First, let’s go into some background on the Comcast case.  A year or so ago, Comcast decided that its network was being congested by too much P2P traffic; namely, traffic from the BitTorrent P2P protocol.  So, they decided that they would clear their network of this congestion by carefully denying BitTorrent connections.  They did this by looking into the traffic that BitTorrent was sending over the network, and sending back false information so that connections to peers would fail.  The actual details of how this was done is outside the point of this post.

After some outrage from Comcast customers who used BitTorrent, the FCC decided it would step in and tell Comcast to stop or suffer consequences.  As soon as this happened, there was some question about whether or not the FCC actually had the power to do this.  But, the case went to court and a judge decided that the FCC did have the power to do this, and that Comcast had to stop denying BitTorrent connections in this way.  This was a major win for users of the Internet: the court decision basically meant that your ISP can’t deny you from accessing information on the Internet.

However, the case was appealed by Comcast because that’s just the way the US legal system works.  The appeals court reversed the decision of the first court, and decided the FCC did not have this power, which is true.  Currently, the FCC does not have power to do anything about network management on the Internet.  Because of this, their decision to sanction Comcast for shaping the network was not allowed by any law.  So, the clear answer to this conundrum is to have Congress pass a law which would give the FCC this power, right?

In my opinion, yes.  This is the essence of Net Neutrality: give the FCC the power to force ISPs to be neutral, that is, to allow users to access any website, with any protocol.  This is the current spirit of the Internet: that anyone can access any part of it, and that it’s easy for someone to create a new site that becomes an overnight sensation.  The idea of an open Internet is not possible without Net Neutrality.  So, why hasn’t this been an issue in the past?

Probably because it’s never needed to be an issue.  As users start using more bandwidth, ISPs are looking for ways to get more money.  If there is no law forcing the net to be neutral, then ISPs can manage their network however they want.  Let’s say, for example, that your ISP partners with Google and Wikipedia.  Your ISP’s basic package will allow you to access these two sites.  Want to use Bing, or Yahoo!?  That’ll be an extra $20 a month.  Want to access any website you want?  It’ll cost you.  We’ve created a situation where innovation is stifled on the greatest frontier for innovation.

One of the great things that has come out of the Internet is small businesses.  A small business can easily create a website with a good product, and become big.  Without Net Neutrality, this becomes very difficult.  A small business would first have to give some money to your ISP in order for you to be able to get to their site.  But, remember that there are multiple ISPs, and the small business would have to pay all of them to reach all their potential customers.

It’s possible, however, that competition wouldn’t allow this to happen.  One ISP would have to be “the first” to implement a pricing scheme like this.  If consumers voted with their dollars and switched ISP if this happened, then ISPs everywhere would be sent a message that this is no way to run a business.  Unfortunately, however, I have a feeling that most people would just go along with it without knowing any better.  After all, the big sites that people actually use would be able to afford the fees an ISP would put on them to get to their user base.

So, what do we do?  Check out http://www.savetheinternet.com/ .  Find out what net neutrality really means, and join the fight to keep the net neutral!

[Note: I had originally written this post on April 11.  I think it's finished, and reading over it, it does seem finished.  I'm really not sure why I never published it.  Perhaps I was going to add more... I just don't remember now!  Oh, well... better late than never.  News since this post: Google and Verizon's Net Neutrality proposal has many outraged.  I haven't looked into it much, but I'll see if I can poke around it a bit more and write a post about my thoughts.]

So, while I don’t think of myself as much of a movie critic, and I haven’t even seen all 10 best picture nominees myself, I’m still going to attempt to throw my prediction for who will win best picture at the Oscars this year.  Last year, I went to AMC’s “Best Picture Showcase”, and was able to see all five best picture nominees.  This year, while AMC is running the event again, I won’t be able to attend.  So, I’m not sure I’ll ever get the chance to see all ten nominees, but I’m going to attempt to have an opinion about all the movies anyway.

