![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipI've discovered why so many people don't complete RMIT's CCNA training short course by Graham Timmins and Rudy Drew. It's not because the material is particularly difficult for anyone with a modicum of experience (I have received 80% and 72% in the two tests without making any effort) it's because they are, in my very carefully considered opinion, very poor tutors. Indeed, the worst I have ever experienced, and I've reviewed a lot of uni courses.
It all came to a head last Saturday where, after our second test (we still haven't been informed what the assesment actually is), I requested that we receive our marked test papers, for the very obvious methodological advantage of discerning what mistakes a student is making and what interpretations they should place on ambigious questions. This is almost a universal practise among higher education institutions and for very sound pedagogical reasons. The two tutors have refused point blank to allow such review and the only geniune reason provided is the possibility that some of the questions may be repeated in a previously unknown final exam. I can only interpret this as laziness on the part of the tutors who cannot be bothered checking the final exam questions against the assesments previously provided.
Needless to say, if they do not improve their course I will be dropping the subject after the first (accelerated stream) semester. They do not actually offer CCNA certification per se, rather they provide training for the test. Seeming that I already have some three score text books on Cisco routers, I think I don't need these people. Rather, a wealth of locations and test providers is already provided at Pearson Vue. But the experience will at least make a very amusing article for Catalyst. It is also led my brain to consider doing an overview of testing methodology among the so-called professional IT qualifications (e.g., MSCE, CCNA, RHCT,OCP) a comparison with university courses in computer science and recommended standards in pedagogy. Give this one at least a month because I already have a backlog of journal articles that need writing.
Very good news for my first fortnight of webhosting operations. Ten serious expressions of interest, with two substantial institutional contracts confirmed (hosting and dynamically coded sites). Several others have also confirmed that they'll move over to me when their current hosting arrangements expire. This is all good news - and to ensure that this doesn't become a full-time job before I'm prepared for that, I'm attending a NEIS information session this Friday. Once again, if you need webhosting/webpage development, please feel free to email me.
On a related subject I attended an excellent session on the tripwire firewall system yesterday at the Hilton on Park Hotel. Not only does their product seem excellent with strong third party certification, the promotion products (extremely stylish and very sturdy notepads) were a pleasure to receive.
Last Wednesday's Public First meeting at Trades Hall on the Free Trade agreement was quite interesting. Democrat's senator Lyn Allison was replaced by the youthful Senate lead candidate Jessica Healy - this is the second time I've seen her speak and I've been highly impressed both times. Gavin Marshall did a fair job of explaining why the ALP was biding their time on the issue. David Ristrom from the Greens did a fairly good job, but the character who attracted the most attention of course was Alan Moran from the Institute of Public Affairs. Contrary to the suggestions I received from oppositional conservatives, the meeting was not axiomatically against the free trade per se, but rather aspects of this agreement. Alan in fact did not that the intellectual property component was against the principles of free trade.
But where he really fell in a heap however - as the government continues to do so - was regarding the Pharmacetical Benefits Scheme. Alan, like the government, seems to be intent on pushing the fallacy that the PBS will not be affected by the US Free Trade Agreement. This doesn't explain, as Jessica Healy pointed out with some well researched quotes, why the US pharmacetical companies are leaping for joy over the agreement and why institutions such as the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health are profoundly troubled by the agreement.
Last Sunday's presentation at the Unitarians was Jenny Warfe from the Blue Wedge Coalition discussion the environmental and economic effects of the proposed dredging of Port Phillip Bay to suit the desires of international shipping companies. Her points were quite sound, especially concerning the extremely limited period of time that the public has been given to respond to the proposal, the opposition of senior CSIRO scientists who specialise in the Bay area and the lack of economically viable alternative considerations (e.g., rail to Darwin). This is a major change to the Bay and is gravely disappointing the that Labor government seems to be minimising the public debate on the issue.
