Slashdot Mirror

Some computer generated maps...
http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html
http://www.maproomblog.com/2006/11/computer-generated_electoral_districts.php
http://igpa.uillinois.edu/content/igpa-releases-computer-generated-legislative-district-map

Not computer generated, but lots of options:
http://web.law.columbia.edu/redistricting

For what it's worth, I'm neither a Democrat or Republican - I have no dog in that fight. In my view, the correct way to handle redistricting is something along the lines of shortest-splitline or University of Illinois' mathematical districts.

• -- Online classes are harder than in-person classes. "But you said it's the same class that other students are taking in person!" Yup, it is. But those students have the ability to ask a question in lecture. They get to be in the room as it's happening and can look at all the boards the prof is using. When you watch it online, you watch what the video-taper thought was most important. I can't tell you the number of times I've been staring at a slide when the prof says something like "I'm pointing at the most important aspect of this class. If you don't understand this, you won't do well. Now this other thing, don't worry about that." "Wait!" I scream at my monitor. "What are you pointing at!"
• -- You get less attention than on-campus students. In the nine classes I've taken, I've had maybe 6 homeworks/exams returned to me. Most of those were from the same class. A guy I worked with got his MSEE from a California state school taking all courses online, and he always got his exams back, so it probably just depends on the university you attend.
• -- Some classes will still insist on group projects. Yup, group projects suck, but they suck even more when you have no way of meeting the other students in your class. Online students are also typically students that have other lives, which is why they are taking classes online! Coordinating your schedule with theirs is challenging, as is the process of vetting a good project partner.
• -- You may be required to physically show up to present a project. When I first started I had to take a prerequisite class that had a lab; a lab I had to drive 1 1/2 hours to attend in person, which wasn't so bad, but it would be three hours from where I live now. Take prerequisites from somewhere else if this isn't an option. My co-worker had to fly to California to take an exam. Both of these are the exception, not the rule, but be prepared for that possibility

Now going online also puts you in the driver's seat when it comes to choosing your institution. You get to pick from many more universities than are likely to be proximate to where you live. You can watch lectures multiple times, rewind to the part where the prof started speaking gibberish and watch it until you understand what the heck he's talking about. You can also choose a university where the courses are taught by professors and not TAs. I've had all of my classes taught by the professor. If you choose to pursue a degree either in person or online, good luck!

Federal legislation related to the American Opportunity Tax Credit requires that all postsecondary institutions report student SSNs to the Internal Revenue Service. This IRS requirement makes it necessary for colleges to collect the social security number of every student. A student may refuse to disclose his or her SSN to the College, but the IRS is then authorized to fine the student in the amount of $50.

Found here or here or here.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/workplace/employmentlaw/2002-12-18-criminal-record_x.htm
http://www.legal.uillinois.edu/faq/supervisor.html
http://www.poeknows.com/faq.html

You will need to provide more than a mere assertion for me to believe you.

Actually, most of the time it is just compressed air: ~78% Nitrogen and ~21% Oxygen. Special mixtures such as Nitrox, Heliox and Trimix are used for deep dives, or to extend the time you stay down, but are not recquired for shallow, recreational dives, which is what most people do. Use of special mixtures requires extra training and involves a lot more double-checking and more risks and is not for the casual, "I went to Cancun once!", divers.

The big danger with getting tanks filled is if the shop doesn't properly manage their compressor exhaust. Since they pull in regular air, if the intake is too close to the exhaust you can get a tank with some Carbon Monoxide in it, which is a bad thing. Blacking out on land means you can still breath, even if it is tainted. Do it 50 feet down and you have to hope someone realizes something is wrong before your regulator comes out and you try to breath water.

Diving reference.

After the war, while helping the US Army launch liberated V2s in New Mexico, Wernher continued to screw off, and eventually scribbled enough material for a small book, Das Marsprojekt. It was quickly offered in English translation as The Mars Project, and is still available in paperback. It's only 90 pages cover to cover, and covers all of the basic math, engineering concepts, and logistics of loading up the wagon for a trip.

In particular, the orbital calculations are laid out and illustrated in such a way that anyone with any faculty in math can come to grips with it. THEN, you can go apeshit with tomes such as Introduction To Space Dynamics.

What she really means is that she'd rather get the attention she seeks, than be ignored for being staid & boring like plain old PBS.

Tom Stoppard said it best - most conflicts are NOT about rights vs wrongs....most conflicts are about rights vs rights.

