Okay, my first reaction: Petty abuse of power? By a lawyer? There's got to be some mistake.
Reading the article, however, makes me wonder if we're really getting
the whole story here. Given that
these aren't just two random individuals but the
founders of "Americans for Legal Reform", I personally smell an
increased likelyhood that their side of things contains a certain amount of BS.
Of course it's just my gut instinct talking and your milage may vary.
Unfortunately this level of doubt precludes the normal level of moral outrage (aka, "hits" or
"ad impressions") that these threads are supposed to generate, and for that I apologize.
Now, answer me this: How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw in a light blub?
Nothing wrong with using any of this technology, but the self-checks built into the system to protect us shouldn't be abandoned.
But that's just it: They *haven't* been. This article is about how the situation was considered by a court and ruled to be an acceptible tool of law enforcement. The courts *are* the self-check!
Your point would be valid if, say, the cops claimed that this was for National Security reasons and not subject to judicial review, but that's not what happened here.
>Does this mean that the police can attach whatever they want to my
>vehicle, so long as they don't open the doors, etc?
Yup. As noted elsewhere in the thread, the cops can also speed, handcuff people, force people to submit to pat-downs and even carry a gun around. Just ain't fair, is it?
It is sort of analogous to the police putting a wiretap on your phone line or, say, putting a brick of coke in your trunk without your knowledge, and then arresting you later for it.
No, it's completely unlike those.
A wiretap allows police access to a conversation they normally would be unable to hear. When you're driving on the road, everyone can see you anyhow. There's an expectation that a phone conversation in your house will be private, thus the need for a court to order the wiretap. There's no expectation of privacy on the road.
A brick of coke is illegal. If the cops plant it in your car then "find" it, you will go to jail. A police GPS unit, on the other hand, is not. You will not go to jail if the cops plant a GPS unit on your car and then "find" it.
A GPS unit does not incriminate you anymore than, say, the police following you would.
Newsflash: For the last, oh, six decades, a couple hundred bucks will buy you someone to follow your significant other around and tell you where they've been. They'll even take pictures for you. And they're even licensed by the state.
Okay, at the risk of pissing off the tin foil hat crowd, I have to
ask: what's the problem here?
As much as I'm against the Big Brother state, I gotta say it's a little
absurd to expect privacy while you're on the road.
I mean, the cops don't need a warrant
to tail you. They don't need a warrant to put out an APB for your car.
Those things accomplish the same thing as GPS -- either tracking your movements
or locating you, and they're all completely legal and, in my opinion, reasonable.
This isn't a case of erosion of privacy. It isn't a freedom being taken away.
It's not, in my decidedly non-lawyer opinion, a violation of anybody's Constitutional
rights. It's just a new way of doing the same things that have been done for decades.
So let me get this straight: You have 20 wireless networks to choose from in
your apartment and can't connect to yours.
Okay, here's the procedure: (1) Call your DSL or Cable provider and cancel
your internet, (2) sell your wireless router on eBay, (3) choose an unsecured
connection and go nuts. Simple, no? Plus it has the advantage that when the MPAA
or RIAA come knocking, it won't be on your door...
Or you could install a Faraday cage in your apartment. Much more expensive,
but much more cool IMO.
There is no magic bullet, but there are a lot of little things you can do.
Eat three meals a day to prevent hunger causing you to binge at one. Drink more water to maintain your metabolism. Have planned snacks during the day to keep your blood sugar up (reduces cravings and, again, maintains your metabolism). Switch to reduced-fat versions of high-fat items. Drink diet soda to cut calories. Limit caffine (horror!). Eat whole grains instead of white flour-based bread items. Cook for yourself more so you know what goes into things and you have control over their healthfulness.
Like I mentioned earlier in the threat, I'm doing South Beach right now (Wedding-Honeymoon-Holidays == Tubby Skyshadow). It's not a low-carb diet like people seem to think -- really just a formalized plan that pushes you back towards the way you know you ought to be eating, anyhow. I'd encourage people who have weight issues to check it out (you can learn how free on the web, you don't have to buy the book, so don't think I'm just shilling here).
