Improving your word skills.. AND feeding the hungry.. sounds right up our alley..
Offline
A fascinating little site. It's a wordskill quiz. For every correct answer, they donate 10 grains of rice through the United Nations. That doesn't sound like a lot.. but I've been personally able to rack up roughly over 20,000 grains of rice in a day every day for a wek now. All from my computer. I've made it my startpage for my computer so every time I log on, I drop some food around the world.
FreeRice Frequently Asked Questions
Taken from the site
How does playing the vocabulary game at FreeRice help me?
Learning new vocabulary has tremendous benefits. It can help you:
- Formulate your ideas better
- Write better papers, emails and business letters
- Speak more precisely and persuasively
- Comprehend more of what you read
- Read faster because you comprehend better
- Get better grades in high school, college and graduate school
- Score higher on tests like the SAT, GRE, LSAT and GMAT
- Perform better at job interviews and conferences
- Sell yourself, your services, and your products better
- Be more effective and successful at your job
After you have done FreeRice for a couple of days, you may notice an odd phenomenon. Words that you have never consciously used before will begin to pop into your head while you are speaking or writing. You will feel yourself using and knowing more words.
How does the FreeRice vocabulary program work?
FreeRice has a custom database containing thousands of words at varying degrees of difficulty. There are words appropriate for people just learning English and words that will challenge the most scholarly professors. In between are thousands of words for students, business people, homemakers, doctors, truck drivers, retired people… everyone!
FreeRice automatically adjusts to your level of vocabulary. It starts by giving you words at different levels of difficulty and then, based on how you do, assigns you an approximate starting level. You then determine a more exact level for yourself as you play. When you get a word wrong, you go to an easier level. When you get three words in a row right, you go to a harder level. This one-to-three ratio is best for keeping you at the “outer fringe” of your vocabulary, where learning can take place.
There are 50 levels in all, but it is rare for people to get above level 48.
How is the difficulty level for each word determined?
The program keeps track of how many people get each word right or wrong, and then adjusts each word’s difficulty level accordingly. So the words at the easiest levels are the ones that people most often get right. The words at the hardest levels are the ones that people most often get wrong. As more and more people have played the game, these levels have become increasingly more accurate.
What happens if my computer suddenly loses power while I am in the middle of playing? Does my donation still count?
Yes, once your screen says that you have donated a certain amount of rice, that means our server has registered it. For example, suppose your screen says that you have donated 120 grains of rice. If your computer then suddenly loses power, or you close your browser, or you click to go somewhere else, your donation has already been counted.
Who pays for the donated rice?
The rice is paid for by the advertisers whose names you see on the bottom of your vocabulary screen. This is regular advertising for these companies, but it is also something more. Through their advertising at FreeRice, these companies support both learning (free vocabulary for everyone) and reducing hunger (free rice for the hungry). We commend these companies for their participation at FreeRice.
If you have the rice to give, why not give it all away right now?
We are not sitting on a pile of rice―you are earning it 10 grains at a time. Here is how it works. When you play the game, advertisements appear on the bottom of your screen. The money generated by these advertisements is then used to buy the rice. So by playing, you generate the money that pays for the rice donated to hungry people.
Who distributes the donated rice?
The rice is distributed by the United Nations World Food Program (WFP). The World Food Program is the world’s largest food aid agency, working with over 1,000 other organizations in over 75 countries. In addition to providing food, the World Food Program helps hungry people to become self-reliant so that they escape hunger for good. Wherever possible, the World Food Program buys food locally to support local farmers and the local economy. We encourage you to visit the United Nations World Food Program to learn more about their successful approach to ending hunger.
Will the rice I donate make a difference?
The rice you donate makes a huge difference to the person who receives it. To a mother or father watching a loved child die in their arms from hunger, the rice you donate is more precious than anything in the world.
What is being done to end world hunger?
There is great progress being made to end world hunger. Many organizations across the globe are involved in this struggle. Each day, hundreds of thousands of ordinary men and women work for these organizations. Through their efforts, millions of impoverished people are fed, taught skills and given hope for the future.
"Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.
- Login to post comments
Holy shit!
Are you kidding me? This is too good to be true. Jester, if anyone but you had posted it, I'd assume it was a scam.
