Source: scienceblog.com/49579/lying-is-more-common-when-we-email/

A new study by University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers finds that communication using computers for instant messaging and e-mail increases lying compared to face-to-face conversations, and that e-mail messages are most likely to contain lies. The findings, by Robert S. Feldman, professor of psychology and dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, and Mattityahu Zimbler, a graduate student, are published in the October issue of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

The research paper, titled “Liar, Liar, Hard Drive on Fire: How Media Context Affects Lying Behavior,” looked at 110 same-sex pairs of college students who engaged in 15 minute conversations either face-to-face, using e-mail, or using instant messaging. The results were then analyzed for inaccuracies.

What Feldman and Zimbler found was that while there is some degree of deception present in all three forms of communication, it was increased in both instant messaging and e-mail, with e-mail messages the most likely to contain lies. Underlying this was the concept of deindividualization, where as people grow psychologically and physically further from the person they are in communication with, there is a higher likelihood of lying, they say.

In addition to the distance one person is from the other, e-mail communication has the added component of being asynchronous, not as connected in real time as instant messaging or face-to-face conversation. Feldman and Zimbler conclude, “It seems likely that the asynchronicity of e-mail makes the users feel even more disconnected from the respondent in that a reply to their queries is not expected immediately, but rather is delayed until some future point in time.”

“Ultimately, the findings show how easy it is to lie when online, and that we are more likely to be the recipient of deceptive statements in online communication than when interacting with others face-to-face,” says Feldman.

“In exploring the practical implications of this research, the results indicate that the Internet allows people to feel more free, psychologically speaking, to use deception, at least when meeting new people,” Feldman and Zimbler say. “Given the public attention to incidents of Internet predation, this research suggests that the deindividualization created by communicating from behind a computer screen may facilitate the process of portraying a disingenuous self.”

Feldman, who has been the dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at UMass Amherst since 2009, is an expert on lying and author of the book “The Liar in Your Life,” published in 2009.

He is a frequent commentator in the media on issues related to lying. Feldman joined the faculty of the UMass Amherst psychology department in 1977 after teaching for three years at Virginia Commonwealth University. He has been a visiting professor at Mount Holyoke College and Wesleyan University and was a Fulbright lecturer and research scholar at Ewha University in Seoul, South Korea in 1977.

I had a very long day.

I had gotten to James River Assembly by around 7:15 AM and was operating Camera 2 for the two main services. After that I went to the Connect center just to hang out and around with some of the people (particularly an old person named Sharren because she’s awesome and I like being around her). After spending about an hour there we closed up the Connect center and I was heading out to drop some stuff in my car (I had two large healthy drinks on me, one of which I had already drunk). I had noticed that two diesel semi-trucks with trailers were backing up at the entrance to the atrium from which I had exited, so on my way back I offerred to help and was gladly accepted. The group of volunteers there were young adults of and around my age, I think most of them who were volunteers for James River Assembly but were not officially meant to help out (but did so entirely on their own desire to be there and help) — and that’s awesome too, and a few that were from around the country. One of the volunteers had just come from Chicago, and I think maybe another had come from California or something, or Brooklyn.

We helped unload crates both heavy and light from the trailers and moved them into the public hallway behind the sanctuary (which was later curtained off after everything had been unloaded from the trailers). After unloading everything, we sought for things to do and help out on stage in setting up lighting equipment, power equipment, and various other. I personally helped out a guy named Al, who I figure was probably in charge of everything else on-stage but the power equipment. With another buddy, I helped him setup and stand up some of those tower metal things that had lighting equipment attached to it. We also ran a bunch of very thick heavy gauge cables along the back of the stage and hooked up equipment. There were a lot of various things we did. Al had also traded me off to a guy named Andy here and there; Andy was in charge of power and I think maybe some of the lighting, but mostly responsible for power stations and powering equipment with electricity. I helped him and a couple other James River Assembly staff setup some of the massive but portable power supplies. The plugs on these are huge and consist of many moderately thick (compared to what they were powering) pins.

At 4:00 PM I let Al know that I had signed up for a Hillsong College informational that I needed to be at, so I attended that. It would be my dream to attend Hillsong College for the TV/Media/Production/Camera stream and possibly something else. I further realized that I am the kind of person that fits better in international/mixed/pluralistic environments; I am not afraid around people I have never met who come from all over the United States (let alone the world), and find it very enjoyable and pleasant to be among them. Anyway, due to financial reasons I would be unable to go to the Hillsong College; God would have to open doors to even make this possible. All I can do is hope, pray, move on, and let God be in control and lead the way. I then went up to the production room and met the director from Hillsong by the name of Chong/Chung/Chuong/Choung who was going to be, well, directing everything! He was performing two jobs as one — operating the switchboard AND keeping his eyes on the cameras and live program feed and calling out camera operators. I have to say he’s very passionate about what he does, and very hyperactive, conscious, and alive.

I think Hillsong actually started playing at around 7:45 PM or 8:00 PM, but they went on for like 2 hours minimum with a couple or few preachings scattered in-between throughout.

This is all I am going to write for now. My brain is still trying to process everything that has happened.

Source: http://pastormark.tv/2011/10/26/dating-relating-and-fornicating

Christians worship a single guy who died a virgin. Perhaps that should be listed among his many miracles.

For the first time in our nation’s history, there are more unmarried than married adults. And people are waiting longer than ever to marry—women in their mid- to late twenties on average and men closer to thirty. The closer you get to a major city, the more singles you will find—most of them dating, relating, and fornicating.

This trend includes Seattle. Recently, Mars Hill Church Seattle was listed by the Seattle P-I as one of the best places in Seattle for singles to meet somebody. So, if you’re looking to get hitched, Mars Hill is apparently a good place.

One of the reasons I believe we were named among such places as gyms, bars, and (naturally) dog parks—there are more dogs per capita in Seattle than kids—is because we tend to verbally beat boys who can shave (men who are adults chronologically but kids in terms of responsibility) like drill sergeants. The ones who don’t leave to blog about their hurt feelings tend to stay, grow up, man up, and eventually get married to a nice gal who would like to have babies but does not want to be married to one.

Over the years, we’ve seen thousands of singles come to Mars Hill, become Christians, find healing from past abuse, trust Jesus, start dating a godly guy or gal, get married, and have kids to the glory of God. I personally know hundreds of women who were sexual assault victims at the hands of some loser boyfriend/porn-head find help, healing, and hope in Jesus, get married to a guy who was previously a train wreck, and by God’s grace become new people with a fun, free, faithful marriage. Nothing beats the front row I enjoy for the Holy Spirit’s power in the lives of people whom Jesus loves.

And though we have many families at Mars Hill, over half of our church is single and in their twenties. Naturally, there are many questions about dating.

So, I thought I’d take this opportunity to speak to those of you who are single in both our church and in the church at large.

The History of Dating

Most likely, you view your experiences regarding dating as normative. Because you were born in this day and age, dating seems not only normal but also the only way in which to meet someone you could potentially marry.

We must be careful, however, not to take our current experiences and make them the norm. It’s important to view the times in which we live through the lens of both history and Scripture.

The reality is that dating, as we know it today, is a relatively new idea. In fact, prior to the 1900s, “dating” was a slang term that referred to prostitution. A man who was going to pay a woman for sex told his buddies that he was “going on a date.” Interestingly, while dating isn’t overtly a euphemism for prostitution any longer, for many men, the process is similar. In our culture, a man takes a woman on a date, spends lots of money, and by the world’s standards expects the woman to “put out.”

The cultural history of dating is interesting. In the early 1900s “calling” was the primary means of marrying. A young man would call on a young woman by going to the parlor in her parents’ home. Her parents carefully oversaw these meetings, and expectations for everything from dress and food to length of time of the call was regulated and spelled out. This protected women from the kind of sexual assault that is common today by involving the parents on every level of the courtship process. It also limited the opportunity for a woman and a man to be alone and sin sexually.

By the 1930s, however, the social landscape changed dramatically with the rise of the automobile. Cars gave young people freedoms and mobility they never had previously, resulting in increased opportunities for men and women to go out alone and increased temptations for drunkenness and sexual sin.

Socially, the rise of the car resulted in women being interested in men who were rich enough to afford a nice car and take them on nice dates, and men in turn pursued women who were the prettiest and most sexual.

By the 1940s, dating took on aspects of prostitution—as I said earlier, men treated women to nice dates, and in return they expected sexual favors. Naturally, those women who obliged were taken on more dates, and those women who didn’t weren’t asked out again.

Things really changed in the 1960s with the onset of the sexual revolution. This resulted in the greatest change in the social dynamics of singleness in the Western world, with orgies, casual sex, homosexuality, lesbianism, and bisexuality becoming increasingly socially acceptable. Additionally, that decade saw the first widely available pornography magazine, Playboy, resulting in a shift in the way our society viewed the body and sex.

The 1970s cemented the concept of dating and casual sex as normative by removing any physical consequences through the legalization of abortion in 1973 and making no-fault divorce legal in 1974. Add to that the birth control pill and other contraceptive measures, and most of the cultural and practical reasons to restrict sexual activity outside of marriage were obliterated.

The end result of all this is that today we live in a society that is overly sexualized, sees nothing wrong with experimenting, and views regular, unmarried sex as not only normal but also healthy. Those who are younger were born into a world that resulted from a massive sexual and gender experiment. Today, even young teens are involved in “sexting,” junior high girls are expected to send naked photos of themselves to their boyfriends, and the number one consumer of online pornography is twelve- to sixteen-year-old boys, which means they will expect girls not old enough to drive to punish their bodies and do the kind of extreme things that porn stars do.

Culture and Dating

Sex outside of marriage is now the norm, a huge change from just a century ago. Today, over 5 million couples cohabitate. This is up from 1 million in 1978. And this number doesn’t take into account the number of couples who don’t live together but who still stay over at each other’s places enough to be classified as cohabitators.

Here are some shocking statistics taken from my book, Religion Saves:

• An estimated quarter of unmarried women between the ages of 25 and 39 currently live with a partner.
• Half of unmarried women in the same age group have lived with a partner at some time.
• Over half of all first marriages are now preceded by cohabitation.
• The most likely people to cohabit are those aged 20 to 24.