Listen to your body to stay healthy
on
Sleep Less, Eat More?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm sure there are other factors in this (maybe the people sleep less because they're
busy, and therefore eat a lot of fast food, etc). However, I've become convinced that
staying slim and otherwise in good health/shape is largely a result of listening to what our bodies tell us.
You know, how it feels good after you exercise a bit? Or how it hurts to overeat?
How you're tired when you don't sleep enough?
I'm doing the South Beach diet right now, and really it's just about teaching yourself
to eat right again (it's not a low-carb diet like a lot of people think it is). The
big thing of it for me is that this is all stuff I knew -- eat three meals a day,
don't pig out, sugar and processed flour are bad for you, etc -- but I'd just forgotten.
Great! All we need now is a patch for the real-life analog of this.
You know what I'm talking about here, that one where you go over to a friend's house for dinner
and afterwords have this conversation:
Wife: Wow, I love what they did with their place. Me: What? Wife: Didn't you notice they redid their kitchen?!? Me: I noticed the beer was in a different place... Wife: (ignoring me) I loved their new countertop, and the wine cooler, and... Me: This is bad, isn't it? Wife: We need to do something like that. Me: Yup, it's bad all right. Wife: I'm sure we can put something together for under $25k... Me: PWn3d. wife: Goddamn right.
So trying to blind pilots in order to cause their aircraft to crash
will only net you 25 years?
Am I the only one here who thinks that's letting them off kind of easy?
I mean, if I were to shoot a SAM at an airliner and get caught, I think
I'd probably be looking at more than 25 years even if it missed. In both
cases, the intention and the potential outcome are the same...
I think you're not seeing it because of the subject you're writing on. Relative to other subjects, I'd bet that there aren't a lot of ameature evolutionary genomists out there.
Take a subject like history, OTOH, and you'll often have a completely different experience than the one you discussed. History interests a lot of people and, at a certain level, is extremely accessible. Unfortunately, this leads to many people considering themselves to be indisputible experts -- I stopped contributing to Wiki after a few of these exchanges:
Me: Hey, I'm going to make this change. The article is based on an outdated understanding of the source material. Here are the studys...
Wikian: That's not right. I have a book that clearly states XYZ.
Me: Right, that's what I'm saying. That was a misunderstanding. People bought it for hundreds of years, but when someone finally looked into it they found that it was all based on a misreading that took place a thousand years after the event. It's in the article, look here...
Wikian: Pft, you're telling me that what I read in this history books was wrong? What, that people had a bad understanding of this for centuries?
Me: Well, yeah. Did you look at the research? I mean, I'm not making this up.
Wikian: Yeah, I'm not going to let you change it.
Of course, I can change it, but there's generally folks like this have far more time and dedication towards keeping things as they are.
I'm not suggesting this happens all the time -- I mean, most articles don't have anything wrong with them to begin with. Others don't have any of these, er, "difficult" sorts associated with them. But frankly, you have something like this happen once or twice and it's hard to find the motivation to keep on truckin' with the Wikiwork.
Your milage may vary and all that. You may find it worthwhile to fight these fights -- hell, five years ago I would have -- but nowadays it's just not worth my time.
What age are we in now with the release of KOTOR 2? "The Facsimile Age" has
a nice ring to it, or maybe the more laid-back "Same Shit, Different Jedi Age"...
My quickie review from maybe six hours into the game: The characters and voice acting are decent, but so far I just feel
like I've been able to look at each new NPC and say "Oh, you're the replacement for Carth"
or whatever. The Jedi mentor person at least seems like she might have deeper motivations,
but we'll see.
Likewise, the game narrative hasn't improved much. My big gripe with the original KOTOR
was that the dark side wasn't all that subtle. I mean, people talk about being seduced by
the Dark Side of the Force and you assume it's a slippery slope situation, but in KOTOR 2 it's even worse --
you tend to get presented with three options: "Sappy Good", "Cautious but Good" and "Pwn3D
by 7h3 517h!". I was hoping they'd do a better job writing the Dark Side as something sublime
and more amoral, but really it just comes off as cackling cartoonishly evil.
Back in KOTOR, things seemed at least somewhat original because no matter what you were
covering new ground with a new engine. KOTOR 2 misses that in a big, big way -- many of
the missions are like "okay, another 'go collect shit' mission. Great". The game and narrative
don't even make a real effort to disguise the obvious mission templates. I keep finding
myself playing to try and get it over with rather than enjoying myself and exploring the levels.
The default difficulty level is also disappointing if you've played KOTOR, since if you
know your way around the combat system even a little bit the fights are just flat-out easy.
Again, this could just be a function of not being too far in the game, but you'd think after
five or six hours of play you'd encounter at least a little trouble.
I enjoyed the original KOTOR quite a bit, but the new one is more or
less just an expansion pack that I shelled out $60 for. The extent to which
this one just feels like quickly retooled version is just terrible -- I'd say
that the people involved ought to be ashamed of themselves if I thought that
anyone involved with Star Wars these days had any shame to feel.
I don't have any problem with the concept of an entire class failing a course. Why you think that a professor failing his entire class constitutes a failure on the part of the university is a mystery to me: would you be so opposed if a professor failed an astronomy class that failed to put the planets in the correct order or an economics class that couldn't describe how supply and demand affect prices?
Frankly, I think you're jumping the gun here...
I didn't jump the gun, I provided a qualified statement. You know, "if he does this then you should do this".
Now, let me provide another statement which may or may not apply to this specific case (since we haven't seen grades yet): Any time an entire class fails, it is on the professor's shoulders. Since we assume that the people in the class are both mentally competent and reasonably intelligent based on the fact that they're in college, and excepting odd situations (a 1 or 2 person class, for instance), a near-100% failure rate can only be one of three things:
1. The professor has created a class which cannot be successfully completed given the time constraints and the level of the students.
2. The professor has completely failed to impart his knowledge to the students.
3. The professor has based the grades on items which do not accurately reflect what was taught in the class.
Implying that a professor who fails all or nearly all of a given class has competently done his/her job is nonsense. It's not "part of the learning experience", it's a professional failure on the part of the professor and needs to be treated as such. In any event, when this sort of extraordinary event occurs, the University itself is responsible for allowing that failure to occur.
Now that's a tough assignment. 44 holes found is an average of
less than two a person -- it's possible the *entire* class failed, not just most. At best, probably one person completed the assignment.
As much as I respect profs who are willing to push you to do neat things
(finding 44 holes in UNIX and it's standard set of programs is nothing to
sneeze at), if you really do fail the class I'd take this straight to the administration.
They're letting you down by allowing a professor to fail an entire class,
especially since the grades are based on something that doesn't really reflect your
understanding of the subject.
I've always had a problem with this sort of behavior in college profs -- it
gets away from what I consider to be the basic nature of higher education.
As a student, I'm the consumer. I'm paying the professor to teach me what he/she
knows and then to rate how well I've absorbed that information at the end of the
class. Assignments such as this one or classes which are set up as "cut down
classes" just aren't consistant with that.
It works the same way on the other end; I had a few professors in college who
would cancel class on a fairly routine basis. Hey, I enjoy the odd day off as
much as anyone else, but I'm paying a lot of money based on the assumption
that I'm going to be getting something in return -- if I were to subscribe to
a magazine and then only get 2/3rds of the issues, do you thing I'd be within
my rights to object? Hell, the overly easy classes were bad enough; I actually
had a few that graded based mostly on attendance. Yeah, getting the most for my tuition
dollar there.
Anyhow, I know there are folks out there who are going to disagree with my
view of a University education, and that's fine, but regardless I would
really encourage you not to accept this lying down. I know as a student it
often seems like you're powerless, but if 25 of you (and your parents -- I know
you're an adult, but schools listen to parents) get together and make
yourselves heard, you'll probably end up with a satisfactory outcome.
History (as it pertains to historical events) is the search for fact. Not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Doctor Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.
I agree with you that the historical phenomenon of the misunderstanding surrounding the Children's Crusade is interesting. Indeed, especially since it's most likely a misunderstanding rather than a purposeful misrepresentation, it's a useful tool for understanding the mindsets of the people who originally wrote about it.
