So ammend the Constitution to ensure that we do have the right to habeus corpus, and spell it out in positive language. That's why they're ammendments. Has noone thought of this?
How is exercising editorial oversite a "free speech issue" again?
I'll use your example to help explain it.
I am sure the guys who created the Columbine game wouldn't mind if someone put a billboard advertisment on their front lawn.
If they agreed with the sentiment, they may very well want it there. If someone puts a "JESUS IS L0RD" billboard on the front lawn of some crazy Christian zealot, then, well, yeah, the nutbag Christian asshole might very well approve of it, because it doesn't go against his beliefs. He wants it there.
The creators/editors/whatever-the-hell-they-are wanted SCMRPG in the finals. They wanted it so much, that they made the game a finalist. In the end, they claim that they were forced to remove the game from the competition against their own wishes due to, as was said, "larger pressures placed on them".
They WANT to say something, and they are being prevented from saying it. They are not free to say what they want to say, and that makes it a free speech issue.
That's kinda obvious to anyone who spent two seconds thinking about the issue.
If the New York Times refuses to print a picture of my naked ass on the front page, is that also a "free speech issue".
If you want a picture of your ass on the front page of the New York Times, that's fine. You are free to use GIMP or Photoshop and mock-up a New York Times with a picture of your ass on it. I don't think anyone is stopping you from doing that. The New York Times probably doesn't want a picture of your ass on their front page, so I doubt they're going to do it for you. You'll need to do that yourself, if that's what you want, and you are free to do so. So, no, that's not a free speech issue.
Now, if the New York Times really did want a picture of your giant Rhino ass on the front page, and someone stepped in and said "we're taking all these newspapers off the shelves and burning them", then, yeah, there would be an free speech issue there. Since it's probably not the case, I don't think it's something we need to worry about.
I tried to lay it out for you as simply as I could. I hope you understand what everyone is talking about now.
to me being a kid going through a school killing your peers is something nobody should WANT to do...
We obviously went to 2 very different high schools.
Re:UFO vs. alien spacecraft
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
when you get down to it, "Unidentified Flying Object" refers to anything unidentified that you see in the sky.
Almost. Remember that it has to be flying as well, which is a pretty descriptive attribute that takes away alot of possibilities.
A segment of a sun halo
That either not an object or it's not flying. I dunno. Pick one.
a satellite
There is no lift being generated by an satellite in orbit, and therefore it isn't flight. If it's not in orbit, then I'm pretty sure it's referred to as "falling", not "flying".
an odd cloud
Clouds float, they don't fly.
a distant airplane with the sun glinting off of it
If you can't read the numbers or hear the call sign, it's unidentified. If it's still got wings and an engine and it's up in the air, it's probably flying, and if it can be referred to as "it", it's probably an object. Bingo! We have a winner!
"Unidentified Aerial Phenomena"
Damn. Now I gotta start over.
Conversely, if alien spacecraft are ever verified, they wouldn't really be UFOs, would they?
No call sign, no authorization, no pilot's license -- screw that, them's a UFO! Of course, their propulsion system probably wouldn't rely on flight... I guess that's another matter.
Is it just me, or has John McCain gone from "person who I have respect for, and might even vote for" to "betrayer of common American values" in less than a decade? What the hell happened to him to make him such a venomous cock-sucker?
I liked him once, and admired him for having gone through hell and come back in one piece. Then I pitied him for having to stand by his party after GWB and Rove raped his ass in the primaries by lying about him. Then I got really confused when he flip-flopped on the torture bill. Now, I feel like I have to defend myself against this Nazi scumbag who wants to ruin my country. How the hell could this happen?
He was once a good man, and it saddens me to see him like this. I hope he exits politics very soon.
I don't know if this is the same poster as the grandparent, but I'll reply to it assuming that it is.
Good luck on trying to refreeze Greenland or trying to get the Gulf Stream restarted. You really don't understand blah blah blah...
Wow. Where was it that I mentioned that I was trying to refreeze Greenland? This is what they call a "straw man".
Yes, of course Mankind will be able to control the weather and the climate. We'll also be able to travel to the stars and between galaxies. I truly believe that we will be able to do all these things. But not tomorrow.
