Ya i'm going to ride my segway to the health club where i will ride on a stationary bike.
Overall, I prefer a good ride outdoors, even during winter. (I think exercising in the gym -- other than doing weights -- is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.)
I wouldn't knock stationary bikes. There are many reasons to use them (and other indoor fitness machines) instead of outdoor or other exercise. If a person is on a stationary, it's easier to monitor them for things like heart rate or to chart improvement. They're also very useful when it's too cold or hot outside for people who are not in the best of shape (or elderly, or pregnant, etc.). And they're also a BIG help for people who are just starting or getting back to working out.
I know this will be modded to troll immediately, since I'm questioning something everyone considers wonderful. That said:
1) I can see this device being a real help to the elderly or people with various handicaps, but:
2) I notice the submitter pointed out he jogs every day, but I hear more and more reports about how over 50% of the population is overweight. I can only wonder how this will effect that particular issue. I would guess that it won't be long before they have to make sure the HT is even sturdier because so many people using them are over 250 lbs (or over 325 w/ cargo).
3) I can't help but to remember what Ray Bradbury discussed in Fahreinheit 451. The fire chief is explaining how books became eliminated and people stopped thinking (or was it Faber talking about how people stopped thinking). He pointed out buttons were replaced with a zipper, and that was just that many fewer minutes to think in the morning when getting dressed.
I've spent the last 2 years chained to a computer. (I'm not complaining, my salary is going up and up and I'll never have to worry about my retirement or having a job for the rest of my life.) Now I'm back to exercising every day at the gym. I've got over 50 lbs to lose.
It's great that we can do more faster than ever before. But if we don't balance all the new toys and gadgets we have to make life so easy, we will lose a significant part of the quality of our lives. For example, computers were supposed to save time (and paper, too), but now we get more done and we're asked to do more. Sure, they save time, but then the company wants even more from us (and numbers show computers have driven paper use up -- due to number of drafts printed out and number of extra documents printed -- and docs printed in multiple copies).
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I am saying it seems we should seriously question how it is used in life. We can make the choice of a life crammed full of too much to do, or one where we can take the time to enjoy life. I've noticed that the people that take time to enjoy life (like many friends I know through Quaker Meeting) live life such that they don't need to save the extra half hour here or rush to another appointment at some other time.
Saving time, or making it easier is not the answer. Segway, for most of us, is not the answer. Finding a way to reduce the clutter and meaningless activites in our lives would help save much more time than a Segway HT.
Just my 2 cents worth. Go on and mark me as flamebait.
A motto in my company is QTS (we use this so often it's abbreviated -- Question The Source). (This has really helped us several times -- we provide data for lawyers as one of our services.)
Yes, I know M$ has claimed ownership. I'm still not sure I entirely believe the first one is valid, much less the "legit" ones to follow.
To be honest, I do not know much about ESR (sorry for goof on initials in the original post), but in the few years I've been exploring the Linux/GNU/OSS world, I've found that many (or most) of the people in this community that have made a name for themselves have quite -- shall we say, colorful -- personalities. If the source were RMS, I would DEFINATELY question the accuracy. Not that I would say RMS is a fraud or liar -- but that people tend not to be overly critical of data that supports their views.
As for the PDQ Bach ref, my point is that, at least in my opinion, there is about as much evidence to prove the Halloween memos as genuine as there is to prove PDQ Bach lived. In both cases the bulk of the evidence comes from one source. I know PDQ Bach never existed and Shickele made him up.
I am still not convinced that the Halloween Memos are not genuine and that one or more people are not using ESR to spread FUD.
Like I said to someone above, thanks for the insight. I hear about these things and I've had 2 PHBs (pointy haired bosses), but in both cases they were the company owner and there were never more than 2 fulltime employees in the company (other than the PHB/owner).
While I've heard jokes and stories, I guess I always thought they were just too stupid to be true. I'm beginning to change my mind.
He presents it as if he has researched the life of this one son of J.S. Bach. The entire thing is satirical. You can tell by looking at the years given for his lifespan -- his date of death is always listed before his birth date.
My point was that Peter Shickele keeps "uncovering" new works by PDQ Bach and performs them, yet there is no proof PDQ Bach ever existed.
No -- I haven't worked at enterprise level. I used to be a teacher and now I'm happily running my own small business (and bound and determined that no matter how well it does, that the number of employees always stays small enough that I know them all).
I should have referred to that. It just seems odd to me that these memos keep leaking out and M$ seems to have no problem acknowledging them (I'm not talking about the satire/commentary ones).
Let's face it, M$ doesn't acknowledge ANYTHING that could make them look less than fantastic. So why would they acknowledge these unless it's an attempt at FUD?
I'm not attacking. But I think these are important questions I have yet to see answered. (Yes, I know it's been addressed, but I don't think it's been fully addressed and explored.)
I'm not fond of 10,000 pound gorillas either, but RMS makes a good point with the quote from Ghandi. When M$ was ignoring Linux, it wasn't a threat. Now they're fighting. They're trying everything they can to take out Linux.
But look at what's happening. They've tried outright FUD. They've tried new licensing (which was stupid and backfired). And now they're trying FUD again.
It really is like the Borg. M$ has been used to just assimilating (buying out) or destroying any competition (either by pricing their products lower until the competition is bankrupt, by leveraging their monopoly to force people to use M$ standards, or by twisting arms in backroom deals). Now they don't know what to do -- instead of facing a big threat with one name, where a well aimed shot, or a massive attack could destroy any threat, they're fighting something all pervasive, like a virus.
And the funny thing is they don't know what to od! It's got them so scared they're beginning to do stupid things and having knee-jerk reactions.
I don't think Windows will end up burried forever, but I think if Linux distros unified and started pushing easy to use desktop systems with OpenOffice.org on them, I think we'd soon find that most companies are not focusing on JUST Word compatability anymore, but on Word and OOo.
Linux is in a good position, and it gets better and better. M$ is fighting Linux -- but that's because it's a real threat and could even (conceivably, but unlikely) bankrupt the company. That's good, because M$ has no idea how to fight a movement. They just don't understand the structure -- by their very nature of being a cold-hearted predatory company, there is no way they ever can understand OSS.
Is Microsoft actually dumb enough to write memo after memo about something they now have admitted is their biggest threat and allow all of these memos to leak so the opposition can read them?
I was never sure about the first Halloween memo. The more that are "discovered" the more I wonder if these are truly from M$ (they must be released by our old friend, Mr. Source, or Reliable to those that know him well).
More and more it reminds me of P.D.Q. Bach -- the least of all the Bachs. There's no evidence he existed except from Peter Shickele, who keeps finding more and more works composed by this supposed composer.
Technically, if the problem is reversing numbers, the term is dysnomic (I may have spelled it incorrectly), which is distinct from dyslexia, but I understand what you are saying.
I guess I should make the point that I would be quite flexible in many things. Even before I got into special ed, if there was a special situation, I'd work with the student. I had some students that would come in and start a test in study hall becuase they needed extra time. There were some students that would receive an abbreviated test because there were legitimate reasons they worked so slowly. Generally, if I saw the student was really making an effort, I'd meet them halfway (or more, if appropriate).
