 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.nature.com/news/help-to-fight-the-battle-for-earth-in-us-schools-1.17084?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150312
Not only in the US...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/03/15 08:51, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
http://www.nature.com/news/help-to-fight-the-battle-for-earth-in-us-schools-1.17084?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150312
>
>
> Not only in the US...
Indeed. Unfortunately, liberal arts graduates seem to vastly outnumber
hard science graduates among the politicians of many nations.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-3-2015 22:58, Doctor John wrote:
> On 12/03/15 08:51, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
http://www.nature.com/news/help-to-fight-the-battle-for-earth-in-us-schools-1.17084?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150312
>>
>>
>> Not only in the US...
>
> Indeed. Unfortunately, liberal arts graduates seem to vastly outnumber
> hard science graduates among the politicians of many nations.
>
> John
>
True. Somehow, scientists are ill prepared for politics although there
are exceptions.
What I find really worrying is the dwindling interest for scientific
matters in school curriculae. It starts here with an appalling lack of
arithmetic knowledge in elementary school teachers.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/03/2015 08:12, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 13-3-2015 22:58, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 12/03/15 08:51, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
http://www.nature.com/news/help-to-fight-the-battle-for-earth-in-us-schools-1.17084?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150312
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not only in the US...
>>
>> Indeed. Unfortunately, liberal arts graduates seem to vastly outnumber
>> hard science graduates among the politicians of many nations.
>>
>> John
>>
> True. Somehow, scientists are ill prepared for politics although there
> are exceptions.
>
> What I find really worrying is the dwindling interest for scientific
> matters in school curriculae. It starts here with an appalling lack of
> arithmetic knowledge in elementary school teachers.
>
I feel quite smug that I can add up in my head, quicker than a cashier
with an adding machine.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-3-2015 11:04, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/03/2015 08:12, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 13-3-2015 22:58, Doctor John wrote:
>>> On 12/03/15 08:51, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>
http://www.nature.com/news/help-to-fight-the-battle-for-earth-in-us-schools-1.17084?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150312
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not only in the US...
>>>
>>> Indeed. Unfortunately, liberal arts graduates seem to vastly outnumber
>>> hard science graduates among the politicians of many nations.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>> True. Somehow, scientists are ill prepared for politics although there
>> are exceptions.
>>
>> What I find really worrying is the dwindling interest for scientific
>> matters in school curriculae. It starts here with an appalling lack of
>> arithmetic knowledge in elementary school teachers.
>>
>
> I feel quite smug that I can add up in my head, quicker than a cashier
> with an adding machine.
>
You are part of a dwindling population on the brink of extinction ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/03/15 11:50, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 14-3-2015 11:04, Stephen wrote:
>> I feel quite smug that I can add up in my head, quicker than a cashier
>> with an adding machine.
>>
Ah, but can you convert decimal to hexadecimal in your head? I can :-)
Seriously, though, this is evidence of the rigour that was applied to
the teaching of arithmetical skills when we were in primary school. The
introduction of 'The New Math' in the late sixties was a step in the
wrong direction.
> You are part of a dwindling population on the brink of extinction ;-)
>
I, for one, am attempting to reverse this decline. The Feegle (4 years
old now) can confidently count to ten and gets up to twenty with a
little prompting; he is aware of the concepts of addition and
subtraction as well as being able to put these concepts into practice
with a reasonable standard of accuracy. He is also showing a good
understanding of the basic principles of mechanics.
So, when are you and Stephen (as well as Holsenback, Henderson et al)
going to help me populate the world with a seed population of little
scientists? ;-)
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/14/2015 08:20 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> I, for one, am attempting to reverse this decline. The Feegle (4 years
> old now) can confidently count to ten and gets up to twenty with a
> little prompting; he is aware of the concepts of addition and
> subtraction as well as being able to put these concepts into practice
> with a reasonable standard of accuracy. He is also showing a good
> understanding of the basic principles of mechanics.
>
> So, when are you and Stephen (as well as Holsenback, Henderson et al)
> going to help me populate the world with a seed population of little
> scientists? ;-)
Yep ... work with my grand-daughter on these very issues. She's pretty
good with numbers and puzzles, and shows more interest it those types of
things over coloring and painting. I occasionally get something wrong on
purpose and I'm promptly corrected!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/03/2015 12:20, Doctor John wrote:
> On 14/03/15 11:50, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 14-3-2015 11:04, Stephen wrote:
>>> I feel quite smug that I can add up in my head, quicker than a cashier
>>> with an adding machine.
