This is simply not true. Or at least I know we aren't fighting off Indian attacks in my region of the country anymore.
The examples you make are examples of victory because the invading forces didn't bother to make a distinction between genuine insurgents and the general populace.
Actually it was two factors. The one you just mentioned, and the orher factor being the factor which you seem to think has never worked: Killing every single one of your "enemies".
The original question was:
"Can you point to one case at any time in world history where eliminating insurgents has worked in the end?"
The answer is yes. You seem to be confusing the term "insurgents" with the word "troops". We killed a lot of "insurgents" in Falluja. We didn't kill very many troops.
Can you point to one case at any time in world history where eliminating insurgents has worked in the end? Where hunting down and killing fervent believers in a cause, people who were willing to die for their beliefs, has ultimately killed a movement, and the hunters have been able to wash their hands and declare victory?
World War II
The Allies deliberately and indiscriminately killed both solidiers and civilians until both the Germans and the Japanese were forced to surrender. Through gruesome attacks on major cities (Dresden, Hiroshima) we forced a surrender and haven't been attacked by either country since.
It was a different place and time and I do not believe these tactics would work for any of our current conflicts, but I do believe it's fair to say the "Kill 'em all and let god sort em out." approach has worked at least once in history.
We showed that we were willing to turn entire countries into barren wastelands and it worked.
In Dresden alone we killed over 20,000 people, the majority of them civilians.
In Hiroshima we killed 66,000 and injured 69.000.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating this approach at all. I think it would be stupid, but I do believe in being honest about what has really happened in the past. (Lest we are doomed to repeat it.)
Another example would be America's systematic extermination of the American Indian. Don't see any roving band of Indians shooting arrows at people do you?
F_drag_55 = 334 Newtons
Which is well within the average 447 available;
Only because your final number is wildly unrealistic.
The most basic thing you forgot is rolling resistance, but you also forgot other things like energy loss due to braking, energy loss due to cornering, energy loss due to bumps in the road and the energy required to get up to 55 mph in the first place. Or is someone suggesting that there is a 500 mile long, perfectly straight, perfectly flat, maglev track each one of these will run on? Heck, why don'r we just say the whole thing is on a huge hill and that way we don't need ANY electricity!
yep, and because of newton's laws you cannot kick somebody off their feet without falling yourself and judo exists only in fairy tales.
Judo and karate kicks obey Newton's laws too. This isn't "The Matrix". When was the last time you say somebody get karate kicked 10 ft though the air by a person with no running start and who remained standing in the same place?
The simple fact is that people do not go flying backwards because of the momentum imparted by a bullet. The overall impulse they feel is roughly equal to that you feel from the recoil of the gun.
I never gave a reason because that wasn't important.
Perhaps you should bother reading the posts you are replying to.
The fact that getting shot will eventually know you down is not something that was being debated.
The discussion was only regarding the momentum imparted.
Everybody is well aware that getting shot is not good for your health.
And after all, how much does it cost to add that hardware interlock switch? Not much compared to the value of the ATM's contents...
So take a step back for a minute and think about why it isn't there....
Maybe there are banks who want to be able to minimize the number of people that need access to the ATMs innards
Maybe they want to make sure that the people who refill the ATMs have the door open for as little time as possible
Maybe the code needs to be entered BEFORE the door is opened or else an alarm will be triggered
I do not know if any of these things are true, but I don't think it's right to point the finger at the ATM manufactuers here. What these banks were effectivly doing is about the same as using a magnetic hide-a-key under the ATM.
I'll agree that the people setting up the ATMs are extremely stupid. However, shouldn't the maker of the ATM have anticipated the stupidity of the users...
No.
Let's use a little common sense people.
What is an ATM?
A box full of money.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect someone to RTFM and follow directions before putting a box full of money out in a public space.
The fault here lies squarely on the banks.
Were I the manufacturer, I would maintain that anyone who failed to change the default password had installed the machine improperly. Using the default password in like leaving the key in the frickin door, or writing a combination above a lock.
In the end, banks need to take responsibility for their own security. It is simply impossible for ATM manufacturers to force them to follow good security practices.
I heard guys complain about kung fu movies. Well, Jet Li flipping through the air is more entertaining to watch than two juijitsu fighters roll on the ground for 40 minutes. Film is about images.
Martial arts movies are a great counter argument to your own argument.
I only need to bring up one name:
Bruce Lee
It's possible to be both realistic and entertaining at the same time, it's one of the things that will have people watching his movies fifty years from now, when many others are forgotten.
Movies shouldn't just tell a story, they should tell a story well. That means, good research, actors who remeber their lines and a director who wants to do more than just "get this thing over with."
The arguments you're making could be applied to anyone who does a crappy job at their profession. Sure it's easier to do a lousy job and there are always people who won't notice, but that doesn't change the reality that you are disgracing your craft.
The rules that are in place are to protect the masses from having that resource rendered unusuable to them.
And what the biggest threat that might cause this?....
NIPPLES!!!!
The FCC is oput of it mind and has gone way beyond the scope of their original authority.
Reference their decision to regulate what you can do with a digital TV signal AFTER YOU'VE RECEIVED IT.
While the original purpose of the FCC makes great sense, lets not be naive and pretend that's all they do or their sole motivation.
Now, in whatever language you know print "I will learn how weapons work" before saying that firing a gun knocks back the shooter, which is what your post implies.
Firing a gun DOES "knock back" the shooter. It's basic physics.
You are being subjected to an equal an opposite force. That fact that you are able to brace yourself against it and remain standing points to how weak this impulse actually is.
Put it this way, no normal hand-held ballistic weapon is going to provide more momentum than something simple like a solid kick to the stomach. If you think differently, you're just flat out wrong.
That all depends on what they're hit with. Take a shot from a.38 police special, and you're right; you probably won't go down. Take one from a Colt.45 1911A and you will go down because that's what it was designed to do: knock people off their feet.
Hasn't anybody ever heard of Newton's laws!?
You will go down because your internal organs are FUBAR'ed. You are not going down because of momentum, and that's why the person holding the gun is still standing.
Why are so many people blatantly ignorant of basic science that is almost 100 years old?
In many cases, the goals include improving student's writing skills.
Even if the understand the topic and can piece together a paper from public domain sources, one of the goals of the course would not be met.
The person who submitted this story is clearly trying to fix something that's probably not borken.
This is an oversimplified view of the world.
What if you had a perfectly functional Apple IIe as your main machine?
You'd be interested in a newer PC right?
The problem is that you're thinking of software as a simple tool. Software is a complex tool, like a CNC milling machine. Different models have different capabilities. Their old mill might be fine, but what if you can set them up with something that's better, faster and cheaper in the long run?
You fail to adress the cost issue, amd you make a plethora of wild generalizations.
One of the more priceless ones being that the majority of people are a "fringe element" because they have not signed up for xbox live.
The reality is that people paying money for parts of a video game they have already bought is the fringe group. It is simply not the norm, and it requires more effort on the comsumer's part.
You fail to rebut this, instead arguing that it's all going to be great in spite fo these issues.
Oh yeah, and nice mea culpa for your false assumption regarding my experience with GT. (I think perhaps you can read between the lines in what I am saying here).
It's not so much "you're going to Hell when you die", it's more "You won't be able to make any use of any of those files you have saved -- all your letters, all your digital photos, all the music and film clips you've downloaded -- either unless you pay some serious money, or maybe even not at all. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow; but soon."
It may not work for a lot of people but that's what made me switch.
About four years ago I had visions of the future and I switched over to Linux.
I suspect no matter what MS and their ilk do, they will always keep a sizable market share, but Linux is slowly but surely on its way there, especially among those who see a computer as an essential tool in their daily lives.
