Mind-Mapping: 2014

22.11.14

The Death of Freedom of Speech: Lincon Univiersity President, Robert R. Jennigns

Seems like the cooler heads were right about the video taking the man out of context, and we were also correct about him addressing this with the male group as well. There are also a fair amount of female parents (forgive me for pointing out their sex, it is pertinent.) who spoke out in support for Mr. Jennings. Reasonable people could understand what the man was saying, though the liberal horde and fashion-savvy fascists could not.

Feminists seem to spend more time making reactionary statements then they do thinking about, or doing things that actually make a difference; ultimately hurting there cause more then helping it. This is similar to the "Black Leaders" that white people have seemed to assigned to the black population of America in general, so please don't think that I am only including women in this assessment. (Proof:http://youtu.be/6EYpc9lbQUw)

There are obviously "feminist" men as well; this is not as much of a gender issue as it is a free speech and political one.

It is also clear that speakers need to have their whole speech taped -- at-least audio -- if not to publish it, to put it out in rebuild just in case they find themselves in a compromising situation. In this "burn you at the stake..." society that we are living in, it may be prudent for everyone to just wear a couple of cameras everywhere they go, simply so they can prove they are not the horrible person that a video clip may unfairly show them to be.
________________

by Susan Snyder, Inquirer Staff Writer

Last updated: Sunday, November 9, 2014, 1:10 AM
Posted: Saturday, November 8, 2014, 9:51 PM
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20141109_A_college_president_s_words_to_young_women_about_men.html#e3CHvEiFHM2iRKal.99

Michael Noone, first assistant district attorney in Chester County, said he has no reports of rapes at Lincoln from last semester. There was one allegation of attempted sexual assault, but the case was dropped, he said, because it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt - not because the woman recanted.

Other sexual-assault allegations have been found since he became president, Jennings said, and the campus took appropriate action. Lincoln declined to provide a number, referring a reporter to the university's 2013 crime report. It showed reports of three rapes, two sexual assaults, one domestic-violence incident, and two dating-violence incidents.

"No one would ever discourage a young woman on this campus from reporting a sexual assault," Jennings said. "In fact, I emphasize to them how serious that allegation is and that the university takes it very seriously and so does the federal government and so does the court."

He said he also addressed the issue at the male convocation: "I made it very clear to the men on campus that no means no."

Not everyone was offended.

"I personally didn't find anything wrong with what he said," said Carla McDuffie, a New Jersey parent. "I found what he said to be true as far as how he characterized males in that particular context of the conversation."

For faculty members, the speech may be the least of their concerns. They cite a 19 percent drop in enrollment since Jennings took over, high turnover in administrative posts, and the elimination of the teacher-education program - a result, Jennings said, of low enrollment.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/…/20141109_A_college_president_s_word…

***
Related:

9.11.14

Reducing Accidents on Rural Roads

There have recently been a number of accidents on rural roads in the surrounding area, all leading to death or serious injury. The most recent, a two car crash, resulting in two fatalities. This incident occurred in Woodburn, on French Prairie Road near the intersection of Lebrun Road, at approximately 7A.M. on November 6th.

Throughout Marion County, rural roads consist of hills, abrupt stops, sharp turns, and areas that narrow leaving little to no shoulder for evasive maneuvers. Though this is not especially unique to the area, it does present it's own form of driving challenges when coupled with increasingly inclement weather.

Passing distance, speed, road surface, the vehicles involved, environmental conditions, and countless other variables are all important things to consider while driving. On rural two-lane roads, at speeds at or above 50mph, they become critical concerns that should not be taken lightly! Many questions have been raised about the best practices concerning road marking criteria, safety enhancements such as rumble strips, and modern road treatments that increase traction while decreasing stopping distance. The specific criteria that is currently in use can be found in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and on the Department of Highway Safety website (www.flhsmv.gov/).

Though many methods for increasing safety are available, the implementation of the strategies on rural roads can be limited by many factors: the size of the roadway, existing properties, access point locations(do mainly to road utilization by agricultural vehicles and equipment), and especially by local budgets.

A report cited by the Department of transportation - commissioned by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (http://www.highwaysafety.org), originally published by Ryerson University of Toronto - showed a twenty percent reduction in accidents on rural roads where center and shoulder Rumble Strips were installed.

A segment of the above study was done in Oregon. Two sites were monitored for a set period of time, where previously there were a total of 31 accidents resulting in 20 injuries, saw a reduction to a total of 6 accidents resulting in 3 injuries - after the installation of the rumble strips.

