Bill Gates Wants To Remake the Way History Is Taught. Should We Let Him? 363
theodp (442580) writes With his Big History Project, the NY Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin reports that Bill Gates wants to remake the way history is taught (intro video). Last month, the Univ. of California system announced that a version of the Big History Project course could be counted in place of a more traditional World History class, paving the way for the state's 1,300 high schools to offer it. Still, not everyone's keen on the idea. "Is this Bill Gates's history?" asks NYU's Diane Ravitch. "And should it be labeled 'Bill Gates's History'? Because Bill Gates's history would be very different from somebody else's who wasn't worth $50-60 billion." Of the opposition to Gates, Scott L. Thomas of Claremont Graduate University explains, 'Frankly, in the eyes of the critics, he's really not an expert. He just happens to be a guy that watched a DVD and thought it was a good idea and had a bunch of money to fund it."
In Soviet USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Oligarchs make history
So long as it is consential (Score:5, Insightful)
I think his "common core" plan has largely backfired because it was rolled out on a federal level and states were pretty much strong armed into it.
I'd be more comfortable with these changes if they were OFFERED and not at gun point.
Our education system could be improved in a lot of ways. But those improvements should be optional to the education systems and not compelled.
Here some people will say "well we didn't force them to do the other thing." but that's often not true because they're often offered a lot of money to adopt new programs. the money they're offered comes from federal coffers. The money in federal coffers comes from everyone. So basically you lose money if you don't sign onto the program because the government will then take money from you and give it to someone else. The only way to get your money back is to adopt the program.
So that's an issue. These cash payouts to states and cities for adopting federal programs needs to stop unless states and cities that do not adopt programs get a relative tax decrease. Such that if a given state didn't sign onto these things they didn't pay for them.
Absent that they're being compelled and I do have a problem with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So long as it is consential (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect a lot of federal school mandates would end up the same way. Ditching federal money might allow for a number of compliance administrators to be cut from a school district, and give teachers more time to do their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
1) unify all the accounting for the funds given to the various state governments.
2) give the money to the states as a single lump sum instead of as multiple sundry payments
3) over a period of ~7 years, scale back the money given to the states to $0, giving them time to replace the money with their own taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse, the corporate exodus would continue and all corporations would gather in a state with few people and few services needing tax-based support
Just so you know, this already happens. Corporations flock to states like Nevada and Delaware where they get fewer taxes, even if all they have is a PO box in those states. So, nothing to worry about.
Also, how would big federal agencies work?
The federal government would still collect money to handle all programs that weren't handed over to the states.
Right now there are a lot of programs that the federal government mandates but sends the money directly to the states. These are the programs that are targeted: if the state is running them, cutting
Re: (Score:2)
Defense Department is only 18% of the federal budget. The other Constitutionally legal expenses (courts, salaries on Capitol Hill and in the White House) are trivial by comparison. When the numbers are much smaller, it's easier to get the money. Require each state to send to the federal government an amount of money proportional to its population; no "tax too much and Uncle Sugar will send back the excess" because that's an invitation to corruption and extortion. Other funds from import duties.
The smaller g
Re:So long as it is consential (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is what some young people need, but it's very very expensive. If you teach 8 kids, the maximum (let's guess) you could actually give tutorial - mentor attention to over the course of 8 hours, how much does each family need to pony up to keep YOU happy?
$9,000, not including any benefits, workman's comp, administrative overhead, just here's 9k cash in your hand and thanks for teaching my kid.
Education is a loss leader for people who give it, that is, the state, the taxpayer. People just have to accept the
Re: (Score:3)
Absent that they're being compelled and I do have a problem with that.
I do. 'Big History', to begin with, is so ugly a term and reminds one so much of Novlang that it is scary. World History is fine with me, or is too 'liberal'?
Otherwise, your post is insightful. You point out how these ugly things are forced upon unwilling public institutions.
Big "history" or big science theories? (Score:2)
I do. 'Big History', to begin with, is so ugly a term
Part of the problem, I think, is that this isn't really "history" in the traditional sense (at least not as the word was understood before the past few decades or so). I'm NOT saying it shouldn't be taught in schools, mind you, but this whole project is based somewhat on a false premise.
