Do you know what are in your kids textbooks ?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
From looking at the title of this thread, apparently they are not teaching grammar.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
When I took Texas History back in the early 80's in Jr High school, we learned that at the Alamo all occupants were killed, recently I noticed the story has change to a more politically correct version were the Mexican Army only killed the men, and let all the women and children go.

Why were there 2,000 mexicans at the alamo?




They only had 2 trucks.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
When I took Texas History back in the early 80's in Jr High school, we learned that at the Alamo all occupants were killed, recently I noticed the story has change to a more politically correct version were the Mexican Army only killed the men, and let all the women and children go.

yeap seen that.

Also the reasons for the Civil war have changed. I learned that it was about states rights. Now its because of slavery.

Same with Lincoln and slavery. now he is a champion of equal rights for slaves. before he did it just to annoy the south more.

This is one that pisses me off the most.
I love blowing peoples minds when they say the civil war was about slavery and racism.
The 1st documented slave in the new world was owned by a black man.
There WERE white slaves. Granted they had some black in them, but there were people that were indistiguishly white that were slaves. They had blue eyes, pale skin and curly red hair.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
This is one that pisses me off the most.
I love blowing peoples minds when they say the civil war was about slavery and racism.
The 1st documented slave in the new world was owned by a black man.
There WERE white slaves. Granted they had some black in them, but there were people that were indistiguishly white that were slaves. They had blue eyes, pale skin and curly red hair.

It sounds like you're implying the institution of slavery in the US wasn't about racism because there was the freak albino slave walking around somewhere.
 

syrillus

Senior member
Jun 18, 2009
336
0
0
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
When I took Texas History back in the early 80's in Jr High school, we learned that at the Alamo all occupants were killed, recently I noticed the story has change to a more politically correct version were the Mexican Army only killed the men, and let all the women and children go.

yeap seen that.

Also the reasons for the Civil war have changed. I learned that it was about states rights. Now its because of slavery.

Same with Lincoln and slavery. now he is a champion of equal rights for slaves. before he did it just to annoy the south more.

Your "original teachings" are quite over-simplified, if not flat out wrong.

EDIT: That's not to say the things you say are being taught now are any more accurate.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,592
136
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
When I took Texas History back in the early 80's in Jr High school, we learned that at the Alamo all occupants were killed, recently I noticed the story has change to a more politically correct version were the Mexican Army only killed the men, and let all the women and children go.

yeap seen that.

Also the reasons for the Civil war have changed. I learned that it was about states rights. Now its because of slavery.

Same with Lincoln and slavery. now he is a champion of equal rights for slaves. before he did it just to annoy the south more.

This is one that pisses me off the most.
I love blowing peoples minds when they say the civil war was about slavery and racism.
The 1st documented slave in the new world was owned by a black man.
There WERE white slaves. Granted they had some black in them, but there were people that were indistiguishly white that were slaves. They had blue eyes, pale skin and curly red hair.

Guys I hate to blow your minds, but the Civil War WAS about slavery, and chattel slavery in the United States was overwhelmingly whites owning blacks. While the cultures of both the north and the south were extremely racist at the time, the south had institutionalized it to a far greater degree.

There were lots of causes for the Civil War, but a whole ton of them can be directly traced back to the institution of slavery, and it contributed more to the war than any other factor.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I think the biggest travesty is the cost of the textbooks. Why not just use e-books? It is not uncommon for a textbook to cost over $100.00. This is the information age and we are making student tote around 80lbs of textbooks. How rediculous can we get?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The subject of slavery boils down to a system of economics built on slavery. Since the time of the pilgrims, many white people paid for their travel to the new world by signing up to be an endentured servant for a set number of years. Slavery is the abuse of power and the absence of humanity for our fellow man. Regardless the South decided they wanted to leave the union and the north did not allow it to happen. Everything boils down to power and money in the end.

You might try reading Abraham Lincoln's speech after the end of the War.
 

artikk

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2004
4,172
1
71
Originally posted by: piasabird
The subject of slavery boils down to a system of economics built on slavery. Since the time of the pilgrims, many white people paid for their travel to the new world by signing up to be an endentured servant for a set number of years. Slavery is the abuse of power and the absence of humanity for our fellow man. Regardless the South decided they wanted to leave the union and the north did not allow it to happen. Everything boils down to power and money in the end.