Though this would not have prevented this last incident, such enhancements could very well serve to prevent future accidents.

Links Related to the story and more on this topic:

5.11.14

You have been spoiled by technology.

Have you ever listed to all the complaining concerning technology? Most people are able to do far more by using technology then they otherwise would be able to without it. This is fairly easy to see; if you don't see this as a fact, you should take this time to throw yourself down a steep embankment.

I have watched quite a few videos relating to people hating one technology or another, from operating systems to phones. Most people wouldn't be able to do half the things they are able to do now if someone didn't package the technology for them. This is clear when you look more advanced operating systems market share. The more computer friendly something is the harder it is to use; the opposite is also true, if something is user-friendly it is going to use a lot of resources. This is going to basically transform into a pernicious investment in hardware for the user and does not guarantee the availability of advanced functionality.

People proclaim to know about computers are usually full of shit. It is more likely that they are regurgitating something they heard or read from someone that actually understands what they are talking about -- though few of the tech pundits these day do. If they are having a problem with something they own, it is likely a problem they are causing in some way, shape, or form. This is not to insinuate that people are idiots, though most humans are, just that they lack the ability to be especially proficient in multiple areas. This is not as much of a fault as it is a result of being average; and let me assure you people, there is a lot of bellow-average out there. If you don't work with computers for a living, chances are, you may still be better than your tech guy at work -- though that isn't saying much, is it?

It is not that people are incapable of understanding, they just need to be motivated. They understand and are proficient at using things that they want to use, but when it comes to something that challenges them on a fundamental level, they have to have some inner motivation for figuring it out.

Just take a look at all the primates yelling about Windows on Youtube. It would be more useful for them to run about dragging their knuckles on the ground grunting; what we should do is just put actual chimps in front of the camera and get their opinion -- I think this would not only be more productive -- serving to be a research tool for several fields of study -- but it would also be more entertaining to watch.

Microsoft's Windows operating system is one of the most successful* operating systems produced, it has dominated in the business workstation and desktop space for virtually the entire time that business and personal PC's have been a major industry. That says that they are doing something right, even if this isn't necessarily something that you agree with; but then again, if you knew what you were talking about you would have written a better version yourself. Please don't confuse this with me saying Windows[*] is the best thing out there, it is just something that works that has won in the market; clearly.

When someone say's that they are having a problem with a particular technology, and it is automatically the programmer/developers fault. They don't think for a second that they could be doing something wrong; or perhaps they are using the wrong product for their use-case; until it is blatantly pointed out. Computers are complicated. New Technology used to be something that was more able to be easily understood, as things have progressed they have become much more complicated, and you must take the time to digest smaller sections at a time -- since the whole is just to large and abstract to understand by taking it in all at once. This is similar to most things when you get to a lower, more percise level of focus.

Regardless of the operating system that we are talking about, the people that worked on it have done everything in their ability to improve the user experience and/or the general functionality. At times this will be off base, this can be related to a number of issues; one thing it is not however, it is not intentional. In most cases a decision to do one thing or another comes down to complicated choices that all have trade offs in one direction or another. This could also be related to something as out of the developers control as vendor support for a product, a particular service unavailable on that particular platform, or some intricate software licensing issues that are all too often at the root of the problem.

For most developers, we are doing it because we are passionate about technology and have a talent for figuring out problems in general. The same people that you are screaming about doing this or that, are the ones providing you with the work-around to the problem many times.

I have worked for businesses that have made decisions with a piece of software that I haven't agreed with as the developer of that software, though that is not really my decision. My job is to do what I am told, and that usually means taking direction from a person who doesn't really understand how computers work and are making their decisions based on other peoples opinions. So you may end up with a product that has a limitation that is based solely on corporates inability to listen to specialists they are paying. Then again, this is your fault, since you are the ones buying the product. If you don't like how the program works, don't use. Perhaps there is a better choice out there for you; how about using your energy you are putting into hating stuff to do some diligent research?

This isn't to say that this is the way things should work, but this is the way things often do work. Now this is also not to say that the software is bad, it usually works quite well for the average use-case, though the more powerful or niche features aren't going to be there in many cases -- either because of money, time, or both. If you want software that is especially full featured you are going to have to pay for it. And if you want really good software, especially customized to your use-case, start looking for investors and a market in which to sell that software in; because it is going to be far more expensive to produce for personal use. Though this isn't true in all cases, this is generally true if we are talking about something at the level of Photoshop, OSX, or say Windows[*]. Programers need to eat too!

