deedlebee
-
Posts
82 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by deedlebee
-
-
Get very well acquainted with English grammar. Understand the different parts of speech (ie. nouns, adjectives, prepositions, etc.), syntax, and read an article on inflection. This is not necessary, but it will help you a *great* deal. An excellent companion I had with me through 1st year Latin is "English Grammar for Students of Latin"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/093...0403663-0027967
Alon, are there any beginning self-study texts for Latin that you would recommend? I've wanted to pick up some knowledge of roots but I've been a bit overwhelmed by the choices. One book I found that looks interesting is "English Words from Latin and Greek Elements". I'm primarily interested in bolstering my understanding of roots to aid in the teaching of vocabulary. (Far be it for a modern education program to actually include something helpful to would-be English teachers.) I'm hesitant to just pick up a dictionary, as it wouldn't necessarily be ordered in a manner conducive to systematic learning.
-
Pack, Clouds, Away, And Welcome Day by Thomas Heywood (1605)
What a wonderful poem to read aloud. The following are best known as songs but pose a challenge to the reader who attempts a performance.
I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General
by: W.S. Gilbert
I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical,
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted too with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news---
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.
I'm very good at integral and differential calculus,
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous;
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.
I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's,
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parablous.
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,
I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes,
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.
Then I can write a washing bill in Balylonic cuneiform,
And tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform;
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.
In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",
When I can tell at sight a chassepôt rifle from a javelin,
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery:
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy,
You'll say a better Major-General has never sat a gee---
For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.
---
The following poem was mentioned as a song by my 11th grade chemistry teacher. He said he'd give extra credit to anyone who performed it flawlessly, while correspondingly pointing to the correct element. No one attempted it ;>
Elements
by: Tom Lehrer
There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium,
And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium,
And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium,
And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium,
Europium, zirconium, lutetium, vanadium,
And lanthanum and osmium and astatine and radium,
And gold and protactinium and indium and gallium,
And iodine and thorium and thulium and thallium.
There's yttrium, ytterbium, actinium, rubidium,
And boron, gadolinium, niobium, iridium,
And strontium and silicon and silver and samarium,
And bismuth, bromine, lithium, beryllium, and barium.
There's holmium and helium and hafnium and erbium,
And phosphorus and francium and fluorine and terbium,
And manganese and mercury, molybdenum, magnesium,
Dysprosium and scandium and cerium and cesium.
And lead, praseodymium, and platinum, plutonium,
Palladium, promethium, potassium, polonium,
And tantalum, technetium, titanium, tellurium,
And cadmium and calcium and chromium and curium.
There's sulfur, californium, and fermium, berkelium,
And also mendelevium, einsteinium, nobelium,
And argon, krypton, neon, radon, xenon, zinc, and rhodium,
And chlorine, carbon, cobalt, copper, tungsten, tin, and sodium.
These are the only ones of which the news has come to Ha'vard,
And there may be many others, but they haven't been discavard.
-
Personally, I like the Fantasia series. Even if it's an "exercise in art" moreso than art as a whole, it still has very pleasurable moments. I didn't care for the chaotic butterflies with the Beethoven piece, even though there was more story than the rain/cloud/shape piece in the original Fantasia.
8. The Firebird Suite/Mt. St. Helens... Spring (the creation spirit) never seems to be creating for anyone else's sake, just for her own joy. The Stag seems to the one who makes her possible, and while he urges her to continue to create (after her work is destroyed) it doesn't seem like he's asking her to live for his sake, but rather to continue living for her own sake (which he derives pleasure from watching).
As for the Firebird Suite, I absolutely love it. Your evaluation of the intrinsic joy involved with following values is a great observation. Some critics have claimed that this scene is ripped off from the anime Mononoke Hime, which involves a forest god who, during the day, is shaped like a stag and creates life and death with each step. But in the japanese animation, the god not only seems indiscriminate with his power, but vaguely unaware save one scene. Back to the little spirit of spring, you're right in the total joy she expresses at the end. Coupled with the wonderful piece of music, I find it to be quite enjoyable.
-
I remember reading the following poem in high school, and the teacher essentially making fun of it. Which of course meant that the already disinterested students thought even worse of it. The teacher gave it more an air of some horny guy who wanted to get it on. As I read it today, I see a better meaning; that of a man who realizes that his life is both important and temporary, with death as an undesirable state.
To his Coy Mistress
by Andrew Marvell
Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love's day;
Thou by the Indian Ganges' side
Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the Flood;
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow.
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at lower rate.
But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found,
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song; then worms shall try
That long preserv'd virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust.
The grave's a fine and private place,
But none I think do there embrace.
Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may;
And now, like am'rous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour,
Than languish in his slow-chapp'd power.
