Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are suing themselves out of business
So you are saying that if I am sitting in my house talking with some of my students, the police will come, take me to a book store, make me buy a book, take me back home, and at gun point force me to read from it when interacting with my students?
If you were able to turn that plot line into a novel, you might make some cash!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are suing themselves out of business
If the world ever does come to this rather distressing level of oppression, then we'll just have to revert to the style of instruction used by the Greeks, Romans, and other ancient teachers. It's called "verbal communication."
Should your prediction come true and if I am still in the teaching profession, I will simply talk to my students and describe what they need to do. Now in today's world of graphically-oriented, touch screen user interfaces that may be a bit challenging, but I'd be willing to give it a try.
Now if my lectures would have to first pass some board of review straight out of 1984, by that time the world will be so bad off that government approval of a lecture on the practical application of doubly-linked lists would be the least of my worries.
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are suing themselves out of business
But I'm not talking about writing software. I'm talking about using my notes, my sketches, my outlines, stuff that I write, to teach students certain skills.
The main post that started this chain was about publishers wanting to restrict the use of materials that colleges previously reproduced for use by their students. If those restrictions become unacceptable, one simply has to stop using the materials.
While I do agree with you that laws and rules implementing these sort of restrictions need to be resisted, in a profit-driven world the ultimate resistance is to simply not buy their stuff.
Some may not consider it a solution. I consider it more of a workaround.
When the government and/or cartels want you to do something, just do it. In this case they don't want people copying their products. OK - don't copy them. In fact, don't even buy them. That will solve the entire problem.
Either write the material yourself or purchase it from someone who doesn't place restrictions on how the material is used.
I remember back a million or so years ago when I was an undergrad and the professors were slapping the same publisher-provided transparencies on the overhead projector for years on end. These matched the publisher-provided lab manuals and study guides and it made "teaching" the course much easier for the profs. When I got into the Ed Biz, I decided that was one thing that I would not do.
It's a free market place. Instructors and students are free to not use material bearing suffocating and unworkable restriction.
As an instructor of college IT courses, I gave up on publishers years ago. The lab manuals, course packs, work books, and sometimes even text books, at least in the applied subject areas, are getting higher in glitz and graphics and at the same time lower in quality.
It took a while but I basically wrote all the stuff myself that I need to accompany whichever text book I selected for a course. I've been fortunate that when I've had to change text books (due to a new edition being released or a book no longer being available) the editing I had to do to my material was minimal.
Once it's written, it's converted to PDF and posted to our school's instructional management system for viewing and download by the students. No muss. No fuss.
It was a pain in the beginning but it's paid off ever since.
The publishers are driving themselves out of business with over the top pricing and if they win this court case, they'll just increase the speed of the train wreck.
Instructors will stop using their material out of fear of litigation. Schools will implement draconian anti-copyright-violation rules and regulations. Students will find ways to pirate (Oh No!) the information. It might be time that the hard-copy text book publishers go the way of buggy whip manufacturers.
1. Many people vote absentee when they are going to be out of town during election day, even those who are not in the military. My kids vote absentee because they are in university away from their home town.
2. AFAIK, everyone in the US only gets to vote once in each election (except maybe Chicago) and they are supposed to vote in the place where they have their permanent residence. Musicians, especially the rich ones, may have more than one residence, but they are only supposed to vote at one of them. Elections don't pop up out of the blue. They are announced well ahead of time so that everyone who wants to vote via the absentee system should be able to do so.
3. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm attempting to explain to you that I don't believe the reasons you gave for not being able to vote are valid.
4. Systems of government that involve citizen participation, call it a democracy, republic, or commune, rely on the citizens making informed decisions. Citizens have an obligation to inform themselves. Otherwise it would be less expensive and a lot less painful to just pull a name out of a hat. We wouldn't be subjected to daily political propaganda and the lobbyists wouldn't know who to pay off.
Here are some suggestions to relieve your concerns:
1. Traveling: Absentee ballot
2. Working: Most voting sites are open for 12 or more hours
3. No time to look at the issues: Stop playing video games and browsing Facespace
4. In college and working part time: See #3
1 - The marketing of a movie (good, bad, or mediocre)
2 - The ideas behind the film (libertarian/free market vs. central planning/government-industrial complex)
Here is a short Youtube video that shows why many people are interested in the movie. Maybe not a majority, maybe not even a plurality, but a lot. Whether you agree with them or not, this is what they think is going on. You may consider them idiots, moron, or just the uneducated masses, but that won't change the way they view things.
I think that there are a good number of folks who originally supported then Senator Obama for the presidency, who now are not so happy with him, especially the very liberal types, like Prof. Tribe.
They seem to not like his current stands on some of the things that he promised to do earlier, such as closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, putting the 9-11 guys on trial in civilian courts, and so on.
This thing with PFC Manning is just one more irritant for them. If they would come out against similar pre-trial confinement treatment for all the other folks who can't make bail or who were denied bail, then I might believe that it's not a politically based move.
By that definition (anguish of body or mind) everyone is tortured during some portion of their life, especially by ex-spouses.
The U.N. definition is a bit more specific but it is still so general that just about any sort of pre-trial confinement situation could be classified as torture.
My second point was that since Mike had referred to more than one person in the administration having criticized PFC Manning's situation, I was wondering who the other people are. There's only been one that I seen mentioned in the press, and that's PJ Crowley, the former spokesman for the State Department.
This still seems more like a politically motivated attack on the President.
Mike - Please give some references when you write "Under most standard definitions of torture" and also, who else besides the former state department spokesman was terminated because they didn't agree with how PFC Manning is being treated? You mention "Obama administration officials" but I only know of Mr. Crowley.
I also wonder if the legal scholars who signed the letter are opposed to similar treatment in other US penal institutions, or just that of PFC Manning. Neither the letter nor the Guardian article say anything about other prisoners, military or civilian, who may be held under the same type of circumstances.
Is the letter a true denunciation of such prison activities or is it a political attack on President Obama by some of the folks who are unhappy with some of his recent decisions?
I AM quibbling over the post's title because it distracts from the point of the article. From what I understand, Mike wanted to write about a guy who expressed his opinion on a topic and was fired for it. Because of the post's title a good number of people have gone off on tangents about all sorts of other things.
It bothers me a bit that many writers these days use all sorts of "shocking" headlines to get people to read their articles. I wish that Mike wouldn't do that. I agree with his analysis about 75% of the time but I sometimes have to fight my way past some kind of tabloid headline to get the gist of the article.
Concerning Mr. Crowley's knowledge of Manning's situation, I seriously doubt that he's been to the military brig and observed the suspect himself. If he had actual first person eyewitness knowledge, I would have thought that he would have stated that in the interview.
Since I have not been to the brig either, I have no way of knowing if Manning's treatment is "ridiculous and counter-productive and stupid" and I would also be very surprised if anyone who has posted comments to this blog has been there.