Pangloss

I didn't realize that some states were allowed to have their own play currency. Aww, that's so cute!

I've been thinking about the comment made earlier that the teacher was valid in bringing up the subject in the classroom, given this course summary: That's right, religion does have to come up, but the subject would be the impact of that religion, not whether any religious documentation should be taken literally. What relevence does that have in this context? Why would the teacher's opinion on the accuracy of, say, Buddhist beliefs have any impact on the subject of whether those beleifs have had any impact on the history of Western Civilization? Is the teacher trying to say that Western Civilization is a comedy of misguided errors? I don't even see how THAT would be relevent -- what difference does his opinion on that subject make? I'm not saying teachers shouldn't have opinions, or even let them influence their efforts in the classroom. I'm saying it's daft to let your ideology fundamentally skew the significance and relevence of the material you're trying to teach. To put it simply, I'm really very sorry that this guy doesn't LIKE the fact that religion has had a major influence on western history, but that opinion doesn't change the fact that it happened, it's relevent, and students need to know about it.

Yes it is.

Riiiight. And liberalism means sticking with the politically correct, doing whatever they tell you, and so it doesn't require any thinking. You simply do what you're told. What clothes do I wear? Just wear what they tell me to wear. Don't bother with evolution or science, just ask Oprah. We have to move past that sort of ideological stereotyping, in my opinion. Being conservative doesn't make you stupid. A conservative has to react to a new situation just as a liberal does, and BOTH have the difficult task of challenging their ideologies to make sure they don't filter out viable options in the face of that challenge.

That sounds like an interesting machine. Any idea how it did its thing?

My company (a large education corporation) decided today that it will no longer allow web-based email or instant messaging access from any of its networks. That means blocking everything from GMail and Hotmail to AOL Instant Messenger and Windows Messenger. The decision came from the corporation legal team, amidst growing concerns over outside attacks and malware. I was surprised to learn that this is a growing concern for companies. I had been under the impression that malware was on the decline. Between anti-virus programs, pop-up blockers and anti-spyware products, I can't remember the last time I had malicious code on any of my half-dozen computers. I have seen malware running on some of my students computers, but I usually dismiss that as being due to a lack of basic vigilence on the part of the user. But this issue actually extends past the simple malware concern. One of the reasons stated for the move was the ability by corporate employees to easily release company secrets via these methods. I can see their point -- it's pretty darn easy to open a browser window and paste text into a Hotmail. But is cutting off Hotmail actually going to stop that? Can't they just paste it into a text file and stick it on a thumb drive? This also strikes me as a very retro move, like something out of the late 1990s. Didn't we stop doing this sort of thing because of the inconvenience it was causing users? What do you all think? How are your companies and campuses doing? Are they increasing or decreasing these kinds of controls? And what impact is that having on users?

You think it takes that much logic to contruct grounds for a hate crime, ParanoiA? Seriously? That's entirely my point -- hate crimes legislation defies common sense. This situation is teaching us how stupid those laws are, and we're not showing any sign at the moment that we're going to learn the lesson this time around either.

<wave wave> I'll bite. Why not treat everything (in the airport) as if it were a bomb? Isn't that more or less what we're doing in airports these days? Has your luggage been out of your view at any time during your visit to our facilities, sir? What exactly about this is so hard for people to understand? To me that just screams "find another way to get there", especially when combined with the ridiculous air traffic situation. But when you're talking about millions of pounds of combustibles and human lives separated from total disaster by a piece of drywall and a simple lock, I think it's understandable. Which makes this stupid flower child's protest a ridiculous action and her treatment both logical and understandable.

Does it? I don't know that to be the case, and I'm not convinced they didn't commit a regular crime, either. How about littering? I ask again: Why isn't hanging a noose from a tree a hate crime?

Why isn't hanging a noose from a tree a hate crime?

There's nothing new about this sort of stupidity. Just ask Steve Jackson. That was 1993. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games%2C_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service My desk got searched by the Secret Service in 1994 and I've always wondered if it had something to do with the fact that I had a copy of GURPS Cyberpunk sitting on it. (President Clinton was visiting the building at the time.) Still get a chuckle every time I think of it. Not so much fun for guys like Kurtz and Jackson, though, I'm sure.

Good points, IMO. I'm still not convinced on the hate crimes for speech point that you raised, but I thought it was interesting and I see your point.

Posts related to religious discussion have been removed from this thread.

Yeah they changed their minds pretty quick. Lots of attention will do that sometimes. Some of you guys didn't read the OP/article carefully enough. There's no spam involved in this case.