You might try reading Abraham Lincoln's speech after the end of the War.

hmm looks like just a regular generalization of the slavery issue down to money and power/states rights issue.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
When I took Texas History back in the early 80's in Jr High school, we learned that at the Alamo all occupants were killed, recently I noticed the story has change to a more politically correct version were the Mexican Army only killed the men, and let all the women and children go.

yeap seen that.

Also the reasons for the Civil war have changed. I learned that it was about states rights. Now its because of slavery.

Same with Lincoln and slavery. now he is a champion of equal rights for slaves. before he did it just to annoy the south more.

This is one that pisses me off the most.
I love blowing peoples minds when they say the civil war was about slavery and racism.
The 1st documented slave in the new world was owned by a black man.
There WERE white slaves. Granted they had some black in them, but there were people that were indistiguishly white that were slaves. They had blue eyes, pale skin and curly red hair.

Guys I hate to blow your minds, but the Civil War WAS about slavery, and chattel slavery in the United States was overwhelmingly whites owning blacks. While the cultures of both the north and the south were extremely racist at the time, the south had institutionalized it to a far greater degree.

There were lots of causes for the Civil War, but a whole ton of them can be directly traced back to the institution of slavery, and it contributed more to the war than any other factor.

Slavery was a part of the cause of the Civil War, but to say the war was about slavery is flat out wrong. States rights' played a huge role, too, but one must consider the distribution of political power and the competing interests of an agrarian vs. industrial economy. Slavery could be considered a symptom of this. The Civil War could've still happened even if the South and North had no qualms about the slavery issue. Abolition was more a symptom of the war, not a justification of it.

The funniest part is now that the South is part of the union (again), one can go and ask any young and educated Southern child who won the war. The answer is quite amusing: we did (as in the union). :confused:
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
4. sound does travel better through solids and liquids - just compare the velocity of sound in different materials. air - 343 m/s @ 20C; steel - 5930m/s longitudinally; water - ~1500m/s (courtesy of wikipedia). now if you mean in terms of signal strength (dB), then i dunno what to tell you there :p

This is true.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/626
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
When I took Texas History back in the early 80's in Jr High school, we learned that at the Alamo all occupants were killed, recently I noticed the story has change to a more politically correct version were the Mexican Army only killed the men, and let all the women and children go.

yeap seen that.

Also the reasons for the Civil war have changed. I learned that it was about states rights. Now its because of slavery.

Same with Lincoln and slavery. now he is a champion of equal rights for slaves. before he did it just to annoy the south more.

This is one that pisses me off the most.
I love blowing peoples minds when they say the civil war was about slavery and racism.
The 1st documented slave in the new world was owned by a black man.
There WERE white slaves. Granted they had some black in them, but there were people that were indistiguishly white that were slaves. They had blue eyes, pale skin and curly red hair.

Guys I hate to blow your minds, but the Civil War WAS about slavery, and chattel slavery in the United States was overwhelmingly whites owning blacks. While the cultures of both the north and the south were extremely racist at the time, the south had institutionalized it to a far greater degree.

There were lots of causes for the Civil War, but a whole ton of them can be directly traced back to the institution of slavery, and it contributed more to the war than any other factor.

Nope. Lincoln himself said he had no intention doing anything about slavery. To him it was a war to preserve the Union and to the South it was a war of independence from the north.
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Nope. Lincoln himself said he had no intention doing anything about slavery. To him it was a war to preserve the Union and to the South it was a war of independence from the north.

But one of the motivations for independence was to maintain slavery.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,592
136
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Guys I hate to blow your minds, but the Civil War WAS about slavery, and chattel slavery in the United States was overwhelmingly whites owning blacks. While the cultures of both the north and the south were extremely racist at the time, the south had institutionalized it to a far greater degree.

There were lots of causes for the Civil War, but a whole ton of them can be directly traced back to the institution of slavery, and it contributed more to the war than any other factor.

Nope. Lincoln himself said he had no intention doing anything about slavery. To him it was a war to preserve the Union and to the South it was a war of independence from the north.

What Lincoln said was that his primary goal was to preserve the Union, and that the subject of slavery was immaterial to that. (his famous quote on "if I could preserve the union by....")

The South seceded primarily due to the slavery issue. Therefore more than anything else, the Civil War was about slavery. This element of history really isn't in dispute? That is unless you are trying to say that another President other than Lincoln wouldn't have attempted to prevent the states from leaving. In that case, Abraham Lincoln is 100% the cause. I'm not sure why you would do this though.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Sound travels in waves. Waves require space between solids or they wouldn't propagate

...what? 0_o

Electricity is a flow of energy not a form of energy.