This is problematic first because it is sin and against God’s design for sex, which is to be enjoyed in the context of marriage, but also for a number of practical reasons.

• Studies almost always find that cohabitation is associated with a higher divorce risk, with estimates ranging from 33 percent to 151 percent increased risk of divorce.
• Annual rates of depression among cohabitators are more than three times higher than married couples,
• Women in cohabitating relationships are twice as likely as married women to suffer physical abuse.
• Two studies found that women in cohabitating relationships are about nine times more likely to be killed by their partner than married women.
• Couples who cohabitate before marriage report less marital happiness and more conflict when married.

This is in contrast to couples who marry as virgins:

• Men who marry as virgins are 37 percent less likely to divorce.
• Women who marry as virgins are 24 percent less likely to divorce,
• Those who wait to have sex until marriage and remain faithful in marriage report higher levels of life satisfaction compared to adults who engage in premarital or adulterous sex.
• Those who wait to have sex and are faithful to their spouse also report notably higher happiness scores.

The bottom line of all this is that Satan is still a liar. Though our culture wants to make cohabitation and casual sex seem normative and healthy, the statistics tell the truth—it’s destructive. God’s plan of chastity before marriage and fidelity in marriage is still the best plan.

I speak as the chief hypocrite. I was not a virgin when I met Grace at the age of seventeen. We were sleeping together until God saved me in college and I got some decent Bible teaching about sex. We stopped sleeping together until we were married between our junior and senior years of college. I wrongly thought we’d pick up where we’d left off, but I was wrong. We had set in motion a pattern of guilt and selfishness that took years to break and hurt the first years of our marriage. For those like me, there is hope. God does forgive, and things can improve. For those unlike me, keep pursuing purity by grace because God’s way is the best way.

With that in mind, I share with you here some thoughts on being single in the church and pursuing a godly spouse.

Be the right person

Too many singles have a list of what they are looking for in a spouse. The problems with this are many. First, most singles don’t know what they really need for fifty years of God-glorifying marriage. Second, the list is usually just their resume and a form of idolatry, as if marrying someone just like you is necessarily a good thing. Third, the list usually does not account for the future, like the guy who told me it was very important that his future wife love rock climbing, until I explained to him that if they had as many kids as he was hoping for she would not be rock climbing much since it’s not the ideal activity for a pregnant lady. Fourth, how about a list NOT FOR THE PERSON YOU WANT TO MARRY BUT RATHER A LIST FOR YOU! It seems very selfish to make a list of what someone else needs to be for you if you don’t have a detailed list for yourself and what you need to be for them.

As a single person in the church, one of the most important prerequisites to dating and marrying is being the right person. This means having your identity firmly rooted in Jesus rather than in your identity as a single person, what the culture says about being single, or what the culture says about marriage.

Singles in the church generally need to fight the propensity for idolatry in one of two forms: independence or dependence.

Independence

Some single people value their independence above all else. The idea of committing to someone is something that scares them to death. Rather than commit, they prefer to stay single, not because they feel called to honor God in singleness, but because they worship their independence above all else. Sometimes, the underlying root of this fear was witnessing their parents’ own marriage fail.

Dependence

Other singles are like needy puppies that can’t be alone. They worship other people’s relationships and long to have someone they can be with—again, not to glorify God, but instead to feel secure and to find their identity in a relationship. They worship dependence above all else.

Rather than finding your identity in either independence or dependence, you need to find your identity in Jesus, serving him and his church well, and trusting him to provide the right spouse at the right time.

First and foremost, we must place our identity in Jesus and we must desire what he desires for us. If you’re single and worship your independence, you need to ask for forgiveness and ask Jesus if he has a spouse for you to pursue. If so, do so obediently.

Likewise, if you’re single and dread being alone, you need to find your identity in Jesus and be content with the season of life he has you in. Use your singleness to glorify God by serving him and his church and trust that he’ll bring the right person at the right time.

Marry the right person 

Some people have a list so long and so specific for a potential spouse that they’ll never find anyone who measures up. Be reasonable in your expectations and understand that oftentimes God brings someone much different into your life as a spouse, both for your holiness and your happiness.

Too many people have unrealistic expectations of who they want to marry, which often results in not seeing someone God has put right in front of you. Rather than looking for the perfect person, open your eyes to see whom the perfect God may have in your life right now. Holding people up to unrealistic expectations will only result in frustration on your part and the part of those who wish to pursue you, and may cause you to miss out on a great potential mate.

The greatest love story in the Bible after Jesus and the church is Ruth and Boaz. Their story is perfect for singles in our day. They were older. He was a successful and godly businessman and community leader. He could have married any number of women. But he picked Ruth. Her family descended from incest, she was a foreigner from another country, and she was not a virgin but a widow, as well as a new believer, homeless (gleaning for food, which is our equivalent to the food bank or dumpster diving), and came with a mother-in-law who had changed her name to “Bitter.” I’m guessing this was not the list Boaz had made for his future wife. But she was amazing and from her womb came the line of Jesus Christ according to Matthew 1.

That being said, you must have standards still. First and foremost, a potential spouse must love Jesus, love his church, and be theologically sound.

Since identity is rooted in Jesus, dating someone who isn’t a Christian builds a relationship apart from the source of identity and leads to much trouble and heartache down the road.

First, a non-Christian can’t even begin to understand who you are since they don’t know Jesus. Second, since Scripture is the highest authority in a Christian marriage, a relationship with someone who doesn’t trust the Bible leaves you in a position to have two value systems that often contradict each other as the basis for a relationship. Third, when tough times come, and they will, you will have no means of dealing with sin that comes between the two of you.

But dating someone who is a Christian is just the baseline. In order to consider spending your life with someone in covenant marriage, you need to also share the same theological values.

While we can have friends with whom we disagree on primary theological issues, it’s not wise to date someone with whom you disagree on fundamental issues such as the inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, gender relationships in marriage, children, the Trinity, and more. This will only set you up for great conflict when you are married and especially when you have children.

In the right way

Ladies, the Bible teaches that the man should lovingly lead as the head of the home. Because of this, any romantic relationship should start with the man taking the initiative to kindly and respectfully ask for the opportunity to date you.

Men, the Bible teaches us in 1 Timothy 5:1–2 to treat Christian women as sisters. This means that you respectfully get to know a woman you’re interested in without pressure and without sexual contact. Also, since you’re called to lead your family once you are married, you need to muster up some courage and ask out a woman you’re interested in. Too many Christian men are timid and need to have the courage to face rejection in pursuit of a wife. Finally, if a woman is not interested, you should respect that answer and trust that God will bring the right woman into your life.

Also, when dating someone, remember that the goal of Christian dating is not to have a boyfriend or girlfriend but to find a spouse. Have that in mind as you get to know one another, and if you’re not ready to commit to a relationship with the end goal of marriage, it’s better not to date but simply to remain friends.

At the right time

Often, there are many things you need to work on before you’re ready to marry. Sometimes there are habitual sins, such as porn addiction, that need to be addressed. Other times, you need to work on establishing yourself to be in a position to provide for a family or grow stronger in your spiritual life.

Accept that singleness for a season affords you freedom and benefits you won’t have when married. Use it wisely to finish your education, travel for missions, serve the church, establish your career, and create a solid financial base free of debt. Until you are ready to marry, focus on those issues, and then pursue a relationship. Live your single years to God’s glory. Don’t waste them.

In the right community

First and foremost, be part of a Jesus-loving, Bible-teaching church. Serve that church, humbly learn from those who have more life experience than you and who have developed a life-long relationship with Jesus, and grow as a Christian under solid, qualified elders and leaders.

Second, if you have decent families, honor them. Allow them to speak into your relationship and know the person you are considering. This is doubly important for young women who have Christian parents who love them. Any man who wants to be with you should want to get to know your church friends and your family, live openly before them, and gain their approval. Any guy who takes a woman away from godly family and community is dangerous and up to no good.

For the right reasons

The Bible commands that both a husband and a wife love each other (Eph. 5:25; Titus 2:3–4). There is nothing sadder than a marriage that is devoid of love or not growing in love. If a man and woman don’t love one another and are not devoted to building love over a lifetime, they shouldn’t marry.

Also, it’s not enough to date someone whom you think is only attractive on the outside, and it’s also not enough to date someone whom you think is only attractive on the inside. Rather, you should be attracted to the entire person inside and out.

Marriage is lifelong journey with many ups and downs, and many seasons of life. Grace and I met in high school, married in college, and then graduated and started Mars Hill Church together a few years later. She quit her job to stay home and raise the kids, and we’ve been together over twenty years.

Today, life is busy with the church growing, lots of travel, and many projects on top of building a godly home and family. Grace and I love each other more than ever and genuinely enjoy each other’s company as both best friends and lovers. We work together, not against one another, and support each other through every season. One day, our five kids will be grown, and Grace and I will still be together as older and hopefully wiser friends and lovers. The point is that life changes and seasons come and go. You should marry someone fit for every season of life and seek to be the right person for them in every season of life.

Resources for Singles at Mars Hill

At Mars Hill Church, by God’s grace we have hundreds of couples who are dating and engaged to be married.

There are many resources available to those looking to meet someone and for those preparing for the journey of marriage.

As I mentioned earlier, join a Community Group. There you’ll have an opportunity to meet other singles, serve the church together, get to know others on a personal and spiritual level, and have great mentors to speak into your life and—if you do begin a relationship—speak into that as well with godly wisdom and counsel.

Many of our churches have singles’ events that provide an opportunity to study what the Bible says about singleness, how to use your singleness in the church to the glory of God, and building your identity in Jesus—and that also provide an opportunity to meet other singles. Talk with the leaders at your local Mars Hill Church about opportunities for singles.

For those who are dating and considering marriage, or who are engaged, we have a great premarital program that includes counseling, classes, opportunities to get to know yourself and your potential spouse better to make sure you are a good fit, and help in planning your wedding. For more information, visit weddings.marshillchurch.org.

