Bingo. They up the neccessity, they fertalize the invention. A million hackers and crackers with the REASON! - now thats something M$ could do without. No?
Maybe not relevant in your familie's case (I'm not prejudging you and yours), but what if those civilians were black? (like I say this is a general question, as far as I know you and your folks might be black...)
Bingo, re third+ parties. The Liberal Democrats are the "third party" here in the UK. Wheather you like tham or not, the chances are they've improved the party you do vote for. Why? Because one more player make the game play FAR more complex. When the Lib Dems had no power whatsoever, the two main parties focusesed one one thing and one thing only. Beating the other main party. That led to crap, polarised politics, that rarely went out on any limbs, and rarely tried to tackle anything of any real importance. As in America, even if you did want the war to happen, you probably don't like how it was handled. In a two party system, little is done to improve on this. With the Lib Dems being serious candidates, and at the very least take significant power away from the other two, they inject a degree of instability that prevents (to some degree) monotenus, ever degrading, tit-fot-tat polotics. Now we have the right (conservatives) pushing the green agender like they mean it, and looking again at their stance on the war and its fallout. And we have the 'left' making damn sure they deal with the economy as best they bloody can. Which has involved both rightist and liberal economic policise.
In biology diversity avoids degenerative mutation and extinction. Angree at one and hate the other? Vote for a third!
I agree. Although I was looking forward to the end of Norton. Alls not lost yet! Such hacks are always going to emerge. And hackers will exploit them, as will small agile companies. But lumbering behemoths like Symantech should find it hard to use one of these xploits commercially before M$ sort the fix.
Urm... Because it takes away your right to do whatever is then against the law. Fairly obvious. If you do break the law then yet more freedoms are taken from you... There are for example many countries where it is illegal to deny the holocaust (a 'Law' to pretect 'order'), as they do on Red Watch NZ. Bingo, what you regard as a freedom has been precluded by 'Law & and Order'. This is true of any Law, in any country.
You're free to make that choice:) You're clearly insane, but you're free. Which is nice for you. Scary for those you may choose to hate, but nice for you. Of course if you were in a 'free' country, then someone else could do what they like to you... Anyone with a gun could shoot you dead. Or your loved ones. I think that sucks. I think in such a country you would soon find your self under the opression of a local war lord.... So your free country would not last long. Infact such an unstable country would soon be "freeded" by the US army... And you'd be as free as the average Iraqi right now.
Not being funny, but i'm not sure what your point is. "It merely circumscribes the responses of the government." But, there's no merely about a thing like circumscribing the responses of the government. And the worshipers are the ones who roll out quotes such as: "The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored." - Chandon Seldon. This is absolutist. And theyby, in my book, inaccurate.
likewise: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin," is so often misquote to make it more absolutist. e.g. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin," Which has happened on Slashdot more often than I can count...
Banning outright is unlikely to the point of obserdity, but I believe much more stringent laws should in place to govern their use. They do cause a hiddious number of deaths and serious injury every year around the world. Indeed they have out-done war for many decades now, globaly (depending on the stats you believe). So yes why not, concider outright bans, if only long enough to say, it'll never happen.
They fall under the same catch22 of "Freedom without obligation is anarchy. Freedom with obligation is democracy. -
Earl Riney". Red Watch NZ should be free to hate whome so ever they wish. They should be obliged to act (and speek) responsibly and in accordance to rules that offer the greatest freedom to all. And freedom from threat and fear IMO should be included in that.