This Sunday I'm giving a presentation at the Melbourne Unitarian Church on The Future of the Human Species: Genetic Engineering, Artifical Intelligence, Prosthetics and Simian Uplifting. It's on at 11am at 110 Grey Street, East Melbourne. The presentation will be aired on 3CR (855am) at 10.30 am the following Saturday. Please feel free to come along andheckleprovide insightful questions.
The Flood Inquiry. Collective therapy for those who have been caught lying to the population but need a servile butler to inform them that they didn't actually do anything wrong. Damn those commoners who won't die for King and country anymore. One feels so guilty having to deceive them before sending them to war. Rest assured, you haven't heard the end of this.
It all came to a head last Saturday where, after our second test (we still haven't been informed what the assesment actually is), I requested that we receive our marked test papers, for the very obvious methodological advantage of discerning what mistakes a student is making and what interpretations they should place on ambigious questions. This is almost a universal practise among higher education institutions and for very sound pedagogical reasons. The two tutors have refused point blank to allow such review and the only geniune reason provided is the possibility that some of the questions may be repeated in a previously unknown final exam. I can only interpret this as laziness on the part of the tutors who cannot be bothered checking the final exam questions against the assesments previously provided.
Needless to say, if they do not improve their course I will be dropping the subject after the first (accelerated stream) semester. They do not actually offer CCNA certification per se, rather they provide training for the test. Seeming that I already have some three score text books on Cisco routers, I think I don't need these people. Rather, a wealth of locations and test providers is already provided at Pearson Vue. But the experience will at least make a very amusing article for Catalyst. It is also led my brain to consider doing an overview of testing methodology among the so-called professional IT qualifications (e.g., MSCE, CCNA, RHCT,OCP) a comparison with university courses in computer science and recommended standards in pedagogy. Give this one at least a month because I already have a backlog of journal articles that need writing.
Very good news for my first fortnight of webhosting operations. Ten serious expressions of interest, with two substantial institutional contracts confirmed (hosting and dynamically coded sites). Several others have also confirmed that they'll move over to me when their current hosting arrangements expire. This is all good news - and to ensure that this doesn't become a full-time job before I'm prepared for that, I'm attending a NEIS information session this Friday. Once again, if you need webhosting/webpage development, please feel free to email me.
On a related subject I attended an excellent session on the tripwire firewall system yesterday at the Hilton on Park Hotel. Not only does their product seem excellent with strong third party certification, the promotion products (extremely stylish and very sturdy notepads) were a pleasure to receive.
Last Wednesday's Public First meeting at Trades Hall on the Free Trade agreement was quite interesting. Democrat's senator Lyn Allison was replaced by the youthful Senate lead candidate Jessica Healy - this is the second time I've seen her speak and I've been highly impressed both times. Gavin Marshall did a fair job of explaining why the ALP was biding their time on the issue. David Ristrom from the Greens did a fairly good job, but the character who attracted the most attention of course was Alan Moran from the Institute of Public Affairs. Contrary to the suggestions I received from oppositional conservatives, the meeting was not axiomatically against the free trade per se, but rather aspects of this agreement. Alan in fact did not that the intellectual property component was against the principles of free trade.
But where he really fell in a heap however - as the government continues to do so - was regarding the Pharmacetical Benefits Scheme. Alan, like the government, seems to be intent on pushing the fallacy that the PBS will not be affected by the US Free Trade Agreement. This doesn't explain, as Jessica Healy pointed out with some well researched quotes, why the US pharmacetical companies are leaping for joy over the agreement and why institutions such as the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health are profoundly troubled by the agreement.
Last Sunday's presentation at the Unitarians was Jenny Warfe from the Blue Wedge Coalition discussion the environmental and economic effects of the proposed dredging of Port Phillip Bay to suit the desires of international shipping companies. Her points were quite sound, especially concerning the extremely limited period of time that the public has been given to respond to the proposal, the opposition of senior CSIRO scientists who specialise in the Bay area and the lack of economically viable alternative considerations (e.g., rail to Darwin). This is a major change to the Bay and is gravely disappointing the that Labor government seems to be minimising the public debate on the issue.