Historical events are things that happened, however. At a given time and in a given place, a given thing occurred -- you can draw various conclusions the why and how, but those discussions must be fundementally rooted in the "what", and the *what* requires facts and research. In this case, the research is compelling: I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty what happened in 1212, and I can also tell you who originally misunderstood it. Why or how they ended up misreporting the event is that bit that's open to debate.
Disproving a legend or a commonly-held belief should not be viewed as "disrespect" -- that path leads only to ignorance.
An edit war on Wikipedia, you say? Full of frothing ranting and biased
opinions and juvenile behavior? My God, who could have forseen such a thing!
There was a once upon a time when I figured that Wikipedia could work, become
a sort of collection of the intelligence and expertise of the masses on the
internet. I've run across enough blatent inacurracies over the last year or so, however, that
I can't look at it as anything but a basic starting place for research now.
Two main problems as I see it (this is hardly new revelation):
(1) Everyone's viewpoint tends to get reflected, even it's just plain wrong.
For instance, look at the entry on the
Children's Crusade of 1212 -- it presents
three versions of what happened, but only one (the last one) is "right",
meaning that it's the version backed by modern research. The ability to site
sources or research or present an authoratative case is outclassed by the
ability to have the time on one's hands to hit the "edit" button a lot.
(2) Not all articles get many eyeballs. The Wiki tends to work best when there
are a lot of people looking at the article, so little-travelled articles can
have downright bizarre inaccuracies. They fall victim to either misunderstanding,
bad source information or the maliciousness of those few anti-social morons who
think wrecking the Wiki makes them cool.
While this is an interesting model of the internet at large, it's not a good
thing in terms of being a useful resource.
Just as Linux and other open source projects aren't really "open" in terms of
accepting everything anyone throws at them, so must Wikipedia find a way to
become more selective in what it accepts. The Wiki itself is such a good idea
that there's just got to be a way to make it work, but frankly I can't
work out a paradigm that will save it from the issues it has now.
The metering was absolutely terrible, the focus was very, very slow and the images displayed a very high amount of sensor noise. All in all just not a very good camera.
I purchased a P&S camera for $500, and it didn't do what I needed it to do. So, did I save myself money by going with it? Nope. True value is carefully considering your needs and then purchasing the appropriate camera to meet those needs.
Besides, you can *easily* get a Canon Digital Rebel for $700 these days (less if you get lenses with the stacking rebate). High-end P&S cameras are in that range, too. So, again, it's a matter of your wants and needs...
Okay, this was a fairly decent very basic primer about selecting a digital camera, and better than listening to a blueshirt at Best Buy...
Basically, though, there are two types of camera users: Hobbyists and casual users.
A hobbyist wants a DSLR and is willing to buy accessories and learn to use it. If you're not willing to do these things, you'll be disappointed. I'm one of these guys, and I'd suggest that people find a cheaper hobby. As a side note -- $900 for the dRebel? *After* rebate? Shop around a little, pal...
Casual users are a little more involved, but it comes down to three things that are easy to answer once you get asked the questions:
Megapixels: You almost certainly don't need more than 4.
Zoom: Think carefully here. Most cameras are 3x zoom, but is that enough? Are you planning to take pictures at Disneyland or at, say, your kid's soccer game? At Disney for a posed shot, 3x zoom is enough. Otherwise, a 10x or 12x megazoom with IS might be worth spending money on.
Size: Remember that the best camera is the one you have with you when you need it. What is easiest for you to carry around?
Think that over, then go to www.dpreview.com and look at the test shots for the cameras that meet your specs. I usually end up recommending one of the Canon Sx00 series (S410, S500, etc) for a good balance of size and picture quality. I'd specifically stay away from the Minolta Z line myself (very disappointed with the Z3).
And for the love of God, shop around! Don't buy at Best Buy unless you're ready to pay $100-$200 extra. Go on PriceGrabber.com and consider the retailers with good reviews -- I won't specifically mention those I've bought from in the past, but the retailer reviews are a good guide; don't go with someone poorly reviewed to save $20.
What, you're just figuring out that a free market will seek out labor where it's the least expensive?
