There's a depository of online digitized 19th century textbooks here. I glanced through a few but I wasn't able to tell what books were for what ages, you'd just get a lot of "First Reader", "Fifth Reader", etc., with no clue if they corresponded to different grades. Also I think we all have to realize the written word has evolved a lot in the past 100 years. I'll occasionally have to cite legal opinions from the 19th century, and they are written in an incredibly dense, tortured way, but I'm sure a lawyer at the time would have little trouble quickly going through them. I think a lot of it is what you're accustomed to rather than differences in erudition.
When I was getting my English degree back in the early 90's, people often assumed I was going to be an English teacher (or that it would be the only job I could get upon graduation). The mindset hasn't completely been outgrown, even now.
Well I think it actually might be a fair assumption. I mean, now that I have a professional degree I want to go back to school for a grad degree in English, but as great as it would be to eventually find a job where I could use it, I doubt that's going to happen...
School used to be filled with logic and reasoning -- kids had to learn to think.
When on earth did this happen? You think an elementary school in 1950 was a sort of mini-Lyceum? It's always been rote memorization and paperwork.
Now schools are more interested in childrens' self-esteem and socialization.
Ridiculous. Schools these days are obsessed with test results and cramming the ability to do these tests into the kids' heads. That whole self-esteem thing has been out of vogue for a while.
Frankly, part of the problem is that the newest crop of teachers don't know logic or have excellent critical reasoning skills.
I will agree that teachers today are probably not, on the average, as talented as they used to be. This is a result of the fact that for most of this country's history, 50% of the population was limited in their careers. If you were smart, female, and wanted an education, you were very likely to end up as a teacher. This isn't something that you can go back to, though.
As each generation passes, we get further from the Aristotelian virtues and knowledge becomes more watered-down.
I just don't buy it. I think there are serious deficiencies in our education system but I don't buy the idea that as you go back you find a better and better one.
Is plainly not taught anymore. Most people don't even remember how logic was taught for the past 2000 years.... geometry.
Though honestly, a very large percentage of people over the past 2000 years weren't really taught anything. Formal education has never been universal, and honestly I've been to senior citizens centers and believe it or not they don't spend their days discussing complex philosophical issues. The percentage of people who have the ability to think logically is pretty small, and of those only a percentage have the requisite training to really think critically. It's always been that way.
With the success that Linux is currently enjoying Linux.com (also owned by SourceForce, Inc) asks the question, where do we go from here? With such a high level of success and greater corporate participation (on both the consumer and provider fronts) will the spirit of freedom and idealism remain true or will the ever-present corporate bottom line eventually take over?
Let's be honest here; the majority of people here (and I count myself among them) expected Linux to be a hell of a lot more successful than it has been. After 15 years of development it still commands a tiny market share, even in the server market.
Not that the questions raised by the article aren't valid at some level, but I wish we'd get rid of this whole unjustified "rah rah Linux is finally taking off!" attitude that's been around for about 12 of those years.
On a related note, neither 2007 nor 2008 will be the "year of the desktop" on Linux.
Who has like hours and hours to write really good articles all the time?
I was going to agree with you, then I noticed I've broken the 5,000 post mark on Slashdot. So apparently I do have the time and can't make fun of the wikipedians.
But I've gotten it right the last 15 times -- even last week, when I woke up in the morning to find out I'd slept through it all. The donuts were gone and the valuables were still there!
considering how the US Gov't has bent over to facilitate China, they have no room to talk.
Why does everyone here always talk about the U.S. government like it's one monolithic entity? The executive branch (both this one and the previous one, admittedly) have turned a blind eye to China's activities. However, there are sizeable factions in Congress (in both parties, though for different reasons) who have always willing to criticize China.
I'm not saying you're wrong; all I'm saying is, the public and hence the ruling class in the United States needs to clean up their own house before they start pointing out how dirty everyone else's is.
By that logic until we have stamped out police corruption 100%, no police officer anywhere should arrest anyone.
Why, were you expecting anything important out of them? It's an incredibly overly hyped group. What exactly do they do, beyond some general, unnecessary marketing for open source? Maybe it impresses the newer people but if you've been around for a while you realize that the development of free and open source software wasn't really impacted by the formation of OSI.
Well, the caption certainly tries its liberal damnedest to obfuscate the facts, but make no mistake, the only reason this ban isn't a perma-ban is because of Democrats in the house and senate.
As a registered democrat I'm happy they are. A permanent ban is idiotic.
That's like complaining that the Nobel Prize in medicine is biased towards genetics and biology and away from beads and rattles...
Only unlike medicine, after a few hundred years of effort economists still have a lousy track record in predicting or affecting anything. It's not a real science. Economists aren't real scientists.
Until someone explains this, I don't believe in man-driven global warming.
Uhh...you really need that explained to you? Because CO2 levels go through natural cycles, you don't see how mankind can add CO2 to the atmosphere? That makes very little sense.
Presumably you don't believe humans can start forest fires, because lightning can also start forest fires.
Don't believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature: Thousands of highly trained climatologists who have spent their entire professional careers researching the subject.
Way to fabricate. Where exactly are these "thousands"?
Slashdot Mirror
There's a depository of online digitized 19th century textbooks here. I glanced through a few but I wasn't able to tell what books were for what ages, you'd just get a lot of "First Reader", "Fifth Reader", etc., with no clue if they corresponded to different grades. Also I think we all have to realize the written word has evolved a lot in the past 100 years. I'll occasionally have to cite legal opinions from the 19th century, and they are written in an incredibly dense, tortured way, but I'm sure a lawyer at the time would have little trouble quickly going through them. I think a lot of it is what you're accustomed to rather than differences in erudition.
When I was getting my English degree back in the early 90's, people often assumed I was going to be an English teacher (or that it would be the only job I could get upon graduation). The mindset hasn't completely been outgrown, even now.
Well I think it actually might be a fair assumption. I mean, now that I have a professional degree I want to go back to school for a grad degree in English, but as great as it would be to eventually find a job where I could use it, I doubt that's going to happen...
School used to be filled with logic and reasoning -- kids had to learn to think.
When on earth did this happen? You think an elementary school in 1950 was a sort of mini-Lyceum? It's always been rote memorization and paperwork.
Now schools are more interested in childrens' self-esteem and socialization.
Ridiculous. Schools these days are obsessed with test results and cramming the ability to do these tests into the kids' heads. That whole self-esteem thing has been out of vogue for a while.
Frankly, part of the problem is that the newest crop of teachers don't know logic or have excellent critical reasoning skills.
I will agree that teachers today are probably not, on the average, as talented as they used to be. This is a result of the fact that for most of this country's history, 50% of the population was limited in their careers. If you were smart, female, and wanted an education, you were very likely to end up as a teacher. This isn't something that you can go back to, though.
As each generation passes, we get further from the Aristotelian virtues and knowledge becomes more watered-down.
I just don't buy it. I think there are serious deficiencies in our education system but I don't buy the idea that as you go back you find a better and better one.
Is plainly not taught anymore. Most people don't even remember how logic was taught for the past 2000 years.... geometry.
Though honestly, a very large percentage of people over the past 2000 years weren't really taught anything. Formal education has never been universal, and honestly I've been to senior citizens centers and believe it or not they don't spend their days discussing complex philosophical issues. The percentage of people who have the ability to think logically is pretty small, and of those only a percentage have the requisite training to really think critically. It's always been that way.
I can not fill my backyard swimming pool full of radioactive sludge no matter how much I want to.
Those commie pinko liberals, always trying to keep a man down...
Oddly enough, I didn't feel as much emotion playing Ultima V, when I lost Iolo...
Well you didn't have to lose Iolo, since it wasn't a necessary part of the game.
I will say, emotion or no, Ultima V makes my top 5 of all time list.
Planetfall!
Video games can provoke emotions, but I can just as easily remind myself that it's just a game and not feel the emotions.
Why would you want to though? I mean, that's the whole point of art.
