Slashdot Mirror


Daylight Savings Time Puts Kid in Jail for 12 Days

Jherek Carnelian writes "Cody Webb was jailed for calling in a bomb threat to his Hempstead Area high school (near Pittsburgh). He spent 12 days in lockup until the authorities realized that their caller-id log was off an hour because of the new Daylight Savings Time rules and that Cody had only called one hour prior to the actual bomb threat. Perhaps it took so long because of the principal's Catch-22 attitude about Cody's guilt — she said, 'Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time.'"

881 comments

  1. Can you say... by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... wrongful imprisonment? I thought you could.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Can you say... by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Feel free to tell his principal how you feel about the whole guilty until proven innocent thing she has going on.

      k.charlton@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is america, you should be grateful we released you instead of executing you or putting you in a cell with big bad bubba.

      you should worship those in authority positions...

      RESPECT MY ATHORATAY!

      Those who can, teach, those who cant become principals.

    3. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. I hope they nail them for wrongful imprisonment; and hopefully find a way to add kidnapping charges on top of it.

      And not that this isn't just 12 days for the kid. It will have a lasting effect on his whole life. And no, I'm not exaggerating. Remember how even the pretend jail for 6 days in the Stanford Prison Experiment had life-long-lasting effects on much older kids than this guy.

      I hope the kid and his parents sue and get rewarded as well as seeing criminal charges that get the people who did this to him locked up.

    4. Re:Can you say... by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      Those who can, teach, those who cant become principals.
       
      um - no.
       
      Those who can, do.
      Those who can't, teach.
      Those who can't teach, teach phys. ed.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    5. Re:Can you say... by eln · · Score: 1

      And those who can't teach phys ed become administrators.

      Those who can't administrate get elected to the school board.

    6. Re:Can you say... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sure Cody's lawyers will be having her for breakfast. Along with the school board, the cops involved...

    7. Re:Can you say... by kisak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Feel free to tell his principal how you feel about the whole guilty until proven innocent thing she has going on.
      Guilty until proven innocent is common practice in the USA these days.
      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    8. Re:Can you say... by szook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Crap like this is why we chose to homeschool....

      why tell the principal about it when you can be the principal?

    9. Re:Can you say... by DieByWire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Feel free to tell his principal how you feel about the whole guilty until proven innocent thing she has going on.

      Email address removed

      ...so that you, too, can try, convict and punish on less than complete evidence.

      Sheesh. Leave it to the lawyers and courts, please.

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    10. Re:Can you say... by sherms · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the address. I gave her some good advice. Basically, be humble.

    11. Re:Can you say... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      To the cops, for starters. A nice civil suit on the department for violating his due process would help. Be sure to hit the principal to for deliberate obstruction of justice.

    12. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or give her boss a call.

        Dr. Terry J. Foriska
      Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education

                E-mail: terry.foriska@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us
      Office Phone: (724) 850-2232
      Fax: (724) 850-2089

      Dr. Terry J. Foriska has more than 25 years of experience in public education. He is in his fourth year as Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education for the Hempfield Area School District. Prior to joining Hempfield, he was Assistant Superintendent for the Gateway School District in Monroeville. He has held administrative posts in several other school districts in Allegheny, Washington and Westmoreland counties. He began his education career as a teacher in the Mt. Pleasant Area School District.

      About Dr. Foriska

      Dr. Foriska holds a master's degree from the University of Pittsburgh and a second master's degree from Duquesne University. He earned his doctorate of education degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1991. He conducted his doctoral research on the topic of student learning styles and received national recognition for his work. He went on to specialize in the areas of curriculum, instruction and assessment, and is frequently invited to share his expertise at the state and national level.

      He has served on the Learning Styles Network, a national board of educators devoted to raising awareness of how students learn. Over the years, Dr. Foriska has also served on several committees and task forces formed by the Pennsylvania Department of Education to share successful processes, products and philosophy for improving education.

      Dr. Foriska has published numerous articles in both state and national education publications. He is also the author of four books.

      He has received many awards for his work, including the "Outstanding Research and Publication Award " presented by the Pennsylvania Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. He is the only two-time recipient of this award.

    13. Re:Can you say... by mgblst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, that the same. Sending someone (who may or may not have said the above statement) a whole pile of abusive emails, and sending someone to juvenile hall for 12 days.

      Or perhaps someone was going to email her a go directly to jail card.

    14. Re:Can you say... by annodomini · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's kind of silly to post the principal's email address on Slashdot, but sending someone an email is not "trying, convicting, and punishing" someone, and not even remotely comparable to locking someone up for 12 days.

    15. Re:Can you say... by Attaturk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...so that you, too, can try, convict and punish on less than complete evidence.
      Sheesh. Leave it to the lawyers and courts, please.
      A fine sentiment but it's worth noting that a tirade of angry e-mails is hardly comparable to an unsound trial, unjust conviction and a custodial sentence during the prime of one's life.

    16. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um - no.

      And those who don't get the joke make a fool of themselves.

    17. Re:Can you say... by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can see next week's headlines now:

      "Timezones get British man wrongfully extradited to US for threatening E-mail"

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    18. Re:Can you say... by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      wrongful imprisonment?

      Not to mention slander, liable, defamation of character and abuse of process. The kid's 12, imagine the parade of child psychologists you could put together to go on about how expensive it's going to be to treat his self-image problems and damaged reputation.

      Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you to put yourself in this child's place. Innocent of wrong doing and accused by this man (points at principle at defense table) in a most callous and vile manner and being a criminal and a liar. Imprisoned for 12 long days. Subject to the abuses of the juvenile detention system, all alone in the dark. Separated from family and friends. Can you imagine what that might be like. The terror, the fear, the horror. And in the place of his parents. Having your child falsely accused, then further accused of lying...your child ripped from your arms by the police. I ask you to remember all these things while you consider how much it's worth for a child to get their self esteem back, for the parents to get their good name back and for this man (points at principle again) to pay for his part in this horrible, horrible travesty. No, money can't buy happiness...as the defense has so callously inferred...but it can buy the best therapists, confidence building camps and tutoring that money can buy. It can provide the family the means to move elsewhere, to start over with a new life, far from the devastation to their good name. Small price to pay for a child's self image, don't you think? Thank you for your attention and I'm certain you'll do the right thing for this child and this family.

      Dang, knew I shoulda gone to law school!

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    19. Re:Can you say... by Hel+Toupee · · Score: 3, Informative

      try, convict and punish on less than complete evidence

      Leave it to the lawyers and courts, please.

      Because that's what they do best!!!

      --
      PERL:
      All of the power of Voodoo with most of the understandibility!
    20. Re:Can you say... by bunco · · Score: 2, Informative

      *cough* libel.

    21. Re:Can you say... by John+Straffin · · Score: 5, Funny

      We homeschool too, but I hope I never have to deal with a student calling in a bomb threat!

      "Hello... yes, this is he... you've done what?"
      (covers telephone mouthpiece)
      "Honey? Have you seen the kids this morning?!?"

      --
      My contempt for the behavior and beliefs of the two major political parties cannot be adequately expressed in 120 chara
    22. Re:Can you say... by mortonda · · Score: 1

      and from there comes higher public office... state legislature, federal, and presidency. Kinda explains a lot, doesn't it?

    23. Re:Can you say... by governorx · · Score: 1

      From the source:

      PassablyNews.com
      Slightly more newsworthy than the National Enquirer...

      Ummm...
      Ummm...

      Move along, nothing to see here?.!.?.

    24. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to tell his principal how you feel about the whole guilty until proven innocent thing she has going on. /b/ is not your personal ar... oh wait, this is slashdot, engage spam engines!

    25. Re:Can you say... by CogDissident · · Score: 1

      Chalk one up for private schools, mine had an administrator with no teaching experience (or so it seemed), who used to teach phys ed. Good-ol Harley school of Rochester.

    26. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what evidence do you have to backup any of this speculation. This is 100% garbage...oh wait, slashdot - nevermind.

    27. Re:Can you say... by umeboshi · · Score: 1

      If the kid has not waived his rights, he can still demand his jury trial for the offense. After the trial, he can seek an audience and petition the grand jury to subpoena the principal to testify before it. This could possibly lead to an indictment.

    28. Re:Can you say... by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that school was on my list of private schools to look at...now it's not :)

      Hello fellow Rochester person.

    29. Re:Can you say... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      If the kid has not waived his rights, he can still demand his jury trial for the offense
      Is that true? I was under the impression that if the state dropped all charges that they are done with you ans you no longer have any standing in criminal court. A civil suit would be fair game though.
    30. Re:Can you say... by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      *cough* libel.

      And now you know why I didn't go to law school. :(

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    31. Re:Can you say... by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the point was more along the lines of re-enforcing the -innocent until proven guilty concept- rather than -does the punishment fit the crime.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    32. Re:Can you say... by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      Then that's their own dumbass fault for taking that job. Don't cry about bee stings if your job is to put thousands of bees in your mouth. You're not goinna get a bit of fucking compassion from me.

    33. Re:Can you say... by WombatDeath · · Score: 1

      That would be an awesome job! Where do I apply?

    34. Re:Can you say... by drix · · Score: 1

      Try, convict, and punish? No, that's what the authorities in question tried to do. Writing someone a letter expressing your disapproval at their actions is well--well--within everybody's constitutional rights. A flawed analogy if I ever saw one.

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    35. Re:Can you say... by CogDissident · · Score: 1

      Just remember, private schools don't always "require" teachers to have teaching degrees, they don't avertise this, but its true (NYS law means they can hire whoever they want, as long as they work in a GED equivalent curriculum). My spanish teacher there was actually some student's mother, who just happened to speak spanish. Although, I did have a few masters or PHD teachers too, so its a mixed bag there.

      Though on a side note I wouldn't look too closely at Allendale as a school in Rochester either, they're a bit strict, and you know how strict schools make students go a bit loopy.

    36. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not wrongful. School administration was just following the example of Nation administration. Nothing to see here.

    37. Re:Can you say... by Albion01 · · Score: 1

      "You're a criminal, criminals lie all the time." What, is she judge, jury, and executioner?

      It is not only her job to educate the children, but it is also her job to mind her ship. That means that she makes sure when critical events occur that the critical systems under her control which depend on those events are functioning properly. She borderline relieved this boy of his god given constitutional rights and sentenced him to rot in a jail cell for 12 days. For what? Because she failed to take care of what she was entitled and paid to take care of. For this reason alone she is 100% at fault.

      Think of the trauma this boy went through in those 12 days. We don't live in a society where one person can accuse and convict in the same sentence. We don't live in a society where said accused is lead into a basement and shot in the back of the head. We leave that for men like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. We live in a society which has rules to protect the innocent, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." Of all the people, I would think an educator would know this.

      She probably deserves to be fired for this injustice. Knowing the "litigate yourself to personal prosperity" attitude of morons in the United States she'll probably get the crap sued out of her from every direction as well. Personally I don't believe she should be fired or sued, that takes away from valuable resources that should be used for the children. If true, I believe she should be forced to go through what Cody went through; spend 12 days in the same cell under the same conditions as him. I doubt after that experience she'll neglect to mind her ship again.

    38. Re:Can you say... by vimh42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      While I beleave the principal should be harshly reprimanded, perhaps even dismissed I don't think emailing her will help. What would be great though is the email address of the people will be making those sort of decisions about this Principals future employment so I can tell them what I think.

      Perhaps the Principal getting fired is a bit extreme. But perhaps not. What she did to this kid was horrible. She railroaded him so she could get her man. Guilty with no chance to prove innocence (based on the TFA at least). That is inexcusable.

      On the other hand, lets take a look at the police reaction. Did they just take what the Principal said at face value or did they try to look into the "facts" as well. If they didn't look into everything then they are guilty of negligence along with the Principal.

    39. Re:Can you say... by Alchemar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please let me take a moment of your time to explain the difference between expressing how one feels, and putting someone in jail. Emailing someone to complain about the way that they have handled a problem is considered the proper way to handle things in a democracy. A principle of a public school is a represenative of the school and its policies. The principle is given an extrodinary amount of power over the turnout of the next generation. That is why their emails are made public. If the person feels that they have done nothing wrong, the can ignore the emails. If they care to defend themselves, they can hit reply.

      If however you are put in jail for a crime that you did not commit based on "evidence" that was not fully investigated, and denied your right of innocent until proven guilty, it violates your constitutional rights. While sending emails could be considered harrassment if done excessively, by giving false information as to the origin of the email, or including threats. Putting someone in jail just does not compare. People in public offices can be convicted if they bread the law, but more importantly, can be removed from office if they go against public wishes. These wishes need to be known, and I think that sending an email is a good means to that end.

    40. Re:Can you say... by Bendy+Chief · · Score: 2, Insightful
    41. Re:Can you say... by jwhyche · · Score: 0

      He is a kid he can't wave any right because he has none. Sounds strange but I believe that is the way it works in the eyes of the law. From what I understand his rights all revert to his parents.

      Now then, my question is "was he questioned by police with out the presents of his parents or councel?" If he wasn't that needs to be added to he the charges in the upcoming law suit.

      Man this is all fucked up, or maybe I'm just fucked up. On one hand its plan as day the kid had his rights run over by a monster truck of just-us. But on the other hand does the kid have any rights to be ran over.

      I think I need to ingest more caffine....

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    42. Re:Can you say... by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Technically, he could have been out a lot quicker had his parents hired a lawyer and bailed him out..."

      What horrible parents! You're absolutely right, every parent should have at least 100 grand in their pocket to hire attorneys or bail money to rescue their children from the "legal" system when the police make a little boo-boo.

      In my wonderful state you can only sue for twice your loss income or 20 grand, whatever is greater. So this kid could get a whopping 20 grand from this mess from the police. Yippy! I'm sure that'd make the police think twice.

      I'm tired of the illegal justice system in the US. The one that lets the rich go free and throws the poor in jail because they can't afford lawyers and don't want to sit in jail for a year for minor offenses while their public defender argues in court for months. Better to plead guilty to something you never did and get a few weeks in jail and probation and be labeled for life than wait in jail to see what happens only to find out they still found you guilty and you're getting even more jail time.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    43. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dude, that's a 12 days overnight. The parents thought he was guilty before thinking he was innocent. The police didn't ask any question about the judgement. No one ever thought the boy was not guilty. If that doesn't fit nazi, come again. Modded you down as flamebait.

    44. Re:Can you say... by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Feel free to tell his principal how you feel about the whole guilty until proven innocent thing she has going on."

      and get mixed up with another email that emailed her a threat and end up sitting in jail for 11 days?? No thanks!

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    45. Re:Can you say... by umeboshi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Absolutely, once a person is charged with a criminal offense, they have a right to a jury trial, as per the 6th amendment. Your current understanding of how the state handles dropping charges is a testament to how they abuse the bill of rights.

      I could put this another way. Without the right to a public jury trial, the state is free to implement a revolving door policy whereby a person could be arrested, be held for a few days while they are encouraged to "help with roadside landscaping", released when charges are dropped only to be re-arrested and have the process repeat itself.

      The filing of charges is the first step in a criminal prosecution. It is up to both the prosecutor and defendant to agree to have charges dropped. The defendant is not required to agree with this. The state cannot arbitrarily drop charges once a criminal prosecution begins without ignoring their 6th amendment obligations.

      The civil suit is generally a red herring displayed before people as a solution. The fact of the matter is that most of the agencies that might be affected by such a civil suit have insurance policies that help cover losses brought about by the civil suits. This is a planned and acceptable alternative that favors those that are being sued, therefore it is promoted as the primary tool to use in these circumstances.

      However it is not always the best way to fix the problem. A grand jury has all of the authority and right to order investigations, subpoena witness and actually indict capital crimes. In fact one of the very next steps in the criminal prosecution, in this case since the kid was charged with a felony, is the district attorney presenting evidence before the grand jury in order to actually indict the kid for that felony.

      After saying all of this, states laws vary and the structure of the grand jury may be modified by the state constitution. My advice on the grand jury may only apply in certain states. My stance on the right to public jury trial applies over all the states.

    46. Re:Can you say... by morari · · Score: 1

      Well, it would be unfair to try the innocent...

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    47. Re:Can you say... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      *cough* libel.

      You generally have immunity in regards to statements made in court.

    48. Re:Can you say... by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      oh i got it. sometimes when people don't laugh it isn't because they don't get it. just like when people don't like someone it isn't always because they are jealous.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    49. Re:Can you say... by NickFitz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Personally, my bias is not to believe the kid at all. My bigger question is where the hell were the kids parents. I mean really! If my kid was locked-up for anything, I would want to see the evidence!! Obviously they didn't give a crap.

      Jeez, what a troll. If you actually care at all about this case then look it up somewhere that has a tad more credibility and journalistic competence than the kind of sub-blog news source given in the summary:

      Webb's parents, Linda and Budd Webb, arrived at the school and listened to the recorded bomb threat. Linda Webb told administrators it wasn't her son.

      "They kept saying that it was his voice. They didn't even know him," she said.

      After a state trooper arrived, Charlton told the teen he was being arrested, and the trooper read Webb his Miranda rights.

      [12 days later...]

      "I got a call from our attorney that said he had paperwork signed by Judge Driscoll dropping the felony and misdemeanor charges against my son," [the father] said.

      County juvenile detention officials wanted to keep Webb in custody, [the family's attorney] Andrews said. "They wanted him to have a mental health evaluation because he wouldn't admit to making the call."

      --
      Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
    50. Re:Can you say... by Jerry+Beasters · · Score: 1

      What the hell mods? Mod parent down for off topic or flame bait. This has nothing directly to do with the story.

    51. Re:Can you say... by NickFitz · · Score: 5, Informative

      What makes you think they didn't? If you look the case up almost anywhere other than the crappy source linked in the summary, you'll find that they did indeed have an attorney. It still took twelve days to get the charges (of threatening to use weapons of mass destruction, no less) dropped, and then the state authorities tried to have him held for a psychiatric evaluation because he had refused to admit to the charges.

      --
      Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
    52. Re:Can you say... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, he can sue the police, the legal system if not the whole state and get his college tuition fees paid for.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    53. Re:Can you say... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true homeschooled student...


      and yes, that was sarcasm.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    54. Re:Can you say... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      You generally have immunity in regards to statements made in court.

      did any of this happen in a courtroom?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    55. Re:Can you say... by curecollector · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep! Just ask the Duke lacrosse team...

    56. Re:Can you say... by NickFitz · · Score: 5, Informative

      The people in Guantanamo weren't just picked up off of the streets as suspects in criminal investigations, they were captured while engaging in active combat operations and are considered prisoners of war.

      Wrong. For example, Bisher al-Rawi was arrested while on a business trip to the Gambia:

      His lawyer, Zachary Katznelson, gave further details on why Mr Rawi was originally arrested.

      He said a "suspicious device" was found in his client's luggage but added that it turned out to be a battery charger.

      Mr Katznelson added: "So it was misinformation that started this chain of events, though unfortunately that led to him first being taken by the CIA to Afghanistan to an underground prison of 24 hour darkness with rats everywhere, to then being taken to Guantanamo - and it took years to right this wrong."

      Furthermore, Bush long refused to accept that the Guantanamo detainees should be considered prisoners of war, until the Supreme Court told him otherwise.

      --
      Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
    57. Re:Can you say... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "Guantanamo Bay had released more than half of those who have come through its doors and is one of the most transparently operated detention facilities in the world."

      I believe you forgot "after their previous clandestine torture operations were exposed."

      "A detention facility is used during times of war to house those enemy forces who were captured on the battlefield until such time that the war is over or the captured individual will no longer pose a threat to the capturing country if released."

      Oh really? And when will the "War on Terror" be over? So just to be crystal clear you have no problem with the government locking people up without ever charging them with a crime, and being able to hold them indefinitely?? Scary... Governmental checks and balances are there for a reason. Maybe you should read up on the history of dictators before swearing such ignorant allegiances..


      P.S. Not that I would expect much critical thingking for someone who states on their website that their dream is "to travel the world and eat at every Hooters® restaurant location world wide."

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    58. Re:Can you say... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sheesh. Leave it to the lawyers and courts, please.

      Why? They had their chance and fucked up big time. When someone has proven he is unfit to do a task, I certainly won't hand him the same one twice.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    59. Re:Can you say... by omnipotens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. That's why I e-mailed her to let her know how personally disgusted I am with her behavior, and to express my hope that the kid's family is able to sue her personally instead of the school district to help her pay for her error.

      Because, really, I do hope that happens. It's going to suck for her, and she is going to have a much harder time of things, but we need to stop this "creeping fascism" in all sectors of USian life. This principal needs to be made to pay, for the same reason a student who behaves badly in school needs to be punished: to stop all the other principals from thinking that they can get away with the same thing. That's why the *one* that we do catch being so insanely STUPID in a situation with GRIEVOUS CONSEQUENCES for one of her pupils needs to be punished so very severly.

      And if she receives a few hundred chiding e-mails, so be it as well. A few hundred chiding e-mails is NOTHING compared to twelve days in jail.

    60. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from define: nazi

      An abbreviation of the term for the National Socialist political party , a political party headed by Adolf Hitler from 1921 to 1945. The Nazi party ideology was strongly anticommunist, anti-Semitic, racist, nationalistic, imperialistic and militaristic.

      Nothing's bulletproof in this world, except in the states. If the friends and own parent couldn't look in his eyes and believe him when he was saying "I didn't do it", then they are much more guilty than him. That a judge said "Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time." is just icing to my argument. Sillogism? From a Judge?

      Anyway, by Goldwin's Law, the discussion is over, and I've lost. But I still get to mod you.

    61. Re:Can you say... by umeboshi · · Score: 1

      I think I need to ingest more caffine.... I'm on my second cup now :)

      I almost missed your comment, were you modded down, or do you normally post at 0? I could find no moderation history for your comment, and I am somewhat perplexed at how you got a zero.

      Back to the topic, the rights of a child is a matter I have been troubled over pretty deeply. If all of the child's rights revert back to the parents, where do they go when the parents die (please assume no other relatives to care for the child)?

      My feeling is that the child has inherent rights, but may not be developed enough to understand them. We live in a very dangerous society if children have no rights in the eyes of the law. This does not mean that the children should be allowed to express those rights fully (being too young to grasp the consequences of doing so), but some minimum standard of rights are necessary to acknowledge in order to keep our children from enslaving their children in the future. This may sound a little far fetched, but tradition is far more powerful that any law, and any law can be amended to match tradition. When an idea or procedure attains the status of tradition, it is generally accepted as right and proper, and usually requires a "revolutionary appraisal" seen at the time as a "paradigm shift" to set things straight. Such is the inherent power of tradition shared by a population. History is full of such examples, take Rosa Parks as one of them. Galileo is another good example that helps show the abstraction of this more completely.