See, that's why I've been honing my aggresive driving, sword-fighting and other misc. pizza-delivery skills: Jobs that can be done overseas will be done overseas.
What, a measly 950 people is what passes for a "massive" layoff nowadays?
Bah, you kids. Back in my day (2000), we didn't feel right about going to lunch
unless we'd shitcanned at least 1000 people by then. And two months on
the payroll plus four months of severence? Bah! Back in my day
you were lucky if you didn't have any personal possessions in
the building when it was locked and the contents auctioned off
on behalf of angry creditors.
We *knew* how to make employees feel worthless. Layoffs via SMS! Contracted
goons standing in the office in case they went postal! Taking away their
razor scooters!
What the hell.
Seriously, when is Japan going to stop bogarting the good acid?
Aside from that, the assisted mobility thing is going to be a big, big market in
the next couple of decades as the baby boomers start hitting the wall (assuming they
aren't actually
staring down an extra 900 years of life by then). While I seriously hope it won't
look much like this given my natural fear of old people in silver spandex, I
think we will see a lot of advancement in this field as the money shifts in
that direction.
It's not just limited to mobility, either -- picture a recorder that is always
working and allows you to privately review what just happened in your spare moments to aid memory?
Heh, maybe you could even mark off when you've told a particular story to spare
your loved ones the constant retelling...
Slashdot Mirror
Reading the article, however, makes me wonder if we're really getting the whole story here. Given that these aren't just two random individuals but the founders of "Americans for Legal Reform", I personally smell an increased likelyhood that their side of things contains a certain amount of BS. Of course it's just my gut instinct talking and your milage may vary.
Unfortunately this level of doubt precludes the normal level of moral outrage (aka, "hits" or "ad impressions") that these threads are supposed to generate, and for that I apologize.
Now, answer me this: How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw in a light blub?
Curses! If only there were some way in which I as a citizen could somehow influence which people made up the government...
But that's just it: They *haven't* been. This article is about how the situation was considered by a court and ruled to be an acceptible tool of law enforcement. The courts *are* the self-check!
Your point would be valid if, say, the cops claimed that this was for National Security reasons and not subject to judicial review, but that's not what happened here.
>vehicle, so long as they don't open the doors, etc?
Yup. As noted elsewhere in the thread, the cops can also speed, handcuff people, force people to submit to pat-downs and even carry a gun around. Just ain't fair, is it?
No, it's completely unlike those.
A wiretap allows police access to a conversation they normally would be unable to hear. When you're driving on the road, everyone can see you anyhow. There's an expectation that a phone conversation in your house will be private, thus the need for a court to order the wiretap. There's no expectation of privacy on the road.
A brick of coke is illegal. If the cops plant it in your car then "find" it, you will go to jail. A police GPS unit, on the other hand, is not. You will not go to jail if the cops plant a GPS unit on your car and then "find" it.
A GPS unit does not incriminate you anymore than, say, the police following you would.
Quick! We need a YRO post on this invasion!
As much as I'm against the Big Brother state, I gotta say it's a little absurd to expect privacy while you're on the road. I mean, the cops don't need a warrant to tail you. They don't need a warrant to put out an APB for your car. Those things accomplish the same thing as GPS -- either tracking your movements or locating you, and they're all completely legal and, in my opinion, reasonable.
This isn't a case of erosion of privacy. It isn't a freedom being taken away. It's not, in my decidedly non-lawyer opinion, a violation of anybody's Constitutional rights. It's just a new way of doing the same things that have been done for decades.
Okay, here's the procedure: (1) Call your DSL or Cable provider and cancel your internet, (2) sell your wireless router on eBay, (3) choose an unsecured connection and go nuts. Simple, no? Plus it has the advantage that when the MPAA or RIAA come knocking, it won't be on your door...
Or you could install a Faraday cage in your apartment. Much more expensive, but much more cool IMO.
Eat three meals a day to prevent hunger causing you to binge at one. Drink more water to maintain your metabolism. Have planned snacks during the day to keep your blood sugar up (reduces cravings and, again, maintains your metabolism). Switch to reduced-fat versions of high-fat items. Drink diet soda to cut calories. Limit caffine (horror!). Eat whole grains instead of white flour-based bread items. Cook for yourself more so you know what goes into things and you have control over their healthfulness.
