<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<opml version="2.0">
<head>
<title>31.opml</title>
<dateCreated>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:16:49 GMT</dateCreated>
<dateModified>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:13:07 GMT</dateModified>
<ownerName>Tom Morris</ownerName>
</head>
<body><outline text="The blogosphere has been discussing &lt;a href=&quot;http://gawker.com/5031482/please-dont-pay-a-j+school-to-teach-you-how-to-blog&quot;&gt;teaching blogging&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/can_new_media_be_taught_in_schools.php&quot;&gt;new media&lt;/a&gt; at school (American speak for 'university'). I wouldn't ever suggest that spending all day cruising YouTube is perhaps not going to do as much for students as grappling with Hegel or other tough, book-length works. Nor would I ever sarcastically mock statements like &lt;q&gt;Academia tends to be woefully behind in almost everything it teaches&lt;/q&gt; or throw around phrases like &quot;benighted&quot;, &quot;philistine&quot; or &quot;social media is wank&quot;. Not me, no, never." created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:12:47 GMT"/><outline text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://volokh.com/posts/1217529598.shtml&quot; class=&quot;vcard fn&quot;&gt;Eugene Volokh&lt;/a&gt; weighs on in Crackergate." created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:51:35 GMT"/><outline text="An anonymous writer on &lt;a href=&quot;http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/dissent-of-th-2.html&quot;&gt;Andrew Sullivan's blog&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;q&gt;Poor Webster Cook, whose crime was nothing greater than failing to ingest his wafer, was put through hell for what he did. He received threats of violence and threats against his life, and he now faces censure, even expulsion from his university. And it is against the backdrop of this mindless bigotry and fanaticism that Myers decided he had to act. He was not acting out of bigotry, but in response to it. His point is one that needed to be made - simply put, that Catholics (and Muslims, and Jews, and Hindus, and any other faction, sect or group) do not have the right to impose their views on the rest of us, particularly those of us who find such views utterly irreconcilable with the facts of the world in which we live, and choose to say so. Had those Catholic fanatics simply left that poor kid alone, I guarantee you that it would never have even occurred to Myers to do what he did. But they didn't leave him alone; they insisted on demonstrating just how little progress Catholicism has actually made - and Myers was happy to point this out.&lt;/q&gt; (via &lt;a href=&quot;http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/07/the_best_pz_defense_ive_seen.php&quot; class=&quot;via&quot;&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Dispatches from the Culture Wars&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;)" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:15:29 GMT"/><outline text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/07/21/cook-applescript&quot;&gt;John Gruber&lt;/a&gt; has a post up about the history of AppleScript, a language I absolute loathe with every part of my being, and would put forward as a candidate - along with maybe BASIC - of how not to design a programming language. Seriously. Someone at Apple should take one of those nice languages like &lt;a href=&quot;http://python.org&quot; rev=&quot;vote-for&quot;&gt;Python&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ruby-lang.org&quot; rev=&quot;vote-for&quot;&gt;Ruby&lt;/a&gt; or Smalltalk and rewrite AppleScript so it uses a syntax that people actually find comfortable rather than a really stupid attempt to base the syntax on English. AppleScript &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; non-intuitive precisely because they tried too hard." created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:04:18 GMT"/><outline text="Looks like those on the right are attempting to paint the gunman who shot up a Unitarian church as a nut, rather than someone who decided to resolve his theological differences through murder. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6326&quot;&gt;No kidding&lt;/a&gt;." created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:31:39 GMT"/><outline text="What? British politicians &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7533543.stm&quot;&gt;not understanding the Internet&lt;/a&gt;? You don't say. I mean, it's not like anyone posts their videos anywhere else on the Internet than websites run by multinational companies." created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:25:09 GMT"/><outline text="There's a set of letters by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&amp;view=2721&quot;&gt;Walter Benjamin&lt;/a&gt; up at &lt;cite&gt;New Left Review&lt;/cite&gt;." created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:16:49 GMT"/>