No I don't think your a closet neo-Nazi. I do see the benifit of freedom of speech. but I'm a firm believer in the lack of absolutes in this world. There are none. A lot of the constitution worshipers are falling foul of asuming the constitution will ALWAYS be right in EVERY situation. But that is as dangerous as any other radicalism. In the long run, it can be used to justify terrible things. My point is to stop acting like sheep, and realize that the freedom of speech is subjective, and interpreted just as every other human construct is. As such I even have a problem with human 'rights'. And many other absolutist false notions that are there to make us feel protected, but whose oximoronical nature, imply dangerous false securities. Yes freedom of speech is a clever idea, but it is untrue and thereby dangerous to say it is absolutely true at all times. As is the notion of freedom itself (read Plato) and so many other religiously held beliefs people seem to have in the rightousness of the US constitution. Which is the biggest and scariest falsehood around. As it justifies to millions, the violent imposition of US rule over them, in orde to "free" them... for example. A fatal flaw in argument for hundreds of thousands of inderviduals in Iraq already. For example...
At last some common sense, in stead of acient quotes and mindless kowtowing to the almight constitution. Yes censorship is bad SOMETIMES. But NOTHING is objective. Nothing. This is the ONLY absolute that exists. While freedom of speech is all well and good, shouting fire in a crowed theater, as the old cliché goes, will kill people. Shouting Nigger in harlem, will probably get a white guy shot, and saying "We hate the Jews" (as it does at the bottom of every post on Red Watch NZ) will subvert maliable minds. As will the rest of their threatening activities, and agressive slanders. Nothing is black and white. If you can't accept that a FEW people disagreeing on what should and should not be "censored" in the FEW situations where it is called for, is better than entire 'races' endlessly waring with each other, but haveing the 'Freedom' to hate, then you deserve to live in a devided hateful country... Oh wait, you probably do. Figure it out sheep. The constitution is not magical. The world is complex.
What would make it even harder is your brain would be trying to figure out what the 'noise' was every time you opened your mouth. Wouldn't a sound cancelling mask w mic embeded be more sensible. As the tech is there already. The tech they should be working on is THE TRANSLATION as I've yet to see 'good' English to anything machine translation....?
I agree with virtually everything you say here, but not your tone/sentiment. Like I say i think this is a cultural thing, so its not easy to fix. Things are 'barely a shade better' here, but they are a shade better, and I started by saying there was no magic wand. Your not offering much help by "there's idiots everywhere". That really is plain snobbery, with little/no benifit.
But its true that the tabloids are awful here, and they feed the brains of millions daily. And yes Germany has its problems there too. And now Mudock owns MySpace. Joy! But don't give up. As it apears you have.
Again my point is not to cause offence. Don't hate the Sun reader, hate the Sun.;o)
Nice reply. I agree whole heartedly. I'd mod up if I had pointsat the mo.
However, we're here to debate, so instead of just backslapping - would you see it worthwhile trying to alter this? IF you'd prefer a less capatalistic power moulding your lives over there (for this and/or other reasons) do you see it as a lost cause? Or as I see it, well within culture's grasp, to, at the very least guide the hand of your master?
there is no such thing as objectivity I guess. But It is clear to me that sensationisim is something that hinders it further. The the BBC is not nearly as guilty of this as FOX, or I hate to knit pick, but the Daily mail. The daily mail is ridiculed here for being xenophobic and right right wing to the point of, again, not being news, but rather propoganda.
The beauty of the BBC is that I can see it is left leaning. And as you rightly point out that it admits to this. Thats the point. FOX's tag line is a lie. Plain and simple. It says that it is unbiased. It can't be, is is very far from being so. Do you see?
As for adding them to my viewing list, no. I've watched it once or twice, and I know what to expect. Here we also have C4 news. For example. Its remit, that it has set itself, is to offer the 'other point of view'. And is therefore 'at odds' with the BBC most of the time. And because the BBC is left of where you see centre, and "safe" news, C4 is oftern 'dangerous' and willing to air the radical right's (or left's) arguments. i.e. they would be more willing to have a lengthy debate with BNP leaders, or air the views of a far right, middle eastern commentator. As such I actually do watch it more than the BBC News. The difference is the sane, and unemotive manner in which the facts are broached. News should not be entertainment. As it is treated on Fox. And every News show I've watched in the States.