Electricity need not have anything to do with flow. And it is definately a form of energy - called 'electrical energy'. Note the Cambridge dictionary definition:

"a form of energy that provides power to motors and devices that create light or heat"

Electric current does not flow through wire, electricity does.

I believe it is 'charge' which flows, although it can also be static - the definition of the word 'electricity' can be found above. Current is defined as the rate of flow of charge.

I=dQ/dt

These are important distinctions.

Yea so is this:

Do you know what are in your kids textbooks ?

Do you know what is in your kids' textbooks?

Maybe wanna get that grammar textbook out and see if you can find some errors in that eh? ;)
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Sound travels in waves. Waves require space between solids or they wouldn't propagate .

oh boy.........

How about you stop assessing your children's text books and re-assess yours if that is what you learned.

The particles that transmit sound in solids are infact the solid, these solid particles are more densely packed than air hence the faster transmission of sound. If you analyze dynamic responses of say a steel structure the transmission of stress occurs at the speed of sound in a solid, additionally for events like waterhammer in water the transmission of the pressure wave is at the speed of sound in liquid.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Wheezer
People wonder why jobs are leaving....it is partially due to our pathetic education system, partially because of lazy children and partially because of lazy parents. Education after 18 in this country is assumed to be a right automatically given out, it is no longer a privilege to those that work for it. In the public school system we continuously lower the standards until all the kids pass.

Who the fuck would want to hire a bunch of fucktards like what is being churned out from that meat grinder called public schools in this country?

Jobs are leaving because it's cheaper to make the stuff in other countries and ship it here...plain and simple. Paying a Chinese $0.08 per hour vs $15 per hour (including benefits in this country) is why (actual example of my company). Of course, we could graduate a few million engineers and make the supply so high, the costs come down and then compete on sheer pricing power alone.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: rudder
It burns me up when my daughter says... "but dad this is what my teacher told me" when it is something blatantly wrong.

Llike that Obama was born in the US?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
When I took Texas History back in the early 80's in Jr High school, we learned that at the Alamo all occupants were killed, recently I noticed the story has change to a more politically correct version were the Mexican Army only killed the men, and let all the women and children go.

yeap seen that.

Also the reasons for the Civil war have changed. I learned that it was about states rights. Now its because of slavery.

Same with Lincoln and slavery. now he is a champion of equal rights for slaves. before he did it just to annoy the south more.

History is written by the winners right? I still hear and read about the states rights stuff. Shrug. Most textbooks do try to point that out a bit. But most importantly your school has to decide to read additional books. We had 2 books on top of our standard APUSH textbook so we could get a second take on things.

The history of Lincoln and slavery is more complicated.

Lincoln seems to have had some more compunctions against slavery, but they fit into other views. His actual plan to abolish slavery was to phase it out by the end of the century (over 40 years), with slave owners compensated for the freed slaves. He also supported a plan to ship all blacks back to Africa.

The emancipation proclomation not only freed slaves only in the Southern states, as most now know - it freed states only in states in insurrection, as an added incentive for states to leave the confederacy and return to the union, and in part to not push slave states not in the confederacy to rebel. But it built publi csentiment for ending slavery and the thirteenth to fifteenth amendments were passed (the fourteenth being the one that was disastrously hijacked from being for black rights, to creating 'corporate personhood'.)

Lincoln was not above campaigning to a racist crowd by saying no man was more opposed than he to the idea of social equality for blacks.

But he did appear to have a moral position that slavery should be ended.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
When I took Texas History back in the early 80's in Jr High school, we learned that at the Alamo all occupants were killed, recently I noticed the story has change to a more politically correct version were the Mexican Army only killed the men, and let all the women and children go.

Why were there 2,000 mexicans at the alamo?




They only had 2 trucks.

Racist humor, good going. Ha ha, Mexicans are poorer on average and more often have a lot of people in a car compared to whites. Ha, ha, hilarious.

If you won't pass out from laughing, very poor Mexicans sometimes even sleep one or more big families in one apartment, for survival. Ha ha!
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Originally posted by: CLite
Sound travels in waves. Waves require space between solids or they wouldn't propagate .

oh boy.........

How about you stop assessing your children's text books and re-assess yours if that is what you learned.