I'll be there are still a huge number of copyright violators who would be outraged if their own copyright was violated. I find that kind of double standard pretty lame and disappointingly common.
I find that simple-mindedness pretty lame and disappointingly common.
Let's argue by analogy for a moment:
I'll bet there are still a number of gun control proponents who would be outraged if their own right to bear arms was violated.
How on earth could this be possible?
It is possible because individual cases are different. It might make more sense to allow retired police officers to have weapons then convicted felons, for example.
So now lets turn back to copyright:
When the creator and owner of the work are the same, it's fairly simple, and it's the case in this story. What gets more complicated is when that copyright is "sold"?
Does it really benefit society for Micheal Jackson to get money every time a Beatles song is played? I think there is a pretty good argument to be made that it does not.
Does it really benefit society for children to receive royalties for their parents work? I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that this does not as well.
So you see, while someone might not disagree with the general concept of copyright, they still might feel that in some cases, the law is amoral and unjust.
it looks like implied student consent attained from the teacher & institution is their argument, and in fact, they assume this consent has been attained in their contract with the institution. If not, they'll turn a legal argument against the teacher and school district. Be prepared to sue your college/school at the same time as Turnitin.
They could claim that they thought GWB himself was getting the consent on their behalf, but they'll still have an illgal copy of his paper in thier database, and GWB will not.
Consequently, it is quite easy to prove they are violating the law. Prove they have the paper. Point out your copyright notice. They fail to prove you gave consent. You win.
Your respone is nothing but a m9ismash of poor arguments.
Would it not be far more likley these items are tied to your account rather than a particualr Playstation or memory card (the latter not even making sense since it would probably go on the internal hard drive).
And what is the account tied to? The implications of this one are flying right over your head.
Why? Other people still have to buy the shell...
You didn't give this one a minute's though either. Boxed game prices go down with time. Online games typically don't. This combines both, so all the depreciation hit is going towards the box.
If the game design is good it should involve no hassle and almost no bandwith (tracks I imagine would be larger)
This is such a crazy non-response. Downloading cars and tracks will take time and bandwidth. You will have to provide this bandwidth and wait for the download to happen. You will have to spent time sorting it all out beforehand.
I see you've never played GT before, or you would realize that a huge part of the game
Once again you're talking, without thinking. I have GT, I play it. Yes you need to plan your purchases now, but you can always save before you buy a car, use it for a while and then load your save again. This is going to change the gameplay, end of story.
None of those issues anyone really cares about
Another non-argument. The argument is that there will be time/money/risk involved with signing up for this service. There is a cost assosciated with that. Point your finger at ebay is silly. The economics are vastly different.
Your arguments remind me of the scence in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where they're all trying to decide if this woman is a witch. You just don't make sense. Pointing at ebay made as much sense as claiming witches are made of wood.
If the game sells at half price to start, and I can buy just the cars I like and all the tracks at a price lower than most of the other retail titles - then the idea will be a good one for the game designers and consumers alike.
I challenge this assertion.
How are you getting these cars?
Downloading them of course, via your Playstation.
Know what that means?
They're going to locked to your particular playstation or memory card to prevent "piracy".
There are a number of negatives you're not taking into account:
-Shitty resale value for the game itself
-Extreme difficulty or virtual impossibility of selling cars
-Need for net access to have a game that's worth playing (not all of us like to give our game consoles net access)
-The cost of your time downloading cars and the general hassle it involves
-The cost of your time figuring out what cars are worth buying in the first place
-The cost of your time signing up for this micropayment system and the assosciated privacy and fraud concerns
Don't you think that if people weren't cheating to "pass" that class, then the instructors would recognize, through the excessive drop and failure rates, that the class was too hard, and changes would be made to make it more reasonable?
There are a variety of reasons why this doesn't happen.
-Sometimes adminstrators get into thinking these are "weedout" classes and the high failure rate are a good thing.
-Other times, the prof is just a jerk. At the end of the course when reviews come in, this becomes readily apparent, but by then the damage has been done. Sometimes it might take multiple repetitions of bad reviews.
