19th century, you'll quickly uncover debates and people arguing about providing for widows and children in the event of an author's death. When the average lifespan of children who survived infancy was about 55-60 years, 28 years was a significant chunk of an author's life, if not his/her entire adult life. It was quite likely that an author would die before those 28 years had passed.
Good idea and I would like it implemented. But then, there still would be abuses of the practice such as The Beatles "White Album" re-reissue with absolute rarities such as "Paul coughs in the microphone," "George breaks a string," and "Ringo punches John in the groin after John tells him Paul's a better drummer."
Even if this were true, how is this an "abuse" of the practice? The original version would then be copyright free, so you could get it without worrying about copyright. If you actually give a damn about some random crap on a recording, some out-take, or whatever, you can buy the new version. But nobody's forcing you, and you can get/use/distribute the original for free.
Sorry -- I'll correct my own error. Copernicus was probably not a priest (even though many historians still claim he was, even Steven Hawking), though he held official positions in the church.