I think you're probably correct in that this is how the federal government is trying to justify their authority. I believe, however, that they will fail.
Cannibis was demonized in the 20th Century by racists. Once it is exposed that the plant is no threat to civilized society, that it is a wealth of medicene, and a ton of other really great uses, and that most citizens that are sick that cannibis can help want it, then the court will be swayed and the law will change.
No anti-drug attorney anywhere could convince any court that the Founders would have wanted cannibis to be illegal. Every important document from the era of the Founders was drafted on hemp paper. They all wore hemp clothes and used hemp rope. And most of the Founders smoked pot, for entertainment purposes or for various ailments. George Washington was obsessed with his pot crop.
Marijuana is not like cocaine. It's not like heroin, or even legal drugs that are abused like oxycontin. The Federal law banning marijuana makes about as much sense as banning coffee. It may be abused, but it's abuse won't be any more detrimental to society than other abused drugs. In fact, it will likely be less detrimental than alcohol, and that's already legal. But this negative effect must be weighed against the positive effect, which is tremendous. Marijuana curbs suffering. The DEA's own administrative law judge did not see why marijuana should be illegal. He ruled it should be a scheduled drug, and with expert testimony, wished to place it at schedule IV, rather than schedule I where it is now. The DEA overuled their own judge. The DEA won't be able to overrule the Supreme Court.
Who seriously thinks this isn't going to end with FBI agents with flamethrowers and some farmers going to jail forever?
It will end with the federal law being challenged and overturned. The 9th and 14th Amendments are clear on this. It is the right of the States to regulate those things not expressly reserved for the federal government. All your non-enumerated rights are belong to us.
The second problem you speak of is also true of all cell phones. Many, including the Incredible, point out right in the manual where you should avoid touching a certain spot. All cell phones have a spot you can touch with a single finger that will cause the phone to loose more signal than if you touched it in any other spot. This isn't new. Apple showed a picture of a phone with a sticker "don't touch here." They didn't ignore it.
May be true, but why didn't apple show just that? Barely touching that weak spot on each phone.
I think the real question is, why did Apple respond at all? The complaint was bogus, and nothing is going to touch their sales.... Apple could have said nothing.
Look again... the diagram shows that a single finger or two is enough to cause a problem. And it is enough to show that all the cry babies are fools... there is nothing new to see here... it's been around since the dawn of cell technology.
The entire complaint with iPhone 4's antenna has been bogus from the moment Gizmodo shit itself.
The iPhone4 was accused of having a flaw where touching a single spot on the phone can significantly degrade its signal and Steve Jobs successfully managed to change the discussion to two-handed death grips of other company's phones. Unbelievable.
Again, all cell phones have a death spot. They all have a spot you can touch, more thqn any other spot on the phone, that will cause the most signal loss. Many smart phone manuals point this out to the user.
While its absolutely true that a 'death grip' can cause signal loss on any phone, just as sticking it in a Faraday cage can, Apple is currently conflating two different problems. The first, where your hand blocks some signal is common to all phones.
However, there is a second problem with the iPhone 4. When you touch it in the wrong place, you, a conductor, connect two different antennae that each are designed to work at a specific wavelength. When you bring the two together, and throw your body into the mix too, the antenna geometry is decidedly sub-optimal, and this can damage reception significantly. This second problem is why bumpers/cases are suitable correction to the majority of the problem.
And I say this as someone who still plans to get an iPhone 4, because even while they hem and haw and obfuscate on the fact that there is a design flaw, they've taken appropriate actions to help those troubled by it, and if it really bothers me some tape or some clear nail polish should fix it.
The second problem you speak of is also true of all cell phones. Many, including the Incredible, point out right in the manual where you should avoid touching a certain spot. All cell phones have a spot you can touch with a single finger that will cause the phone to loose more signal than if you touched it in any other spot. This isn't new. Apple showed a picture of a phone with a sticker "don't touch here." They didn't ignore it.
WTF? Not a single article or video showing iphone dropping calls? NOT ONE? Jesus Christ - you fanbois are delusional.
Fuck my karma - here it comes - FUCK ALL APPLE FANBOIS, and FUCK STEVE JOBS. There, I said it. On/.
So the signal dropping is no longer the argument... it's dropped calls? They are the same thing. If touching an antenna drops the signal by -10dB and there is only -10dB of signal available, then you have a dropped call. It's not a different issue. A dropped call is PRECISELY the same issue as loosing signal strength from holding a cell phone.
No ever said that blocking the antenna doesn't affect signal strength. The problem with the iPhone is that the simple act of holding it normally can cause it to completely lose all signal. That is a problem. No other phones have this problem, that is why it has never come up before.
The iPhone has a serious design flaw, there is no denying this. I just hope Apple with fix this flaw before too much longer.
Except that your argument is easily nullified. All cell phones have always dropped signal when touched, yes, even with a single finger. It's physics. You touch the phone, you mess with the antenna, signal drops. All cell phones, always. I have always noticed this with every cell phone I've had in the last 10 years. All of them. Always. You need to be more observant.
Just because it has a low profile doesn't make it any less an instance of disinformation.
It deserves to be uncovered on a blog, but probably isn't Slashdot-worthy.
Right, low profile doesn't speak to anything one way or the other. The fact that the graphic designer was merely making an aesthetic adjustment, and not at all attempting to, nor intended to, misrepresent what was displayed in the altered image, other than to show a scene that has surely happened lots of times, with all monitors lit up with images, does speak rather directly to the charge of misinformation, to the extent to disqualify it from that label, as there is no one twisting their mustache, no gain could be had, nor would there be any detriment to anyone fully believing the image as displaying some important event as pure fact.
This is not misinformation. This is graphic design. There are plenty of valid reasons to bash BP. This isn't one of them.
I don't get it. There are rarely any photos that accompany news on the internet. What is up with that? If anything, it's only one lame ass photo... but... why not 50 lame photos? If news was done right on the internet, every story would have 5 pro germane and current photos, and pages of amateur cell phone photos and video. If a news site existed that did this, that didn't sell news but reported it... ah, what am I.... pipe dreams
sometimes seen at intersections in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, there is no dedicated left-turn lamp per se. Instead, the normal green lamp flashes rapidly, indicating permission to go straight as well as make a left turn in front of opposing traffic, which is being held by a steady red lamp. (This "advance green," or flashing green can be somewhat startling and confusing to drivers not familiar with this system. This also can cause confusion amongst visitors to British Columbia, where a flashing green signal denotes a pedestrian controlled intersection
What really bothers me is a traffic lamp costs hundreds, and it's dumb. What Millenia is it again? Why is there still traffic? How 'bout some civil engineers get with some computer engineers and software architects and design a modular system that is smart, that can actually recognize and predict traffic by, say, seeing the oncoming cars, making note of how fast traffic is moving, how many and how long cars have been waiting at the intersection, etc. Most cases, intersections could be completely stop-free in all directions for most cars most of the time. Never again would you approach an empty intersection and be greeted by a red light. At the cost they say actual dumb lights are, we ought to be able to have... something much much better.
I'm only responding to let you know that I am aware that your entire post is complete fiction. Almost every single sentence is actually false. And. LOL. OK, so... read what the anonymous coward said... because your facts are all screwed up.... Gizmodo bought stolen property, knowingly and willfully, simply because they were unaware that it was illegal. Yes... it's illegal to buy stolen property. Yes, Gizmodo will be prosecuted because they broke the law.
Let's forget the whole iPhone 4 debacle for a second. Gizmodo is a tremendous disgrace. Add back the iPhone thing... Gizmodo is about as far from journalism as one can possibly get. We really need a new word, as 'blog' just doesn't quite match it... because Gizmodo is an embarrassment to bloggers. Not only do they make stuff up, ala nyt, they over-moderate their commenters like hawks... you cannot post a derisive or disagreeing comment on the site, and they tell you so in their FAQ. Gizmodo is like one big grab ass. Honestly, they are indefensible. What morons buy stolen property without passing it by their attorney? At any rate, it will be good to see them go. And btw CA has not dropped the case. And after CA is done with them, I will watch intently as Apple bears its $30 billion guns upon them. Fuck Gizmodo. Goddamn liars. Riddence!
The comments on the article don't display any of the vitriol the Apple faithful have been known to unleash upon anyone daring to question the Cupertino way. Perhaps they are moderated.
Oh if only they were here too. The amount of stupidity by Apple users (and their fellow applefags moderating them up) is outstanding.
If you happen to have any bad opinions about Apple, their business practices or their products, they will march in. Apple stories are the only ones I need to read at -1 because of the modpoint abuse.
Of course, the iPhone 4 signal-strength bug isn't really a bug. It's a feature and Steve Jobs was just thinking the users best. Sigh.