>>>
>
> Ah, but can you convert decimal to hexadecimal in your head? I can :-)
Not Hex but Octal and BCD, yes.*
> Seriously, though, this is evidence of the rigour that was applied to
> the teaching of arithmetical skills when we were in primary school. The
> introduction of 'The New Math' in the late sixties was a step in the
> wrong direction.
>
I've just checked and I can still say my "times tables". At least the
two times and the five times. And the twelve times.
How we envied the Continentals who only had to learn up to ten.
>> You are part of a dwindling population on the brink of extinction ;-)
>>
>
> I, for one, am attempting to reverse this decline. The Feegle (4 years
> old now) can confidently count to ten and gets up to twenty with a
> little prompting;he is aware of the concepts of addition and
> subtraction as well as being able to put these concepts into practice
> with a reasonable standard of accuracy. He is also showing a good
> understanding of the basic principles of mechanics.
>
Next, you can teach him to count to 29 without taking off his socks. ;-)
> So, when are you and Stephen (as well as Holsenback, Henderson et al)
> going to help me populate the world with a seed population of little
> scientists? ;-)
>
No, because... <Fade in>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&feature=player_detailpage#t=54
*
For small values of "yes"
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2015-03-14 11:02, Stephen a écrit :
> On 14/03/2015 12:20, Doctor John wrote:
>> I, for one, am attempting to reverse this decline. The Feegle (4 years
>> old now) can confidently count to ten and gets up to twenty with a
>> little prompting;he is aware of the concepts of addition and
>> subtraction as well as being able to put these concepts into practice
>> with a reasonable standard of accuracy. He is also showing a good
>> understanding of the basic principles of mechanics.
>>
>
> Next, you can teach him to count to 29 without taking off his socks. ;-)
You can count up to 1023 using only your fingers. Although, it takes a
little bit of dexterity.
For the record, I'm doing my part to stem the rising tide of herpaderp
in this country.
The 5 year old has taken a real liking to paleontology and is pestering
her parents with "How did the first ____ learn to do ____?"
The 2 year old is always building contraptions, which usually include at
least one USB phone charger. I see a future in the R&D dept. at Apple
or Samsung for him....
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Next, you can teach him to count to 29 without taking off his socks. ;-)
>
> You can count up to 1023 using only your fingers. Although, it takes a
> little bit of dexterity.
If you're really good you can manage up to 59048...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/03/2015 13:41, scott wrote:
>>> Next, you can teach him to count to 29 without taking off his socks. ;-)
>>
>> You can count up to 1023 using only your fingers. Although, it takes a
>> little bit of dexterity.
>
> If you're really good you can manage up to 59048...
>
It is too cumbersome counting in binary. If you use base five, it is
easy. Almost as if your fingers were made for it. ;-)
You can add and subtract for small values of yes.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/03/2015 15:22, Stephen a écrit :
> On 16/03/2015 13:41, scott wrote:
>>>> Next, you can teach him to count to 29 without taking off his socks.
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> You can count up to 1023 using only your fingers. Although, it takes a
>>> little bit of dexterity.
>>
>> If you're really good you can manage up to 59048...
>>
>
> It is too cumbersome counting in binary. If you use base five, it is
> easy. Almost as if your fingers were made for it. ;-)
> You can add and subtract for small values of yes.
>
>
I have enough problems counting to 143 with both hands.
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/03/2015 14:33, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> I have enough problems counting to 143 with both hands.
Why am I thinking of The Chrysalids?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/03/2015 16:05, Stephen a écrit :
> On 16/03/2015 14:33, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> I have enough problems counting to 143 with both hands.
>
> Why am I thinking of The Chrysalids?
>
Because you do not count like me with your thumb to the segment of the
four other finger.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/03/2015 16:51, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 16/03/2015 16:05, Stephen a écrit :
>> On 16/03/2015 14:33, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> I have enough problems counting to 143 with both hands.
>>
>> Why am I thinking of The Chrysalids?