There are different truths. Its "truthful" to say that messing with stem cells amounts to playing God. Its also "truthful" to assert that stem cells may hold the promise to cure for diseases that don't have any right now.

Its "truthful" to say abortion kills. Its also "truthful" to assert a mother's rights over her foetus.

Nietzche asserted that perspectivism was more dear to him than absolutism ( the notion that there are certain absolute truths). Perspectivism asks of the philosopher to adopt "changing truths" as a manifesto, rather than search for "the truth", since there isn't really any such objective truth - it depends on the observer, his circumstances, his senses & powers of observation ( just as an ant or a bee with widely differing sense of sight & smell would see the world very differently than a human, similarly a black man would see certain truths differently than a white man, certain notions are truthful to catholics but not muslims, & so on... )

Those who argue for "objective truth & accuracy" bestow much more power to man than he really has. Most events are a result of chance, synchronicity , chaos and non-determinism...to look for truth in them is simply futile.

Ofcourse an attempt at truth is better than reporting plain falsehoods, but that doesn't mean such an attempt is the real truth, because there is no real truth, only perspectives.

I'm a student at UIUC so when I read your post, it worried me, especially as I also disagree with copyright assignments away from the student and don't remember signing any such document.

Fortunately the UIUC policy listed on their website agrees. Students do not assign copyright to the university for any works. They are merely required to allow certain graduate level works to be published royalty free by the university. Read more under section C

Fermi Lab. Ok, so it's Batavia, Il, but close enough. And how about Argonne ?(the lab, not the guy from LOTR) Not to mention UofI, birthplace of Mosiac. And the ultimate geek stop The Mystery Spot! Or this one. Isn't there one of these in just about every state in the Union?

You are right to clarify my assertions on what Nietzche did himself directly aver, as he did not (as far as I know) explicitly state the Mind as deterministic. I, as everyone, should be carefull to make broad sweeping statements in the space of a few sentances. This response may not be much better, as I do not have the time required to explore this subject with the appropriate depth.

Be that as it may, here is a brief attempt at reconcilliation.

First, We are in agreement that Nietzche believed that the universe was deterministic, and therefore he allowed for no free-will.

I disagree however, that this was merely an expression of "amor fati". Certainly, "amor fati" is involved in his assertion of a Deterministic Universe. However, "amor fati" is a reconcilliation with his Darwinian Wordview that is determinism. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_scho.htm l).

I am inclined to believe that the Amor Fati, stems partly from Neitsche's loathing of Kantian morality which can be seen in Neitzsche's note to "Free Spirits" as a preface to _Human, All too Human_ (I forget the actual section name). I will also breifly explain (later) how this "amor fati" is an attempt at establishing consistancy within his doctrine.

Neitsche's belief in Determinism is very much a scientific assertion. It is not a scientific assertion in that he arrives at the conclusion in a scientific manner (it is, after all, untestable). However, it is an assertion made in the spirit of Scientific Reasoning. It is the very culmination of a scientific world-view.

This brings me to another point, which is somewhat contrary to your statement: He would be more accuratly characterized as a Fatalist. Perhaps, but at heart he is a Naturalist ( http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/green/in tro.html). Naturalism leads one naturally (pun intended) to Fatalism due to the nature of science itself, but Neitzsche was also a humanist. This Fatalist/Humanist duality is typically seen as an inconsistancy of Nietzsche's philosophy, but the "amor fati" which you are so ready to bring up is, in fact, an attempt to reconcile this inconsistancy. However, Nietzsche also embraced such contradictions as "the very enterprise of philosophy" (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/green/i ntro.html).

Now, by not allowing for free-will he, in essence, called the mind deterministic. What else does it mean not to possess will, but to be determined by one's stimuli? Furthermore, by machine I meant simply something that is deterministic. I beileve that when one speaks abstractly, this is the sense typically meant. In this manner, anything which is deterministic is a machine. Therefore, a deterministic mind *is* a machine.

That said, I would like to end by saying that I do not know Neitzsche quite as well as I would like. However, I cannot reconcile what you have said with what little I do know about the man.

You are right to clarify my assertions on what Nietzche did himself directly aver, as he did not (as far as I know) explicitly state the Mind as deterministic. I, as everyone, should be carefull to make broad sweeping statements in the space of a few sentances. This response may not be much better, as I do not have the time required to explore this subject with the appropriate depth.