This Sunday I'm giving a presentation at the Melbourne Unitarian Church on The Future of the Human Species: Genetic Engineering, Artifical Intelligence, Prosthetics and Simian Uplifting. It's on at 11am at 110 Grey Street, East Melbourne. The presentation will be aired on 3CR (855am) at 10.30 am the following Saturday. Please feel free to come along and
The Flood Inquiry. Collective therapy for those who have been caught lying to the population but need a servile butler to inform them that they didn't actually do anything wrong. Damn those commoners who won't die for King and country anymore. One feels so guilty having to deceive them before sending them to war. Rest assured, you haven't heard the end of this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-27 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-27 11:55 pm (UTC)Thanks for the suggestion, I've seen one of their promos and the seem pretty sound.
I've just booked myself in for the CCNA exam via Excom, but will check out Nth Melb TAFE for the CCNP.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-29 03:49 am (UTC)Just as an aside Longi, would you be interested in co-authoring the article on educational methods for university vis-a-vis vendor qualifications?
Sure
Date: 2004-07-29 05:36 am (UTC)Re: Sure
Date: 2004-07-29 07:36 pm (UTC)OK, what I was thinking was
Section 1
Debates about education methodology.
Section 2
Computer Science methodology and assesment at Universities (the 'big six' would be best I suppose).
Section 3.
Vendor specific methodology and assessment (the major ones, MSCE, CCNA/CCNP, A+)
Section 4.
Methodology and assesment at Technical and Further Education campus' (but which ones?)
Section 5.
Comparison of the three with recognized methodology standards and assesment objectives.
Now, there's a good question whether this should be published in an educational journal or a computer science journal...
What do you think thus far?
I probably shouldn't ask
Date: 2004-07-28 06:14 am (UTC)And I would give up They Lied! They Lied! Not even the French believe that, which is why they haven't been commmenting at all on it. Because, yes, French intelligence also thought the same thing (i.e. Saddam had the things -- they really should have just hired me to give a snap judgement). The Brits, the Yanks, the Eussians, the French all thought it. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam thought he had them.
Actually, you could make an argument that the there has been a persistent post-WWII pattern of overestimating opposing capacity and underestimating opposing incompetence for states. The CIA, for example, wildly overestimated the strength and size of the Soviet economy. And it wasn't as if they weren't trying and it was a pretty big, fairly visible thing. (Of course, you could argue that persistent institutional biases were the issue. Has a certain plausibility to it.)
Re: I probably shouldn't ask
Date: 2004-07-28 08:16 pm (UTC)Re: The PBS
The main issue is whether the "market cartel" of the government being a collective buyer for all Australians for select medicines will be able to be maintained.
Re: Flood Inquiry
Whilst I personally had serious doubts about Saddams WMDs - and there is enough quotes of me on the public record on this matter - the main issue was the desire to go to war before positive proof was established and the deliberate policy of making the the UN investigations (remember that?) impossible.
Somewhat off-topic find it strange that anyone ever thought that Saddam's army had any capacity whatsoever to fight. Given that the government had very little perceived legitimacy among the military let alone the rest of the population, there was no great desire to die for Saddam - but there is one to expel the occupiers.
East Timor however is still one which sticks in my maw. It is interesting that the main person who claimed the existence of a Jakarta lobby - Lt Col Collins - which was confirmed by the Toohey report - was unable to give evidence to the Flood inquiry due to restrictions on the way that evidence could be presented.
Like I said, we haven't heard the end of this. Not by a long shot.
Re: I probably shouldn't ask
Date: 2004-07-28 10:50 pm (UTC)On WMDs the real issue is that they were an excuse not a reason. There were a range of reasons in the post 9/11 context to get rid of Saddam but they chose imminent WMDs because it was the one which caused fewest difficulties. (You start saying 'we're knocking over this guy because he's an aggressive mass murderer and we want to start democraticising this region' and all sorts of current regimes are going to be very antsy. The Chinese are going to be be deeply unthrilled for one: they really, really hated 'ethical imperialism' a la Balkans.) But it only caused the fewest difficulties if you thought he really had them.