I've even seen case where courses were deliberately made unnecessarily hard. For example, I was directly told that a particular subject would not be covered or tested. When the test case around, it was one out of the five questions on the test. Why? To keep the mean down and artificially create the statistical pattern they wanted. This was a constant pattern throughout the class.
From a technical standpoint, yes but you're fail to account for the effect this is going to have on the market.
This will virtually destroy the ability of ANY company to make revenue selling competing products.
In the short term it will be good since you get shiny new software, but the market for this software will be destroyed. In the long term, facing no competition, MS offering will stagnate and generally suck a la MSIE.
The only real counter is OSS as it operates somewhat outside of the typical economic model. However, patents and proprietary extensions will be a real pain here. MS has the blueprints and can change them at any time with a "security update". This allows them to effective lock out ALL competition with these products and expend the list of MS products that you have become hopelessly dependent upon.
Five years from now, you are going to be worse off, not better.
Interestingly, in my studies I stumbled upon 2 or 3 subjects which were plain impossible to pass without cheating.
And the problem is exacerbated by grading on a curve.
Even if you do it honestly and score fairly well numerically, if everyone else cheats and gets near perfect scores, you fail.
Schools don't realize it but grading on a curve places students who try to work on their own at a real disadvantage.
In some ways I believe teachers are complicit in the cheating. They will deliberately catch a few students per semester, but they know that if they were to drag thirty students out at a time their superiors would start wondering just what was going on in their classes.
One way to make cheaters prosper is to have lots of take home work and only a few ridiculously hard tests. The cheaters will do well on the take home assignments and everyone will struggle on the tests, preventing the cheaters from sticking out.
Slashdot Mirror
The correct answer is, "Not one".
This is simply not true. Or at least I know we aren't fighting off Indian attacks in my region of the country anymore.
The examples you make are examples of victory because the invading forces didn't bother to make a distinction between genuine insurgents and the general populace.
Actually it was two factors. The one you just mentioned, and the orher factor being the factor which you seem to think has never worked: Killing every single one of your "enemies".
The original question was:
"Can you point to one case at any time in world history where eliminating insurgents has worked in the end?"
The answer is yes. You seem to be confusing the term "insurgents" with the word "troops". We killed a lot of "insurgents" in Falluja. We didn't kill very many troops.
Can you point to one case at any time in world history where eliminating insurgents has worked in the end? Where hunting down and killing fervent believers in a cause, people who were willing to die for their beliefs, has ultimately killed a movement, and the hunters have been able to wash their hands and declare victory?
World War II
The Allies deliberately and indiscriminately killed both solidiers and civilians until both the Germans and the Japanese were forced to surrender. Through gruesome attacks on major cities (Dresden, Hiroshima) we forced a surrender and haven't been attacked by either country since.
It was a different place and time and I do not believe these tactics would work for any of our current conflicts, but I do believe it's fair to say the "Kill 'em all and let god sort em out." approach has worked at least once in history.
We showed that we were willing to turn entire countries into barren wastelands and it worked.
In Dresden alone we killed over 20,000 people, the majority of them civilians.
In Hiroshima we killed 66,000 and injured 69.000.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating this approach at all. I think it would be stupid, but I do believe in being honest about what has really happened in the past. (Lest we are doomed to repeat it.)
Another example would be America's systematic extermination of the American Indian. Don't see any roving band of Indians shooting arrows at people do you?
F_drag_55 = 334 Newtons
Which is well within the average 447 available;
Only because your final number is wildly unrealistic.
The most basic thing you forgot is rolling resistance, but you also forgot other things like energy loss due to braking, energy loss due to cornering, energy loss due to bumps in the road and the energy required to get up to 55 mph in the first place. Or is someone suggesting that there is a 500 mile long, perfectly straight, perfectly flat, maglev track each one of these will run on? Heck, why don'r we just say the whole thing is on a huge hill and that way we don't need ANY electricity!