Let us roll all our strength, and all
Our sweetness, up into one ball;
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough the iron gates of life.
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.
-
I seriously doubt this: fat deadens your appetite. I eat fast food occasionally and when I have a meal there I usually don't eat again for the rest of the day; I'm simply not hungry. In fact, having that much fat and carbs made me exhausted because my body was throwing all its energy into digesting the food. I would be hard pressed indeed to eat 5000 calories in one day, and I can eat a lot. Likely I wouldn't be able to move.
There is a difference in your body's reaction between eating a carb and fat laden meal on occasion, and doing it all the time. In a relatively short span of time (perhaps a week or two), the excessive "bad" carbs (from preprocessed flours and pure sugars) actually alter your body's ability to process glucose. The effect is a system that processes these sugars extremely fast thereby causing a brand new craving, usually well before the body has had the chance to use up the fats from the previous meal. I.e., you get hungry. But to clarify, eating junk food is not an addiction. Eat salads for one or two days and your system will start to level out again.
Currently I'm attempting the Slim Fast diet, which is extremely strange because I'm eating all the time. ... Nothing like going on a diet to make you obsess about food.On the other hand, good diets that have you eat 5 or 6 times a day in small amounts with balanced nutrients will keep your sugar levels ... level. Hunger cravings will disappear and your energy level will stay at a good balance. Incidentally, I've found the same problem. Back in high school, I never bothered eating breakfast because I found it always made me hungry for lunch. Skipping seemed easier. These days, I prefer little meals over the day. Eating so often is difficult, even if it's in small amounts! I never feel hungry, even though I'm only getting between 1000 and 1500 calories.
As for McDonald's, the idea of the movie reminds me of the experiment they did with those rats decades ago with Sweet & Low and decided it causes cancer.
The evidence that saccharin causes cancer is so weak, that even suspicion is groundless. The original rat studies were flawed in two ways. The rats that died consumed an equivalent amount of saccharin to a human drinking gallons of diet cola every day for a lifetime. Secondly, rats metabolize saccharin in a different manner than humans.Anyone who couldn't see the obvious results of eating hamburgers every day needs to go back to school, not sue a corporation. I'd rather have celery and Laughing Cow cheese than French fries anyway
-
"3000 Miles to Graceland" was just flat out bad. No one acts well, and no one seems to have any real purpose except to die cool. The only reason to watch this movie is for a scene played by Ice-T. (Spoiler Warning) Two hours of misery lead up to a final shoot-down in a warehouse. A couple dozen SWAT guys manage to position themselves all around the interior perimeter, and in what is portrayed as "a cool way to kill them all", really is about the most idiotic maneuver I have *ever* seen, (and I've seen "The Core")! Ice-T's character, a gunman of sorts, chains himself upside-down, by the ankles and then swings himself out into the middle of the SWAT guys (Yes, like a pinata) and attempts to do this inverted-T double-handed shooting. Yes, he dies. Quickly. And yes, it's totally hilarious. (Which was not the director's intent)
-
Quick opinion:
There will probably be spoilers below.
I saw Constantine today and went with the intentions of seeing a mediocre sci-fi/religious special effects extravaganza. I have to say that I was pretty surprised by how much they *don't* dumb down the movie. Several events take place in which the viewer just watches. The movie does not then take some lame opportunity to turn to the audience and say, "So you mean....". But it also doesn't leave information garishly hanging out for plot holes.
Also, I think Keanu has the "look serious, say as little as possible" thing down pat
I think the effects were integrated fairly well and not too overused. As for the religious theme of the story, since it's just part of the "universe" of the plot, it doesn't much bother me. There wasn't much preaching going on, just exposition.I also particularly liked the occasional spats of humor, ::SPOILER WARNING:: especially near the end when he very subtly flips off Lucifer. Overall, it was a fun action movie with a nice ending. I only hope they don't ruin it by making a sequel.
-
While I appreciate the attempt to take on well deserved subjects for their plots, I really don't care for South Park due to the language. I simply don't like that it's used for a large percentage of the dialogue. There's only so much "anger replacement" I can stand before it just turns into an exercise in crudeness. I remember one episode in particular that had the goal of saying "fuck" as many times as possible. I think it was supposed to be a big deal because prior to that the tv censors would bleep it out.
Though I will admit I thought the rainforest episode was funny, as well as the one with the aliens and cows. Actually, most episodes I've seen were funny, but I still don't seek out the show regularly due to the above reason.
-
A further consequence of that is that any lying is initiation of force, and should be outlawed. I don't know if you'd be willing to accept that consequence: I'm not, at least without some pretty compelling argumenation.
