mink

In open-source environments in education, people would like to think they have increased the freedoms of end-users (students and teachers). But once again, under institutional arrangements, freedoms are not ever-free. There are constraints. Some are more noticeable than others. Yet, capabilities with learning technology are more open in their sources and their applications than they were in the past, and they look like they will continue (albeit slowly) to open up more.

People at universities who directly manage learning - teachers, support staff, learning technologists, librarians, etc. - appear to be of the opinion that ideally, institutional arrangements should restrict learning as little as possible. But there is only so much time in one day, only so much money to go around one university, and only so much one person can think about in terms of how their job relates to their ideals. So, considering the scarcity of resources, institutions cannot help but restrict learning. At least, this is true for resources directly handled by those who manage learning. When, then, can be said about resources that are seemingly and willingly abundant, uncontrollable and left up to the learner to handle? Such as those that live in open-source environments?

Contemporary e-mail systems - and many other systems that piggyback off them - were originally designed to model postal mail. There may be cool lessons to learn, therefore, from observing how post offices function. Side note: Patrick Clifton - or Postman Pat - always had his cat, Jess, with him. While Jess could never speak to Postman Pat in his human language, Postman Pat could understand Jess' motions and reactions. This helped them work as a team; more importantly, a team that Postman Pat's customers/clients would probably not understand. If e-mail service providers play the part of Postman Pat today, who plays the part of Jess? Thanks Brink of Bedlam for the nostalgic image!

With the help of their five senses, humans appear capable to learn indefinately. However, under institutional arrangements, some of these capabilities are - by definition of the institution - restricted. What kinds of new institutional arrangements can support rather than restrict learning capabilities?

The accusation "You're crazy!" could mean at least two different things. It could mean "You're crazy!" in the sense that what you are saying or doing is impossible. It is impossible because it is at odds with the laws of nature. Or, it could mean "You're crazy!" in the sense that what you are saying or doing is not something conceivable. It is not conceivable because it does not readily appear to fit in the state of affairs around you. In the first case, well, you're probably crazy. In the second case, you aren't crazy, but you need to try and express  yourself a bit more, and where this proves impossible, you need to try and do and see for yourself.

Here is an epic  panoramic view of Mars, with love from Curiosity. Thanks Engadget !

If you're like me and appreciate minimalist HTML-only views on slow connections, you might have struggled to view your Gmail this way (ie: clicking relentlessly on the bottom-right link after logging in). To my relief, I just found that if you use this link after you've signed in, it should point right to the HTML template. No more frantic double, triple, seemingly-infinite clicking. 

In different areas of work - whether they be private or public - we tend to chase measurements of demand. That is, what do people want? But we are growing increasingly aware that peoples' actions do not always reflect their ideal desires (thanks UK and Nudge ). In light of this awareness, it appears that the question we should be asking is, rather than what do people want, what do people do? 

Metaphysical subjects cannot be clearly discussed through words, regardless of language ( Thanks, LW ). They might be able to be felt - in some way or the other - through other forms of expression (sight, sound, touch, etc.) but even through these other forms, the subject is obscure, vague, not exact and interpretable in different ways. Does this mean we should shy away from expressing our metaphysical beliefs through our actions in life? And when instinct speaks loud from within, is this even an option?

More images of the pursuit for gold at the Boston here .

What influences our preferences? Sure, there are prevailing conditions that influence our economic interests (thanks, BK). But what about preferences of luxury goods, such as extra food, extra clothing, music, visual art, conversation, etc?

"Saxoman". Taken in Central Park, NYC. Circa March 2007.

Three years ago in London, I met Adil Mamodaly, who happened to be living in the room next door to me at our student residence near Kings Cross. At the time, Adil was pursuing a double Masters program (in Muslim Civilizations and Education respectively), jointly run by the Institute of Education and the Institute of Ismaili Studies . Though we no longer live in the same city and can no longer enjoy a game of Monopoly together as easily, I am lucky to still be in touch with Adil. He is now working as a teacher and scholar with the Ismaili community in Canada and recently published a paper titled Rethinking the role of religious education in a knowledge society: A Shia Ismaili Muslim perspective . Yesterday I caught up with Adil over e-mail and asked him five questions on the paper. He was kind enough to respond. Here is what he said: 1. This knowledge society; does it just have to do with the physical production of knowledge or are there intangible aspects to it?  Knowledge so