The Professor's Notes

Once again I am befuddled at the complete lack of ability of the local media. In this case, the Centre Daily Times in State College, PA.  In reporting crime for the past week they have two stories that just serve to literally “beg the question.”

Story 1: Alleged Kidnappers Surrender to Police.  In this story 3 men (without description) are said to have lured a 21 y.o. woman into their van and sexually assaulted her.  While the report was filed after 2 AM, there is no hint as to when the abduction and assault occurred.  Oh–and the three men apparently surrendered to police on their own.

Is anyone surprised that the comment section is rife with people challenging every aspect of the story?  Someone was lured (not abducted forcibly) into a van, and the story failed to include any description of the perpetrators.  Not their estimated ages, race, height, or even accents.  And while the report was early morning (2 AM) no indication of the time of the abduction makes things even more “sketch” as the youth today say.

I am like the rest of the more rational commenters on this story in that I believe we wait for all the facts before reaching any judgement.  But this story doesn’t help in any way.  As far as news goes, it creates more questions than it answers.  Is this something we should all be worrying about?  Was this someone that she knew? What was the “technique” used to lure a young adult into a (purple-the only retail we get) van with three men?  And what compelled these men to turn themselves in?

Make no mistake: I am not excusing bad/evil/illegal behavior.  I am saying that this reporting does nothing but feed fear without providing any useful information.

Story 2:  PSU Students cited for trespassing at pool.  This story should be well below everyone’s radar, especially the CDT, but apparently it was made “newsworthy” by the lead sentence:  ”A Penn State student convicted of being involved in November’s downtown State College riot got a citation after police said they caught him and two others at the university’s outdoor pool this past weekend.” The story goes on to say the suspect and his friends were caught inside the fenceline “‘partially clothed’ but hadn’t gone into the pool yet.”

In what world is this a news story?  I worked at several swimming pools and during the summer “fence hoppers” were a common occurrence.  Generally speaking we not only didn’t notice, but we didn’t mind, except in those instances when they felt compelled to vandalize the pool. (And keep in mind, the vandalism usually consisted of simply tossing lounge chairs into the pool.)

No–what made this story “news” is that one of the three was convicted of “being involved” in the “riot” following the firing of Coach Joe Paterno.  Really?  What is the connection?  Does being involved, and caught up in the moment last November make this action somehow more heinous?

What happened is, once again, there is “just enough” information to get the commenters on the CDT site all riled up and full of righteous indignation. They get to once again hate on the vicious criminals that burned their city down.

By the way, for those that missed it on Twitter, I have been quite incensed at the use of the term “riot” to describe much of what happens on college campuses and around the US lately.  Read up on Riots.  REAL Riots.  Riots that, in fact, were occurring simultaneously with the events on US College campuses.    In “real” Riots people die.  Property is damaged in large swaths.

What happened in State College was not a riot.  It was large gathering of students expressing their emotions, and a few, a very few, took an opportunity to commit vandalism.

But we can’t expect it to be reported that way either–since once again, it would involve too much work on the part of local media reporters.

Last night over on Facebook  we had a rather good and amicable discussion about Obama, and the trend in government to rule the people rather than be ruled by the people. I made a claim that Obama is seeking to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court. Several (correctly) pointed out that many conservatives have argued for years that the Supreme Court should not be “activist” and should not “legislate” from the bench.

The argument generally falls on the view that the Court should follow the “strict constructionist” view–that is, it is there to assess the constitutionality of laws, not create new rights or laws. And this is where Obama’s criticism, and the criticism from the right, diverge. President Obama said he was: Read the rest of this entry »

Another Venture into politics… This one is really REALLY heartfelt…

Here’s what scares me about Obama.  On New Years Eve he signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which, among other things, allows the President to authorize the indefinite detention, in secret, and without legal counsel, of US Citizens.  At the time, he expressed his concerns about the language but promised that his administration would never use it.

Then he (at the beginning of the month) started a campaign to discredit the Supreme Court, attacking them as “unelected people” who should never consider overturning a law (Obamacare) that the majority supports. (Set aside, for just a moment, the thought that he isn’t interested in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the Majority)

He is now running the campaign against Congress, working to do things without them passing laws first. This he is calling “We can’t wait.”

What do you call a President who is actively working to discredit two branches of government that are in place to control the excesses of the other two? A President who is actively working to undermine the “Checks and Balances” protections that our constitution so brilliantly enacted.   A President who has convinced the “Law makers”  to give him the authority to detain and even kill at will?