A proper philosophy (from which one would use to create laws) cannot include "you must lie" or "you must never lie", but shouldn't there be some repercussion available for victims of deceit? The justice system, which enforces laws, must be able to make lying to the enforcers a crime in itself. I'm not suggesting that everyone would have a reasonable right to sue for every lie, but there must be some acceptable line. If a doctor lies to you about the effects of a drug, he should be liable. If a business lies to you about their product ("it's brand new" and it turns out to be 5 years old), they should be liable. I am unsure of how far (if at all) it should extend into the realm of personal associations.
But if lying is not an initiation of force, then what do you do about it in non-personal transactions? Are you suggesting that fraud should not be considered illegal?
-
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that Objectivists are the happiest people around?
I'm not sure that's an idea that could be conclusively proven. Philosophically, you might be able to suggest that Objectivists hold the highest potential to become the happiest a human can be, but that might be outside the realm of psychology.
Additionally, I would say that while an Objectivist may be extremely sure of himself and his actions, his happiness would still vary depending on his ability to successfully achieve his particular goals in life. If one goal (say, a marriage to a wonderful person) is blocked (because they can't/haven't yet found a suitable partner), their happiness may still be limited even if their self-confidence is intact.
So are you looking at making a psychological connection between happiness and self-esteem as they relate through individualistic tendencies? I've read extremely basic material about the positive aspects of the Type A behaviours, when certain ideals are realized (such as seeing life as a challenge instead of an obstacle). They immediately made me think of an Objectivist's mindset.
The previous poster had good suggestions as well. It almost seems to be the case (to me anyway) that perhaps you haven't narrowed down the topic quite enough. So indulge us
What is the topic you're heading towards, specifically? -
I only know of two projects that use distributed computing so far. SETI and Folding@home. For the past 5 years, my computer's idleness has been crunching away for SETI. I only recently found out about the Stanford project (after rummaging around Google labs) and immediately switched. The first "package" took over 4 days to crunch and send back.
Does anyone know of other distributed computing projects? If so, which do you like to participate in? If you don't participate for philosophical reasons, why?
(Note to mods, this topic is not in anyway intended to be some sort of advertisement.)
-
"Mainstream" organizations such as the Direct Marketing Association reinforce the problem by lobbying to obstruct and slow down anti-spamming laws, while claiming that their members' unsolicited promotions are somehow "legitimate". (The DMA is the same organization that tried to stop the do not call list in the courts.) They all see the evolving computer revolution as a source of money divorced from any concept of earning it and divorced from the concept of property rights as they try to establish a new body of law, tradition and infrastructure that maximizes their access to your computer whether you like it or not.
This is the part that riles me up the most, and I think should irritate any legitimate marketer. How can a truly rational marketer stand by in agreement with the idea that even if the consumer has explicitly said "no", they should still be allowed the right to bombard them with the message?
It's not the government's place to interfere with business, but if a citizen says "no, I don't want this, you are bothering me, please go away", and the sender ignores this request, isn't that then a violation of your personal rights? Isn't it harassment? As I read it, the Do Not Call list didn't say that telemarketing operations couldn't be in business. It was simply a list that lets these businesses know in advance that they are not welcome. Like a giant "no trespassing" sign that's easier to read.
The rejection of this idea by these associations seems to belie a truth they aren't willing to admit. That their business model relies on those who are weak-minded, incapable and possibly ignorant of certain rights. Again, I don't think it's the government's place to be a baby-sitter, but how can they rationally explain this supposed "right to ignore the no trespassing sign"?
I've heard the argument of spam being presented as "if you don't want it, you can tell them to remove you from their list and if they don't, you can prosecute as an individual". But at what point, if any, does such a standard become impossible, regardless of the rational philosophical base behind it? The major problem with this argument is that the vast majority of these spam mails use the opt-outs as harvesters. Second to that, tracking down the actual information of these people is as difficult. "Well then that's fraud, and you can persecute them for that."
While the following is obviously humor, it does seem to suggest a level of frustration of people who try everything to get away from harassing solicitation.
<humor>
"Spammer #1: "I looked out the window and held down my horn for 10 seconds, and she glanced at me for a second before flipping me the bird and driving off! But I got a good look at her! That's opt-in!"Spammer #2: "My chick could have unsubscribed by just giving me a b*job. But she didn't want to! It's her fault for not unsubscribing!"
</humor>
But isn't fraud a violation of rights as well? Doesn't the government have a definite interest in preserving the rights of the citizens under that explanation?
There seems to be something very twisted about this whole idea of spam. Frankly, it seems virtually impossible for a single individual to attempt prosecution of every spam-mail he receives with even a small degree of success. Not just "hard" or "a lot of work". But literally requiring all his available time to seek resolution with limited success. I know it's happened a few times, but those examples are by far in the minority. Corporations (such as Microsoft) have had some successful suits, but usually deal more with trademark confusion than unwanted spam.