"History," as the term traditionally means, has to do with a "story" (it's in the word, and in fact "history" and "story" used to basically mean the same thing in early English). That is, it's a narrative based on human
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem with this is that it's spoon feeding people a narrative that they should be able to come up with by themselves. Students should be able to make these connections on their own. For that they need all of the relevant source material. Something like this is no substitute for the courses it seems to displace.
As something extra, it's a nice idea for those with added interest. However, public schools have enough of a problem just handling the basics. Expecting them to take on something extra just
Re: (Score:2)
Common core was adopted at the state level. Your history is backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, after we get school choice and school vouchers that let parents take their kids to the school of their choice, a school that teaches their kids the way the parents like it, not the way politicians or teachers' unions want it.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't apply that belief to ASTM standards for wiring. Poor states would have 50 house fires per day.
It's funny, nobody suggests applying "local standards" to other professions. Yes, each state may have their own certification for accountants and engineers and so on, but the *standards and practices* are much more widespread. Nobody shops around for the doctor that meets local standards for appendectomies.
I don't crap on people who believe this stuff, but MY private belief is that they want to en
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Lots of people want mandatory building codes abolished. Nevertheless, there is an essential difference between building codes and history: at least for building codes, you can objectively determine what effects they have (at least in principle); for interpretations of history, you cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
You know re-reading your response, I have to say: you really have to be a f*cking partisan moron to accuse people who favor school choice and school vouchers of "want[ing] to ensure that money from wealthier school districts never leaks over into poorer ones". Really, you deserve to be "crapped upon", using your words.
Re: (Score:2)
It's time for an end to one-size-fits-all government education schemes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think his "common core" plan has largely backfired because it was rolled out on a federal level and states were pretty much strong armed into it.
According to this article, he's been working with individual schools to help (convince) them to adopt the program, working from the grassroots up. So I guess he learned something from it.
Frankly, after reading the article I'm surprised it has found any traction at all, because the way he wants history portrayed is so 'atheist', starting with the big bang, that I can't see the federal government ever trying to push it. There would be a huge backlash.
Re: (Score:2)
What needs to be left to local authorities, even down to the teacher, is the choice of how to teach material an
Re: So long as it is consential (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but the corporations don't come and shoot you if you don't choose to give them your money.
Progressives always argue against BIG corporations and they always argue FOR the largest and most powerful organization on the planet being given MORE power. Their blind faith in the state is terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Except no major political group actually acts on what you said (and I'm counting the Libertarian left in' major' there). Why fuss about the size of government if that argument leads to cutting only the parts of government that can't directly come and shoot you? Why is so much of the movement for smaller government focused on cutting the EPA, which can't come and shoot you, or the NEA, which can't come and shoot you, or NASA, which can't come and shoot you, and not on military and homeland security related a
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be surprised at the government agencies and departments that do have guns. Agriculture has had guns for 80 years or more. The FDA has performed armed raids. Your claim to the contrary notwithstanding, I'd be very surprised if the EPA doesn't have some armed division.
Some of this is recent; there has been a great deal of firearm and ammunition purchasing by the federal government during the Obama administration, with resultant shortages in the consumer market.
Re: (Score:3)
The mayor of my city and the parliament of my country I can elect and their doings are at least partially subject to public scrutiny. Moreover, their primary interest is staying in power, which means at least partially pleasing me.
The CEO of Big Bad Corporation I cannot elect nor scrutinize. His primary interest is $$$, which means if he can earn a buck by fucking me over, he's almost legally required to do so.
For all the faults in our current political system, I'd rather have the former have the guns. And
should be an interesting history of computers (Score:5, Funny)
The first computers in the world were invented by Microsoft in 1981 to run the revolutionary MS-DOS operating system, before which humanity had no computers at all. In 1985 Microsoft invented the graphical user interface and the mouse. Microsoft Windows was the most secure operating system in the world, and also the easiest to use with the introduction of the revolutionary Microsoft Bob.
Microsoft would go on to invent the Internet, graciously allowing rival companies to establish a presence on Microsoft's new network. Microsoft created the most loved user interface in the world with the exciting new Windows 8 Aero.
You can purchase exciting new Microsoft products at the following participating retailers near you!
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled 'Apple' in above paragraph.
