OK so I went through this as well.
Both my kids are certified Geek.

I started with super heroes and Star Wars but my kids went through all the phases from Transformers, to Mutant Turtles, X-men, Batman, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, and Buffy and every possible direction.

What I found is you can't force one over the other. Expose kids to everything Geek and let them decide. When you see them heading into a certain direction, just go with it. If they see you are interested in it, then they will be too. There is always something new and geek right around the corner.

Today's kids have a wider range than we did, there is just too much out there. my kids are knowledgeable on most Multi-verses but every time I turn around there's something new - and sometimes it's them introducing it to me (Ben10, Naruto etc.) All you can be expected to do is put it in front of them and be involved.

My kids (now 11 & 15) constantly surprise me. My daughter can correct any of her male peers on the geek of Marvel Comics, Buffy, Dr Who, Dragonlance and so much more. She reads 4-5 new books a week and gets straight As in school for the last 5 years straight.

My son has gone through all the multi-verses (and loves them all.) He wears a Tick T-shirt, loves Big Bang Theory and understand every side-joke. Now he is the one introducing me to stuff. Books in his room include E=Mc2 and the complete biography of Einstine. Loves video games and can beat most of them over a weekend.

Don't hold back, throw it all at them and don't hold back.


Stay away from the ol'time evils: Tomas the train, Dora, Babar, Caillou, Disney's Cars and all that stuff.

You are so cool, I can't hardly stand it.

It is weird to have antenna tuned to these four words, isn't it? If nothing else comes out of this exchange, knowing that that happened for a day or two, and that you noticed the noticing, is deeply fascinating to me.

Thanks!

(You know, reading an online article with the word "man" in it counts towards this experiment. A biography of Einstein would have the word "man" in it...)


In reply to this comment by Stormsinger:
>> ^bareboards2:

Storm, you said you would be willing to do this experiment ... have you noticed any word situations like this yet? Gorilla, you never answered my question, so I am taking it that you are declining the experiment?

Have yet to run into any use of any of those words, other than your post... It's rather what I figured would happen. We'll see if it happens over the next day or two.

FWIW, I'm definitely primed to notice any of the four now though, which is a rather odd feeling in and of itself. :

From what I recall (from reading his books, and a biography) he was young and wanted to help the war effort. I think the quote was his, but also that if he had been a bit more mature he would probably have still done the same... just not without considering the consequences.

The safe cracking etc. was just thumbing his nose at authority, being a smart alec, and trying to point out that the regulations were stupid and the safes weren't that secure... the directive sent out in response was that everybody should keep their safes locked while Feynman was about.
>> ^dannym3141:

@Yogi
I understand. I don't know the history of it, but perhaps his inclusion was in some way not optional? Or perhaps he felt morally obliged to help. If he merely suspected that he had expertise valuable to the protection of his country, he may be easily coerced into doing something to protect his family, or some other propaganda story.
I remember reading a scientist's musings on helping develop the bomb, but i can't remember who it was. It may well have been feynman but i did a project on einstein recently, could have been him. I belive they said something to the tune of working really hard in conjunction with other great minds to develop something, almost for the pride of developing it, but also for their country, and not considering the consequences of what they were working on. Only in retrospect did they wish they had considered their actions first.
My brain wants to tie that story to this, because it would fit nicely and explain why he didn't just leave. I'll try and find the information.

I actually have The Quantum Thief on my kindle, and started one or two chapters, but put it down for some reason. I'll have to start it again, then.

I've been reading a couple of biographies: Mao: A Life, and Chris Matthew's new book on JFK, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero.

For business, I think it would focus on business models, strategy, organizations, office politics, and business processes rather than money and economics. So it would be slightly different than money.

I think the overlap of black and equality is minimal. Maybe calling it "Africana" would clarify things.

I think a few people highlighted the issues with Terrible. Maybe calling Detestable Asshole or jerk would help reduce confusion.

I think biography and history have the potential for overlap. But there are many individual stories that happened in the past that I would not necessarily call historical. And many modern biographies.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I think business, detestable and contrarian are pretty much covered by money, terrible and controversy.
Black or biography would be interesting
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^dag:
I'm afraid it would get used synonymously with "terrible". >> ^NetRunner:
Isn't "business" already covered sufficiently by the money channel?
I voted "detestable" -- I've got a feeling that would get a lot of use going into an election season.