So, to sum up the question in terms of philosophy/law; is there a point at which the ability for the individual to defend his rights, while still existent, is so minute for success that it is rational for the government to step into a proactive role?
-
I have a theory that these quacks are putting this kind of nonsense out there to test exactly how gullible the public is.
I think it's been working for a long time. I ended up having a rather lengthy debate with the person who sent this article to me. I tried to offer up all sorts of examples as to why there is no reason to take this sort of silliness seriously (hypothetically leaving out the fact that none of the actual processes were described). My science and mathematics are not as sure as they could be, so feel free to laugh at any misunderstood attempts
(Maybe we both sound like idiots, but I certainly hope not. The conversation was light-hearted enough that towards the end I conjectured that somewhere, two physicists at the FBI were having a grand old time.)(The below quote is a sample of that conversation. Due to the speed of the conversation, there are grammatical errors, especially capitalization. I am posting it mostly for the sake of amusement but, as always, welcome factual criticism.)
Him: the bumps [from the aforementioned "black box"]are interesting because the standard deviation is skewed significantlyMe: but the bumps are to be expected! It's random! Hence it will RANDOMLY make random deviations!
Him: I understand what you're saying
Him: but
Me: no buts!
Him: no, I draw graphs with perl
Me: random != pattern!
Me: random != meaning!
Him: pattern != std dev
Me: random != average!
Him: math is nuts
Him: you can take a "random sample" and evaluate the standard deviation and find, it’s not that random at all..
Him: there's a pattern..
Him: and find there is some binding factor..
Him: some "predictable element"
Him: some "stability in chaos"
Me: those are two different things.
Me: I can throw a bucket of paint on a canvas (random sample) and then "find" the average length of the splatter by measuring it. Does that measurement mean anything about the construction of the splatter? No.
Me: It was still splattered!
Him: but it will give you clues to approximate or predict the coverage of the next splatter
Him: so you can get the right size canvas
Me: no it won't.
Me: It only tells you the average length of THAT splatter.
Him: true, but you can use that to predict the next outcome
Him: I do it all the time..
Him: a first draft to feel out the effect..
Him: then based on that sample.. adjust the parameters to achieve the desired effect..
Me: You'd have to measure the velocity from which the paint was flung, the distance to the canvas, the viscosity of the paint, the direction you were looking, the shape of the canvas, the material of the canvas, the ambient temperature of the room, and the paint, the precise wind flow .... etc.. THEN you can make some kind of assumption about the next splatter.
Me: Taking an average measurement of a randomly created activity does not tell you about its construction. It only gives you a mathematically irrelevant number.
To conclude on a more intellectual note, what is the significance or purpose (if any) of finding "standard deviations" from randomly created phenomena?
-
Everyone always says "It looks so good on paper," but it doesn't- it looks incredibly stupid on paper.
I thought exactly the same thing when I had to read it
It reads like a teenager who's screaming because he's been sent to his room for not picking up his dirty socks! 
I think the advice given has been great. I especially like the idea of having him read the actual works, as well as fictional works by non-Objectivists with clear, positive messages. One book I might recommend is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. While the story was built upon the idea of "man should not interfere with the works of God", it also discusses the idea of personal responsibility for one's actions in a very dramatic sense. (Although, admittedly, a 14 yr old may not like the vast passages of nature descriptions).
I also strongly agree with JMeganSnow's suggestion of bringing up alternate ideas for your brother to think about. As you've noticed, sometimes arguments just result in butting heads. Giving the "opponent" time to think about different ideas in a non-confrontational manner will allow a better opportunity for discussion, as opposed to argument. You might also reverse this in a way that can display your passions towards the world. Other than the problem of not sharing Miss Rand's works, you could take your brother with you on some excursion that you enjoy (whatever that might be). Even if it's as simple as heading to a fast food joint to grab a burger :> Spend a little time just being his sibling. The patience will pay off if you couple it with opportunity.
From a basis of psychology, I might hesitantly suggest that you avoid purposely provoking him into an ideological power struggle. At this point, as others have noted, he's in an age of flux and all this action would amount to is a heap of resentment and distancing. If he wants to discuss his political ideas, give him an ear. But if he insists on your point of view, lay down some ground rules as to the nature of the discussion, (ex. No name-calling, must present ideas backed by fact, no yelling, etc) so that you can actually have the discussion. Just don't allow it to degrade into a situation where it's provocation after provocation. It's worthless at this point, gaining nothing for either side.
-
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126649#121
The details on the actual process of these experiments are completely vague, and while they claim to keep using scientific methods, they only discuss the results. Has anyone else heard of this notion of backwards time? The whole idea is incredibly disturbing and fatalistic, but that is of course, not pointed out. Frankly, this entire article reads of quackery to me.