With the success that Linux is currently enjoying Linux.com (also owned by SourceForce, Inc) asks the question, where do we go from here? With such a high level of success and greater corporate participation (on both the consumer and provider fronts) will the spirit of freedom and idealism remain true or will the ever-present corporate bottom line eventually take over?
Let's be honest here; the majority of people here (and I count myself among them) expected Linux to be a hell of a lot more successful than it has been. After 15 years of development it still commands a tiny market share, even in the server market.
Not that the questions raised by the article aren't valid at some level, but I wish we'd get rid of this whole unjustified "rah rah Linux is finally taking off!" attitude that's been around for about 12 of those years.
On a related note, neither 2007 nor 2008 will be the "year of the desktop" on Linux.
The wayback machine...I don't think I've ever used a website that was so lagged yet still technically functioned. Sort of.
And a big gun nut
Well, a big nut at least.
Am I the only one who does not miss the meals? They were just a hassle an generally I just skipped them.
I agree, not sure why the first impulse the airlines have when someone boards is "OMG FEED THEM QUICK". Especially for short flights.
Who has like hours and hours to write really good articles all the time?
I was going to agree with you, then I noticed I've broken the 5,000 post mark on Slashdot. So apparently I do have the time and can't make fun of the wikipedians.
But I've gotten it right the last 15 times -- even last week, when I woke up in the morning to find out I'd slept through it all. The donuts were gone and the valuables were still there!
I think that was Santa Claus.
considering how the US Gov't has bent over to facilitate China, they have no room to talk.
Why does everyone here always talk about the U.S. government like it's one monolithic entity? The executive branch (both this one and the previous one, admittedly) have turned a blind eye to China's activities. However, there are sizeable factions in Congress (in both parties, though for different reasons) who have always willing to criticize China.
I'm not saying you're wrong; all I'm saying is, the public and hence the ruling class in the United States needs to clean up their own house before they start pointing out how dirty everyone else's is.
By that logic until we have stamped out police corruption 100%, no police officer anywhere should arrest anyone.
I'm dissapointed in the OSI.
Why, were you expecting anything important out of them? It's an incredibly overly hyped group. What exactly do they do, beyond some general, unnecessary marketing for open source? Maybe it impresses the newer people but if you've been around for a while you realize that the development of free and open source software wasn't really impacted by the formation of OSI.
We declare everyone who doesn't vote, to be here-by removed.
Seconded. Let's vote on your proposal now.
Oops, we didn't get 50% of the members voted. Another proposal fails to pass.
Well, the caption certainly tries its liberal damnedest to obfuscate the facts, but make no mistake, the only reason this ban isn't a perma-ban is because of Democrats in the house and senate.
As a registered democrat I'm happy they are. A permanent ban is idiotic.
Actually, it's more like 90 / 90000, but you're only a few orders of magnitude off.
Not necessarily his fault, maybe he used Excel to calculate it...
So, if the Nobel committees can so blow this prize, going back to giving it to the dictator Yasser Arafat
They've blown the prize a hell of a lot earlier than that. Hell, they gave it to Kissinger back in the 70's.
That's like complaining that the Nobel Prize in medicine is biased towards genetics and biology and away from beads and rattles...
Only unlike medicine, after a few hundred years of effort economists still have a lousy track record in predicting or affecting anything. It's not a real science. Economists aren't real scientists.
The Nobel Prize in Economics is NOT a real Nobel, and is awarded by the socialist Swedish central bank. Their awards are biased.
What are you smoking? Their awards are biased towards laissez-faire, libertarian, capitalism good anything else bad, free market zealotry.
Until someone explains this, I don't believe in man-driven global warming.
Uhh...you really need that explained to you? Because CO2 levels go through natural cycles, you don't see how mankind can add CO2 to the atmosphere? That makes very little sense.
Presumably you don't believe humans can start forest fires, because lightning can also start forest fires.
Don't believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature: Thousands of highly trained climatologists who have spent their entire professional careers researching the subject.
Way to fabricate. Where exactly are these "thousands"?