Slashdot Mirror

Right, because without tasers, no one has ever been killed or injured while resisting arrest.

I'll ask again - would you rather be tased (unpleasant, but no lasting damage in the overwhelming majority of people) or be restrained by force (unpleasant, also commonly end up with cracked ribs, dislocated shoulders/fingers, concussions, broken limbs, other bruises and other contusions) as a result of resisting your arrest?

Stop pretending like these people are standing around doing nothing when cops walk up and taser them out of the blue for shits and grins. They're being arrested, and they're resisting the arrest. At that point, the cops have two choices: tase the person, or pepper spray them, slam them to the ground, wrestle them into handcuffs, and hope they're not severely injuring or killing the person in the process. Neither way is gentle, or 100% guaranteed safe. You don't want to be tased? Don't get arrested; if you DO get arrested, comply immediately with the officer's instructions - the time to argue "wrongful arrest" or any other bullshit is IN FRONT OF A JUDGE, not on the roadside, or in the middle of a crowd of 50 other people.

more complete article on the story

That's a really nice wiring photo there.

Absolutely, and for those who never RTFA, a simple picture of one of his setups should illustrate that Seti@home was not the only issue : http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/images/photos/2009/12/01/r5p775ag.jpg

hopeful4higley wrote:

Gee, it seems rather odd to me that all of the blame is being placed on one person when Brad was clearly told that he was not in charge earlier this year when David Lignon, (who happens to be partially related to Dr. Birdwell) was put in charge of the entire IT dept and all of Brads team were basically told not to ask questions but do what was told of them. This is just a small example of how things are run around there.

The problems in the classroom with computers or not being able to enter grades could have alot to do with the fact that they keep changing systems and the person that used to assist the teachers was forced to leave as well this year. How about the fact that most of the IT department walked out earlier this year???? Yep, blame it all on one person, that seems to be easier than just fixing the problems in the district.

Dr. Birdwell, do you ever take blame for ANYTHING? You are not the only one living a nightmare, the entire staff (past, present) as well as the parents and most important, the students have lived a nightmare for the last 4 years as well. You had an opportunity to jump ship and go to Wyoming last year and ASKED to stay here for stability. THe only ones that seem to have stability are yourself and your posse of friends and family YOU have brought on board. Instead of pointing fingers, take a long hard look in the mirror and ask if YOU have made a positive difference.

... and ...

0xym0r0n wrote:

higleyknight09: 'A school computer should be used 8 hours a day for 183 days. Not 24 hours a day for 365 day that is six times more than normal. Of course computers would eventually fail.'

Hate to burst your bubble, but computers will always fail. Not to mention that there is even the argument that turning PC's off causes more damage than letting them run 24/7, mostly when talking about the hard drives. If the district wanted PC's that wouldn't fail they certainly shouldn't have gone with laptops.

They would also not spend an alleged $15,000 in consulting services to find out what could easily be told to them by their own tech department. Which I would also have to say that, that figure alone seems shady to me.

Your other assumption is that the shutdown button is removed via the image and that this was done intentionally by Mr. Niesluchowski in order to run SETI 24/7, possible yes... but impossible to prove. There are other things that need to be done, such as staff connecting remotely to fix issues, updates that can be pushed, ect ect. However, the shutdown option being removed is not a result of the image yet a policy set against users.

It's unfortunate that the majority of posts I read simply follow the assumptions made by such horrid reporting skills and like a mindless drone, babble on and on about how bad this guy is. I mean, it's not like teachers install unapproved software that plagues half the district with unseen malware and viruses... oh but I guess the loses estimated by that would never even be considered by people so eager to jump down the throats of others.

The analysis of these findings of coarse will never be displayed, being that the true energy driven cost of damages would be a simple calculation of the cost per computer would be total watt usage - usage of standard pc in the same environment. As opposed to the method that probably was used, which was amount of watts used during non-school hours(estimated to the worst degree).

The biggest thing though, that none of you know is, did he have permission to deploy said software at one point in time? Or that he had permission to have hardware at his place of residence. See, it's so easy to read a column in a newspaper and say 'Wow! That guy needs to be put away.'. So continue to post on this topic, yet.. you have higley in your name an

From the comments in this article (thanks to this post) from people who are there, it sounds like a real hatchet job.

Salient points:

• The computers were configured to run 24/7 by school policy. A previous attempt to get them to run only from 6am to 6pm was met with "you're not allowed to do that" by the school board, even though it was explained that it would save $90k per annum in electricity.
• The $$$ quoted are to fix the infrastructure problems - including needing a new building - not the "damage" that was done.
• The photo supposedly showing "bad cable management" is abut what you'd expect - it's not like schools are going to make spending money on cable management and wiring closets a high priority - this is what happens to systems that grow over the period of a decade with management saying "here's some more stuff - make it work" rather than "here's the funds and the plan on how we want this rolled out over the long term". So yes, they now say they're going to need a couple of hundred dollars a computer to "fix" a decades' worth of "just make it work".
• Other staff have quit or been forced out
• The timing of all this seems to have been motivated more by school district politics than anything else

An extra $100,000 per year spent on electricity would have been noticed by accounting in a private organization.