Before I start, I should note that I am disappointed at the Oscars this year.  Having ten movies get nominated instead of the normal five does not “open the field”.  Instead, it just removes from the title of “best picture nominee”.  Even if a movie doesn’t win the award, it usually still gets bragging rights that it was one of the five best pictures of the year.  However, being in the top ten, while still impressive, is less of a title.  By attempting to give films more credit, they have actually removed the credit from the films that actually deserve it.

Anyway, the list of the ten nominations is as follows:

1. Avatar
2. The Blind Side
3. District 9
4. An Education
5. The Hurt Locker
6. Inglourious Basterds
7. Precious
8. A Serious Man
9. Up
10. Up in the Air

Now, let’s look at what the list actually consists of.  For starters, we see a few rarities on the list: two Sci-Fi movies and an animated feature stick out.  Generally, these two types of movies are left behind by the Oscars, because they lack the mass appeal of the other genres (drama is a favorite).  Which is stupid: there are plenty of Sci-Fi movies or animated films that are better than other genres.  Many people were disappointed at last year’s nominees because “WALL-E” wasn’t nominated.  It seems that, with the presence of “Up”, the Oscars are trying to “make up” for that.  However, at the same time, it can be seen as the only reason that Sci-Fi and animated films have snuck on to the list is due to expanding the list to ten movies, instead of the usual five.

So, who will win?  A lot of people are thinking that, with the momentum of its best motion picture win at the Golden Globe awards, Avatar is a big contender.  As much as I loved the movie Avatar (just search my blog for “Avatar” — I loved it), I doubt it will win Best Picture.  I would LIKE for it to win Best Picture, but I’ll be sightly surprised if it actually happens.  As previously stated, the Academy just doesn’t seem to like Sci-Fi movies, and Avatar falls under that category, and I have to wonder if it would even be on the list if they had stuck to only five nominations, instead of changing it to ten.

The same goes for Up.  It was a great film, but I find it hard to believe that it actually has a chance at winning best picture.  With Up, the Academy also has to fear losing its actors: animated films require only voice actors.  Part of the goal of the academy is to keep actors with jobs, and giving Up the title of “best picture” would lead to more animated films, and less jobs for “body actors”.

Finally, I’ll lump District 9 into this whole “won’t win” category.  Again, it was a great film, but I just don’t see it winning best picture.  I also kind of worry that if a Sci-Fi film wins best picture, we’ll see directors flooding to the genre, and attempting to bring more people into the fan base.  The fact remains that Sci-Fi is not a genre for everyone, and Avatar is the first movie I’ve heard people who normally don’t like Sci-Fi say they like.  So, if a Sci-Fi or animated film is going to win Best Picture, it’s going to be Avatar.

Since this won’t happen, what do we have left?  Well, out of the seven left, I’ve only actually seen The Blind Side.  But, once again, that won’t stop me from making a decision!  I also find it hard to believe that The Blind Side will actually win.  I don’t think it was a bad movie, I just don’t think it’s “Best Picture”-worthy.

Out of those remaining, my vote goes to either Up in the Air, or The Hurt Locker, and out of those two, I would choose Up in the Air.  One by one: An Education sounds a little like The Reader kind of, not really, and it just seems like a movie that won’t win; Inglourious Basterds is, from what I understand, a comedy about Nazis… no offense to anyone, but I just don’t see that winning best picture; Precious is based on a novel, and, in my opinion, the best picture winner has to be something original; A Serious Man is described on IMDB as “A dark comedy”… say no more, it’s not going to win.

Why not The Hurt Locker?  It’s about the war in Iraq, and that can be a touchy subject.  Again, I haven’t seen it, but I just have a feeling that Up in the Air has more of a chance than The Hurt Locker.

Writing all this gives me an idea: “The Uninformed Critic” — writing movie reviews based on what I can find out about them through IMDB and Wikipedia.  Has anyone done this yet?  I might need to start a new series of posts here… We’ll see how that goes…

Anyway, to wrap up, my prediction for Best Picture nominee is Up in the Air.  We’ll see how I do!