I would hope so! I would use the terrible channel we have now, except its owner wanted it to only be used on poorly done artistic content, not to denote that the actions in the video are detestable.
If we make the terrible channel mean anything terrible, then I'd go for contrarian.



Black is covered by equality, biography by history, purple by music, griot by cinema/books/bravo, etc.

Though I disagree about detestable and contrarian. Detestable would be overlapping with terrible if terrible's terrible definition didn't exclude the detestable.

Contrarian is worlds apart from controversy -- Controversy is "Newt's wife says he wanted an Open Marriage", while contrarian is "Actually, inflation would help the economy right now because it would reduce the real value of people's debts..." The former is controversial, but not contrarian, the latter is contrarian but not actually controversial (amongst economists, anyways).

It's a bit of a niche channel, but it's a niche Videosift's community likes to hang out in.

I think business, detestable and contrarian are pretty much covered by money, terrible and controversy.

Black or biography would be interesting
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^dag:
I'm afraid it would get used synonymously with "terrible". >> ^NetRunner:
Isn't "business" already covered sufficiently by the money channel?
I voted "detestable" -- I've got a feeling that would get a lot of use going into an election season.


I would hope so! I would use the terrible channel we have now, except its owner wanted it to only be used on poorly done artistic content, not to denote that the actions in the video are detestable.
If we make the terrible channel mean anything terrible, then I'd go for contrarian.

Yes, excellent stuff.

Robert T Frederick, the first CO of the Devil's Brigade, is my personal hero. Winston Churchill called him "the greatest fighting general of all time" and said "if we had had a dozen more like him we would have smashed Hitler in 1942". His biography, The Last Fighting General is definitely worth a read.

Also quite coincidentally, I found out New Year's Eve that the father of a family friend was in the Devil's Brigade. He hadn't told anyone until shortly before he died... They truly were amazing men.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Complete coincidence, but I just watched "The Devil's Brigade" 3 nights ago. Really great vintage WWII movie, realistic or not.

If you haven't seen it yet I recommend checking it out at your local Bittorrent multiplex.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062886/

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
Interesting discussion from someone who knows what he's talking about.

I once got to hold one of the V-42 Fighting Knives issued to the 1st Special Service Force. Amazing being able to hold that kind of historical artifact.

Interestingly, some of the soldiers in the 1st SSF ground down the tips so they didn't get stuck in the ribs when they stabbed someone - the needle tip was making it difficult to kill someone and even more difficult to withdraw the knife.

According to his biography by Michael Eric Dyson, ML King considered himself a Marxist, but not a Communist. He is usually described as a democratic socialist. He believed the US was on the wrong side of the Vietnam war and that the US should've been on the side of the North Vietnamese. He did think there should be radical wealth distribution in the US.

No. Bill Philips is one of the nicest people I have ever met. Tom Cech is a nice guy. I can name dozens of super famous scientists that I have met that were very nice. Warren Buffet is very nice, according to an acquaintance.

Assholes are not great because they are assholes. Some assholes are great because they happen to be intensely curious and they have a clear vision of how they can change the world.

Based on my experience, it is not a requisite for making a difference in the world.

It is funny. My advisor and I had this discussion after he read the Steve Jobs biography. My wife thinks Steve Jobs was great because he was an asshole. I disagree.

The poem is one of 191 sonnets that make up Les Regrets, written while du Bellay was stuck in Italy, deeply disillusioned by what he found, and homesick. The chorus goes "but when will I see, alas, my own little village, with its smoking chimneys, and in what season?"

http://www.poemhunter.com/joachim-du-bellay/biography/

Just a heads-up, but if you quote someone they get an email telling them what you wrote instantly. So if you go back and edit your comment (as you did in this case) I still get to read your original remarks. Something to consider before hitting the submit button next time, if you didn't realize that. I'll respond to your original post:

Yeah, you used your sad little line once already. I know you think it makes you sound smart, but it just makes you seem like a tool. Care to actually engage in a debate with facts and opinions?

Yes, I would very much like to engage in a debate with facts and...opinions (can you have a debate without opinions)?

Regardless, I would also like to engage in a debate where people avoid logical fallacies rather than zealously pursuing them (for instance, that pesky ad hominem that so many people on the Sift have a hard time avoiding). And unfortunately I've learned that kind of debate just doesn't happen here often enough, which is why (as I said in my original post) I've moved on to debating on other forums where people are more interested in reasonable discussion than comment upvotes or making themselves feel clever by insulting others.