Lets be clear, I am not saying that it is not ok to complain about a program or feature. What I am saying is that it is not useful to make statements that are so general. If people spent some time researching a particular application and making specific points about needed functionality changes, chances are they would quickly find the answer to their particular problem or would gain a greater understanding of the program as a whole, which would lead to useful feedback by default. Since they now understand what they are working with, to a degree, this also allows one to now be a type of contributor. If not directly by contributing code, one could contribute to the community by writing documentation, providing general help and guidance for other users, or simply by giving useful feedback to the development team. Saying, "... this sucks..." does not count as useful feedback. Chances are if it is broke, and it is not a particular hardware issue, someone knows and there is a reason why it isn't fixed yet.

For some reason it is rare that you hear from people when things go as planned. For all those times that you turned on your computer and it ran flawlessly you didn't think of sending those hardworking, pencil pushers over-there at Microsoft some thanks. No notes, no nothing; but as soon as something is wrong (ie. you broke it), fuck them; right? Just because someone makes it look easy, it isn't, and that goes for whatever it is. From freestyle motocross, to flying, to programming. It takes years, and then it take more years to refine. But by all means, if you think you can do it better, please pull up a chair, a keyboard, and a text editor, and start pushing up some commits -- if that is not in your skill set, this would be a good time for you to STFU! Thanks.

Samples of what people who don't know what they are doing say and do:

Now this is a bit tangential, though I think it is still fairly relevant since he is really driving the point home about not understanding software; clearly. http://youtu.be/eD3Isw4dzU4
now this is just crazy, but i did start following dude just because he was talented in other areas and generally entertaining: http://youtu.be/TmPiYZnrWlk
Now I feel a little bad here, this is pure frustration(funny though): http://youtu.be/l9t5-qXcNLk
This is the gentleman that prompted by earlier GNU/Linux article; and got me trolling around for the other 'tech-hate' videos; idiocy at it's finest: http://youtu.be/oTiztqndGco

Things that People who understand technology talk about:

TEDxTelAviv - Paul Pablos Holman - Hacking the Future: http://youtu.be/8Kga-CHf-pU
Colloquium on Computer Systems Seminar Series: http://youtu.be/x8ZLNxnYslM
Java is "heavyweight, verbose, and everyone loves to hate it," but Wall still thinks you should know it...: http://youtu.be/LR8fQiskYII
Greg Kroah Hartman on the Linux Kernel: http://youtu.be/L2SED6sewRw
"Nobody should call themselves a professional if they only knew one language.": http://youtu.be/NvWTnIoQZj4
Problems with the Linux Desktop and what could be done to solve those problems: http://youtu.be/YoYL4R3Te2s
alternative for those using Microsoft Windows: Linux Mint. http://youtu.be/7G7TJyZPKPo

31.10.14

Honesty in Business: Having honest conversations in a politically correct atmosphere.

It is so hard to have an honest conversation at this point. So hard that you need to form or join a club of people on the internet in order to do it without fear of persecution (though freedom from persecution on the internet, in general, is never guaranteed). That is not to say that the majority of everyday people cannot say what they want to an extent, but you can watch this freedom eroding quickly. I have a suspicion that I have lost several opportunities myself based on something I have said on social media, a blog, or in person. Irregardless of how skilled and proficient I was at the job, or that I was the most qualified person applying. Having a generally shitty attitude, disagreeing with someones religious beliefs, or being politically opposed to something, shouldn't be a problem as long as you are doing your job and not using free_speech as an excuse to harass someone. Note: We already have laws for that.

Even though I don't have direct knowledge of this, I have spoken with several HR people that have assured me that Facebook, Twitter, etc., are some of the first places they go when deciding whether or not to hire you and when they are looking for a reason to fire you. This is unspoken but you should obviously expect this, especially when you are speaking to tech companies.

Is this really the type of community we want to live in? Where everyone and anyone can be persecuted for what they say, wasn't that one of the key reasons for creating a country free of tyranny? Freedom of religion, and freedom of speech seem to be the central foundations that the United States was built on. They are arguably the two freedoms most coveted by constituents of more restrictive nations and the most quoted by self-proclaimed patriots and nationalists.