<outline text="Don't dumb down museums" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:58:27 GMT"><outline text="Via &lt;a href=&quot;http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/science_museum_or_playground.php&quot;&gt;PZ&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20080728_Karen_Heller__The_dumbing_down_of_science.html&quot;&gt;Karen Heller&lt;/a&gt; at the &lt;cite&gt;Philadelphia Inquirer&lt;/cite&gt; has an excellent article up about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www2.fi.edu/&quot;&gt;The Franklin&lt;/a&gt;, Philadelphia's science museum, pointing out the high costs of entry (admission is $23.25 per person for the over elevens) and exhibits filled with vacuous exhibitions that aren't high in scientific quality.&#13;" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:58:27 GMT"/><outline text="I have to say, one of the things I absolutely adore is the fact that London museums and galleries in the last few years have been encouraged by the government to reduce their entrance cost to that most wonderful price: free. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://the.british.museum&quot;&gt;British Museum&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nhm.ac.uk/&quot;&gt;Natural History Museum&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk&quot;&gt;Science Museum&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/guide/about/museums.html&quot;&gt;many more&lt;/a&gt; are now free, as are plenty of art galleries. You can now visit London, see an &lt;em&gt;Archaeopteryx&lt;/em&gt;, ten Pablo Picasso works, an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/astronomy/1952-73.aspx&quot;&gt;eighteenth century orrery&lt;/a&gt;, original Magna Cartas and Gutenberg Bibles without paying anything beyond the cost of a few Underground tickets. This is undoubtedly a good thing.&#13;" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:58:27 GMT"/><outline text="That said, if libraries are any measure, we need to be on guard against the kids-need-dumb-shit brigade. That may be so, but they don't need it in the museums. All those clever interactive doohickeys have a place: it's called the Web. I don't see the point of travelling some distance to go to a museum to find oneself interacting with a screen when you can do that at home. Me? I blame all these targets. The measure of a museum is simple: does it house objects of intellectual, historical, scientific, artistic and pedagogical importance and interest? That is what makes a good museum. Not how many people go through the door. Not how many press launches and junkets they have. Not media coverage. We should have art galleries because art itself is important, not because - as one government minister stated - consumption of art by ill people can often make them better. We should have museums about science and technology because those subjects are important, not so we can sell crap in the museum shop or increase the Sats results.&#13;" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:58:27 GMT"/><outline text="Measure museums as museums, not as subdivisions of hospitals, social services departments and job centres. There's no point getting a thousand more people through the door if there's nothing of substance to see." created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:58:27 GMT"/></outline><outline text="Ruby on Everything" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:19:05 GMT"><outline text="Glad to see that &lt;a href=&quot;http://ruby.about.com/b/2008/07/30/microsoft-going-open-source.htm&quot;&gt;Microsoft is embracing Ruby&lt;/a&gt;, and the open source community attached to Ruby. Yesterday, I downloaded &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page&quot;&gt;Mono&lt;/a&gt; and managed to get &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ironruby.net/&quot;&gt;IronRuby&lt;/a&gt; working on my Mac.&#13;" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:19:05 GMT"/><outline text="I got a bug report for &lt;a href=&quot;http://github.com/tommorris/rena&quot;&gt;Rena&lt;/a&gt; in the other day (&lt;a href=&quot;http://tommorris.lighthouseapp.com/projects/14254/tickets/2-jruby-seems-to-be-outputting-xml-differently&quot;&gt;ticket #2&lt;/a&gt; in the bug tracker). It was a really simple bug that basically said XML was being serialized differently in &lt;a href=&quot;http://jruby.codehaus.org/&quot;&gt;JRuby&lt;/a&gt; than in the standard C Ruby implementation (&lt;abbr title=&quot;Matz's Ruby Interpreter&quot;&gt;MRI&lt;/abbr&gt;). I don't know why. It could be my code is being interpreted differently by JRuby or it could be that JRuby takes my calls to REXML and handles them differently - using native Java XML libraries, maybe. I didn't investigate. I'm not bothered what the difference is, so long as it works. I changed the test code so that the test passes and marked the bug as resolved. The next thing I did was added a new &lt;a href=&quot;http://rake.rubyforge.org/&quot;&gt;Rake&lt;/a&gt; task called 'jspec', which is the same as the 'spec' task, except it runs the tests through JRuby.&#13;" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:19:05 GMT"/><outline text="The tests take a lot longer in JRuby. On the standard interpreter (1.8.6 on Mac OS X, universal-darwin9.0), Rake says the test suite takes 0.516497 seconds, while on JRuby Rake says the tests take around 3.711 seconds to run. Time gives a different result to - on the standard interpreter, the tests take 4.968s (real), 2.365s (user) and 0.422 (sys) while the the JRuby tests take 13.718s (real), 8.789s (user) and 0.724s (sys). This seems to parralel what &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JRuby#Performance&quot;&gt;Wikipedia says about JRuby performance&lt;/a&gt;, namely that the interpreter is slow but it's much better on the server because of JIT compilation. If you are interested in performance, do read &lt;a href=&quot;http://antoniocangiano.com/2007/12/03/the-great-ruby-shootout/&quot;&gt;The Great Ruby Shootout&lt;/a&gt;. It goes into more detail than one could ever want about interpreter performance.