You have clearly never been a classroom teacher.  It frustrates me that everyone thinks they know better than educators what matters in education.  The vast majority of educators' main interest is what is most effective for their students.  Period.  You know what?  Teachers care about their students and they know how to teach.  They know what works, and are effective in spite of the nonsense we keep throwing at them.

There are crappy teachers.  A big part of the problem is that we have created what is in many ways a hostile work environment for teachers.  We make thier jobs nearly impossible, and then blame them for it.  Who would want to do that?

First, how much of that is class time you calculated is core subject classroom instructional time?  Students have PE, music, art, lunch, passing time, and in some grades, recess.  I can tell you for certain that 45 minutes a week is NOT an insignificant loss of instructional time.  And that doesn't count the additional time and attention surrounding a test.

Second, teachers oppose --- and always have opposed ---- evaluation solely on standardized testing because it is terrible for students.  It favors teachers who excel at teaching to the test.  We vilify teachers for doing that, but then reward them for doing that.  This is just one in a long list of contradictory mandates teachers have to navigate every day.

Auto updates / patches as they come along.  Preference for LTS builds like Linux Mint for stability.  New full version of commercial OS when I get a new computer.  (I'm on Windows 7 right now and won't upgrade until I replace my laptop in a couple years.  Windows is necessary for my job.)

I think the last time I intentionally bought and installed a new version of a commercial OS on a computer I already owned was when I jumped from OS9 to OSX on a clamshell iBook.

I guess the other time was a year or so ago when WinXP went EOL, and I switched that old desktop to Linux Mint.  I suppose that technically counts as an upgrade, but I didn't purchase a new OS, and I didn't upgrade to a newer version of Windows.

This is an old sentiment, but I am SO sick of software companies having the arrogance to think that because I've installed their software I want them to mess with my environment.  They try to change my default browser, add tool bars or other software, change my settings, and now, I guess, share my wi-fi.  HOW ABOUT YOU JUST DO THE THING I AM INSTALLING YOU TO DO?!  Not more, not less.

Any changes to my environment beyond "your software is now on my computer" should require clear and explicit OPT-IN from me.  It should not be hidden in a EULA, nor sneaked through as an opt-out in a dialog box.  All that garbage does is tell me I should not trust you as a software company, and I should immediately research alternatives.

It's OK to ask if I want to do it, if you explain in plain English what exactly you want permission to do, how it may benefit me, and what the potential risks are.  I can see how some of these things may be beneficial, but it should be my (informed) decision.

That's also a really deep rabbit hole. Did you do your work in an apartment that is owned by someone else? Do you generate your own electricity using your own equipment and transmission lines? Did you do any part of the work using the W-Fi provided by (but owned by) a store or restaurant? Did you borrow a pencil from somebody?

That reductio ad absurdum why the creator owns the copyright by default. Any variation from that requires a written agreement that anything you create using the provided resources belongs to someone else. Many or most of us signed that sort of agreement at our jobs --- anything I create using company resources belongs to the company. There are surely some nuances there (IANAL).

That's why people are asking if there is a school policy or other written agreement. That's the only thing that would transfer copyright to the school. The fact that he used school-owned equipment is immaterial.

So, you're saying my strategy of loaning a pencil to every aspiring author at Starbucks so I can stake a claim if one of them writes the next Harry Potter is not a valid retirement strategy?

I shoot as a fan at professional sports events all the time. Some places put limits on the gear you can use (e.g., big lenses), and many prohibit video recording, so check the venue policies before you go, but most are happy to let you shoot as long as you're not bothering anyone else. I've posted handfuls of those pictures online, and never once have any of those teams said anything. Now, if I tried to make a business out of it by selling the pictures, I would expect to hear from them. The smart ones understand the buzz generated by pics on social media is good for them. And most have learned that smartphones made the "no cameras" policy all but unenforceable.

It is their right, though, to have such policies. Just like a business can prohibit firearms on their premises, even in an open carry state. Or like how it's legal for me to drink a Coke, but they can prevent me from bringing one into the stadium with me.

As far as the IRS, etc., this principle is clearly grasping at straws. He would need to demonstrate a clear policy violation or some other illegal activity (e.g., privacy violations, trespassing, harassment). An actual contract wouldn't be necessary because it's within the principal's power to enact penalties for violations of school policy. If the policy or some agreement the student signed grants copyright and/or publication rights (not the same thing) to the school, then he may be in the right. Otherwise, he's just making things up.

Crust is fairly negligible --- it's the thinnest and least dense layer. The difference between Everest and Challenger Deep is about 20km. That's a huge difference, to be sure, but that's only half of a percent of the radius of the Earth. The crust only accounts for maybe 1-2% of the total mass of the Earth (counting both upper and lower crust). That's enough to measure differences in gravity, but not enough to shift the center of mass an appreciable amount. The majority of the mass and volume of the earth is in the mantle.

I think science has earned its lack of credibility with the public. If you kick me in the balls for 20-years, how do you expect me to close my eyes and trust you?

Why are you closing your eyes? That is your problem, both literally in your example and metaphorically. All you know is that you close your eyes, you get kicked in the balls, and there is a scientist in the room. I might recommend a trial with your eyes open. You may find it's someone else who has been kicking you.

Science demands that you examine your surroundings with your eyes wide open. Don't just swallow what a scientist tells you, not because you distrust scientists, but because science demands evidence. And definitely don't swallow what the media tells you about what a scientist tells you. That's a game of Telephone that nobody wins. If a scientist gets something wrong, call them on it ,or freely ignore them. If the media gets something wrong, demand they get it right, or freely ignore them. If you don't feel qualified to evaluate a claim, reserve judgement until you hear the same thing from many scientists. In science, consensus is not conspiracy.

Scientists get things wrong. Sometimes on purpose (fraud). But just as often we get mad that scientists got things wrong based on claims they never made. The claims were made for them, or in spite of them in many cases. We say, "Don't shoot the messenger," but sometimes the messenger is at fault.

Science journalism, science education, and the media and public's affinity for overreaction (SCIENCE: We have found evidence that high sodium intake may contribute to a slightly elevated risk of hypertension in some patients; MEDIA: The Deadly Truth About Salt ... tonight at eleven; PUBLIC: OMG! Scientists say we should cut all salt from our diets! I heard it's a *chemical*!) are strong contributors to the problem.

However, an additional complication faced by health researchers is ethics. It's not that ethics are bad, but rather that they make it difficult to perform randomized controlled trials. If physicists want to learn about subatomic particles, they only need to build a machine big enough to smash atoms together really hard and see what happens. I'm told that's a bad idea with human subjects. If health researchers want to know if Factor A will kill a person, they can't just randomly assign half their subjects to Factor A and see if it kills them.

Instead, researchers have to develop ways to find reliable data from instances where Factor A just happens. They can get good results that way, but it's harder to control for outside factors such as environment, personal habits and genetics. It also means the iterations are slower. They cannot find interesting data, ask a new question and just re-run the experiment with updated parameters.

I'm not saying it's impossible or that the results are unreliable. I'm just pointing out that it results in an experimental environment where you have less control over the variables, more limits on what you are allowed to do, and a public environment that likes to take every incremental finding as The Law of Heath.

Why do all of my things need to do all of the things?

I still wear a watch because it's generally quicker and more convenient to glance at my wrist than to dig my phone out of my pocket. In addition, I'm not required to turn my watch off when I get on a plane (though that's less of a reason now), the battery lasts on the order of years, not days (or hours), and I don't always have my phone on my person.