So it seems that Florida diners are ordering grouper and getting counterfeits: On Fla. Menus, a Favorite Fish Experiences Identity Theft. I suspect that when the stuff is slathered in sauces, or charred to within an inch of charcoal, diners can't tell the difference anyway.
It all puts me in mind of the story of the lady who went to Zabars in New York and said, “I'd like half a pound of caviar. And make sure it's imported because I can't tell the difference.”
Orin Kerr has done 1Ls around the country a great service by writing a very clear guide to distinguishing between Bad Answers, Good Answers, and Terrific Answers to 1L exams.
While the principles also have considerable applicability to more advanced courses, I think that we professors legitimately expect all this and more from 2Ls and 3Ls, including more complex issue-spotting, coping with more complex and contradictory rules, and taking account of various sorts of policy considerations (when relevant), to name just three. Actually, might we hope for some of those in the terrific 1L answers too? I should admit here that it's been far too long since I actually taught first years, and for some to-me-incomprehensible reason the day students (but, it must be said, not the students in our since-dismantled night program) said I was too scary….
Update: on the subject of exams, Paul Ohm has a thoughtful post about achieving fair grading in a common grading situation. (Personally, I grade each question separately and average them, but that's not without issues.)
These two videos belong together: Web 2.0… The Machine is Us/ing Us
I did have some trouble deciding which one should come first.
Prof. Ann Bartow seeks advice for some students who have what I hope is an unusual problem.
I once asked one of my students if lots of people used their laptops to goof off. No, he said, you talk so fast there's no time for that.
Further to my post yesterday, here's what the influential and mainstream Nelson Report (via Steve Clemons) has to say about sending three carrier groups to the Gulf:
On the other hand, increasing to three carrier strike groups would be noticeably more 'robust', belligerent and suggestive of intending or anticipating attack. The difference between two and three strike groups is huge. Two ='s strong and capable, but existing offensive intent is less probable; three ='s 'we don't care about provocation, we're preparing to fight in this new dimension'.
(An indicator would be to watch for announcements about Nimitz strike group; Nimitz reportedly has completed the routine pre-deployment work-up and is in San Diego.)
The US has eleven carriers (with #12 on the way). Sending three out of eleven to the Gulf is more than saber-rattling.
Worse, the Gulf is too small for three carrier groups to function effectively, and has one entrance/exit that is about 20 miles wide and runs along the Iranian coast. This creates a sitting duck effect — a 'target rich' environment for potential attackers. In other words, it's inviting Iran to take the bait, something that becomes increasingly likely the more that the Iranians come to believe that they are about to be attacked. (Which is undoubtedly the point of the US government media strategy.)
(And yes, the sailors on the Nimitz have been told that they are deploying “to the Middle East in April”.)
Gulf of Tonkin meet Persian Gulf.
Viacom got Youtube to take down 100,000 videos. Many of which were not in fact infringing of anyone's rights. EFF would like to hear from the victims:
Jotwell Blenderlaw