I dropped 1000 grains in a few minutes. It's my homepage now.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I investigated.. it's probably as 'for profit charity' sponsored by advertisers.. but if it spotlights the food situatioin and gets the food out there.. hey... at least it's not popups.. or my AdBlock works
"Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.
Vocabulary, I like. Feeding the poor, no thanks.
Interesting stance. Why don't you like feeding the poor?
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Interesting site. I tend to bounce between 35 and 39.
One thing though. I've read of a study once that points that humans tend to have 3 different vocabularies they use.
1) Words that you understand when you read or hear them, but you rarely or never use when you write or speak.
2) Words that you speak but you never use when writing.
3) Words that you use when writing but you never say.
So while this site will help your comprehension, you would have to intentionally find times to use them when you are talking or writing. What do you guys think?
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I'm not very happy with the definitions for some of the words. I wish I hadn't gone so quickly through them, or I'd give examples. It's just very silly to suggest that the definition to something is a single word. What they're really after is a synonym, which are bountiful in English. I got a high word score nonetheless. I may have fed some people. Let's hope the rice isn't polished, though, or that if it is it's powdered with vitamins.
I believe you're remembering that more or less correctly, Watcher. I have to double check though. There is definitely a specific way in which we use the words we remember.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
The only information I found that somewhat corroborates you memory, Watcher, is an entry in David Crystal's, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics: Fifth Edition. I had checked The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Langauge, but it was not useful... the binding glue is still somewhat strong after years and I admit I was a little too overwhelmed to keep it open for long. Anyhow, the entry states that, especially in language learning, a distinction is made between a passive and an active vocabulary, or a vocabulary that one understands and does not use and another that corresponds to the lexical items that one does use. I assume the latter refers to vocabulary written as well as spoken. A further breakdown would probably reveal that often when speaking a smaller vocabulary is used and when writing a larger one is used, but that really is dependant on a number of factors like the topic and interlocutors.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Passive and active vocabulary. I find that an extremely more pleasing way to say/think it.
Active and passive...
*rubs hands together* yes....
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Well, I don't like feeding the poor for several reasons. I will attempt to keep this as a matter of facts rather than opinion. An opinion would be something like the poor smell bad and tend to take up valuable sidewalk space in urban areas.
First, the poor are like stray cats. If you feed a stray cat, it will keep coming back for the food and attempt to bond with you as the food provider. I am not really so hot on the idea of the poor coming back into my life once I feel I've gotten them out. Plus, an attempt for the poor to bond with me would involve me talking to them. meh.
Second, providing food to the poor generally provides them with enough energy for them to replicate themselves many times over. The ratio is crazy. If you give three meals to two poor people, more than likely, there will be three to feed in about a year. I figure that if I'm not replicating myself, then the poor have even fewer reasons to replicate themselves.
Third, the poor that I have seen don't really need a sack of Uncle Ben's rice. They seem to find enough calories of their own. As a case of example enumeration, look at the people on daytime talk shows. These people are clearly poor, but they have obviously found their requisite 10,000 calories per day. So, I think that offering them white rice would be insulting to them. Perhaps the site could change the winnings from a grain of rice per correct anwer to a twinkie for every ten correct answers.
Fourth, the poor hate me. I'm always a member of the thesis that those Marxist bastards are trying to develop an antithesis for. They always end up defining me as: pompous, elitist, stingy, hard hearted. So, I would sooner start with that understanding than put in a bunch of time to end up with the same result.
I think that pretty well covers it. A hint of sarcasm and humor should be read into the post. I'm not necessarily calling for harm to be done to the poor. I'm just suggesting the omission of assistance.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Bah.. I can barely get to 20.
I've always had vocabulary problems.
Nero, even read with a generous amount of sarcasm and humour, I'm still peeved by what you've written. I'm sure the 'poor' you'd be feeding here would not be the relatively 'rich' sort that live in America, but rather the choiceless improverished of famine and drought ridden parts of the Earth. Mind these 'poor' do manage to breed as well, but considering the numbers dieing each day I think they're somewhat justified in trying to maintain their population. Besides, isn't the fact that they reproduce so much partly the responsibility of terrible religious institution like the Catholic Church? I don't want to make the leap from food to education, but I think some meaningful correlation could be drawn that would indicate that were they not starving they might have more energy to devote to, well, something other than starving. Are you not humanitarian in the least?
edit: I loathe most charities because they are of the evangelizing religious sort and I almost never donate or spend my time in humanitarian efforts because, while I value human life, I hate religious evangelism. Were I to find a secular charity I would still be very skeptical of donating because money very rarely finds it's way to being spent on the actual people it's intended for and presently I don't have time for charity work. I mean, I don't want to sound like a hypocrite by condesceningly asking Nero if he's not in the least humanitarian when I am not a model myself. I don't not want to help the 'poor', though, while Nero seems set against it and for very bad, even if sarcastic and humourous, reasons. >BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Eat the rich, DEVOUR them .... Revolt ...anarchy
nero for lunch ..... hee hee, with beer .....
Atheism Books.
Very little food from the UN's food program ever goes to the poor starving kids you see on TV. Most of it is taken to feed the militaries either by force or in some cases actually given to them directly by the UN. The UN is extremely corrupt at this moment in time and probably one of the most inefficient charities in the world. Personally, I think we should fix the problem and go colonize, at least in the places where there are valuable resources like gold, diamonds and oil. But that will never happen, so people will continue to starve and kill each other because people have the crazy idea that colonization is a bad thing simply because the British managed to fuck it up so bad with the US.
Well maybe a few kids will get a handful of rice, just enough to make them think they have a chance at living before some gang comes through and kills and rapes them.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Sweet plastic jesus on a stick! This is the best thing since sliced bread!
Well, Thomathy, if my view on American poor "peeves" you, then my view on the poor of the third world will make you shit your pants in anger. I will agree with you that chance has put them in a very bad place; however, I see no need to bother with them unless we plan on using them as physical laborers.
I am an absolute believer in laissez-faire economics. If these folks cannot find a wayof earning their rice, then they will be without. What is worse than one person starving is that person plus three children starving.
I have travelled widely across this planet. I have seen the starving of the Russian Crimea, Huong-Zhou, and New Delhi. I have witnessed slave auctions in bazaars of Mauritania and seen the police shoot street children in Rio. There is far more injustice in the world stemming from the actions of others than my own inaction.
Quite frankly, its little naive to think that anything can be done about the issue. These folks have a long history of starving. Their environment will produce just so much sustenance. If they overpopulated, then they will starve. I will admit that a photo of a walking skeleton does not effect my decision making.
By the bye, this should be read as having no humor or sarcasm in it. I am dumping pure reality into this thread.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
You are right. I would be goddamned delicious. I'm slightly overweight; so, if you roasted me, I would be tender. Also, the drippings would make a delicious stock or gravy.
I do take umbrage with the idea of being consumed along with beer. Keep your coarse beverages to yourself. I am easily worth of a Chateau Lascomes '83. In particular, my sweet breads would require a 'leggy' red.
PS. Avoid the liver. It has had cancer. I'm alright with the cannibalism, but don't eat diseased organs.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Hell, we are worse than cannibals, we killem and don't even eatem ... the human race is nuts as you obviously agree.
and hey bro, be extra nice to yourself, would'nt want to loose ya .....
Anyhow, back to the OP post, feeding the poor will increase brain activity, I'm all for it ......
Atheism Books.
I didn't notice a distinction between your humor and actual views.
Nero. This is an interesting argument. Thanks for posting it despite how much it might make people hate you - it's making me think. I had formerly been against feeding the poor unless they were children but you present an argument worth thinking about.
I've been keeping my nose out of this argument for various reasons, but I would like to interject what I feel to be a really important point. Whenever we discuss morals as atheists, we have to realize that we are in danger of falling into the theist trap unless we define specifically what our goal is.
Morality isn't absolute, and we can justify different moral approaches using different criteria. I'll give you a quick example (not my actual opinion, but legitimate, nonetheless).
Premise: Humans are inherently equal to all other animals on the planet in terms of a "right to survival." In other words, those who do survive are the ones who deserved to.
Premise: Human overpopulation threatens to destroy vast swaths of flora and drive many food species to extinction.
Premise: Overpopulation in a closed system often leads to starvation and possible extinction should the food source be wiped out.
Therefore: It is morally good, with regard to human survival, that we NOT overpopulate the planet.