I have seen both sides, haveing visited America, haveing an American family, and being subjected, as is everyone in the UK (/world) to a great deal of American media. Right or left leaning, vurtually everyone I've spoken to who is in a similar position would agree, that your news over there, just isn't news. In short, your dead wrong.
OK the US is clearly in a turning point at the moment. You only have to look at the number of posts to topics like media, politics, or as just seen, leaving America, to see how conflicted and concentrated feeling is at the moment regarding these issues. Can I just point out as an observer, that it may not be simplistic, reductionist logic that wins out here. There is no magic formula for freedom of press.
For decades now the UK has had state own/governed (or at least centrally funded) channels dominating the airwaves. We've also enjoyed independent outlets, so its not like N Korea. But news in particular is the BBC's domain. And for all that time, we have been the envy of America with regards to freedom of press (or at least the Americans who have witnessed both). You want the glossy crap, its there to, but you want more even handed, insightful, in depth news the UK's has beaten the US for a long time. But why?... It doesn't seem right.
It's not that I don't see your point that centralisation is a danger, and can lead to more total loss of objectivity. That is clear and obvious. Yet why is it that the contrary is born out in practise for us? I would say it is something that you do have control over. Your culture. Is it snobbish to think less of someone, you know could care more about world affairs, but who can't be bothered? Or is it your duty as a responsible citizen? Fox News would not get watched here. I know, because they tried something approaching it on channel 5. It stank. No one watches it still (even though its improving slightly). I would be ashamed to do so. If I saw a friend watching it, I'd say don't watch that shit. Its all sensationalist crap. Why watch the news if its not news. Watch kids TV or something. And I'd mean it. My tone would be seen as condescending snobbery to many Americans. It would not to most Brits. THIS is the reason you have "consolidated press". Here we have many Newspapers owned by one corporation, that are politically conflicting even. Why? because people expect varied opinions. This is bolstered by my experience of German news, and attitude to news. Which is an exaggerated version of the UK culture. And they have better news for it.
I do fear that this is fading some. And that the US way of toeing big business/party lines with soundbites and banalities, interspersed with adverts for the very same power mongers, is approaching. But there is still a big enough distinction for us to see the phenomena for what it is. Sadly know one wants to think they are living a lie. Or to pull your bloody socks up! Which is kind of what you are being told by people like me. But there you have it. DON'T watch crap, centralised, sanitised news. e.g. If you're being told everyday how many of your soldiers are being BRUTALLY MURDERED. And vague indications, if that, of civilian "casualties" that there have UNAVOIDABLY been, then your news is not news. Its propaganda. And you really are better off switching of the box and staring at the wall, or better still talking to a real person about what might really be happening in the world. AND EXPECT the same of your friends. EXPECT the same FOR your friends. They deserve better, as do you. I assume.
Is it biased to say grass is green? If so, you're right. Yes the daily show clearly states its belief that GWB is a fool, a tyrant, and governed by his greed for money and power to such a point as to make a mockery of his position. But seen as the vast majority of the world believe this, and there is a HUGE and growing body of evidence to back it up, its not biased. Its simply unbashful. Unappologetic you could say. But biased, no.
Are you ging to fix the zoom in IE7. It currently hasmany bugs, some of them are a hindrence to accessible screen readers (usually used by visually impaired users). I personal reported the problem with getElementfromPoint not getting the correct element went zoomed (javascript) and actually got a reply from the Manager in charge of the unit dealing with the zoom, sayng he was on the case. That was Beta1. Since then the issue has morphed slightly, but never gone away. PLEASE fix, as it can/is causeing real problems for screen reader users, and producers. e.g. : this
"the applied branches of chemistry include biochemistry which is probably the most rapidly developing science of all."
bingo. yes biotech, is very fast moving. indeed so is all tech. Computer science, is the prime example of a field whose books would be out of date each year. And if you go to a good university, so should many other subjects, such as economics, sociology, material sciences, political science, many of the arts...