I had some students that would write abbreviated steps down -- but in those cases, we had already worked together and both the student and I knew what was going on.
There were/are reasons why some students need modifications, and that is completely legitimate, but in my experience (and all I'm speaking from is over a decade in the classroom), students that would not work with me, but instead just kept saying they could do it in their head, were just being lazy. Almost without fail, they kept missing problems due to careless errors and when we got to later in the year, with more complex problems, they had more and more trouble.
I am not at all saying this applies to you. If you had dyslexia, I would have worked with you to find ways to 1) make sure you were learning the material and 2) make sure you were communicating to me what process you used in solving the problem.
And that comes from a person who knows all about teaching because you have a degree in education and least 3-5 years teaching in the classroom, right?
No?
But you seem to know so much about teaching. After all, you're so sure you know more about teaching than trained professionals.
My blunt answer (moderators, you might as well mark me troll now!): Such an answer shows that 1) You did not read my follow up comments/posts (and the original post) about WHY it is necessary to show one's work. 2) That you don't understand why, when you are learning how to do something, that it is necessary to learn how to do it (go on -- re-read that one -- it's as obvious as it sounds, but this poster hasn't figured it out yet).
The purpose of Algebra I is to learn HOW to do Algebra I problems. Your anology is completely off the mark. You don't have to know how to build a bridge unless you're building one. But you do have to know how to drive to work to drive to work.
The purpose of Algebra class is to learn how to use the problem solving tools that are used for Algebra problems. That gets back to my 2nd reason: if you're learning how to do something, you have to learn how to do it. It's that simple. If you're learning how to work Algebra problems, that's the purpose of the class, and the tools are the content.
To follow your logic through, it would be acceptable to learn Hamlet by reading the quick summary in Master Plots, instead of understanding WHY he was suicidal and how Shakespeare expresses Hamlet's doubts.
The ROTFL was NOT at you -- it was because you pegged it so well -- except for the scales anology, I've had the exact same conversation more times than I want to remember.
Actually, if I could have taught in a school or school system like you describe, I might still be teaching. As it is, I left, took easy jobs for a few years to decide what to do, then started my own business, which is close to really taking off. When it does, I'll be using the profits to make videos -- at first focused on personal/spiritual growth, and later we'll be doing digital film production.
I realized I knew what the system wanted -- and it was more teachers that did not question or try new things. That's not me, I didn't want to be like that, so I left. Unfortunately, all the systems in the area or like that one or worse.
The problem with this kind of system (show your work, you'll get partial marks) is that it teaches students to become bullshitters.
Not if the work they are showing is legitimate and integral to the steps taken to reach the solution.
I never marked a student down for combining steps, as long as they could show what they did.
What amazes me is that, as a teacher, you hear these lines over and over and over. And each student thinks they are the only one who is like that. Almost without exception, these students decide it is a crusade against the system with their style and way of thinking at stake. It never occurs to the student that there most of the time a teacher sees several students like this in every class.
It also doesn't occur to the student that teachers have had developmental psychology and have a much stronger grasp of how students learn than the student does.
Example: I was working with a social worker and a student once. The student said, "But they don't undrstand. When x happens, I immediately think y!" The social worker paused for a minute, as if thinking (he really knew what he was going to say anyway -- this was just his style), then said, "Is it possible when x happens, you think 'That hurt and I'm angry, but I'm not allowed to be anrgy, so I have to feel y?'" The student stopped, looked at us, then at the social worker, and thought for a moment, and said, "I never realized that. It does hurt and I am angry." (Language sanitized for general viewing.)
I've seen many students who say what you say. I've also seen their grades, their abilities, and how they do in later classes.
I've also worked one-on-one with almost all of these students. Perhaps 1-5% really can do what you say (and I'm sure you're in that 1-5%), but for the other 95-99%, it is just an excuse to be lazy. When I work with that 95-99%, I see them continually missing simple things, like inverting a minus sign when bringing a value from one side of the equation to another, or doing a step twice. These are the students that continually claim they can do it, but are continually making simple and careless mistakes.
I do think your point about the number of steps is important. While I would expect students to show ALL the steps on the first test of a type of problem, after that, I had no problem with combining the steps -- as long as I could tell what they were doing. However, if two students made the same careless error, and one showed ALL the work, and the other combined or skipped steps, then the one who showed all the work was likely to get a point or two more.
You have no idea how thankful I am to read your post.
Let me put it from the teacher's point of view (and I hope this does not sound snotty or elitist): As I pointed out here (and in another reply), with more and more experience, I saw, as a teacher, what was necessary to make sure the students learned the material. It's a combination of education, traiing, and experience. I've taught elementary through high school, gifted, ED (emotionally disturbed),and LD (learning disabled). (In residential settings you have a HUGE range!)
I know, as a student, when you look at X-4 = 12, you can do it in your head. (If you can't you either have a learning disability or should not be in Algebra I). But what the student does not know, and the teacher does, is that once you get to 2 or 3 step problems, all the students trying to do it in their head are going to reverse steps or make careless errors. As a teacher, I would try, in many ways, to make the point that the answer is not the point. The process is. Why? Because it is what the student will need later.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times you explain this, it is lost on the students (except for some of the advanced students). I think, after a few attempts, most teachers just give up trying to explain this. At that point, the student has a VERY limited horizon (remember Yurtle, the Turtle -- king of all he saw and kept climbing higher and higher up on the backs of more tutrles?). Within that horizon, s/he knows it all. As a teacher you are there saying, I know you understand everything in your world, but that world is about to get A LOT bigger. When it does, it won't be so easy.
Unfortunately, up until Algebra I, every time a teacher has said this, they've introduced something relatively easy, like adding 5 digit numbers instead of 4 digit numbers. So it isn't the student's fault that their experience has taught them it is easy and they don't have to show the steps.
VERY FEW students will ever come back and say, "Now I see what you were saying. Once I got to the higher levels, I really needed to show my work (or at least know what steps I took)." To many, it's admitting they didn't know everything the teacher knew.
I agree that, to the student, it seems to be a waste of time. From the teacher's perspective, it isn't. The problem is you can't compress years of college, psychology, and experience into something that most students want to hear when you try to tell them why it is necessary to show their work.
It is wonderful to hear from a former student (I know you're not my former student, but you're a former student of what I taught) that they can see what I (and other teachers) were trying to accomplish.
I have to lay part of the blame on the educational system (which is part of why I left teaching). It is focused only on answers and now (especially with Bush's point of view) we are so caught up in standardized testing and SOLs (Standards of Learning, but the Navy def also applies -- Sure Out of Luck), we are failing our students by no longer teaching them how to think and work and focus on what they're doing instead of just getting an answer.
Just wondering - why didn't the administration like the "homework line" you set up? Sounds like a great idea to me...
Officially? Because they said they needed to have control in how we communicated with the parents. That never made sense to me, since that would mean having an administrator sit in on every parent-teacher conference. This was from a district that with a new head who was trying to increase communication with the parents (who all knew about the help line and liked it).
Unofficially -- I can't prove it, but I think they didn't like it because it was new and different and if one teacher had it, it might make others look bad if they didn't do the same.
