Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #174795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-16 15:20 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-11-22 13:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 117 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-16 15:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 16:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-16 16:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 19:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-17 13:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 15:30 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-17 15:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-17 15:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 17:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-11-17 18:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 06:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-16 16:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-17 16:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" "John L. Ries" <jries@salford-systems.com> - 2016-11-17 19:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:30 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 23:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" emetib <chadbrabec@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-18 10:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-11-18 11:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" emetib <chadbrabec@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 20:30 +0100
Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-12-29 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 19:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 03:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 03:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-12-30 15:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 15:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 16:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-30 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 09:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 14:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nemeth Gyorgy <friczy@freemail.hu> - 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-12-31 12:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 14:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-01-01 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-01-02 02:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 02:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 16:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 17:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 18:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 19:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-31 15:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 18:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-01-02 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 03:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 18:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 12:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 14:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 16:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 17:20 +0100
[OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 20:40 +0100
Re: [OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 23:50 +0100
Re: [OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 01:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2017-03-12 17:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 14:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <xen@dds.nl> - 2017-01-01 20:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2017-01-02 20:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2017-03-11 10:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 12:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 14:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-03-11 19:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-03-13 13:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 04:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-12-30 13:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 00:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 01:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 01:50 +0100
[OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?] Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-12-31 03:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?] deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2017-03-11 22:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-11-22 13:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-22 13:30 +0100
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 15:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUOZH-1ka-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176191 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Le duodi 12 nivôse, an CCXXV, deloptes a écrit : > this is not true. Europe and US including Russia had exponential growth > during the 18-19century. This all was killed by the FED and the layers, > through the revolutions and the marxist-communists, who are now called > green party or alike, but it is a different story. This is completely unrelated. > Your statement is not true. There have been periods in history where people > complained and periods when society was stable. We are in the part of the > cycle, but we have to do something ourself to come out of the cycle. My statement is true, old geezers have always complained that the young ones were not as good as them, and most of the time they were just wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 16:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUQoO-25U-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176196 |
Nicolas George wrote: > Le duodi 12 nivôse, an CCXXV, deloptes a écrit : >> this is not true. Europe and US including Russia had exponential growth >> during the 18-19century. This all was killed by the FED and the layers, >> through the revolutions and the marxist-communists, who are now called >> green party or alike, but it is a different story. > > This is completely unrelated. > Might be unrelated, might be related it is not part of the discussion now. At least I do not intend to discuss it publicly. The fact is that education and scientific success declined after WWII worldwide, while many discoveries are made only few are being implemented. In fact the worse is being implemented because it has the highest return and we as society are tolerating this. IMO because we lack the level of fundamental knowledge that our world requires. >> Your statement is not true. There have been periods in history where >> people complained and periods when society was stable. We are in the part >> of the cycle, but we have to do something ourself to come out of the >> cycle. > > My statement is true, old geezers have always complained that the young > ones were not as good as them, and most of the time they were just > wrong. Yes this might be subjectively true, but from historical point of view there were times that the young generation was indeed better and times when the young generation was indeed worse. It is up to us to lead the world into the former, but most are irresponsible. regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 17:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUR1w-2Aa-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176202 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Le duodi 12 nivôse, an CCXXV, deloptes a écrit : > The fact is that education > and scientific success declined after WWII worldwide Without objective evidence of that "fact", you are just another old geezer who complains about today's youth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 20:40 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUU93-4tl-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176205 |
Nicolas George wrote:
> Without objective evidence of that "fact", you are just another old
> geezer who complains about today's youth.
I'll let it to your imagination and will to find the truth, but here are
some interesting facts https://www.ei-ie.org
example how IMF is dealing with education
Impacts of IMF Policies on National Education Budgets and Teachers
Exploring Possible Alternatives and Strategies for Advocacy
By Rick Rowden 2011
also I must agree with the statements from this article
https://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/news_details/2143
You know amazingly we have now less people affected by famine, but the level
of education is far below the technical advantage of the world ... and even
the technical advantage of the world is far below what it should be.
Think of patent rights etc.