>>
> Because you do not count like me with your thumb to the segment of the
> four other finger.
>
I was on the point of admitting defeat when it dawned on me what you meant.
It sounds cumbersome. It must look like two spiders being romantic. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 17/03/2015 21:08, Stephen a écrit :
> On 16/03/2015 16:51, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 16/03/2015 16:05, Stephen a écrit :
>>> On 16/03/2015 14:33, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>>> I have enough problems counting to 143 with both hands.
>>>
>>> Why am I thinking of The Chrysalids?
>>>
>> Because you do not count like me with your thumb to the segment of the
>> four other finger.
>>
>
> I was on the point of admitting defeat when it dawned on me what you meant.
> It sounds cumbersome. It must look like two spiders being romantic. ;-)
>
Each hand stays on its side. Just base 12 with 2 digits.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2015 20:58, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 17/03/2015 21:08, Stephen a écrit :
>> On 16/03/2015 16:51, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> Le 16/03/2015 16:05, Stephen a écrit :
>>>> On 16/03/2015 14:33, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>>>> I have enough problems counting to 143 with both hands.
>>>>
>>>> Why am I thinking of The Chrysalids?
>>>>
>>> Because you do not count like me with your thumb to the segment of the
>>> four other finger.
>>>
>>
>> I was on the point of admitting defeat when it dawned on me what you meant.
>> It sounds cumbersome. It must look like two spiders being romantic. ;-)
>>
> Each hand stays on its side. Just base 12 with 2 digits.
>
The base 12 I got. I just can't visualise how you keep your place.
I curl the fingers on my left hand for the digits 1 to 5. And if I curl
the fingers on my right hand, in a binary fashion, for 5, 10, 15, 20...
up to 155. So I can count up to 160 or in the range -80 to +80.
(I have had some boring jobs in my life.)
I am trying to reverse the opinion that counting on your fingers is a
sign of being poorly educated. So I am always on the lookout for
different ways to do it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 19/03/2015 11:31, Stephen a écrit :
> On 17/03/2015 20:58, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 17/03/2015 21:08, Stephen a écrit :
>>> On 16/03/2015 16:51, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>>> Le 16/03/2015 16:05, Stephen a écrit :
>>>>> On 16/03/2015 14:33, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>>>>> I have enough problems counting to 143 with both hands.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why am I thinking of The Chrysalids?
>>>>>
>>>> Because you do not count like me with your thumb to the segment of the
>>>> four other finger.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was on the point of admitting defeat when it dawned on me what you
>>> meant.
>>> It sounds cumbersome. It must look like two spiders being romantic. ;-)
>>>
>> Each hand stays on its side. Just base 12 with 2 digits.
>>
>
> The base 12 I got. I just can't visualise how you keep your place.
>
> I curl the fingers on my left hand for the digits 1 to 5. And if I curl
> the fingers on my right hand, in a binary fashion, for 5, 10, 15, 20...
> up to 155. So I can count up to 160 or in the range -80 to +80.
> (I have had some boring jobs in my life.)
>
> I am trying to reverse the opinion that counting on your fingers is a
> sign of being poorly educated. So I am always on the lookout for
> different ways to do it.
>
thumb is a cursor, going over the 12 different places (one per bone) of
the 4 remaining fingers.
0,1,2 on index
3,4,5 on middle
6,7,8 on ring
9,10,11 on pinky
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> So, when are you and Stephen (as well as Holsenback, Henderson et al)
> going to help me populate the world with a seed population of little
> scientists? ;-)
>
> John
> --
> Protect the Earth
> It was not given to you by your parents
> You hold it in trust for your children
My son Vaughn just loves science. He also tends to find school a bit boring
hecause he has a wide scope of general knowledge. He loves games like Kerbal
Space Program, Space Engineers, Medieval Engineers. He knows what a Halon
Colider is. He is a bit like Numher 5 - "more input".
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.03.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> My son Vaughn just loves science. He also tends to find school a bit boring
> hecause he has a wide scope of general knowledge. He loves games like Kerbal
> Space Program, Space Engineers, Medieval Engineers. He knows what a Halon
> Colider is. He is a bit like Numher 5 - "more input".