One of the many reasons to think they weren't lying is that it was such a dumb lie if you knew it was false.
Of course, even if you didn't think he had them curently, he certainly clearly had the intention to acquire them (that has now been thoroughly documented) and, post 9/11, tolerance for that was going to be much lower anyway.
As for the occupying thing, since you can't just go in and leave immediately, you're a bit stuck. And both the Kurds and the Shiites seem to be able to cope. 15 out of 18 Iraqi provinces have very little security issues.
Re: I probably shouldn't ask
Date: 2004-07-28 11:07 pm (UTC)Eh? Did you miss the news last night of the armed Shi'a looters in Basra?
I think our general point of departure is that I simply don't hold that anyone has the right to 'liberate' another country - that task is up to the population themselves. Find whatever means necessary to help, to be sure, but an invasion will always be perceived as exactly that - especially when the invading army doesn't exist to liberate but to control.
Re: I probably shouldn't ask
Date: 2004-07-29 03:01 am (UTC)I simply don't hold that anyone has the right to 'liberate' another country
Which is a different issue than how one characterises motives for the current intervention.
The issue of liberating someone else is problematic at lots of levels. Yet modern technology combined with jihadi absolutism makes indefinite toleration of the by-products of pathological Arab politics a bit dodgy.
Re: I probably shouldn't ask
Date: 2004-07-29 03:45 am (UTC)On the latter point we are in agreement - indeed, I mentioned as such a long, long time ago in my thesis when the Taliban were still in power.
If one is going to have a metaphysical-religious society, then one should, as a matter of balance, adopt pre-modern technologies as well. Like the Amish.
Premodern thinking and modern weapons is an explosive mix.
Re: I probably shouldn't ask
Date: 2004-07-29 04:46 am (UTC)Re: I probably shouldn't ask
Date: 2004-07-29 07:42 pm (UTC)*nods*
Like the Nazi's they are quite prepared to use modern means (because they are the most effective) to implement premodern (absolutist, regional) values.
I was already particularly interested in the efforts the Taliban went to ban modern communications technology. Demanding dress standards under the threat of violence is a more direct moral evil of course, but they were clearly aware of the influence of "dangerous ideas". Like freedom.
Hmmm... Once again we are in agreement about a commitment to modernity. Fancy that ;-)
Re: I probably shouldn't ask
Date: 2004-08-01 05:35 am (UTC)While in Canberra, picked up the paperback potted 9/11 Commission Report.
Serial incompetence is the phrase. Boy, are the US security agencies over-bureaucratised into occasionally reaching the dizzy heights of semi-competence.
This is the real killer criticism of Dubya: Dear Mr President, you relied on the advice of intelligence agencies which had proved spectactularly incompetent in the lead up to 9/11 on Iraqi WMDs and, once again, they massively screwed up. Fooled by their incompetence once, shame on them. Fooled by their incompetence twice, shame on you.
Pleace explain.
The thing about this criticism is, of course,
(1) it bypasses the argument on ins and outs of Iraq, so has maximum appeal
(2) it feeds into two-fifths of Americans thinking Dubya has no plan to win in Iraq.
If the Kerry campaign has any brains, it's the line they'll hammer for all it's worth.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-29 11:49 pm (UTC)Why only simian uplifting? Bipedist! Bipedist!
No, this sounds like fun, and I will try (no guarantees) to attend. Long live Speciating Multiculturalism! well, okay, if it ever actually happens . . .
Jay Superfluous
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 04:30 am (UTC)Why only simian uplifting? Bipedist! Bipedist!
"Two legs good, four legs bad!" No wait, that isn't right...
Good if you could come along, it's been a while...