I, obviously, am just bitter because I did NOT bring a camera.

Anyway, I was quite disappointed in how people used their digital cameras, and I now feel that it is my duty to educate the public on how to take pictures at a concert, or any other event that involves a stage and stage lighting.  I saw many people take a picture, then look at the result, disappointed.  Others will simply get home and realize that none of their pictures turned out very well.  Without going into much technical detail, I present to you… how to take pictures at a concert!

The easiest thing to do is to just turn off flash.  As soon as a digital camera realizes that it’s going to use flash, it tones down all light sensitivity settings.  I realize why the temptation to leave flash on “auto” is there, but your pictures will turn out better if it’s off.  Flash is made for very close objects.  On a stage, with lights that are brighter than your cameras flash, your best bet is to just let the stage lighting do its work.  Objects on the stage are too far away to actually be affected by the flash.  Additionally, since your camera tones down its light sensitivity, you’re going to get darker pictures.

Another tip is to turn the ISO up.  A higher ISO means higher light sensitivity.  However, beware of turning the ISO up too high.  Digital cameras often have a lot of noise in the darker parts of an image when using a high ISO setting.  Top out your ISO at around 800.  Anything above that usually results in noticeable noise.

However, for best results, you should just use manual mode.  Any good digital camera has a manual mode of some sort.  Manual mode with manual focus is a very powerful tool.  Go learn how to adjust the settings on your camera and use that when taking pictures at a concert.  Knowing how to use manual mode properly will ensure you’ll get the best pictures at a concert.

So, the next time you go to a concert… please turn OFF the flash on your camera.  It’s annoying, and you’ll get better pictures without it.

There’s been one joke in particular we’ve been quoting quite a bit.  Originally, we were quoting it because it didn’t really make sense to any of us, and we thought it was just kind of stupid.  In the play, only one character (Albert Einstein) actually laughs at the joke.  Perhaps, though, we though, we were just missing something.  Before I go any further, I should probably share the joke.  It goes like this:

A man goes into a bakery and says, “Can you mail a pie?”  The baker says, “Yeah, I think we could.”  Then the man says, “Well, could you bake me a pie in the shape of the letter E?”  And the baker says, “Yeah, I think we could do that.  Come back tomorrow, and we’ll have it for you.”  So the man comes back the next day, and the baker shows him the pie.  The man says, “You idiot!  That’s a big E.  I wanted a small e, a small e.”  So the baker says, “No problem, come back tomorrow, and I’ll see what I can do.”  So the man comes back the next day, and the baker shows him the pie.  The man says, “Perfect… it’s perfect.”  Then the baker says, “So where do you want me to send it?”  And the man says, “You know what… I think I’ll eat it here.”

By the silence on stage, it’s immediately clear that none of the characters understand the joke.  By the silence in the audience, it’s clear that none of them get it either.  Alright, there was some laughter… due to not thinking the joke was funny, and a humorous situation being created due to a non-funny joke being told.  I’ll even admit that at first, I didn’t get it.  In fact, I’m not even sure if it’s a joke that’s meant to be “got.”  But, there are some interpretations we can take that make the joke funny.

1. The choice of “E”

This is the reason that Einstein points out during the play.  He notes that the choice of the letter “E” is perfect, and any other letter wouldn’t have worked.  He goes on to explain most letters, and it becomes clear that the joke would clearly not have worked with any other letter.  However, does this really make it funny?  I’m not convinced that having a pie shaped as a letter is a funny situation in and of itself.

2. Pi and e

As you might have thought of by now, the joke can be considered funny because of the mathematical constants associated with it: π and e.  This creates a situation where we have slightly subtle humor, and it makes sense that only Einstein understands the joke.  However, it does seem strange that this, then, isn’t the reason for him explaining why the joke is funny.  So, while this does add some humor to the anecdote, it’s hard to say this is the definitive reason why the joke is funny.

