You are right - it was about internet shaming only, so my second paragraph can be ignored. My first paragraph stands - why repeat the names or show the faces, when doing that is what ruined their lives in the first place? In a more technical note, #10 says "This was one of the first cases of Internet shaming", in 2005, while #1 says "The affair first came to light on the Internet gossip column, the Drudge Report, on January 19, 1998." Given the internet, I find it hard to believe there were few cases of public shaming for 7 years. Certainly "the Star Wars Kid", who was ridiculed and taunted for his recorded moment of fun in 2002, and spent years working through the shame, is a well-known earlier example of "how some embarrassing behaviour was recorded and subsequently went viral thanks to the Internet".
This makes me feel uncomfortable because on the one hand it points out that people's lives were ruined by making this information public, yet on the other hand it seems to enjoy outing the people yet again. Why did an article that ends with "Public shaming as a blood sport has to stop" have to mention the names and show the faces of the people involved? It could as easily have left the names out and blurred the faces to get the point across ... though I must admit that I'm not sure what the point is.
We can compare the size of the Millennium Falcon with an X-wing or TIE fighter, both in the movies and this picture series. Vader is taller than Solo. Vader's TIE Advanced x1 is about the same size as as a regular TIE fighter, which from the London composition is large enough for one Earth human. This means Solo is no more than a couple of meters tall, so the Falcon is far smaller than the size portrayed in the Hudson.
I'm going to be *that* person - the Millennium Falcon is under 40 meters long. We've seen it in a hanger, with people next to it. It's nowhere near as large as shown in that picture.
The WaPo article does say it's subjective, and leaves out Kosovo and other minor wars for, I assume, being too minor. The US has been at war at least at a low-level war for most of its lifetime, since that also includes the Indian wars, the Banana Wars, and our imperial attempt in the Philippines. I think that "war" got a new meaning during the 1900s. Many Americans were enthusiastic about foreign war when it was part of our manifest destiny, and when we so often fought people who weren't as well equipped we were. I think when the Rough Riders assembled for the Spanish-American War, they were eager for battle, and our easy success in Cuba made it a popular war at home.
The earlier format, where the players could buzz in early, is quite a downer for me, the viewer. I haven't even fully understood the question yet. I wonder if they are more predicting that they might know the answer by the time the question finishes, than actually knowing the answer.
Interesting observation - if you ask people to rate the service on a scale of 1 to 5, there are some who think the service was fine, and give a 5. There are others who think it was good and give a 4, to leave space for a 5 if it were better next time. Engineers fall into the latter category (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=C4rrhbs-eA0#t=5060 ). If that same pattern holds for this plan, it's more likely that technical professors will be ostracized.
In any case, it's stupid idea. It's a zero-tolerance approach that rejects the idea of rehabilitation, and places the responsibility only on the professor. If a teacher is so bad, then the administration is doing a poor job by letting the teacher still teach. Why can't students fire the dean, or the college president, for doing a poor job? There's no reason to have a horrible professor teach a course, even if tenured. College professors also get very little training in how to teach; why aren't these evaluations used to give more professional teacher training?
It would suck to be a teacher at a small college. There's about a 3x higher chance of being fired from the University of Northern Iowa as from Iowa State. And of course this gives more incentive to hire adjunct professors to teach, and leave research and other non-teaching positions for the regular staff.
And finally, if the ostracism were based in illegal discrimination - perhaps students who think a female teacher who is "too bossy" or dislike a Muslim teacher for being "too foreign" - then the school will be liable for the anti-discrimination lawsuit.
I looked at the list of bills at http://congressionalbills.org/download.html . It starts with the 80th Congress in 1947. The first to mention Iceland was in the 85th Congress (1957-1959), titled "For the relief of the Government of the Republic of Iceland", and "arising out of accidents involving United States Armed Forces during their presence in Iceland from July 7, 1941, to April 5, 1947.". Nor did I find mention of it at govtrack.us.
I did a Google newspaper search, and couldn't find any mention of that proposal.
"The intention of the Icelandic people to preserve their newlywon independence needs to be emphasized, since it is overlooked in many plans for her future which others propose. Iceland, "kingpin of the Atlantic," is certainly not for sale. If there ever was a possibility that the United States could buy Iceland from Denmark, as Seward hoped, it obviously no longer exists. The suggestion has been made that Iceland would serve her interests best after the war by applying for statehood in the American Union. This idea is even more fantastic.... But none of these possibilities seems likely in the light of Iceland's actions and of the psychology of her people."
Therefore, Iceland statehood was at least an idea floating around in post-war international politics. Then again, another idea floating around was for it to join "a commonwealth of Scandinavian nations", so it seems ideas were all over the place.
It also leaves out the live ruined by so-called "name and shame" laws and attempts, like http://www.theguardian.com/society/2000/aug/04/childprotection from 2000 where "News of the World" stopped its name-and-shame campaign "after a string of vigilante attacks on men either named or mistakenly identified as those named by the campaign.", or Florida's short-lived law "requiring women who put up their infants for adoption to first publish their sexual histories in a newspaper if they didn't know the identity of the father". Or those who were publicly shamed for reporting cases of child abuse ( http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/whistleblower-priest-says-he-was-given-no-support-after-he-spoke-out-about-child-abuse/story-e6frf7kx-1226597392725 ) or "reporting misconduct to [police] Internal Affairs Bureau" ( http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-lieutenant-branded-whistleblower-rat-colleagues-article-1.1535719 ). These somehow all seem like they should be higher on the list than a woman whose didn't clean up after her dog pooped in a subway.
In any case, it's stupid idea. It's a zero-tolerance approach that rejects the idea of rehabilitation, and places the responsibility only on the professor. If a teacher is so bad, then the administration is doing a poor job by letting the teacher still teach. Why can't students fire the dean, or the college president, for doing a poor job? There's no reason to have a horrible professor teach a course, even if tenured. College professors also get very little training in how to teach; why aren't these evaluations used to give more professional teacher training?
It would suck to be a teacher at a small college. There's about a 3x higher chance of being fired from the University of Northern Iowa as from Iowa State. And of course this gives more incentive to hire adjunct professors to teach, and leave research and other non-teaching positions for the regular staff.
And finally, if the ostracism were based in illegal discrimination - perhaps students who think a female teacher who is "too bossy" or dislike a Muslim teacher for being "too foreign" - then the school will be liable for the anti-discrimination lawsuit.
I did a Google newspaper search, and couldn't find any mention of that proposal.
But I did find http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/70377/hans-w-weigert/iceland-greenland-and-the-united-states ! It's from October 1944. It mentions that Seward, of Seward's Folly/Alaska wanted to acquire Greenland and Iceland. It also says:
"The intention of the Icelandic people to preserve their newlywon independence needs to be emphasized, since it is overlooked in many plans for her future which others propose. Iceland, "kingpin of the Atlantic," is certainly not for sale. If there ever was a possibility that the United States could buy Iceland from Denmark, as Seward hoped, it obviously no longer exists. The suggestion has been made that Iceland would serve her interests best after the war by applying for statehood in the American Union. This idea is even more fantastic.... But none of these possibilities seems likely in the light of Iceland's actions and of the psychology of her people."
Therefore, Iceland statehood was at least an idea floating around in post-war international politics. Then again, another idea floating around was for it to join "a commonwealth of Scandinavian nations", so it seems ideas were all over the place.