I hate to say it–but I think the word is “Dictator.”

N.B.:  Now I hope my good friend over at A liberal Dose, and the other one at Pressing the Flesh may actually agree with me on this.   We as a nation must band together. And honestly, at this point, I am beginning to think our only answer will be Ron Paul.  And if you know me, you know I don’t really like that idea all that much.  But at least he isn’t part of the corrupt system.

How many of you remember the Falklands War? Not only do I remember it (hey–I was in college!) but I later had a thesis student at the US Air Force’s graduate school who had as his close friend a real Argentinian hero. His heroic act? He sunk the Atlantic Conveyor. (Read more about that, here.)

As this story from the BBC notes, the UK remembers Falklands invasion.

Lesson #1 in learning about diplomacy: governments choose their words very carefully, so that messages are sent in the headlines, and the quotes.

In 1990 George H W Bush made the statement, as the Iraqi forces were still rolling in to Kuwait, that “This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait.”

I heard these words on the radio as I was starting my leave from the USAF to go camping at Cass Lake in MN. I told my mother in law at the time that we were going to war. Why? These words were clear, and unequivocal. The implication: Leave–or we will make you leave.

So that takes me to where we are now, with Iran. It wasn’t Obama who made the statement, but close. In discussing the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, declared: “I think they need to know that — that if they take that step — that they’re going to get stopped.”

The link contains a more detailed review of the testimony, and it should be said their was much more nuance to the testimony that the declarative statement and the sabre-rattling headlines. But (and this is an important but) the SecDef has made it clear–here is the line in the sand.

Once politicians–and Governments–have drawn that line, it is nigh-impossible to back down without losing faith.

Things are going to get worse. I feel it.

Update:  The Citizen, Bobby Maguire, was given permission to use a 33′ right of way.  In exchange for his use (not ownership) of 1/2 an acre of land, he has voluntarily given to the state 1 full acre, and $15,000.  More than fair, I would say.

I enjoy, no LOVE, my place at Rose Valley Lake in PA. Perhaps you have seen some of my photographs that I have posted here ocassionally, or visited my  sets on Flickr (around Rose Valley Lake and  creeks and rivers)  The beauty remains despite reasonable and rational development.

I love it so much that I am, In fact, disappointed every time I have to leave here to return to “Civilization.” That said, I also understand that private citizens have a right to use their private property in ways that they see fit, so long as the proposed uses are in line with the general guidelines and zoning of the area.

The “Friends of Rose Valley Lake” are stepping beyond the bounds of good citizens, as they are now seeking to block an individual from using his property in accordance with the zoning laws of the area. They are asserting that by granting this man access to his property (through the State fish commission property) he will somehow be violating the law.

They write on their homepage that:

” The ‘intent’ for Rose Valley Lake, was to ‘prevent developments . . . and retain the area in generally primitive conditions,’”

They then are somehow complaining that this citizen is willing to “trade with the PFBC one acre of land (generally inaccessible to the public) and $15,000 in exchange for an expanded farm lane right-of-way through Rose Valley Lake.”

Apparently the fact that he isn’t asking for a flat trade of one acre for another, but rather giving the state the land, AND $15,000, isn’t sufficient. Also, apparently the statement that the one acre of land is “generally inaccessible to the public” is meant to imply that is somehow a negative. Interesting in that many believe that in order to meet the objective of maintaining land in “generally primitive conditions” we should keep people from going there. (Remember, the biggest enemy of National Parks tends to be visitors to those same parks….)

One final comment from them. They are argue that the proposed trade would be for an “expanded farm lane right-of-way through Rose Valley Lake public lands in order to facilitate private development.”

Note this citizen isn’t proposing to DEVELOP public lands. He is simply seeking access to his privately owned property, so that he can exercise his legal right to develop his property as he sees fit, in accordance with the local zoning ordinances.

I ask–who are the unreasonable ones?

Also, they are requesting people sign their petition, but there exists no comparable avenue to elicit support for the land owner.  I have created a form, and would appreciate your taking the time to respond.  And for the record, I am interested in learning about BOTH sides of this.

Transparency has been in the news not only with the occupy movement, but also with penn state following the big scandal.  But what is transparency?

Does transparency mean that you tell everyone everything you do and why do it?  bust you violate all levels of confidentiality?

