Subscribe to this blog in Radio:
Didn't find what you were looking for?
E-mail this blog's author, Bruce Umbaugh:  |
|
 |
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 |
Representative for Healthcare Programs
Grade 60
College of Arts and Sciences
Full-time Replacement Position
Posted 5-09-05
Webster University is seeking a Representative for Healthcare Programs within the College of Arts and Sciences. Responsibilities include pre-admissions related tasks, including follow-up on student inquiries; one on one consultation with inquirers regarding credit transfers, degree requirements, financial aid, orientation, and campus tours; planning and organizing a variety of special events throughout the college; and serving as a liaison to the marketing, advising, and admissions office at Webster University. The program representative, working in conjunction with Webster’s Admissions office, will promote the healthcare programs at a variety of recruitment projects, including attending fairs; and visits to local colleges, hospitals, and businesses as arranged by the admissions office. Qualifications include a Bachelor’s degree required, master’s preferred; presentation skills, exceptional people skills and communication skills, both written and verbal. The successful candidate will be detail orientated and possess excellent organizational skills; creative; willing to take initiative; and strong multi-tasking skills. Knowledge of software programs such as Microsoft Office, CARS database preferred. Please submit cover letter and resume to Human Resources, Re: Representative-HC Programs, Webster University, 470 E. Lockwood Ave., St. Louis, MO 63119. Webster University is an Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action Employer; women and minority candidates are encouraged to apply.
7:43:53 AM 
|
|
Cory:
-
Free on incompetech.com, printable PDFs of graph paper in a variety of styles: "Metric, Multi-Width, Asymmetric, Dots, Iso-Dots, Hexagonal, Hex Dot, and Celtic Knot." Man, if only we'd had this stuff back in my D&D days. Link ( via Make Blog)
-
Penguin Digital Audiobooks is having a spectacular, forward-looking competition to remix its audiobooks into techno tracks. They've posted samples from several of its audiobookos and will give prizes for the best remixes. Link Update: Bummer. Nate sez: "Could you please note that the contest is open only to UK residents."
And this:
Keita Takahashi, the creator of the mind-bendingly weird and most excellent game Katamari Damacy, gave an hour-long talk about the lessons learned from Developing Katamari Damacy. Takahashi was a new Namco designer who did the game because he was bored with the other Namco projects on offer.
There's a lot not to like about this video: nothing much interesting is said for the first 15 or 17 minutes. The speech is in Japanese and haltingly dubbed into English. The video is packaged in a Flash player (ugh), and to watch it, you have to register and then click a link where you waive your privacy rights and agree to have your registration info turned over to the video's sponsor.
Nevertheless, once Takahashi gets rolling (heh), he is downright fascinating. Here's a guy whose first game was an instant classic, and for all that, totally different from anything else in the market. It's worth putting up with a lot of BS to hear what he has to say. Reg-and-Privacy-Waiver Req'd Link, Direct Link to Flash Video (via Waxy)
7:41:32 AM
|
|
The Movement and the Excluded Middle, applied to Copyright.
Derek Slater thoughtfully elaborated on "More on File-Sharing and the Commoners' Common Platform":
I think Seth is right that it's unnecessary and ineffective to try to ensure "moderation in everyone in the cause." I don't expect [Down Hill Battle] or other similarly-thinking groups to change their stances. However, to the extent we jointly try to define "what's at stake in the fight for digital rights" and synthesize into a common cause, that platform should be built on shared values. Maybe it's impossible to do that, as Seth suggests, but if we're going to try, it's important to outline what those shared values are (or aren't).
And Walt Crawford posted about "Finding a copyright middle ground":
Seth offers a thoughtful essay on an aspect of copyright that I, for one, find enormously troubling: The tendency of both "sides" to deny the possibility of a balanced middle ground.
In reply to the points, let me just repost something a wrote a while back, which covers the ground:
Copyright Is Broken And Nobody Knows How To Fix It (which I've noted not is not an especially original insight, but let's call it a classic, in the public domain even.)
So I've just listened to the IICA/INDUCE Act hearing, and been participating in the Freedom-To-Tinker discussion. For a while, I've wanted to write something about Walt Crawford's "Cites & Insights" library 'zine (not blog) Copyright special issue, which has extremely extensive discussion of recent copyright matters. After many, many pages of thoughtful (and non-echo-chamber) discussion, he finally concluded:
I believe in balanced copyright. If that sometimes results in coverage that seems to say "a curse on both your houses," that's because sometimes neither extreme makes much sense.
I kept thinking about this. Because, copyright abstractly makes no sense. By this, I don't mean something silly, not property-is-theft. Rather, I mean something deep, that the technological change has completely disrupted the extremely complex set of functional compromises that made copyright work in practice (for example, formerly being almost entirely a restriction on businesses, but now turning into a control on users and technology development).
Which brings us to the INDUCE Act. Much too much discussion basically boils down to posturing. As I've said in my DMCRA hearing impressions
It would great if everyone could just take a loyalty oath at the start and thus get beyond the endless querying about whether they believe in some sort of heretical radicalism. Something like:
"I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party. I pledge allegiance to copyright, and to the intellectual property system for which it stands, one compensation, responsible, with property and profit for all."
Let's all assume we want artists to be fairly rewarded, and bad people punished. As well as peace on earth and goodwill to all. Now what?
For me, the most chilling moment of the hearing was when Hatch outright said, "Something has to be done here". The problem is that there may be no equitable solution which both preserves openness and current industry profits. Repeating that these both should be served, doesn't make it so. We have improvement in the ability to exchange information again colliding with a social regime which says information must be controlled. I'm on the openness side, but so what? Who listens to me? (except in extraordinary circumstances).
Nobody has the answer. Sorry, I sure don't :-(. [Infothought]
7:35:09 AM
|
|
|
