Your interpretation makes no sense in a few different ways. First: The Federalist Papers are arguing in support of the core Constitution at a time before the Bill of Rights or 2nd Amendment existed or had even been proposed. Second: Once again, the argument by Hamilton is not that random ownership of guns will protect liberty, but actually the exact opposite. Federalist No. 29 is specifically in support of the the fact that the Federal government needs to be in charge of an elite armed forces, and that this is "the best possible security", that the people as a whole cannot possibly be up to the task. The only question here is whether this well-trained and Federally-organized "select corps" is a full-time army or a part-time militia. Here's your quote in context of the full paragraph:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

I recommend that anyone read the whole paper, it's pretty short and highly illuminating to the true purpose of a Federally-run armed force, specifically in contrast to disorganized and undisciplined random mobs.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

Disagree. Technology is entirely controllable (see: documents that current photocopiers, printers, or Photoshop will not print). And: We will never get off this planet, that's just fantasy stuff. Come back to reality.

"how many of those would find other successful ways vs would never attempt (or be successful at) killing themselves?"

Significantly less. Sample paper on the subject by Yip et. al., Lancet, 2012:

"Many empirical studies have shown that such means restriction is effective. Although some individuals might seek other methods, many do not..."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726520

"Some even go further and claim that guns make you more likely to try to kill yourself (as opposed to merely more likely to succeed, two radically different concepts that they don't quite 'get')"

There is in fact pretty consistent support that even a brief barrier from effective means of suicide will result in someone not ever attempting it. Example paper: Yip, et. al., "Means restriction for suicide prevention", Lancet, 2012.

"Abstract: Limitation of access to lethal methods used for suicide--so-called means restriction--is an important population strategy for suicide prevention. Many empirical studies have shown that such means restriction is effective. Although some individuals might seek other methods, many do not; when they do, the means chosen are less lethal and are associated with fewer deaths than when more dangerous ones are available."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726520

"I'm just waiting for drones that will simultaneously cut my lawn and deter burglars."

"The only appropriate response is 'Hmmm interesting, let's look into this'."

Sometimes the appropriate response is, "I don't have time for this nonsense". There's always a cost/benefit assessment with one's time about how likely a claimed effect is to be real -- or how important.

Sure, in theory you're right. Schools aren't run by teachers anymore, the power has taken away by PHB administrator management who want to run it like a business. (Just like hospitals aren't run by doctors, etc.) I have a hard time seeing the trend reversing course, however; that's the trajectory of our political economy.

The guy's a temporary adjunct (as most college instructors are nowadays). He probably gets paid about $3000 for all the work all semester for this course. He may not even know 6 other people at the college, never mind have any way of getting them to work for him as proctors. Is all the extra work and re-design worth the $1K left in the semester? Just walking away seems at least arguably better for one's mental health.

I ran into this line in a Wikipedia article last weekend and just stared at it in amazement for a few minutes:

"Others may want a high school diploma to represent primarily a certificate of attendance, so that a student who faithfully attended school but cannot read or write will still get the social benefits of graduation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-stakes_testing

"Also, at least one of his cheating allegations was investigated and overturned by their university's administration. This sounds mostly like sour grapes."

Nitpick: The Inside Higher Ed article linked above says, "The spokesman said that one cheating allegation referenced by Horwitz has already been investigated and that a **student committee** cleared the student of cheating." So apparently any enforcement is determined by students themselves?

"A competent prof would have taken the most egregious examples and kicked them out of his class"

Generally speaking, that is simply not within a professor's power to enact. At least where I teach, instructors officially have the right to remove a disruptive student from one single class session, but not ever from the course wholesale. Even that one-session right, when I've tried to enact that (a number of years ago), was not actually enforced or recognized by security or supported by administration staff.

Likewise, there's officially a disciplinary panel process, but the school has signaled in the past that they don't want us invoking that.

Thanks for posting that.

At least where I work, the administration in the past has sent a clear signal that -- while we officially do have such a disciplinary board -- they really don't want anyone invoking those procedures. Partly this is because now students are entitled to legal representation in those proceedings, and the whole process gets overwhelmingly complicated and expensive. The current recommended policy is "get the student to privately agree to a failing mark on that test", because that doesn't trigger the legal representation.

What this most reminds me of -- A drummer friend of mine was told, as a teenager by an older adult drummer in the 80's, not to take up the instrument because in the future all drumming would be done by electronic drum machines.

"After investing $1 billion in behavior detection techniques and training since 2007, the Transportation Security Administration has little to show for its efforts, the New York Times stated in a new report. According to the newspaper, critics of the TSA’s attempt to read body language claim there’s no evidence to suggest the agency has been able to link chosen passengers to anything beyond carrying drugs or holding undeclared currency, much less a terrorist attack. In fact, a review of numerous studies seems to suggest that even those trained to look for various tics are no more capable of identifying liars than normal individuals. 'The common-sense notion that liars betray themselves through body language appears to be little more than a cultural fiction,' Maria Hartwig, a psychologist at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, told the Times."

http://rt.com/usa/tsa-spent-billion-body-language-937/