Like I mentioned earlier in the threat, I'm doing South Beach right now (Wedding-Honeymoon-Holidays == Tubby Skyshadow). It's not a low-carb diet like people seem to think -- really just a formalized plan that pushes you back towards the way you know you ought to be eating, anyhow. I'd encourage people who have weight issues to check it out (you can learn how free on the web, you don't have to buy the book, so don't think I'm just shilling here).
You know, how it feels good after you exercise a bit? Or how it hurts to overeat? How you're tired when you don't sleep enough?
I'm doing the South Beach diet right now, and really it's just about teaching yourself to eat right again (it's not a low-carb diet like a lot of people think it is). The big thing of it for me is that this is all stuff I knew -- eat three meals a day, don't pig out, sugar and processed flour are bad for you, etc -- but I'd just forgotten.
Wife: Wow, I love what they did with their place.
Me: What?
Wife: Didn't you notice they redid their kitchen?!?
Me: I noticed the beer was in a different place...
Wife: (ignoring me) I loved their new countertop, and the wine cooler, and...
Me: This is bad, isn't it?
Wife: We need to do something like that.
Me: Yup, it's bad all right.
Wife: I'm sure we can put something together for under $25k...
Me: PWn3d.
wife: Goddamn right.
Am I the only one here who thinks that's letting them off kind of easy? I mean, if I were to shoot a SAM at an airliner and get caught, I think I'd probably be looking at more than 25 years even if it missed. In both cases, the intention and the potential outcome are the same...
Take a subject like history, OTOH, and you'll often have a completely different experience than the one you discussed. History interests a lot of people and, at a certain level, is extremely accessible. Unfortunately, this leads to many people considering themselves to be indisputible experts -- I stopped contributing to Wiki after a few of these exchanges:
Me: Hey, I'm going to make this change. The article is based on an outdated understanding of the source material. Here are the studys...
Wikian: That's not right. I have a book that clearly states XYZ.
Me: Right, that's what I'm saying. That was a misunderstanding. People bought it for hundreds of years, but when someone finally looked into it they found that it was all based on a misreading that took place a thousand years after the event. It's in the article, look here...
Wikian: Pft, you're telling me that what I read in this history books was wrong? What, that people had a bad understanding of this for centuries?
Me: Well, yeah. Did you look at the research? I mean, I'm not making this up.
Wikian: Yeah, I'm not going to let you change it.
Of course, I can change it, but there's generally folks like this have far more time and dedication towards keeping things as they are.
I'm not suggesting this happens all the time -- I mean, most articles don't have anything wrong with them to begin with. Others don't have any of these, er, "difficult" sorts associated with them. But frankly, you have something like this happen once or twice and it's hard to find the motivation to keep on truckin' with the Wikiwork.
Your milage may vary and all that. You may find it worthwhile to fight these fights -- hell, five years ago I would have -- but nowadays it's just not worth my time.
My quickie review from maybe six hours into the game: The characters and voice acting are decent, but so far I just feel like I've been able to look at each new NPC and say "Oh, you're the replacement for Carth" or whatever. The Jedi mentor person at least seems like she might have deeper motivations, but we'll see.
Likewise, the game narrative hasn't improved much. My big gripe with the original KOTOR was that the dark side wasn't all that subtle. I mean, people talk about being seduced by the Dark Side of the Force and you assume it's a slippery slope situation, but in KOTOR 2 it's even worse -- you tend to get presented with three options: "Sappy Good", "Cautious but Good" and "Pwn3D by 7h3 517h!". I was hoping they'd do a better job writing the Dark Side as something sublime and more amoral, but really it just comes off as cackling cartoonishly evil.
Back in KOTOR, things seemed at least somewhat original because no matter what you were covering new ground with a new engine. KOTOR 2 misses that in a big, big way -- many of the missions are like "okay, another 'go collect shit' mission. Great". The game and narrative don't even make a real effort to disguise the obvious mission templates. I keep finding myself playing to try and get it over with rather than enjoying myself and exploring the levels.