      I do agree that what happened is entirely fucked up. No doubt about this. If my child was held in such manner, there would be hell to pay. Instead of a civil suit, I would petition the grand jury for, at minimum, an investigation. It shouldn't be difficult to convince a grand jury that certain officials involved should be subpoenaed to testify. There is nothing like an innocent child held in criminal custody to pique their interest.
    62. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Except the battlefield is the entire planet, posing a threat is defined by the US authorities saying they pose a threat, and "active combat operations" are defined as anything the US authorities think might help someone they've stated is a terrorist. Possibly.

      Flying in to Gambia on a commercial flight with a battery charger in your luggage is not what is conventionally considered an active combat operation. The US have stretched military law far beyond what is internationally agreed, and are using this to cover situations in which most democratic countries would consider criminal law to apply instead.

    63. Re:Can you say... by n-baxley · · Score: 0

      Oh no. Only $20K for 12 days in Juvenile jail. Big deal. I'd take that deal pretty quick. I think we're blowing this out of proportion a bit. Yes it was a dumb mistake. Yes it was handled poorly. But why do we have to sue the school district back to the stone age for it? Typical American reaction.

    64. Re:Can you say... by OgGreeb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For many people in Guantanamo, it's "guilty, no attempt to prove innocence necessary."

      --
      -- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD //www.digimark.net/
    65. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was a complete bitch when I was at Hempfield and she was only an assistant at the time.

    66. Re:Can you say... by russotto · · Score: 1

      You don't need $100,000 to get a lawyer and pay bail for a single charge of calling in a bomb threat. You don't even need the lawyer to make bail.

      The school made an understandable screw-up, the cops did a crappy job investigating, but there had to be more screw-ups involved -- like his parents assuming his guilt, or a judge having him held without bail -- for that to result in more than 72 hours of jail time.

    67. Re:Can you say... by Albion01 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in the beginning I think they did exactly what you said, took her word at face value. As soon as they heard bomb threat the police probably went into Homeland Security mode.

      My guess is that the School did an investigation of their own. When they assumed they had the evidence necessary they called the boy to the office and proceeded to call the police. They then handed the boy and the evidence over to the police. Because we're talking about national security here the police immediately threw him in the hole and called the FBI or Homeland security or both. The 12 days he sat in that cell can probably be attributed to the time it took the feds to get there and investigate the issue on their own. Once they looked at the phone records and noticed a discrepancy in the times they realized they had the wrong person and let him go.

      If the principal had made sure the systems under her control were functioning properly none of this would have happened. At my company we treated the new DST like y2k because of all the patching that was necessary. We were working on the issue at least 3 months before the event itself. It was well publicized... enough for her to have taken charge and made sure the problem was resolved long before the actual date, but it wasn't. For that reason alone she is entirely at fault. In the military dereliction of duty punishment "Through neglect or culpable inefficiency. Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months and confinement for 3 months."

    68. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That a judge said "Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time."

      It was the principal, not a judge, that made that statement. Read the article again and go with the known facts.

    69. Re:Can you say... by LocalH · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's Godwin's Law, and it never said that the one to bring Nazis into the argument lost, just that as the size of an argument increases, it is more likely that someone will bring up the Nazis.

      --
      FC Closer
    70. Re:Can you say... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      You have to sue them enough to regret it, to make them change their ways.

      $20,000 is chump change. They'll shrug, say "oh, well," and it's business as usual.

    71. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the principal should be held in jail for 12 days, and we'll call it even.

    72. Re:Can you say... by Kaitiff · · Score: 1

      I would like to comment that the original submitted article was short on the facts. This is in fact a Lancaster Pa are high school. My kids attend this district, and I can't wait to see if the fallout from this media exposure changes their draconian policies. It's not just the District types that take this attitude with the students, it's the principals' also. If I were to move from my current house, I would say my #1 reason would be the school board/school system and the borough politicians in general. I was shocked to see a local interest news story make front page on slashdot! :)

      --
      If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
    73. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is not "common" practice. Guantanamo is bad, but let's not succumb to hyperbole just to make a point.

    74. Re:Can you say... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The post I was responding to seemed to be addressing a hypothetical closing argument that a previous poster came up with. A closing argument is generally given in court.

    75. Re:Can you say... by Mix+Master+Nixon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, it's silly - the principal's home phone number should have been posted as well.

      --
      Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
      --Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
    76. Re:Can you say... by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Emailing someone to complain about the way that they have handled a problem is considered the proper way to handle things in a democracy

      Actually that's called social decency, and has nothing to do with democracy.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    77. Re:Can you say... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Actually the detainees at Gitmo are neither innocent nor guilty, those are legal terms and they have not even been charged with crimes. They are just being held indefinitely without a trial because someone labeled them a "terrorist". But I'm sure they will be relaesed when the "War on Terror" is over, and the US has won. Oh, wait...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    78. Re:Can you say... by DieByWire · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that the same. Sending someone (who may or may not have said the above statement) a whole pile of abusive emails, and sending someone to juvenile hall for 12 days.

      I didn't mean to imply that the the two are same in scale, though I can see how you read it that way. I have two kids and can't imagine what it would be like to have one locked up for 12 days. I'd be a wreck. I can't imagine how a child would handle it.

      My point is that posting the principle's email address is just a form of mob justice. No due process, no effort to ascertain that the info you have is true and correct - not much different than what happened to the kid - except, of course, in scale.

      Leave it to the lawyers. If the facts in the story are straight, there will be plenty of pain to share.

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    79. Re:Can you say... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      But what does it matter? Most public offices and actions are not legally actionable in court. You can push to change a law, but you can't seek damages. Ramrodded by the judicial system and spent twenty years in maximum security prison because you supposedly raped someone, only to be vindicated by DNA half your life later? Too bad. Sorry we took away the best years of your life.