For example, rolling resistance is about ~300 Newtons by itself.
(I used normal car tires on asphalt and a total vehicle weight of 1000 pounds, including passengers and cargo.)
yep, and because of newton's laws you cannot kick somebody off their feet without falling yourself and judo exists only in fairy tales.
Judo and karate kicks obey Newton's laws too. This isn't "The Matrix". When was the last time you say somebody get karate kicked 10 ft though the air by a person with no running start and who remained standing in the same place?
The simple fact is that people do not go flying backwards because of the momentum imparted by a bullet. The overall impulse they feel is roughly equal to that you feel from the recoil of the gun.
I never gave a reason because that wasn't important.
Perhaps you should bother reading the posts you are replying to.
The fact that getting shot will eventually know you down is not something that was being debated.
The discussion was only regarding the momentum imparted.
Everybody is well aware that getting shot is not good for your health.
So take a step back for a minute and think about why it isn't there....
I do not know if any of these things are true, but I don't think it's right to point the finger at the ATM manufactuers here. What these banks were effectivly doing is about the same as using a magnetic hide-a-key under the ATM.
Who do I have to murder to remove "pwn" from the common technobabble lexicon? I'll do it... Seriously...
:P
Do you think pwning someone is the answer?
I'll agree that the people setting up the ATMs are extremely stupid. However, shouldn't the maker of the ATM have anticipated the stupidity of the users...
No.
Let's use a little common sense people.
What is an ATM?
A box full of money.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect someone to RTFM and follow directions before putting a box full of money out in a public space.
The fault here lies squarely on the banks.
Were I the manufacturer, I would maintain that anyone who failed to change the default password had installed the machine improperly. Using the default password in like leaving the key in the frickin door, or writing a combination above a lock.
In the end, banks need to take responsibility for their own security. It is simply impossible for ATM manufacturers to force them to follow good security practices.
I heard guys complain about kung fu movies. Well, Jet Li flipping through the air is more entertaining to watch than two juijitsu fighters roll on the ground for 40 minutes. Film is about images.
Martial arts movies are a great counter argument to your own argument.
I only need to bring up one name:
Bruce Lee
It's possible to be both realistic and entertaining at the same time, it's one of the things that will have people watching his movies fifty years from now, when many others are forgotten.
Movies shouldn't just tell a story, they should tell a story well. That means, good research, actors who remeber their lines and a director who wants to do more than just "get this thing over with."
The arguments you're making could be applied to anyone who does a crappy job at their profession. Sure it's easier to do a lousy job and there are always people who won't notice, but that doesn't change the reality that you are disgracing your craft.
The rules that are in place are to protect the masses from having that resource rendered unusuable to them.
And what the biggest threat that might cause this?....
NIPPLES!!!!
The FCC is oput of it mind and has gone way beyond the scope of their original authority.
Reference their decision to regulate what you can do with a digital TV signal AFTER YOU'VE RECEIVED IT.
While the original purpose of the FCC makes great sense, lets not be naive and pretend that's all they do or their sole motivation.
Now, in whatever language you know print "I will learn how weapons work" before saying that firing a gun knocks back the shooter, which is what your post implies.
Firing a gun DOES "knock back" the shooter. It's basic physics.
You are being subjected to an equal an opposite force. That fact that you are able to brace yourself against it and remain standing points to how weak this impulse actually is.
Put it this way, no normal hand-held ballistic weapon is going to provide more momentum than something simple like a solid kick to the stomach. If you think differently, you're just flat out wrong.
That all depends on what they're hit with. Take a shot from a .38 police special, and you're right; you probably won't go down. Take one from a Colt .45 1911A and you will go down because that's what it was designed to do: knock people off their feet.
Hasn't anybody ever heard of Newton's laws!?
You will go down because your internal organs are FUBAR'ed. You are not going down because of momentum, and that's why the person holding the gun is still standing.
