1 5 6 7  9 10 » 32
That is a good question. All the classes in my infants' school were taught the same way over several years, so I have no idea.

Your "infants' school"? Is this a bit of French influence, Doc (you having lived in France for a substantial period of time, IIRC), or a BrE-ism, or a Nottsism?

"Infant School" was (maybe still is) the standard term for a school for young children, aged about four to seven years. I looked up my alma mater, the John King Infant School in Pinxton, and it still uses that name.

Fran
When I started school around 1945, nobody else in the class of 5-year-olds could read or write, or do any ... tables' up to 12 times 12. The one new to me (and thus of a later generation) was David56's 'share'.

Those "times"s (how do you pluralize a quote?), but not the "times" in "Times the number by a thousand" ?

R.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Dylan Nicholson wrote on 13 Aug 2004:

But people have being multiplying for thousands of years (hence the fact that there are now over 6 billion of us).

I saw a grisly (by 1950s' standards) scifi movie in which Leo G Carroll's character tells someone that "there are ... billion". We must have also been dividing and splitting like shares of stock for the past 50 years or so.

Going from 2 billion to 3.5 billion in a hundred years is an anual growth rate of just over half a percent. The actual growth for the second half of the century
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html
went from 2.6 billion in 1950 to 6.1 billion in 2000, for a growth rate of 1.7% per year.

Evan Kirshenbaum + HP Laboratories >It is a popular delusion that the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 >government wastes vast amounts ofPalo Alto, CA 94304 >money through inefficiency and sloth.
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote on 13 Aug 2004:
Dylan Nicholson wrote on 13 Aug 2004: I saw a ... shares of stock for the past 50 years or so.

Going from 2 billion to 3.5 billion in a hundred years is an anual growth rate of just over half ... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html went from 2.6 billion in 1950 to 6.1 billion in 2000, for a growth rate of 1.7% per year.

And that's because there were so many more wars in the past half a century than in any other 50-year period in world history. Despite the death tolls caused by war, the birth rate actually rises and no matter how many are killed in combat and as collateral damage, more are born. Because human beings are sentimental, they're worse than bloody rats and rabbits when it comes to multiplying: they don't know when to stop.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
On 13 Aug 2004 15:32:08 GMT, CyberCypher
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote on 13 Aug 2004:

Going from 2 billion to 3.5 billion in a hundred ... in 2000, for a growth rate of 1.7% per year.

And that's because there were so many more wars in the past half a century than in any other 50-year ... are sentimental, they're worse than bloody rats and rabbits when it comes to multiplying: they don't know when to stop.

Holy ***, we obviously need to kill more of them.

Charles Riggs
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
On 13 Aug 2004 15:32:08 GMT, CyberCypher
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote on 13 Aug 2004:

Going from 2 billion to 3.5 billion in a hundred ... in 2000, for a growth rate of 1.7% per year.

And that's because there were so many more wars in the past half a century than in any other 50-year ... are sentimental, they're worse than bloody rats and rabbits when it comes to multiplying: they don't know when to stop.

I've read somewhere that it's futile to exterminate rats, because no matter how many you kill unless you kill them all they will quickly breed back up to the limit of their food supply.
It's depressing to think about, but that's probably the way the human population of planet Earth will eventually be constrained.
Some people may say it's happening already, in view of the millions of undernourished or starving people in the world. But I understand it's still true there's enough food to feed everyone: for a number of reasons, it's not practicable to get the food to everyone.
Charles Riggs wrote on 13 Aug 2004:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote on 13 Aug 2004: And that's because ... it comes to multiplying: they don't know when to stop.

Holy ***, we obviously need to kill more of them.

No, no, Charles. We don't have to go that far. All we need to do is to develop some kind of new chemical structure for flouride that will alter human (and rabbit and rat and flea and mosquito) DNA so that half the newborns in the world have two homozygous mule-gene-like alleles where the reproductive gene used to be, put that flouride in all the world's fresh (and stagnant) water and, voilĂ , fewer plethoras of people and pests everywhere. It's a better solution than Dean Swift's, especially for us vegetarians.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
I've read somewhere that it's futile to (*)exterminate(*) rats, because no matter how many you kill unless you kill them all they will quickly breed back up to the limit of their food supply.

* Try to exterminate. "Exterminate" means to kill them all.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Bob Cunningham wrote on 14 Aug 2004:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote on 13 Aug 2004: And that's because ... it comes to multiplying: they don't know when to stop.

I've read somewhere that it's futile to exterminate rats, because no matter how many you kill unless you kill ... there's enough food to feed everyone: for a number of reasons, it's not practicable to get the food to everyone.[/nq]The great irony of the food supply is that people in rich nations throw away more food than people in poor nations could eat. All rich countries could eliminate hunger within their own borders if there were laws (other than the joke of supply and demand) against wasting things that others need. But that would mean that prices would go up, the value of food for survival rather than for eye candy and status would be stamped on the brains of the mass of the population, and those who make money when we waste more food that we actually consume would have to find real work to do, like redistributing the excess food to the hungry.

And farmers who would like to give away the unmarketable portion of their crops, instead of having to plow it under or go to jail, would become the important people they deserve to be, and farming would become a much more rewarding occupation.
That's surely oversimplified as all get-out, but you get the point. Many of the retaurants in Tokyo used to (and maybe still do) feed homeless people with the food they had to through out. First come, first served it was, so the homeless lined up behind certain restaurants at meal times.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
Show more