Let me give you a story about the administrator who told me this (and it will tell you a little about the system I was in). (And, since I've noticed a post or two above hearing part of the story and making judgements without hearing all I did in the classroom, remember, I'm summarzing and not going into all the details here).
There was not much we were allowed in the way of authority to discipline students, and I had several General Math classes (you know -- Seniors who still haven't passed 8th grade math and need it to graduate). I had one class just above that level (Seniors who haven't passed Algebra I in 2 attempts and need another math class to graduate). I had a student in this class I'll call Egbert.
Egbert lived with his grandparents and his parents were basically unreachable. Egbert was a continually disruptive influence in class. I had kept him after school on Fridays with assigned work. He wouldn't do the work -- just sit there and not say anything. I had spent a long time on the phone with his grand parents, but they said nothing the did showed any result. I had basically taken every avenue open to me in tryintg to resolve the problem (including positive reinforcement -- which I always do first). Nothing had worked. So I wrote up a referral to the administrator (the same one who told me to can the homework line). Six weeks later I get the referral back with a sticky note on it saying, "Has this been resolved?"
I considered the cause lost at that point. I had done everything I could. I had documented it. As a last resort, I asked the administrator for help in the required way, and after six weeks of ignoring the problem (and by then the student had figured he had gotten away with it all anyway), he asks if it's taken care of.
The next year they opened up a new middle school in the wealthy part of the district. This administrator was promoted to Principal of that school.
I had no idea someone could be so sure of EVERYTHING I taught in my class from such a short comment. After all, I addressed only 1 topic, and that is not the one you are attacking.
I had no idea, after 10 years of teaching, which included continually taking classes at night or during the summer, that it was so easy for people to learn.
As for teachers being fired, I've seen campaigns against teachers that have worked and ones that have not.
The trouble with only knowing a little piece of something is that it is easy for one to think that is ALL there is to know of a situation and go around, chest out, strutting like a peacock, and saying, "This is the way it is. I'm right. And I'm sooooo good. This person disagreed with me, and I got them canned."
Go get your B.S. degree in education. Then go back to school and add to that the 2 years of work I took above that to learn how people learn, think, and process information. Then spend a number of years teaching in residential treatment programs, working with social workers, and learning by experience how people learn.
Also, spend 2-3 years teaching in a school and seeing what politics is like in education.
Then come back and look at your statement. After you've had over a decade of experience in teaching, see if everything is as simple and clearcut as you make it sound.
I can understand what you are saying, but I think you've missed the point entirely. While it is easy to do a problem like x-4 = 12 in your head, the point of Algebra I is learning the tools to do it on paper. While most of us can say, easily, "That's 16!" that is not the point. When you are learning to do that problem, you aren't learning that x=16, you are learning how to do that problem so when you get something much more complex, that involves factoring, or (in Al II), that requires imaginary numbers, or requires 45 minutes to sovle a problem (like working with diffy-q's), you know the tools.
I spent a lot (actually most) of my teaching career teaching LD classes. That means I had to learn a LOT about how people learned and how they processed information. I also kept up homebound teaching, which included students that were out for medical or other reasons. Even while I was working with LD students, I was doing other work with students with advanced abilities.
Every student I saw who kept telling me "I can do that in my head, it's so easy," and would not do the work, ran in to trouble late in Algebra I, or in Algebra II because they were so busy doing it in their head, they had refused to learn the tools they would need later.
What your teacher did was not helping by "not penalizingthe smart kids." It was enabling the smart kids and setting them up for a harder time in Algebra II, or, if they continued, for higher and more difficult Math classes.
I went to a private school that was very tough to get in to. In Jr. High, when I was taking Algebra I, I had the same attitude. So did the whole class (at this school, about 90% of the students were gifted anyway). Fortunately, the teacher made us show our work and learn the tools of Math. That helped a few years later in High School, when we were in Calculus.
As a student, I hated showing my work, and I could not see the reason for it. As a teacher, the more time I spent in the classroom, the more different types of students I worked with, the more I saw how my students did in other classes AFTER they took my classes, the more I realized students who were not showing their work were simply not learning the tools and techniques they needed later in higher level Math classes (and I found this was especially true for gifted students who always expected to glide through any class).
The point of view on this subject is dramatically different from a student to an education student to a new teacher to an experienced teacher (and that also depends on the amount and variety of experience).
The only students that ever came back and said something like, "You were wrong, I got by without ever showing my work," were the students that either never went above Algebra I or Geometry, or the students that got D's in later Math courses (and I hope none of them are designing any bridges or buildings I'll ever use!).
I'm not trying to troll you, or jump on you, but I am trying to show you the details behind my reasoning and show why teachers have a completely different view on this as most students and former students.
For those who have not taken the ed courses, done student teaching, and learned how people learn and what is necessary to make sure students are prepared for higher level classes, there is a LOT more to teaching than just standing in front of the room and rattling off material in the book. In my view, effective teaching almost requires one to get at least a B.S. in psychology to understand the human mind (if you just spend a year teaching in a treatment program, you'll get the equivalent in experience -- same for any teacher that actually pays attention to what is going on for more than a few years).
The problem is that most professors want to see your *work*. If you just gave a few steps and -voila- an answer, they usually don't appreciate it.
I used to teach high school Math (Algebra, Geometry, Algebra II, General Math). I made it clear to the students from the beginning how important it was to show their work. On a 5 point question, if the student gave me an answer without work, they'd get 1 point (maybe 2 if I was feeling generous). If they showed their work, and it was mostly right (maybe they missed a + or - or one small mistake), they'd get 4 out of 5. For high school students that is often hard to understand -- all they can think about is the answer. For Algebra I, for the first half of the year, they still can't understand why they can't just do it in their head.
Each day I'd collect the homework and grade it on participation. If the work was there, they'd get a 2, if it was poorly done, or only 1/3 to 2/3 or so done, it'd get a 1. I'd add these up at the end of the year and get a percentage of how much of the homework each student did that term. That would count 20% of the semester grade. I even added a homework line -- a 2nd phone line w/ caller ID and an answering maching so students could call and get their assignment or leave a message for help on an assignment and I'd call back as soon as I could. (The administration HATED this and told me to disconnect it ASAP. -- I didn't -- could you see me telling the class, "The homework line has been stopped, per order of the administration." ??) There were several calls to check assignments, but in about 3/4 of a school year, only 1 call for help. It stopped the "I couldn't do it because I didn't understand it" or "I forgot what it was" excuses!
As a teacher, I needed to know the process to get the answer. Especially in Algebra I, where they didn't want to show it. I needed to know they were learning the tools they would need in the 2nd half of the year or for Algebra II.
True, there's graphing calcs and such, but if you don't understand HOW to get the answer, you're just listening to a machine. That's no better than the Borg. (Remember Isaac Asimov's story about someone who realizes 1+1=2 always -- and stuns the world that you don't need calculators to do math?)
There's also the other side note. If you give me just an answer on a test, how do I know if you "did it in your head" or copied it off someone else?
In Math, especially, a student needs to know the tools to get the answer. That's what they're learning in Algebra I & II and Geometry. If they don't show their work, you don't know if they're using those tools.
