Congrats to everyone who touched our new baby. I’m proud to have been part of it, and thrilled at the prospect of what’s to come.
(Yes, I live.)
It’s not often that I support creationists over the ACLU, but here we are!
The stickers read: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
(Personally, I’d like to see that sort of sticker, especially the last sentence, plastered all over most textbooks.)
I don’t see how that sticker is offensive, or incorrect, or says anything that shouldn’t, in fact, be said in all respectable descriptions of evolution. (That it’s still news when new results to support the theory of macroevolution are found supports its status as theory, IMO. But then, I don’t think there’s anything foolish in making decisions on the basis of a “likely theory”, since I make very few decisions in my life on the basis of anything stronger.)
I don’t think that Creationism (or other alternative theories; I hear that Native Americans have some interesting ones) necessarily deserves “equal treatment”, but I would not object to some time spent discussing how other theories interpret the same evidence. If evolution is (as I certainly believe) the most likely of the theories to be correct, then such a presentation is to “evolution’s benefit”, no? There are certainly a lot of people in the scientific community making careers out of thinking critically about macroevolution, given the still-raging debate about how new structures and species can be “created” by evolutionary processes.
If the presenter has a bias against evolution, no curricular edict will prevent that scorn from colouring the students’ lessons. No point trying to solve that by outlawing stickers.
Today some things happened involving a person I semi-routinely (but always quite politely, IMO) disagree with, and I said something kinda rude in what I believed to be a private discussion with some others, and, of course, out-of-context word got back, so I generally made a mess of things for a bunch of people, and it kinda sucked quite a bit. I apologized for the rudeness, but really, that sort of thing is hard to undo completely, especially when there are other such fires raging nearby.
And all that because I was compelled to be more “clever” than to just say “X likes Y quite a bit”.
Ladies and gentlemen, your star attraction!
In not-completely-unrelated news, my WebDAV work is coming along pretty well, and I’m pretty psyched to see Dan start to do CalDAV on top of it.
Step No. 1: Make the argument that Linux equals Red Hat. … Sun’s view is that Linux is nothing more than Red Hat.
But some three weeks before, Jonathan himself decried that very attitude:
And Red Hat is not linux, despite what they say, and despite what the media (and IBM’s ads) seem to conflate. … Let’s start calling a distro a distro.
This doesn’t strike me as the sort of misinterpretation that one would expect to arise from a conversation between the CEO of one of the industry’s most influential analyst firms and the president/COO of Sun Microsystems. I wonder why Sun didn’t make them post a correction.
I don’t know about you, but I’m interested enough in finding out the identity of Hoye’s mystery guests at Chu Shing tonight to show up in person.
Special bonus: if you are of able body and relatively calm disposition, I will buy your dinner in exchange for your showing up to help my mother unload her truck at 2PM on Sunday. Offer valid while supplies last (more than 5 people would just be excessive, I think), void where prohibited, do not apply directly to open wounds. Don’t bother sending mail about it, just show up tonight to apply and claim your prize.
Edd was right to call us, by which I mean me, on being a little too ranty during our talk on Tuesday. I got a little carried away, though I think it was important for us to dispel some of the halo surrounding the W3C as the only way to “morally” put forward new standards. The days of the divine rights of standards kings are behind us, for better or for worse, and Edd has already covered (quite well) some of the reasons why. I want “more tech and less rant” as well, and I hope to put some tech-money where our rant-mouth is in the very near future.
I’ll put our slides up somewhere later this week, though I don’t generally write slides to stand on their own, mainly because I can’t stand people reading exposition off of the screen, and don’t want to become the thing I hate.
The case for: if you separate mechanism sufficiently from policy, people can use that mechanism to implement arbitrary policies.
The case against: if you separate mechanism sufficiently from policy, people will use that mechanism to implement very arbitrary policies.
Je vous remercie pour votre attention.
I’m going to be speaking about web futures at the Desktop Developers Conference on Tuesday, if people find themselves in Ottawa and want to waste an hour of their lives listening to me. (Actually, I think it’ll be a pretty good talk; Brendan and I are both quite keen to get into this discussion with the rest of the open-desktop community, and there’s a lot of interesting stuff to discuss.)
After that, on August 6th, I’ll be speaking at the Mozilla Developer Day about Mozilla 2.0: what we need to do, what we know we’re not going to do, what we’re still trying to figure out, and how we’re going about making these decisions. If you’re in the Bay Area, it’ll be well worth your $25 to come and talk with us about this, or listen to the other talks. I hear the Googleplex is pretty sweet, too.
Class Cat. G2**
Update: OK, OK. I was trying to reproduce, all HTML-like, the portion of my new license that indicates that I passed my driving test, but clearly failed miserably.