search results matching tag: shakespeare

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (117)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (3)     Comments (214)   

BSR (Member Profile)

JiggaJonson says...

I never denied saying that. I'll say it again if you like.

"You common cry of curs, whose breath I hate
As reek o' th' rotten fens, whose loves I prize
As the dead carcasses of unburied men
That do corrupt my air, I banish you!"
-Shakespeare

"Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run."
-Herman Melville

"That Edward shall be fearful of his life,
And then, to purge his fear, I'll be thy death.
King Henry and the prince his son are gone:
Clarence, thy turn is next, and then the rest,
Counting myself but bad till I be best."
Shakespeare

"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it."
-Herman Melville

“Destruction is a form of creation.”
-Graham Greene


I should probably thank @bobknight33 . Now I know why people cut the tongues out of some men.

BSR said:

No, I've got documented proof that you wrote, and I quote, "FUCK YOU".

A signal that you have accepted their anger as your own. Now you prepare to give it back to them in War Games.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." - War Games

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

The winner of a fight does not make him the best man.


The round goes to bobby.

Edit: BTW, If we have to "teach those dumb rednecks a lesson again." then I guess we didn't get to the heart of the problem the first time.

Denmark Responds To Fox News Fantasy With Facts

vil says...

Trumpism devolving into a drunken rant. Can't even quote Shakespeare correctly.

The sad thing is you CAN compare Denmark to the US of A, and Denmark is winning right now. As a place I would gladly to move to.

You're Using Rotten Tomatoes Wrong!

Lendl says...

One thing he didn't discuss was user rating vs critic rating. Generally I find that critic ratings are way off on some films because they are judging it against fucking Shakespeare when that's not the type of movie it is.

When the critic score is more than 20% off of the user score, I know I should definitely ignore the critics.

Ghost in the Shell (2017) - Shelling Sequence Clip

entr0py says...

Yeah, I can't imagine we would be offended if the situation were reversed, like if the Japanese film industry cast Japanese actors in an adaptation of Shakespeare, that would be expected.

Plus, it's difficult to make the case that Motoko even has a race any more. She is the brain of a Japanese woman in a prosthetic body. One she didn't choose to look Japanese, rather a sort of ostentatious athlete/sex doll look with red eyes and blue hair. Basically no one looks like that, but Scarlet Johnson pulls it off as well as anyone could.

Now if they had gone with the ARISE timeline, an Asian actress would embody that incarnation perfectly.

Karmin and Watsky - No Flex Zone

Karmin and Watsky - No Flex Zone

What "Orwellian" really means - Noah Tavlin

gorillaman says...

I know this is probably the most insipid possible point to raise over an interesting video, but why is everyone always telling us George Orwell's real name? Other authors don't seem to get the same treatment. In the world of pop music it's Elton John (whose original name was actually Walter Sloppycock or whatever it was), in literature it's George Orwell. Or they'll casually mention some fact about a certain Eric Blair and then pause to not so subtly observe your reaction.

It doesn't seem to me to be a very important thing to know. Like the occasional debate over who actually wrote Shakespeare's plays - probably this bloke called William Shakespeare, but maybe not, who knows - someone did it, and a jolly good job they did of it, and that person we call Shakespeare. The body of work is what counts, and good lord but Orwell had a hell of a body of work. Sometimes the bodies of actual fascists.

Who Is Stephen Colbert?

aaronfr says...

I put very little stock in these personality tests. In particular, I don't trust them because they only describe whatever personality you have in positive, flattering terms - a trait/tactic very similar to horoscopes. Of course you will like the result if you are being compared to Shakespeare and told that you are among the most brilliant minds in the known universe.

So the MBTI's practical use is overwhelmingly unscientific, and it's often criticized for this. Criticism ranges from the pragmatic fact that neither Jung nor Myers and Briggs ever employed scientific studies to develop or test these concepts, relying instead on their own observations, anecdotes, and intuitions; all the way to charges that your MBTI score is hardly more meaningful than your zodiac sign.


via Skeptoid

Don't Stay In School

RFlagg says...

I was thinking the same thing. We had a good deal of choice of what classes to take. I didn't take Lit, but I did do the basic English classes, where we read some Shakespeare and the like, but not to the degree the Lit students did. I didn't do any complex math classes either, I did Algebra. But then I also did Applied Business, or whatever it was called. I did Civics with the base History classes. I did Home Economics in 9th grade, not a required class, but an elective. Woodshop was another example of an elective class. Have they removed electives from schools? If not then it's this dude's own fault for not choosing the proper electives. If they are gone and all that is taught is the core, then there may be too much core.

