Slashdot Mirror

Once again proving the adage that there is no such thing as bad press. Memories Pizza being a recent example too. There is even a fancy name for it, Succès de scandale -- the Wiki article has additional examples.

Of course this adage is really a case of selective memory. There is plenty of examples of bad press harming the subject. Plenty of businesses, and people are harmed by bad press. When I was young, the Tylenol scare occurred because some sicko poisoned some bottles of Tylenol. Had Johnson and Johnson done anything wrong, not at all. But they had to spend a ton of cash recovering from the bad press, including changing their bottling to include anti-tampering, having product pulled from the shelf, etc.

So what is the difference in stories like these? If enough people see the bad press as over the top or simply unfair, the bad press magically transforms in just press and the net outcome is positive for the P/R victim.

...perhaps the culture also is somewhat genetics based?

I'll bet you a dollar that it's not

Humor aside, it's pretty easy to see what would really happen in this scenario. First off, the panhandler would take a paycut. Then, the poor financial skills (more extreme than these) that made him homeless would make him terrible at his job.

It's a common misconception that the homeless are poor because of low income. Some are disabled or suffer severe mental illness, but most are not (or at least that's not why they beg). Substance abuse is the most common problem. They can't hold a job, and need vast amounts of money to fuel their drug/alcohol habit.

http://www.wndu.com/indiana/headlines/42712897.html

"According to the replies of some of his fellow students, he had taken the pictures with the webcam himself and left them on the hard drive when he returned the laptop to the school, and someone else accidently stumbled on them.." citation needed

All right. Citation provided. From reply #148 in the above link, I quote: - The improper behavior report was based on a picture that the kid took using the webcam and left on the hard drive of his school issued laptop. Which the school can search if it wants to. They probably contacted the parents as a courtesy.

"As for what he was actually doing, there are conflicting reports. Some say he was smoking weed; others say he was eating Mike and Ike candies which the school official mistook for drugs." Actually the reports are not conflicting, it's been well established: "A Pennsylvania student who accuses his high school of spying on him with a webcam says the controversy started when an official mistook a piece of candy for a pill."

We seem to have a semantic disagreement here. We have very different definitions of the phrase "well established.". Anyhow, I quote from reply #147 of the same source I cited above: I attend Lower Merion High School (in 10th grade) and I am worried that the full picture has not come into view ... This article also didn't mention what Blake was doing. Blake was smoking weed and, according to some of his friends, visiting pornographic websites. As you point out, some other sources say he was eating candy that was mistook for drugs. So, as I say, conflicting reports.

"They also report he was not disciplined by the school, but the school official did contact the parents out of concern for the student's safety." Again, your sources are wrong: "Parents Michael and Holly Robbins claim an assistant principal disciplined their son... "

Yes, I'm aware that is what Mr. and Mrs. Robbins claim. That is in the legal brief. No one disputes that is their claim. The sources above claim otherwise. As I said, the truth will probably come out at trial.

I find it interesting you (and no one else) read replies from fellow students stating he took the picture himself and left it on the drive,

Well, this is Slashdot. Why are you so surprised that almost no one RTFA?

but did not do a simple google search to see that it was candy mistaken as drugs or to see that the student was disciplined. Out of the three allegations made, two have been proven false.

Another semantic quibble here. You and I have very different definitions of the word "proven".

"According to the replies of some of his fellow students, he had taken the pictures with the webcam himself and left them on the hard drive when he returned the laptop to the school, and someone else accidently stumbled on them.."

citation needed

"As for what he was actually doing, there are conflicting reports. Some say he was smoking weed; others say he was eating Mike and Ike candies which the school official mistook for drugs."

Actually the reports are not conflicting, it's been well established: "A Pennsylvania student who accuses his high school of spying on him with a webcam says the controversy started when an official mistook a piece of candy for a pill."

"They also report he was not disciplined by the school, but the school official did contact the parents out of concern for the student's safety."

Again, your sources are wrong: "Parents Michael and Holly Robbins claim an assistant principal disciplined their son... "

I find it interesting you (and no one else) read replies from fellow students stating he took the picture himself and left it on the drive, but did not do a simple google search to see that it was candy mistaken as drugs or to see that the student was disciplined. Out of the three allegations made, two have been proven false.

Do you want other people to read your tax returns?
Are you Ok with losing important e-mails?
Do you want other people to decide which files are "inappropriate", how much space you are allowed to use, which fonts can appear in your document?
Do you want your dual core machine with SLI video card to be only as fast as your grandma's Wallmart PC?

Lack of control over your own stuff has consequences far worse than targeted advertisement. Most people dislike living in communes, having only public transportation or not being able to access their data on their own terms. Then again, it's perfect for some people, or for specific circumstances.

Don't be too torn.. The ESPC is tring to also wipe out any small player (like your mother) They have shutdown several independent designers, who were selling original designs, by threatening them and their customers.

There was some good coverage on this about a year ago on a loca TV station, WNDU-TV in South Bend, IN.
Here is the link.. http://www.wndu.com/news/contact16/092005/contact1 6_44586.php

====
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my employer, my
friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife. Any resemblance to the views
of anybody living or dead is coincidental. No animals were hurt in the
writing of this response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants to
go outside NOW!

How will that make them less likely to want to attack you?

Well, a good start would have been: Not training and financing Osama Bin Laden, then abandoning him after the cold war.

We *created* this guy. We gave him the tools money and training to commit terrorist acts. Perhaps that wasn't such a good idea.
And perhaps we shouldn't have given Saddam Hussein the key to the city of Detroit?

What on earth makes you think that unfounded retribution will make them hate you any less?

It's easier for you to believe that everyone with a grudge against the US is crazy, but there are many people for whom the US is either directly or indirectly for the death of a family member. Either through the civilian casualties we aren't even bothering to count in Iraq, or more indirect means.

