Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, I imagine that unlimited traffic as advertised really isn't unlimited; it's probably the case that if you go too high, they will either cut you off or slow you down, because hosts can't actually provide “unlimited” bandwidth. 100 gb/month is usually more than plenty for all my sites. It's just that this month is particularly busy.
I listened to it. Seems like a good way of engaging with potential readers. I must say, though, that the interviewer seemed like he just rattled off questions on a list rather than – I guess the word would be “bantering” with you.
So my host was getting annoyed (I could tell) but agreed to give me 30 gigs free for this month, but he still said my inauguration site was causing a drain on resources. I used another plugin to see what was slowing down my site, and I discovered it was bbPress. I uninstalled that and the related plugins. Here are my metrics from before and after the uninstall:BeforeTotal Load Time: 10.4113seconds avg.Site Load Time 2.1379seconds avg.Profile Overhead: 8.2734seconds avg.Plugin Load Time: 1.7921seconds avg.Theme Load Time: 0.0903seconds avg.Core Load Time: 0.0627seconds avg.Margin of Error: 0.1927seconds avg.(10.4113 observed, 10.2186 expected)Visits: 3Number of PHP ticks: 136,040 calls avg.Memory Usage: 124.58 MB avg.MySQL Queries: 115 queries avg.After Total Load Time: 0.8796seconds avg.Site Load Time 0.4293seconds avg.Profile Overhead: 0.4503seconds avg.Plugin Load Time: 0.2656seconds avg.Theme Load Time: 0.0945seconds avg.Core Load Time: 0.0600seconds avg.Margin of Error: 0.0093seconds avg.(0.8796 observed, 0.8704 expected)Visits: 3Number of PHP ticks: 8,680 calls avg.Memory Usage: 49.92 MB avg.MySQL Queries: 102 queries avg.Whoa! While bbBress was obviously a major drag, I am hoping it resolves the specific drain on the server that my host was telling me about.
There is too much to say about the topic of bias towards race/gender/class topics in history classes. I will start out by mentioning that I am not opposed to the offering of *some* of these topics as advanced topics, but they aren't really good for foundational material. For example, a topic such as “Women in the Middle Ages” could be a fascinating topic which does not have to be a politicized one. But it's something that you would really want to study after you had a grasp of the more important material – the history of the Middle Ages in general (politics, economics, culture, etc.). I heard part of an NPR interview (online) with feminist Camille Paglia who talked about how art history is taught in schools, but I think it's also applicable to the field of history as well. Although she's an atheist, she says that the secular humanists have failed by using history as a means of blame (racism, genderism, etc.) without offering anything else in its place. I thought that was interesting coming from a person like her. When modernist professors teach any history or historically-related course with a political agenda that assigns blame, they are chipping away at our very own cultural foundations. This is basically a message that there is no greatness in the past, or in culture, and so the only way to achieve it is by forming a new liberalized uptopian culture in the future. The teaching of history is thus connected to present socio-political action, and education is reduced to a call-to-arms by those who erroneously think they know how the world should operate.
At Cal wayyyyy back in 1949-54, the bias was everywhere outside the History classes as well. It was said during the Viet Nam War, History professors were the least likely to demonstrate or indoctrinate their students. I ran into it more in Speech, Poli Sci, and other classes, but and this is a caveat — even if the professors might have been relatively balanced, most of their T.A.s were not, and some were absolutely weird. FYI, the Loyalty Oath culled the uberlibrals from the faculty, and at Cal the entire Sociology Department resigned rather an sign it.
I am surprised that it was taking place at that time as well. I wonder if that held true across the country, or was a more localized thing. If I had to guess, I would think that such bias crept into curricula more widely in the late-60s or even moreso in the 1970s when the students of the 60s began to be the instructors at those universities.
Have you been hearing Piers Morgan lately on this issue? It just so happens that the guy who's promoted to take Larry King's old spot is a good ol' fashioned liberal. Go figure.
Just a question: among all those amendments which one prevails ?
Do you mean if they come in conflict? I think the courts would have a balancing test in such a case. They tend to use those when they want to navigate the murky waters of applying general principles to specific sets of facts.
It is a personal right even if the states regulate it. The individual right to bear arms is a given, but the State can know who has them just in case they need to gather them as a militia against a federal or foreign army.
So Ski, am I correct in asserting that you deny an inherent right of the individual to own arms based on a rationale that it could help him defend against State tyranny? In other words, the right of the individual to bear arms is not based on the right of the individual to protect himself against a state governor who acts as a tyrant to the people in his own state? I do not disagree with what you have said thus far; rather, I am questioning if that is all there is to the philosophical underpinnings of the Amendment.
Funny, but when I was an undergrad in the mid-1990s I remember spending hundreds of dollars on textbooks, but then in my recent graduate classes over the past several years I was able to get by paying far less. One of the reasons is probably that graduates spend more time on individual articles and paperback specialty books than on heavy survey textbooks. Another problem is that new editions of those heavy texts are probably released unnecessarily. In the class I teach my department has determined the specific textbook, and last summer the publisher released a new (14th) edition. From what I can tell, aside from new page numbers, and maybe some different illustrations and slightly updated information, it's not much different from the 13th edition. So why did they release a new version? My students ask all the time if they can use an older/cheaper edition, and I tell them that is fine. So I am doing my part to stick it to the man.
But Ski, if that is the overarching rationale – to provide the States with a way to form militias easily – it seems that the right really resides with States and not the people. That is my problem; if the State has the right, the State can easily hand over that right to the federal government (especially at the thread of being defunded). It seems to me that to be a more inviolate right, the right to bear arms has to be derived from some personal right.