3. e shaped π

OK, here’s where the really subtle humor comes in.  π and e are both considered “Transcendental Numbers” — that is, a number which can not be expressed with algebra.  Both π and e, it turns out, fit this description: there’s no way to describe their exact value other than saying “π” or “e“.  However, we figured out that e is transcendental before we figured out that π is transcendental.  Additionally, the proof that π is transcendental is based on the proof that e is transcendental.  In this way, e “shaped” π.  Again, this is very subtle humor.

So, what was the original meaning of the joke?  With no way to contact Steve Martin, I really can’t be sure.  My guess is that the joke wasn’t really meant to be funny at all, and was just meant to set up a situation where one character tells a joke that clearly isn’t funny, so another character can randomly find it funny.  However, there is some more humor to be found in the setup.

So, working with the university some more, these students organized a three day game: starting Thursday at 5 PM, and ending Sunday at 5 PM.  The students wanted to have a week-long game, but the university wanted to see how the game would work with people travelling between classes before they allowed that.  I got a Nerf gun for Christmas, and was eager for the game to get started.    I attended the necessary meeting to sign up for the game, and just had to wait until Thursday to start playing.

Now, after the game is over, I have this to say: I can’t wait for the week-long game which is planned for some time in April.  Humans vs. Zombies is not only a great excuse to run around campus with a Nerf gun, shooting people for the fun of it, but also a great way to be social and meet new people.  The teamwork and strategy involved is amazing, and I definitely met some great people I would have otherwise never said hi to.  Needless to say, I’ve been disappointed to find out that some college campuses refuse to allow the game to happen.

A lot of the arguments I’ve seen against the game from universities has been the use of Nerf guns.  Even my university has a policy against allowing Nerf guns in the dorm rooms, but most RAs here don’t seem to mind them, as long as we’re not running around in the hallways and causing a ruckus.  The people on the Humans vs. Zombies website also have some interesting advice to getting around this: never call them Nerf “guns”.  Nerf themselves refers to them as Nerf “blasters”, with foam “darts”, so use this terminology.  It may seem like small change, but I can see how it would make a big difference.

Another issue has been the use of bandannas in the game.  Players must wear a bandanna around either their arm or head to denote whether they are a human or zombie.  However, some universities worry that this can be seen as a gang symbol, and, coupled with carrying a Nerf “gun”, this would not look good to the local police.  The solution the Humans vs. Zombies website has for this is, unfortunately, costly.  The organization sells bright-orange bandannas for use in the game.  It should be clear to most cops that no gang would use bright orange bandannas that say either “HUMAN” or “ZOMBIE” as a gang sign, so there should be no trouble.  Unfortunately, these bandannas cost $5 each.  Hopefully, though, people will play the game once, buying a bandanna, and donate the bandanna to the people organizing the game when they no longer wish to take part in it.  Of course, fundraisers are also an option.

Overall, to universities who want to consider banning Humans vs. Zombies, I say this: please don’t.  The game does not promote gun violence, or shooting people, etc.  It’s a social event that’s a lot of fun for students to take part in, and makes the campus come to life.  If you want to consider banning the game for its violence, you should also ban any video game with violence in it in the dorms.  I urge universities to work with students to figure out a way to get the game going even if they have worries about one aspect of the game.  Students won’t have all the ideas on how to work around restrictions: offer suggestions that would work well for both parties.

As a final note, Humans vs. Zombies would look great to prospective students.  As a senior in high school, if I had visited a college and there were a bunch of kids running around with Nerf guns shooting each other… that would give the school huge bonus points.

I’m not going to try and say 3D projection is simple.  Quite frankly, it requires precise timing, and the technology behind it is amazing.  However, I’ll try to explain everything as simply as possible, so the information can be accessed by all.  Let’s start out with old school: those red and blue glasses.