The particles that transmit sound in solids are infact the solid, these solid particles are more densely packed than air hence the faster transmission of sound. If you analyze dynamic responses of say a steel structure the transmission of stress occurs at the speed of sound in a solid, additionally for events like waterhammer in water the transmission of the pressure wave is at the speed of sound in liquid.

He probably meant waves require a medium to travel through... a medium is usually something physical.. something of size.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: syrillus
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
When I took Texas History back in the early 80's in Jr High school, we learned that at the Alamo all occupants were killed, recently I noticed the story has change to a more politically correct version were the Mexican Army only killed the men, and let all the women and children go.

yeap seen that.

Also the reasons for the Civil war have changed. I learned that it was about states rights. Now its because of slavery.

Same with Lincoln and slavery. now he is a champion of equal rights for slaves. before he did it just to annoy the south more.

Your "original teachings" are quite over-simplified, if not flat out wrong.

EDIT: That's not to say the things you say are being taught now are any more accurate.

so it was not about states rights? and it was about slavery? yeah..sure i will take your word on that. not what lincoln himself had said and wrote.

the civil war started becuase of state rights and economics. slavery was very small part. NOT the whole issue as many are saying it is today



Originally posted by: n yusef
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Nope. Lincoln himself said he had no intention doing anything about slavery. To him it was a war to preserve the Union and to the South it was a war of independence from the north.

But one of the motivations for independence was to maintain slavery.

at the end of the war it did play a part. Lincoln wanted to free the slaves more as a way to punish the south then to really free the slaves.

it was part of the souths fight was to keep the slaves. But it was mainly to leave the union.

 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
When I took Texas History back in the early 80's in Jr High school, we learned that at the Alamo all occupants were killed, recently I noticed the story has change to a more politically correct version were the Mexican Army only killed the men, and let all the women and children go.

Why were there 2,000 mexicans at the alamo?




They only had 2 trucks.

Racist humor, good going. Ha ha, Mexicans are poorer on average and more often have a lot of people in a car compared to whites. Ha, ha, hilarious.

If you won't pass out from laughing, very poor Mexicans sometimes even sleep one or more big families in one apartment, for survival. Ha ha!

Take a chill pill and meet some Mexicans. It's true; travel in Mexico and you'll see whole crews in the back of pickups. There's nothing wrong with that and it is kind of funny to see. Mexican's don't deny it and can laugh at it too so what's the harm?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,592
136
Originally posted by: waggy

so it was not about states rights? and it was about slavery? yeah..sure i will take your word on that. not what lincoln himself had said and wrote.

the civil war started becuase of state rights and economics. slavery was very small part. NOT the whole issue as many are saying it is today

The south's economy was based around slavery. Slavery was by FAR the single most important cause of the Civil War. You want to know what the easiest way to see what the cause was? Look at the last ditch attempts to prevent the Civil War. Every single one of them revolved around slavery related issues.

I'm sorry, but the significant majority of modern historians disagree with you, slavery was the single largest cause for the civil war.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Originally posted by: Atheus


Electricity is a flow of energy not a form of energy.

Electricity need not have anything to do with flow. And it is definately a form of energy - called 'electrical energy'. Note the Cambridge dictionary definition:

"a form of energy that provides power to motors and devices that create light or heat"

And you would be wrong.
From Maxwell, book on electricity and magnetism.
electricity, as a physical quantity synonymous with the total
electrification of a body, is not, like heat, a form of energy. An
electrified system has a certain amount of energy, and this energy can
be calculated by multiplying the quantity of electricity in each of its
parts by another physical quantity, called the Potential of that part,
and taking half the sum of the products. The quantities 'Electricity'
and 'Potential', when multiplied together, product the quantity
'Energy.' It is impossible, therefore, that electricity and energy
should be quantities of the same category
, for electricity is only one
of the factors of energy, the other factor being 'Potential.' "


Electric current does not flow through wire, electricity does.

I believe it is 'charge' which flows, although it can also be static - the definition of the word 'electricity' can be found above. Current is defined as the rate of flow of charge.

I=dQ/dt

See above. Electricity is charge.




These are important distinctions.

Yea so is this:

Do you know what are in your kids textbooks ?

Do you know what is in your kids' textbooks?

Maybe wanna get that grammar textbook out and see if you can find some errors in that eh? ;)
[/quote]

Maybe you need to start using a spell checker
And it is definately