No time to discuss too long with you - to agree or not is up to you
regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 23:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUX6V-6jO-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176220 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Le duodi 12 nivôse, an CCXXV, deloptes a écrit : > No time to discuss too long with you Well, if you took time to find exact pointers rather than links to a huge website and a 80+ pages document, you would realize you cannot find anything to support the theory that the average level has decreased over a significant period of time (fluctuations over a 5-15 period of time are of course to be expected). Instead, you shift subtly the statement towards politics and economy. The truth is that the level has actually increased in developed countries: a greater proportion of people finish high school, a greater proportion of people access to higher education. The contents is also broader and more rewarding, people no longer learn by heart lists of battle dates and capital cities, they learn social mechanisms and geopolitics; they study literary works instead of minute spelling rules. They spend less time training to do three-digits multiplications by hand because they have calculators, and thus they have time to study statistics. Now, why do people think the level drops? There are several reasons. The simplest is this: they do not realize how much they evolved, they do not realize they were just as clueless and ignorant at the same age. If you can, dig something you wrote when you were barely an adult and read it: odds are you will want to slap that stupid guy. Another reason is a combination of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. The knowledge changes; without the level dropping, new generations know less about some topics, and more about others. When old geezers notice that a kid does not know something, they notice it, and they take it as a confirmation that the level drops, and they slap their forehead. On the other hand, they rarely notice when the kid knows something they ignore; because most of the time it is the old geezers who drive the conversations, and they will not talk about subjects they ignore; because if that happens anyway, they will not dwell on it, their subconscious will gloss over it to avoid the humiliation. Another point, specific to teachers and people exposed to the same kind of young population. A century ago, teachers beyond the level of 10-12 years-old kids saw only the elite. (Well, not exactly a century ago; exactly a century ago, teachers saw French mud and German shells.) At that age, kids who had neither money nor exceptional abilities were already plowing the fields or digging the mines (I might be exaggerating for emphasis). Nowadays, they see everybody (10-16 years) or almost (later). The level of a century ago's elite was better than the level of today's whole population, yes, big surprise. But if you consider the whole population on both cases, the comparison reverses. Show a function graph to a random 18 years-old European today, almost all of them will know what it is about, and more than half of then will actually know how to read it. I do not have figures, but I would be surprised if it was even half that sixty years ago. Now, I realize that you, the person who was contradicting me, will not agree with anything I wrote; it does not matter, these are well-studied facts (978-20-2012-469-0 for example) based historic statistical analysis. I wrote this for other readers who might be fooled by your pseudo-references. Now, I will leave you the last word: please go ahead and reply with a barely relevant rant laced with mystic nonsense. Really EOT this time (sorry). Regards, -- Nicolas George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 01:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUYFH-7mX-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176230 |
I know you are trying to EOT this, but, from someone trying to teach high school English, ... On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:40 AM, Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote: > Le duodi 12 nivôse, an CCXXV, deloptes a écrit : >> No time to discuss too long with you > > [...] > The truth is that the level has actually increased in developed > countries: a greater proportion of people finish high school, a greater > proportion of people access to higher education. The contents is also > broader and more rewarding, YMMV on the "broader" and "more rewarding" evaluation, in particular. I see more information, less help actually using it. Actually, I see institutional biases against helping the students learn to use the information they get. > people no longer learn by heart lists of > battle dates and capital cities, they learn social mechanisms and > geopolitics; they study literary works instead of minute spelling rules. > They spend less time training to do three-digits multiplications by hand > because they have calculators, and thus they have time to study > statistics. > > Now, why do people think the level drops? There are several reasons. > > The simplest is this: they do not realize how much they evolved, they do > not realize they were just as clueless and ignorant at the same age. > [...] I read stuff I wrote thirty-five years ago and wonder where that guy has been all my life, sometimes. Sure, I know more about what the stuff I wrote back then means. I have more experience. But the writing itself, the concepts I was dealing with, and the conclusions I drew back then, ... My writing was technically good. I was focused on stuff that matters. I knew what I was talking about even if I let a bunch of misguided or even malignant teachers, managers, and experts convince me that I was wrong for the longest time. I communicate better with other people now, because of the experience. The information, the knowledge itself are without value without experience. And much of the current curricula and methodology really does seem to discourage the children from experiencing things that are not out on the social network or in their games. (I'd love to have someone fund my startup for writing adventure games that teach physics, math, history, etc., instead of just playing games with it in ways that teach those who play the games that the real universe is not fun. First, I have to write the business plan, I suppose, ...) -- Joel Rees I'm imagining I'm a novelist: http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 17:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <tkeQV-46Z-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176119 |
