1. The exam was supposed to be administered 3 times, Freshman, Sophomore, and Senior years. I took it my Freshman and Senior years.
2. The exam was not a normal exam. I won't say it was pointless, it definitely measured something, but it's hard to say exactly what. Imagine you have to make an exam to measure "learning" and this thing was about as close as you could come to getting one. But that's still far off the mark.
3. The sample was not representative. Taking the exam was opt-in, and the college put forth a variety of incentives to get people to take the exams. Despite this, they definitely had a high drop off between sign-up-for-everything freshmen and I'm way too busy to spend three hours taking another exam seniors.
I believe there were schools where it was not opt-in, but even so, I can't imagine any of the students taking this exam had grades riding on their performance. And given that it was a single exam, it was dependent on the students' state of mind on the particular day they took the exam. Three data points per person, over four years. It's hard to draw any conclusions from this data.
I think given enough students, 3 data points over 4 years is a perfectly appropriate dataset from which to measure longitudinal effects.
I'm not saying I don't agree that the test may not have measured anything useful, or that there wasn't some sampling bias, but there's nothing inherently wrong with 3 data points per person over four years.
It was a series of reading comprehension problem-solving problems with short answer response.
One bit was five documents relating to an environmental issue in a small town. The exam asked the student to analyze the documents, looking for biases the sources may have and flaws in their reasoning.
It did a good job of measuring ability to synthesize and analyze sources, but it definitely would be harder to recognize more focused improvements in reasoning ability.
>It seems reasonable to expect that such tools can hardly improve the battery life over unrestricted Flash.
If you mean to say what you're saying, that Flashblock doesn't make a significant change from unrestricted Flash, you're dead wrong. Wireless transfer is a notable driver of power consumption, but generally it being on is the main driver, not use. CPU on the other hand draws much more under load, and Flash will put it under a lot of load.
What I'm saying is that if Flashblock can't stop a script in a "blocked" flash object from installing a trojan, then clearly Flashblock isn't effective at preventing flash objects from getting CPU time.
I'm on 1.8. It's now a Safari extension - if you're running Safari 5 you can go to the Safari menu then click Safari Extensions Gallery, it's on there. The Click2Flash project page doesn't do a good job of pointing this out!
Given the fact that my 6 year old desktop I never use would serve me just as adequately as "the future of notebooks" for things I need to do, I've always found that attitude to be a useful hedge against needless spending.