That's a great story, thanks for sharing it. It reminded me a lot of how much I hated some of the teachers I had (and hated) when I was growing up, and what a positive impact they had on me. It's a shame we've drummed that sort of thing out of the system. We probably knocked out a lot of bad stuff along with it, but it seems to me we might've lost something important as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?em&ex=1191038400&en=31869ac289f98a57&ei=5087 In a nutshell, Verizon rejected a request by Naral Pro-Choice America to implement an opt-in messaging system whereby users send an instant message to a five-digit code and Naral then updates them with periodic news, information, etc. The system has been implemented by other cellphone carriers. Note that the system does not involve advertising to non-participants. It's purely an opt-in system. But Verizon rejected it anyway, on the following grounds: I think this is a mistake. Why would it be unsavory to users who asked to hear the information? This seems to get back to the ongoing "net neutrality" debate. Carriers are forbidden by law to interfere with the content of voice calls, but when it comes to text messaging not only are they not forbidden, but some analysts feel they're actually responsible for that content (such as when it's used to break the law, ala terrorism). What do you all think?

I don't usually post these scam warnings, but it's always better to err on the side of caution! Watch out, guys.... A "heads up" for those of you who may be regular Home Depot customers. Over the last month I became a victim of a clever scam while shopping. Simply going out to get supplies has turned out to be quite traumatic. Don't be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you or your friends. Here's how the scam works: Two seriously good-looking 20-21 year-old girls come over to your car as you are packing your shopping items into the trunk. They both start wiping your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their chest almost falling out of their skimpy T-shirts. It is impossible not to look. When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say "No" and instead ask you for a ride to another Home Depot or Lowe's. You agree and they get in the back seat. On the way, they start undressing. Then one of them climbs over into the front seat and starts crawling all over you, while the other one steals your wallet. I had my wallet stolen July 4th, 9th, 10th, twice on the 15th, 17th, 20th, & 24th. Also August 1st, 3rd, twice on the 7th, three times just yesterday and very likely again this upcoming weekend. So tell your friends to be careful.

Thanks for the tips. The IronX projects look interesting and very productive, but I really want to get the students out of the familiar Visual Studio setting and show them something environmentally different, if I can squeeze it into the tight classroom schedule somehow. What I'll have to come up with is a lecture and lab that put together a simple, data-driven web site in a very short amount of time. Do you have any experience with InstantRails? http://instantrails.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl

But they were just acting out on the racial memory of centuries of slavery, ParanoiA, so it's okay. Two wrongs make a right, don't you know. That's what we call "fairness" in the 21st century. I still think the main hypocrisy here is the way the educated leadership is going on talk shows explaining that nobody is saying they shouldn't have to pay for their crimes at the same time that the work-a-day crowd is screaming "FREE THE JENA 6" at the top of their lungs. It's one of the stupidest and most obvious hypocrisies I've seen out of that outfit since the OJ verdict.

The prosecutor for LaSalle Parish, where Jena resides, wrote an op-ed piece in today's New York Times. But he doesn't answer my question. Interestingly, he talks about his lengthy, detailed search of Louisiana law (and his federal colleague's similar search) for a way to charge the WHITE boys with a hate crime for hanging the noose. But he never once mentions hate crime in connection with the black boys who physically attacked the white boy who had nothing to do with the noose incident. He even has the gall to say this: And then TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER says this: Personally I'm opposed to hate crimes legislation. But this just smacks of the ugliest kind of hypocrisy. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/opinion/26walters.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Why haven't they been charged with Federal hate crimes?

Bascule, do you know any good tutorials/sites for people who want to learn Ruby who are coming specifically from an ASP.NET background? I teach such a course and I'd like to provide more information for the students to widen their horizons a bit. I focus on core concepts so they don't get TOO rooted in the Microsoft stuff, but I'd like to add more, maybe even throw a couple of Ruby or Perl/Python programs together towards the end of the course when time permits. (But especially Ruby, because of the straightforwardness of it.) (I'm specifically focused on web apps that do simple, data-driven web pages for this course, e.g. running reports on an employee database, for example. I want to keep the focus on that kind of app, but broaden to just show how it's done in another language.)

I think political discussions need to range a bit more than scientific discussions. If they didn't, people would be unable to respond when a thread focuses on a very narrow subject in order to make a subtle ideological point without allowing a larger context to be raised. I don't want people to feel overly restricted in their replies. I do think it's only fair to allow the original poster mental bandwidth (for lack of a better term) to develop an environment of pertinent and substantive dialog, and I think all regular members should do our best to foster and support that environment. I think we all do a pretty good job of that, too -- most of the time, anyway. Anyway, mods and admins do listen to all input and weigh it accordingly. The best place for such comments are either privately to one of the mods or admins, or in the Suggestions, Comments and Support discussion area.

It was in the article linked by john5746 in post #14, a kind of follow-up story from the Des Moines Register. Here's another link to save people from having to drop back a page. http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070925/NEWS02/709250379/1001/SPORTS13

Swansont, you have a point, and as I said before I wouldn't have fired him. But I don't agree that he did the right thing. Telling a student to "pop a Prozac" is ridiculous. Sure he might have done that in response to a student upset with him, but he shouldn't have let the situation get to that point in the first place. She was obviously screeching at him because he took a hard line on a matter of faith, which is not his job to do. He needs to focus on control of the classroom environment and presenting material and not worry about whether he has a perfect record converting Christians into scientists.