I am hoping, though, based on the rising buzz, that I've mentioned 'Apple' here for the last time they'll be mentioned on Slashdot for a week. There's a whole shitsludge avalanche of Apple hype sliding out this coming week that badly needs to be contained.
Re: (Score:2)
The first computers in the world were invented by Microsoft in 1981 to run the revolutionary MSDOS operating system, before which humanity had no computers at all.
MS DOS was revolutionary because it sold to all comers at 1/5 the list price of CP/M 86.
The PC built from modular components sold at mass market prices and which snap into place like LEGO blocks begins here.
-----
IBM introduced the IBM Personal Computer in 1981 and followed it with increasingly capable models: the XT in 1983 and the AT in 1984. The success of these computers cut deeply into the market for S-100 bus products.
As the IBM PC products captured the low-end of the market, S-100 machines moved up-s
Re:should be an interesting history of computers (Score:5, Insightful)
"He's really not an expert" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mao thought he was improving the world and so were a lot of other people...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Know who else thought he was improving the world? HITLER.
Good trolls are less obvious. Try harder.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He should stick to curing diseases like malaria. Schools are too mixed up with politics, money, and government control of peoples' lives.
If he wants to help with education, he should fund scholarships so more parents could send their kids to a school of their choice.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to history, experts are just people convinced their version of the facts is better than everyone else's versions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A factual statement followed by a mischaracterisation followed by a statement that really doesn't mean anything but is supposed to sound like it does.
And we're supposed to accept this rather poor attempt at being clever in lieu of logic.
Yes sir, we are indeed on Slashdot.
More "1%" crap? (Score:2)
Huh? Why? Is this the "there are two Americas" crap again? Why would "his" history of America be different from that of any of the rest of us?
Ok, so he did not even devise the course himself — he just liked what he saw. I don't particularly like the guy — and do remember his c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So why is his wealth being held against him?
Because he chose to amass it, he chose the methods he used to amass it, he chose to keep much of it for himself, and he chooses how to invest the remainder.
A person can be judged by their actions, you know. And the judgment will affect the context in which further actions by that person should be judged. Why don't we let foxes into hen-houses?
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody "chooses" it — few people succeed.
His critics are perfectly ignorant of the anti-competitive practices in Microsoft's past. They would've been just as loud against Warren Buffet or, dare I mention their names, the Koch brothers.
You are implying, Bill Gates is trying to rewrite history of the world somehow. How would he rewrite it, and what evidence to have of his plans to do it? According to wha
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University who has been a vocal critic of Gates, put even it more starkly: âoeWhen I think about history, I think about different perspectives, clashing points of view. I wonder how Bill Gates would treat the robber barons. I wonder how Bill Gates would deal with issues of extremes of wealth and poverty.â (The Big History Project doesnâ(TM)t mention robber barons, but it does briefly address unequal distribution of resources.) Ravitch continued: âoeIt begins to be a question of: Is this Bill Gatesâ(TM)s history? And should it be labeled âBill Gatesâ(TM)s Historyâ(TM)? Because Bill Gatesâ(TM)s history would be very different from somebody elseâ(TM)s who wasnâ(TM)t worth $50-60 billion.â (Gatesâ(TM)s estimated net worth is approximately $80 billion.)
It's a case of the "Slashdot approach" to topic being discussed.
Not reading TFA (TFC? TFH?) and complaining about something which may or may not be there, based on personal prejudice.
I.e. Questioning how will "Gates History", which it is not, deal with sensitive issues regarding money and wealth acquisition, implying a conflict of interest.
For no reason other than Bill Gates' involvement with the course.
Because Bill Gates is apparently Scrooge McDuck even in the minds of highly educated people like
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty good reason in my opinion. It is certainly a better reason, than that of the various nobility of the past — who have always been deemed "better". Bill Gates' made money by doing something other people wanted to buy — rather than by conquest. Yet, somehow, I suspect, if it were, say, the Queen of England — or, better yet, one of the adorable princ(ess)es) — who offered to subsidize the history class, there would'v
Is the history he teaches incorrect? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I watched the Big History TV series and was unimpressed. They attempt to make connections between items spanning billions of years eg. Kennedy was killed by a bullet, lead is formed in supernovas. It feels as if the episodes suffer from ADD. Not enough time is spent on a single subject.
What exactly is wrong with the way history is teached? Or is old Bill trying to rewrite a few bits to fit his vision?
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is wrong with the way history is teached?
It is an attempt to use history as a narrative glue and a conduit for connection of other subjects taught in school, instead of teaching math and physics and chemistry and biology and languages as if there is no interconnection.
Same goes for world cultures, geography, how technology and social trends influenced history etc.
Hopefully, that would lead to kids coming out of high school or even elementary school realizing that global cultures are all part of a greater human culture.
And that those same rules tha
Re: (Score:3)
Trouble is that nobody has valid scientific theories of "how technology and social trends influenced history"; all we have is ideologically and politically motivated storytelling.
Unfortunately, they don't. In the elementary sciences, you can verify the truth of many statements by direct, independent experimentation. You can't do that in history or many other fields
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is that nobody has valid scientific theories of "how technology and social trends influenced history"
No crusades or Jihad in your version of history?
No millions dead due to brand spanking new killing toys of WWI and WWII?
No Holocaust?
How about agriculture, cities, steel, bronze, stone? None of that influenced history?
Industrial revolution had no effect on history?
How about the age of exploration? That needed some significant tech advancements to work as it did?
Colonization? Nope?
How about language? That's a big one among the techs. Shaped the fuck out of history. Thousands died even in the Bible (both tech
Re: (Score:2)
Are you so stupid that you don't understand the difference between statements of the form "millions of people died" and "millions of people died because of imperialism/fascism/communism/monarchy/..."?
Yes, which is why one shouldn't have debates with people like you.
Complex question. Simple answer (Score:3)
The counterargument here is that "Big HIstory" focuses on a grand narrative without approaching the methodologies used to construct such narratives. Historians try to teach methods, and specifically ways to approach texts and to construct arguments from them
Re: (Score:2)
In which parallel universe is it that PhDs bother with teaching at the high school level?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, when I was in a public HS, we had high school teachers with Ph.D.s, in the STEM classes (well, okay, not the TE part). In the humanities, we had people with M.S. in education, and no clue what's going on. You want to know why history sucks in High School? The teachers were those students who got straight Cs in history at the university and an education degree.
Just a product (Score:2)
Looking at the website this seems more like a product Gates should be selling rather than something useful for the classroom.
The trouble with billionaires (Score:5, Insightful)
That is exactly and precisely why it is not a good idea to let billionaires run your country. Having had dealings with billionaires, I can also say that he left out one thing, that such a person is almost inevitably going to be surrounded by a bunch of people (including in the press) who think that any idea he has is worthy of adulation.
Re: (Score:3)
The argument is completely ad hominem. Let me do an ad hominem too: why would I still take you seriously if you can't even follow the simple rules of logic?
Re:The trouble with billionaires (Score:4, Informative)
He didn't make an ad hominem, he made a conclusion based on observation.
Perhaps his sample size was not statistically significant, but that's a different issue.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is different from professors at elite universities... how?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmm, I think we have a problem here.
Big History different from History (Score:2)
Big History is not really a branch of History, it's its own subject, which is interesting and rich and a worthwhile contribution to someone's education. Generally it studies trends, whether cosmological, evolutionary, economic, or political, that span times greater than a human lifespan. It's not the usual meaning of history, and it can't replace history.
It's actually a good way to teach science, because a lot of science gets put into a historical narrative and tied to the real world.
That depends... (Score:2)
Does Bill Gates have any credentials to show he is an expert in the field of teaching history?
Hell ya (Score:4, Interesting)
About 30 years ago there was a show called Our World on TV. It gave context, explained motivations, and in general made history pretty damned interesting. Too bad the show only lasted 1 season.
Then I had a college history class. Yep, back to names and dates and not much else.
History can be interesting, the way it's taught in school is a sham.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you are on to something. There may be no scientific evidence that Big History is any better, but there is no scientific basis to the current teaching of history, either.
Re: (Score:3)
History can be interesting, the way it's taught in [my] school is a sham.
FTFY.
I had a great history teacher, who taught us about the difference between cause and occasion, about webs of alliances and interdependences and how they create unintended consequences, and who made us understand why names and dates are important (to figure out the proper order of things and the connections between the people responsible).
