Feb. 22nd, 2007

jason: jason (Default)

After student watched the famous Catsy video on hacking, this comes up: Article - News - Ex-judge Kline gets prison:
“Kline admitted he stored more than 100 sexually explicit photos of under-age boys on his computer and on several disks found at his Irvine home in November 2001. Police caught onto Kline after a Canadian computer whiz hacked into the judge’s Irvine home computer and discovered sexually explicit images of young boys and a diary that revealed Kline’s fantasies involving young boys. A subsequent search of his court computer revealed more images and more Web sites.”

[via Slashdot | Ex-judge Gets 27 Months on Evidence From Hacked PC]

Though I’m pleased with the result, I find it a problem that you can break into someone’s space, and then use what you find in your crime to convict you.

jason: jason (Default)

The Julie Amero in All of Us talks about the case of Julie Amero, the substitute teacher who was found guilty of child endangerment because her students saw a flood of adult-oriented popup ads flood her computer screen. And the news coverage is causing a lot of educators to say to themselves in horror: It could have been me.” [see also: Julie Amero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

I wonder why it is that the school and the people responsible for the computers are not under scrutiny. And of course the articles note that no one checked to see if the computer itself was properly set up to block popup windows or to check for malware or spyware. It *sounds* like scapegoating a co-victim, and is troubling.

jason: jason (Default)


The Willard Suitcase Exhibit Online is an amazing exhibit of artifacts from a mental hospital… with stories and contexts.

jason: jason (Default)

Inside Higher Ed :: iCranky talks about a point close to my heart, as a teach-educator, just read and see. This isn’t someone who’s anti-technology, and I find it nostalgic to see someone talking about FTPing files. I find the whole tone of faculty workshops troubling, and engagement issues a bit like giving into marketting trends, and forcing new technology for the sake of itself just wrong-minded. Even though I teach tech, I want it to be used for the right pedagogically appropriate reasons, not just because…

I’m feeling a bit cranky. My colleagues and I have just received word that our next professional development day will focus on ways we need to technologize our teaching methods so that we can better facilitate the success of the newest new generation, commonly known as “Millennials.”This latest alien invasion of first-year students, we are told, are teenage battery packs “with wires running through their veins” plugged into video games, MySpace and iPods.Therefore, we better get our collective act together and at the very least hybridize the delivery of knowledge so that we can help them make the grade in the global marketplace.

So one of the reasons I’m cranky today is because most faculty development workshops I’ve attended assume no knowledge and experience on the part of those being lectured to about the latest advances in technology, learning style, and interconnectivity.

Nobody asks us what we already know and do. Nobody wants to know what the personality of our learning is. Nobody really wants to hear what we have to say. We’re stuffed into row after row of folding chairs facing the PowerPoint torture of illegible pie charts…

Another reason I’m cranky today is that I detest these facile characterizations of our students. At some point, I expect the next newest generation to be labeled “USBs” or “ScanDisks” or “Intels” or “iLearners.” These names and framing metaphors, of course, support all sorts of false notions of knowledge and learning and teaching and success and most frightening: humanity.

And I’m cranky because this attempt to equate pedagogy with technology confuses ends with means. “Student engagement” has become the latest assessment buzzphrase, and thus, the newest once-and-for-all measure of and purpose for learning.

Techno-teaching and ilearning are also best because that’s what our students expect from us. They are the current experts on learning, they know how they best prefer to learn, and we should deliver unto them what they want in the way they want it.

What our students need is not more of what they come in the door with. They don’t need more of the same in the same way they got it before. They need to be confronted with people who talk about ideas that matter. They need to become people who can confront and talk to other people about ideas that matter. They need to sit in a room of people and learn about humanity.

Also, not more Facebook, but more faces in books, extended periods of silent and sustained reading and writing, developing intellectual stamina and the ability to ask questions that don’t lead to easy answers or a quick and final Wikisearch.

jason: jason (Default)

Buriday » i’m mal., well ya. Mal Adjusted. :)

Your results:
You are Zoe Washburne (Second-in-command)

Zoe Washburne (Second-in-command)
80%
Malcolm Reynolds (Captain)
80%
Kaylee Frye (Ship Mechanic)
65%
Jayne Cobb (Mercenary)
60%
River (Stowaway)
55%
Dr. Simon Tam (Ship Medic)
50%
Derrial Book (Shepherd)
50%
Inara Serra (Companion)
45%
A Reaver (Cannibal)
45%
Alliance
45%
Wash (Ship Pilot)
30%
Dependable and trustworthy.
You love your significant other and
you are a tough cookie when in a conflict.


Click here to take the “Which Serenity character am I?” quiz…

jason: jason (Default)

eSchool News online - More ‘reliable’ Wikipedia soon to launch: “Aiming to create a more authoritative source of information than Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that allows anyone to post or edit subject-matter entries, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is getting ready to launch a new collaborative web site. Called Citizendium, the new site will require posters to register their names and has tapped subject-matter experts to serve as content editors.”

I’m skeptical about this, though it seems necessary. I tried a number of times to become a http://dmoz.org/ editor in areas that I’m an acknowledged authority on, and was refused every time. So the ‘reliability’ will only be predicated on the diversity of the editors and the openness of their minds, AND both their own disclosure combined with a feedback mechanism where we can weigh in with data in support of positions that may be silenced by editors. I’m curious, but skeptical. If wikipedia merely required everyone to log in from an externally verrifiable account, we’d be in good shape/

Baby Lab

Feb. 22nd, 2007 03:07 pm
jason: jason (Default)

Oxford University Baby Lab: “What do young infants know about the world around them?” GOOOD question.

October 2013

S M T W T F S
  12345
67891011 12
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 23rd, 2025 06:41 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios