Here is a short article I did for the Illinois Community Colleges Online Newsletter:
Whether or not you buy into the idea of "Web 2.0" - the 2nd generation World Wide Web or a slick marketing term - its implications are changing the way that people consume and develop information. For a good review of the history and definition of "Web 2.0" see the YouTube video of the same name:
Web 2.0 on YouTube
In a nutshell, Web 2.0 is about creating, contributing, sharing, commenting, tagging, and a whole lot of other things. Notably, the technologies that make up Web 2.0 can be utilized in a number of ways to create or enhance online learning environments.To that end, Go2Web20.net provides a compilation of tools that are available that can be used in these learning environments. Although the list is not comprehensive (it doesn't include Wikipedia), it does include a number of the more common sites (Facebook, Twitter). Plurk intrigues me.
http://www.go2web20.net/
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Is it their job to...?
My first post about a news article:
The US Supreme Court ruled today that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay could challenge their detentions in civilian courts in the US.
On Comcast.net News, George Bush is quoted as saying, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented. . .And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about US National Security."
I know it has been a long time since I had American Government, and I could be wrong, but is it the job of the Supreme Court to make rulings based on national security? I thought the Supreme Court could only rule on constitutional issues. As I said, I might be wrong, but the issue here is individual rights vs. government rights, and the Bill of Rights is specifically targeted at protecting individuals from the government.
I agree with the ruling. Even though other rulings have said otherwise, "...all men [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Notice it does not say "all US citizens."
Please correct me if I'm wrong about the Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court ruled today that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay could challenge their detentions in civilian courts in the US.
On Comcast.net News, George Bush is quoted as saying, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented. . .And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about US National Security."
I know it has been a long time since I had American Government, and I could be wrong, but is it the job of the Supreme Court to make rulings based on national security? I thought the Supreme Court could only rule on constitutional issues. As I said, I might be wrong, but the issue here is individual rights vs. government rights, and the Bill of Rights is specifically targeted at protecting individuals from the government.
I agree with the ruling. Even though other rulings have said otherwise, "...all men [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Notice it does not say "all US citizens."
Please correct me if I'm wrong about the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)