Re physics being stationary, no. Just ain't so. Maybe first year stuff (freshman I guess you call it). But areas that have steadily increased in volume and evolved have included solid state, quantum, astronomy, creation and world theory (the big bang ain't what it used to be), modeling, high energy, far field,... etc.... Neutrino-matter interaction, dark matter, dark energy, nano tubes, quantum computing,.... These guys where either not know, to unclear to teach or very low down on people's priorities 10 years ago. If you're not getting taught them now by your third year, you've just wasted two years.
The building blocks wili remain the same, but texts that cover these for every majory subject (and a lot of minor), will not make much of a dent in the budget proposed if they shop arround.
Re:Not Artificial Intelligence?
on
An Ode To Al
·
· Score: 1, Funny
For many dream of a silocone pal
Less fake than Pam, more friendly than HAL
For others its purpose is clear
, to help missiles stear
But AI has but one reason d'etre, for a real geek
Which is to learn to speak.
Not in a robotic and predictable way,
But convincing enough for it to say:
Jonny can't come to school today.
You have a pedantic but note worthy point. yes it would be wasteful to do this, annually, for each field, without thought for the relevance of doing so. But to be equally pedantic, I'd disagree about physics. Its has actually changed a great deal, year on year, for as long as I've been paying it attention (20ish years). Even at bachellor level. At least thats the case here. Maths not so much though. You're right enough there. Chemistry likewise.
You can imply my wife a lier (or at least untrust worthy) but I can't ask you if you're stupid? Nevermind. No I have no coroberating documentation for my wife and childs experience. Didn't think I'd need any. If you're that bothered, and untrusting, I'll see what I can find.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo. They up the neccessity, they fertalize the invention. A million hackers and crackers with the REASON! - now thats something M$ could do without. No?
I've got a spare room, if you guys want to come over for a while?
Maybe not relevant in your familie's case (I'm not prejudging you and yours), but what if those civilians were black? (like I say this is a general question, as far as I know you and your folks might be black...)
Bingo, re third+ parties. The Liberal Democrats are the "third party" here in the UK. Wheather you like tham or not, the chances are they've improved the party you do vote for. Why? Because one more player make the game play FAR more complex. When the Lib Dems had no power whatsoever, the two main parties focusesed one one thing and one thing only. Beating the other main party. That led to crap, polarised politics, that rarely went out on any limbs, and rarely tried to tackle anything of any real importance. As in America, even if you did want the war to happen, you probably don't like how it was handled. In a two party system, little is done to improve on this. With the Lib Dems being serious candidates, and at the very least take significant power away from the other two, they inject a degree of instability that prevents (to some degree) monotenus, ever degrading, tit-fot-tat polotics. Now we have the right (conservatives) pushing the green agender like they mean it, and looking again at their stance on the war and its fallout. And we have the 'left' making damn sure they deal with the economy as best they bloody can. Which has involved both rightist and liberal economic policise.
In biology diversity avoids degenerative mutation and extinction. Angree at one and hate the other? Vote for a third!
And you thought us limeies were bad. Just wait... You'll be begging to pay us our tea taxes, just to help get rid of "GWB the Opressive".
; }
I agree. Although I was looking forward to the end of Norton. Alls not lost yet! Such hacks are always going to emerge. And hackers will exploit them, as will small agile companies. But lumbering behemoths like Symantech should find it hard to use one of these xploits commercially before M$ sort the fix.
Urm... Because it takes away your right to do whatever is then against the law. Fairly obvious. If you do break the law then yet more freedoms are taken from you... There are for example many countries where it is illegal to deny the holocaust (a 'Law' to pretect 'order'), as they do on Red Watch NZ. Bingo, what you regard as a freedom has been precluded by 'Law & and Order'. This is true of any Law, in any country.