Anaglyph

The technical name for those 3D images created with red and blue is an “anaglyph“.  This works because the color blue doesn’t contain any red, and the color red doesn’t contain any blue.  By using a blue filter, you are making sure nothing that is projected blue enters the eye with a blue filter over it.  A red filter does the same thing, only for the color red.  Anaglyphs are great because they allow a 3D image to be displayed on any surface — even in print!  However, the colors fall short.  Because color is used to filter the left and right image, these images usually have slightly crazy colors, or are in black and white.
Pros: Cheap glasses, display anywhere
Cons: Weird colors

Linear Polarization (IMAX 3D technology)

First, let me take a small break and explain the polarization of light.  Normally, light travels as a wave, going off in any direction.  Polarizing light makes the wave travel in one and only one direction.  Linear polarization takes advantage of this, and causes the waves to travel either left, or right.  With a polarized filter, we can filter out either the left or right image.  However, we don’t have a way of printing polarized images, so we must project these.  There are two methods for doing this: either use two projectors, or one really fast projector.

The two-projector method is simplest: simply get two projectors that are exactly in-sync, and put filters over the lenses that correspond with the left and right eye filters in the glasses.  Alternatively, this CAN be done using one projector: have the projector show the image at twice the rate it normally would, switching between the left and right eye image, and switching between left and right polarized filters.  Because our eyes can only see images moving so quickly, this creates a solid 3D image.

The problem with linear polarization is that the lines in the glasses and the projected image must be aligned.  This means that your head must be exactly horizontal, or you won’t see the 3D image correctly.  This works out OK, but can cause troubles if you’re on a weird viewing angle to the screen.
Pros: Relatively cheap, full-color images
Cons: Head tilt can screw up image, no guarantee polarization is perfectly aligned

Circular Polarization (RealD 3D technology)

Circular polarization is a step up from linear polarization.  Instead of having horizontally polarized light, we polarize the light clockwise, or counter-clockwise.  This means that any angle, any head-tilt has no effect on the viewed image.  In my opinion, this is currently the strongest 3D technology.  This can also use either one or two projectors, as described above.  RealD only uses one projector to achieve this.  The main problem is that polarization of light isn’t (currently) a viable solution for home use, because each pixel on a TV can only have one color, with fixed polarization.  The solution for the home would be to either make smaller pixels, so we can alternate rows of polarized light (this has been done), or figure out a way to dynamically change polarization in LCD pixels.
Pros: Relatively cheap, very sharp images, full-color
Cons: Practically projection-only

Active Shutters (3D TVs)

Active shutters is an interesting solution to the problem of not being able to polarize LCDs.  Instead of relying on passive polarization to display a 3D image, the TV alternates (VERY quickly) between the left and right image, and you wear a pair of goggles that alternates covering your left and right eyes.  The TV sends signals to the glasses on when to open and close each eye, so the image is always in sync.  However, the glasses are quite bulky and expensive, because they require power to operate.  The TVs capable of refreshing quickly enough to display the 3D image are also currently quite expensive.
Pros: Viable for home use, full-color
Cons: Expensive glasses, expensive display method

Interference Filters (Inifitec, Dolby 3D)

The idea of an interference filter is an interesting one, though I don’t think it would be better than any of the above technologies.  The idea is similar to an anaglyph, but allows for colors in the images.  It goes something like this: instead of having a variety of wavelengths, pick six specific wavelengths (three for each eye: red, green, and blue).  A filter is placed in front of the projector to filter out wavelengths that aren’t in the ones selected, and the user wears glasses to pick out colors for each eye.  Each eye also has another filter layer which corrects colors back to normal.  Unfortunately, I haven’t had a chance to try this out, either.  However, it would seem to me that the colors that could be projected would still be slightly off.  The benefit to this method of projection is that, unlike polarization, it does not require a special “silver screen”.  Any reflective surface works.  However, this method still seems to require two projectors, and, from what I can tell, would not work on a normal TV.
Pros: Cheaper for theaters, cheap glasses, can change from 3D to 2D by simply removing filter
Cons: Colors?, need two projectors

Hopefully this will help you sort through the different 3D technologies.  As stated, my personal favorite is circular polarization due to the crisp images, and relative cheapness.  However, I haven’t been able to try out any active shutter or interference filter glasses.

Regardless, I have a feeling 2010 will be a booming year for 3D projection technology.