After posting my previous response, I remembered that I had a similar problem in college. A friend and I were publishing magazines on our own. These were not sanctioned by the University and the only connection these mags had with the Univeristy was that the publishers were students (and most/all of the contributers were students). We had trouble getting a place to distribute them -- we both had to share a box with another low circulation magazine the University put out -- on some days my magazine would be in the box, on some days my friends, and on other days the University rag.
We talked with the ACLU and the Student Press Law Center and were informed, quite clearly, we had to have the same access to the campus as the student newspaper, otherwise it was a direct violation of our 1st amendment rights. We were shocked that we had so much power and went in to meet with the Student Activities people. They basically told us they were doing us favors by letting us distribute at all, since our magazines were not University sponsored. We let them go around that bush a few times and try to jerk us around before we said "We talked with the Student Press Law Center, and their letter should be arriving in the mail today or tomorrow, as well as the ACLU." As soon as we mentioned the SPLC, the assistant director (a real weenie, if you'll pardon a technical term) was so startled, he almost dropped his cigeratte. He said he'd do what he could. My friend said, flatly, "You can try, but we want. And legally, we get." We didn't get fancy boxes on the walls to hold our mags, but from then on, when we published each month, we put our magazines in piles right next to the student newspaper distribution points. It was never a problem again.
While we were in the meeting, they tried a lot of tactics on us, like "What if all 9,000 students try to publish their own magazines? We can't handle that." We countered with "Are 9,000 students going to spend the time selling ads and editing a mag, or paying to print it on their own? We don't think so." They said they had to look at the worst case possible. Once we told them about the SPLC and what we were told, that point came up again. We pointed out that if all 9,000 students published their own mags, they would either have to allow ALL to distribute or none.
I mention all this because 1) I would think you have the 1st Amendment on your side, 2) The SPLC or ACLU might be interested enough to just write the 1 letter you need to support your case, 3) to make the point that being a student does not give them the right to take away your freedom of speech, and 4) even as a student, what you publish is completely covered by the 1st Amendment.
...all your code on the page is, as you pointed out, GPL. That means I (or anyone else) can download it and use it under the terms of GPL, if we so choose.
And once we download it and use it in our projects (which might be nothing more than an example of good code written by students), as long as we do so under the terms of the GPL, if we so choose.
And, while I have not read the GPL recently, it seems to me, I, or anyone else here, could download the code, use it as an example of good code written by a student on a website we have created to share with students and teachers. Which means while the University may not let YOU publish it (I don't see how they can do that -- there's this picky thing called the 1st Amendment and they can't take that away -- see pervious comments in other threads about coercion), any of us could publish it on a web page, under the terms of the GPL, if we so choose.
At least that's my thoughts. I would have the right to publish your code on a web page, because I have no connection to the University. I have the right to publish my own code on a web page. Why should you have less rights to publish that material than I do?
At least that's my take on it.
Your prof might just have to look more closely at student projects to make sure it isn't copied.
"But above all things, my brothers, do not swear, neither by heaven nor by earth nor with any other oath; but let your yes be yes, and your no, no, lest you fall under ajudgment." James 5:12.
Not really. The affirmation is that you will not only tell the truth, but you will say nothing but the truth.
That's the point. That's why Quakers (most of us) will affirm, but will not swear.
and ignore the ideas of the prosecutor and defender, and more importantly, the law.
And you cite bigamy as an example. I should re-state here that I do not consider the Bible inerrant, by any means. (I do not believe Yeshua was born in Bethleham, I do believe he was married to Mary Magdelene -- and nowhere in the Bible or in any historical document from that time does it indicate she was a whore, as the Church claimed -- and I can state quite firmly I do not, in any way, believe in virgin birth.) That would go STRONGLY against one of the four primary testimonies of the Religious Society of Friends (the official name for Quakers) -- equality. I don't want to get into this discussion, but if a man can have 2 wives, then it would only be fair for a woman to have 2 husbands (to see how strongly Quakers feel about equality of all people, you can read up on how many Quakers were part of the underground railroad, or look up info on some Quakers, such as Susan B. Anthony).
On a basic level, we live in the US. We choose to live in the US. If we don't like it, we can save our money and move to Iraq (or anywhere else). We also agree, by living here, to abide by the laws of the land.
On most laws, I would feel strongly that someone who is living here is party to an implied contract that they are aware that the consequence of certain acts is a fine or jail time.
On the other hand, there are some laws where I would have a very tough time finding someone guilty. For example, I could never have voted to convict Rosa Parks if the bus were segregated by law.
And, as a side point, we're talking about criminal cases. Oddly enough, the one time (and only time) I was selected to serve, it was a criminal case and when the jury went back to deliberate, we started with a verbal poll. Five people ahead of me all said "innocent." I said guilty, and felt the stares of everyone in the room -- especially the first five. I explained my reasons, and after me the majority of jurors voded "guilty." In the long run, we voted for a conviction. I can't ever be sure, but I feel if I were not in there, and did not have the courage to say what I felt, that this person would have not been convicted.
Every time I have had to go into the court room and been struck has been a civil trial, like a warrant in debt -- which i have no problem with. I've even had to file one against someone once.
You make some good points. It's clear this is something you have thought about or are aware of. Thanks for your comments and thoughts.
When the jury is being sworn in, I do not raise my hand and have had to ask several times (I keep getitng called over and over) if it is okay to affirm I am telling the truth instead of searing. As a Quaker (yes, there are many Quakers who work with technology -- we're not the ones in horses and buggys), my belief is that I should always do my best to tell the truth, and swearing an oath (which, by the way, the Bible says not to do -- although I don't hold the Bible as inerrant at all), implies that one is telling the truth only at certain times and that it is okay to NOT tell the truth at other times. Almost every time this has come up, I see one of the lawyers making a mark on paper when I ask this question. I can't be sure, but I suspect that's when I'm struck.
And the ironic thing is that, as a Quaker, I would feel it to be of the utmost importance to listen to both sides without prejudice and to value both sides equally as I weight the facts.
In Richmond, VA, they take jurors from lists -- voting registration, property tax lists, driver's licenses, etc. I don't know if it is still true, but this used to mean that if you were on a number of these lists, you were more likely to be chosen, since your name was on the master jury list once for each of the other lists it was on (this is what I was told by someone working for the Jury Officer). I think the court should be required to have 80% of all eligible jurors serve before a juror is called back. I'm 40, and I was called 2 times while in college (given exemption because I was living out-of-town), once after that, again after I moved to a surrounding county (exempted since I no longer lived in the city), and, after moving back into Richmond, I've been called another 3 times. That's 4 times since I wsa 18 that I've served and 3 times I was called when I was not living in the district. While I try to maintain an even and calm viewpoint, I've gotten so many notices for jury duty, that I wonder if I'd able to make a dispassionate decision if I did sit on a case.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya i'm going to ride my segway to the health club where i will ride on a stationary bike.
Overall, I prefer a good ride outdoors, even during winter. (I think exercising in the gym -- other than doing weights -- is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.)
I wouldn't knock stationary bikes. There are many reasons to use them (and other indoor fitness machines) instead of outdoor or other exercise. If a person is on a stationary, it's easier to monitor them for things like heart rate or to chart improvement. They're also very useful when it's too cold or hot outside for people who are not in the best of shape (or elderly, or pregnant, etc.). And they're also a BIG help for people who are just starting or getting back to working out.
I know this will be modded to troll immediately, since I'm questioning something everyone considers wonderful. That said:
1) I can see this device being a real help to the elderly or people with various handicaps, but:
2) I notice the submitter pointed out he jogs every day, but I hear more and more reports about how over 50% of the population is overweight. I can only wonder how this will effect that particular issue. I would guess that it won't be long before they have to make sure the HT is even sturdier because so many people using them are over 250 lbs (or over 325 w/ cargo).
3) I can't help but to remember what Ray Bradbury discussed in Fahreinheit 451. The fire chief is explaining how books became eliminated and people stopped thinking (or was it Faber talking about how people stopped thinking). He pointed out buttons were replaced with a zipper, and that was just that many fewer minutes to think in the morning when getting dressed.
I've spent the last 2 years chained to a computer. (I'm not complaining, my salary is going up and up and I'll never have to worry about my retirement or having a job for the rest of my life.) Now I'm back to exercising every day at the gym. I've got over 50 lbs to lose.
It's great that we can do more faster than ever before. But if we don't balance all the new toys and gadgets we have to make life so easy, we will lose a significant part of the quality of our lives. For example, computers were supposed to save time (and paper, too), but now we get more done and we're asked to do more. Sure, they save time, but then the company wants even more from us (and numbers show computers have driven paper use up -- due to number of drafts printed out and number of extra documents printed -- and docs printed in multiple copies).
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I am saying it seems we should seriously question how it is used in life. We can make the choice of a life crammed full of too much to do, or one where we can take the time to enjoy life. I've noticed that the people that take time to enjoy life (like many friends I know through Quaker Meeting) live life such that they don't need to save the extra half hour here or rush to another appointment at some other time.
Saving time, or making it easier is not the answer. Segway, for most of us, is not the answer. Finding a way to reduce the clutter and meaningless activites in our lives would help save much more time than a Segway HT.
Just my 2 cents worth. Go on and mark me as flamebait.
A motto in my company is QTS (we use this so often it's abbreviated -- Question The Source). (This has really helped us several times -- we provide data for lawyers as one of our services.)
Yes, I know M$ has claimed ownership. I'm still not sure I entirely believe the first one is valid, much less the "legit" ones to follow.
To be honest, I do not know much about ESR (sorry for goof on initials in the original post), but in the few years I've been exploring the Linux/GNU/OSS world, I've found that many (or most) of the people in this community that have made a name for themselves have quite -- shall we say, colorful -- personalities. If the source were RMS, I would DEFINATELY question the accuracy. Not that I would say RMS is a fraud or liar -- but that people tend not to be overly critical of data that supports their views.
As for the PDQ Bach ref, my point is that, at least in my opinion, there is about as much evidence to prove the Halloween memos as genuine as there is to prove PDQ Bach lived. In both cases the bulk of the evidence comes from one source. I know PDQ Bach never existed and Shickele made him up.
I am still not convinced that the Halloween Memos are not genuine and that one or more people are not using ESR to spread FUD.
Like I said to someone above, thanks for the insight. I hear about these things and I've had 2 PHBs (pointy haired bosses), but in both cases they were the company owner and there were never more than 2 fulltime employees in the company (other than the PHB/owner).
While I've heard jokes and stories, I guess I always thought they were just too stupid to be true. I'm beginning to change my mind.
Oops.
Lysdexia strikes again.
Thanks for correcting that for me.
All PDQ Bach is written by Peter Shickele.
He presents it as if he has researched the life of this one son of J.S. Bach. The entire thing is satirical. You can tell by looking at the years given for his lifespan -- his date of death is always listed before his birth date.
My point was that Peter Shickele keeps "uncovering" new works by PDQ Bach and performs them, yet there is no proof PDQ Bach ever existed.
And, as a side note, the pieces are quite funny.
No -- I haven't worked at enterprise level. I used to be a teacher and now I'm happily running my own small business (and bound and determined that no matter how well it does, that the number of employees always stays small enough that I know them all).
Thanks for a point of view that I don't have.
I should have referred to that. It just seems odd to me that these memos keep leaking out and M$ seems to have no problem acknowledging them (I'm not talking about the satire/commentary ones).
Let's face it, M$ doesn't acknowledge ANYTHING that could make them look less than fantastic. So why would they acknowledge these unless it's an attempt at FUD?
I'm not attacking. But I think these are important questions I have yet to see answered. (Yes, I know it's been addressed, but I don't think it's been fully addressed and explored.)
I'm not fond of 10,000 pound gorillas either, but RMS makes a good point with the quote from Ghandi. When M$ was ignoring Linux, it wasn't a threat. Now they're fighting. They're trying everything they can to take out Linux.
But look at what's happening. They've tried outright FUD. They've tried new licensing (which was stupid and backfired). And now they're trying FUD again.
It really is like the Borg. M$ has been used to just assimilating (buying out) or destroying any competition (either by pricing their products lower until the competition is bankrupt, by leveraging their monopoly to force people to use M$ standards, or by twisting arms in backroom deals). Now they don't know what to do -- instead of facing a big threat with one name, where a well aimed shot, or a massive attack could destroy any threat, they're fighting something all pervasive, like a virus.
And the funny thing is they don't know what to od! It's got them so scared they're beginning to do stupid things and having knee-jerk reactions.
I don't think Windows will end up burried forever, but I think if Linux distros unified and started pushing easy to use desktop systems with OpenOffice.org on them, I think we'd soon find that most companies are not focusing on JUST Word compatability anymore, but on Word and OOo.
Linux is in a good position, and it gets better and better. M$ is fighting Linux -- but that's because it's a real threat and could even (conceivably, but unlikely) bankrupt the company. That's good, because M$ has no idea how to fight a movement. They just don't understand the structure -- by their very nature of being a cold-hearted predatory company, there is no way they ever can understand OSS.
I don't get it.
Is Microsoft actually dumb enough to write memo after memo about something they now have admitted is their biggest threat and allow all of these memos to leak so the opposition can read them?
I was never sure about the first Halloween memo. The more that are "discovered" the more I wonder if these are truly from M$ (they must be released by our old friend, Mr. Source, or Reliable to those that know him well).
More and more it reminds me of P.D.Q. Bach -- the least of all the Bachs. There's no evidence he existed except from Peter Shickele, who keeps finding more and more works composed by this supposed composer.
Technically, if the problem is reversing numbers, the term is dysnomic (I may have spelled it incorrectly), which is distinct from dyslexia, but I understand what you are saying.
I guess I should make the point that I would be quite flexible in many things. Even before I got into special ed, if there was a special situation, I'd work with the student. I had some students that would come in and start a test in study hall becuase they needed extra time. There were some students that would receive an abbreviated test because there were legitimate reasons they worked so slowly. Generally, if I saw the student was really making an effort, I'd meet them halfway (or more, if appropriate).