You're free to make that choice :) You're clearly insane, but you're free. Which is nice for you. Scary for those you may choose to hate, but nice for you. Of course if you were in a 'free' country, then someone else could do what they like to you... Anyone with a gun could shoot you dead. Or your loved ones. I think that sucks. I think in such a country you would soon find your self under the opression of a local war lord.... So your free country would not last long. Infact such an unstable country would soon be "freeded" by the US army... And you'd be as free as the average Iraqi right now.
but you're free to choose...
Not being funny, but i'm not sure what your point is. "It merely circumscribes the responses of the government." But, there's no merely about a thing like circumscribing the responses of the government. And the worshipers are the ones who roll out quotes such as: "The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored." - Chandon Seldon. This is absolutist. And theyby, in my book, inaccurate.
likewise: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin," is so often misquote to make it more absolutist. e.g. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin," Which has happened on Slashdot more often than I can count...
Banning outright is unlikely to the point of obserdity, but I believe much more stringent laws should in place to govern their use. They do cause a hiddious number of deaths and serious injury every year around the world. Indeed they have out-done war for many decades now, globaly (depending on the stats you believe). So yes why not, concider outright bans, if only long enough to say, it'll never happen.
They fall under the same catch22 of "Freedom without obligation is anarchy. Freedom with obligation is democracy. - Earl Riney". Red Watch NZ should be free to hate whome so ever they wish. They should be obliged to act (and speek) responsibly and in accordance to rules that offer the greatest freedom to all. And freedom from threat and fear IMO should be included in that.
"Shouldn't we therefore ban cars as well?"
Not banned but yes there should be laws governing there use. And oh, there...
No I don't think your a closet neo-Nazi. I do see the benifit of freedom of speech. but I'm a firm believer in the lack of absolutes in this world. There are none. A lot of the constitution worshipers are falling foul of asuming the constitution will ALWAYS be right in EVERY situation. But that is as dangerous as any other radicalism. In the long run, it can be used to justify terrible things. My point is to stop acting like sheep, and realize that the freedom of speech is subjective, and interpreted just as every other human construct is. As such I even have a problem with human 'rights'. And many other absolutist false notions that are there to make us feel protected, but whose oximoronical nature, imply dangerous false securities. Yes freedom of speech is a clever idea, but it is untrue and thereby dangerous to say it is absolutely true at all times. As is the notion of freedom itself (read Plato) and so many other religiously held beliefs people seem to have in the rightousness of the US constitution. Which is the biggest and scariest falsehood around. As it justifies to millions, the violent imposition of US rule over them, in orde to "free" them... for example. A fatal flaw in argument for hundreds of thousands of inderviduals in Iraq already. For example...
At last some common sense, in stead of acient quotes and mindless kowtowing to the almight constitution. Yes censorship is bad SOMETIMES. But NOTHING is objective. Nothing. This is the ONLY absolute that exists. While freedom of speech is all well and good, shouting fire in a crowed theater, as the old cliché goes, will kill people. Shouting Nigger in harlem, will probably get a white guy shot, and saying "We hate the Jews" (as it does at the bottom of every post on Red Watch NZ) will subvert maliable minds. As will the rest of their threatening activities, and agressive slanders. Nothing is black and white. If you can't accept that a FEW people disagreeing on what should and should not be "censored" in the FEW situations where it is called for, is better than entire 'races' endlessly waring with each other, but haveing the 'Freedom' to hate, then you deserve to live in a devided hateful country... Oh wait, you probably do. Figure it out sheep. The constitution is not magical. The world is complex.
What about if there is no doubt that this is hate speech? from Re Watch NZ: "We Hate The Jews! Red Watch NZ at 2:48 PM"
e lated&search=
No margin for error there.
Still a good idea? Watch this this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8q-MZqytcI&mode=r
Then tell me its a good idea to let these guys say what they like. Speech is after all, the only weapon Adolf started with...