      Also, the student is fifteen years old and until you are of majority, you typically do not have the full rights of an adult citizen. That is why you are subject to a curfew and it is usually illegal for you to stay out past 10:00 PM on a weeknight, among other things.

      So I would say they fucked up, but there's nothing he can do about it. It's just an early lesson in how you're only a free man because there is someone out there allowing you to be free.

    80. Re:Can you say... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2

      "Anyway, by Goldwin's Law, the discussion is over"

      Heh, isn't that Goldberg's Law?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    81. Re:Can you say... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Who said the email address was provided to be abusive? You really think that public educators should be completely separate and unavailable to talk to or comment to? I pay her salary and if I want to have a word with her, I should be able to. There needs to be public outcry about stupidity like this, because all the lawyers and judges can't change a damn thing - only public opinion influences those that make the laws.

      And what evidence isn't complete? The police have dropped the charges, and the school has admitted that the student made the call in question one hour before the bomb threat came in. Am I missing anything?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    82. Re:Can you say... by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      You can take $500-1000 to an attorney as a simple retainer to get the kid out. If you have kids and don't have even $500-1000 in funds of some sort for any emergency, you are not being a good, responsible parent.

      Additionally, the amount you can sue for has limits for specific economic loss, but why do you think you always hear about 'emotional trauma'/etc in these cases? Thats where the real money sometimes comes from.

      I'm tired of simplistic arguments from people who have little or no experience with such situations, and who obviously have never tried to read and learn the actual laws. You base your opinion on one bill that you noticed was passed, that is part of a MUCH larger code of laws.

      The 'illegal justice system' in the US is among the best legal systems in the world, its the people running the show AND the front liners that are not educated properly in the laws of the land (or justify their actions with cognitive dissonance and should be taken to task for it). If you are foolish enough to plead guilty when, in absolute fact, you are not guilty, the onus is on you for lack of mental capacity and/or allowing fear to dictate what you do.

      (Side note: $20,000 for 12 days in jail ain't too bad, not that anyone, especially a kid, should have to suffer that.)

      Cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    83. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      To the people who are considering accepting the invitation above to complain to the principal:
      • The principal had evidence about who the bomb threat caller was. Are you saying she should not have called the police?
      • The police arrested the child based on the information they received. Are you saying they should not have made the arrest?
      • The evidence was discovered to be faulty, and the child was released. Obviously 12 days is too long to discover the faulty evidence and release the child, but the principal does not hold primary responsibility for that. It is not clear how long it was from the lawyer finding this out and the release.

      I see no reason to ascribe malice to the principal, and the next morning her being unaware that the clocks in the call logging system had not yet been changed doesn't seem negligent to me.

      We also have no proof that child's quoting of her is correct and in context (indeed the words don't ring true to me - does he have a criminal record?).

      Good luck when you have to make decisions that affect others: you too may suffer from the reaction of the herd.

    84. Re:Can you say... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Well, at least there's one other moderately intelligent person here who realizes the principal didn't march the kid down the police station and lock him up herself.

      However, you've missed the fact that Caller-ID information includes the time and date, and hence it's the responsibility of the phone company to provide the correct one, not the school.

      More to the point, people shouldn't be held in jail based on Caller-ID information anyway, as that can be trivially spoofed. That's what goddamn phone records are for.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    85. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No,

      It isn't a common practice. If anything it is an exception to the rule. Just because you linked to some detention center site doesn't prove anything along these lines. How many people are in club gitmo in a years time? Lets take a liberal number of 3000. And yes that is a liberal number, the numbers in 2004 were 500 hundred at club gitmo and roughly 100 on other countries.

      In the state of 2005 alone some 14,000,000 (14 million) arrests were made for non traffic related criminal infractions. Thats roughly .02 Or 2% of all arrests. And the number gets even lower if you consider that the number of detainees (unlawful enemy combatants) are lower then 3000 in actuality and considering their arrest and detention was spread out over several years.

      So if we divide the 3000 into three years (even though we have been adding and removing detainees for longer then that, it comes out to .007 Or .7% (less then one percent). This is hardly common in any sense. If anything it it shows directly how uncommon it is yet still possible if you are suspected of a certain type of crime. And lets not get into the averages on being suspected of that type of crime. It makes the argument of it being common in the US even less attractive.

      I know you think it is a travesty that people are being held without habeas corpus rights. And in some cases it could be. I'm not sure I disagree with that sentiment. But I do strongly disagree with the blatant lying about it to shed something in an unfavorable light. You are unlikely to be held without being innocent until proven guilty for any arrest you might face. You could be arrested more then 1000 times in a year without the chances of being held without the presumption of innocent until proven guilty comes close to effecting you. That is a lot of chances. Even the guy recently arrested in Ohio for aiding terrorist and conspiracy to blow up US buildings is getting proper due process and a trial.

    86. Re:Can you say... by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Personally I don't believe she should be fired or sued, that takes away from valuable resources that should be used for the children

      I disagree. Someone who shows such a flagrant abuse of authority should not be in a position of power. Especially over those whose only real recourse is to tell their parents and hope they do something and then hope that the system actually listens.

      Unfortunately, such abuses of power seem to be pretty darned common in the education field and my experience with such things is that the system tends to listen to the people in power and not to the ones with complaints (no matter how highly regarded the people bringing the complaints are).

      This woman should, at the bare minimum, be fired and it should be made sure that she can't be put in such a position again. She has proven that she does not deserve the position of authority which she was given by her actions.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    87. Re:Can you say... by Elliot_Lin · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? I was home-schooled an I am well socially ajusted... ask my mummy.

    88. Re:Can you say... by Mi5ke561 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We know there was an arrest on tbe basis of a failure to reset a clock and a hysterical,
      and probably incompetent Principle. The question is whether any of the kid's civil rights
      were violated. I'm hoping that they were, because instead of screwing around in a state court, the parents can go Federal and sue the teacher under Title 42 for violation of civil rights under color of law.

      I don't know enough of the details as to whether a civil rights violation has happened or not, but if it has, that Principal, Police Department and School District might as well just sign a check and a consent order and get it over with, because if they don't,
      they're going to pay, and pay and pay.

      BTW, odds are pretty good that the Principal won't get fired even though she appears to richly deserve it. Teachers are protected by Civil Service Laws and that makes them pretty untouchable even for instances of utter criminal stupidity like this one.

    89. Re:Can you say... by malkavian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ahh.. The Ministry of Truth can't be having people believe they're ever not guilty. Oldthinkers unbellyfeel doubleplus goodness of Ministry of truth.

    90. Re:Can you say... by homesnatch · · Score: 2, Informative

      Technically, he could have been out a lot quicker had his parents hired a lawyer and bailed him out, but the parents probably believe the police and thought he did it too. They might have even told the cops to keep him in there to teach him a lesson! who knows. Point being, yes he was in jail but not because he was guilty until proven innocent.

      Technically, his parents did hire a lawyer:
      "The teen said he did call the school's delay hot line early Sunday, March 11. But that was an hour before the bomb threat was phoned in, said the family's attorney, Tim Andrews. After Webb's parents obtained his cell phone records, Andrews found the call times did not match."

      "Webb's parents, Linda and Budd Webb, arrived at the school and listened to the recorded bomb threat. Linda Webb told administrators it wasn't her son."

      "He was released to his parents' custody that day after Westmoreland County Common Pleas Judge John Driscoll continued the hearing when the state police failed to appear."

      http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news /westmoreland/s_501066.html

    91. Re:Can you say... by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the FUCK are you idiots yammering about? Since when does a high school principal control who is in jail and who isn't? She reported a crime to the police, and they arrested the kid after looking at the evidence, apparently without noticing the phone company was giving out the wrong caller-ID time. Yes, she then expressed a stupid opinion about it, but quite a lot of victims expression stupid opinions about people they are informed are the suspects without waiting for a trial, and some even get so attached to the suspects they protest when evidence clears them.

      Meanwhile, can we start moderating people or something? Because a lot of the people posting here are so ignorant of the government that they think a high school principal is in charge of the legal system.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    92. Re:Can you say... by DieByWire · · Score: 1

      I don't feel that publishing her email address so that 50,000 angry geeks (who have only read the always 100% accurate news account) and aren't even in her school district can email an impulsive and probably insulting letter is the right way to deal with it. Anybody who felt strongly to write/call enough could look up info.

      According to the article, they (the school and the police) screwed up big time. If that's the full story, they'll have to answer to their school district's voters and the kids lawyers.

      I may be wrong, but I saw the original post as invitation to email bomb the woman in question. What if the story is incorrect or incomplete? What if the words attributed to her aren't accurate?

      And yes, there's no comparison between being wrongly jailed and being email bombed - except that neither one is right.

      Let the courts and the voters sort out the facts. Their will be plenty of pain to go around.

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    93. Re:Can you say... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Guantanamo Bay does not have a prison, it is a detention facility for enemy combatants.

      No, it is a POW camp, and most of the residents were purchased at $10k/head.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    94. Re:Can you say... by hiroller · · Score: 1

      Godwin's law does not specifically say that, but it is traditionally accepted that the one that brings the Nazi's into the argument has lost.

    95. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I personally think that people should get much more compensation than that for even a day in jail for something that they were wrongfully accused of. What if his grandmother was dying while he was in jail, what if his graduation ceremony were taking place, what if he had an important meeting, or a job interview, or had scheduled a vaction, or was getting married.
      Time is the one resource that is impossible to make up, regardless of how much money he could have earned if he were free there are somethings that are priceless. If I were in jail during any of the above listed times for something I was truly innocent for I would want so much monetary compensation that it really hurt those who wrongfully accused me.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    96. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I may be wrong, but I saw the original post as invitation to email bomb the woman in question. What if the story is incorrect or incomplete? What if the words attributed to her aren't accurate?"
      Then she will know how it feels, firsthand. At least she won't be locked up though.

    97. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe:
      Charlton, Kathleen M
      1103 37th Street Ext
      Beaver Falls, PA 15010-2011
      (724) 891-2445

    98. Re:Can you say... by masterzora · · Score: 1

      However, by common corollary, the one to invoke a Nazi comparison loses the argument.

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    99. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Insightful

      lol.. Whats wrong with business as usual?

      I mean the school is the ones that exonerated the boy. They found there was a mistake and they informed the proper authorities of the mistake to force the boys release. I mean really, what is the problem here besides the school collected the evidence instead of the cops? You have records matching other records that indicate someone did something at a certain time and then later they realized the times was incorrect and told the authorities a mistake was made.

      What is wrong with that business as usual? It isn't like this happens every day. It isn't like they are falsifying records to punish students. It isn't as if they did anything illegal or underhanded. The principal didn't stop all the questioning from the cops. It isn't like the boy told anyone the time change happened and they were wrong. It is only that they didn't think about something that only happens twice a year and happened to occur at an entirely different time this year. But the business as usual led them to admit to their mistake when it was noticed and take steps to get the kid released.

      It is unfortunate that this happened and that someone has been incarcerated wrongly. It is saddening that the parents didn't have or use resources to get him freed from detention sooner. It is a little more saddening that because he was a juvenile, he was probable held and subject to a different court proceeding then normal suspected criminals of legal age. But he isn't limited to suing for $20,000 either. He has the wrongful imprisonment, possibly a suit against the police and cop for failing to provide him equal protection under the law when the cops didn't verify the evidence and took the schools words for it, A separate suit against the principle and the school for their error in gathering the evidence and the direct harm done to the boy and maybe everyone else from the principle to the operator who took the call and recorded the time of it, the school for using broken equipment that led to the difference in times after the DST switch. And probably anyone who made the decision not to change the equipment out or certified that it wouldn't negatively effect anything.