The default difficulty level is also disappointing if you've played KOTOR, since if you know your way around the combat system even a little bit the fights are just flat-out easy. Again, this could just be a function of not being too far in the game, but you'd think after five or six hours of play you'd encounter at least a little trouble.
I enjoyed the original KOTOR quite a bit, but the new one is more or less just an expansion pack that I shelled out $60 for. The extent to which this one just feels like quickly retooled version is just terrible -- I'd say that the people involved ought to be ashamed of themselves if I thought that anyone involved with Star Wars these days had any shame to feel.
Frankly, I think you're jumping the gun here...
I didn't jump the gun, I provided a qualified statement. You know, "if he does this then you should do this".
Now, let me provide another statement which may or may not apply to this specific case (since we haven't seen grades yet): Any time an entire class fails, it is on the professor's shoulders. Since we assume that the people in the class are both mentally competent and reasonably intelligent based on the fact that they're in college, and excepting odd situations (a 1 or 2 person class, for instance), a near-100% failure rate can only be one of three things:
1. The professor has created a class which cannot be successfully completed given the time constraints and the level of the students.
2. The professor has completely failed to impart his knowledge to the students.
3. The professor has based the grades on items which do not accurately reflect what was taught in the class.
Implying that a professor who fails all or nearly all of a given class has competently done his/her job is nonsense. It's not "part of the learning experience", it's a professional failure on the part of the professor and needs to be treated as such. In any event, when this sort of extraordinary event occurs, the University itself is responsible for allowing that failure to occur.
As much as I respect profs who are willing to push you to do neat things (finding 44 holes in UNIX and it's standard set of programs is nothing to sneeze at), if you really do fail the class I'd take this straight to the administration. They're letting you down by allowing a professor to fail an entire class, especially since the grades are based on something that doesn't really reflect your understanding of the subject.
I've always had a problem with this sort of behavior in college profs -- it gets away from what I consider to be the basic nature of higher education. As a student, I'm the consumer. I'm paying the professor to teach me what he/she knows and then to rate how well I've absorbed that information at the end of the class. Assignments such as this one or classes which are set up as "cut down classes" just aren't consistant with that.
It works the same way on the other end; I had a few professors in college who would cancel class on a fairly routine basis. Hey, I enjoy the odd day off as much as anyone else, but I'm paying a lot of money based on the assumption that I'm going to be getting something in return -- if I were to subscribe to a magazine and then only get 2/3rds of the issues, do you thing I'd be within my rights to object? Hell, the overly easy classes were bad enough; I actually had a few that graded based mostly on attendance. Yeah, getting the most for my tuition dollar there.
Anyhow, I know there are folks out there who are going to disagree with my view of a University education, and that's fine, but regardless I would really encourage you not to accept this lying down. I know as a student it often seems like you're powerless, but if 25 of you (and your parents -- I know you're an adult, but schools listen to parents) get together and make yourselves heard, you'll probably end up with a satisfactory outcome.
I agree with you that the historical phenomenon of the misunderstanding surrounding the Children's Crusade is interesting. Indeed, especially since it's most likely a misunderstanding rather than a purposeful misrepresentation, it's a useful tool for understanding the mindsets of the people who originally wrote about it.
Historical events are things that happened, however. At a given time and in a given place, a given thing occurred -- you can draw various conclusions the why and how, but those discussions must be fundementally rooted in the "what", and the *what* requires facts and research. In this case, the research is compelling: I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty what happened in 1212, and I can also tell you who originally misunderstood it. Why or how they ended up misreporting the event is that bit that's open to debate.
Disproving a legend or a commonly-held belief should not be viewed as "disrespect" -- that path leads only to ignorance.
There was a once upon a time when I figured that Wikipedia could work, become a sort of collection of the intelligence and expertise of the masses on the internet. I've run across enough blatent inacurracies over the last year or so, however, that I can't look at it as anything but a basic starting place for research now. Two main problems as I see it (this is hardly new revelation):
(1) Everyone's viewpoint tends to get reflected, even it's just plain wrong. For instance, look at the entry on the Children's Crusade of 1212 -- it presents three versions of what happened, but only one (the last one) is "right", meaning that it's the version backed by modern research. The ability to site sources or research or present an authoratative case is outclassed by the ability to have the time on one's hands to hit the "edit" button a lot.
