AKMA's Random Thoughts

November 13, 2002

Around Blogaria

Doc blogged John Gatto’s site the other day, with a quotation from his book, The Underground History of American Education. Margaret and I don’t know this newer book, but we were blown away nine years ago when Margaret saw him at a home-schoolers conference and bought his earlier book, Dumbing Us Down (note to Gatto’s webmaster: permalinks on the individual books on the “store” page, please).

Gatto’s scathing critique of modern American education gains impact from his evident success at teaching and his compassion for those whom the conventional approach to education runs rough-shod over: the kids and the earnest teachers. Pedagogically speaking, he’s got game, and our kids would be better off if more people listened to him—if only to avoid giving him more examples of ideological behavior in the education industry.

Then, Eric Norlin took the theologian quiz, and found out that he has a genetic predisposition to Methodism (Margaret got John Wesley, too, much to her dismay—but maybe that’s why I get along so well with Eric). So my follow-up question, for which there’s no necessary quiz, would be “Which theologian would you like to be?”

Below, I said I’d like to be John Henry Newman; I’ll stand by that for now, but having brought the question up differently, I’ll think the question over some more.

[Update: Chris Locke has evidently taken the quiz and taken up my less formal question concerning the theologian with whom he’d like to be associated. My next question is, “Which theologian did the quiz tell Chris Locke that he was?”]

Posted by AKMA at November 13, 2002 10:09 AM | TrackBack
Comments

i was always partial to erasmus....though i have a tremendous respect for Luther (he was freakin' genius!)...

...interestingly, my father (the retired methodist minister) scored a Karl Barth.

Posted by: eric norlin at November 13, 2002 11:52 AM

Well, that wasn't a tremendously thorough quiz, and dealt as much or more with each of our argumentative personalities as our doctrinal idiosyncrasies. I bet we could do better, if we all put our minds to it. ;)

I noticed that you left the quiz name as mentioned in the graphic -- the title of the quiz page does (more accurately) specify "Christian theologian," so I changed it when I put the code on my own page. So there are two possible answers to your question: among Christian theologians, I would like to be Clement of Alexandria, and among all theologians, I would like to be Yochanan ben Zakkai.

Posted by: Naomi Chana at November 13, 2002 01:55 PM

oh well shit! i didn't realize we could venture outside of Christianity....in that case, make me Nagarjuna.

Posted by: eric norlin at November 13, 2002 04:01 PM

Luther's obsessif antisemitism turned me off him for good. As for non-christian theologians, give me al-Ghazali. Sufis rule.

Posted by: Kendall Clark at November 15, 2002 05:16 PM

The most basic duality that exists with variables is how the programmer sees them in a totally different way than the computer does. When you're typing away in Project Builder, your variables are normal words smashed together, like software titles from the 80s. You deal with them on this level, moving them around and passing them back and forth.

Posted by: Rosanna at January 13, 2004 03:11 AM

The Stack is just what it sounds like: a tower of things that starts at the bottom and builds upward as it goes. In our case, the things in the stack are called "Stack Frames" or just "frames". We start with one stack frame at the very bottom, and we build up from there.

Posted by: Garnett at January 13, 2004 03:11 AM

To address this issue, we turn to the second place to put variables, which is called the Heap. If you think of the Stack as a high-rise apartment building somewhere, variables as tenets and each level building atop the one before it, then the Heap is the suburban sprawl, every citizen finding a space for herself, each lot a different size and locations that can't be readily predictable. For all the simplicity offered by the Stack, the Heap seems positively chaotic, but the reality is that each just obeys its own rules.

Posted by: Ralph at January 13, 2004 03:11 AM

We can see an example of this in our code we've written so far. In each function's block, we declare variables that hold our data. When each function ends, the variables within are disposed of, and the space they were using is given back to the computer to use. The variables live in the blocks of conditionals and loops we write, but they don't cascade into functions we call, because those aren't sub-blocks, but different sections of code entirely. Every variable we've written has a well-defined lifetime of one function.

Posted by: George at January 13, 2004 08:43 AM

When the machine compiles your code, however, it does a little bit of translation. At run time, the computer sees nothing but 1s and 0s, which is all the computer ever sees: a continuous string of binary numbers that it can interpret in various ways.

Posted by: Richard at January 13, 2004 08:43 AM

When Batman went home at the end of a night spent fighting crime, he put on a suit and tie and became Bruce Wayne. When Clark Kent saw a news story getting too hot, a phone booth hid his change into Superman. When you're programming, all the variables you juggle around are doing similar tricks as they present one face to you and a totally different one to the machine.

Posted by: Venetia at January 13, 2004 08:44 AM