Strange as it may seem, though, there's nothing in the laws of physics that precludes the possibility of foreseeing the future.It is possible - in theory - that time may not just move forwards but backwards, too. And if time ebbs and flows like the tides in the sea, it might just be possible to foretell major world events. We would, in effect, be 'remembering' things that had taken place in our future.
'There's plenty of evidence that time may run backwards,' says Prof Bierman at the University of Amsterdam.
'And if it's possible for it to happen in physics, then it can happen in our minds, too.' In other words, Prof Bierman believes that we are all capable of looking into the future, if only we could tap into the hidden power of our minds.
-
(he'll correct me if I'm wrong)
she'll correct you, as you are wrong
but I think what deedlebee has been looking for ... is a "diverting," "light" novel that entertains by being "comic" or describing "adventurous" events.Certainly not. If I want something that is "comic" or "light", I turn on [adult swim] for 15 minutes. What I said prior, I still hold to. A work of fiction is first a piece of entertainment. That is not its only function. Nor does "entertainment" imply need for a simple mind or simple matters. Entertainment has a wide range, all the way up to what could be called the sublime. Fine art is also entertainment in that it puts a tangible face on philosophical ideas. It's first goal is "to think for you" (to phrase it poorly); to present ideas in a way that should capture the audience's attention. Whether those ideas are complex and meaningful or simple and unimportant is up to the author. The Fountainhead is certainly the former and is designed to be a good read and thought-provoking.
I do not find The Fountainhead to be difficult to read. I am simply having trouble engaging myself with distasteful characters. I would like to mention though, that after having read a book for one of my courses (Industrial America) called "Looking Back". I now have a great desire to read Atlas Shrugged. So I may do that for a bit and then come back
-
The teachers in my son's school have various "tips and tricks" which do not necessarily make the lesson more interesting, but actually help break it down into units that the child can learn more easily. Not sure if one learns these through books, Montessori courses, or some other way.
I'm a huge advocate for being passionate about one's work, especially for teachers. Having a variety of ways to present material is certainly a good thing. My problem with these courses is that while they may be called "Principles of Composition" or "Survey of Reading", all they offer are subjectively based theories (some of which they say don't work, but which we should use any way) and ideas for lessons. There is almost no focus at all on the actual content (writing and reading skills), regardless of the fact that over half the students of education majors don't know simple facts. In one of my classes, several students had trouble labeling prepositions and conjunctions during an exercise meant for 7th graders. When the only substance of a course is different ways to present lessons, all you end up with is a bunch of teachers that can make a presentation interesting, but still aren't teaching anything.
Technique is important, but it is not exclusive from content. Taking a course in education at a modern university is similar to watching home decorating shows in order to become an artist.
Incidentally, I think the Montessori approach is great
From what I know of their methods, teachers who wish to work in Montessori schools must take courses to learn about the method. I don't believe they're just taught how to do something (like the pink block tower), but why it's also important. -
The schools are stealing our money to provide what is not even education anymore. The first priority for a math teacher isn't MATH? :/
Within a year I hope to finish my college education and head into teaching. As I mentioned in my introductory post, I'm taking a roundabout path and attempting to give myself a more classical education, instead of going directly through an education major. It's obvious if you sit in on any class, that you're not going to learn anything helpful to a subject. The aim of these courses is to fill the soon-to-be-teacher's head with useless pedagogy, theories that explicitly don't work, "tips and tricks" to keep lessons interesting, and of course, all sorts of generalized sensitivity in the most insincere fashion one could imagine. (All EDU students at my university are required to take one special ed. class and one multiculturalism class so that they will be "prepared" for inclusion.)
Even though I'll be getting a regular degree, that won't qualify me to actually be a teacher at the state schools. (Frankly, I'm going to attempt to work in private institutions first.) So, in order to get certification, I'll first have to take the TExES test. It is supposedly a test used to ensure subject competency. There is a different test for each subject/age group. Yesterday, I glanced at the sample test online.
A quick glance through the mathematics sample test (also for 4-8) thankfully reveals actual math problems.A fourth grade class has been reading folk tales from around the world. Which of the following oral language activities would be most effective in promoting students' multicultural awareness and appreciation?A. Students discuss folk talks from various countries and then read aloud and discuss descriptions of the geography and cultural characteristics of each country.
B. The teacher guides students to discuss some features that folk talks of various countries have in common as well as some of the unique features of each culture's folk tales.
C. Students read aloud "folk talks" they have written themselves and then review folk tales from various countries and decide which culture's folk talks most closely resemble their own.
D. The teacher helps each student select a folk tale, present it to the class, and answer any questions that other students in the class may have about the folk tale's plot or characters.
-
Does anyone remember Mr. Wizard? I loved that.