I got to disagree with the video's premise that Math, History and the cores aren't needed. Do you need Calculus, no but you should graduate with a strong understanding of basic Algebra. History is important to, though I'm not sure the methods used are effective, route memorization of facts and dates for tests, rather than a general understanding of history and how to avoid the same mistakes. Teaching for tests period is a problem... Lit isn't important and should remain an elective, but having read some of the "classics" is important too, even if it is just a quick Cliff Notes sort of version of it (do they still have Cliff Notes?) Actually a Cliff Notes rundown of lots of the "classics" would probably be better than what most English classes do, while encouraging students to read more modern what they want fare for reports and the like. I didn't take Biology, but basic Science understanding is important, problem is it's politicized and rather than stick with the facts, too many people want to introduce at the very least doubt about the facts if not introduce ideological ideas that contradict the facts and are based on a misunderstanding of what the facts actually say... due to a messed up literal reading (well when it's convenient to take literal, other times things are dismissed as "literary" or "poetic" be it about the Earth not moving or bats being birds and on and on) of one particular bronze age book.

Also you can't teach people who to vote for... you gain understanding of the issues in History and Civics... so...

How to move away from testing is a tricky thing. You need to prove you have an understanding of how to form an Algebraic formula and to solve one. You need to prove you understand the issue(s) of the Civil War and the basic era (I'm not convinced you need to remember exact dates, know it was the 1860s), same with the other wars. What was one's nation's involvement in the World Wars and what caused those wars in the first place, and again basic era, if you don't know the exact year of the bombing of Pearl Harbor or D-Day or the dropping of the atomic bombs, okay, but a basic close approximation of the years. For English you need to prove you can write and read, and a basic understanding of literature, not details of classic books, but narrative structure etc. There should perhaps be more time spent on critical thinking and how to vet sources. You need to have a basic enough understanding of science not to dismiss things as "just a theory" which proves you don't know what theory means in science, and don't ask ridiculous questions like "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" instead you should be able to answer that. You should be able to answer properly if somebody notes that CO2 is good for plants or that compact fluorescent have mercury in them so they aren't better for the environment than older bulbs.

How does one prove these things without tests? That's the question. And it needs to be Federally standardized to a degree to ensure that you don't have lose districts teaching that the Civil War wasn't about slavery nearly at all, rather than the fact it was the primary reason, or that Evolution is "just a theory", or deny the slaughter of the Native Americans or interment of Japanese Americans. You need to insure that all students are getting the same basics, and insure they have a good range of choices for electives. It's the basics though that basically need tested for, and I personally can't figure out a way to prove a student knows say what caused the Civil War or that they know what Evolution actually is, or how to form an Algebraic formula to solve a real life problem without a test.

spawnflagger said:

Most of the stuff he mentioned (human rights, taxes, writing a check, how stock market works, etc) were taught in my high school civics class. My high school (and middle school) had other practical classes too - wood shop, metal shop, home-ec, etc.

Of course all this was pre no-child-left-behind, so who knows how shite it is now compared to then...

Bill Nye's Answer to the Fermi Paradox

dannym3141 says...

To the religious, we are alone and we are it, and many are quite happy to drive nothing other than a stake through further human accomplishment by putting limits on those who would try. I think the discovery that we're alone would make that worse, but that's nothing to worry about because you can't prove that.... otherwise we'd have proof God doesn't exist. (Merry Christmas!)

There's another alternative that sits so uncomfortably with me, and that's if light speed is the limit and there's no circumventing it. The reason it doesn't sit well with me is that it means effectively intelligent life will always exist in isolation, the only hope being that civilisations pick up ancient transmissions from other civilisations. It is inevitable in my mind that there is life out there of some kind, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be tangible to us. I feel like that would be a tragedy beyond shakespeare.. inevitable cosmic loneliness.

StukaFox said:

I think more likely, given the experience of life on Earth, the number of intelligences with the power to either traverse or communicate across interstellar distances is probably stupidly, stupidly small -- to the point that for all intents and purposes, we're pretty much it.

Between the discovery that we're not alone and the discovery that we are alone, I feel the second would be a much more profound driver of human accomplishment than the first.

John lovitz suggestion to Kevin spacey

Singing difficulty level: aroused

Singing difficulty level: aroused

Cyriak Vs. Chimpanzees

Dude sleeping on jet w/finger on ///////////////////////////



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon