"Since the late 1980's after Chickering and Gameson published the now classic Seven Best Teaching Principles for Undergraduate Education * after extensive research, there has been a quiet revolution to reform college teaching practices and promote effective teaching practices including eliminating the famous "dancing with the blackboardâ so common in the math and science departments and replace it with pedagogically, effective active learning."
Despite their research,my opinion stems from personal experience - I could be the exception to the rule.
I find that I learn the best when presented with the blackboard dance, especially in the area of math and sciences. Things that are presented straightforward with proofs and/or theory sink in the best. Then by completing a set of practice problems in the area the knowledge is firmly cemented in my brain. This, of course, provided that I got adequate sleep the night before so I'm not falling asleep in class.
The so called "effective active learning" - which I take to mean things like case studies, or "interactive learning projects" - doesn't teach me as well. Sure, its not as boring sometimes, but most often it just serves to distract me from the essence of the subject material. It tends to gloss over many of the details the can be extremely useful in doing the homework, and in generally understanding the nuances of mathematicall theorems.
But again, I'll have to agree with your first point. It's most often the professor who has the greatest impact. Some of my chem-profs do nothing but "blackboard dancing" and I learn an incredible amount from them, and my fellow students love them. Others try to bring in lots of "real life examples" that most of the time are just irrelevant to the exact subject material, and they are generally disliked.
An engaging and exciting professor always makes learning easier and better - but often, the subject material is engaging enough for the studens. All the professor has to is explain it clearly, thoroughly, and competently. Some of my professors are geniuses who do amazing research, but when it comes to trying to explain the nuances of some chemical processes no one can understand them, save their colleagues. Other professors have less impressive degrees (although I wouldn't say they're less intelligent an other professors), but they can explain things succinctly and clearly - without resorting to "active learning" tricks.
So, to sum up: I doubt even "active learning" techniques has a whole lot to do with being a good or poor professor. It all lies in the professors ability to convey ideas to the class - and the simplest way to do this is most often just with the chalk board.
"Traditional classroom: Instructor works through some problems during class, talks about theory, etc. Assigns homework. You turn it in. Little to no conversation with your fellow students on these assignments, as it's considered to be cheating."
Quite the opposite at my college. Our lectures do consist of the professor going through the theory and presenting a few examples, but it doesn't stop there. Our homework assignments are challenging, but we are encouraged to work together - otherwise it would be near impossible to complete on time. That is to say, copying is frowned upon, but it helps immensely to work with someone who is performing the same operations and catches any simple errors you may make.
Also, the professors hold office hours in which you are encouraged to utilize to get help on homework. They give you one-on-one attention to make sure you understand the subject material. There are also tutors available in the evenings.
Now, like you I'm no math whiz, but at my college we're all required to take "core" math courses in order to graduate. This includes a half-semester courses in calculus and prob/stat as well as semester courses in linear algebra, differential equations, and vector calculus. I would never be able to complete these subjects without the resources available at a college.
Although the public forums are a valuable resource for you, I'm curious how much time it took to answer (or even ask) your questions. I know if I'm stuck on a problem it would take me 20 minutes or more to explain my question over instant messenger and another 20 minutes to receive a reply - much less understand it, whereas it would take 5 minutes to walk down the hall and visit the nearest math major.
I'm also curious what format the forums use, for submitting homework assignments as well as discussion. Do you all have to learn LaTeX to take advantage of integral signs, as well as all the superscripts/subscripts and greek characters that are useful in math? Or do you just spent a lot of time playing with the useless equation editor in MS Word, or do they provide software for editing equations?
I think a more proper analogy would be something akin to a work of art. An artist will spend hours and hours creating a work of art - be it sculpture, painting, or whatever. The artist may have enjoyed making this peice of art (or may not have, but sometimes leveling in games like these isn't always fun), but if someone comes along and stomps on their artwork and destroys it the artist isn't going to be happy. Sure, they can just make it all over again, but its damaging, wastes their time, and their money in buying the resources to make the art. I'm not claiming that MMORPG characters are (or aren't) works of art, but the analogy seems fairly obvious.
Or a more direct video game analogy would be progress. Suppose you had just defeated the boss to level 25, or something, and just made it to level 26 for the first time ever.You mom calls you for dinner, so you save the game and turn off your computer. Now suppose your little sister comes along and deletes that one saved game. Sure, you had fun defeating that boss, but it was difficult and you'd rather not have to do it again. You'd rather progress farther in the game than have to replay parts you've already seen.
In either case, though, the customers of Ubi have faced some sort of damage. That means, for Ubi it would be a smart business move in the eyes of its customers to prosecute the hackers.
Ok, their employers helped in the investigation. They commended the employees for reporting the crime. The employees were fired for supposedly unrelated reasons. As much as I'd like to trust InformationWeek, they only got one side of the story.
If the employees were fired for blowing the whistle, then I would agree that they should win the lawsuit. But it could also be that the employees became so distracted with the situation that they were no longer productive. Like it has been said before, we're going to ahve to leave this up to the courts to hear both sides - we only got one.
Though, I'm sure everyone would agree that Collegis Inc wasn't trying to cover up any crimes.
"You have a responsibility to society that goes beyond any contract you have with your employer."
Yes. Exactly. However, if I were in this situation I would probably alert my employer/chain of command first as a courtesy to my employer. Either my boss (or his boss, etc) will alert the proper authorities, or if I feel that my employers are not handling the situation properly then I will contact the authorities. Basically, what I think the original poster may have meant was: Out of courtesy to your employer alert your boss first about any situation (your boss may have experience with similar situations and be a valuable asset to law enforcement), and if and only if you think that the chain of command cannot/won't take care of the situation sufficiently, and in a timely manner then you take matters into your own hands. But I still think that your boss should know beforehand (unless of course this has to do with internal corruption of your boss in the first place).
Another role the SATs fulfil goes beyond an aptitude test. Yes, for the most people that's what it does - measures as best it can scholastic aptitude, for better or worse. But it's also just one more hurdle in the path to college. If you think you're better than the test then you obviously don't HAVE to take it. But myself and many of my friends who thought that the test wasn't worth our time took it anyway. Why? Because if we didn't, then we limited ourselves in terms of a college education. Sure, we could have gone to a local community college instead and transfered - but even most State Universities offer higher quality education that community colleges.
In this case, the SAT measured our desire to get into college - not our aptitude for college. Its obvious that we would succeed in college based on our GPA, college essays, and other parts of our application. But by taking the SATs we showed the admissions board that we were willing to jump through a few hoops to get to college. We were willing to make a time commitment to school and a test that was meaningless and the admission boards at the various schools we are attending now took that into account. Obviously, if we lacked the fortitude just to take one more standardized test then any college would be justified in rejecting us.
"They do this to filter out the poor. The rich automatically have an advantage in that they are usually trained for the SAT..."
One might say that college in general sort of "filters" out the poor. One could argue that parents who pay for tutors, not just for SATs, and buy fancy calculators, etc... give their children advantages in school and in college. They can also afford to send their child to ballet school, summer football camps, and a ton more extra curriculars than a poor student and enhance their chances of getting into school. However, most colleges these days are willing to recognize the fact that poorer students don't get as many opportunities, so instead many admission standards aren't based on accomplishments, but on the opportunities presented and how the student took advantage of them. I'm not trying to say that rich students don't have any advantage - but its not incredibly difficult for a hardworking person, regardless of financial background, to get into college.
Second:
"If I decide to take it now and I score a 1500, perhaps I would get accepted into Harvard a bit sooner, but you'll end up in the same spot if you get good grades, keep a 3.5 or above GPA, do well in your classes for a consistant period of time and you can transfer into Harvard. Its also cheaper this way."
Getting in, via a transfer method, may be easier for some people than taking the SATs it is strictly speaking not cheaper. Many Ivy League schools, or even remotely pretigious schools have fairly strict requirements on transfer credits. An example is at my school, Harvey Mudd, one transfer Engineering major from UT Austin had completed three years, but due to transfer credits not going in his favor (and the Engineering curriculum here at Mudd is extremely rigorous) he still has at least 2 more years here - for a total of 5 years in college. UT Austin may be cheaper per year, but if you have to take 3 years of class to qualify for two years at Harvey Mudd, then it might even be a financial burden.
Third:
"SATs are useless, people should be judged by their grades, their merit, not some score on a test which could be a fluke, or which they could have used their money to train themselves for."
SATs aren't the sole admissions standard for any college - in fact most colleges are putting less and less weight on SAT scores. It is also possible to make up for low SAT scores by having strong extracurriculars or writing an interesting or good personal statement/essay. What the SATs are useful for is providing a *rough* gauge of academic potential. It's incredibly rough though. But when you think about it, its needed. Many schools go through thousands and thousands of applications, and in many cases admit only a couple hundred. SAT scores allow admission offices a fairly good way to establish a sort of minimum for prospective students. Getting a 1600 won't guarantee admission at any of the more competitive institutions (MIT, Harvard, or any of the Service Academies like West Point or Annapolis). Its only one of many things that are considered.
Fourth: "Alot of people train hard for the SATs, get into Harvard or Yale, and drop out, mainly because they dont know how to work hard, they just know how to pass tests."
A lot of what college is, is taking lots of tests. They're not all standardized tests, but they're still tests. Its inevitable that you're going to have to take quite a few high-pressure tests in college (finals are next week!). The SAT is a good measure of how you will do under pressure. If you can train for a test, that means you can train to take a physics final or if you train for the SAT II writing test, it will show aptitude for that essay test in English class. And not that many people drop out of Yale (I'm not sure about Harvard), as there's a 95% graduation rate within 6 years - source here.
If you see a truck driving by with a simple www.mybizhere.com on it, its much easier to remember than a seven digit(or 10 digits with area code) phone number. So there is some merit to advertising your website, even if it is only is a business card to potential customers.
Say you saw the truck on the weekend, and said to yourself "interesting, a landscaping truck with a URL on it." Then three days later your lawn explodes (or something like that). You don't remember the phone number painted on the side of the truck, but URLs can be easy to remember (www.daveslandscaping.com or similar). So you zap up the website, like what you see and call them up.
Triangulation is difficult with cell-phones and generally isn't done. This article points out the difficulty in locating the origination of a cell phone call. (scroll to the end of the article).