I think Ducktales and Talespin (and possibly Rescue Rangers) were the only true "spin off" shows that were ever good. For those who never saw it, Talespin used Baloo and Louie from the Jungle Book. Baloo worked with a small business owner (a small female bear) as a cargo pilot, and Louie ran a pitstop-style bar/club. My memory of specific episodes is vague, but I remember enjoying it. I never liked any of the Tiny Toons, Animaniacs.. whatnot that came out of the classic characters. Baby Looney Toons is the newest and it's just ... awful. Duck Dodgers of the 24th 1/2 century had the potential to be funny, but it's just missing the mark.
As for Captain Planet, I think more offensive than the bad plots surrounding environmentalism (they never made sense. "evil capitalist wants to pollute because he's evil") was the horrendous stereotyping. The American kid, Wheeler, was a total slob, a total moron and just seemed to be angry a lot. I'm not sure how anyone from any of those backgrounds could watch the show and really be proud.
And frankly, the animation was probably the *worst* I have ever seen.
I also like Blue's Clues. I have not seen the Kwannza episode either. Even though the main character speaks slowly, I don't think the show really speaks down to the child. Teletubbies is a total atrocity. (What IS that goop that comes out of the pipe?? Pudding? Slime?) Dora the Explorer seems to miss the mark that Blue's Clues hits effectively. There's also some show, I think on Nick Jr., that has children running around with big puppet faces that move in a somewhat lifelike manner. I've no clue what it's called, but I find it really disturbing.
On the upside, I do like the Discovery Kids programs that show sometimes in the mornings or Saturdays. The information is usually selective, but it's all good. I miss the days when Discovery showed actual science programs all day long, instead of whole blocks of decorating or angry people building machines. Still, Mythbusters is a great show
(I think I've rambled enough.)
-
This is a great resource. I hope they finish it someday!
4. Seek out the most rational professors, if you can learn who they are. Here are some suggestions: (a) ask other students what professors they liked and why; (b] check out what books professors are using, by going to the campus bookstore and leafing through the books they are requiring in a given course; © get an advance copy of the syllabus and check out not only the titles of the required books but also the list of required articles and class assignments. For example, if the readings are riddled with post-modernist or multiculturalist books and articles, you can be sure it will be a worthless course. Sometimes you can manage your own education by arranging to do independent study with professors who have something to offer.As a Humanities student myself, this one is sort of a hit or miss. Last semester I took a course with texts by Voltaire, J.S. Mill, Karl Marx, J.J. Rousseau, Daniel Defoe and S. Freud. Considering the texts, it could have been a hellish leftist experience. Thankfully, I wound up with the most charming British professor who was well schooled in western ideologies and history and explicitly lauded individualism. On the other hand, in a similar course I have this semester, the professor has given us absolutely no historical context for the basis of non-western texts (which of course, makes understanding them much more difficult) and even went so far as to lead the class in a Buddhist meditation so they (I did not participate) could experience the "not-self".
8. Take responsibility for your own motivation. Do not expect to get motivated automatically by your teachers. Do not let the bad ones demotivate you. Do not stop learning out of disgust. Know the reasons why you are in college and what you expect to get out of it.I also totally agree. What offends me more than an uninteresting teacher is one who explicitly states, over and over, "I know this is really boring," or some variation, in some attempt to "relate" to students in a cool way. My psychology professor last semester was talking about the operation of the brain and kept saying this. The brain is not boring! *sigh* It's even more offensive when education teachers say this.
-
If you want to read the book for the benefit of understanding the philosophy contained in the book...
I want to read the book for the sake of enjoying a good story. While it may be a philosophical exercise throughout, fiction holds an additional bonus for being purposefully enjoyable. Your advice on looking at it as an intellectual exercise is helpful to a student of Objectivism. In good conscience, I cannot claim to be a student of Objectivism just yet. This is not because I do not want to be, but because I do not have an appropriate amount of free time with which to pursue this vigorously. I remain very interested in the philosophy and as much in agreement as one could be considering these facts.
I don't want to be too harsh, but glancing at your background, I would recommend that if you want to understand Objectivism, reading and writing posts here is infinitely less fruitful than reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, say, twice each, and then following up or mixing this with Ayn Rand's non-fiction. Reading the Voice of Reason and 60 pages of The Fountainhead is, quite simply, insufficient to form an integrated understanding of the Objectivist philosophy.While I understand what you're saying, it strikes me as off topic. It seems as if you are suggesting that I think the best way to go about learning about Objectivism is to post on a forum and read bits of a book or two. What I have said is that these are things I *have* read so far. I did not couple it with "and I expect to know all about Objectivism from this limited context". I am not expecting to fully integrate this philosophy from these sources. I do, like most other people on these boards (and elsewhere), have other things of concern in my life. As I've said, I'm reading The Fountainhead for the sake of enjoyment first and finding that lacking for reasons stated above (which do not include "trying to decide if Objectivism is for me").