What would make it even harder is your brain would be trying to figure out what the 'noise' was every time you opened your mouth. Wouldn't a sound cancelling mask w mic embeded be more sensible. As the tech is there already. The tech they should be working on is THE TRANSLATION as I've yet to see 'good' English to anything machine translation....?
I agree with virtually everything you say here, but not your tone/sentiment. Like I say i think this is a cultural thing, so its not easy to fix. Things are 'barely a shade better' here, but they are a shade better, and I started by saying there was no magic wand. Your not offering much help by "there's idiots everywhere". That really is plain snobbery, with little/no benifit.
;o)
But its true that the tabloids are awful here, and they feed the brains of millions daily. And yes Germany has its problems there too. And now Mudock owns MySpace. Joy! But don't give up. As it apears you have.
Again my point is not to cause offence. Don't hate the Sun reader, hate the Sun.
Nice reply. I agree whole heartedly. I'd mod up if I had pointsat the mo.
However, we're here to debate, so instead of just backslapping - would you see it worthwhile trying to alter this? IF you'd prefer a less capatalistic power moulding your lives over there (for this and/or other reasons) do you see it as a lost cause? Or as I see it, well within culture's grasp, to, at the very least guide the hand of your master?
there is no such thing as objectivity I guess. But It is clear to me that sensationisim is something that hinders it further. The the BBC is not nearly as guilty of this as FOX, or I hate to knit pick, but the Daily mail. The daily mail is ridiculed here for being xenophobic and right right wing to the point of, again, not being news, but rather propoganda.
The beauty of the BBC is that I can see it is left leaning. And as you rightly point out that it admits to this. Thats the point. FOX's tag line is a lie. Plain and simple. It says that it is unbiased. It can't be, is is very far from being so. Do you see?
As for adding them to my viewing list, no. I've watched it once or twice, and I know what to expect. Here we also have C4 news. For example. Its remit, that it has set itself, is to offer the 'other point of view'. And is therefore 'at odds' with the BBC most of the time. And because the BBC is left of where you see centre, and "safe" news, C4 is oftern 'dangerous' and willing to air the radical right's (or left's) arguments. i.e. they would be more willing to have a lengthy debate with BNP leaders, or air the views of a far right, middle eastern commentator. As such I actually do watch it more than the BBC News. The difference is the sane, and unemotive manner in which the facts are broached. News should not be entertainment. As it is treated on Fox. And every News show I've watched in the States.
I have seen both sides, haveing visited America, haveing an American family, and being subjected, as is everyone in the UK (/world) to a great deal of American media. Right or left leaning, vurtually everyone I've spoken to who is in a similar position would agree, that your news over there, just isn't news. In short, your dead wrong.
OK the US is clearly in a turning point at the moment. You only have to look at the number of posts to topics like media, politics, or as just seen, leaving America, to see how conflicted and concentrated feeling is at the moment regarding these issues. Can I just point out as an observer, that it may not be simplistic, reductionist logic that wins out here. There is no magic formula for freedom of press.
For decades now the UK has had state own/governed (or at least centrally funded) channels dominating the airwaves. We've also enjoyed independent outlets, so its not like N Korea. But news in particular is the BBC's domain. And for all that time, we have been the envy of America with regards to freedom of press (or at least the Americans who have witnessed both). You want the glossy crap, its there to, but you want more even handed, insightful, in depth news the UK's has beaten the US for a long time. But why?... It doesn't seem right.
It's not that I don't see your point that centralisation is a danger, and can lead to more total loss of objectivity. That is clear and obvious. Yet why is it that the contrary is born out in practise for us? I would say it is something that you do have control over. Your culture. Is it snobbish to think less of someone, you know could care more about world affairs, but who can't be bothered? Or is it your duty as a responsible citizen? Fox News would not get watched here. I know, because they tried something approaching it on channel 5. It stank. No one watches it still (even though its improving slightly). I would be ashamed to do so. If I saw a friend watching it, I'd say don't watch that shit. Its all sensationalist crap. Why watch the news if its not news. Watch kids TV or something. And I'd mean it. My tone would be seen as condescending snobbery to many Americans. It would not to most Brits. THIS is the reason you have "consolidated press". Here we have many Newspapers owned by one corporation, that are politically conflicting even. Why? because people expect varied opinions. This is bolstered by my experience of German news, and attitude to news. Which is an exaggerated version of the UK culture. And they have better news for it.