Why are so many people blatantly ignorant of basic science that is almost 100 years old?
There's this bluetooth enabled Alive Heart Monitor
Great! Everytime he walks by a WAP or microwave, emergency services will get a call saying he's dying.
Perhaps a more robust communication method might be warranted here?
What's wrong with using old papers?
In many cases, the goals include improving student's writing skills.
Even if the understand the topic and can piece together a paper from public domain sources, one of the goals of the course would not be met.
The person who submitted this story is clearly trying to fix something that's probably not borken.
This is an oversimplified view of the world.
What if you had a perfectly functional Apple IIe as your main machine?
You'd be interested in a newer PC right?
The problem is that you're thinking of software as a simple tool. Software is a complex tool, like a CNC milling machine. Different models have different capabilities. Their old mill might be fine, but what if you can set them up with something that's better, faster and cheaper in the long run?
Our you could just stick with your Apple II.
Your arguments haven't changed at all.
You fail to adress the cost issue, amd you make a plethora of wild generalizations.
One of the more priceless ones being that the majority of people are a "fringe element" because they have not signed up for xbox live.
The reality is that people paying money for parts of a video game they have already bought is the fringe group. It is simply not the norm, and it requires more effort on the comsumer's part.
You fail to rebut this, instead arguing that it's all going to be great in spite fo these issues.
Oh yeah, and nice mea culpa for your false assumption regarding my experience with GT. (I think perhaps you can read between the lines in what I am saying here).
It's not so much "you're going to Hell when you die", it's more "You won't be able to make any use of any of those files you have saved -- all your letters, all your digital photos, all the music and film clips you've downloaded -- either unless you pay some serious money, or maybe even not at all. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow; but soon."
It may not work for a lot of people but that's what made me switch.
About four years ago I had visions of the future and I switched over to Linux.
I suspect no matter what MS and their ilk do, they will always keep a sizable market share, but Linux is slowly but surely on its way there, especially among those who see a computer as an essential tool in their daily lives.
I'll be there are still a huge number of copyright violators who would be outraged if their own copyright was violated. I find that kind of double standard pretty lame and disappointingly common.
I find that simple-mindedness pretty lame and disappointingly common.
Let's argue by analogy for a moment:
I'll bet there are still a number of gun control proponents who would be outraged if their own right to bear arms was violated.
How on earth could this be possible?
It is possible because individual cases are different. It might make more sense to allow retired police officers to have weapons then convicted felons, for example.
So now lets turn back to copyright:
When the creator and owner of the work are the same, it's fairly simple, and it's the case in this story. What gets more complicated is when that copyright is "sold"?
Does it really benefit society for Micheal Jackson to get money every time a Beatles song is played? I think there is a pretty good argument to be made that it does not.
Does it really benefit society for children to receive royalties for their parents work? I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that this does not as well.
So you see, while someone might not disagree with the general concept of copyright, they still might feel that in some cases, the law is amoral and unjust.
This actually touches on a gray legal area: the legal rights of minors.
It touches on this, but it's not really that important as there are plenty of 18 year old high school seniors.
it looks like implied student consent attained from the teacher & institution is their argument, and in fact, they assume this consent has been attained in their contract with the institution. If not, they'll turn a legal argument against the teacher and school district. Be prepared to sue your college/school at the same time as Turnitin.
They could claim that they thought GWB himself was getting the consent on their behalf, but they'll still have an illgal copy of his paper in thier database, and GWB will not.
Consequently, it is quite easy to prove they are violating the law. Prove they have the paper. Point out your copyright notice. They fail to prove you gave consent. You win.
Your respone is nothing but a m9ismash of poor arguments.
Would it not be far more likley these items are tied to your account rather than a particualr Playstation or memory card (the latter not even making sense since it would probably go on the internal hard drive).
And what is the account tied to? The implications of this one are flying right over your head.
Why? Other people still have to buy the shell...
