Subscribe: Comments for a sibilant intake of breath
Preview: Comments for a sibilant intake of breath

Comments for a sibilant intake of breath

climate, photos, miscellany

Last Build Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:55:10 +0000


Comment on Software defined radio by Milan

Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:55:10 +0000

I am curious what causes this kind of distorted signal: (image)

Comment on Software defined radio by Milan

Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:49:49 +0000

Toronto FM stations observed from Ajax using a NooElec NESDR Mini 2 and CubicSDR (image)

Comment on Hurricanes, insurance, and the Everglades by Revealing Practical Gsm Forum Systems

Fri, 24 Nov 2017 18:45:50 +0000

Yоu actuɑlly maке it seem so easy with ʏour presentation Ƅut Ӏ find this matter to Ьe actually something which I thіnk I would neveг understand. Ӏt seems toօ complex and very broad fоr me. I am looking forward for yⲟur next post, I'll trү to get tһe hang of it!

Comment on Encouraging equitable tutorial participation by Milan

Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:29:54 +0000

Do you have a version of the “Guide and Shepard” approach in document form which I could distribute by email? It might be good to pull together a few such documents so that students can consider the equity and practical questions involved in effective facilitation.

Comment on Encouraging equitable tutorial participation by Milan

Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:09:54 +0000

Thank you all for the comments and suggestions. It's great to see people engaging with a post like in the days when people still read blogs and not just Facebook... I will spend 10-20 minutes during my next set of tutorials discussing these issues and what changes we ought to make. That will hopefully make students feel as though the changes are part of a collaborative process which they engaged with.

Comment on Encouraging equitable tutorial participation by Tristan

Thu, 23 Nov 2017 18:24:34 +0000

It's unfortunate that attendance is not mandatory. A course director's decision to base grades almost entirely on what a student can produce, rather than participation (even in the bare sense of being present), is mistaken in my view. I would suggest we ask, why have tutorials at all? The general answer, I think, is they function as a kind of supplement to large lectures such that discussion of the kind which could take place in class if the class were small, can take place in the tutorial. But those discussions can't take place if students don't prepare for tutorial, or don't attend tutorial. In my view, students must be forced to attend, and to prepare. If the department is unwilling to impose sanctions on students who don't fulfill duties that are essential for tutorials to fulfill their intended role, and to be honest I recognize this is often the case, my general solution during my six years of TAing, was to lecture for the first half of the tutorial, and move into discussion for the 2nd half. I found by doing this, I was able to get much broader participation. I was lucky enough not to be teaching multiple large tutorials at the same time, so I at least thought I could "wing it" with respect to equity considerations in terms of speaking times. I also kept track, informally, of who spoke a lot, and pretty explicitly didn't call on them as often. I think it helped that York is lot less white compared to U of T, and my tutorials were rarely majority white. I remember the last tutorial I taught, only a single student had parents who were born in Canada. For your situation, I think an equity clock (as linked above) is a great idea. I'm also a big believer in using technology to make keeping a speakers list less arduous (writing down names on a piece of paper, I can say from experience, is a labour intensive way of keeping a list). Another thing you might want to consider, and actually you already are considering it, because we are talking about "facilitation" here, is multiple-facilitator models. I'm surprised you're thinking of handing off the job of selecting people to speak to a student, but if you have confidence in them, why not give it a try. I'll copy below the "Guide and Shepard" approach that the NASCO board uses. GUIDE: 1. Familiarize yourself with the agenda before the meeting to get a sense of length of discussion for each point and flow between points. 2. Quickly present the agenda or the structure of the discussion at the opening of the meeting and invite brief feedback. 3. Keep the discussion and decision-making focused on agenda items throughout the meeting. 4. Act as an overall meeting time-keeper and interrupt the meeting to alert the group when discussion stretches on longer than the expected or allotted time. 5. Proactively phrase and rephrase proposals and try different approaches to questions or issues to help guide the group through difficult discussions and decisions. 6. Experiment with different approaches to a discussion or decision such as splitting a larger group into small groups to begin to work through a difficult issue or question. 7. When using hand signs for consensus it is your responsibility to make sure that all the participants have clearly indicated their sign and in the case of consensus, to announce to the group that consensus has been achieved and a decision has been made. SHEPHERD: 1. It is your responsibility to pass the speaking turn at the meeting carefully and equitably around the group. 2. Take careful note of the nature of contributions from all participants and strive to maintain a diversity and equality of opportunity for discussion contribution for all participants. For example if participant W tends to dominate the conversation at the expense of other participants, then the Shepherd may adopt an approach to speaking r[...]