From a more personal context, I am not interested in Objectivism because I think it might help "get me away from other bad philosophies". (I know you did not say this. I'm strictly using it as an example) I am interested because it seems that the values which I hold are very similar to this philosophy.
I noticed you commented that "rarely pick up novels, as I'd rather be learning about something." I guarantee that if you read The Fountainhead, you'll be "learning about something."This was poorly phrased on my part. I did not intend to imply that one cannot learn from a work of fiction. I will try to restate this more clearly. I find works of non-fiction incredibly engrossing. I gain both intellectual and emotional satisfaction from non-fiction. As the *first* (not only) goal of a fictional work is to be entertaining, I tend to lean more towards non-fiction first.
And reading posts here, where it is generally assumed that all readers are familiar with the events and characters of the novels (and many other things), has probably already resulted in multiple plot spoilers that could further reduce your enjoyment of Ayn Rand's novels.I'm well aware that I can (and have) run into spoilers. This does not persuade me from reading a book. Seeing one little portion of a 700 page book discussed in minute detail is more like a trailer for a movie (for me anyway). If anything, these discussions have encouraged me to pick up the book and find that enjoyment. That I know something is going to happen doesn't mean I can't enjoy it when I arrive knowing the full context. If this were true, I would not read books a second time, an activity I thoroughly enjoy.
Deedlebee, if you want to read a great story in three or so hours, pick up "Anthem". I note that you said you sneer or stare at those you consider irrational. But do you have intellectual ammunition with which to speak up and defend your values when appropriate?First, I don't believe I made the comment that I'm finding The Fountainhead to be unenjoyable because it's long. Secondly, I most certainly do. My point in saying I react to certain events with sneers or stares was not intended to imply that this is my only action. Additionally, my statement that I remove myself from the presence of those who waste my personal time was not intended to suggest that I run away from intellectual challenges. It simply means that I do not let the wants of others direct my time.
-
It's kind of like trying on a new pair of glasses. You see so much better it may be disturbing. But you can't just give it up, can you?
Well obviously I can ;> Four times over. This was basically my point. Reading this novel is like a warped view of real life. The beautiful are stunning and the ugly burn my eyes. I particularly loathe Keatings' mother.
Those distasteful and awful people are exactly the same as the people around you in real life. Unless you are spending your days sneering, or you are in a faraway utopia which I've never heard about, you should be used to them by now.I don't exist in a utopia, nor do I run gleefully towards people with whom I want no association. I spend a great deal of my days smiling. It's only when I have to deal explicitly with nonsense, such as a professor claiming moral equivalency between peaceful protesting and armed robbery (this really happened) that the sneers or stern stares come out.
In response to what seems to be a common view regarding Roark and really wanting to know what happens to him, my impression is this. He strikes me as having a character that should be perceived as normal (not as a mathematical average). When I read his introduction I think, "this is how a normal, rational person acts". He doesn't let little things bother him. Nor should he.
With Roark, I actually don't feel an immediate need to find out what will become of him. I don't equate the approval of others with the approval of one's self. I don't feel any particular sorrow because he's been kicked out of school for thinking like an individual should. Whatever will happen to him in the book, be it good or bad, it still won't change how Roark views himself.
Right?
I don't view him as some sort of stoic monk. He is obviously passionate, but only towards important matters. I should state though, that I'm uninterested in stories of "heroes" that are embedded into plots that simply reveal a weakness of character (Spiderman comes to mind), or some horrible flaw that somehow makes them better because of the shortcoming, not because they improve themselves (Big Fish fits here*).
In my most recent attempt I have read to page 52. I could comment on the writing style, but I'm more than willing to put styles aside to read a great story.
Still, thank you all for your encouraging and thoughtful comments.
*While this is not the appropriate forum to discuss movies, I will say that while Big Fish was visually lovely I found the story to be rather disturbing and am surprised I have met Objectivists who like it. Romanticizing a habitual liar who is incapable of having a conversation with his son... doesn't seem very noble to me.
-
The Fountainhead will be the second book I have read by Miss Rand. I read articles on various sites when I have the opportunity and I greatly enjoyed The Voice of Reason. Of what I understand about Objectivism so far, I greatly admire. It fits well with my own sense of life and values and I enjoy the discussions that arise between Objectivists (and students thereof).
I also like the idea of Howard Roark as a character... as a hero. I even considered architecture as a career several years ago. But ultimately, I can't seem to "get" into the book. I've found this to be an awkward and possibly troubling problem.