"Halon Colider"? Are those his own words, or should I direct my
nitpicking at his dad? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/03/2015 13:38, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> thumb is a cursor, going over the 12 different places (one per bone) of
> the 4 remaining fingers.
> 0,1,2 on index
> 3,4,5 on middle
> 6,7,8 on ring
> 9,10,11 on pinky
I'm still working on this. :-)
It is back to two copulating spiders. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:46:51 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 19.03.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Nekar Xenos:
>
>> My son Vaughn just loves science. He also tends to find school a bit
>> boring
>> hecause he has a wide scope of general knowledge. He loves games like
>> Kerbal
>> Space Program, Space Engineers, Medieval Engineers. He knows what a
>> Halon
>> Colider is. He is a bit like Numher 5 - "more input".
>
> "Halon Colider"? Are those his own words, or should I direct my
> nitpicking at his dad? ;)
>
Oops. Yeah that's me. Large Hadron Collider. Maybe I should have checked
with him first ;)
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Interesting
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/565315/Scientists-at-Large-Hadron-Collider-hope-to-make-contact-with-PARALLEL-UNIVERSE-in-days
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.03.2015 um 18:28 schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> Interesting
>
>
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/565315/Scientists-at-Large-Hadron-Collider-hope-to-make-contact-with-PARALLEL-UNIVERSE-in-days
"SCIENTISTS conducting a mindbending experiment at the Large Hadron
Collider next week hope to connect with a PARALLEL UNIVERSE outside of
our own."
Uh... yeah. That special experiment they're doing the very next week. Sure.
Load of horsecrap. What's going to happen in a few days is that, after a
two-year hardware update break, the scientists at CERN will be resuming
the one and /only/ type of experiment the LHC is capable of performing:
Randomly smashing together protons (or, sometimes, heavy ions) /really/
hard, /really/ frequently, over and over again for a /really/ long time,
hoping that /occasionally/ /something/ interesting might happen. Same as
they did before the break, except that this time they'll smash even harder.
What they will find in those few interesting events - be it the
generation of microscopic black holes, interaction with a parallel
universe, or generation of an invisible pink unicorn - is pure
speculation at this time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 22.03.2015 um 18:28 schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> > Interesting
> >
> >
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/565315/Scientists-at-Large-Hadron-Collider-hope-to-make-contact-with-PARALLEL-U
NIVERSE-in-days
>
> "SCIENTISTS conducting a mindbending experiment at the Large Hadron
> Collider next week hope to connect with a PARALLEL UNIVERSE outside of
> our own."
>
> Uh... yeah. That special experiment they're doing the very next week. Sure.
>
> Load of horsecrap. What's going to happen in a few days is that, after a
> two-year hardware update break, the scientists at CERN will be resuming
> the one and /only/ type of experiment the LHC is capable of performing:
> Randomly smashing together protons (or, sometimes, heavy ions) /really/
> hard, /really/ frequently, over and over again for a /really/ long time,
> hoping that /occasionally/ /something/ interesting might happen. Same as
> they did before the break, except that this time they'll smash even harder.
>
> What they will find in those few interesting events - be it the
> generation of microscopic black holes, interaction with a parallel
> universe, or generation of an invisible pink unicorn - is pure
> speculation at this time.
It sounds luke they're trying to keep investors interested.
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/03/2015 15:53, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> It sounds luke they're trying to keep investors interested.
Call me an old cynic if you like.
It sounds like a journalist trying to make it interesting and alluring.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.03.2015 um 18:11 schrieb Stephen:
> On 23/03/2015 15:53, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> It sounds luke they're trying to keep investors interested.
>
> Call me an old cynic if you like.
> It sounds like a journalist trying to make it interesting and alluring.
Exactly my thought.
AFAIK there are no commercial investors in CERN; like many fundamental
research institutions it relies purely on public funding.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/03/2015 17:34, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.03.2015 um 18:11 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 23/03/2015 15:53, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>> It sounds luke they're trying to keep investors interested.
>>
>> Call me an old cynic if you like.
>> It sounds like a journalist trying to make it interesting and alluring.
>
> Exactly my thought.
>
> AFAIK there are no commercial investors in CERN; like many fundamental
> research institutions it relies purely on public funding.
>
In a way Nekar is right. We, as taxpayers, are the investors.
