DM> I'm using Britannica 98, Multimedia CD; it covers neural networks and
 DM> other related material, as well.  However, I've never tended to depend
 DM> on just one single source when I'm looking for something.  Thanks for
 DM> the reference.
 WE> Sounds like a good primer.  Me?  I've got an hundred year old version of
 WE> EB and a 50 year old childhood encyclopedia.  Skip AI, artificial
 WE> intelligence, take a look at virtual life and for a history lesson take
 WE> a peek at automata theory.  I also recommend the fido SCIENCE echo.
   How far an encyclopaedia is out of date depends on the subject matter.  
or
the more conclusive biographical-historical material on a prominent 
ndividual
at least fifty years after her/his/its death would be required for documents
to be released, materials on associates to become available, etc.  In some
matters of the physical sciences the latest journal issued yesterday might
contain important material.  My edition of the EB published in 1948 and
purchased at $5.00 per month by a "starving graduate student" (grin) is still
enough for most subject matter I need to look up.  
   _A Short History of the United States, 1492-1929_ by John Spencer Bassett,
Ph.D, published in 1931 is still a curiosity in that field.  Note the "Short"
in the title!!  It is 976 pages long!  Not many such texts since would list
the entire cabinet for each of the presidents of the United States!  When I
was doing research in the National Archives in a field of Foreign Relations
not much material of any worth was open for public scrutiny beyond about 1929
and as far as I know some material on the subject in the British archives is
still closed even on the 19th century.  
   At the time of the American Revolution a few of the "gentlemen scholars"
like Thomas Jefferson had huge libraries but today even public libraries have
large fairs and sales annually both to raise money and to rid their shelves 
f
worthless, duplicated, worn and out-of-date books (fortunately their value is
often not known).  
   One of the marks of modernity is the separation of the scholar from his
tools.  Most now HAVE to depend on public libraries of one form or another 
nd
increasingly, in all probability, the communicating computer will be the area
for finding "facts" (what is a fact???) and events.  
   One of the discouraging aspects of carrying on a dialogue in the field of
philosophy which is the subject of this echo is the huge disparity in a
common, shared store of information in many instances.  I think there are
those who assume that if one does not quote entire tomes of information in
every post that what is being said carries no weight of valid data.  The
American Civil War issues are still so current for those still not resigned 
o
the conclusion that one could hardly carry on a conversation with respect to
the salient aspects of the life and career of Abraham Lincoln because what 
as
long been accepted in a public view is still unacceptable to the (grin)
unreconstructed rebel.  
   Then, there are the idiots who throw labels around carelessly with not a
shred of understanding as to what they mean because they have a "special"
sound or tone or they evoke certain "feelings."  Communication with such
people is, to put it bluntly, next to impossible.  
   Just some musings.  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------