Seriously, for an Open Source community it's outstanding how many Apple fanatics here are, when they are obviously the largest abuser of OSS or open technology.
What's weird is some of the Apple bashers, the ones that make teh crazy generalizations and call it science, then make a general insult to anyone that disagrees with them, are often quite obviously Apple customers, too. Even the non-Apple customer Apple bashers are having a field day, not able to resist taking a cheap shot at either the company for revealing a chink in their in your face perfection, or at those that honestly do appreciate their products (for being so mind-numbingly stupid).
Once you realize you've taken a side and have an opinion based on years of personal prejudice and everything but your own hands-on experience, the comments made become more revealing than the commenter intended or can comprehend.
But, one thing is pretty sure. Linus Torvalds wrote Linux, and his programming background came directly from Unix. OF COURSE he is going to write the same commands he has used a thousand times in the same way. OF COURSE there are going to be lines that look very much the same, sometimes even identical.
Well, maybe (uh, Minux), but he pwns it now. Your description reminds me of when John Fogerty's record company unsuccessfully sued him after he left and released more albums. They based the suit on how, allegedly, he sounded similar on his subsequent records to how he sounded on the records owned by his previous record company. They were suing him because his new music sounded too much like John Fogerty.
I have a feeling you're probably thinking of Gilligan's Island. I don't know for sure, but I expect Roddenberry wouldn't put up with that, nor allow anyone to be "left behind," so to speak. You'll notice all the old faces in the movies, even the fired drug addicts. The Star Trek people were nuts, even the accountants I bet, were honest. At least until he died, and by then Nimoy and Shatner were pretty powerful, regarding the movies. I'm speculating, of course.
How about basing salary accounting on box office ticket and DVD/download sales? They can't deny they did $350 million when every news outlet reports it. Also, if the film actually tanks, likewise, you make less. Seems it should work something like that... film does well, everyone gets paid, and if it tanks, everyone pays.
the very soul of what makes academia so important and valuable.
yeah, once upon a time. Today, clearly the final grade is the most valuable, or most detrimental contribution academia makes to an individual's life. Today, the soul of academia is a number on the 4.0 scale, carried with you for the rest of your life. Are you a 3.8 maverick? or a 3.1 hard worker? or are you an unchallenged 2.3 slacker? Either you can follow the obvious instructions to get the 4.0, or you just can't follow instructions. No excuses. No mitigating factors. End of story.
Frankly, I think it sucks, and the only way to improve it without discarding the whole grading paradigm is change it to a perfect/fail system. Either you have a perfect score, or you fail. But you should only be charged once for the credits, and whether it takes you a semester or 10 to pass, when you do, you have the same score as everyone else, and everyone knows what it is, and it still only cost $x/credit.
What I remember about University was being seduced by a department (CS, those motherless sons of bitches!!), then being thown to the wolves. Every intro course in that curriculum was built on the assumption you already knew the material. Only previous failures and dropouts made it through without sensory overload, emotional breakdowns and mediocre grades. Comparitively, the 5 hour 6am calc, a notoriously difficult course because of the time and time required, was refreshing because the instructor instructed, and when you followed her instruction, you learned.
One of the problems with the current grading paradigm is that it almost validates cheating, when the grade is more important than anything else, what is learned is secondary. Further, there is this underlying assumption that all grades represent the same thing; they all have a calibrated weight. But this is patently false. All judgements based on looking at a grade and course title are incomplete assessments. You wouldn't know that a B+ in an indoor plants course actually showed more dedication than an A+ in a literature course unless you actually knew the circumstances that the horticulture course was nearly impossible to pass, and everyone got an A in that Lit class, and you'd likely judge it the opposite way.
It a corporate culture where, all things being equal, your resume got tossed because one of the HR fucks got a drop of coffee on it, grades are just another bullshit illusion to hold you back. In a society of liars, sometimes you will need to lie to survive. Grades are fine for the individual to individually gauge their own advancement, and that is the weight of their true worth, but they are thin evidence of anything to anyone else. Cheating is rewarded handsomely in the non-academic world... perhaps because the cost of getting caught for cheating is so high, or perhaps because people are so blinded by the desire to have the best.
I, for one, will continue to cheat death as long as I live.
Slashdot Mirror
Cannibis was demonized in the 20th Century by racists. Once it is exposed that the plant is no threat to civilized society, that it is a wealth of medicene, and a ton of other really great uses, and that most citizens that are sick that cannibis can help want it, then the court will be swayed and the law will change.