Therefore: Feeding the poor is a bad idea because they reproduce if they live to sexual maturity, and population reduction is necessary to resolve the problem of overpopulation.
******
Don't bother knocking that theory around. I'm not going to defend it. Just be aware that if you object to Nero's particular view of morality, you don't get the option of saying, "It's just wrong." That would put you into the same camp as theists. If you want to say it's wrong, you need to explain what the goal of your moral system is, and possibly justify why that goal is equal or superior to someone else's.
That's all I wanted to say. From an objective perspective (I think I'm objective primarily because I disagree slightly with everybody so far) I can say that everyone is in danger of being called out for not defining good and bad sufficiently, and for failing to explain what the goal of feeding the poor actually is, and lastly, why it's a good goal!
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Well, since it seems to be such an ethical delima to use this site, can someone recomend another site for vocabulary/literary skills?
Alright, I wasn't even remotely clear as to why I disagree with Nero, and it definitely isn't acceptable to only call his opinion of 'poor' bad.
I didn't comment on American poor, except to say that it seemed the poor you were talking about were not of the 'third world' but rather of America. I also find no difference between your humour and this. Social welfare happens to be an effective tool that relieves and prevents poverty in 'first world' nations. Your experiences in 'third world' nations are incidental and I'm aware of the UN's particular flaws and the fact that international charities, and even national governments, rarely actually supply support to the impoverished. I understand your belief in as-practised economics, however, I am fundamentally opposed to the established system. That does not change the fact of the system and I necessarily work within the reality. You must know that the established economic system actually diminishes the possibility of the 'third world' impoverished from actually participating in the system though... significantly.
That aside, I never questioned your inaction. I admitted that I am inactive as far as being charitable goes, expect that I pay significant taxes in my country toward social programmes; something I don't wish to avoid. What I did question was whether you were not at all humanitarian. While you've not answered directly, I can surmise that you are not. You don't see a need to bother with the impoverished unless you get a use out of them, specifically as labour. In my world view, people are not required to have a purpose in order to afford the quality of life that I have. In fact, I don't have to afford the quality of life I have directly. The nation I live in guarantees that quality of life. To an extent, so does the United States. Incidentally (or perhaps not), it typically scores lower than Canada in numerous standard of living and quality of life indexes. The same cannot be said to be true of people in the 'third world'. These people are not guaranteed certain things by their governments so that they can afford the quality of life that you and I do. Some of these governments actually make it quite impossible for these people to actually participate in money earning.
I don't support your position, Nero, and I find it reprehensible, but if you continue to hold it regardless of certain other realities, that is, of course, your choice. These people may not suffer from your inaction, or mine, but neither do they benefit from it. They may not even be helped by action, and as you point out, it often is futile and help is usually diverted from those most in need. It does not follow, however, that because of the particular realities you point out in support of your view that these people should not have food only because they cannot earn it and because people, largely, seem unable to provide it.
The world is indeed filled with horrors.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
That is funny!
I was thinking about this a lot last night. I still feel like we should feed homeless children. In America, as someone else mentioned there are certain things the government provides that assist our quality of life. How do we know a child with access to food and education would not become a self-supporting society contributing adult? We can't just write everyone off because some people have still continued to hold their hands out into adulthood as that is just an argument for a flawed assistance system.
I'm still thinking about third world hunger situations. I don't think I know enough about the these countries however on the face it seems overly cruel to never really give someone a chance from birth. How do we know these impoverished communities wouldn't think of something creative and sustaining they could do if they weren't so busy worring about where their next meal is coming from?
On this topic I am completely out of the argument. I agree with a lot of points on both sides of the debate. So I will just internalize and think about the different views.
Crap, I honestly don't really know if feeding the poor is good or bad. Really. I've wondered this for years though. Great to hear other views on it.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
geezz, feed the living AND educate, stop unnecessry suffering ... It's embarrassing ....
Who ever coined the saying "eat the rich" was a reflective being. The "system" is flawed and needs drastic improvement.
Concentration of wealth supported by gov. military is evil, it's imperialism, and hurts us all.
The problem is huge. How can anyone be proud?
Some say the new golden age is coming ?.....
No wonder I drink, the world makes me want to escape from the maddness .... wish I could fix it ....
Give me the TV and I will .... make me king, fun for all will be our only agenda .......
Atheism Books.