I've started and restarted maybe 4 times now. I keep putting the book down feeling acutely annoyed. I will admit that I do not have the same tastes as Miss Rand when it comes to the hair color of men, but I don't think that's the prime source of agitation. After the introduction of Roark, as the auxiliary characters are presented one at a time, I find myself ... I suppose sneering. I think I find them so distasteful that it's hard to maintain an interest in the story as a whole, much less the hero. There are so many of them, and they're all such awful people that I immediately want to distance myself.
In my personal life, as it has been for as long as I can remember (even in elementary school) I never wasted my own time with people whom I decided were wasting mine. As an adult, if someone has crossed my line of personal decency (what values they choose to act upon and why, not obscure social standards of behavior) I immediately dismiss him from my life and move on without looking back. And I do this without remorse or regret.
I'm well aware that I enjoy non-fiction much more for my reading habits. I rarely pick up novels, as I'd rather be learning about something. Still, I love great stories. My question is simply this: has anyone else here experienced something similar while reading these novels?
If not, I gladly welcome any suggestions for this odd situation.
-
Some of the following quotes were culled from various other forums, hence the unknown names/handles :> (I am also an avid collector
)"Abanoning your morals to follow pointless traditions is not an act of love, but an act of sheer cowardice." - MrGrendel (seen on Slashdot forums)
"Freedom is not a license for chaos" - Narrator of The Dot and The Line, Warner Bros. Cartoon.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage
"Censorship is like telling a man cannot have a steak because a baby cannot chew it "- Mark Twain
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forego their use." Galileo
"Political correctness, like other totalitarian ideologies, demands absolute purity." - James Taranto (seen on Slashdot forums)
<humor>
"To avoid casting aspersions on our feline friends, the "cat" command is now merely "domestic_quadruped." ... The "abort()" function is now called "choice()." ... From now on, "rich text" will be more accurately referred to as "exploitive capitalist text". ... No longer will it be permissible for files and processes to be "owned" by users. All files and processes will own themselves, and decided how (or whether) to respond to requests from users." - anonymous (seen on Slashdot forums)
</humor>
"A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble." - George Orwell
"Modernism is art about art. It endlessly asks the question ad-nausea: what is art? What is art? They believe that only those things that expand the boundaries of art are good all else is bad. It is art about art. Where-as, all of the great art in history is Art about life." - Fred Ross of ARC
also...
"Only a society such as this could generate people who would even be permitted to dribble paint on a canvas and call it a work of art. A hundred years earlier, somebody trying to do that would probably have been thrown into an institution or worse. We must realize that modern art could never have existed save on the back of the Humanist art that preceded it. One can't help but be struck by the irony that the chief benefactors of these "liberated" and "enlightened" artists are their chief detractors. The knife of ingratitude cuts deep." - Fred Ross of ARC
"I'd rather make 24K/year and be my own boss than make 100k/year and have to put up with bull**** everyday. There is something to be said for Quality of Life." - BoomerSooner (seen on Slashdot forums)
<humor>
"I've had one of those plastic tubes of frosting and jelly they call a "Yogurt Fruit Parfait." And I didn't use a safety net or a helmet. But that's because I'm a f***ing extreme eater. I can chew without biting my tongue off. I can put food in my mouth without swallowing my hand, and I can finish an entire cup of coffee with practically no injuries. Listen-- I'm the Mountain Dew commercial of eaters, f***er" - Sean (from seanbaby.com)
</humor>
"When I stand on my own stage, what dialogue would I be reciting?" - Hibiki (Character from an anime series called Vandread)
"Animals unfortunately are cuter than trees, so people tend to anthropomorphize them. That's why cute but ecologically irrelevent creatures like pandas get saved, they are cute. Meanwhile Lobsters look like science fiction monsters, so it's ok to boil them alive. Try boiling a cute puppy alive, and see how people react." - the tortured one (Yes, from here. I really liked this!)
(This next may be the most controversial I post. I am curious what opinions others might have concerning it.)
"America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free. " - Michael Douglas as Andrew Shephard from the movie "The American President"
What are your favorite TV shows?
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
Law and Order - Original series only. All the spin-offs, including the show-a-likes (CSI), seem to just focus on the crime or the individual characters' personal lives.
Inuyasha (Imported, also on Cartoon Network) - Animated.
Has a very cute love story that spans almost the entire series and deals with important moral issues. The main character begins as a very close-minded individual who doesn't seem to totally understand his own values. As he adventures, he meets new friends and gains new values. Although, like most anime, don't expect riviting philosophy in every episode.
Monk - Neurotic detective saves the day.
Venture Brothers (Cartoon Network) - Hilarious spoof-type show that pulls from Johnny Quest and other old sci-fi toons. There's usually a mystery to solve, but it tends to take a back seat to the strange plots of washed up, ridiculous super-villains.