Something

The recent focus on blended learning has led so many educationalists in corporate training and academia to believe that a new educational phenomenon has been discovered. In reality, the blending of face-to-face instruction with various types of non-classroom technology mediated delivery has been practiced within the academic and non academic environments for more than four decades. Who does really want to know the real story of blended learning? Blended learning sounds like a nice idea-mixing a traditional classroom environment with online components – but is it actually effective? However, with the explosion of blended course delivery in recent years-despite the lack of research in this area-educational institution and corporate training take this position for granted. This study explores capabilities of blended learning and its impact on the future of learning environments. Particular focus in this article is given to the role of affective domain in face to face learning, and how to design a blend.

Everything-something-nothing-is propositions, ESNIPs, are propositions expressed using the four indicated words: three quantifiers and one copula. This elementary expository lecture introduces a neglected topic: the history and philosophy of ESNIPs.
  The true proposition “everything is something but nothing is everything” does not imply the contradiction “nothing is something”. In contrast, “Ed is Sam and Nat is Ed” implies “Nat is Sam”. Likewise, the truth “everything is something” does not imply the falsehood “something is everything”.  In contrast, “Ed is Sam” implies “Sam is Ed”. Also, “everything is everything” is not tautological; it is not even true. In contrast, “Ed is Ed” is tautological—being an instance of the law of identity “everything is itself”.
  As should be well known, ESNIPs are expressible by sentences of standard, one-sorted, first-order logics with identity “=”, as found, e.g., in Goldfarb [3].
  This paper surveys treatment, mistreatment, and non-treatment of ESNIPs in well-known logic texts  from Aristotle [2] to Goldfarb [3, pp. 233ff] with special attention to logicians such as Boole [1, pp. 47, 166] who regarded ‘everything’, ‘something’, and ‘nothing’ as proper names of classes or other higher-level entities.
  [1] GEORGE BOOLE, Laws of Thought, Introduction by J. Corcoran, Prometheus, 1854/2003. 
  [2] JOHN CORCORAN, Aristotle's Prior Analytics and Boole's Laws of Thought, History and Philosophy of Logic, vol.  24 (2003), pp. 261–288.
  [3] WARREN GOLDFARB, Deductive logic, Hackett, 2003.

LIBERTAD E IGUALDAD SON CONCEPTOS QUE  DIFIEREN
Porque cuando se habla de libertad se asume conceptos.
Porque si somos iguales no podemos ser libres, ya que libertad aplica al concepto de que los humanos son diferentes  y existen diferentes niveles de valoración y también un  nivel de valorización dominante.
El problema de la igualdad y la libertad desde un punto de vista económico el cual permite ver que existe una gran diferencia entre ellas por causas no solo de la naturaleza del hombre, sin embargo una de ellas es la  envidia, que puede servir  como promotor de  eficiencia así como material de corrosión de ideas.