The requirement for submitting books has not been needed for copyright since the Berne convention. Technically, there is still a requirement for published works, except that it has been found unconstitutional on fifth amendment grounds, though it also would seem to violate the first as well. It is also insanely impractical in this day and age. As it stands there are millions of US published books not in the LOC, and of course, it's not like books published in the US constitute all of the books published anywhere. The simple matter is that some objects, though ownership does pass from person to person do have the aspect of a public charge tied to them. True, the owner can go ahead and use them as firewood and be legally covered (though not in all cases, since there are in fact cultural heritage laws around the world that might actually still make it illegal) people are also completely entitled to find that morally shocking and the people who do it to be scum.

Works cited, references, etc. still basically just a subset of the set of kinds of bibliography. A full bibliography involves every source used, not just the ones cited. The point was simply that once upon a time, this was required for pretty much any paper.

Yes, that's kind of like how people who run someone over with their car and then go to an alcohol treatment program ordered by a judge still get called dangerous drunks. Or, in other words, you're skipping over the precipitating events to him receiving that pendant and making sure to to display it at public events. Those events involved him doing clearly anti-Semitic things. I hardly find a publicity stunt like that convincing.

You seem to have completely missed that the comparison in the comment you originally replied to was talking about Cape Canaveral launches and people's reactions to those. Cape Canaveral has plenty of foliage. It's basically inside a wildlife refuge.

My understanding of the idea behind common core math is that their goal was exactly that students should develop an understanding of math that would allow them to easily spot all the different ways they could do such calculations easily. I think the problem was that a lot of their methods come from people who understand the concepts already and think that their methods are nicely illustrative of the concepts, but who don't grasp that they only illustrate the concepts if you already actually know what's behind them. Then you end up with the reality with the boxes, counting, colours, etc. where the actual students mind is reeling and they're saying to themselves "what the hell is going on here, why are we doing this!" even more than with the way it was previously taught. It's even worse when they expect the student to "show their work" with by drawing the boxes, ribbons, whatever for themselves. That's just adding 40%+ to the time of each problem when the student isn't thinking about math at all, they're drawing the same boring thing over and over on autopilot. It's not like that kind of thing is entirely new of course. I mean, thinking back, I wish I'd had a unit circle stamp and a stamp pad. Because, seriously, what was the point of drawing it over and over and over? Once you'd done it a few times, it was just a waste of time to draw it yourself. So, basically common core took that sort of thing and magnified it.

Others have noted that the article wasn't claiming that AI is the reason that math skills are atrophying. Also, it seems to be all in how you use it. The AI has gotten mostly good enough at this point that it can be a pretty good math tutor. I mean, it's maybe more like studying with a friend who understands the material pretty well, but still misunderstands some things about the questions. But, it's a friend with infinite patience. For some students, it will help them learn far better than a teacher or math tutor leaning down their neck. Of course, that's not going to be the same for all students. They still have to want to understand the material.

They're not so bad, they just define things like "it is easy to see...", "clearly", "it suffices to show", "recall that..." to mean completely different things than normal speakers of English or, well, language.

As a parent, you've got to be careful with that one. There's a set of people who tend to be the ones where most people start blaming, and they typically live in the same home as the children. Of course, as you point out the common core math stuff was terrible. It does sound like your kids at least had a textbook? Many parents had to deal with their kids just getting handouts and the only lessons on how to use the "ribbon diagrams" etc. being given to the students directly in class making it impossible for the parents to help (or consult the non-existent textbook, or write the author, etc. The worst thing about the common core stuff is that the actual goal by the creators was to help kids to really think about math to make it easier, but they made it tedious, boring, and stressful. I mean, the example you gave of 20X14 is exactly the sort of thing common core is supposed to help with. They're supposed to look at it, recognize that it's actually 2X10X14, do the easy 10X14, then double that.

All that said though, if your eldest is going into grade 12 and really only has 3rd grade math, you really need to start tutoring her yourself, and don't worry about doing it so she can "show the work" for the school. Same for the eighth grade student. Her actual grades in math are basically irrelevant to her actual education at that grade level so it shouldn't matter if the school has a problem how she shows the work.

Do you mean a bibliography? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like you got most of the way through a degree without having to put bibliographies on your papers. I'm not sure if that would be ironic given that you're complaining about the slipping standards for kids these days or if it would back up your argument.

That's certainly an interesting way of saying that Democrats are more likely to engage often with things that make them angry.

If we step outside just books for a moment, you're talking about destroying all of Van Gogh's paintings as well as paintings in all kinds of experimental forms like pointilism and fauvism, The Thinker, by Rodin, and frankly a huge assortment of archeological works in museums. If we do want to look at books, you would destroy the Great Gatsby and Moby Dick without a care.

These various works are, or were rare and were, at one point, widely considered to be crap. These days, all of thee things are quite valuable. Original copies of Moby Dick and the Great Gatsby that are in good shape with original dust jackets, etc. are worth tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I think the problem here is that you seem to be saying that the courts/law are insisting that the books must be destroyed for it to not be infringement, but that's not quite what happened. The court did use the fact that the scanning was destructive as an argument, but it wasn't required. In a common law system, it is problematic that it does imply a new rule. This mostly comes down to a question of nuance.

I think they were somehow trying to prove that set B (rare books that are out of copyright) doesn't exist because set A (rare books that are still in copyright) exist. I can understand your confusion because the "logic" of that argument is bewildering.

That raises the question. Is a "good" university one that takes anyone, regardless of ability, and raises their education level, or is it one that takes in the elite so it can output the elite? Is the purpose personal enlightenment of the students, producing good workers for employers, a mix? To simplify, what makes a good teacher? One who only picks the best and brightest, then gets showered with credit for the accolades their students receive? Is it all about an initial filtering followed by continuous filtering and ranking of people? Is education about ascertaining where people fall on some scale of their innate, immutable characteristics? Or is there some semblance of an idea that education is a process by which people can learn and improve?

So... right outside? Like, not even traveling beyond audible range to play it on say a paved school court or a parking lot or something?