Interesting. When I was in college, I got good mileage out of (in order of preference):

1: Not buying the book listed on the syllabus at all. LOTS of courses didn't assign any homework from the book, and covered all the information that would be on tests in lectures. So I never bought a book before it became clear that I would actually have to use it.

2: Buying used books, if at all possible directly from a student who took the course the previous semester. I never ran into the "new edition" problem mentioned in the video, and my major was Computer Science, which I'd think would tend to change more in a short period of time than most disciplines.

3: Sharing a single book (and the purchase price) between 3-10 other students. Even in the few courses that did have homework (Engineering Physics and Calc 2 had a lot for me), it was quite helpful to share a book with several other students and work through the problems together whenever homework was assigned.


So this never really seemed like a big problem for me, although I guess that doesn't help much for High School textbooks, where we generally only have to pay for them in the form of taxes.

Your video, If High School and College Textbooks Were Honest, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 143 Badge!

It's textbook in that the pilot wasn't in error in any way. He landed, the hook grabbed an arrestor cable, he set the throttles correctly, but then there was a mechanical breakage. The fact he got back into the air again and didn't have to ditch proves the "textbookedness" of the situation.

To be fair, this landing probably will be in textbooks

I thought they had about 4 cables to hit, and they try to hit the 2nd or 3rd?

So yeah, I just read the article linked above. I don't get it. They call it a "textbook landing", but then say the pilot hit the 4th and final cable.

Army of Darkness is the reason I keep chemistry textbooks in the trunk of my car.

Hmm. It’s an interesting story – it doesn’t seem that it’s 100% the typical patent troll mold, though it’s obviously still a shitty tale of bullshit patent litigation tactics. It looks like Pappas had his original idea and filed for a patent in 2000, basically trying to create a way to monetize the ad hoc markets that pop up whenever people are in line or reserving places for entertainment (probably based on his own restaurant experience). He filed a single, very broad, multiregion patent on this, and launched a company and online platform around it in 2008 (OptionIt) to provide an online service for trading ticket reservations / places in line. Braxton had a similar but more clearly defined idea in 2011, and filed his own patent.

Like I said – I don’t like this idea, I wish it hadn’t been granted patent protection, and I’m happy if it never reaches the market. However, for all that, I think Pappas original idea was a bit more inventive. Back in 2000 we didn’t have an app economy, and we hadn’t gotten used to these kinds of ad hoc, internet-facilitated temporary market places. When Braxton came up with it, it was pretty dull.

Either way, once Pappas started his business, I guess he instructed his law firm to handle litigation as aggressively as possible, which is fairly standard practice, and which is the unfortunate behavior described in the video. After losing the original suit and then losing the Rule 11 motion, they argued like aggressive assholes in mediation, and got Braxton to back down. I think their threat was fairly hollow – he says that they threatened him with their ‘patent portfolio,’ but this is the only patent family I can find for OptionIt / Smart Option.

I’m not sure I would call this a textbook case of patent trolling – usually patent trolls file or acquire patents for the sole purpose of extorting legitimate businesses, but here it looks like Pappas was actually trying to make a go of this (shitty) app idea, but used intimidation to try to protect that idea. It’s one shitty business trying to intimidate another upstart shitty business, and the courts ruling against the first party. On the whole we all lose – OptionIt wins the mediation through shitty intimidation, and Braxton’s shitty patent gets added to Spangenberg’s portfolio of shitty troll assets to keep the cycle going.

On what @SDGundamX said, before I read his post I was going to say that passion industries are generally known for notoriously long hours, bad pay and horrible treatment. I was actually going to mention game developers (especially what I've read about crunch time before release), also chefs who often get paid less than the waiter staff, and of course most creative jobs where job insecurity and poor pay abounds.

It's simple economics. These industries know that these people are willing to put up with more to do what they love. There may not even be a conscious decision on an individual level for a given employer looking to hire, you simply know that you can find employees for X profession at X level of pay and can't really offer more if you want to stay competitive with your competitor. Meanwhile there are people streaming in who don't consider the pay or conditions beforehand and are just adding to a surplus of workers.

That's not to say that people can't be successfully, job secure or wealthy in these sectors but we know most notably from the arts that most of the money accrues to the top actors, top musicians. I do agree that when you see these people giving motivational speeches about 'never giving up' or 'always chasing their dreams', there are dozens who put in just as much effort but never got their lucky break.

The arts may be one of the worst examples, but I think this is true to a lesser extent for all 'passion' industries. It's textbook selection bias and our tendency to lionize success. On a related point, it's like how we idolize successful entrepreneurs and think their autobiographies contain the holy grail to success when perhaps the hypothetical book by a failed entrepreneur detailing their failings might actually be more beneficial to our lives.