Recently Bill Maher was defamed (if that is possible) and protests planned for his keynote at UC Berkeley. A petition was created with the goal of stopping him from speaking at Berkley. (though as of now it looks like the keynote will continue as planned.) Yeah, go ahead and let that roll around in the brain for a minute, it took me a while to come to grips with it as well -- I immediately looked up at the address bar to see if I was on the Onion. A liberal being potentially protested by perhaps, arguably, the most liberal college in the nation (other than Reed that is, though I wouldn't exactly say Reed is liberal perse.) because of something he said. So wait, what you are saying is -- at a university, a place of idea exchange, where everyone should be accepted based on what they have to offer intellectually, where peer review and being wrong about a topic signifies actual discovery and learning -- someone is endanger of being excluded because of their ideas?

To answer your internal question, yes, I was just as offended when they did it to Ann Coulter. Yes, she is an idiot and yes, she does have the IQ of a slightly brain damaged individual, but she has the right -- nay...nay, a responsibility -- to be that ignorant voice. I have never laughed so hard as when I have observed Ann Coulter try and pass her subversive racism off as an valid point. Not only is it fun to listen to, but it is especially fun to retort against. This is basically a default truth when concerning right wing lunatics, particularly the ones on talk radio.

The person at Berkley that is screaming for tolerance is the same person that is being intolerant of others thoughts, and the most disturbing bit, few are brave enough to tell them they are wrong -- at-least publicly. Just because you are offended doesn't mean that the other person doesn't have a right to have that opinion. I don't agree with the clan, but I don't want them silenced. Have you ever seen a clan member try to debate with the most remedial of the black intellectual community, now that is entertainment.

Maher has been complaining about religions for several decades now. This is not along the lines of anything that he hasn't said before -- and even if it was, that is what the freedom of speech is meant to protect.

In relation to the corporate world, there has been a reality show created to trick people into giving the most honest feelings possible on camera; Undercover Boss. This show does degrade at about episode number two into a sea of marketing non-sense. The more you see the more you want to put a gun in your mouth at the mere thought that advertising, marketing, network people, and the CEO's on the show will go this far in order to make there company look good. "[Money] is a powerful drug!" That is not to say that it doesn't work, but that shouldn't be the measure that we use to decide whether something is ethical or not -- but that is a different topic. Although this is a conclusion expected by the more cynical among us, the show itself does pose some interesting questions: Does the boss no what is really happening in his business, will the employees speak the same way to the boss as they do to their co-workers, and what will the boss do about all this. No, No, and nothing really, as you could have guessed.

I experience it directly when I design for clients. When you are designing a website or a product for someone, many customers are worried about saying something that will hurt your feelings as the designer creator (though many aren't worried, and almost seem to take pleasure in it.). Nothing hurts the design process more than a lack of honest feedback. This is not to say that the customer will know how to interpret the technical aspects, or that their concerns will always be legitimate -- though if something is wrong, I want to know about it at the earliest point possible. Even if that means we have to renegotiate some-part of the contract, or just re-communicate some points. It is better to know sooner, as it is going to be much harder and more costly to do change it later in most circumstances.

This is also a problem in education at public schools -- meaning elementary though high school -- where speech that is not approved is severely punished, documented, and often causes chronic problems for the student regarding post-secondary education, graduate school, and future employment. Is criminalizing our children's speech really necessary to live in a pleasant society? Or does it simply make things far less pleasant than they could be, while not really providing the reformation promised? I guess that depends on what side of the coin you are on. When you are offended, one just wants the other party punished, and seldom do people care about what core reasoning led to the act of vengeance itself -- just so long as it is carried out as brutally and swiftly as possible. Regardless how these same policies will effect them when the shoe is on the other foot. At that point people individually complain about things being unfair, never seeming to realize how much of a hypocrite they are.

At some point we need to make a list of things that you can't say, jokes you can't write, music you can't like, opinions you can't have (publicly), movies you can't watch, and subjects that are off limits -- or we are really walking in the dark with the subjectiveness of it all.

This overreaction to what people say is the same as having criminal statutes that are not written down, and then arresting people for breaking them. Life is hard enough without piling on dynamic, irrational laws in addition to the current demands for compliance we are already suffering through.

This is similar to burning witches at the stake -- except for the whole "being burning" bit; small detail. Irrational persecution, perpetuated by the majority is exactly what our style of government, more precisely the constitution and bill of rights, is designed to protect against. Ironically, it seems as though irrational group think is the current methodology by which we determine law, along with personal, political, commercial, and public policy. Perhaps we should take an approach based on facts, as opposed to being irrational and reactionary.

references and related:

Bill Maher & Berkley

Free Speech:

Ann Coulter:

Witch Trials: