TexasCHLforum.com

I wonder who else the professor can refuse.

"I won't let people of (fill in the blank) sexuality in my class." or "I won't let members of (xyz religion) in my class".

Just like concealed carry, how does he know? Maybe he just knows "those people" on sight, like aany bigot.

If you have a professor who actually and physically said they would resign if the law past - please post that name rather than being vague. Personally, I don't believe it as being truthful.

If you resign your position - let's say in Sept., then you will be unemployed for the 2011-2012 academic year. You would have to start searching for a job next fall. There are very few jobs unless you are very hot or in a super hot field. So what areas were these supposed resigners.

Also, once you state you are going to resign at your institution - unless you leave immediately - you probably will be socially shunned. If you expect to work next academic year and announced you are leaving - few student or grad students will work with you as you have little value.

The claim that X or Y will leave is probably bull. There are states that have passed such laws and the education literature or education news media hasn't documented a flood of resignations in those states.

Last, if an expensive prof leaves, unless superstar, the administration would be delighted to replaced such professor with an adjunct or new assistant prof as a much lesser salary - givent the current budget crunches.

So, it's crap or rhetoric - if you got a name, say it or spare us the threat.

b322da wrote:

OldSchool wrote: And I really can't agree that Feynman "single-handedly" saved the program....

An overstatement resulting from my being so impressed with his genius for so long. Sorry. I'm sure somebody else would have figured it out.

Somebody else would have spent millions on testing. He used a C-clamp and some ice water.

KD5NRH wrote:

b322da wrote:

OldSchool wrote: And I really can't agree that Feynman "single-handedly" saved the program....

An overstatement resulting from my being so impressed with his genius for so long. Sorry. I'm sure somebody else would have figured it out.

Somebody else would have spent millions on testing. He used a C-clamp and some ice water.

Sometimes simple is better.

WildBill wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

b322da wrote:

OldSchool wrote: And I really can't agree that Feynman "single-handedly" saved the program....

An overstatement resulting from my being so impressed with his genius for so long. Sorry. I'm sure somebody else would have figured it out.

Somebody else would have spent millions on testing. He used a C-clamp and some ice water.

Sometimes simple is better.

Forgive me if I K.I.S.S. you, WildBill.

Elmo

b322da wrote:

WildBill wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

b322da wrote:

OldSchool wrote: And I really can't agree that Feynman "single-handedly" saved the program....

An overstatement resulting from my being so impressed with his genius for so long. Sorry. I'm sure somebody else would have figured it out.

Somebody else would have spent millions on testing. He used a C-clamp and some ice water.

Sometimes simple is better.

Forgive me if I K.I.S.S. you, WildBill.

Elmo

I'll have to think about that.

KD5NRH wrote:

b322da wrote:

OldSchool wrote: And I really can't agree that Feynman "single-handedly" saved the program....

An overstatement resulting from my being so impressed with his genius for so long. Sorry. I'm sure somebody else would have figured it out.

Somebody else would have spent millions on testing. He used a C-clamp and some ice water.

Is there any indication Feynman was in favor of female students getting raped on campus? That Feynman would prohibit female students from having the tools to defend themselves from criminals? Based on the stories here, I think he was smarter than that.

But that's what the ASU professor is saying is preferable to letting them carry guns in his class.

Tamie wrote: Is there any indication Feynman was in favor of female students getting raped on campus?

That's what the ASU professor is saying is preferable to letting them carry guns in his class.

Wow! What a logical leap. And here I thought Dr. Feynman was a mathematical genius.

Even if Dr. Krauss does recognize that Dr. Feynman was quite the ladies' man.

When the facts get in some people's way, all they can do is manufacture something out of whole cloth.

Elmo

b322da wrote:When the facts get in some people's way, all they can do is manufacture something out of whole cloth.

An excellent analysis of that ASU professor's illogical rant.

WildBill wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

b322da wrote:

OldSchool wrote: And I really can't agree that Feynman "single-handedly" saved the program....

An overstatement resulting from my being so impressed with his genius for so long. Sorry. I'm sure somebody else would have figured it out.

Somebody else would have spent millions on testing. He used a C-clamp and some ice water.

Sometimes simple is better.

Simple has also often created problems in my own work. It's a balance thing.
As I said before, the elasticity of the neoprene was only one of the many things that contributed to a bad situation, any one of which, if different, would have meant a successful (if nerve-wracking on ascent) flight. There were many items and procedures changed following 51L.
There are many things about which I have disagreed with Dr. Feynman, and his flair for the dramatic would be one. Many others had previously commented on the change in the o-ring material well before he went on camera, since it was fairly obvious that the seam had failed containment. Except, they didn't get put on camera.

Back on topic, the Doctor in question in this thread has a simple thought process: Guns => bad => hate. No different than any other prejudice, I would say.

That's the heart of the matter, isn't it?

On one side, the supporters want to be able to exercise a fundamental right to carry a gun, so they can protect themselves and their loved ones from rapists, muggers, and other violent criminals.

On the other side, the opponents don't like guns and don't want them in classrooms.

I have a compromise that I think will satisfy most rational people on both sides of the issue. Like any compromise, it's not perfect and nobody gets everything they want, but I think it will work because it addresses the most important concern of both sides. The answer? Campus carry will be legal but the firearm has to be concealed.

For the supporters of campus carry, this is a significant but not unreasonable concession to make in return for decriminalizing campus carry. It's true that unlicensed open carry is generally allowed in Arizona, and in a perfect world it would be allowed on campus as well, but I'm suggesting campus carry supporters accept this restriction as a gesture of good will. They would be able to be safe, without offending the other side.

For the opponents of campus carry, the requirement to conceal would give them peace of mind. They won't be forced to tolerate the open display of guns on campus. Out of sight, out of mind. They would be able to feel safe, without endangering the other side.

OldSchool wrote:

WildBill wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

b322da wrote:

OldSchool wrote: And I really can't agree that Feynman "single-handedly" saved the program....

An overstatement resulting from my being so impressed with his genius for so long. Sorry. I'm sure somebody else would have figured it out.

Somebody else would have spent millions on testing. He used a C-clamp and some ice water.

Sometimes simple is better.

Simple has also often created problems in my own work. It's a balance thing.
As I said before, the elasticity of the neoprene was only one of the many things that contributed to a bad situation, any one of which, if different, would have meant a successful (if nerve-wracking on ascent) flight. There were many items and procedures changed following 51L.
There are many things about which I have disagreed with Dr. Feynman, and his flair for the dramatic would be one. Many others had previously commented on the change in the o-ring material well before he went on camera, since it was fairly obvious that the seam had failed containment. Except, they didn't get put on camera.

Back on topic, the Doctor in question in this thread has a simple thought process: Guns => bad => hate. No different than any other prejudice, I would say.

Presenting equations showing the elasticity vs. temperature makes for boring TV. There were several engineers who warned the management before the flight that there was a good possibility of failure of the o-ring seal. Most of the time when managers override the design engineers' recommendations, things don't blow up on TV.

OldSchool wrote:Back on topic, the Doctor in question in this thread has a simple thought process: Guns => bad => hate. No different than any other prejudice, I would say.

It is prejudice if he has a reason for hating guns? Prejudice - I don't know. Bias - Yes.

WildBill wrote:

OldSchool wrote:Back on topic, the Doctor in question in this thread has a simple thought process: Guns => bad => hate. No different than any other prejudice, I would say.

It is prejudice if he has a reason for hating guns? Prejudice - I don't know. Bias - Yes.

Is it prejudice if someone has a reason for hating Black people?

Ameer wrote:

WildBill wrote:

OldSchool wrote:Back on topic, the Doctor in question in this thread has a simple thought process: Guns => bad => hate. No different than any other prejudice, I would say.

It is prejudice if he has a reason for hating guns? Prejudice - I don't know. Bias - Yes.

Is it prejudice if someone has a reason for hating Black people?

According to my dictionary - Yes. Guns are not members of a racial, religious or national group.

prej·u·dice   /ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ Show Spelled
[prej-uh-dis] Show IPA
noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.