(2) Not all articles get many eyeballs. The Wiki tends to work best when there are a lot of people looking at the article, so little-travelled articles can have downright bizarre inaccuracies. They fall victim to either misunderstanding, bad source information or the maliciousness of those few anti-social morons who think wrecking the Wiki makes them cool.
While this is an interesting model of the internet at large, it's not a good thing in terms of being a useful resource.
Just as Linux and other open source projects aren't really "open" in terms of accepting everything anyone throws at them, so must Wikipedia find a way to become more selective in what it accepts. The Wiki itself is such a good idea that there's just got to be a way to make it work, but frankly I can't work out a paradigm that will save it from the issues it has now.
The metering was absolutely terrible, the focus was very, very slow and the images displayed a very high amount of sensor noise. All in all just not a very good camera.
I purchased a P&S camera for $500, and it didn't do what I needed it to do. So, did I save myself money by going with it? Nope. True value is carefully considering your needs and then purchasing the appropriate camera to meet those needs.
Besides, you can *easily* get a Canon Digital Rebel for $700 these days (less if you get lenses with the stacking rebate). High-end P&S cameras are in that range, too. So, again, it's a matter of your wants and needs...
Basically, though, there are two types of camera users: Hobbyists and casual users.
A hobbyist wants a DSLR and is willing to buy accessories and learn to use it. If you're not willing to do these things, you'll be disappointed. I'm one of these guys, and I'd suggest that people find a cheaper hobby. As a side note -- $900 for the dRebel? *After* rebate? Shop around a little, pal...
Casual users are a little more involved, but it comes down to three things that are easy to answer once you get asked the questions:
Megapixels: You almost certainly don't need more than 4.
Zoom: Think carefully here. Most cameras are 3x zoom, but is that enough? Are you planning to take pictures at Disneyland or at, say, your kid's soccer game? At Disney for a posed shot, 3x zoom is enough. Otherwise, a 10x or 12x megazoom with IS might be worth spending money on.
Size: Remember that the best camera is the one you have with you when you need it. What is easiest for you to carry around?
Think that over, then go to www.dpreview.com and look at the test shots for the cameras that meet your specs. I usually end up recommending one of the Canon Sx00 series (S410, S500, etc) for a good balance of size and picture quality. I'd specifically stay away from the Minolta Z line myself (very disappointed with the Z3).
And for the love of God, shop around! Don't buy at Best Buy unless you're ready to pay $100-$200 extra. Go on PriceGrabber.com and consider the retailers with good reviews -- I won't specifically mention those I've bought from in the past, but the retailer reviews are a good guide; don't go with someone poorly reviewed to save $20.
See, that's why I've been honing my aggresive driving, sword-fighting and other misc. pizza-delivery skills: Jobs that can be done overseas will be done overseas.
Bah, you kids. Back in my day (2000), we didn't feel right about going to lunch unless we'd shitcanned at least 1000 people by then. And two months on the payroll plus four months of severence? Bah! Back in my day you were lucky if you didn't have any personal possessions in the building when it was locked and the contents auctioned off on behalf of angry creditors.
We *knew* how to make employees feel worthless. Layoffs via SMS! Contracted goons standing in the office in case they went postal! Taking away their razor scooters!
Now get off my lawn, you damn kids.
Exactly, except we'd have to come up with a version that works here in the slow zone.
Aside from that, the assisted mobility thing is going to be a big, big market in the next couple of decades as the baby boomers start hitting the wall (assuming they aren't actually staring down an extra 900 years of life by then). While I seriously hope it won't look much like this given my natural fear of old people in silver spandex, I think we will see a lot of advancement in this field as the money shifts in that direction.
It's not just limited to mobility, either -- picture a recorder that is always working and allows you to privately review what just happened in your spare moments to aid memory? Heh, maybe you could even mark off when you've told a particular story to spare your loved ones the constant retelling...