My main problem is they're allowing the dog to think itself even equivalent to the child, let alone dominant.

I bet Hoss wouldn't even think of doing this to the guy with the camera. Yet cameraman thinks it's cute Hoss feels dominant over his child. One child bite coming up... This is heading toward a textbook "...but Hoss was always so good natured!!!" after the ambulance comes.

@bobknight33
you know bob,i owe you an apology.
i shouldnt have told you "fuck you" when my problem was with the video,and i wrongly conflated you with this video.

that being said,i still stand by my feelings of "fuck this video".

i struggle with people who have this binary view of politics.
just because i criticized the lies and deception of the republican party does not automatically translate me to promoting or defending democratic practices,because BOTH parties manipulate the body politic while at the very same fuck them over.

the two party duopoly are just different faces of the same coin.both have been purchased to serve the interests of:wall street,big business,bankers and the military.

i have never subscribed to either party.i judge on individual merit and a case by case basis.so when you call me a liberal i dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

do i hold some liberal views? yes.
do i hold some conservative? yep.

but so dont you bob,we ALL do.
of course that is not the dynamic that is shoved down our throat every goddamn day.that somehow our politics can be reduced down to this over-simplified,and overly basic dichotomy.

but nobody has such a simpleton,and almost childish politics.as humans we are pretty complex is our understandings,feelings and desires.it is those complexities that influences our politics and how we feel things should be as a society.

i am a libertarian socialist (anrcho-syndacalist).
which is why you may see me post videos that address the corruption in politics,in our economy,in our foreign policy.the hypocrisy of politicians espousing that "feel your pain" language,while they funnel public funds to their criminal friends on wall street...and point to the food stamp recipient,or immigrant and state..with zero sense of irony..THERE,that is your problem.

my politics is the reason why i may post video criticizing and ridiculing ultra-right wing politicians attempting to legislate "proper" and "moral" behavior,because they pretend they have some relationship with god,and god spoke to them.

but also why i will post videos criticizing and ridiculing the extreme left.who seek to legislate "harmful" or "offensive" speech,because they seek to control language.as if THEY are the true moral arbiters of human interaction.

so i do not necessarily disagree with you when you point to the democrats hypocrisy in regards to poor folk.that they use the language of empathy and compassion,and then enact legislation that is entirely bereft of compassion and empathy,but BOTH parties do this!

bill clinton was incredibly detrimental to the poor and working poor and made the job of digging out of poverty damn near impossible.

you may identify with republican ideology,and that is not a bad thing.republican base ideology may be a tad more pro-business,but it also recognizes that the governments job is to protect the people from fraud and over-reach from those businesses.original republican ideology was for limited government,and fiscal responsibility.which USED to translate to anti-war and dismissing the military when it was no longer needed.

i could go on.

i could also point out that democrats USED to be more hawkish and far more involved in addressing the concerns of the working man.

but look at the political landscape of today.
both of these parties are nothing even close to representing their original ideals.they are solely and totally beholden to big monied interests.

our republic has become a plutocracy,run by the plutocrats and oligarchs.

so when you delineate the argument by republican/democrat i simply do not see this play out in reality.

we might as well be arguing who is the better fottball team,because thats what american politics has become.bread and circuses and cheerleading for our "team".

it is the height of absurdity.american politics has become absurd.

as for you not seeing this for being racist.
i dont know what i can say to remove your blinders.
this video is textbook racist.
we have "black face"
we have over-generalizations.
we have ridicule and assumption based solely on skin color.

calling this video racist is a non-controversial assertion.

and you cant promote it out of discard.
the sift has spoken.you can disagree,but that wont change the fact that this video is in the discard bin.

anyways,sorry for telling you to fuck off.
i just found this video offensive,but i dont find YOU offensive.confusing at times,but not offensive.

Right, and I agree that is how she comes across. I just think the Profs answer was textbook. If she was really just making a statement disguised as a question then you lose nothing by attacking the arguments as if they were asked in all sincerity. Well, apart from time, but I'm assuming this lecture was not for science students. If it was, then my god woman, go away and read the book, this is a lecture for people who have read at least some of the literature etc.

ps. I've not been to NZ no, but I'd love to visit one day just to see Minas Tirith and to ride a Giant Eagle (I've heard they can be pretty picky about where they will and won't take you though...).

Does it really matter? Trump has already accomplished the goal conservatives needed him to. The best way to keep the country divided, with more faith in corporations and churches than in the government, is to devalue the democratic process, and make it look ridiculous.

The reasonable part of the country is disgusted that a Trump, or a Palin, or a Carson, or a Cain, was ever treated as a serious contender for leading the country, and will lose a little of their faith in democracy. The true believers on the other hand, who buy into these idiots, will also be disgusted and confused when their candidates inevitably fail, and lose a little of their faith in democracy.

