Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!fsks From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Intelligence Message-ID: <536@unc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 17:41:31 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.536 Posted: Wed Jul 3 17:41:31 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:37:23 EDT References: <1111@peora.UUCP> <199@rruxo.UUCP> <511@ttidcc.UUCP> <8657@ucbvax.ARPA>Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 22 Summary: >>Granted, I'll never do partial differential eqns again in my life, >>but you have to answer those questions using a structured logic. The >>payoff isn't visible (superficially), but it's there. In article hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: >Sorry, I can't buy this one. This is the same type of argument that was >once used to justify the requirements for studying Latin and Greek (i.e.: >"It trains the mind and develops the thought processes."). Unfortunately, >the human mind doesn't work this way. It's been demonstrated many times >over that studying Latin and Greek trains the mind for Latin and Greek and >nothing else. I disagree. Back when all scholars had some knowlege of Latin and Greek, researchers coined new terms by putting together relevant Greek and Latin words. Anyone who know a little of these languages had a good chance of figuring out what the term referred to. Now that few people have studied the classics, we get inundated with undecipherable acronyms. Bring back Latin! Frank Silbermann