According to the district, problems with the software were noted before, which is why he was directed by a previous administrator to remove it. Also, the over $1 million (more specifically, $1.2 to $1.6 million) cost estimate is not the cost of electricity, its the cost to correct the various problems the district claims stem from the various misconduct and neglect of duties he is accused of. TFA sucks, read the more complete article on the story here. (Newspapers may suck in general, but they tend to cover things far more completely than TV news organizations, which is where TFA comes from.)

It certainly sounds like cause for a reverse lawsuit. After all they never told him he CAN'T install SETI@home or CANCER@home or any other background crunching program

Actually, the district claims that he was specifically directed to remove the software by a previous administrator, and that he claimed that he had, in fact, done so. See the last three paragraphs of the East Valley Times article, which is (typically of newspaper vs. TV news articles) far more complete.

So no one noticed a 5000 x ~150 ~= 750 MW of usage? Over 10 years?

Since the district claims (see the last three paragraphs here) that the problem came to the attention of a previous administrator, who ordered Niesluchowski to remove the software and whom Niescluchowski then assured that the software had been removed, the issue is not that no one noticed the problem.

I would not resign. I'd tell them, "Sorry I'll uninstall everything,"

According to the more complete article on the story, "Former administrators, including former superintendent Joyce Lutrey, knew about the software and told Niesluchowski to remove it" and "[h]e assured them he had removed it". So, I'm guessing, that's why "I'm sorry and I'll remove it now" wouldn't have been an adequate response, even if SETI@Home was the only problem issue, and there wasn't the porn issue, and the issue of the school equipment at his house apparently being used in his home-based business.

Knowing vaguely how SETI@home and BOINC and Folding@Home work, I suspect this is a BS allegation.

Or, more likely, just bad reporting. The more complete story cites a $1.2 million to $1.6 million estimated cost to address the problems at issue -- which go far beyond SETI@Home. TFA has elided most of the real issues to focus on SETI@Home, and presented the "over $1 million" estimated cost as the cost of dealing with SETI@Home alone.

Reading the article, you'd think the guy was some deranged tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist devilishly enlisting the school's resources to justify his own crackpot theories, not just some guy using the school's computers to help a scientific organization crunch data.

Reading TFA, yoou could, depending on your biases, get either of the above impressions, but if you read the more complete story, you might get the idea that there was more to the story than either of those, and that simply installing SETI@Home without permission was largely beside the point, and that more important in both the firing and the criminal investigation were the allegations:
1. That when problems first came to light with SETI@Home interfering with other uses of computing equipment, he was ordered to remove the software and claimed that he had,
2. That he misappropriated at least 18 computers and other associated equipment from the district to use in his personal home-based business,
3. That he used school equipment to download pornography.

However, since he was fired, it's not likely that he was able to present proof of authorization to the school board.

And, since its his wife saying it, even if she's telling the truth (from her perspective) its almost certainly just whatever he told her. According to the more complete East Valley Tribune story, the district claim is that when the problems stemming from SETI@Home interfering with other uses of computers on the network came to light, he was ordered to remove the software by a previous administrator, and gave assurances that it had been removed.

For the record, I can't imagine how they came up with $1M for damages.

The more complete seems to give $1.2 to $1.6 million as the estimate cost to deal with all the problems stemming from his mismanagement of the technology unit, which are not limited to SETI@Home; it suggests that the figure was a result of a district-wide technology audit.

I agree, filing charges was way out of line. His only real mistake was not asking permission, and getting that permission in writing.

Well, that, and lying about removing the software when the problems caused by it came to light and he was ordered by previous administrators to remove it.
...and downloading pornography using school computers.
...and, on top of all that, generally not doing the job he was hired to do.

At least, that's what he is being accused of, according to this more complete article on the story.

SETI@Home is not the only issue here.

$1 million for five thousand computers......come on, even if SET@Home had completely worn down the computers that they had to replace every single computer, it would have only cost $500k.

[...]

In addition, he had gotten permission from a previous administrator to install the software. There is nothing here that justifies filing criminal charges.

TFA is an exceptionally bad article on the story, only referring to the SETI@Home portion of the issue as if it were the only thing involved. It is not. As this East Valley Times story (which appears to be the original story) reports, Niesluchowski is "accused of taking at least 18 computers and other technology equipment to use in his home-based business, downloading pornography on school computers, and generally failing to do his job in the technology department" as well as installing SETI@Home.