No matter who wins the actual election, the fact that the next president will have been up on the national stage debating with a reality show host who called them dumb, already tarnishes them and their office. Even if the Republicans lose, they'll have strengthened the American belief that politics are dumb and petty and need to be reined in, which is the Republican agenda. A Republican president would just be icing on that cake.

Francis Fukuyama does an interesting overview in his Political Order and Political Decay on how trust in governmental institutions is one pillar of any functioning democracy. Putting Trump and the other clowns on stage seems like a textbook action to undermine that trust.

A man after my own heart.

That's the textbook definition of me: frequently makes puns that only entertains self.

@Lawdeedaw

There's so much factually wrong here, I don't know where to begin. Let's start with this:

"That rape and mutilation has been going on for centuries but was significant in the Second Sino-Japanese War, a distinct war in and of itself."

Japan was in a state of almost complete isolation from the rest of the world between the years of 1633 and 1853. Even after the period of isolation ended, Japan was too busy for decades industrializing to be rampaging through China, as you suggest.

Japan DID eventually get involved in Chinese politics and in fact went to war with them in the First Sino-Japanese War... in 1894. There are no reports of atrocities committed by the Japanese military during this conflict. In fact, quite the opposite, Japan would release Chinese prisoners of war once they promised not to take up arms against Japan again.

The subjugation of Taiwan (which was ceded to Japan at the end of the first Sino-Japanese War but resisted Japanese rule) is a different story. However, accounts of what exactly happened are sketchy and most of the information we have is anecdotal. What can be gleaned from these anecdotes is that the Formasians put up a fierce guerrilla resistance campaign and that the Japanese tortured and killed anyone suspected of aiding the resistance. Still, it doesn't appear to have been on the same scale as the massacres which occurred during the Rape of Nanking.

As you mentioned, some of the most awful abuses were done during the Second Sino-Japanese War between 1937 and 1945 (the Rape of nanking occurred during this war). The abuse ended Japan's defeat in WWII.

What you can see here by doing the math, is that Japan's military abuses in China lasted a grand total of 50 years--from the subjugation of Formosa (Taiwan) to the end of World War 2--not "centuries."

Next, let's talk about misrepresentation. You seem to be implying that Japanese textbooks don't say that Japan is the aggressor in WW2 (or previous conflicts). As I pointed out in my last post, that is flat-out wrong. There is ONE textbook that was approved for use that whitewashes the history but that book has been ignored an not used by the vast majority of schools in Japan.

If you want to criticize Japanese textbooks, you could criticize them on the grounds that though they mention the terrible things that Japanese forces did, they don't go into a whole lot of detail. See this article for more information.

As far as Abe goes, what exactly has he said that is so terrible? Yes, he hangs out with revisionists. Yes, he has expressed his opinion that Japan should stop apologizing for WWII and start looking to the future instead of the past. Yes, he has said that the issue of "comfort women" should be re-examined in light of claims that some of evidence of their existence was fabricated. But these are not really radical statements by any means. And many people and newspapers do strongly and openly disagree with his statements, so this idea that Japanese people don't challenge him is completely wrong as well.

Yasukuni is a total clusterfuck of a situation. It is a shrine to ALL of Japan's war dead. This includes war criminals, but it also includes regular soldiers just doing their duty. In terms of Shinto beliefs, all of their souls now reside there. Basically, if you want to pay your respects to someone who died in military service in Japan, you have to go there to "see them."

Abe is a total dumbass (and the press let him know it) for going there because he knows already how China and Korea will perceive it, but on the other hand his going there does not mean in any way that he reveres the war criminals who are interred there. I have no idea what his personal views are but publically he has stated that he and his wife go there to remind themselves about the terrible toll war had on Japan the last time Japan engaged in it.

Finally, as for the link you provided, it was to a year-old opinion piece that lacks context. Abe made that statement at a time when it was revealed that some of the evidence of the existence of comfort women in Japan had been faked. It was later decided that the apology would not be changed. In fact, The Japan Times is reporting that it is likely that Abe will mention that "comfort women" had their human rights violated by Japan in his upcoming address on the end of WWII, so the comparison of him to Ahmadinejad is a bit far-fetched.

Actually, Japanese kids learn about Unit 731, the rape of Nanking, and the issue of "comfort women" (though they are still not called by their proper term "sex slaves"). See here for more info.

What is controversial is that the right-wingers managed to get a textbook approved by the Ministry of Education that whitewashes Japan's military past--a textbook, by the way, that was shunned by almost every Board of Education in Japan (it was used by only 0.039% of the schools in Japan).

The notion that Japanese people are unaware of the crimes committed by the Japanese military during WWII is utterly false. As I mentioned, there are revisionist right-wingers out there who are actively working to change that but so far they have been unsuccessful.