Hi there On 30/12/16 18:25, deloptes wrote: > Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> Try reading what I have actually said, whilst making some attempt to >> understand it, instead of just contradicting it. You do enjoy >> contradicting people, don't you? >> > > Hah, Lisi I just got the same impression from Xen. > >> I am glad to hear that the education system in Holland is better than >> here. I am not surprised and do not doubt it. > > If nothing changes the education systems in all FED subordered countries > will be equally bad in not more than 20-30y. We'll have 2 class society as > in the middle ages. > > Xen, I knew older dutch people who were speaking 4-5 languages ... nowdays I > heard languages are not more subject in school. Why learn German anyway, > when everybody speaks English? Isn't it that way now in the schools in NL? > And this is just in 10-15y period. Not to discuss about the TV channel > quality in NL. Compared to UK it was indeed better (irony). I don't know > about US, but here in EU all is getting averaged to the lowest mark > possible. When I was studying dutch some 20y ago I watched dutch TV and it > was still good, but now it is rubbish, and the same all over Europe. A lot > of people stopped watching TV - I don't for 10y already. ARTE [1] and TV5 [2] are still interesting sometimes. The BBC used to be brilliant, but dumbed down considerably over last few decades. TV5 comes with subtitles in various languages. ARTE is dual language French - German. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arte [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV5Monde Regards, Rob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 08:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUmh4-8nR-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176088 |
Lisi Reisz schreef op 30-12-2016 3:31: > On Friday 30 December 2016 01:37:53 Xen wrote: >> Re Lisi: > > You clearly find wittering on yourself more fun than actually reading > what > other people have written. You have actually quoted my precise words, > then > accused me in your paraphrase of having said something completely > different. > > Try reading what I have actually said, whilst making some attempt to > understand it, instead of just contradicting it. You do enjoy > contradicting > people, don't you? > > I am glad to hear that the education system in Holland is better than > here. I > am not surprised and do not doubt it. I think you missed the point there. "The ones that are bad at writing also have attitudes that make them bad at writing but that they will defend to the death." You Lisi are one of those people with bad writer attitudes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 10:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUo9b-15k-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176138 |
On Saturday 31 December 2016 07:23:13 Xen wrote: > Lisi Reisz schreef op 30-12-2016 3:31: > > On Friday 30 December 2016 01:37:53 Xen wrote: > >> Re Lisi: > > > > You clearly find wittering on yourself more fun than actually reading > > what > > other people have written. You have actually quoted my precise words, > > then > > accused me in your paraphrase of having said something completely > > different. > > > > Try reading what I have actually said, whilst making some attempt to > > understand it, instead of just contradicting it. You do enjoy > > contradicting > > people, don't you? > > > > I am glad to hear that the education system in Holland is better than > > here. I > > am not surprised and do not doubt it. > > I think you missed the point there. > > "The ones that are bad at writing also have attitudes that make them bad > at writing but that they will defend to the death." > > You Lisi are one of those people with bad writer attitudes. Which make me bad at writing? Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUMXT-8jd-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176144 |
Lisi Reisz schreef op 31-12-2016 10:30: > Which make me bad at writing? > > Lisi Refusing to write good documentation on purpose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUMXU-8jd-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176181 |
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:52:20 Xen wrote: > Lisi Reisz schreef op 31-12-2016 10:30: > > Which make me bad at writing? > > > > Lisi > > Refusing to write good documentation on purpose. "%(&_++**!& Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 13:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUNqW-hW-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176182 |