"Travel between galaxies"? Wow. Non-sequitor.
Here I was being practical. You're merely being silly.
Wow. Ad Hominem. You're really good at this.
Dude, I was being honest, you weren't. You were acting like a lazy-ass piece of shit who'd rather bitch about it than try and solve the problem.
Did you like THAT ad hominem, btw? I wrote it just for you.
And these processes are unstoppable, period, no matter what we do.
Your belief is that these process are unstoppable. History has shown that people innovate creatively all that time. Your judgment here is clouded because you believe in this sentinment so strongly. If you can't find a way to stop these processes, then you're not looking hard enough. (One method immediately comes to my mind.)
That would be economic planning based on scientific facts, rather than hype.
The statement I quoted earlier is an opinion, and you are basing your argument on opinion, and not "scientific facts." I'd call "shenanigans" on this one, but I don't want to imply malice on your part. You're just not thinking clearly, because you're frustrated, defeated, and resigned to take no action.
simultaneously open multiple O/S's at the same time in a non-virtualized environment
If by "non-virtualized", you mean paravirtualizaed, then I'd recommend you take a look at the Xen demo CDs. Outside that, I'm not sure what you mean. What is Apple already doing?
I wonder if you'd change your tune if it was your wife or mother or daughter that was killed.
He probably would, of course. When a tragic event like that happens to a family, most of them would lose objectivity and be filled with regret, remorse, and hatred. That's why we need sane, objective people who have the capacity to see things clearly making these kinds of decisions, instead of bitter, reactionary victims.
The purpose of analogies to find similar things from which we can draw conclusions. You're just bad at finding analogies. So, here, let me help you.
Except that instead of giving you a rectal exam, he told you how someone could molest your daughter and explained how you could take action to prevent it, explained bombs to you and showed you what could happen if someone exploded your favourite hockey team's home town with NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and demonstrated how someone could steal your glasses and gave you a comprehensive plan on how you could protect your glasses from theft, before billing you for the explanation.
There. Is that better? Does the cream soothe your aching vagina?
Attacking a satellite (or blinding it) is akin to doing the same to a ship on the open seas.... and if it was a ship moving from X to Y with people on it, then yeah, that'd be bad -- but we're not talking about some ordinary ship carrying happy tourists or a fishing trawler. We're talking about a SPY satellite.
Attacking a SPY satellite that views your country's movements from orbit is akin to kicking a SPY out of the country. It has absolutely no comparison to attacking a random ship on the open seas.
Funny how that one word, SPY, changes things. I don't want the Chinese spying on my country. I certainly would hope that my country would blow Chinese SPY satellites out of our sky. I would expect that they would do the same to us.
"Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages" hasn't been declassified. However, in a different paper, "The Intelligence Revolution and the Future", the CIA has this to say:
"Should project SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) ever receive a signal from outer space, there will be yet another role for intelligence services, not in arming the lasers, but in trying to decode the messages."
the particular technique shown... to make free calls (redboxing) is not far-fetched.
I always thought that was reference to a ground-start payphone, and not a redbox. I mean, IIRC, he found a metal doohickey on the ground, disconnected the microphone off the handset, and used the metal doohickey as a bridge between the handsets microphone connector and the lock on the front of the payphone. That described a ground-start payphone to me.
Ya know, noone's mentioning it, but I cringed a bit when he dialed in, because it wasn't technically realistic with his equipment. It was an acoustic coupler for a handset. On the ones that I had used, you dialed the phone number manually, waited for the carrier, then put the phone in the cradle and started the session. The acoustic couplers were incapable of going on and off hook without human intervention. Once they did develop the hardware to plug your phone cable into the modem, they no longer needed the acoustics.
I rationalized that away by saying to myself "well, he must have made a circuit that we don't see to do the bullshit technical stuff that we really don't need to bother with because it's just a movie..."
My particular favourite was when the kid plugs in the speaker at home so we can "hear" the computer "speak" and then this voice miraculously appears each time he accesses WOPR regardless of the terminal he is using - or where it is located.
I remember thinking that in the theatre, but I figured that it was a device that the director was using to allow the computer to successfully communicate with us, the movie-goers. I figured that, in the fantasy land of the movie, the voice didn't need to be a "real" voice that every character heard, but it could have been a voice that the lead character heard in his head whenever he dealt with this particular computer.
Once I realized that, the movie was much easier to enjoy.
Other volunteers involved with the ZERT initiative include
* Halvar Flake, CEO and head of research at Sabre Security;
* Ilfak Guilfanov, author of the IDA Pro binary analysis tool;
* Paul Vixie, founder of the ISC (Internet Software Consortium);
* Roger Thompson, chief technology officer of Exploit Prevention Labs;
* Florian Weimer, a German computer expert specializing in Linux and DNS (Domain Name System) security..
These guys are top-notch. I can't give enough praise to show my support for what they're doing. When all the government bullshit artists were finger pointing, when all the CERTs of the world were waiting for a vendor fix, when Microsoft was sitting on it's hands doing nothing, these guys were working hard to build useful tools. Hackers and crackers on both sides of the fence have benefitted from the work these guys have done. If you don't know who these guys are, google them, because they're all good people, hard workers, and brilliant minds.
Prove it. You just pulled that statement _right out of your behind_.
The rate is unprecedented, because _nobody has measured it before_. We've only been measuring since 1958.
So, um, you AGREE that the rate of change is unprecedented? But you sound like one of those talking head shills for the oil companies. Yet, you AGREE that the rate is unprecedented. I mean, WTF?
On the one hand, you're casting accusations that explicitly state that the phrase "the rate of change is unprecedented" was pulled out of the OP's ass, and also imply that the OP is incorrect. Then you go on to agree with OP that the rate is unprecedented, which goes against the implication that the OP was incorrect. That's your first contradiction.
Then you suggest a reason that the statement is correct, and you attempt to emphasize that reason by underlining it (sort of, as I understand it). That reason was "nobody has measured it before." The _very_next_sentence_ that you write claims "we've only been measuring since 1958", which means to me that you believe that we HAVE measured it before, and we've been doing so since 1958. What the FUCK? How the...? Dude, don't you read what you post?
I stand by my statements, as they're backed up by fact.
You seem to be really good at collecting data, but god-awful at actually interpreting it.
This is what you said: "You just pulled that statement _right out of your behind_." You are now claiming that this statement is a fact. Jesus fucking god, man. It's pretty clear to me that you don't mean that statement literally. I'd call that statement an attempt at an insult, and a piss poor attempt at an insult to boot. You can't even say the word "ass" directly, you've got to mellow it down with the more politically-correct word, "behind".
Here's some opinions for you:
* I think that most people wouldn't call insults "facts."
* I think that most people wouldn't call contradiction after contradiction "fact".
Here's a fact for you:
* You're a shit-fucking fuck-nut.
Ok, it's not a fact. I lied. Now here's an imperative:
* Go fuck yourself.
The knowledge has to be cominning from somewhere. Wether this is from Wikipedia, from abook you stole from the library or from getting notes from somebody who actually did follow the lectures is irrelevant.
Perhaps you could, you know, actually try to find out if the student understands what he has written, irregardless what the source was.
The fact that studets cheat is not new. The fact that professors have methods of finding out if they did the work themselves or not is also a few centuries old. It is just that the methods changed.
Reminds me of when I was cheating (although not on univerrity) I made a cheating-not and wrote it smaller and smaller and that a few times (???). I perfected that cheatingnote so often that by the time I needed it, I didn't anymore. So the joke was on me, instead of making a cheating-note, I was actually learning and probably spend more time on it this way then when I would have 'learned' it the regular way.
Yet if they would have found the note, I would have most likely still failed, regardless of wether I knew what I had to know or not.
Bra-vo! That was awesum! You obvliously put a lot of work into that joke, you know. I mean, that had to be a joke or not, rite?
I may be wrong, but your post reads like a rationalization from a "guilty" student.
Wow. Seriously. Fuck you to hell.
Do you have any IDEA how much time it would take to put together a quality course, with nothing but original materials?
The OP accused some professors, like you, of academic dishonesty and laziness. The dishonesty comes from using uncited sources, and the laziness comes from creating assignments in a way that students can easily cheat on them.