Years ago I worked in the Newspaper industry. I have a very low opinion
of most journalists. They will write anything to get a byline.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-3-2015 19:50, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/03/2015 17:34, clipka wrote:
>> Am 23.03.2015 um 18:11 schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 23/03/2015 15:53, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>>> It sounds luke they're trying to keep investors interested.
>>>
>>> Call me an old cynic if you like.
>>> It sounds like a journalist trying to make it interesting and alluring.
>>
>> Exactly my thought.
>>
>> AFAIK there are no commercial investors in CERN; like many fundamental
>> research institutions it relies purely on public funding.
>>
>
> In a way Nekar is right. We, as taxpayers, are the investors.
> Years ago I worked in the Newspaper industry. I have a very low opinion
> of most journalists. They will write anything to get a byline.
>
>
Hmm, yes and no. My father was a journalist, working in the foreign
politics and arts branch. He was extremely critical about truth finding
and so was very critical about many of his colleagues. In the course of
the years I have met a wide lot of them and I must say that most were
honest. However, the example by Nekar is typically one were the
journalist did not know what he was writing about and only picked up a
couple of catch calls he heard somewhere and wrote around it; or -
current practice - the title did not refer to the content at all, which
becomes obvious when you know that titles are not made by the journalist
himself but by the layout staff.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-3-2015 13:20, Doctor John wrote:
> I, for one, am attempting to reverse this decline. The Feegle (4 years
> old now) can confidently count to ten and gets up to twenty with a
> little prompting; he is aware of the concepts of addition and
> subtraction as well as being able to put these concepts into practice
> with a reasonable standard of accuracy. He is also showing a good
> understanding of the basic principles of mechanics.
>
> So, when are you and Stephen (as well as Holsenback, Henderson et al)
> going to help me populate the world with a seed population of little
> scientists? ;-)
>
> John
>
This:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32004102
would be an excellent start :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/03/2015 08:19, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 23-3-2015 19:50, Stephen wrote:
>> In a way Nekar is right. We, as taxpayers, are the investors.
>> Years ago I worked in the Newspaper industry. I have a very low opinion
>> of most journalists. They will write anything to get a byline.
>>
>>
> Hmm, yes and no. My father was a journalist, working in the foreign
> politics and arts branch. He was extremely critical about truth finding
> and so was very critical about many of his colleagues. In the course of
> the years I have met a wide lot of them and I must say that most were
> honest. However, the example by Nekar is typically one were the
> journalist did not know what he was writing about and only picked up a
> couple of catch calls he heard somewhere and wrote around it; or -
> current practice - the title did not refer to the content at all, which
> becomes obvious when you know that titles are not made by the journalist
> himself but by the layout staff.
>
True but we are talking about different generations.
Nowadays if you don't work in "the city" the next best thing is working
in "the media". There are so many of them that they struggle to keep to
the realms of reality in their quest to have an original slant on it.
Although I do have a sneaking desire to see a pink unicorn. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/03/2015 08:39, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> This:
> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32004102
>
> would be an excellent start :-)
You saw that. I thought you might be interested. :-)
I wonder what else is tucked away in the back of a drawer?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-3-2015 10:35, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/03/2015 08:39, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> This:
>> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32004102
>>
>> would be an excellent start :-)
>
>
> You saw that. I thought you might be interested. :-)
> I wonder what else is tucked away in the back of a drawer?
>
A lot of wonders, no doubt. A significant number of recent discoveries
have been made from specimens tucked away in dusty drawers for decades.
Those maps are marvellous, not only for the beautiful way they have been
made but also for the fact that a single man collected all the data and
put them together comprehensively. And the maps are still broadly correct.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-3-2015 10:33, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/03/2015 08:19, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 23-3-2015 19:50, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> In a way Nekar is right. We, as taxpayers, are the investors.
>>> Years ago I worked in the Newspaper industry. I have a very low opinion
>>> of most journalists. They will write anything to get a byline.
>>>
>>>
>> Hmm, yes and no. My father was a journalist, working in the foreign
>> politics and arts branch. He was extremely critical about truth finding
>> and so was very critical about many of his colleagues. In the course of
>> the years I have met a wide lot of them and I must say that most were
>> honest. However, the example by Nekar is typically one were the
>> journalist did not know what he was writing about and only picked up a
>> couple of catch calls he heard somewhere and wrote around it; or -
>> current practice - the title did not refer to the content at all, which
>> becomes obvious when you know that titles are not made by the journalist
>> himself but by the layout staff.