Additionally, in my book, Religion Saves, you can read a lengthy chapter on dating that expands significantly on some of the points I’ve shared here.

Finally, if all of this wasn’t enough, you can always watch the sermon I gave on this topic during our Religion Saves sermon series by clicking here.

Source: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/22/1325238/anonymous-hackers-take-down-child-porn-websites

According to Security News Daily, Anonymous has taken down more than 40 darknet-based child porn websites over the last week. Details of some of the hacks have been released via pastebin #OpDarknet, including personal details of some users of a site named ‘Lolita City,’ and DDoS tools that target Hidden Wiki and Freedom Hosting — alleged to be two of the biggest darknet sites hosting child porn.

Source: http://michaelhyatt.com/how-to-absorb-new-ideas-and-become-a-better-leader.html

I believe that the local church is the hope of the world. But for it to reach its redemptive potential, it must be well-led. This means that those of us with leadership gifts have to step up and step it up. We have to take responsibility for our own leadership development.

Here are four steps I use to absorb new ideas and become a better leader:

1. Read as much as you can. Really. As a leader, you have to seed your mind with leadership ideas to keep learning and growing. During a the Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit a few years ago, David Gergen said, “Not every reader is a leader, but every leader is a reader.” Leaders, read diligently. I take every opportunity I can to absorb new ideas.
2. Use a “discernment filter.” Once you’ve exposed your mind to innovative concepts, you’ve got to put the ideas through a discernment filter.The truth is that some of the ideas you learn fit you and should be integrated into your current leadership style. But other ideas don’t fit you, and they don’t pertain to you. You shouldn’t act on them.Some ideas are good, but they fall into the “not now” bucket. I’ve seen leaders over the years who absorb all of these great ideas but are unable to keep up with taking them all in.

   There’s no short cut to discerning your leadership lessons. We all have to do the hard work of deciding which ideas are valuable—and which aren’t.

3. Assign an owner. Once an idea makes it through the discernment filter, leaders have to determine how many leadership ideas they can implement in their church (or organization). I know that I can bear the responsibility of the vision for our church and make sure that our strategic values are clear, but I’m careful not to bear the weight of implementing all new ideas. That’s where your team comes in. Don’t be afraid to attach cool ideas to people on your team, so they can run with them.
4. Embed the ideas into your culture. Once you discover new ideas, put them in a filter, and delegate them to a team member—you have to start to institutionalize the most important ideas. The ultimate objective is that all of the ideas have to find their way into the DNA of your organization. The main goal of ideas isn’t just to learn about them, it’s to embed them in the culture.

Source: http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/09/23/1343214/your-state-university-doesnt-want-you

According to a new survey of college admissions directors by Inside Higher Ed, the admissions strategy judged most important is the recruitment of more out-of-state and international students, who can pay significantly more at public institutions. Ten percent of those surveyed also reported admitting full-pay students with lower grades and test scores than other admitted applicants, and a majority of schools either use or plan to use controversial commission-paid agents to recruit foreign students (commission-based recruitment is barred in the U.S.). ‘This isn’t about globalization or increased educational diversity,’ asserts USC’s Jerome A. Lucido. ‘They need the money.’ So, should employees of a public university where the President’s annual compensation exceeds $1 million receive a full state-funded pension for educating 16,000+ out-of-state students?

Source: http://davideharrington.com/?p=594

Nearly everything we buy nowadays is electronically scanned to ensure that we paid for the items in our bags—and under our coats.  Stores began using sensor tags and security screens in the early 1970s.  According to the New York Times, the market for anti-theft systems grew rapidly because they were viewed as “more reliable and less expensive” than having employees watch customers.

Students are being scanned as well to make sure that the words in their papers were not swiped from other sources.  Scanning papers began a decade ago when anti-plagiarism software was created to compare the phrases of student papers with other sources.  The leading anti-plagiarism software is Turnitin, which compares student papers with academic journals, Internet web pages and its library of previously submitted papers.  On its home page, Turnitin quotes an instructor as saying, “I used to spend hours on Google searching for unusual wording when I suspected that the paper was not written by the student. Now, I can search quickly with Turnitin!”

Scanning store customers and student papers are touted as substitutes for labor, so that clerks and instructors can spend less time guarding against thievery and more time doing what they do best, serving customers and teaching students.  Sounds great; sounds efficient; sounds easy!

In the years before sensor tags and security screens, the battle against shoplifters was waged with security guards and convex mirrors.  An expert on store security—quoted in Shoplifting: A Social History—argues that hiring security guards may have actually increased shoplifting because other employees were likely to think, “Pete is here, so I don’t have to watch out for shoplifters.”

Today, store clerks may think, “our stuff is tagged, so I don’t have to watch out for shoplifters.”  Indeed, stores have begun to question whether the substitution of security systems for labor has gone too far, reenlisting labor by having employees greet customers.  On a recent shopping trip, my daughter Emma and I were greeted by a handsome teenager at Abercrombie, a well-dressed woman at J. Crew and an elderly guy at Wal-Mart.  Sure, the first two were modeling clothes.  (I hope the last guy wasn’t modeling them for me!)  But, their real job is to make eye contact with customers to deter shoplifters.

Similarly, teachers might think, “I’m using Turnitin, so I don’t have to watch out for plagiarists.”  The instructor quoted on Turnitin’s website certainly thinks so, implicitly arguing that Turnitin is a perfect substitute for her own investigations using Google.  Not surprisingly, Turnitin encourages this belief.  On its website—right next to her quote—Turnitin advertises that it has crawled and indexed “14+ billion web pages.”  Choosing between Turnitin and instructor investigations seems like a no-brainer.

But wait, how many web pages are there on the Internet?

A few years ago, Google announced that it had crawled and indexed a trillion web pages.  That makes TurnItIn’s crawlers look puny, having searched and indexed only 1.4 percent as much of the Internet as Google’s.

I wanted to test Turnitin but needed a suspicious manuscript.  I had one in my hands—Shoplifting: A Social History.  I suspected Kerry Segrave of plagiarism when I heard echoes of his book while reading New York Times articles he cites.    He cites a lot of them—35 in the first 14 pages!   To investigate my suspicions, I created a document containing the 14 pages stripped of direct quotations and another one containing the New York Times articles.  I began by searching for identical phrases (of at least 6 words) in the two documents using the open source software Copyfind, which highlighted the matches it found in each document and produced the metric that 15 percent of the early pages of Shoplifting were taken verbatim from the New York Times.  (Here is the document that highlights the matches.)

But this measure captures only the most flagrant form of plagiarism, where passages are copied from one document and pasted unchanged into another.  Just as shoplifters slip the goods they steal under coats or into pocketbooks, most plagiarists tinker with the passages they copy before claiming them as their own.  In other words, they cloak their thefts by scrambling the passages and right-clicking on words to find synonyms.  This isn’t writing; it is copying, cloaking and pasting; and it’s plagiarism.

Kerry Segrave is a right-clicker, changing “cellar of store” to “basement of shop.”  Similarly, he changes goods to items, articles to goods, accomplice to confederate, neighborhood to area, and women to females.  He is also a scrambler, changing “accidentally fallen” to “fallen accidentally;” “only with” to “with only;” and, “Leon and Klein,” to “Klein and Leon.”  And, he scrambles phrases within sentences; in other words, the phases of his sentences are sometimes scrambled.

I spent hours comparing the two documents, matching phrases and highlighting the ones that were copied, cloaked and pasted into Shoplifting. My estimate is that 32 percent of the early pages of Shoplifting are taken nearly verbatim from the New York Times. (Here is the document that highlights the matching phrases.)

To test Turnitin’s crawlers, I uploaded the document containing the New York Times articles to my website a few months ago.  Google now matches many of the plagiarized phrases from Shoplifting to the New York Times articles on my website and some of the phrases to articles in the archives of the paper. Google also matches them to Shoplifting itself, which has been scanned into Google Books.

Turnitin fails to match the plagiarized phrases to any of these sources.  I e-mailed Turnitin’s help desk, essentially asking, “What’s going on?  Why can’t Turnitin find these things?”

A few hours later, a guy at Turnitin’s product support sent me a detailed answer that boils down to three basic points—the Internet is a big place and it takes our crawlers time to scan it; we can’t scan the New York Times because it requires a subscription; and, we can’t scan images of text like those used by Google Books.  In other words, our crawlers are puny compared to Google’s.

I decided to give Turnitin a little help, so I submitted the document containing the New York Times articles as a student paper, causing the file to be catalogued in Turnitin’s library of student papers.  This enabled Turnitin to find the file and then to compare Shoplifting with the New York Times articles.  It produced an originality report that highlighted matched phrases and concluded that 25 percent of the phrases of Shoplifting were very similar to those of the newspaper articles. (Here is the document that highlights the matching phrases.)

Nearly all the passages highlighted by TurnItIn are also highlighted by me.  However, I highlight a few more because my algorithm—embedded in my brain—casts a wider net than the one used by Turnitin.  However, the differences are relatively minor—they both present compelling evidence that Shoplifting is an example of Wordlifting.

But Turnitin needed my help to find the original sources of the plagiarized phrases, making it a poor substitute for instructors who are willing to “spend hours on Google searching for unusual wording.”  It needs the help of instructors who are willing to investigate suspicious papers; otherwise, greater reliance on Turnitin could lead to more plagiarism.

There are other ways that instructors may change their behavior if they believe that anti-plagiarism software insures them against the risk that their students are plagiarizing.  Economists give a fancy name for changes in behavior induced by insurance—it’s called moral hazard.

One instructor told me that he used to devote an hour to discussing plagiarism with his class—what it is; why it’s wrong; and, where students go when they get caught.  Now, he just tells them that he uses Turnitin and lets them infer that plagiarizing is not worth the penalty.  He lauded the change, saying it saved him valuable class time.

Relying on students to weigh the benefits and costs of plagiarism in this way assumes that they are good stewards of their future selves.  Just as some shoplifters may give too much weight to the thrill of shoplifting, some students may give too much weight to starting their weekends early.

Instructors may also change the way they write their essay assignments.  One of the best ways to suppress plagiarism is to come up with creative assignments that are literally one-of-a-kind.  For example, I like to rip mine from the headlines by asking my students to write op-eds on current legislative proposals. If I felt insured against plagiarism, I might not spend hours looking for unusual proposals and instead tell students to write their essays on any topic they found interesting.

Instructors, like all human beings, look for excuses to avoid doing things they don’t want to do.  Grading essays is hard—often discouraging—work, so instructors look for excuses to avoid assigning them.  One plausible excuse is that plagiarism is rampant, making in-class exams better measures of students’ performance.  Anti-plagiarism software may make this excuse less credible, nudging some instructors to assign more essays.  Hence, moral hazard can work in the opposite direction, something akin to moral security.  Feeling insured against plagiarism, instructors may decide to do the right thing and assign more essays.

Turnitin is also being used to teach the wrong lessons concerning how to write well.  Searching Google, I found syllabi of instructors who use Turnitin to teach students how to paraphrase well.  In particular, they ask students to check the originality reports of their rough drafts and make any necessary changes to improve their paraphrasing of sources prior to submitting the essays to be graded.  In the hands of a skilled instructor, it might teach students how to paraphrase well.  But, I think it is more likely to teach students how to right-click words and scramble phrases to get acceptable scores on Turnitin.

I want to teach my students how to write well, not simply paraphrase well.  I also fear that copying, cloaking and pasting is endemic.  Hence, I would not allow my students to use originality reports to revise their drafts.

But I would have no choice because Turnitin offers another product called WriteCheck that allows students to “check [their] work against the same database as Turnitin.”  I signed up and submitted the early pages of Shoplifting.  WriteCheck matched many of Shoplifting’s phrases to those of the New York Times articles in its library of student papers.  Remember, I submitted them as a student paper to help Turnitin find them; now WriteCheck has them too!  WriteCheck warned me that “a significant amount of this paper is unoriginal” and advised me to revise it.  After a few hours of right-clicking and scrambling, I resubmitted it and WriteCheck said it was okay, being cleansed of easily recognizable plagiarism.

Turnitin is playing both sides of the fence, helping instructors identify plagiarists while helping plagiarists avoid detection.  It is akin to selling security systems to stores while allowing shoplifters to test whether putting tagged goods into bags lined with aluminum thwart the detectors.

I am not a Luddite.  I use an online homework system in many of my courses and I plan to experiment with student response systems.  And, I think that anti-plagiarism software is a useful tool, but should be used as a complement to, not a substitute for, instructor investigations of suspicious language, class conversations on plagiarism, and creative essay assignments.

This fall, I plan to say to people, “I’m using anti-plagiarism software, but I’m still watching out for plagiarists.”

Source: http://www.crossway.org/blog/2011/07/dont-miss-the-point-questions-to-ask-while-reading-scripture/

The purpose of reading the Bible is not to find self-fulfillment, although sometimes that’s an easy trap to fall into. There are some questions we can ask ourselves as we read Scripture to make sure we are reading for the right reasons:

• What does this passage teach about God?
• What attributes are on display?
• What work is God doing?
• How does the biblical author point us to God in this text?
• Even though God may not be explicitly mentioned in this text, how is he at work in what is happening? How is he directing “behind the scenes?”
• How does this passage either reveal or reflect the glory of God?

In addition to these information-gathering questions, we can also ask some application-oriented questions:

• Does this passage offer any models of those who miss the point by not seeing God at work and by not focusing on his glory?
• Does this passage offer any models of those who get the point?
• What can I learn from these negative and positive models?
• What does this text teach me about my own pursuits and agendas?
• What selfish ambitions and pursuits do I need to repent of in light of what I just read in God’s Word?
• What have I learned from this text that helps me keep God and his glory at the center of my life?

In short, we need to read the Bible with it’s grand mission in mind: God and his glory. It is only by living for his glory that we find what is best for us.

Source: https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219297/AES_proved_vulnerable_by_Microsoft_researchers

Researchers from Microsoft and the Dutch Katholieke Universiteit Leuven have discovered a way to break the widely used Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), the encryption algorithm used to secure most all online transactions and wireless communications.

Their attack can recover an AES secret key from three to five times faster than previously thought possible, reported the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, a research university based in Belgium.

The researchers caution that the attack is complex is nature, and so can not be easily carried out using existing technologies. In practice, the methodology used by the researchers would take billions of years of computer time to break the AES algorithm, they noted.

But the work, the result of a long-term cryptanalysis project, could be the first chink in the armor of the AES standard, previously considered unbreakable. When an encryption standard is evaluated for vital jobs such as securing financial transactions, security experts judge the algorithm’s ability to withstand even the most extreme attacks. Today’s seemingly secure encryption method could be more easily broken by tomorrow’s faster computers, or by new techniques in number crunching.

The U.S. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) agency commissioned AES in 2001, to replace the DES Digital Encryption Standard (DES), which was then repeatedly being shown to be fragile even as it provided adequate security for most everyday tasks.

With this work, the “safety margin” of AES continues to erode, noted security expert Bruce Schneier in a blog posting. “Attacks always get better; they never get worse,” he wrote, quoting an expert from the U.S. National Security Agency.