Be that as it may, here is a brief attempt at reconcilliation.

First, We are in agreement that Nietzche believed that the universe was deterministic, and therefore he allowed for no free-will.

I disagree however, that this was merely an expression of "amor fati". Certainly, "amor fati" is involved in his assertion of a Deterministic Universe. However, "amor fati" is a reconcilliation with his Darwinian Wordview that is determinism. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_scho.htm l).

I am inclined to believe that the Amor Fati, stems partly from Neitsche's loathing of Kantian morality which can be seen in Neitzsche's note to "Free Spirits" as a preface to _Human, All too Human_ (I forget the actual section name). I will also breifly explain (later) how this "amor fati" is an attempt at establishing consistancy within his doctrine.

Neitsche's belief in Determinism is very much a scientific assertion. It is not a scientific assertion in that he arrives at the conclusion in a scientific manner (it is, after all, untestable). However, it is an assertion made in the spirit of Scientific Reasoning. It is the very culmination of a scientific world-view.

This brings me to another point, which is somewhat contrary to your statement: He would be more accuratly characterized as a Fatalist. Perhaps, but at heart he is a Naturalist ( http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/green/in tro.html). Naturalism leads one naturally (pun intended) to Fatalism due to the nature of science itself, but Neitzsche was also a humanist. This Fatalist/Humanist duality is typically seen as an inconsistancy of Nietzsche's philosophy, but the "amor fati" which you are so ready to bring up is, in fact, an attempt to reconcile this inconsistancy. However, Nietzsche also embraced such contradictions as "the very enterprise of philosophy" (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/green/i ntro.html).

Now, by not allowing for free-will he, in essence, called the mind deterministic. What else does it mean not to possess will, but to be determined by one's stimuli? Furthermore, by machine I meant simply something that is deterministic. I beileve that when one speaks abstractly, this is the sense typically meant. In this manner, anything which is deterministic is a machine. Therefore, a deterministic mind *is* a machine.

That said, I would like to end by saying that I do not know Neitzsche quite as well as I would like. However, I cannot reconcile what you have said with what little I do know about the man.

Persons using "University Resources Usually and Customarily Provided" which includes "ordinary access to computers and networks" retain copyright in their works.

The university only asserts an interest in these cases when the creation involves "substantial use of specialized or unique facilities and equipment".

There's actually an excellent book on this topic by Rob McChesney, former NPR reporter and currently a Professor at the Universiy of Illinois called Rich Media, Poor Democracy . I read it for a class here at RPI, and part of what it detailed was the evolution of radio (which lead directly to television) and the big battle over educational value of the medium. Basically, teachers wanted to use it for education, while various companies, such as RCA, didn't. Basically, all the PBS stuff is just an extension of this same fight. Interesting how history repeats itself.
---------

Really? Do you fail to note the incredible 90+% of media is controlled by 6 companies in the US? The news outlets that are being bought by the likes of Disney and GE? That the editor of the LA Times talks about taking a bazooka to the wall between marketing and editorial? Advertisers making demands to content providers?

Documenting the corporitization of the media and the risks to society that entails is beyond the scope of this comment :) However, that Mr. Shirky can so easily dismis these concerns without even acknowledging these issues gives me pause. If you'd like to learn about the corporitization of the media I suggest you check out Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Manufacturing Consent (documentary) by Noam Chomsky, and Rich Media, Poor Democracy by Robert McChesney.

On the topic of the media and Seattle protests, the mainstream media did not cover globalization issues at all prior to the protests. Virtually, all coverage of globalization was confined to the business pages for whom the terms of globalization were already written. There were no discussions of human rights and labor issues of globalization. Activists organizing for Seattle recognized this and saw the need to create their own media. Hence, Indymedia was born and now there are 40 spread throughout the world.

Indymedia - become the media

First I'll mention that over 100 comments have been posted so far and not one of them mentions the phrase "open access", nor the Consumers Union press release on the decision.

In its decision the court in part agrees with Time Warner's contention that the rules violate its First Amendment rights. I just finished reading the excellent Rich Media, Poor Democracy by Robert McChesney, which contains a chapter entitled "The New Theology of the First Amendment: Class Privilege over Democracy" devoted to this subject. McChesney criticizes the invokation of First Amendment rights to protect anti-democratic control of the media. He notes that if the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect citizens from the government's control of speech, it is unfortunate that it is being used as a weapon by corporations to do just that.