What part of that said to throw out textbooks? What part of that said to use "nothing but original materials"? That proposition is nowhere in his argument. What a wonderful straw man you've created. A demand to cite your sources and a request to stop using Scantron != "use nothing but original materials."
Not to mention grading students' work? I mean REALLY grading it - paying attention to the individual foibles of each student and trying to treat them like distinct human beings and not just a row of numbers on a grade sheet?
Johnny, now I've called you after to class to discuss your test results. I see some real problems here, Johnny. Look at your answer to question 27! If you want to answer "E", then you've got to bubble in the whole circle. Look what you did! You only partially bubbled it in! Johnny, this is unacceptable, and it's going to affect your test results, as well as the rest of your life. Think about that for a moment, Johnny!
Did I mention, fuck you?
Their lectures and your assignments therefore belong in very different categories, as far as the standards applied.
Oh, you vile hypocrite fuck.
I usually tell my students, at the beginning of a course, that I will pull in materials from many different sources in order to create the course lectures and assignments and to give them the best educational experience possible. I explain what I expect from them in terms of academic integrity, and if I catch them cheating, they suffer the consequences.
Now, students, of course I'm allowed to cite anything without telling you where it comes from. I'm the professor, after all, and you're the student. I'm not suggesting that you follow my example because you're supposed to look up to me, NO! I'm demanding that YOU cite your sources, or else I shall take my vengeance upon you in the only way that I can and fail you! Ha-ha! Certainly, you shouldn't expect the same from me! I'm better than you, and my demands shall be met!
Yeah, I'm sure you're students love you. Fuck you to hell, bitch.
THAT is what really damages the credibility of professors,
Slashdot Mirror
So ammend the Constitution to ensure that we do have the right to habeus corpus, and spell it out in positive language. That's why they're ammendments. Has noone thought of this?
So, the kidnapper's been kidnapped. That'll learn 'im!
Until someone steps forward and says "I did X & Y at the direction of Mr Z," I'm going to lump it along side of "The CIA killed Kennedy."
Did you miss the whole Clint Curtis / Tom Feeney thing? I mean, it's not like that's old news.
How is exercising editorial oversite a "free speech issue" again?
I'll use your example to help explain it.
I am sure the guys who created the Columbine game wouldn't mind if someone put a billboard advertisment on their front lawn.
If they agreed with the sentiment, they may very well want it there. If someone puts a "JESUS IS L0RD" billboard on the front lawn of some crazy Christian zealot, then, well, yeah, the nutbag Christian asshole might very well approve of it, because it doesn't go against his beliefs. He wants it there.
The creators/editors/whatever-the-hell-they-are wanted SCMRPG in the finals. They wanted it so much, that they made the game a finalist. In the end, they claim that they were forced to remove the game from the competition against their own wishes due to, as was said, "larger pressures placed on them".
They WANT to say something, and they are being prevented from saying it. They are not free to say what they want to say, and that makes it a free speech issue.
That's kinda obvious to anyone who spent two seconds thinking about the issue.
If the New York Times refuses to print a picture of my naked ass on the front page, is that also a "free speech issue".
If you want a picture of your ass on the front page of the New York Times, that's fine. You are free to use GIMP or Photoshop and mock-up a New York Times with a picture of your ass on it. I don't think anyone is stopping you from doing that. The New York Times probably doesn't want a picture of your ass on their front page, so I doubt they're going to do it for you. You'll need to do that yourself, if that's what you want, and you are free to do so. So, no, that's not a free speech issue.
Now, if the New York Times really did want a picture of your giant Rhino ass on the front page, and someone stepped in and said "we're taking all these newspapers off the shelves and burning them", then, yeah, there would be an free speech issue there. Since it's probably not the case, I don't think it's something we need to worry about.
I tried to lay it out for you as simply as I could. I hope you understand what everyone is talking about now.
to me being a kid going through a school killing your peers is something nobody should WANT to do...
We obviously went to 2 very different high schools.
when you get down to it, "Unidentified Flying Object" refers to anything unidentified that you see in the sky.
Almost. Remember that it has to be flying as well, which is a pretty descriptive attribute that takes away alot of possibilities.