I had some students that would write abbreviated steps down -- but in those cases, we had already worked together and both the student and I knew what was going on.
There were/are reasons why some students need modifications, and that is completely legitimate, but in my experience (and all I'm speaking from is over a decade in the classroom), students that would not work with me, but instead just kept saying they could do it in their head, were just being lazy. Almost without fail, they kept missing problems due to careless errors and when we got to later in the year, with more complex problems, they had more and more trouble.
I am not at all saying this applies to you. If you had dyslexia, I would have worked with you to find ways to 1) make sure you were learning the material and 2) make sure you were communicating to me what process you used in solving the problem.
This is such a stupid way to teach.
And that comes from a person who knows all about teaching because you have a degree in education and least 3-5 years teaching in the classroom, right?
No?
But you seem to know so much about teaching. After all, you're so sure you know more about teaching than trained professionals.
My blunt answer (moderators, you might as well mark me troll now!): Such an answer shows that 1) You did not read my follow up comments/posts (and the original post) about WHY it is necessary to show one's work. 2) That you don't understand why, when you are learning how to do something, that it is necessary to learn how to do it (go on -- re-read that one -- it's as obvious as it sounds, but this poster hasn't figured it out yet).
The purpose of Algebra I is to learn HOW to do Algebra I problems. Your anology is completely off the mark. You don't have to know how to build a bridge unless you're building one. But you do have to know how to drive to work to drive to work.
The purpose of Algebra class is to learn how to use the problem solving tools that are used for Algebra problems. That gets back to my 2nd reason: if you're learning how to do something, you have to learn how to do it. It's that simple. If you're learning how to work Algebra problems, that's the purpose of the class, and the tools are the content.
To follow your logic through, it would be acceptable to learn Hamlet by reading the quick summary in Master Plots, instead of understanding WHY he was suicidal and how Shakespeare expresses Hamlet's doubts.
Actually -- I should have been more clear.
The ROTFL was NOT at you -- it was because you pegged it so well -- except for the scales anology, I've had the exact same conversation more times than I want to remember.
Only 3 times a year???
;)
ROTFL!
It was wonderful reading something so close to what I said many times and NOT have to worry about grading the papers that followed!
Actually, if I could have taught in a school or school system like you describe, I might still be teaching. As it is, I left, took easy jobs for a few years to decide what to do, then started my own business, which is close to really taking off. When it does, I'll be using the profits to make videos -- at first focused on personal/spiritual growth, and later we'll be doing digital film production.
I realized I knew what the system wanted -- and it was more teachers that did not question or try new things. That's not me, I didn't want to be like that, so I left. Unfortunately, all the systems in the area or like that one or worse.
The problem with this kind of system (show your work, you'll get partial marks) is that it teaches students to become bullshitters.
Not if the work they are showing is legitimate and integral to the steps taken to reach the solution.
I never marked a student down for combining steps, as long as they could show what they did.
What amazes me is that, as a teacher, you hear these lines over and over and over. And each student thinks they are the only one who is like that. Almost without exception, these students decide it is a crusade against the system with their style and way of thinking at stake. It never occurs to the student that there most of the time a teacher sees several students like this in every class.
It also doesn't occur to the student that teachers have had developmental psychology and have a much stronger grasp of how students learn than the student does.
Example: I was working with a social worker and a student once. The student said, "But they don't undrstand. When x happens, I immediately think y!" The social worker paused for a minute, as if thinking (he really knew what he was going to say anyway -- this was just his style), then said, "Is it possible when x happens, you think 'That hurt and I'm angry, but I'm not allowed to be anrgy, so I have to feel y?'" The student stopped, looked at us, then at the social worker, and thought for a moment, and said, "I never realized that. It does hurt and I am angry." (Language sanitized for general viewing.)
I've seen many students who say what you say. I've also seen their grades, their abilities, and how they do in later classes.
I've also worked one-on-one with almost all of these students. Perhaps 1-5% really can do what you say (and I'm sure you're in that 1-5%), but for the other 95-99%, it is just an excuse to be lazy. When I work with that 95-99%, I see them continually missing simple things, like inverting a minus sign when bringing a value from one side of the equation to another, or doing a step twice. These are the students that continually claim they can do it, but are continually making simple and careless mistakes.
I do think your point about the number of steps is important. While I would expect students to show ALL the steps on the first test of a type of problem, after that, I had no problem with combining the steps -- as long as I could tell what they were doing. However, if two students made the same careless error, and one showed ALL the work, and the other combined or skipped steps, then the one who showed all the work was likely to get a point or two more.
You have no idea how thankful I am to read your post.
Let me put it from the teacher's point of view (and I hope this does not sound snotty or elitist): As I pointed out here (and in another reply), with more and more experience, I saw, as a teacher, what was necessary to make sure the students learned the material. It's a combination of education, traiing, and experience. I've taught elementary through high school, gifted, ED (emotionally disturbed),and LD (learning disabled). (In residential settings you have a HUGE range!)
I know, as a student, when you look at X-4 = 12, you can do it in your head. (If you can't you either have a learning disability or should not be in Algebra I). But what the student does not know, and the teacher does, is that once you get to 2 or 3 step problems, all the students trying to do it in their head are going to reverse steps or make careless errors. As a teacher, I would try, in many ways, to make the point that the answer is not the point. The process is. Why? Because it is what the student will need later.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times you explain this, it is lost on the students (except for some of the advanced students). I think, after a few attempts, most teachers just give up trying to explain this. At that point, the student has a VERY limited horizon (remember Yurtle, the Turtle -- king of all he saw and kept climbing higher and higher up on the backs of more tutrles?). Within that horizon, s/he knows it all. As a teacher you are there saying, I know you understand everything in your world, but that world is about to get A LOT bigger. When it does, it won't be so easy.
Unfortunately, up until Algebra I, every time a teacher has said this, they've introduced something relatively easy, like adding 5 digit numbers instead of 4 digit numbers. So it isn't the student's fault that their experience has taught them it is easy and they don't have to show the steps.
VERY FEW students will ever come back and say, "Now I see what you were saying. Once I got to the higher levels, I really needed to show my work (or at least know what steps I took)." To many, it's admitting they didn't know everything the teacher knew.
I agree that, to the student, it seems to be a waste of time. From the teacher's perspective, it isn't. The problem is you can't compress years of college, psychology, and experience into something that most students want to hear when you try to tell them why it is necessary to show their work.
It is wonderful to hear from a former student (I know you're not my former student, but you're a former student of what I taught) that they can see what I (and other teachers) were trying to accomplish.
I have to lay part of the blame on the educational system (which is part of why I left teaching). It is focused only on answers and now (especially with Bush's point of view) we are so caught up in standardized testing and SOLs (Standards of Learning, but the Navy def also applies -- Sure Out of Luck), we are failing our students by no longer teaching them how to think and work and focus on what they're doing instead of just getting an answer.
Just wondering - why didn't the administration like the "homework line" you set up? Sounds like a great idea to me...
Officially? Because they said they needed to have control in how we communicated with the parents. That never made sense to me, since that would mean having an administrator sit in on every parent-teacher conference. This was from a district that with a new head who was trying to increase communication with the parents (who all knew about the help line and liked it).
Unofficially -- I can't prove it, but I think they didn't like it because it was new and different and if one teacher had it, it might make others look bad if they didn't do the same.
Let me give you a story about the administrator who told me this (and it will tell you a little about the system I was in). (And, since I've noticed a post or two above hearing part of the story and making judgements without hearing all I did in the classroom, remember, I'm summarzing and not going into all the details here).
There was not much we were allowed in the way of authority to discipline students, and I had several General Math classes (you know -- Seniors who still haven't passed 8th grade math and need it to graduate). I had one class just above that level (Seniors who haven't passed Algebra I in 2 attempts and need another math class to graduate). I had a student in this class I'll call Egbert.
Egbert lived with his grandparents and his parents were basically unreachable. Egbert was a continually disruptive influence in class. I had kept him after school on Fridays with assigned work. He wouldn't do the work -- just sit there and not say anything. I had spent a long time on the phone with his grand parents, but they said nothing the did showed any result. I had basically taken every avenue open to me in tryintg to resolve the problem (including positive reinforcement -- which I always do first). Nothing had worked. So I wrote up a referral to the administrator (the same one who told me to can the homework line). Six weeks later I get the referral back with a sticky note on it saying, "Has this been resolved?"
I considered the cause lost at that point. I had done everything I could. I had documented it. As a last resort, I asked the administrator for help in the required way, and after six weeks of ignoring the problem (and by then the student had figured he had gotten away with it all anyway), he asks if it's taken care of.
The next year they opened up a new middle school in the wealthy part of the district. This administrator was promoted to Principal of that school.
I'm glad you are as smart as you are.
I had no idea someone could be so sure of EVERYTHING I taught in my class from such a short comment. After all, I addressed only 1 topic, and that is not the one you are attacking.
I had no idea, after 10 years of teaching, which included continually taking classes at night or during the summer, that it was so easy for people to learn.
As for teachers being fired, I've seen campaigns against teachers that have worked and ones that have not.
The trouble with only knowing a little piece of something is that it is easy for one to think that is ALL there is to know of a situation and go around, chest out, strutting like a peacock, and saying, "This is the way it is. I'm right. And I'm sooooo good. This person disagreed with me, and I got them canned."
Go get your B.S. degree in education. Then go back to school and add to that the 2 years of work I took above that to learn how people learn, think, and process information. Then spend a number of years teaching in residential treatment programs, working with social workers, and learning by experience how people learn.
Also, spend 2-3 years teaching in a school and seeing what politics is like in education.
Then come back and look at your statement. After you've had over a decade of experience in teaching, see if everything is as simple and clearcut as you make it sound.
I can understand what you are saying, but I think you've missed the point entirely. While it is easy to do a problem like x-4 = 12 in your head, the point of Algebra I is learning the tools to do it on paper. While most of us can say, easily, "That's 16!" that is not the point. When you are learning to do that problem, you aren't learning that x=16, you are learning how to do that problem so when you get something much more complex, that involves factoring, or (in Al II), that requires imaginary numbers, or requires 45 minutes to sovle a problem (like working with diffy-q's), you know the tools.
I spent a lot (actually most) of my teaching career teaching LD classes. That means I had to learn a LOT about how people learned and how they processed information. I also kept up homebound teaching, which included students that were out for medical or other reasons. Even while I was working with LD students, I was doing other work with students with advanced abilities.
Every student I saw who kept telling me "I can do that in my head, it's so easy," and would not do the work, ran in to trouble late in Algebra I, or in Algebra II because they were so busy doing it in their head, they had refused to learn the tools they would need later.
What your teacher did was not helping by "not penalizingthe smart kids." It was enabling the smart kids and setting them up for a harder time in Algebra II, or, if they continued, for higher and more difficult Math classes.
I went to a private school that was very tough to get in to. In Jr. High, when I was taking Algebra I, I had the same attitude. So did the whole class (at this school, about 90% of the students were gifted anyway). Fortunately, the teacher made us show our work and learn the tools of Math. That helped a few years later in High School, when we were in Calculus.
As a student, I hated showing my work, and I could not see the reason for it. As a teacher, the more time I spent in the classroom, the more different types of students I worked with, the more I saw how my students did in other classes AFTER they took my classes, the more I realized students who were not showing their work were simply not learning the tools and techniques they needed later in higher level Math classes (and I found this was especially true for gifted students who always expected to glide through any class).
The point of view on this subject is dramatically different from a student to an education student to a new teacher to an experienced teacher (and that also depends on the amount and variety of experience).
The only students that ever came back and said something like, "You were wrong, I got by without ever showing my work," were the students that either never went above Algebra I or Geometry, or the students that got D's in later Math courses (and I hope none of them are designing any bridges or buildings I'll ever use!).
I'm not trying to troll you, or jump on you, but I am trying to show you the details behind my reasoning and show why teachers have a completely different view on this as most students and former students.
For those who have not taken the ed courses, done student teaching, and learned how people learn and what is necessary to make sure students are prepared for higher level classes, there is a LOT more to teaching than just standing in front of the room and rattling off material in the book. In my view, effective teaching almost requires one to get at least a B.S. in psychology to understand the human mind (if you just spend a year teaching in a treatment program, you'll get the equivalent in experience -- same for any teacher that actually pays attention to what is going on for more than a few years).
The problem is that most professors want to see your *work*. If you just gave a few steps and -voila- an answer, they usually don't appreciate it.
I used to teach high school Math (Algebra, Geometry, Algebra II, General Math). I made it clear to the students from the beginning how important it was to show their work. On a 5 point question, if the student gave me an answer without work, they'd get 1 point (maybe 2 if I was feeling generous). If they showed their work, and it was mostly right (maybe they missed a + or - or one small mistake), they'd get 4 out of 5. For high school students that is often hard to understand -- all they can think about is the answer. For Algebra I, for the first half of the year, they still can't understand why they can't just do it in their head.
Each day I'd collect the homework and grade it on participation. If the work was there, they'd get a 2, if it was poorly done, or only 1/3 to 2/3 or so done, it'd get a 1. I'd add these up at the end of the year and get a percentage of how much of the homework each student did that term. That would count 20% of the semester grade. I even added a homework line -- a 2nd phone line w/ caller ID and an answering maching so students could call and get their assignment or leave a message for help on an assignment and I'd call back as soon as I could. (The administration HATED this and told me to disconnect it ASAP. -- I didn't -- could you see me telling the class, "The homework line has been stopped, per order of the administration." ??) There were several calls to check assignments, but in about 3/4 of a school year, only 1 call for help. It stopped the "I couldn't do it because I didn't understand it" or "I forgot what it was" excuses!
As a teacher, I needed to know the process to get the answer. Especially in Algebra I, where they didn't want to show it. I needed to know they were learning the tools they would need in the 2nd half of the year or for Algebra II.
True, there's graphing calcs and such, but if you don't understand HOW to get the answer, you're just listening to a machine. That's no better than the Borg. (Remember Isaac Asimov's story about someone who realizes 1+1=2 always -- and stuns the world that you don't need calculators to do math?)
There's also the other side note. If you give me just an answer on a test, how do I know if you "did it in your head" or copied it off someone else?
In Math, especially, a student needs to know the tools to get the answer. That's what they're learning in Algebra I & II and Geometry. If they don't show their work, you don't know if they're using those tools.
After posting my previous response, I remembered that I had a similar problem in college. A friend and I were publishing magazines on our own. These were not sanctioned by the University and the only connection these mags had with the Univeristy was that the publishers were students (and most/all of the contributers were students). We had trouble getting a place to distribute them -- we both had to share a box with another low circulation magazine the University put out -- on some days my magazine would be in the box, on some days my friends, and on other days the University rag.
We talked with the ACLU and the Student Press Law Center and were informed, quite clearly, we had to have the same access to the campus as the student newspaper, otherwise it was a direct violation of our 1st amendment rights. We were shocked that we had so much power and went in to meet with the Student Activities people. They basically told us they were doing us favors by letting us distribute at all, since our magazines were not University sponsored. We let them go around that bush a few times and try to jerk us around before we said "We talked with the Student Press Law Center, and their letter should be arriving in the mail today or tomorrow, as well as the ACLU." As soon as we mentioned the SPLC, the assistant director (a real weenie, if you'll pardon a technical term) was so startled, he almost dropped his cigeratte. He said he'd do what he could. My friend said, flatly, "You can try, but we want. And legally, we get." We didn't get fancy boxes on the walls to hold our mags, but from then on, when we published each month, we put our magazines in piles right next to the student newspaper distribution points. It was never a problem again.
While we were in the meeting, they tried a lot of tactics on us, like "What if all 9,000 students try to publish their own magazines? We can't handle that." We countered with "Are 9,000 students going to spend the time selling ads and editing a mag, or paying to print it on their own? We don't think so." They said they had to look at the worst case possible. Once we told them about the SPLC and what we were told, that point came up again. We pointed out that if all 9,000 students published their own mags, they would either have to allow ALL to distribute or none.
I mention all this because 1) I would think you have the 1st Amendment on your side, 2) The SPLC or ACLU might be interested enough to just write the 1 letter you need to support your case, 3) to make the point that being a student does not give them the right to take away your freedom of speech, and 4) even as a student, what you publish is completely covered by the 1st Amendment.
Hope this helps!
...all your code on the page is, as you pointed out, GPL. That means I (or anyone else) can download it and use it under the terms of GPL, if we so choose.
And once we download it and use it in our projects (which might be nothing more than an example of good code written by students), as long as we do so under the terms of the GPL, if we so choose.
And, while I have not read the GPL recently, it seems to me, I, or anyone else here, could download the code, use it as an example of good code written by a student on a website we have created to share with students and teachers. Which means while the University may not let YOU publish it (I don't see how they can do that -- there's this picky thing called the 1st Amendment and they can't take that away -- see pervious comments in other threads about coercion), any of us could publish it on a web page, under the terms of the GPL, if we so choose.
At least that's my thoughts. I would have the right to publish your code on a web page, because I have no connection to the University. I have the right to publish my own code on a web page. Why should you have less rights to publish that material than I do?
At least that's my take on it.
Your prof might just have to look more closely at student projects to make sure it isn't copied.
Where does it say that?
"But above all things, my brothers, do not swear, neither by heaven nor by earth nor with any other oath; but let your yes be yes, and your no, no, lest you fall under ajudgment." James 5:12.
Not really. The affirmation is that you will not only tell the truth, but you will say nothing but the truth.
That's the point. That's why Quakers (most of us) will affirm, but will not swear.
and ignore the ideas of the prosecutor and defender, and more importantly, the law.
And you cite bigamy as an example. I should re-state here that I do not consider the Bible inerrant, by any means. (I do not believe Yeshua was born in Bethleham, I do believe he was married to Mary Magdelene -- and nowhere in the Bible or in any historical document from that time does it indicate she was a whore, as the Church claimed -- and I can state quite firmly I do not, in any way, believe in virgin birth.) That would go STRONGLY against one of the four primary testimonies of the Religious Society of Friends (the official name for Quakers) -- equality. I don't want to get into this discussion, but if a man can have 2 wives, then it would only be fair for a woman to have 2 husbands (to see how strongly Quakers feel about equality of all people, you can read up on how many Quakers were part of the underground railroad, or look up info on some Quakers, such as Susan B. Anthony).
On a basic level, we live in the US. We choose to live in the US. If we don't like it, we can save our money and move to Iraq (or anywhere else). We also agree, by living here, to abide by the laws of the land.
On most laws, I would feel strongly that someone who is living here is party to an implied contract that they are aware that the consequence of certain acts is a fine or jail time.
On the other hand, there are some laws where I would have a very tough time finding someone guilty. For example, I could never have voted to convict Rosa Parks if the bus were segregated by law.
And, as a side point, we're talking about criminal cases. Oddly enough, the one time (and only time) I was selected to serve, it was a criminal case and when the jury went back to deliberate, we started with a verbal poll. Five people ahead of me all said "innocent." I said guilty, and felt the stares of everyone in the room -- especially the first five. I explained my reasons, and after me the majority of jurors voded "guilty." In the long run, we voted for a conviction. I can't ever be sure, but I feel if I were not in there, and did not have the courage to say what I felt, that this person would have not been convicted.
Every time I have had to go into the court room and been struck has been a civil trial, like a warrant in debt -- which i have no problem with. I've even had to file one against someone once.
You make some good points. It's clear this is something you have thought about or are aware of. Thanks for your comments and thoughts.
When the jury is being sworn in, I do not raise my hand and have had to ask several times (I keep getitng called over and over) if it is okay to affirm I am telling the truth instead of searing. As a Quaker (yes, there are many Quakers who work with technology -- we're not the ones in horses and buggys), my belief is that I should always do my best to tell the truth, and swearing an oath (which, by the way, the Bible says not to do -- although I don't hold the Bible as inerrant at all), implies that one is telling the truth only at certain times and that it is okay to NOT tell the truth at other times. Almost every time this has come up, I see one of the lawyers making a mark on paper when I ask this question. I can't be sure, but I suspect that's when I'm struck.
And the ironic thing is that, as a Quaker, I would feel it to be of the utmost importance to listen to both sides without prejudice and to value both sides equally as I weight the facts.
In Richmond, VA, they take jurors from lists -- voting registration, property tax lists, driver's licenses, etc. I don't know if it is still true, but this used to mean that if you were on a number of these lists, you were more likely to be chosen, since your name was on the master jury list once for each of the other lists it was on (this is what I was told by someone working for the Jury Officer). I think the court should be required to have 80% of all eligible jurors serve before a juror is called back. I'm 40, and I was called 2 times while in college (given exemption because I was living out-of-town), once after that, again after I moved to a surrounding county (exempted since I no longer lived in the city), and, after moving back into Richmond, I've been called another 3 times. That's 4 times since I wsa 18 that I've served and 3 times I was called when I was not living in the district. While I try to maintain an even and calm viewpoint, I've gotten so many notices for jury duty, that I wonder if I'd able to make a dispassionate decision if I did sit on a case.