Now, after reading this article and seeing the movie, you may feel the movie isn’t good enough to see it three or four times, and that’s fine.  But if you go see the movie and think it was bad, then I think you’re just looking for something to complain about, so you found something.  The only people I’ve heard of not liking this movie are comments I’ve read online.  Every person I actually know that saw it thought it was a fantastic movie.

But, really… Why should you go see Avatar?

1. The plot line

This is the complaint I see most often, so I’m going to address it before anything else.  I’m also fairly certain that this complaint comes mostly from people who haven’t seen the movie.  I’m not going to argue that the plot isn’t cliché, because… well, it really is.  But, that’s a terrible reason to not see a movie.  First off, if the only complaint you can find about a movie is that the plot line/story has been done before, then I’d say it’s a pretty damn good movie. Overall, the basic plot line has little to do with whether a movie is good or not.  Let’s face it: almost all movies have a clichéd basic plot line.  The reason you like a movie is how the plot line plays out: character development, how the end is reached, tests that characters have to go through, etc.  Most people would rather see a story they already know because it’s less confusing, and less to follow.  You know what’s going on, you just have to sit there and go along for the ride.

2. Cutting Edge Animation

Seriously, the graphics are like nothing you’ve seen before.  I’ve heard one person say, after seeing Avatar, that it was “a pretty good cartoon,” and I’m still convinced that we didn’t watch the same movie (it should also be noted that this person complains about everything).  However, remember to not get caught up in the graphics.  If you keep saying to yourself, “Wow… these graphics are amazing,” then you’re missing the magic of the movie.  Although, at the same time, the graphics are so amazing that you do have to convince yourself every now and then that the Na’vi, the Thanator, and the Hallelujah Mountains are not real.  The previews/commercials do NOT do the movie justice.  In the previews, the Na’vi do have a unreal feeling to them, but this is not so in the movie.

3. 3D

Again, this is a revolution in film making.  The 3D in the movie is amazing, and used as a tool to immerse you into the world, instead of being used as a gimmick to have things pop out at you.  Most of the movie happens deeper into the screen, instead of outside of it.  Avatar is also the first movie to be filmed entirely in 3D.  All other movies have either only had parts filmed in 3D, or just done 3D in post-processing.  The 3D experience is amazing, cutting-edge, and greatly enhances the way you are immersed in the movie.

4. The Amount of Work

You should go see it just to see what James Cameron has devoted his whole career to.  Avatar has been the movie he’s wanted to make since he became a director, and the technology finally caught up with him.  No detail is spared in the movie.  The Na’vi language was specially crafted with the help of a linguist, and the details in the plants are stunning.  From bio-luminescence to giant flying banshees (each unique in some way), there is not a single pixel out of place.  Everything on Pandora has a purpose for being there, and the amount of detail put into the movie is incredible.

5. The Final Battle

The final battle scene is just plain awesome.  The last ~30 minutes of the movie is just this insane battle between the humans and the Na’vi, and it plays out beautifully.  Explosions galore, but everything is cut together so you know which character is where.  Girls will love Avatar for its love story, and guys will love Avatar for the battle scenes.  Seriously… it’s awesome.

Overall, it’s a wonderful movie that I’ve only heard good things about from my friends (and I’ve only been able to tell others good things)!  So… if you haven’t yet seen Avatar, you should go see it now.  And, make sure you go see it in 3D, or you’re missing out on the best part of the movie.

As you may or may not know, I will be attending Valparaiso University this Fall as a Freshman.  When I attended Valparaiso’s Freshman orientation program, they taught us a lot about their online systems.  One thing I learned was that I will need to change my password every 185 days, and when I change it, it can’t be similar to whatever I had last time.  The idea here is that this will be more secure, because hackers will never know your password for an extended period.  However, I see a problem with this.