&#13;" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:19:05 GMT"/><outline text="As for IronRuby? I managed to get it to work, and I could pull up an IRB shell without too much fuss, and I can run simple scripts, but as for being able to load gems and run tests (etc.), it isn't ready for that as far as I can tell. Still, it's looking pretty cool. I had to do quite a lot of dark magic to get it to work (grab old versions from the repository, apply weird patches and so on), and am somewhat astounded that it works. I'm tempted to not bother trying to run IronRuby on my Mac and just give in and do testing on my Windows machine which has actually got an official .NET implementation. Certainly, when it's possible, I'll be adding an &quot;ironspec&quot; task to the Rakefile so we can make sure those on the Microsoft side of the aisle can run the library.&#13;" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:19:05 GMT"/><outline text="Then, of course, we've got Rubinius, which is the next implementation I'm planning to test. They also seem to be operating in a nice, open way. I'm hoping that if library authors make a point of running their tests on these different interpreters, we can both make our code more portable, and help those developing the implementations.&#13;" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:19:05 GMT"/><outline text="I'm really excited that I can write a piece of software in a really high-level 'scripting' language that can now run in an ever-growing number of different implementations. (I reject the whole programming/scripting language divide as irrational - it's now just an arbitrary line with little use - especially now we have more and more abstractions, virtual machines and interpreters that run on virtual machines)." created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:19:05 GMT"/></outline><outline text="Secularism is not anti-semitic" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:47:39 GMT"><outline text="From &lt;a href=&quot;http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/07/moderation-and-immoderation-at-comment-is-free.html&quot; class=&quot;via vcard fn&quot;&gt;Norm Geras&lt;/a&gt;, I see that a man called Jonathan Hoffman has published a report entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zionismontheweb.org/CommentIsFree_ParliamentASCttee_July08.pdf&quot;&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Antisemitism on Guardian 'Comment is Free'&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. It's basically a report containing a bunch of posts containing a variety of idiotic and anti-semitic statements, and some poor moderation decisions that accompany them. And before we continue, there are plenty of very idiotic statements in the comments, the sort that you can imagine finding on many political blogs.&#13;" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:47:39 GMT"/><outline text="But some of the presuppositions that are stated in the opening pages of the report I strongly &lt;em&gt;disagree&lt;/em&gt; with. It is this from the third page: &lt;q&gt;Note that the advocacy of 'one [secular] State' is antisemitic.&lt;/q&gt; Says who? I think that secularism is a universal principle and should be applied in every country. According to Hoffman's standards, that makes me an anti-Semite. I think Israel should be a secular country - as I think the United States, the United Kingdom, India, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Germany and every other country you name. I wish that Britain would finally hurry up and disestablish the Church of England, and I wish Iran would become a secular, liberal democracy. Does that make me anti-Anglican and anti-Islamic to an offensive extent? Not at all. I'm opposed to all forms of non-secular government, because I think that it necessarily involves the coercion of those people who do not subscribe to the established religion - whether that means forcing people to fund schools or churches which teach religious dogma, or forcing them not to practice their religion or to not criticise religious beliefs which they disagree with.&#13;" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:47:39 GMT"/><outline text="I disagree with the conclusions of the report too. I do not think that newspapers need to have comments - it makes little difference whether comments are pre-moderated or post-moderated (ignoring the impracticality of pre-moderating comments). I think that Comment is Free is mostly a steaming pile of shite and should probably be turned off.&#13;" created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:47:39 GMT"/><outline text="I'm not a big fan of comments on blogs, and think that the Comment is Free comments are really the bottom of the barrel. If the Guardian wants to participate in the blogosphere, there's an easy way: tell the journalists to stop reading the comments and start using &lt;a href=&quot;http://technorati.com&quot;&gt;Technorati&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogsearch.google.com&quot;&gt;Google Blog Search&lt;/a&gt;, as well as referrer logs, to hunt for reactions on blogs. Then if you get particularly interesting threads appearing in the blogosphere, &lt;em&gt;link&lt;/em&gt; to them." created="Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:47:39 GMT"/></outline></body>
</opml>
