The superintendent's email wasn't sent to remind teaching staff to keep a better eye on testing students. It was sent to inform the rest of them about a situation she (Elizabeth Jewett) found unacceptable.
Hooray for Elizabeth Jewett! It's good to see an administrator, and a superintendent at that, acting in the students' best interest.
P.S. Is there a "sincerity" tag (as a contrast to the /s sarcasm tag)? I feel like I should add it here, since I'm genuinely praising a school administrator.
I have a 20-foot HDMI cable that I string from my laptop to my TV when I'm using it, with a wireless mouse and keyboard as my remote control. An inelegant solution, and it wouldn't work in a larger household, but it does what I need without having to pay for any sort of set-top box or smart TV. (Only downside is I can't work on my computer and watch streaming TV at the same time... although I suppose I could if I just extended the display rather than mirroring.)
I cut the cord 10 years ago and still get a large variety of broadcast channels with my set-top antenna. (I do have the advantage of living in the middle of a large city, and on a hill.) Occasionally I have to move the antenna, depending on which channel I want to watch, but still, I get ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, an oddball mix of channels I'd never noticed back when I had cable, and three PBS stations (and their extra digital offerings). In HD. For free.
The WSJ author seems also to have forgotten, or conveniently overlooked, that PBS makes a lot of its content available online (including, usually, the latest episodes of its most popular primetime shows). The interface can be a bit clunky, yes, but it's free, and you don't have to be a financial supporter of PBS or your local station to watch it. (I am, but that's because I like and want to support their programming, not because it's a requirement.)
I do subscribe to Hulu Plus: Yes, paying for commercials - ugh. But they have an interesting selection of movies, and have introduced me to a lot of international TV that I wouldn't have seen otherwise. (And another thing that WSJ author forgot: I can get my "Daily Show" fix on Hulu without needing cable TV with Comedy Central. Don't even need Hulu Plus for that.)
I also subscribe to Amazon Prime, which has some overlap with Hulu, but I'm a frequent Amazon buyer and so enjoy the two-day shipping. (And I buy things from Amazon that I would have bought elsewhere before. Clever Amazon...)
And, yes, I am aware of the... other... options in case I wanted to watch the latest episodes of whatever's on HBO or Showtime. (I'm in no rush, though. I can wait until they come out someplace else.)
Apparently Comcast and the like have us so well-conditioned to accept the crap they offer (and their ever-increasing prices) that we're terrified of leaving for fear something else might be worse.
It's almost like an abusive spouse who's convinced his target to stay in the abusive relationship, because it's rough out there in the world and at least here you know what to expect and there's a roof over your head.
(P.S. I don't mean in any way to trivialize domestic violence, which is obviously a far more serious problem.)
Can we focus please on the actual wrongdoing for which we have evidence rather than the ravings of InfoWars?
Why not do both, you ask? Because reality-challenged conspiracy theorists waste time and energy that could be spent working against documented abuses, and they give abusers an opportunity to put all those critical of government abuse in the "nutjob conspiracy theorist" camp. In fact, if I were conspiracy-minded, I'd say that InfoWars is a government plot to make conspiracy theorists look bad. ...
Wait. Suddenly it's all becoming clear to me... OMFSM.
I think that Techdirt's slant is anti-abuse (not just about torture, but abuse of all sorts) more than anti-war-on-terror.
A lot of the readers here do actually care about the moral aspect of this. It's important, and it's not getting the attention it should be.
Also, when the government uses the same rationale ("because terrorism") to attempt to justify torture as it does to justify mass surveillance and collection of private information (using technology), I'd say it is relevant to a tech forum.
(And it's not like we're not getting plenty of Techdirt pieces about copyright. AC could always just skip the torture posts.)