However, I believe newer phones have GPS chips and so are much easier to locate. So if you were to get rid of your land line and were worried about being located, then make sure the cell phone you buy has a GPS chip.
I think, as it was mentioned earlier, this has amazing applications for the science and engineering communities. Ever try visualizing a three dimensional mathematical function in your head? Except for most simple functions, this can be near impossible for all but a very few gifted people. Chemists, Engineers, Physicists, etc, will all be able to see three dimensional functions with this new monitor without having to be exceptionally gifted at math. True, there are computer programs that can represent three dimensional functions extremely well on a computer screen... but they're still just a projection onto a 2D-surface.
This will also help Chemists in viewing complicated chemical models of protein chains, or reactions, whatever else.
I can think of a million reasons for having this around that maybe the average consumer won't have a use for, but the scientific community at large will have hundreds of uses for. And as the price comes down, then popularity among consumers, who may not have a driving need it for it, will increase.
I bet it will catch on quickly in research institutions, engineering firms, and universities and slowly trickle into business and consumer applications (games on a large version of this would be awesome). Reminds me of computers.
"Who uses frames anyways? They are SO three generations ago."
What seems to be a trend is that these companies file for a patent (in this case back in 1996) that aren't granted until after the technology has already propogated across the internet (2002). Then when these companies try to enforce their patents everybody's already using the technology as a standard - or even past standard.
Perhaps if the patents were granted faster then whoever controls the rights can also control the proliferation of those technologies. That way when they finally get permission to enforce their patent it's not already spread around the world - giving the public the idea that these big business types are picking on the little guys.
Or perhaps this is just my poor understanding of the patent system. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"how about this super-duper analogy... my neighbor runs his sprinkler so hard that it waters my lawn. is it wrong to stick a glass in it and drink?"
To take your analogy further, should you have to move your lawn so it doesn't get watered by his sprinkler because you're stealing his water?
The problem here is that everyone is using analogies to prove their points. While analogies provide useful insights into certain situations, one must be careful to evaluate the argument on the facts, not clever analogies. In this case, WiFi networks that are unsecured can be stumbled upon accidentally and often unknowingly. This happens especially when wireless networks overlaps. As stated previously, there are simple ways of distinguishing your network from another. This law is merely in place to protect those who accidentally stumble upon networks that are broadcasting unsecured and without any positive identification. For this purpose it is good.
There are, however, some interesting legal questions regarding wardriving that should be addressed, but the substance of the law is still very useful and good.
What about those hostile states that possess dangerous weapons? I'm not just talking Iraq here, North Korea's got nukes and the Prime Minister isn't a nice person. Diplomacy will hopefully work, but at the very least America has to keep its nose in the world's business when it comes to issues like that, or governments that support terrorism.
Or how about Mexico? They do nothing to stop the stream of illegal immigrants across the border. In fact, it could be argued that they encourage it. Instead of dealing with their own economic problems, they force America to deal with them. Many illegal immigrants collect welfare and unemployment. Is that fair?
Monster.com only removed resume's that list "current address" from sanctioned countries. So if a guy from Afghanistan came to the US for work, well he can list his US address as his current address on his resume and it won't be deleted. The only reason he doesn't have a US address, if he came here for work, is if he is an illegal immigrant, and in that case he can't post on Monster.com anyway.
Also, it might be pertinent to point out that I seriously doubt that Afghanistan is under sanctions right now, seeing as the US is trying its darndest to establish a democracy there. Killing whatever economy it may have is not a good idea.
If you read the article, or even the short paragraph at the top of the./ you would see that the raid was not so much because they had copyrighted material, but because they were hogging so much bandwidth. Their ISP, The Defense Research & Engineering Network, threatened to take away their internet connection, or force the Academy to start paying for it themselves if they didn't stop the bandwidth hogging.
Why were the files delted you may ask? Well, again, in the article it says that these students were warned multiple times to stop sharing these files. They were only raided when they ignored the warnings, and only the files that were being shared and programs facilitating the sharing (and causing the bandwidth hogging) were deleted.
Perhaps I should clarify. I was pointing out the strongest opposition argument that I had encountered (as opposed to Just War Theory or former US support of Saddam). So while I think that we should be careful about how our image is portrayed in the middle east, I fully support Bush and the troops. What I was trying to get at, is I'd much rather hear those decent and thoughtful arguments to the chants and mantras of the protesters who really havent done much research or thought about the issues involved.
The Iraq war can be a step forward or backward in Arab-Western relations. It all depends on what happens in the near future. But I also agree with you that Israel is probably the most central issue with the Middle Eastern states. I would like to think that Arabs don't necessarily want to eradicate the Jews from the face of the earth so much than just remove them from the Middle Eastern area. If we demon the Arabs as such intolerant and hateful people then we're just as bad, if not worse, than our own characterization of the Arabs.
Whether Agent Orange is safe is not the question though. What's in question is how you choose to imply that it was used as a chemical weapon. It was not, as was repeated many times already, a weapon. It was used to defoliate the forests to protect the marines who had to stomp through the jungle. Yes, it had side effects that weren't known at the time, but it was not used as a weapon, but as a defense measure to help keep troops safe. Are pesticides used by farmers, or weed killer that you use on your lawn chemical weapons? I think not. So don't try to claim that the US as used chemical weapons. Agent Orange is NOT a chemical weapon and was never used as such.