If your teacher sucked, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
And if you want to refresh, find "Crash Course World History" on YouTube.
Re: (Score:3)
Different approach, not different subject matter (Score:2)
Depends (Score:2)
If it's taught in the style of Connections, I'm all for it. I absolutely loathed traditional history teaching methods until I saw that series.
If it's revisionist, then screw that noise.
the 1% trying to rewrite history (Score:2)
And by "the 1%" I mean academics like Diane Ravitch. Not only are academics like that among the wealthy and powerful in this country, far removed from the concerns of the ordinary citizens, they still have a chip on their shoulder because they look at the top 0.001% and think that they are being treated unfairly.
As for Gates, he isn't in the 1%, he is in a class of its own. He has so much money and power that I doubt he is motivated by acquiring more. His history is unlikely going to be very good, but it's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing how people think there's an amount of money beyond which you can't spend.
I could spend $80 billion in a few years (a decade at most). I'll have islands (perhaps Ireland itself :) that I'll own...
That is called real estate investing. It is not spending. You still have the original asset in a different form.
historyisaweapon.com (Score:2)
The powerful (winners) have been writing the mainstream history for a long time. In addition history is hardly even taught anymore; and the bit that is has been done poorly. They take great people like MLK and turn them into a phrase and an icon while it seems to be purposely removing the aspects that made them truly great. Summation is necessary, but it has been harmful either by accident or by intent - the academics seem to do a better job so one wonders how that gets lost on the mainstream education of
Re: (Score:2)
True, if by "winners" you mean the large number of left-leaning academics and teachers; people who use education as a propaganda tool in order to increase their status and train students to advance their political objectives. They are complemented by a smaller contingent of right wing and Christian groups that are doing the same thing with a slightly different ideological bend, often in their own private schools.
From what you say
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, the books historyasaweapon.com suggests are about as propagandistic, misleading, and dishonest as they come, starting with "A People's History Of The United States by Howard Zinn. Zinn's book, incidentally, is widely read in schools today. You might as well be teaching young earth creationism, it's about as valid.
Gates Went to School! mostly. (Score:2)
I watched the video (Score:2)
1. Today we have roads
2. In 1995 we had electronics
3. in 1985 we had pedophiles
4. in 1975 we had the waffle house.
In short; the world hasn't improved much since 1975.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Up until students reach about 12 years of age the requirements for their teachers are pretty trivial; the supply of potential elementary school teachers far exceeds the demand. Hence fairly low pay,
Resources? Don't be funny. Keeping a schoolroom warm (or cool in Florida) costs more than a chalkboard and a couple of hundred public domain texts.
Re: (Score:2)
One place for everyone and everyone in their place. Now, if we only could make tenure inheritable also...
Re: (Score:2)
And three times in the same sentence! (Legal, but annoying.)
That would be bigotry then.
I mean, heck, you even admit it's not wrong, and still say it's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Could you give some specifics of things Bill Gates has been revisionist about? Just curious.
Re:Hell no (Score:4, Interesting)
In this case, though, he's not wrong. History is too often taught as a series of snapshots of a given time. But you cannot understand the changes of borders in continental Europe without a deep understanding of geography -- you need to understand river systems as the "motorways", and the shift of river systems to being seen as "defensible borders". It's this whole system that leads to the dissatisfaction with cross-border ethnic groups like the Basques and the Catalans. The France-Spain border is now defined by mountains, but when travel by sea was quicker than travel by land, a mountain range was inconsequential to a people with good access to coastlines. And just try to consider Caesar's campaigns and the differences between transalpine and cisalpine Gaul without understanding the Alps and the Massif Central.
This is not Gates's history class, it's a university professor's history class.
Re:Hell no (Score:5, Interesting)
You are better off reading the Baroque Cycle [wikipedia.org]. It's much more entertaining and even partially correct.
Re:Hell no (Score:5, Insightful)
My personal point of view is that high school history was full of dates and names and difficult for me to memorize. I did not find it interesting, even though on paper my teacher was a published author and one might assume was doing a fine job teaching. Fast forward to my adult life and I have found many sources of interesting historical accounts and am more interested in history now than I ever was. The interplay of different events on different parts of the world is fascinating.
Re:Hell no (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
What is important is that historical event A caused historical event B, which lead to historical event C. Not whether event A happened in 1674, 1675 or 1676.
Re:Hell no (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hell no (Score:5, Insightful)
FWIW it's the same with all his philanthropy. He's an utter moron. Just watch any talk with him on the same stage as Bill Clinton
I don't think you can call someone who got a perfect score on their SAT an utter moron. Misguided, or confused perhaps, but he's surely got some intelligence.
That's beside the point though, if you had the money, how would you use it philanthropically to make the world a better place?
Re:Hell no (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think you can call someone who got a perfect score on their SAT an utter moron
Bill Gates did not get a perfect SAT score. He got a very good one, 1590 out of 1600, but not perfect. Being a billionaire does not entitle you to score inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
That is 1590 on the old tests though. in 1995 they recalculated how the scores where done and people who would have gotten over 1500 suddenly were getting 1600.
I remember both sets of my score. my new score put me in the 1300 range and my old score was 1170.
Re: (Score:3)
That's beside the point though, if you had the money, how would you use it philanthropically to make the world a better place?
Grants to existing scholars, scientists and researchers in their fields who are making actual scientific progress, instead of making their lives more difficult by founding some hot shot idea you found interesting.
Someone as allegedly smart as Gates, who spent all his life in a company whose success is first and foremost based on marketing and manipulation of perception could be expected to understand that if you read, hear or watch someone telling his great idea and you're fascinated with it afterwards, you
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Self absorbed, amoral, and rampantly driven... but he's no moron.
Current and future education is all about multidisciplinary integration. Even right now you need 2 bachelors or a master's degree to get anywhere, then ongoing learning spans many disciplines. As for history, how it is currently taught is worthless. Dates and names are irrelevant. The real value - Why and How - is not taught in any 100 level class.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Gates has transferred billions from the coffers of large corporations, by way of IT products, to charitable programs that directly save lives, and improve the standard of living in the 3rd world. This is bad again why?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hell no (Score:4, Insightful)
What economic damages? I don't get it. Are you complaining that MS bought a lot of small software companies the way every large tech firm does? Are you complaining that MS products weren't as good as you'd have liked (compared to what? IBMs offerings at the time? please).
I've never understood the burning MS hatred on Slashdot. Yes, MS had a lot of second-rate products, but so do most companies in the world!
People will complain about anything, but it pisses me off to see people who likely give nothing at all to charity complaining that someone who does isn't doing it the way they would.
Re:Hell no (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Evil? I don't buy it one bit. He sold a set of software products that companies wanted to buy. Products that were no fun to support, of course, or for geeks to use in many cases, but let's please not confuse "icky" with "evil".
Right now people are being beheaded in the middle east for the crime of minding their own business while having the wrong religion. That's Evil. Something like 1300 girls we're allowed to be used as sex slaves - raped over and over for years - in a developed nation because of misguided notions of political correctness. That's evil. Windows ME was merely icky.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Evil? I don't buy it one bit. He sold a set of software products that companies wanted to buy. Products that were no fun to support, of course, or for geeks to use in many cases, but let's please not confuse "icky" with "evil".
"Evil" is probably too strong, but Microsoft's misdeeds were considerably worse than merely making products that were less than ideal. Microsoft engaged in some pretty shady business practices which were clearly detrimental to the competitive landscape, harming consumers not just by providing inferior products but by actively preventing better products from being able to reach them.
The most serious of these actions was in the agreements they made OEMs sign in order to sell machines with Windows (and befor
Re: (Score:2)
Judging from the titles, nothing ever happened in South America. Until Columbus at least.
And almost nothing ever happened in Asia, Africa, Australia, India... at least not until Western Civilizations got involved.
"Hey there aboriginal natives! You've just been discovered. Rejoice!"
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't watched it. That's why I said "judging from the titles".
And maybe it does try to not be Western Civilization centric... but it ultimately fails.
You can tell by looking at the nouns.
Alexander the Great and American and French Revolutions get "name drops" but no Gandhi, any of Chinese or Japanese emperors OR any of Russian revolutions.
We'll just bundle those under larger historical movements.
Like we didn't bundle Alexander with the rest of the Ancient Greece or the American Revolution with colonialism
Re: (Score:2)