>>
>
> True but we are talking about different generations.
> Nowadays if you don't work in "the city" the next best thing is working
> in "the media". There are so many of them that they struggle to keep to
> the realms of reality in their quest to have an original slant on it.
> Although I do have a sneaking desire to see a pink unicorn. ;-)
>
Yes, I suppose that is true although the old 'Fleet Street' probably was
not always as honest as we might suppose. The temptation to announce a
pink unicorn scoop can have been to great to refuse. ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/03/2015 12:06, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Yes, I suppose that is true although the old 'Fleet Street' probably was
> not always as honest as we might suppose. The temptation to announce a
> pink unicorn scoop can have been to great to refuse. ;-)
I worked for the Scottish Daily Record a part of the Mirror Group, in
the late 70's. A more cynical group of people, I've never met.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/03/2015 12:03, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 24-3-2015 10:35, Stephen wrote:
>> On 24/03/2015 08:39, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> This:
>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32004102
>>>
>>> would be an excellent start :-)
>>
>>
>> You saw that. I thought you might be interested. :-)
>> I wonder what else is tucked away in the back of a drawer?
>>
>
> A lot of wonders, no doubt. A significant number of recent discoveries
> have been made from specimens tucked away in dusty drawers for decades.
>
I've noticed that. There must be millions of post grad degrees in waiting.
> Those maps are marvellous, not only for the beautiful way they have been
> made but also for the fact that a single man collected all the data and
> put them together comprehensively. And the maps are still broadly correct.
>
The draughtsmanship is admirable.
I went to see the Burrell Collection collection when it opened. That man
had is own museum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrell_Collection
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-3-2015 13:32, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/03/2015 12:03, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 24-3-2015 10:35, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2015 08:39, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> This:
>>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32004102
>>>>
>>>> would be an excellent start :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> You saw that. I thought you might be interested. :-)
>>> I wonder what else is tucked away in the back of a drawer?
>>>
>>
>> A lot of wonders, no doubt. A significant number of recent discoveries
>> have been made from specimens tucked away in dusty drawers for decades.
>>
>
> I've noticed that. There must be millions of post grad degrees in waiting.
>
>> Those maps are marvellous, not only for the beautiful way they have been
>> made but also for the fact that a single man collected all the data and
>> put them together comprehensively. And the maps are still broadly
>> correct.
>>
>
> The draughtsmanship is admirable.
> I went to see the Burrell Collection collection when it opened. That man
> had is own museum.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrell_Collection
>
Interesting. He must have been one of the last eclectic collectors with
a wide range of art interests. I get the impression that collectors
nowadays are more specialised. But what do I know? ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-3-2015 13:24, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/03/2015 12:06, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Yes, I suppose that is true although the old 'Fleet Street' probably was
>> not always as honest as we might suppose. The temptation to announce a
>> pink unicorn scoop can have been to great to refuse. ;-)
>
> I worked for the Scottish Daily Record a part of the Mirror Group, in
> the late 70's. A more cynical group of people, I've never met.
>
yeah... that's an infamous bunch indeed.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/03/2015 15:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrell_Collection
>>
> Interesting. He must have been one of the last eclectic collectors with
> a wide range of art interests. I get the impression that collectors
> nowadays are more specialised. But what do I know? ;-)
It will be cost, imo.
In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. The art market was not
overpriced by investment and pension funds and it was fashionable to be
eclectic.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-3-2015 17:07, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/03/2015 15:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrell_Collection
>>>
>> Interesting. He must have been one of the last eclectic collectors with
>> a wide range of art interests. I get the impression that collectors
>> nowadays are more specialised. But what do I know? ;-)
>
>
> It will be cost, imo.
> In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. The art market was not
> overpriced by investment and pension funds and it was fashionable to be
> eclectic.
>
I suppose that is true indeed. No room anymore for Renaissance Man :-)
Which reminds me that I still have to make a visit to:
http://www.museumbelvedere.nl/english/
which is quite close to where I live. I am especially interested in
their collection of Jan Mankes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Mankes
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