Though unwieldy to execute, the attack can be applied to all versions of AES.

K.U. Leuven researcher Andrey Bogdanov, Microsoft Research’s Dmitry Khovratovich and Christian Rechberger from cole Normale Suprieure, Paris, completed the work. Both Bogdanov and Rechberger had taken leave from their respective universities to work on the project with Microsoft Research.

The creators of AES, Joan Daemen and Vincent Rijmen have acknowledged the validity of the attack, according to K.U. Leuven.

Well here I am again, unable to sleep, emotional, and thinking about castration again. I think maybe my mind is unstable right now or something — THE ROOTKIT. *dun dun dunn* Though, the idea of castration is still interesting to me. It would be a very big decision, and once done there would be no turning back. Commitment to moving onward into the seas and jungles would be required — no looking back, no turning back, no thinking back. It would definitely solve the problem of the whole very idea of ‘marriage’. Would just straight close the topic. =)

I think it would be best for me to avoid audio engineers. As I think I am beginning to discover, IT and audio engineers do not mix very well. No elaboration or detailing will be provided. -_- In addition, I think I need to withdraw or decline my activity around people, and minimize my presence without physically eliminating it. Over the past 3-5 months a lot of things have been and had happened. I took a break from me and decided to stop being me, thinking, just go with the flow, and give my time to God. From the experience, I liked the parts about giving my time to God but I didn’t like the parts about going with the flow, stop being me & thinking, and pseudo-trying (LOL) to integrate with people. It doesn’t work and I feel like my mental capacity and capabilities have sunk, dwindled, and declined. I haven’t thought critically or very well at all.

I have realized, or perhaps re-realized, that I definitely do not think well on my feet. I have also come to acknowledge to myself that I apparently have a sort of blind-face personality / autopilot mode when face-to-face with people; I become a blind conformist. I don’t even realize it until later when I think back upon moments sometimes. Sometimes even I catch myself being under that “mode” (not sure whether to tag it as a perspective, influence, or psychological mechanism) and try to genuinely interact and respond with data from my core but somehow in some magical way am unsuccessful. (Probably goes back to the rootkit and muteness/butchering stuff.) Like, one moment I am sitting by myself pondering on things in my mind about things — i.e. how a social conversation I might be in would go, what things I would say, how other people would respond, and particularly my own responses to questions the way I would answer them would my rootkit/muteness problem cease to exist — and then a moment later it would happen and I would have the opportunity to respond the way I had planned, BUT just SOMEHOW I am suddenly and quite mysteriously unable to respond… so then I either don’t respond, take too long to respond, or butcher it (in other words, the response that comes out my mouth does not actually match up to that which is/was produced in my mind and doesn’t actually mean the same and thus no point in having tried to respond in the first place because the value of my response had deteriorated to nothingness).

And what about if I just ignore the butchering/muteness/rootkit and keep trying? I think I actually might be making things worse. Everything has its time and place, and unfortunately for me, most things are poorly timed thus come out wrong and end up dirtying and mixing up the pool of water.. and then it is a bigger problem because to reverse the situation and someone’s understanding is either impossible or pretty much requires the Holy Spirit to be involved. Once something is said, the person who received it will store that value and everything after will be influenced by that first value (whether indirectly or directly — even if there isn’t any statistical correlation because statistics don’t matter). For example, when you receive a first impression of someone your impression and understanding of that individual is further built and developed based upon your first experience (which is the ‘first impression’ of said individual) with that individual.

When you start a relationship and go through experiences together, that is why you and your mate are able to enjoy and be enthusiastic about particular memories or events. When you go up to someone else with that enthusiasm and joy and try to share it with someone else through your expressions, the reason they will not be able to match up to your level of emotions and experience is because they do not have that experience to its fullest the way you and your mate did. They are missing “building blocks” to understand and comprehend your joy. Your joy is based upon your experience. That experience involved a conglomeration and wide variety of different aspects of the human body and system — emotional, social, mental, physical, psychological, biological, etcetera — and all of those worked and were together to help make said experience as great, as joyful, as emotional, and memorable as it was. If there is ANY piece missing for another person, it can have the GREATEST detrimental effect in them being able to vibe with the emotions you are trying to express and share to and with them.

And that is why when I butcher things I believe in the majority of cases it would actually be better for me to shutup, listen if any is possible, and just be present. Unfortunately, in some cases that is a good conversation closer, but better that then having the wrong understanding and impression of me for the sake of potential future encounters that might come the way they should have come out in the first place. If the pool is dirtied already, trying to fix that later will usually be futile because earlier experiences are serving as a blockage and major obstacle, and since I’m not God and can’t go back and pinpoint the very and particular details that are in the way to figure out a way to get them reversed and out of the way, … more harm done continuing to speak in butcherings and missayings.

Think before you speak. Listen because you have two ears and one mouth. Why? Don’t be foolish. It’s easy to watch others make the mistakes and errors you would make, and recycle their experiences to be your wisdom. Be efficient and don’t reinvent the wheel unless there’s no way to avoid it.