On the US pulling out of Iraq, I actually agree with you. What I meant when I said "step out of Iraq as quickly and cleanly as possible," I actually meant we do have to stick around, but be transparent as you said and do our best to get the Iraqi's independent quickly. And while I think it may see a bit shifty to only grant reconstruction contracts to the US corporations(are Britain and other coalition countries included), one could point out that this was a war fought primarily by the US - therefore it would be unfair to the US if French, Russian, German, etc corporations got the profitable contracts due to our work.
I also agree with you for the most part about Arab American relations. As you put it "I honestly believe those relations could be repaired but it would take many years of listening to the arabs and actively trying to come to a reasonable compromise." I was just pointing out the anti-Western bias (justified or not - I'm not arguing either way right now) that exists in the arab world. In order to reach a reasonable compromise both sides will have to do some active listening and make positive steps. As things look now, there is a full spectrum in both the Arab world and the West of those who wish to patch up relations and others who could care less. And those lines in the West aren't necessarily drawn along Party lines.
It's amazing what happens when an honest discussion happens rather than trying to demonize each other because we hold different opinions. Rather than spewing propaganda, there is an exchange of ideas. I learn why people disagree with me besides the fact that they think "Bush is as bad as Hitler" or that "the war is only for oil."
I find it reprehensible that the majority of the protesters have to rely on the "War for Oil" or "Bush = Hitler" mantras. However when you look past these bandwagon protesters and find the people with real coherent arguments, there are reasons to disagree with the War besides mindless chants. I think the biggest argument against the war would be that invading Iraq heightens the anti-West feeling in the middle east. That being said, its also plain to see that it seems despite anything the West does, the middle east will resent the West. Perhaps, if we step out of Iraq quickly and cleanly as soon as the people are liberated we can surprise most middle eastern people and they will start to change their minds.
When you start to look at the real issues, then perhaps we can start coming to agreements, or at least being able to understand why the opposition disagrees with us. This goes for both sides, although its most apparent right now with the anti-war protesters. It is much more constructive to criticize ideas based on their merit, not on the party that originated them. Instead of finding one thing you can propagandize on the media in order to sway public opinion, or by trying to ignore or paint over it(civilian casualties in the war as an example), just give them the facts on both sides and let the public use their brains and some critical thinking and make up their own minds.
The problem with this, is people don't have time to think. They're too busy watching American Idol, or downloading mp3s, or smoking pot. It's just simpler to manipulate public opinion with propaganda than to present honest ideas.
Merely as a hypothetical situation (this isn't meant to imply that Hawash is in this situation, although it may be a possibility):
Suppose a suspect is apprehended by the FBI because of tips from an undercover agent or informant. There is sufficient evidence to hold this person - however to reveal this evidence would blow the cover of the agent or informant. If due process were granted and this suspect convicted or even charged, then perhaps the larger operation is put in jeopardy.
Again, this is just a hypothetical situation. I'm not trying to claim it is the case for Hawash or it is likely. National Security is a sticky issue.
I would also have to point out that sometimes our 'inalienable' rights come into conflict with each other. I have the right as an American citizen to ask my government to protect me from terrorists. However, the gentleman in question has the right to due process. What happens, though, when the government things that allowing due process will infringe on my right to safety?
Another such example is the right to free exercise to religion, where sometimes one's right to free exercise is circumscribed by a generally applying law. This law is infringing my right, but according to current interpretations of the Establishment Clause, to allow me an exception to the law would also be a violation of the first amendment. See U.S. Supreme Court case Sherbert v. Verner (374 U.S. 398), pay special attention to the Opinion of Justice Stewart in how the two clauses of the first amemdment come into conflict.
But that's why we have judges. They are not puppets - they make judgement calls based on evidence they have, which you may not. I'm not trying to say that the government is acting correctly in this situation, but I would advocate examining a few possibilities before attacking one side or the other.
Oh, and just for the record - I am not necessarily an adherent of Behe's. I found his work interesting, but if it is not as grounded in firm science as is suggested by this thread, and I do find good reason to question it.
However, I am still a creationist - and I hold it true that creationism and evolutionism are NOT mutually exclusive.
I do however, resent being attacked personally for my beliefs.
Ok, I was wrong about Columbus. I apologize. That's no reason to attack me as a troll or as a generally ignorant person. Quoting that webpage:
Sometimes the claim is made that those who opposed Columbus thought the Earth was flat, but that wasn't the case at all.
This claim is often taught in public schools - as it was taught to me. I'm glad you pointed out my error, but I would rather you would do it in a respectful manner. Something alone the lines of "I believe your analogy is incorrect. It is a common misconception that opponents of Columbus claimed the world was flat, when in fact it was known at the time that the world was round." would have worked perfectly. Just because I was mistaken about one small fact doesn't mean I am wholly ignorant nor stupid.
When debating, taking the position that your opponent is just stupid usually won't win you any battles. So instead of trying to attack my intelligence I suggest you address the second half of my last post.
Slashdot Mirror
"Since the late 1980's after Chickering and Gameson published the now classic Seven Best Teaching Principles for Undergraduate Education * after extensive research, there has been a quiet revolution to reform college teaching practices and promote effective teaching practices including eliminating the famous "dancing with the blackboardâ so common in the math and science departments and replace it with pedagogically, effective active learning."
Despite their research,my opinion stems from personal experience - I could be the exception to the rule.
I find that I learn the best when presented with the blackboard dance, especially in the area of math and sciences. Things that are presented straightforward with proofs and/or theory sink in the best. Then by completing a set of practice problems in the area the knowledge is firmly cemented in my brain. This, of course, provided that I got adequate sleep the night before so I'm not falling asleep in class.
The so called "effective active learning" - which I take to mean things like case studies, or "interactive learning projects" - doesn't teach me as well. Sure, its not as boring sometimes, but most often it just serves to distract me from the essence of the subject material. It tends to gloss over many of the details the can be extremely useful in doing the homework, and in generally understanding the nuances of mathematicall theorems.
But again, I'll have to agree with your first point. It's most often the professor who has the greatest impact. Some of my chem-profs do nothing but "blackboard dancing" and I learn an incredible amount from them, and my fellow students love them. Others try to bring in lots of "real life examples" that most of the time are just irrelevant to the exact subject material, and they are generally disliked.
An engaging and exciting professor always makes learning easier and better - but often, the subject material is engaging enough for the studens. All the professor has to is explain it clearly, thoroughly, and competently. Some of my professors are geniuses who do amazing research, but when it comes to trying to explain the nuances of some chemical processes no one can understand them, save their colleagues. Other professors have less impressive degrees (although I wouldn't say they're less intelligent an other professors), but they can explain things succinctly and clearly - without resorting to "active learning" tricks.
So, to sum up: I doubt even "active learning" techniques has a whole lot to do with being a good or poor professor. It all lies in the professors ability to convey ideas to the class - and the simplest way to do this is most often just with the chalk board.
"Traditional classroom: Instructor works through some problems during class, talks about theory, etc. Assigns homework. You turn it in. Little to no conversation with your fellow students on these assignments, as it's considered to be cheating."
Quite the opposite at my college. Our lectures do consist of the professor going through the theory and presenting a few examples, but it doesn't stop there. Our homework assignments are challenging, but we are encouraged to work together - otherwise it would be near impossible to complete on time. That is to say, copying is frowned upon, but it helps immensely to work with someone who is performing the same operations and catches any simple errors you may make.
Also, the professors hold office hours in which you are encouraged to utilize to get help on homework. They give you one-on-one attention to make sure you understand the subject material. There are also tutors available in the evenings.
Now, like you I'm no math whiz, but at my college we're all required to take "core" math courses in order to graduate. This includes a half-semester courses in calculus and prob/stat as well as semester courses in linear algebra, differential equations, and vector calculus. I would never be able to complete these subjects without the resources available at a college.
Although the public forums are a valuable resource for you, I'm curious how much time it took to answer (or even ask) your questions. I know if I'm stuck on a problem it would take me 20 minutes or more to explain my question over instant messenger and another 20 minutes to receive a reply - much less understand it, whereas it would take 5 minutes to walk down the hall and visit the nearest math major.
I'm also curious what format the forums use, for submitting homework assignments as well as discussion. Do you all have to learn LaTeX to take advantage of integral signs, as well as all the superscripts/subscripts and greek characters that are useful in math? Or do you just spent a lot of time playing with the useless equation editor in MS Word, or do they provide software for editing equations?
I think a more proper analogy would be something akin to a work of art. An artist will spend hours and hours creating a work of art - be it sculpture, painting, or whatever. The artist may have enjoyed making this peice of art (or may not have, but sometimes leveling in games like these isn't always fun), but if someone comes along and stomps on their artwork and destroys it the artist isn't going to be happy. Sure, they can just make it all over again, but its damaging, wastes their time, and their money in buying the resources to make the art. I'm not claiming that MMORPG characters are (or aren't) works of art, but the analogy seems fairly obvious.
Or a more direct video game analogy would be progress. Suppose you had just defeated the boss to level 25, or something, and just made it to level 26 for the first time ever.You mom calls you for dinner, so you save the game and turn off your computer. Now suppose your little sister comes along and deletes that one saved game. Sure, you had fun defeating that boss, but it was difficult and you'd rather not have to do it again. You'd rather progress farther in the game than have to replay parts you've already seen.
In either case, though, the customers of Ubi have faced some sort of damage. That means, for Ubi it would be a smart business move in the eyes of its customers to prosecute the hackers.
Ok, their employers helped in the investigation. They commended the employees for reporting the crime. The employees were fired for supposedly unrelated reasons. As much as I'd like to trust InformationWeek, they only got one side of the story.
If the employees were fired for blowing the whistle, then I would agree that they should win the lawsuit. But it could also be that the employees became so distracted with the situation that they were no longer productive. Like it has been said before, we're going to ahve to leave this up to the courts to hear both sides - we only got one.
Though, I'm sure everyone would agree that Collegis Inc wasn't trying to cover up any crimes.
"You have a responsibility to society that goes beyond any contract you have with your employer."
Yes. Exactly. However, if I were in this situation I would probably alert my employer/chain of command first as a courtesy to my employer. Either my boss (or his boss, etc) will alert the proper authorities, or if I feel that my employers are not handling the situation properly then I will contact the authorities. Basically, what I think the original poster may have meant was:
Out of courtesy to your employer alert your boss first about any situation (your boss may have experience with similar situations and be a valuable asset to law enforcement), and if and only if you think that the chain of command cannot/won't take care of the situation sufficiently, and in a timely manner then you take matters into your own hands. But I still think that your boss should know beforehand (unless of course this has to do with internal corruption of your boss in the first place).
Another role the SATs fulfil goes beyond an aptitude test. Yes, for the most people that's what it does - measures as best it can scholastic aptitude, for better or worse. But it's also just one more hurdle in the path to college. If you think you're better than the test then you obviously don't HAVE to take it. But myself and many of my friends who thought that the test wasn't worth our time took it anyway. Why? Because if we didn't, then we limited ourselves in terms of a college education. Sure, we could have gone to a local community college instead and transfered - but even most State Universities offer higher quality education that community colleges.
In this case, the SAT measured our desire to get into college - not our aptitude for college. Its obvious that we would succeed in college based on our GPA, college essays, and other parts of our application. But by taking the SATs we showed the admissions board that we were willing to jump through a few hoops to get to college. We were willing to make a time commitment to school and a test that was meaningless and the admission boards at the various schools we are attending now took that into account. Obviously, if we lacked the fortitude just to take one more standardized test then any college would be justified in rejecting us.
OK, a couple points of contention:
"They do this to filter out the poor. The rich automatically have an advantage in that they are usually trained for the SAT..."
One might say that college in general sort of "filters" out the poor. One could argue that parents who pay for tutors, not just for SATs, and buy fancy calculators, etc... give their children advantages in school and in college. They can also afford to send their child to ballet school, summer football camps, and a ton more extra curriculars than a poor student and enhance their chances of getting into school.
However, most colleges these days are willing to recognize the fact that poorer students don't get as many opportunities, so instead many admission standards aren't based on accomplishments, but on the opportunities presented and how the student took advantage of them. I'm not trying to say that rich students don't have any advantage - but its not incredibly difficult for a hardworking person, regardless of financial background, to get into college.
Second:
"If I decide to take it now and I score a 1500, perhaps I would get accepted into Harvard a bit sooner, but you'll end up in the same spot if you get good grades, keep a 3.5 or above GPA, do well in your classes for a consistant period of time and you can transfer into Harvard. Its also cheaper this way."
Getting in, via a transfer method, may be easier for some people than taking the SATs it is strictly speaking not cheaper. Many Ivy League schools, or even remotely pretigious schools have fairly strict requirements on transfer credits. An example is at my school, Harvey Mudd, one transfer Engineering major from UT Austin had completed three years, but due to transfer credits not going in his favor (and the Engineering curriculum here at Mudd is extremely rigorous) he still has at least 2 more years here - for a total of 5 years in college. UT Austin may be cheaper per year, but if you have to take 3 years of class to qualify for two years at Harvey Mudd, then it might even be a financial burden.
Third:
"SATs are useless, people should be judged by their grades, their merit, not some score on a test which could be a fluke, or which they could have used their money to train themselves for."
SATs aren't the sole admissions standard for any college - in fact most colleges are putting less and less weight on SAT scores. It is also possible to make up for low SAT scores by having strong extracurriculars or writing an interesting or good personal statement/essay. What the SATs are useful for is providing a *rough* gauge of academic potential. It's incredibly rough though. But when you think about it, its needed. Many schools go through thousands and thousands of applications, and in many cases admit only a couple hundred. SAT scores allow admission offices a fairly good way to establish a sort of minimum for prospective students. Getting a 1600 won't guarantee admission at any of the more competitive institutions (MIT, Harvard, or any of the Service Academies like West Point or Annapolis). Its only one of many things that are considered.
Fourth:
"Alot of people train hard for the SATs, get into Harvard or Yale, and drop out, mainly because they dont know how to work hard, they just know how to pass tests."
A lot of what college is, is taking lots of tests. They're not all standardized tests, but they're still tests. Its inevitable that you're going to have to take quite a few high-pressure tests in college (finals are next week!). The SAT is a good measure of how you will do under pressure. If you can train for a test, that means you can train to take a physics final or if you train for the SAT II writing test, it will show aptitude for that essay test in English class. And not that many people drop out of Yale (I'm not sure about Harvard), as there's a 95% graduation rate within 6 years - source here.
If you see a truck driving by with a simple www.mybizhere.com on it, its much easier to remember than a seven digit(or 10 digits with area code) phone number. So there is some merit to advertising your website, even if it is only is a business card to potential customers.
Say you saw the truck on the weekend, and said to yourself "interesting, a landscaping truck with a URL on it." Then three days later your lawn explodes (or something like that). You don't remember the phone number painted on the side of the truck, but URLs can be easy to remember (www.daveslandscaping.com or similar). So you zap up the website, like what you see and call them up.
Seems like a good strategy to me.
Triangulation is difficult with cell-phones and generally isn't done. This article points out the difficulty in locating the origination of a cell phone call. (scroll to the end of the article).
However, I believe newer phones have GPS chips and so are much easier to locate. So if you were to get rid of your land line and were worried about being located, then make sure the cell phone you buy has a GPS chip.
I think, as it was mentioned earlier, this has amazing applications for the science and engineering communities. Ever try visualizing a three dimensional mathematical function in your head? Except for most simple functions, this can be near impossible for all but a very few gifted people.
Chemists, Engineers, Physicists, etc, will all be able to see three dimensional functions with this new monitor without having to be exceptionally gifted at math. True, there are computer programs that can represent three dimensional functions extremely well on a computer screen... but they're still just a projection onto a 2D-surface.
This will also help Chemists in viewing complicated chemical models of protein chains, or reactions, whatever else.
I can think of a million reasons for having this around that maybe the average consumer won't have a use for, but the scientific community at large will have hundreds of uses for. And as the price comes down, then popularity among consumers, who may not have a driving need it for it, will increase.
I bet it will catch on quickly in research institutions, engineering firms, and universities and slowly trickle into business and consumer applications (games on a large version of this would be awesome). Reminds me of computers.
"Who uses frames anyways? They are SO three generations ago."
What seems to be a trend is that these companies file for a patent (in this case back in 1996) that aren't granted until after the technology has already propogated across the internet (2002). Then when these companies try to enforce their patents everybody's already using the technology as a standard - or even past standard.
Perhaps if the patents were granted faster then whoever controls the rights can also control the proliferation of those technologies. That way when they finally get permission to enforce their patent it's not already spread around the world - giving the public the idea that these big business types are picking on the little guys.
Or perhaps this is just my poor understanding of the patent system. Correct me if I'm wrong.
What about us chemists who only have a rudimentary understanding of math and physics? Aren't we nerdy enough?
"how about this super-duper analogy... my neighbor runs his sprinkler so hard that it waters my lawn. is it wrong to stick a glass in it and drink?"
To take your analogy further, should you have to move your lawn so it doesn't get watered by his sprinkler because you're stealing his water?
The problem here is that everyone is using analogies to prove their points. While analogies provide useful insights into certain situations, one must be careful to evaluate the argument on the facts, not clever analogies.
In this case, WiFi networks that are unsecured can be stumbled upon accidentally and often unknowingly. This happens especially when wireless networks overlaps. As stated previously, there are simple ways of distinguishing your network from another.
This law is merely in place to protect those who accidentally stumble upon networks that are broadcasting unsecured and without any positive identification. For this purpose it is good.
There are, however, some interesting legal questions regarding wardriving that should be addressed, but the substance of the law is still very useful and good.
What about those hostile states that possess dangerous weapons? I'm not just talking Iraq here, North Korea's got nukes and the Prime Minister isn't a nice person. Diplomacy will hopefully work, but at the very least America has to keep its nose in the world's business when it comes to issues like that, or governments that support terrorism.
Or how about Mexico? They do nothing to stop the stream of illegal immigrants across the border. In fact, it could be argued that they encourage it. Instead of dealing with their own economic problems, they force America to deal with them. Many illegal immigrants collect welfare and unemployment. Is that fair?
Monster.com only removed resume's that list "current address" from sanctioned countries. So if a guy from Afghanistan came to the US for work, well he can list his US address as his current address on his resume and it won't be deleted. The only reason he doesn't have a US address, if he came here for work, is if he is an illegal immigrant, and in that case he can't post on Monster.com anyway.
Also, it might be pertinent to point out that I seriously doubt that Afghanistan is under sanctions right now, seeing as the US is trying its darndest to establish a democracy there. Killing whatever economy it may have is not a good idea.
If you read the article, or even the short paragraph at the top of the ./ you would see that the raid was not so much because they had copyrighted material, but because they were hogging so much bandwidth. Their ISP, The Defense Research & Engineering Network, threatened to take away their internet connection, or force the Academy to start paying for it themselves if they didn't stop the bandwidth hogging.
Why were the files delted you may ask? Well, again, in the article it says that these students were warned multiple times to stop sharing these files. They were only raided when they ignored the warnings, and only the files that were being shared and programs facilitating the sharing (and causing the bandwidth hogging) were deleted.
Perhaps I should clarify. I was pointing out the strongest opposition argument that I had encountered (as opposed to Just War Theory or former US support of Saddam). So while I think that we should be careful about how our image is portrayed in the middle east, I fully support Bush and the troops. What I was trying to get at, is I'd much rather hear those decent and thoughtful arguments to the chants and mantras of the protesters who really havent done much research or thought about the issues involved.
The Iraq war can be a step forward or backward in Arab-Western relations. It all depends on what happens in the near future. But I also agree with you that Israel is probably the most central issue with the Middle Eastern states. I would like to think that Arabs don't necessarily want to eradicate the Jews from the face of the earth so much than just remove them from the Middle Eastern area. If we demon the Arabs as such intolerant and hateful people then we're just as bad, if not worse, than our own characterization of the Arabs.
Whether Agent Orange is safe is not the question though. What's in question is how you choose to imply that it was used as a chemical weapon. It was not, as was repeated many times already, a weapon. It was used to defoliate the forests to protect the marines who had to stomp through the jungle. Yes, it had side effects that weren't known at the time, but it was not used as a weapon, but as a defense measure to help keep troops safe. Are pesticides used by farmers, or weed killer that you use on your lawn chemical weapons? I think not. So don't try to claim that the US as used chemical weapons. Agent Orange is NOT a chemical weapon and was never used as such.
On the US pulling out of Iraq, I actually agree with you. What I meant when I said "step out of Iraq as quickly and cleanly as possible," I actually meant we do have to stick around, but be transparent as you said and do our best to get the Iraqi's independent quickly. And while I think it may see a bit shifty to only grant reconstruction contracts to the US corporations(are Britain and other coalition countries included), one could point out that this was a war fought primarily by the US - therefore it would be unfair to the US if French, Russian, German, etc corporations got the profitable contracts due to our work.
I also agree with you for the most part about Arab American relations. As you put it "I honestly believe those relations could be repaired but it would take many years of listening to the arabs and actively trying to come to a reasonable compromise." I was just pointing out the anti-Western bias (justified or not - I'm not arguing either way right now) that exists in the arab world. In order to reach a reasonable compromise both sides will have to do some active listening and make positive steps. As things look now, there is a full spectrum in both the Arab world and the West of those who wish to patch up relations and others who could care less. And those lines in the West aren't necessarily drawn along Party lines.
It's amazing what happens when an honest discussion happens rather than trying to demonize each other because we hold different opinions. Rather than spewing propaganda, there is an exchange of ideas. I learn why people disagree with me besides the fact that they think "Bush is as bad as Hitler" or that "the war is only for oil."
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I find it reprehensible that the majority of the protesters have to rely on the "War for Oil" or "Bush = Hitler" mantras. However when you look past these bandwagon protesters and find the people with real coherent arguments, there are reasons to disagree with the War besides mindless chants. I think the biggest argument against the war would be that invading Iraq heightens the anti-West feeling in the middle east. That being said, its also plain to see that it seems despite anything the West does, the middle east will resent the West. Perhaps, if we step out of Iraq quickly and cleanly as soon as the people are liberated we can surprise most middle eastern people and they will start to change their minds.
When you start to look at the real issues, then perhaps we can start coming to agreements, or at least being able to understand why the opposition disagrees with us. This goes for both sides, although its most apparent right now with the anti-war protesters. It is much more constructive to criticize ideas based on their merit, not on the party that originated them. Instead of finding one thing you can propagandize on the media in order to sway public opinion, or by trying to ignore or paint over it(civilian casualties in the war as an example), just give them the facts on both sides and let the public use their brains and some critical thinking and make up their own minds.
The problem with this, is people don't have time to think. They're too busy watching American Idol, or downloading mp3s, or smoking pot. It's just simpler to manipulate public opinion with propaganda than to present honest ideas.
One would think that they would check serial numbers. I dunno, never tried it.
Merely as a hypothetical situation (this isn't meant to imply that Hawash is in this situation, although it may be a possibility): Suppose a suspect is apprehended by the FBI because of tips from an undercover agent or informant. There is sufficient evidence to hold this person - however to reveal this evidence would blow the cover of the agent or informant. If due process were granted and this suspect convicted or even charged, then perhaps the larger operation is put in jeopardy. Again, this is just a hypothetical situation. I'm not trying to claim it is the case for Hawash or it is likely. National Security is a sticky issue.
I would also have to point out that sometimes our 'inalienable' rights come into conflict with each other. I have the right as an American citizen to ask my government to protect me from terrorists. However, the gentleman in question has the right to due process. What happens, though, when the government things that allowing due process will infringe on my right to safety?
Another such example is the right to free exercise to religion, where sometimes one's right to free exercise is circumscribed by a generally applying law. This law is infringing my right, but according to current interpretations of the Establishment Clause, to allow me an exception to the law would also be a violation of the first amendment. See U.S. Supreme Court case Sherbert v. Verner (374 U.S. 398), pay special attention to the Opinion of Justice Stewart in how the two clauses of the first amemdment come into conflict.
But that's why we have judges. They are not puppets - they make judgement calls based on evidence they have, which you may not. I'm not trying to say that the government is acting correctly in this situation, but I would advocate examining a few possibilities before attacking one side or the other.
Thanks! I'll be sure to read this.
Oh, and just for the record - I am not necessarily an adherent of Behe's. I found his work interesting, but if it is not as grounded in firm science as is suggested by this thread, and I do find good reason to question it.
However, I am still a creationist - and I hold it true that creationism and evolutionism are NOT mutually exclusive.
I do however, resent being attacked personally for my beliefs.
Ok, I was wrong about Columbus. I apologize. That's no reason to attack me as a troll or as a generally ignorant person. Quoting that webpage:
Sometimes the claim is made that those who opposed Columbus thought the Earth was flat, but that wasn't the case at all.
This claim is often taught in public schools - as it was taught to me. I'm glad you pointed out my error, but I would rather you would do it in a respectful manner. Something alone the lines of "I believe your analogy is incorrect. It is a common misconception that opponents of Columbus claimed the world was flat, when in fact it was known at the time that the world was round." would have worked perfectly. Just because I was mistaken about one small fact doesn't mean I am wholly ignorant nor stupid.
When debating, taking the position that your opponent is just stupid usually won't win you any battles. So instead of trying to attack my intelligence I suggest you address the second half of my last post.