Comment on Encouraging equitable tutorial participation by David Scrimshaw

Thu, 23 Nov 2017 16:03:12 +0000

Hi Milan, I admire that you're putting so much thought into this. You might want to try a format used in one of my most interesting classes in law school, it was called "Law and Feminism". Every week we read a book. There were about 15 students and we sat around a table. The professor would randomly pick a student to start and then going around the table clockwise, each student would talk for a few minutes about the book and what they drew from it. No interruptions or questions of each other were allowed and we strongly discouraged from trying to enter a dialogue with each other, although differing viewpoints or clarifications of what others said were expressed. If someone got long-winded, the professor would gently suggest we move to the next student. This format meant we had to do the reading and we all had to articulate something about the reading. We also wrote our thoughts on the books in a journal and the professor graded us on our journals.

Comment on Encouraging equitable tutorial participation by Sasha

Thu, 23 Nov 2017 06:29:55 +0000

These all seem like great ideas Milan. I wish I had you as a T.A. during my time at McGill. I remember tutorials were one of my favourite portions of all my history classes. I particularly enjoyed the opportunity to engage in open-ended discussion and hear other student's interpretations and criticisms of the readings. Often times people were read in very different domains and were able to bring in ideas from other disciplines. It was social and enabled me to make a number of "class friends" with whom I could discuss the course content, study or bounce paper ideas off of. Finally, I found tutorial discussions also did a lot to aid in retention of the readings. Looking back, tutorials are something I miss in my conversion from humanities to the sciences. Labs are much more stressful & often impossibly packed with procedure, in-lab assignments and practical evaluation. Unfortunately, as the lab component is typically designed and overseen by somebody other than the lecturing professor, there is often very little (or no) overlap between lecture and lab material. This can make the lab seem like a whole new course, bearing its own burden of research, reading and constant study. Furthermore, in an effort to make the experiential learning more true-to-life, T.A's are often instructed to not answer questions regarding experimental outcomes, which can lead to lots of misunderstanding in complex labs such as my weekly cell & molecular bio lab. Alas!

Comment on Encouraging equitable tutorial participation by alena

Thu, 23 Nov 2017 04:42:09 +0000

You have put a lot of thought into making the tutorial sessions more interesting, inclusive and cooperative. I have also seen tutorial groups subdivided with each group choosing a person to take down ideas in the group and reporting on them. This can create deeper insights.

Comment on Software defined radio by .

Wed, 22 Nov 2017 23:52:48 +0000

The WR-G528e “CHEETAH” seems to be the latest piece of equipment in the pro line. A portable front end with coverage of 0.01 to 3000 MHz, the specs on the WR-G528e look very impressive.

Comment on The second rule of the internet by .

Wed, 22 Nov 2017 22:04:46 +0000

Connected sex-toy allows for code-injection attacks on a robot you wrap around your genitals Anonymity and privacy researcher Sarah Jamie Lewis realized that a connected sex toy's "email a blowjob" feature had significant security vulnerabilities and has produced an entertaining and delightful Twitter thread explaining how she was able to both fingerprint electronic blowjob description files and disrupt them with code-injection attacks. The unnamed connected sex toy allowed one partner to design a blowjob by specifying actions the toy should take, with associated timings; then you could package up your lovingly crafted blowjob and email a link to it to your partner. However, the links included base-64 encoded versions of the entire blowjob file, making it vulnerable to code-injection attacks. As Lewis notes, "I will leave you to ponder the consequences of having an XSS vulnerability on a page with no framebusting and preauthed connection to a robot wrapped around or inside someones genitals..."

Comment on Oversight over institutions of armed power by .

Wed, 22 Nov 2017 22:03:46 +0000

Cops chase innocent shoplifting suspect into stranger's house, then storm it with 50-person SWAT team and blow up every room except one Leo Lech is suing the police in Greenwood, Colorado for storming his house with a 50-person SWAT team because they mistakenly believed that a man who ran into his house (whom Lech didn't know) had shoplifted a shirt and two belts from Walmart; the police engaged in a 19-hour standoff that led to the near-total destruction of Lech's house due to the use of "calculated destruction," a tactic through which explosives are detonated through the house, room by room, to isolate the suspect.