Lisi Reisz schreef op 01-01-2017 13:00: > On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:52:20 Xen wrote: >> Lisi Reisz schreef op 31-12-2016 10:30: >> > Which make me bad at writing? >> > >> > Lisi >> >> Refusing to write good documentation on purpose. > > "%(&_++**!& And what is that supposed to mean? You are really acting like a child now. The fact is that you want Linux to remain for experts only. Catherine almost literally expressed such a sentiment. That the "noobs" have to leave their "noobish mindsets" behind if they want to use Linux. Nuf said? Yes and I make a fool of myself here but I was late to the party in any case. That stuff happens, then. Which you probably don't realize but if you respond to a thread you don't have the messages of, bad stuff always happens ;-). You just lack the basis to participate in full and your arguments will be as a consequence always lacking. So call me a lackey then here. Catherine's only argument is in the end that the system was designed to be a reference only. Is what she says. I don't even know if it is true. But that is in the past, and the past should never be allowed, or be able to, in any sense, to preclude the possibility and right to improve. A decision in the past should never mandate a decision in the future, or in the present. Citing the past as the reason for not changing a thing is just defunct. That means you HAVE no arguments for not changing a thing because the past it is not an argument, it is just a truth, a fact of life. It was designed in a certain way in the past. So what? We are in the present now. We create the future. We cannot be shackled by the past, ever. That is the whole point of proposing something new. If your only response to a NEW thing is the status quo of an OLD thing, then sorry, you have no arguments left.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 14:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUOdk-OO-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176185 |
Xen wrote: > And what is that supposed to mean? You are really acting like a child > now. LOL - she makes fun of you - you just have to stop. I am not reading your comments any more - there is no value in them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 18:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUREd-2NG-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176193 |
deloptes schreef op 01-01-2017 14:09: > Xen wrote: > >> And what is that supposed to mean? You are really acting like a child >> now. > > LOL - she makes fun of you - you just have to stop. I am not reading > your > comments any more - there is no value in them. She was not making fun of me. She was just being a small kid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <xen@dds.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 20:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUTG1-4hH-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176193 |
deloptes schreef op 01-01-2017 14:09: > Xen wrote: > >> And what is that supposed to mean? You are really acting like a child >> now. > > LOL - she makes fun of you - you just have to stop. I am not reading > your > comments any more - there is no value in them. One last thing before I unsubscribe again. You know how when girls want to get rid of you, they exaggerate your ugliness even when they think you are attractive? "There is no value in them" is one of those statements. Just politically or socially motivated, you might say. A wholly false statement even from your own perspective, most likely. That is all I will say. Bye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 20:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sVgCB-3iM-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176181 |
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 12:00:21PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:52:20 Xen wrote: > > Lisi Reisz schreef op 31-12-2016 10:30: > > > Which make me bad at writing? > > > > > > Lisi > > > > Refusing to write good documentation on purpose. > > "%(&_++**!& I've often thought that. -- Bob Holtzman "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cbannister@slingshot.co.nz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 10:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <tjL2x-hd-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176181 |
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 12:52:20PM +0100, Xen wrote: > Lisi Reisz schreef op 31-12-2016 10:30: > > >Which make me bad at writing? > > > >Lisi > > Refusing to write good documentation on purpose. Oh, come on! What you call good documentation means writing for a user who has no clue about what the program does. Imagine a recipe written for a user who has no clue about cooking ... I mean where do you start? You HAVE to assume the reader has a certain level of expertise. Some man pages do have an EXAMPLE section which can be very helpful. It's a waste of time discussing what a man page should be; it's already perceived as a reference document. I too was in the same dilema when I first started using Linux, even 'spoon feeding' tutorials introduced terms which were new to me. The onus was on *me* to 'understand' the material. There is plenty of info out on the Internet, and I find appropriate blogs give a lot of good introductory material/links to help me with that. I've seen the quote: "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you' OK, it is a bit blunt. -- The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. -- Malcolm X
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 12:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <tjNH3-2cd-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178669 |