By the way, just in case you still don't understand the point of my original post, I suggest you read my answer to hpqp in which I spell it out clearly.

Or you can keep insulting me and continue proving my point.

Also, since you asked so nicely, here are some facts for you:

-- Hitchens in 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule" (Vanity Fair, March issue)
-- In the same article, he mentions that some people need alcohol to avoid self-destructing even more quickly... self-referential? Who knows.
-- According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans moderate drinking is defined as no more than two drinks a day. Yet according to his own auto-biography Hitchens was drinking far in excess of that, including half a bottle of red wine (no less) at lunch alone in addition to his other drinks throughout the day.
-- As per hpqp's quote, he knew it was bad for him but continued to drink anyways... right up until the cancer. In fact I could find no information stating that he has given up drinking despite the cancer.

Of course, Hitchens denies that he's an alcoholic... but so do most alcoholics so I don't give that much credence.

In the end, though, whether or not he is an alcoholic is actually a moot point. The excessive drinking (if you prefer that term) has contributed to his cancer and an early grave. Thus it strikes me (and Shinyblurry) as peculiar to honor him with a toast. You disagree and that is your right. But instead of stating your case, you (and to be fair, a lot of others) came out flaming those who disagreed with you. And that is how we ended up having this conversation.

(P.S. I am indeed a tool. But I am a tool who carefully considers what his opponents say and can argue his point without having to insult the opposing side.)

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
Wow, what an original and clever response.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Upvoted for both missing the point and proving it at the very same time.

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/SDGundamX" title="member since March 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">SDGundamX, Hitchens was not an alcoholic. It is possible to enjoy a few drinks without being an alcoholic.

As for your response to @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://fletch.videosift.com" title="member since August 9th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#FF4500">Fletch, I fail to see how he either missed or proved your point. All I can see is that he refuted your bullshit with facts and logic. But I guess those aren't really popular with your ilk.

Reading this blog made me remember reading this Wired story from way back when I thought Wired was a good magazine (GO Maximum PC!) and the quote that really caught my eye was "Everyone has their Steve-Jobs-the-asshole story." I think it stood out because, on TV at least, he seemed nice enough, but mostly I wanted ammunition for arguments with my Mac fanboy friends.

More recently I remember reading about Apple pulling an entire e-book collection from one publisher after said publisher produced an unauthorized biography with the double entendre title "iCon: Steve Jobs" which is a move that I consider a far cry from "Do no evil."

Even Steve Wozniak openly said: "I couldn't treat people the way he does"

But do geniuses need to be assholes?

I would say that there is a fine line between tough love and devaluing the people around you. That fence dance can make a C feel like an A; but it makes the kid who fails feel all the more hopeless.

Winstonfield, what you're saying about MLK's tactics is simply wrong. Read MLK's biography by Eric Dyson. MLK wanted to use non-violent "industrial sabotage" to clog up industries and highways in Washington DC, to bring things to a halt until democratic socialist reforms were put into place. He wanted to do this by clogging places up with people so that even "innocent bystanders," as you put it, would have no choice but take notice.

Also I believe MLK supported "sit ins" where black people came in and sat in white-only restaurants, filling them up with black customers. This drove away white customers from stores, and I'm sure owners were annoyed that they were losing so much business to this tactic. Plus, at the time, I'm pretty sure white owners had the legal right to only serve white customers, thus the private property rights of white owners were being violated by MLK's black supporters.

If you disagree with the Occupy Wall Street end goal, OK that's fine. But don't criticize the tactics in the belief that MLK Jr. was not a supporter of the tactics here, because he used them himself.

One year back in elementary school, I had to do a project on a "notable person." I had to take out books, write a biography, and even learn how to draw a realistic portrait of the person I chose, as well as justifying why I chose them and what impact they made in the world. After all the research was done, we had to dress up as our person and even act as them at a "notable's night" later on. I borrowed plaid shirts and even glued a 'proper' fake beard to my face so I could better resemble my childhood hero, Jim Henson.

I remember one day my father came home with a photocopied article from a magazine from 'Life Magazine.' The cover photo was a image of Kermit sitting in Henson's director's chair. The article written shortly after his untimely death. I had been devastated by the news.

Indeed, Kevin Clash has lived one of my childhood dreams, and made thousands millions of kids happy in the process with his *quality work.