Forcing me to change my password to something completely different means forcing me to memorize a new password, something completely different, too.  Now, personally, I don’t think this will be much of a problem, because I’m pretty good at memorizing things.  However, if you aren’t that good at memorizing, this could cause a big problem: the urge to write down your password.  As anyone could tell you, writing down a password immediately creates a security risk, because anyone could see it written on a piece of paper, or take the paper, etc.  The safest place for a password is in your brain, and in your brain only.

So, is forcing users to change their password really more secure?  For some people, I think it will help, but I think it’s a practice that could only hurt others.  A better idea would be to enforce good password practice: have users create a nice, good length, password, containing at least one letter, number, capital letter, and special character.  Want to go for more security?  Force it to start and end with a letter.  Don’t just let the user tack an exclaimation mark on an otherwise easy-to-guess password.

Overall, I don’t think there will ever be a formula for password security.  There is no one end-all be-all tip I can give for keeping your password away from hackers.  Perhaps forcing people to change their password every x days really does help security.  But, I’d like to see some concrete proof of this before I believe it.

There once  was a big, scary monster
… crap…

Inspired by: http://limerickdb.com/?257

No posts in a while
I have been busy with school
More soon, I promise

You know what class this is?  P.E.  You know what that stands for?  Physical Excersise.

This quote is attributed to a P.E. sub at my high school.  I’m paraphrasing, because I don’t remember the actual words, but believe me: this phrase was actually uttered by a substitute P.E. teacher.  Perhaps this wasn’t the best way to start of the blog post.  Let’s go back a bit.

A couple weeks ago, I needed a form signed so I could go on a field trip.  All of my teachers need to sign a form saying that it’s OK for me to skip out on class, and acknowleging that they realize that I’m not going to be in class that day.  Granted, most teachers just sign the form without looking at the date, but that’s beside the point.

On this form, we also have to write which class we have each hour.  So, for my seventh hour class I wrote the following: Gym.  Seemed fine to me.  I go up to my teacher and have her sign it.  She first crosses out “gym” and writes “PE”, then signs the form (all without saying anything to me).  I thought this was slightly humorous.  I didn’t think much of it because, after all, the form was signed.  However, I’ve started to think more and more of this small action.

To me, and to most of the world, PE stands for Physical Education.  Education, to me, implies that I will learn something.  It could be useless information, and it could be useful information, regardless, I should learn something.  I would attribute a class like Health to this title.  It suits all the requirements: physical — You learn about how your body functions and how to keep yourself healthy; education — did I not just use the word learn?

Let me make this a bit more clear.  Here’s how Google defines eduction:

knowledge acquired by learning and instruction

Once again, the key words here are knowlege, learning, and instruction.  These are the three important requirements in order to have the “education part.”

I would define my “P.E.” class this year as anything but that.  It consists of:

Today we’re playing tennis.  Grab a ball, racket, and partner, and start playing tennis.

No instruction, no guidance, no help while attempting to play the sport, just a: “This is what we’re doing.  Go.”  So, where, then, does the education come in?

Freshman and sophomore year was different: we actually learned about the muscles and bones in our body.  We learned about what excersises work which muscles, and we were taught easy excersises to help keep us in shape.  Once again: we learned.  This was not gym class, it truly was physical education.

So, I suggest a reform of the class.  Because Illinois is the only state that still requires four years of gym P.E. in high school, we must be true to the classes title: teach us.  It doesn’t even have to be individual attention (although that would be nice).  But, at least inform us of the rules of tennis before telling us to play.  If you want to get really crazy, try to make us play by the rules.   If we are going to take Physical Education, let’s keep the Education there.

Although, I’ve heard an alternative suggestion: make P.E. half-classroom.  This alternative would suit Illinois perfectly.  We could still have a P.E. class, but we would actually learn.  Once the program got started, the school could start offering “specialized” P.E. classes, where you can learn about one specific topic.  You could then take the P.E. class that sounded most interesting to you, instead of being stuck in a general gym class.

After all this, I have to question my school’s definition of P.E.  I was always taught that P.E. stood for Physical Education (acronym finder agrees), but it seems the crazy old gym teacher is right: PE stands for Physical Excersise.