On 11/03/17 08:32, cbannister@slingshot.co.nz wrote: > Oh, come on! What you call good documentation means > writing for a user who has no clue about what the > program does. That kind of documentation is *really important*, because that's a big part of how people who don't know how to use the software learn to use it; not everyone has a learning style well suited to beating their head against the brick wall of "all the documentation assumes you already know exactly what you want to do and just need a refresher of what the relevant command-line options are". Unfortunately, many programmers (and even a fair slice of experienced documentation writers, both professional and volunteer) are utterly hopeless at writing that kind of documentation, even if they're good at writing reference documentation for people who already know how to use the software. Well-documented software has multiple kinds of documentation: external reference documentation for experienced users, tutorials and other introductory documentation for inexperienced users, internal reference documentation for developers wanting to modify the software, integration documentation for using the software as part of a system with other software, ... > Imagine a recipe written for a user who has no clue > about cooking ... I mean where do you start? You > HAVE to assume the reader has a certain level of > expertise. There are, in fact, cookbooks (and cookery programmes on television, etc.) aimed at people who have no clue about cooking (yes, sometimes even at the level of "this is how you bring a panful of water to the boil").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 14:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <tjPfP-3jT-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178670 |
Martin Read wrote: > That kind of documentation is *really important*, because that's a big > part of how people who don't know how to use the software learn to use > it; not everyone has a learning style well suited to beating their head > against the brick wall of "all the documentation assumes you already > know exactly what you want to do and just need a refresher of what the > relevant command-line options are". > When you do something, you usually set a scope. You make some assumptions, you define your audience. > Unfortunately, many programmers (and even a fair slice of experienced > documentation writers, both professional and volunteer) are utterly > hopeless at writing that kind of documentation, even if they're good at > writing reference documentation for people who already know how to use > the software. > I don't think so. It's simply that no one has time to write for each kind of audience. usually writing documentation is done to explain how and help use a piece of software. Everything that you lack in knowledge to understand the document must be compensated by you and not by the one who wrote the documentation. > Well-documented software has multiple kinds of documentation: external > reference documentation for experienced users, tutorials and other > introductory documentation for inexperienced users, internal reference > documentation for developers wanting to modify the software, integration > documentation for using the software as part of a system with other > software, ... > >> Imagine a recipe written for a user who has no clue >> about cooking ... I mean where do you start? You >> HAVE to assume the reader has a certain level of >> expertise. > > There are, in fact, cookbooks (and cookery programmes on television, > etc.) aimed at people who have no clue about cooking (yes, sometimes > even at the level of "this is how you bring a panful of water to the > boil"). If you are willing to improve the documentation of any program, you are welcome to do it. There is established way in doing this and it is done constantly. You could propose a patch to every free software program and hopefully this patch will be accepted by the maintainers. You must bear with the people that are working for free and making this happen every single day. regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 19:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <tjTW9-6FK-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178670 |
On 03/11/2017 06:47 AM, Martin Read wrote: > On 11/03/17 08:32, cbannister@slingshot.co.nz wrote: >> Oh, come on! What you call good documentation means >> writing for a user who has no clue about what the >> program does. > > That kind of documentation is *really important*, because that's a big > part of how people who don't know how to use the software learn to use > it; not everyone has a learning style well suited to beating their > head against the brick wall of "all the documentation assumes you > already know exactly what you want to do and just need a refresher of > what the relevant command-line options are". > > Unfortunately, many programmers (and even a fair slice of experienced > documentation writers, both professional and volunteer) are utterly > hopeless at writing that kind of documentation, even if they're good > at writing reference documentation for people who already know how to > use the software. > > Well-documented software has multiple kinds of documentation: external > reference documentation for experienced users, tutorials and other > introductory documentation for inexperienced users, internal reference > documentation for developers wanting to modify the software, > integration documentation for using the software as part of a system > with other software, ... > >> Imagine a recipe written for a user who has no clue >> about cooking ... I mean where do you start? You >> HAVE to assume the reader has a certain level of >> expertise. > > There are, in fact, cookbooks (and cookery programmes on television, > etc.) aimed at people who have no clue about cooking (yes, sometimes > even at the level of "this is how you bring a panful of water to the > boil"). > > Those folks complaining about documentation are fortunate that there is any! I started using Linux around the turn of the century, and at that time, the "Help" line on a program was all the help there was! (In other words, when you clicked on Help, you got a blank screen!) The folks who were writing or importing code into Linux apparently assumed that everyone using it had come from Unix, and were quite familiar with it. There has been a world of improvement since then. Altho I must agree that the Man pages that include examples are a blessing! --doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web