You didn't give this one a minute's though either. Boxed game prices go down with time. Online games typically don't. This combines both, so all the depreciation hit is going towards the box.
If the game design is good it should involve no hassle and almost no bandwith (tracks I imagine would be larger)
This is such a crazy non-response. Downloading cars and tracks will take time and bandwidth. You will have to provide this bandwidth and wait for the download to happen. You will have to spent time sorting it all out beforehand.
I see you've never played GT before, or you would realize that a huge part of the game
Once again you're talking, without thinking. I have GT, I play it. Yes you need to plan your purchases now, but you can always save before you buy a car, use it for a while and then load your save again. This is going to change the gameplay, end of story.
None of those issues anyone really cares about
Another non-argument. The argument is that there will be time/money/risk involved with signing up for this service. There is a cost assosciated with that. Point your finger at ebay is silly. The economics are vastly different.
Your arguments remind me of the scence in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where they're all trying to decide if this woman is a witch. You just don't make sense. Pointing at ebay made as much sense as claiming witches are made of wood.
If the game sells at half price to start, and I can buy just the cars I like and all the tracks at a price lower than most of the other retail titles - then the idea will be a good one for the game designers and consumers alike.
I challenge this assertion.
How are you getting these cars?
Downloading them of course, via your Playstation.
Know what that means?
They're going to locked to your particular playstation or memory card to prevent "piracy".
There are a number of negatives you're not taking into account:
-Shitty resale value for the game itself
-Extreme difficulty or virtual impossibility of selling cars
-Need for net access to have a game that's worth playing (not all of us like to give our game consoles net access)
-The cost of your time downloading cars and the general hassle it involves
-The cost of your time figuring out what cars are worth buying in the first place
-The cost of your time signing up for this micropayment system and the assosciated privacy and fraud concerns
Don't you think that if people weren't cheating to "pass" that class, then the instructors would recognize, through the excessive drop and failure rates, that the class was too hard, and changes would be made to make it more reasonable?
There are a variety of reasons why this doesn't happen.
-Sometimes adminstrators get into thinking these are "weedout" classes and the high failure rate are a good thing.
-Other times, the prof is just a jerk. At the end of the course when reviews come in, this becomes readily apparent, but by then the damage has been done. Sometimes it might take multiple repetitions of bad reviews.
I've even seen case where courses were deliberately made unnecessarily hard. For example, I was directly told that a particular subject would not be covered or tested. When the test case around, it was one out of the five questions on the test. Why? To keep the mean down and artificially create the statistical pattern they wanted. This was a constant pattern throughout the class.
Microsoft is doing the right thing here.
From a technical standpoint, yes but you're fail to account for the effect this is going to have on the market.
This will virtually destroy the ability of ANY company to make revenue selling competing products.
In the short term it will be good since you get shiny new software, but the market for this software will be destroyed. In the long term, facing no competition, MS offering will stagnate and generally suck a la MSIE.
The only real counter is OSS as it operates somewhat outside of the typical economic model. However, patents and proprietary extensions will be a real pain here. MS has the blueprints and can change them at any time with a "security update". This allows them to effective lock out ALL competition with these products and expend the list of MS products that you have become hopelessly dependent upon.
Five years from now, you are going to be worse off, not better.
Interestingly, in my studies I stumbled upon 2 or 3 subjects which were plain impossible to pass without cheating.
And the problem is exacerbated by grading on a curve.
Even if you do it honestly and score fairly well numerically, if everyone else cheats and gets near perfect scores, you fail.
Schools don't realize it but grading on a curve places students who try to work on their own at a real disadvantage.
In some ways I believe teachers are complicit in the cheating. They will deliberately catch a few students per semester, but they know that if they were to drag thirty students out at a time their superiors would start wondering just what was going on in their classes.
One way to make cheaters prosper is to have lots of take home work and only a few ridiculously hard tests. The cheaters will do well on the take home assignments and everyone will struggle on the tests, preventing the cheaters from sticking out.