Also, the $1.2 million to $1.6 million cost estimate seems to be identified as an estimate to fix all the issues involved; the article reports that the problems stemming from Niesluchowskis poor performance and misconduct "include a network system not designed to handle the district's growth, a system in need of substantial repair and a building needed to securely house the network. There are also cabling problems and a lack of tracking inventory for technology equipment that is three years out of date."

Furthermore, instead of having permission from previous administrators, the report is that he was told to remove the software by previous administrators, to whom he reported, falsely, that it had been removed.

A longtime Higley Unified School District information technology director has lost his job and is under police investigation for taking computers home, downloading pornography and installing computer software throughout the district that searches for extraterrestrial intelligence.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/147847

Then can you explain to me why the violent crime rate in Maricopa County has gone up, not down, when in the rest of the state, it has gone down, not up. Also, the MCSO response times are up, crime clearance rates are down, etc.

In other words, with apologies to Al Gore, everything that should be down is up, and everything that should be up is down.

Linkie.

But don't let facts get in the way of Lush Limbaugh and Fixed News telling you what to think.

This is the same state where the owners and operators of the New Times were arrested for exposing extreme judicial misconduct by prosecutors;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_New_Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/business/media/19cnd-arrest.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=login

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/99912

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13508_3-9800829-19.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376598/

Between "speed tax" photo radar on freeways and "Nickel Bag" Joe Arpaio in Arizona, I would definitely call the state highly prosecutorial against it's citizens.

Alternatively, you could say that Lego is a mass word (like water, wood, or platinum). In NZ, I'm used to us talking about having 'Lego' to do stuff with. If you're wanting to refer to individual pieces, it's a Lego block, Lego brick, or Lego piece (or 'n blocks of Lego').

Wikipedia uses the word 'Lego', with the only mention of 'Legos' in the article coming from just one of the many references: here.

Quoting from the discussion:

only five year olds and americans call them "legos".

However, that discussion also points out that there have been trademark dilution concerns by the company regarding the use of 'Legos' instead of their preferred 'Lego', suggesting that the prevalence of that use is higher that what I've experienced in little old New Zealand.

Because they will be so useful when broadcasting goes all-digital. Feds unveil digital-TV subsidy details, HD Radio rising

"[Senate Bill 59] would make it illegal for the owner or operator of a social networking Web site to allow minors to create or maintain a Web page without parental permission [and require] parents or guardians to have access to their children's Web pages at all times. "

This can be done by forcing everyone to register with their SSN and require their parents SSN to register. As well as send out a letter and email to the parent for verification and the parent must call the company via phone.

There are lots of downsides to this method, yet I'm sure they'll find something that works.

As long as we do not run into these situations

Not very good that when the prosecutors couldn't convict him for the porn they still wanted to stick some conviction on him! What's the idea that someone handing copies of playboy to their friends be convicted of a crime? There's nothing illegal in that magazine. The US have some weird attitudes to tits and nudity (playboy ain't really porn).

I agree with you, especially on your last point. In this particular case, anyone living or working in Arizona shouldn't be surprised by this kind of prosecution. From what I read about this case, it takes place in Maricopa County (Phoenix,Scottsdale,Mesa). That especially sucks for the kid. Arizona prides itself on still being the "old west", and the prosecutors and sheriffs there are very heavy-handed to the point of being draconian. Several of the sheriffs even sport the stereotypical old western sheriff look (funny hats and mustaches included). Sometimes, the law enforcement atmosphere there feels like a perversion of "Gunsmoke" with emphasis placed on maximum punishment, and barring that, public humiliation.

The most notorious example is Maricopa county's sheriff, Joe Arpaio. He's nicknamed "America's toughest sheriff" for the tactics he uses and his treatment of prisoners (non-convicts included). He still likes to assemble posses from among civilians. He loves to be in front of the camera. He's not giving speeches every night, but he does like to make his presence known. Many of the locals love him; but many are afraid of him. Some even argue that he is abusive.

He makes his prisoners wear pink in order to humiliate them. He forces them to live in his outdoor "tent city" suffering harsh desert conditions (bare in mind that not all convicts in tent city are violent offenders). He installed webcams in Phoenix's Madison Street Jail so that the world could see prisoners in the world's first jailcam; however, it got him sued since these "prisoners" were only in jail, hence not convicted criminals. In one case, a female prisoner was broadcasted over the web using a toilet without knowing she was being watched.

I once saw him parade a chain of crying middled-aged women (all Mexican illegals) before a row of flashing cameras. He's been criticized for torturing prisoners, allowing prisoners to die in his custody, and in allowing officers to take advantage of prostitutes in custody (see Wikipedia entry). There have even been complaints that he has allowed undercover police in prostitution raids to receive full services from prostitutes before making arrests, resulting in nearly 60 arrests being dropped.

Recently, the Phoenix area has been experiencing freezing weather below 30 F, and inmates in Arpaio's outdoor prison "tent city" have complained about the cold. The sheriff's response was that if they didn't want to suffer, they should not have committing crimes. (sorry no citation, check KPHO.com). Most recently, he has listed outstanding warrants for approx. 70,000 people on the sheriff's website, and has encouraged all citizens to read the list and report individuals they identify on the list.

Ironically, as harsh as Arpaio is, and as popular as the sheriff is among hardcore justice lovers; he has really been successful in only instilling complete fear in citizens who aren't would-be criminals. Maricopa county still suffers from extremely violent crimes including regular home invasions, teen rapes, and the Baseline Killer which made national news last year. I believe there is even an ASU study that was funded using tax dollars under Arpaio's control that reviewed his tent city prision, and then determined that Arpaio's tactics are largely ineffective.

Kyoto is NOT working: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=761 27&source=rss&dest=STY-76127

Curb consumption: stop breeding! How about *that* "lifestyle change".

This is so far off topic, but I can't help but respond (I hate HOAs more than I hate SUVs, or nuclear power for that matter)

As posted here, it's essentially a contract attached to the property, and they're generally enforceable to the same extent that contracts are enforceable, with the added caveat that states can regulate what can and cannot be enforced. Most of the discriminatory restrictions like barring blacks and such have been struck down by courts, and thought they can still be found in CCRs, they're unenforceable. I remember something with somebody wanting to put up a flag pole post Sept. 11th in AZ, and the HOA raising a fuss, and so the state legislature passed a law specifically stating that they couldn't ban flying U.S. flags, as well as forbidding HOAs from banning campaign signs:

In Arizona, lawmakers responded to the practice of boards meeting outside the state -- an attempt to keep members from voting -- by passing a bill requiring those gatherings to be held in Arizona.
Update: In 2004, the Arizona State Legislature amended existing legislation to protect homeowners' and condominium residents' right to fly flags. The revised statues (33-1261 and 33-1808) allow for residents to fly flags that are consistent in size with dimensions noted in the federal flag code (P.L. 94-344; 90 Stat. 810; 4 U.S. Code sections 4-10). Arizona homeowners' associations may not prohibit the installation of a flagpole, but may dictate its height and placement.

The revised statute 33-1808, which concerns homeowners in planned communities, also secured the right to post political signs. Signs may be displayed unless regulated by the association. All sign prohibitions must be consistent with and not exceed restrictions in local sign ordinances. Political signs may never be prohibited 45 days before or 7 days after an election.

Full article here

Incidentally, AZ law also forbids HOAs from banning solar panels on homes (more info here and here)

The problem with HOAs is that they are private little governments that are unencumbered by many of the constitutional restrictions that the federal and state governments have to follow. In response to the person who said "well, don't move into a neighborhood with a HOA," I'd like to point out that it's getting increasingly difficult to do that. Almost every new house built in the last 10-20 years is covered by a HOA because people are silly enough to believe their hype that they'll keep neighborhoods clean and safe and protect property values (property values that would be better protected if they actually built quality homes and better neighborhoods). In fast-growing cities like Phoenix, that's a huge percentage of the housing stock (I've read as high as 50% of all houses in metro Phoenix).

Scottsdale, Arizona is a good example. They used Rural/Metro as their private carrier until 2004. linky. Here's Rural/Metro's history and locations. From the history link:

Rural/Metro's history goes back more than 50 years, when founder Lou Witzeman became concerned that his neighborhood didn't have fire protection. So he pooled together some money, bought a fire truck, and asked his neighbors to subscribe to his fledgling company.

With the company was also born a new way of thinking about health and safety services. As a private sector company, Rural/Metro is dedicated to finding the most cost-effective ways to deliver the highest quality ambulance transportation and fire protection services.

Where fire protection is private, the cost tends to be covered by subscription as part of the homeowner's fire insurance policy required by the lender.

And in this case do I have a choice of fire protection companies? Can I choose to have the guys from engine 39 be my fire department instead of those cocksuckers at District 12?

Even after the formation of paid fire companies in the United States, there were disagreements and often fights over territory. New York City companies were famous for sending runners out to fires with a large barrel to cover the hydrant closest to the fire in advance of the engines. Often fights would break out between the runners and even the responding fire companies for the right to fight the fire and, therefore, the insurance money that would be paid to the company that fought it.

So let me see if I have this straight: You're against small, municipally controlled WiFi networks but you're in favor of large, government subsidized and authorized Telcos developing these networks?

No, I'm just as opposed to government granting monopoly authorization to telcos on the local loop. The only reason you don't see the same people complaining about this is that it's a fait accompli. It's better to fight the current battle on the current front than endlessly bemoan battles lost years ago. I'm not even saying that I want all fire departments to be private. I'm just objecting to your implied claim that fire protection inherently couldn't be provided without tax dollars when it currently /is/ so provided in many places.