Also the reason why written sources are more numerous and accurate after around, say, the 6th century BC is because that's when people started writing everything down! Although writing existed before then, there was a massive increase in trade during that time period and that's when writing became commonplace. Scholars believe that was the time period in which the Greek legends as well as the first books of the Old Testament were all written. So there is a period ranging around the 6th century BC to the present where we have continuous (and thus accurate) written history being recorded, a written history of the oral traditions of those cultures (that goes back some time but is of questionable accuracy), and then a time of prehistory where we have no information other than what we can put together from archaeological data.
If you look at that wikipedia page you linked, almost all of those dates are based on archaeological data. The way that works is an archaeologist finds a site that looks promising and starts a dig. They find any artifacts in that area, analyze it, date it, compare it to other sites in the region, and extrapolate information based on that. Other scientific fields are also used to help out: chemistry, genetics, linguistics, anthropology, climate science, all of them are used in constructing history. But that's not very precise and extremely dependent on finding good archaeological data, so that's why you have the lack of precision.
Go back 2,000 years and there is quite a bit of archaeological data. Go back 5,000 years and it is is very hard to come by. Go back 10,000 years and it's practically nonexistent. That's why we know so little of prehistoric civilizations. There's literally no other information other than "There were people here, and they left these types of tools" and maybe some bones or cave paintings.
For example, the Old Testament might say King Johesephus ruled such and such kingdom at such and such time period and he was a terrible, wicked ruler who murdered children and was struck down by God. You can go back and confirm via other methods that there really was a King Johesephus that ruled that kingdom and during that time period. Was he actually as horrible and wicked as described in the Bible? Maybe not. Like you said, the accounts written down in the Bible were from people with a very biased viewpoint so you have to take that into account. But you can confirm or deny a lot of it.
That's what I mean when I say that things in the Bible seem to be fairly accurate after a certain point. Obviously the ancient Jews had their own biases and that has to be taken into account, but we can confirm that many events happened at the same times and places described in the Old Testament. But the further you go back the more inaccurate it gets. The Kingdom of Judah was certainly not the way described in the Old Testament and there is absolutely no evidence for the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, for example.
Compare it to Ancient Greek history. Just because the Illiad is obviously legend doesn't mean the Peloponnesian war didn't happen.
It is a nice bedtime story, but there is nothing to cite to show any of it really happened.
That's not true. Much of the history in the Old Testament (I'm not talking about the fables found in Genesis, but the descriptions of kingdoms and events that have been proven to exist) is severely distorted history at best, but much of it is relevant.
Generally speaking the dividing line is the conquest of Babylon by the Persians. Everything before that is more legend than fact. Everything after that is fairly accurate (but obviously highly biased).
... I see no evidence, quite honestly, that the NSA has the wrong motives.
What about the evidence that the NSA's network is being used for industrial espionage? National security is one thing, but that one's impossible to justify.
I know RMS can be a twat sometimes, but there is a degree of proof for his ideology present in the success of the GNU project and the freedom it has brought to the world of consumer and commercial computing that is impossible to refute. To call him "mililtant" is entirely missing the point. He's just trying to keep his original vision moving forward and quite frankly *everybody* is a Johnny-Come-Lately compared to RMS. Even when you criticize him you have to at least give him the respect he (and by extension his ideology) deserves.
I know it can be frustrating when you just want the damn thing to work correctly, but you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater by complaining about the 5% that is preventing OSS from dominating OSX and Windows as a commercial force, forgetting the 95% that makes it truly special in the first place.
To call the Republicans the progressive party is a bit confusing because of all the different connotations the phrases progressive and conservative have gone through since then. In the middle-to-late 19th century murdering natives and Mexicans and giving their land to massive corporations was the height of progressivism, which is a little bit confusing from the modern perspective
A school is a place of learning. You want to teach a kid how to fight then put them in Krav Maga. School should be a safe haven. Any sort of violence or threatening behavior should warrant a harsh and immediate punishment. There is no place whatsoever for violence or intimidation, and anyone advocating such is completely fucking insane.
Criminal charges are an absolute joke in this situation, but that doesn't mean the kid didn't do anything wrong. He should have been taken aside and informed why what he did was a stupid idea, and possibly given detention or some other sort of mundane punishment. But anyone claiming that schools should be perfectly fine with violence, or (in your case) openly advocating such behavior to "toughen them up" needs to have their head examined. I hope you never have to deal with telling your kid to stand up for himself and then watch him get brutalized.
"The lectures form only part of the complete course. The whole group of 180 students gathered in a big lecture room twice a week to hear these lectures and then broke up into small groups of 15 to 20 students in recitation sections under the guidance of a teaching assistance. In addition, there was a laboratory section each week...
The reason there are no lectures on how to solve problems is because there were recitation sections. Although I did put three lectures in the first year how to solve problems, they are not included here."
There were also a few lectures that were left out for some reason, which form the basis of the book "Feynman: Tips on Physics."
In the preface, he also writes that he considered the course a failure. Based on examination scores, only about two dozen out of his class of 180 really grasped the subject, but those who did gained "a first-rate background in physics."
I'm currently taking intro physics and I've found Feynman's lectures to be invaluable. It's a much more thorough treatment than my current course, and I think it will hell set me up for more advanced courses. But you're right that by itself it is not sufficient.
I'm curious where you lived in KC. A lot of KC is pretty bad, particularly at night. I would stop at the gas station on Emmanuel Cleaver and The Paseo during the day and it was fine, but I made the mistake of going there on a Friday night once and it was waaaaay sketchy.
They don't want to rock the boat *too* much, and they often are hesitant to go after those in positions of authority unless public sentiment is clearly behind them. This becomes more readily apparent in times of war. For example, the New York Times did not cover the start Iraq War in a way consistent with their reputation and abilities. They have admitted such and apologized for that mistake, but the system that has allowed it to happen is largely unchanged.
Two of my favorite news sources are the Christian Science Monitor and Al-Jazeera, because at least their biases are obvious. Because of that they offer a slightly different perspective than most mainstream American outlets.