It seems to me when people an organization promise transparency, they are acknowledging a problem and suggesting they can no longer continue doing things the way they have always been done.  I realize this is not always the case, in that sometimes we’re just promising to foster an environment of trust, but that trust is based on the concept of sharing information.

reach leads me to ask these questions is the reality of organizations promising transparency while then defending your actions as being consistent with how things have always been done. If things have always been done this way how is that being more transparent?  Or to put it another way, if you have always been transparent why promise transparency as if it is something new?

I welcome your thoughts on these questions.

My son wrote (using twitter) quite elegantly about not only the jubilation that he and 15,000 others felt Sunday night upon hearing that the US Navy Seals had finally “done in” Bin Laden, but also about why for his generation this is part of the defining moment.  He wrote, in part,

“For those questioning the appropriateness of the celebrations on Sunday night, especially at PSU, keep in mind that many of us were In middle school. Those were the most impressionable days of our lives. It completely changed our lives and views.”

He wrote much more, and I took the liberty of making it more readable, and posting it over at our joint blog, http://thefathersonchats.com.

Please, go read his thoughts, and share yours. These thoughts are the ones we need to share, and preserve.

I have been a proponent of the “Presentation 2.0″ style as a generic term and concept since attending the PodCamp Pittsburgh 2 in 2007.  In that PodCamp we heard from Chris Brogan who reminded us that the power of the presentation slides was to emphasize what the speaker was saying, not to take your attention off the speaker.

We don’t like PowerPoint and we don’t like presentations.  But as much as we want to blame the tool we find we cannot leave this crutch behind.  Perhaps it is because we do not see it as a tool that assists in our delivering content but rather as a surrogate, a stand-in,  so that we aren’t the ones being observed, but rather it is our slides.  Too often we expect (or are required) to have our presentations “stand alone” or worse “speak for themselves” (I say worse, because when given this mission it rarely actually means including the voice of the presenter, but rather that the written words must contain all the thoughts.)  Yes, we cannot leave the world of wordy slides.

Chris Brogan at the time reminded us of the importance of “big pictures” (real images) that convey the emotion, or the sense of the topic discussed, but that we as the speaker should deliver the content.  He also shared that we should remember that presentations are about the audience and our connecting with the audience.  If we are to connect, we cannot have them getting lost in reading the words (the many, many, often forced to be tiny, words…) on the screen.

Here is another take on just that very thing:

So my question for you is this:  What sort of presentation do you prefer? Do you want all the information laid out before you in verbose slides, ensuring you have all the information at your fingertips for later, or are you instead a person who learns best by listening and asborbing?

Leave your comments, or tweet me @SCMProfessor

My first thought when reading the headline “Google Maps cars pull some user data” was “*YAWN.* Another story about ‘do no evil’ Google being caught accidently being evil.”

It at first seemed a rehash of the old story.  As Google’s street mapping cars drive by the apparently record your WIFI address and map it to the GEOLOC (GPS) coordinates to enhance navigation. ¹  But then the story got, well.. interesting.

It turns out that they’ve also been collecting and storing data from those unsecured hotspots.  Anything that was being transmitted during the time those cars were driving by may have been picked up by Google’s software and stored.²

So, as if to prove to people that they should be encrypting their wifi networks, the Google car has been capturing the actual DATA being transmitted.  Now keep in mind, this isn’t just the data that is being sent out over the internet. Oh, no.  This is everything you are doing over your wifi network.

Saving homework to a network drive?

GOT IT.

Moving pictures or music from one computer to another?

GOT IT.

Updating your business’ financial spreadsheets on the network drive?

GOT IT.

But we shouldn’t worry, because Google doesn’t want to do evil, and so they are doing everything they need to do.  They will make adjustments to their software to stop “eavesdropping” on your digital “in home” conversations.  And then, at the end of the article, they tell us this:

Google says it will work with local authorities to show what information was collected and make sure it is disposed of properly.

Yup–have no fear.  Whatever information they have “accidentally” collected will be given to the local authorities to dispose of “properly.”

Honestly, I am more concerned about my financials getting handed around than I am anything else, but does this strike anyone else as… well…. odd?  And remember, you don’t have to be doing something “illegal” to have information that could be embarrassing or personally destructive if  released.  ^{3   4}

Usually the local authorities need a warrant to tap into your phone and data lines.  They certainly need a warrant before they can go into your homes. (Just ask Jason Chen) but what happens if someone “just happens to give them information?”  Can that information be used?  I mean, it essentially has the same weight as “we received a tip from a citizen that…”

Should we be worried?  What are your thoughts?  Big Brother, or a “Tempest in a Teapot?” ⁵