http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/02/21/red-hat-statement-on-microsoft-announcement/

I don't know if there's anything wrong with what he's doing, legally speaking. Even less clear to me is whether it would be wrong for one student to buy them and then share them with the others (fair use).

One thing is for sure. He's a jerk. Let him do it and let the market forces play. Assuming those courses are taught by at least one other professor, word will get out and students will flock to the other(s). Unless there's something else that offsets the jerk factor.

Although I can't say he's doing anything wrong, per se, his attitude shows that he really doesn't get his profession, and that's a sad thing. Many students don't learn by going to class, they learn by absorbing and using the information taught. If you don't provide enough material for students to learn the basics on their own even if they miss class or fall asleep in class, (at least in the form of a decent recommended textbook) then you are failing your mission. If you believe for one minute that students learn more by frantically scribbling down useless notes that will be inconsistent, incomplete, illegible, and cause the student to miss out on the opportunity to digest and understand what the teacher is saying in class, then you are sorely deluded. I have learned far more in math/physics classes where I didn't have to take notes (because the teacher's provided notes or the book were sufficient). As a sophomore I noticed this effect and vowed not to become a slave to notes. I keep a notepad handy for the occasional gem or logistics, but I read the material (novel idea, I know) and go to class prepared, and then PAY ATTENTION. It's amazing how much more you learn when you're paying attention than when you're frantically scribbling whatever words are floating through the air.

PhD Student, 3.7 GPA

didn't you know? Bush stole all our air

Actually, not true. Airlines are a "different" regionality. Just like you regionality in your DVD player. The studios create edited versions just for airlines, but won't sell them outside that market. Even if there is demand (which has been expressed in the same areas that like to use these services) they dont' want to for reasons that are a different issue altogether. The important part here is the lengths they go to to not allow people who would want to watch even *the movie companies* edited versions to see them.

They distinctly are forcing a specific type of content to different parts of the world. You'll note that in region 0 (including USA) always includes the most graphic violence/sex/etc that these customers are trying to avoid. They are technologically blocked from avoiding it, and even accessing already published content. When a company tries offering exactly that service, they are sued out of existence.

All of the languages listed above have no compile step in one form or another with their MVC frameworks. Most of them have very helpful mailing lists and friendly communities. Many of them have very small configurations - see the 30-line Wiki example above using Catalyst. I still don't get the hype, other than it's just bringing out people that have discovered the MVC model, which has been around for way longer than Rails.

If you read the article you'll see that the proposed law only requires ISPs to provide a way for customers to opt-in to a filtering scheme. It does not require them to filter every packet. I don't think the bill is worth the time, but let's at least evaluate it for its real faults and merits, not some sensationalized bunch of baloney.

In the end, I doubt this law would do much. ISPs are being asked by their customers to provide content filtering. $$$ is a much more effective motivator than laws. And those who don't want to spend the money to implement it, don't have to but also will lose customers to those who do. Sounds fair to me.