A segment of a sun halo
That either not an object or it's not flying. I dunno. Pick one.
a satellite
There is no lift being generated by an satellite in orbit, and therefore it isn't flight. If it's not in orbit, then I'm pretty sure it's referred to as "falling", not "flying".
an odd cloud
Clouds float, they don't fly.
a distant airplane with the sun glinting off of it
If you can't read the numbers or hear the call sign, it's unidentified. If it's still got wings and an engine and it's up in the air, it's probably flying, and if it can be referred to as "it", it's probably an object. Bingo! We have a winner!
"Unidentified Aerial Phenomena"
Damn. Now I gotta start over.
Conversely, if alien spacecraft are ever verified, they wouldn't really be UFOs, would they?
No call sign, no authorization, no pilot's license -- screw that, them's a UFO! Of course, their propulsion system probably wouldn't rely on flight... I guess that's another matter.
Is it just me, or has John McCain gone from "person who I have respect for, and might even vote for" to "betrayer of common American values" in less than a decade? What the hell happened to him to make him such a venomous cock-sucker?
I liked him once, and admired him for having gone through hell and come back in one piece. Then I pitied him for having to stand by his party after GWB and Rove raped his ass in the primaries by lying about him. Then I got really confused when he flip-flopped on the torture bill. Now, I feel like I have to defend myself against this Nazi scumbag who wants to ruin my country. How the hell could this happen?
He was once a good man, and it saddens me to see him like this. I hope he exits politics very soon.
I don't know if this is the same poster as the grandparent, but I'll reply to it assuming that it is.
Good luck on trying to refreeze Greenland or trying to get the Gulf Stream restarted. You really don't understand blah blah blah...
Wow. Where was it that I mentioned that I was trying to refreeze Greenland? This is what they call a "straw man".
Yes, of course Mankind will be able to control the weather and the climate. We'll also be able to travel to the stars and between galaxies. I truly believe that we will be able to do all these things. But not tomorrow.
"Travel between galaxies"? Wow. Non-sequitor.
Here I was being practical. You're merely being silly.
Wow. Ad Hominem. You're really good at this.
Dude, I was being honest, you weren't. You were acting like a lazy-ass piece of shit who'd rather bitch about it than try and solve the problem.
Did you like THAT ad hominem, btw? I wrote it just for you.
And these processes are unstoppable, period, no matter what we do.
Your belief is that these process are unstoppable. History has shown that people innovate creatively all that time. Your judgment here is clouded because you believe in this sentinment so strongly. If you can't find a way to stop these processes, then you're not looking hard enough. (One method immediately comes to my mind.)
That would be economic planning based on scientific facts, rather than hype.
The statement I quoted earlier is an opinion, and you are basing your argument on opinion, and not "scientific facts." I'd call "shenanigans" on this one, but I don't want to imply malice on your part. You're just not thinking clearly, because you're frustrated, defeated, and resigned to take no action.
simultaneously open multiple O/S's at the same time in a non-virtualized environment
If by "non-virtualized", you mean paravirtualizaed, then I'd recommend you take a look at the Xen demo CDs. Outside that, I'm not sure what you mean. What is Apple already doing?
I wonder if you'd change your tune if it was your wife or mother or daughter that was killed.
He probably would, of course. When a tragic event like that happens to a family, most of them would lose objectivity and be filled with regret, remorse, and hatred. That's why we need sane, objective people who have the capacity to see things clearly making these kinds of decisions, instead of bitter, reactionary victims.
The police don't have to break any laws to arrest me for shooting someone.
That's funny, because when *I* do it, they "arrest me" for kidnapping. Go figure.
The purpose of analogies to find similar things from which we can draw conclusions. You're just bad at finding analogies. So, here, let me help you.
Except that instead of giving you a rectal exam, he told you how someone could molest your daughter and explained how you could take action to prevent it, explained bombs to you and showed you what could happen if someone exploded your favourite hockey team's home town with NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and demonstrated how someone could steal your glasses and gave you a comprehensive plan on how you could protect your glasses from theft, before billing you for the explanation.
There. Is that better? Does the cream soothe your aching vagina?
Attacking a satellite (or blinding it) is akin to doing the same to a ship on the open seas. ... and if it was a ship moving from X to Y with people on it, then yeah, that'd be bad -- but we're not talking about some ordinary ship carrying happy tourists or a fishing trawler. We're talking about a SPY satellite.
Attacking a SPY satellite that views your country's movements from orbit is akin to kicking a SPY out of the country. It has absolutely no comparison to attacking a random ship on the open seas.
Funny how that one word, SPY, changes things. I don't want the Chinese spying on my country. I certainly would hope that my country would blow Chinese SPY satellites out of our sky. I would expect that they would do the same to us.
Actually, it's not.
0 01.htm
0 06.htm
Here's a link to Crank, Nuts, and Screwballs:
https://www.cia.gov/csi/kent_csi/docs/v09i3a09p_0
"Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages" hasn't been declassified. However, in a different paper, "The Intelligence Revolution and the Future", the CIA has this to say:
"Should project SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) ever receive a signal from outer space, there will be yet another role for intelligence services, not in arming the lasers, but in trying to decode the messages."
You can see this link for that quote: https://www.cia.gov/csi/kent_csi/docs/v37i4a04p_0
It looks like they got the messages, AND THEY FOUND THE KEY TO DECODE THEM!
[cue 50's theremin music]
WooOOoooOOOooo-ooooOooooooOOOoooo..
lipman NURIT 5000 ATM Manual
NURIT 6000 ATM Manual
The NCR Personas manual is out there somewhere, too. They're just manuals -- the vendors give them away on their web sites...
I always thought that was reference to a ground-start payphone, and not a redbox. I mean, IIRC, he found a metal doohickey on the ground, disconnected the microphone off the handset, and used the metal doohickey as a bridge between the handsets microphone connector and the lock on the front of the payphone. That described a ground-start payphone to me.
Ya know, noone's mentioning it, but I cringed a bit when he dialed in, because it wasn't technically realistic with his equipment. It was an acoustic coupler for a handset. On the ones that I had used, you dialed the phone number manually, waited for the carrier, then put the phone in the cradle and started the session. The acoustic couplers were incapable of going on and off hook without human intervention. Once they did develop the hardware to plug your phone cable into the modem, they no longer needed the acoustics.
I rationalized that away by saying to myself "well, he must have made a circuit that we don't see to do the bullshit technical stuff that we really don't need to bother with because it's just a movie..."
I remember thinking that in the theatre, but I figured that it was a device that the director was using to allow the computer to successfully communicate with us, the movie-goers. I figured that, in the fantasy land of the movie, the voice didn't need to be a "real" voice that every character heard, but it could have been a voice that the lead character heard in his head whenever he dealt with this particular computer.
Once I realized that, the movie was much easier to enjoy.
Other volunteers involved with the ZERT initiative include
* Halvar Flake, CEO and head of research at Sabre Security;
* Ilfak Guilfanov, author of the IDA Pro binary analysis tool;
* Paul Vixie, founder of the ISC (Internet Software Consortium);
* Roger Thompson, chief technology officer of Exploit Prevention Labs;
* Florian Weimer, a German computer expert specializing in Linux and DNS (Domain Name System) security..
These guys are top-notch. I can't give enough praise to show my support for what they're doing. When all the government bullshit artists were finger pointing, when all the CERTs of the world were waiting for a vendor fix, when Microsoft was sitting on it's hands doing nothing, these guys were working hard to build useful tools. Hackers and crackers on both sides of the fence have benefitted from the work these guys have done. If you don't know who these guys are, google them, because they're all good people, hard workers, and brilliant minds.
http://www.wegrowbusiness.ca/manuals/Tranax_MB_Ope rator_Manual.pdf
or from google cache
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:SUoMvavsghUJ:w ww.wegrowbusiness.ca/manuals/Tranax_MB_Operator_Ma nual.pdf
Prove it. You just pulled that statement _right out of your behind_.
The rate is unprecedented, because _nobody has measured it before_. We've only been measuring since 1958.
So, um, you AGREE that the rate of change is unprecedented? But you sound like one of those talking head shills for the oil companies. Yet, you AGREE that the rate is unprecedented. I mean, WTF?
On the one hand, you're casting accusations that explicitly state that the phrase "the rate of change is unprecedented" was pulled out of the OP's ass, and also imply that the OP is incorrect. Then you go on to agree with OP that the rate is unprecedented, which goes against the implication that the OP was incorrect. That's your first contradiction.
Then you suggest a reason that the statement is correct, and you attempt to emphasize that reason by underlining it (sort of, as I understand it). That reason was "nobody has measured it before." The _very_next_sentence_ that you write claims "we've only been measuring since 1958", which means to me that you believe that we HAVE measured it before, and we've been doing so since 1958. What the FUCK? How the...? Dude, don't you read what you post?
I stand by my statements, as they're backed up by fact.
You seem to be really good at collecting data, but god-awful at actually interpreting it.
This is what you said: "You just pulled that statement _right out of your behind_." You are now claiming that this statement is a fact. Jesus fucking god, man. It's pretty clear to me that you don't mean that statement literally. I'd call that statement an attempt at an insult, and a piss poor attempt at an insult to boot. You can't even say the word "ass" directly, you've got to mellow it down with the more politically-correct word, "behind".
Here's some opinions for you:
* I think that most people wouldn't call insults "facts."
* I think that most people wouldn't call contradiction after contradiction "fact".
Here's a fact for you:
* You're a shit-fucking fuck-nut.
Ok, it's not a fact. I lied. Now here's an imperative:
* Go fuck yourself.
The knowledge has to be cominning from somewhere. Wether this is from Wikipedia, from abook you stole from the library or from getting notes from somebody who actually did follow the lectures is irrelevant.
Perhaps you could, you know, actually try to find out if the student understands what he has written, irregardless what the source was.
The fact that studets cheat is not new. The fact that professors have methods of finding out if they did the work themselves or not is also a few centuries old. It is just that the methods changed.
Reminds me of when I was cheating (although not on univerrity) I made a cheating-not and wrote it smaller and smaller and that a few times (???). I perfected that cheatingnote so often that by the time I needed it, I didn't anymore. So the joke was on me, instead of making a cheating-note, I was actually learning and probably spend more time on it this way then when I would have 'learned' it the regular way.
Yet if they would have found the note, I would have most likely still failed, regardless of wether I knew what I had to know or not.
Bra-vo! That was awesum! You obvliously put a lot of work into that joke, you know. I mean, that had to be a joke or not, rite?
Wow. Seriously. Fuck you to hell.
Do you have any IDEA how much time it would take to put together a quality course, with nothing but original materials?
The OP accused some professors, like you, of academic dishonesty and laziness. The dishonesty comes from using uncited sources, and the laziness comes from creating assignments in a way that students can easily cheat on them.
What part of that said to throw out textbooks? What part of that said to use "nothing but original materials"? That proposition is nowhere in his argument. What a wonderful straw man you've created. A demand to cite your sources and a request to stop using Scantron != "use nothing but original materials."
Not to mention grading students' work? I mean REALLY grading it - paying attention to the individual foibles of each student and trying to treat them like distinct human beings and not just a row of numbers on a grade sheet?
Johnny, now I've called you after to class to discuss your test results. I see some real problems here, Johnny. Look at your answer to question 27! If you want to answer "E", then you've got to bubble in the whole circle. Look what you did! You only partially bubbled it in! Johnny, this is unacceptable, and it's going to affect your test results, as well as the rest of your life. Think about that for a moment, Johnny!
Did I mention, fuck you?
Their lectures and your assignments therefore belong in very different categories, as far as the standards applied.
Oh, you vile hypocrite fuck.
I usually tell my students, at the beginning of a course, that I will pull in materials from many different sources in order to create the course lectures and assignments and to give them the best educational experience possible. I explain what I expect from them in terms of academic integrity, and if I catch them cheating, they suffer the consequences.
Now, students, of course I'm allowed to cite anything without telling you where it comes from. I'm the professor, after all, and you're the student. I'm not suggesting that you follow my example because you're supposed to look up to me, NO! I'm demanding that YOU cite your sources, or else I shall take my vengeance upon you in the only way that I can and fail you! Ha-ha! Certainly, you shouldn't expect the same from me! I'm better than you, and my demands shall be met!
Yeah, I'm sure you're students love you. Fuck you to hell, bitch.
THAT is what really damages the credibility of professors,
Damage done, professor.
You were not the only one thinking that. I exhaustively concur.