Well, that's not how it is ending up. Given that the cost of education in (time and money) is increasing beyond the amount that can be paid, offshoring is being used primarily to replace high quality domestic workers with those who have low initial cost but higher costs in having the proper people do it afterwards to clean up.

Businesses will react accordingly. Its a case-by-case basis, some jobs that were offshored are being returned to the states, but that doesn't mean that offshoring is altogether bad. Eventually businesses will figure what can be offshored and what can't.
Is it bad when companies adopt Linux, it is the very essence of global collaboration and low cost adoption. Think of all the "high quality" proprietary OS programming job opportunities that are lost each year because of Linux. The economic advantage, however, is that companies don't need to pay for a proprietary OS to create products. The lower barrier to entry means more new products which means new jobs.

You must be joking if the newer products out there have any resemblance to "quality" - Lenovo's machines are using less durable materials, Dell's laptops have models that explode, and HP's status gone down to a "ink revenue station" seller that's about to get the problems of NCR's Nyberg generation (Hurd) all over it.

First, laptop batteries have been exploding for years. Things should be good enough for their application. Mission critical systems shouldn't be buying Dell computers, at the same time average home users don't necessarily need to pay extra to have raid 5 storage, and uninterrupted power. Personally I don't want to pay twice as much for a computer that lasts twice as long. Technology changes so rapidly that when my computer fails, I would be able to get something far more powerful at a cheaper price. There are situations where quality is of essence, and there are product makers who supply to that market.

Whatever opportunities I'm seeing, you seem to want to keep out of reach of displaced workers and those in states (read:the Rust Belt) have unfavorable economic situations.

The rust belt is getting car jobs again from honda and Toyota, since Japanese automakers are finding it cheaper to produce in those areas. Such areas also are benefitting from the high cost of living in other areas of the countries like California.

When you have merit blind, subsidized access(by redirection of existing subsidy) education, maybe I can see there being practical opportunity.

i do agree widespread investment in education is key to longterm success. The way to gain maximimum advanatage of lower cost of goods and services is to have a developed workforce able to create new value added opportunities.

Offshoring as it is done now is a large mistake in need of a complete overhaul.

It's the same as it's been done for hundreds of years, with the same complaints by displaced workers. Unless you're a poor displaced cobbler or weaver, the result has been a significant improvement in lifestyle.

Mr. and Mrs. Lester -

Your son/daughter from Michigan, USA is currently in:
Amman, Jordan

Would you like driving directions to her location?

I've never seen a 3 year old that has the hand strength to rack a slide or pull a revolver trigger. Much less load a gun.

Neither have I, but the idea isn't so far fetched.

I did some research and this is a state by state deal. Most states do support it in any case.

Unfortunatly most don't, since they will claim the polls are open after work... which, as I stated, doesn't exactly encourage already busy people to vote.

Care to back this up with something more offical?

Its not for speed limits, but they did use a similar trick: http://www.wndu.com/news/062001/news_8430.php . I'm actually suprised you don't remember the stories that came out when the feds decided that 65 MPH would be ok for states to allow. Or are you too young to remember when 55 was the most states would be allowed to set for maximum speed? Found a link regarding federal speed limits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Spee d_Limit . See the second at the bottom. Nevada attempted to raise the speed limits, and the federal government withheld funding (which was already approved). The lawmakers knew the feds would use the funding ploy to keep them in line, and specifically included a clause to invalidate the law if the feds did in fact withhold funding... probably because they wanted to support the higher limits (which I assume Nevadians(?) wanted) but the feds wouldn't let them.

I never said it was perfect but nor did I say it was broken to the point where states should simply disregaurd the federal government either.

I didn't say they should totaly disregard it; they should just disregard federal laws which are not within the federal governments scope. And why shouldn't they? The feds are overstepping their bounds as set in the Constitution. You're under no obligation to follow laws which are unconstitutional, even if they haven't been ruled as such yet.

I thought the war was to remove a tyrant from leadership.

You mean that honorary citizen of Detroit?

Seems to me a huge liberal, Hilary Clinton, got this ball rolling in NY state.

Except that Hillary Clinton is a Senator, and this was a vote in the House of Representatives.

In fact, this resolution was introduced by a Republican congressman from Indiana. Here he is.

Hillary Clinton is just fishing for votes; this guy actually believes it's worth wasting real congressional workday hours on.

You mean like Wal-Mart?

Pet Peeve #1 People who think because there gas prices are too high, they think every bodies should be that high.

Ignoring the fact that other countries might be able to get drill there own oil, and get a better deal because there population is higher, and thus can by in larger 'bulk'.

You're kidding, right? The reality is that we essentially burn subsidized fuel in this country. In other countries, the tax man adds a bit to the cost of fuel. Go figure, Western Europe and Scandinavia seem to put more focus on population health and a clean environment than profits in the auto and oil industries. Charging extra for the fuel does a couple things, it is a disincentive to waste fuel. It helps pay for some of the hidden costs associated with burning fossil fuels.

The US is not serious about reducing emissions. We are also not charged the true cost of fuel. By that I mean that we, as consumers, do not pay for the cleanup costs, or the healthcare costs that petroleum based fuels cause.

This URL explains, a little bit, about how the cost of gasoline effetively hasn't changed in the US in the last 30 years. If you only go back 25 years, its arguable that the cost has dropped, and significantly. The price per gallon in the US first hit a dollar in the late 70s. As long as I've been driving (17 years), its barely changed. Compare that to the changes in wages. Or the change in real estate values. Or the cost of the vehicles we're driving. Gas is CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP.

Blender is easy to use. For more info, please see this page on the University of Notre Dame's web site