I do fear that this is fading some. And that the US way of toeing big business/party lines with soundbites and banalities, interspersed with adverts for the very same power mongers, is approaching. But there is still a big enough distinction for us to see the phenomena for what it is. Sadly know one wants to think they are living a lie. Or to pull your bloody socks up! Which is kind of what you are being told by people like me. But there you have it. DON'T watch crap, centralised, sanitised news. e.g. If you're being told everyday how many of your soldiers are being BRUTALLY MURDERED. And vague indications, if that, of civilian "casualties" that there have UNAVOIDABLY been, then your news is not news. Its propaganda. And you really are better off switching of the box and staring at the wall, or better still talking to a real person about what might really be happening in the world. AND EXPECT the same of your friends. EXPECT the same FOR your friends. They deserve better, as do you. I assume.
Is it biased to say grass is green? If so, you're right. Yes the daily show clearly states its belief that GWB is a fool, a tyrant, and governed by his greed for money and power to such a point as to make a mockery of his position. But seen as the vast majority of the world believe this, and there is a HUGE and growing body of evidence to back it up, its not biased. Its simply unbashful. Unappologetic you could say. But biased, no.
Are you ging to fix the zoom in IE7. It currently hasmany bugs, some of them are a hindrence to accessible screen readers (usually used by visually impaired users). I personal reported the problem with getElementfromPoint not getting the correct element went zoomed (javascript) and actually got a reply from the Manager in charge of the unit dealing with the zoom, sayng he was on the case. That was Beta1. Since then the issue has morphed slightly, but never gone away. PLEASE fix, as it can/is causeing real problems for screen reader users, and producers. e.g. : this
"the applied branches of chemistry include biochemistry which is probably the most rapidly developing science of all."
...
... etc.... Neutrino-matter interaction, dark matter, dark energy, nano tubes, quantum computing, .... These guys where either not know, to unclear to teach or very low down on people's priorities 10 years ago. If you're not getting taught them now by your third year, you've just wasted two years.
bingo. yes biotech, is very fast moving. indeed so is all tech. Computer science, is the prime example of a field whose books would be out of date each year. And if you go to a good university, so should many other subjects, such as economics, sociology, material sciences, political science, many of the arts
Re physics being stationary, no. Just ain't so. Maybe first year stuff (freshman I guess you call it). But areas that have steadily increased in volume and evolved have included solid state, quantum, astronomy, creation and world theory (the big bang ain't what it used to be), modeling, high energy, far field,
The building blocks wili remain the same, but texts that cover these for every majory subject (and a lot of minor), will not make much of a dent in the budget proposed if they shop arround.
For many dream of a silocone pal Less fake than Pam, more friendly than HAL For others its purpose is clear , to help missiles stear But AI has but one reason d'etre, for a real geek Which is to learn to speak. Not in a robotic and predictable way, But convincing enough for it to say: Jonny can't come to school today.
You have a pedantic but note worthy point. yes it would be wasteful to do this, annually, for each field, without thought for the relevance of doing so. But to be equally pedantic, I'd disagree about physics. Its has actually changed a great deal, year on year, for as long as I've been paying it attention (20ish years). Even at bachellor level. At least thats the case here. Maths not so much though. You're right enough there. Chemistry likewise.
You can imply my wife a lier (or at least untrust worthy) but I can't ask you if you're stupid? Nevermind. No I have no coroberating documentation for my wife and childs experience. Didn't think I'd need any. If you're that bothered, and untrusting, I'll see what I can find.