No anti-drug attorney anywhere could convince any court that the Founders would have wanted cannibis to be illegal. Every important document from the era of the Founders was drafted on hemp paper. They all wore hemp clothes and used hemp rope. And most of the Founders smoked pot, for entertainment purposes or for various ailments. George Washington was obsessed with his pot crop.
Marijuana is not like cocaine. It's not like heroin, or even legal drugs that are abused like oxycontin. The Federal law banning marijuana makes about as much sense as banning coffee. It may be abused, but it's abuse won't be any more detrimental to society than other abused drugs. In fact, it will likely be less detrimental than alcohol, and that's already legal. But this negative effect must be weighed against the positive effect, which is tremendous. Marijuana curbs suffering. The DEA's own administrative law judge did not see why marijuana should be illegal. He ruled it should be a scheduled drug, and with expert testimony, wished to place it at schedule IV, rather than schedule I where it is now. The DEA overuled their own judge. The DEA won't be able to overrule the Supreme Court.
Who seriously thinks this isn't going to end with FBI agents with flamethrowers and some farmers going to jail forever?
It will end with the federal law being challenged and overturned. The 9th and 14th Amendments are clear on this. It is the right of the States to regulate those things not expressly reserved for the federal government. All your non-enumerated rights are belong to us.
RUN, FOREST, RUN!!
See page 6
The second problem you speak of is also true of all cell phones. Many, including the Incredible, point out right in the manual where you should avoid touching a certain spot. All cell phones have a spot you can touch with a single finger that will cause the phone to loose more signal than if you touched it in any other spot. This isn't new. Apple showed a picture of a phone with a sticker "don't touch here." They didn't ignore it.
May be true, but why didn't apple show just that? Barely touching that weak spot on each phone.
I think the real question is, why did Apple respond at all? The complaint was bogus, and nothing is going to touch their sales.... Apple could have said nothing.
The entire complaint with iPhone 4's antenna has been bogus from the moment Gizmodo shit itself.
The iPhone4 was accused of having a flaw where touching a single spot on the phone can significantly degrade its signal and Steve Jobs successfully managed to change the discussion to two-handed death grips of other company's phones. Unbelievable.
Again, all cell phones have a death spot. They all have a spot you can touch, more thqn any other spot on the phone, that will cause the most signal loss. Many smart phone manuals point this out to the user.
HTC EVO
Look at page 169
Antennagate is bogus. It tracks directly back to Gizmodo lashing out because they humiliated themselves buying stolen property.
HTC Incredible
Look at page 6
While its absolutely true that a 'death grip' can cause signal loss on any phone, just as sticking it in a Faraday cage can, Apple is currently conflating two different problems. The first, where your hand blocks some signal is common to all phones.
However, there is a second problem with the iPhone 4. When you touch it in the wrong place, you, a conductor, connect two different antennae that each are designed to work at a specific wavelength. When you bring the two together, and throw your body into the mix too, the antenna geometry is decidedly sub-optimal, and this can damage reception significantly. This second problem is why bumpers/cases are suitable correction to the majority of the problem.
And I say this as someone who still plans to get an iPhone 4, because even while they hem and haw and obfuscate on the fact that there is a design flaw, they've taken appropriate actions to help those troubled by it, and if it really bothers me some tape or some clear nail polish should fix it.
The second problem you speak of is also true of all cell phones. Many, including the Incredible, point out right in the manual where you should avoid touching a certain spot. All cell phones have a spot you can touch with a single finger that will cause the phone to loose more signal than if you touched it in any other spot. This isn't new. Apple showed a picture of a phone with a sticker "don't touch here." They didn't ignore it.
WTF? Not a single article or video showing iphone dropping calls? NOT ONE? Jesus Christ - you fanbois are delusional.
Fuck my karma - here it comes - FUCK ALL APPLE FANBOIS, and FUCK STEVE JOBS. There, I said it. On /.
So the signal dropping is no longer the argument... it's dropped calls? They are the same thing. If touching an antenna drops the signal by -10dB and there is only -10dB of signal available, then you have a dropped call. It's not a different issue. A dropped call is PRECISELY the same issue as loosing signal strength from holding a cell phone.
No ever said that blocking the antenna doesn't affect signal strength. The problem with the iPhone is that the simple act of holding it normally can cause it to completely lose all signal. That is a problem. No other phones have this problem, that is why it has never come up before.
The iPhone has a serious design flaw, there is no denying this. I just hope Apple with fix this flaw before too much longer.
Except that your argument is easily nullified. All cell phones have always dropped signal when touched, yes, even with a single finger. It's physics. You touch the phone, you mess with the antenna, signal drops. All cell phones, always. I have always noticed this with every cell phone I've had in the last 10 years. All of them. Always. You need to be more observant.
Just because it has a low profile doesn't make it any less an instance of disinformation. It deserves to be uncovered on a blog, but probably isn't Slashdot-worthy.
Right, low profile doesn't speak to anything one way or the other. The fact that the graphic designer was merely making an aesthetic adjustment, and not at all attempting to, nor intended to, misrepresent what was displayed in the altered image, other than to show a scene that has surely happened lots of times, with all monitors lit up with images, does speak rather directly to the charge of misinformation, to the extent to disqualify it from that label, as there is no one twisting their mustache, no gain could be had, nor would there be any detriment to anyone fully believing the image as displaying some important event as pure fact.
This is not misinformation. This is graphic design. There are plenty of valid reasons to bash BP. This isn't one of them.
My great-grandpa died of mnemonia. It was before the War, somewhere in Europe, Malapropia, I think.
I don't get it. There are rarely any photos that accompany news on the internet. What is up with that? If anything, it's only one lame ass photo... but... why not 50 lame photos? If news was done right on the internet, every story would have 5 pro germane and current photos, and pages of amateur cell phone photos and video. If a news site existed that did this, that didn't sell news but reported it... ah, what am I .... pipe dreams
obviously, GP is a dick, parent is ADD
from Wiki
sometimes seen at intersections in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, there is no dedicated left-turn lamp per se. Instead, the normal green lamp flashes rapidly, indicating permission to go straight as well as make a left turn in front of opposing traffic, which is being held by a steady red lamp. (This "advance green," or flashing green can be somewhat startling and confusing to drivers not familiar with this system. This also can cause confusion amongst visitors to British Columbia, where a flashing green signal denotes a pedestrian controlled intersection
What really bothers me is a traffic lamp costs hundreds, and it's dumb. What Millenia is it again? Why is there still traffic? How 'bout some civil engineers get with some computer engineers and software architects and design a modular system that is smart, that can actually recognize and predict traffic by, say, seeing the oncoming cars, making note of how fast traffic is moving, how many and how long cars have been waiting at the intersection, etc. Most cases, intersections could be completely stop-free in all directions for most cars most of the time. Never again would you approach an empty intersection and be greeted by a red light. At the cost they say actual dumb lights are, we ought to be able to have... something much much better.
I'm only responding to let you know that I am aware that your entire post is complete fiction. Almost every single sentence is actually false. And. LOL. OK, so ... read what the anonymous coward said... because your facts are all screwed up.... Gizmodo bought stolen property, knowingly and willfully, simply because they were unaware that it was illegal. Yes... it's illegal to buy stolen property. Yes, Gizmodo will be prosecuted because they broke the law.
PS: What is "fsck" an acronym for? I'm guessing "fucking stupid censorship, kids".
fsck - FileSystem Consistency checK and interactive repair
Yes, but we must solve the danger of collapsing roofs first!
Let's forget the whole iPhone 4 debacle for a second. Gizmodo is a tremendous disgrace. Add back the iPhone thing... Gizmodo is about as far from journalism as one can possibly get. We really need a new word, as 'blog' just doesn't quite match it... because Gizmodo is an embarrassment to bloggers. Not only do they make stuff up, ala nyt, they over-moderate their commenters like hawks... you cannot post a derisive or disagreeing comment on the site, and they tell you so in their FAQ. Gizmodo is like one big grab ass. Honestly, they are indefensible. What morons buy stolen property without passing it by their attorney? At any rate, it will be good to see them go. And btw CA has not dropped the case. And after CA is done with them, I will watch intently as Apple bears its $30 billion guns upon them. Fuck Gizmodo. Goddamn liars. Riddence!
The bottom line is that this goes on because we (collectively) fund it.
Right. So what does it cost us? (Any positive figure is unacceptable.)
The comments on the article don't display any of the vitriol the Apple faithful have been known to unleash upon anyone daring to question the Cupertino way. Perhaps they are moderated.
Oh if only they were here too. The amount of stupidity by Apple users (and their fellow applefags moderating them up) is outstanding.
If you happen to have any bad opinions about Apple, their business practices or their products, they will march in. Apple stories are the only ones I need to read at -1 because of the modpoint abuse.
Of course, the iPhone 4 signal-strength bug isn't really a bug. It's a feature and Steve Jobs was just thinking the users best. Sigh.
Seriously, for an Open Source community it's outstanding how many Apple fanatics here are, when they are obviously the largest abuser of OSS or open technology.
What's weird is some of the Apple bashers, the ones that make teh crazy generalizations and call it science, then make a general insult to anyone that disagrees with them, are often quite obviously Apple customers, too. Even the non-Apple customer Apple bashers are having a field day, not able to resist taking a cheap shot at either the company for revealing a chink in their in your face perfection, or at those that honestly do appreciate their products (for being so mind-numbingly stupid).
Once you realize you've taken a side and have an opinion based on years of personal prejudice and everything but your own hands-on experience, the comments made become more revealing than the commenter intended or can comprehend.
We're not hosting an intergalactic kegger.
But, one thing is pretty sure. Linus Torvalds wrote Linux, and his programming background came directly from Unix. OF COURSE he is going to write the same commands he has used a thousand times in the same way. OF COURSE there are going to be lines that look very much the same, sometimes even identical.
Well, maybe (uh, Minux), but he pwns it now. Your description reminds me of when John Fogerty's record company unsuccessfully sued him after he left and released more albums. They based the suit on how, allegedly, he sounded similar on his subsequent records to how he sounded on the records owned by his previous record company. They were suing him because his new music sounded too much like John Fogerty.
I have a feeling you're probably thinking of Gilligan's Island. I don't know for sure, but I expect Roddenberry wouldn't put up with that, nor allow anyone to be "left behind," so to speak. You'll notice all the old faces in the movies, even the fired drug addicts. The Star Trek people were nuts, even the accountants I bet, were honest. At least until he died, and by then Nimoy and Shatner were pretty powerful, regarding the movies. I'm speculating, of course.
How about basing salary accounting on box office ticket and DVD/download sales? They can't deny they did $350 million when every news outlet reports it. Also, if the film actually tanks, likewise, you make less. Seems it should work something like that... film does well, everyone gets paid, and if it tanks, everyone pays.
the very soul of what makes academia so important and valuable.
yeah, once upon a time. Today, clearly the final grade is the most valuable, or most detrimental contribution academia makes to an individual's life. Today, the soul of academia is a number on the 4.0 scale, carried with you for the rest of your life. Are you a 3.8 maverick? or a 3.1 hard worker? or are you an unchallenged 2.3 slacker? Either you can follow the obvious instructions to get the 4.0, or you just can't follow instructions. No excuses. No mitigating factors. End of story.
Frankly, I think it sucks, and the only way to improve it without discarding the whole grading paradigm is change it to a perfect/fail system. Either you have a perfect score, or you fail. But you should only be charged once for the credits, and whether it takes you a semester or 10 to pass, when you do, you have the same score as everyone else, and everyone knows what it is, and it still only cost $x/credit.
What I remember about University was being seduced by a department (CS, those motherless sons of bitches!!), then being thown to the wolves. Every intro course in that curriculum was built on the assumption you already knew the material. Only previous failures and dropouts made it through without sensory overload, emotional breakdowns and mediocre grades. Comparitively, the 5 hour 6am calc, a notoriously difficult course because of the time and time required, was refreshing because the instructor instructed, and when you followed her instruction, you learned.
One of the problems with the current grading paradigm is that it almost validates cheating, when the grade is more important than anything else, what is learned is secondary. Further, there is this underlying assumption that all grades represent the same thing; they all have a calibrated weight. But this is patently false. All judgements based on looking at a grade and course title are incomplete assessments. You wouldn't know that a B+ in an indoor plants course actually showed more dedication than an A+ in a literature course unless you actually knew the circumstances that the horticulture course was nearly impossible to pass, and everyone got an A in that Lit class, and you'd likely judge it the opposite way.
It a corporate culture where, all things being equal, your resume got tossed because one of the HR fucks got a drop of coffee on it, grades are just another bullshit illusion to hold you back. In a society of liars, sometimes you will need to lie to survive. Grades are fine for the individual to individually gauge their own advancement, and that is the weight of their true worth, but they are thin evidence of anything to anyone else. Cheating is rewarded handsomely in the non-academic world... perhaps because the cost of getting caught for cheating is so high, or perhaps because people are so blinded by the desire to have the best.
I, for one, will continue to cheat death as long as I live.