      Of course all those suits would probably be wrapped into one case against each instance, and for each instance they would ask for certain amounts of money. The courts/state would be limited but the police and schools might not be. And if they ask for an amount not to large yet not too small, the insurance would likely pay out instead of going to court.

    100. Re:Can you say... by DieByWire · · Score: 1

      Why? They had their chance and fucked up big time. When someone has proven he is unfit to do a task, I certainly won't hand him the same one twice.

      Who's giving it to the same person? The principal didn't get it right, the police didn't get it right, but the DA did. The kid's lawyer did, too, obviously.

      It's not in the hands of the police or school district anymore. It's in the hands of the kid's lawyer and civil court now.

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    101. Re:Can you say... by Corbets · · Score: 1

      People in public offices can be convicted if they bread the law But it's so tasty with a little mustard and lettuce!
    102. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so redefining it makes it better.

      It's a POW camp where the battlefield is the whole world, the war never ends, and the enemy is anyone who we say it is.

    103. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news /westmoreland/s_501066.html

      The parents said they didn't believe he did it. They can recognize their son's voice from the call, and it wasn't his.

    104. Re:Can you say... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      This should be needless to say, but if you're worried about getting locked up for sending an insulting private e-mail, you need to sort your country out pronto.

    105. Re:Can you say... by nuzak · · Score: 1

      I guess I'll break another rule of mine, but this one deserves it: MOD. PARENT. UP.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    106. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with wanting to travel the world? And what's wrong with using a worldwide set of landmarks to help propel my travels?
      The detention facility is a less than ideal solution, but it's unfortunate that we even have the problem. The prisoners at Guantanamo have access to specially prepared meals, they get more calories a day than needed, every cell has an arrow painted on the floor that points to Mecca, and they're allowed prayer time.
      The war on terror may never be over, but hopefully those people who are detained will be identified with a specific group and released when appropriate. I know that it is a less than ideal situation, but the media blows the whole thing way out of proportion and coordinated hunger strikes that occur only when the media comes by don't help at all. I'm glad that there is so much discussion about the facility, but I wish that the media was less biased when covering the story.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    107. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. Putting someone in jail is an action against an individual. Unless it is meant as a logical and persuasive argument, or heartfelt communication, telling someone how you feel is a waste of time. Here in the US, my observation is that many (most?) complaints are attempts to be spiteful, not encouragement to do/be better. Complaints are the human analog of the automobile horn: Meant to be helpful and to promote better driving, but really only used to piss people off.

      An alternative approach is to suggest a better way of doing things. Complaining is just useless, time consuming noise.

      Sure, I'm way off topic, but I least I feel less stress now.

    108. Re:Can you say... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I think the bottom line is this Principal has to be replaced for several reasons
      1 obviously for the poor judgement of making an emotional and impulsive accuation against the student in the Principal's charge to protect,
      2 by making the charges to the police without making sure there was sufficient evidence, the police aren't listen to this shit-for-brains in the future so the Principal will be unable to protect the students in the future.
      3. it most likely made the principal a laughing-stock in the school undermining the ability to enforce any discipline there.
      This is just further evidence that seems to indicate that teachers and administrators are under some kind of mass-Post tramatic stress syndrome. They are just to willing to put a permanent lable on kids being kids without rational judgement.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    109. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      he's not a US citizen, so he doesn't get the same protections and access to a legal trial that a citizen of the US does. It sucks, but nothing about war is ever great.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    110. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      until you can walk down the street without having a security camera talk to you when you litter STFU FAGGOT

    111. Re:Can you say... by jwhyche · · Score: 0

      French grammer nazi's decited that they didn't like my french and moded every post I ever made down. So this account sits at 0 now. You should have seen it 3 years ago when it was at -2. It was just a case of abuse of the mod system before they "fixed" it.

      I have another account that I post under that I post at +2.

      I really have no clue where the rights of the child end and the parents begin. From what I've started to figure they begin and end where its convenent for the system. After all they think nothing of jacking a child up an try him as an adult it there was enough money involved. I can't think of the case right now but it involves a 14 or 15 year old hacker getting his case jack up to tri him as an adult. I'm pretty sure someone will remind me sooner or later.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    112. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better to plead guilty to something you never did and get a few weeks in jail and probation and be labeled for life than wait in jail to see what happens only to find out they still found you guilty and you're getting even more jail time.


      Two words: Time served.
    113. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Problem is it is making mistakes with other people's lives, wich should just NOT happen.

      That is where the 'Innocent until proven otherwise' thing comes from.

    114. Re:Can you say... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Informative

      Enter the sheeple...

      Guantanamo Bay does not have a prison, it is a detention facility for enemy combatants.

      If you're locked up in a cage and can't leave, the semantics are irrelevant from your point of view.

      Guantanamo Bay had released more than half of those who have come through its doors and is one of the most transparently operated detention facilities in the world.

      What you just wrote should have scared you after you proof read your post. Some of these innocent "detainees" or "guests of the US government" have been imprisoned for years before release. Some were as young as 12. Is that the behavior of a just and open society?

      The people in Guantanamo weren't just picked up off of the streets as suspects in criminal investigations...

      Wrong, some were "Jerry Springers" as the troops call them. The US was paying bounties for terrorism suspects and some people just turning in guys they had grudges against.

      Maybe you need to stop consulting the military on the rationale for their own wrong-doing. Guantanamo will go down in history as a blight on our record for protecting freedoms just like Japanese detentions. I just hope the Japanese weren't being tortured.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    115. Re:Can you say... by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure the principal doesn't control the courts or the cops and wasn't the person who decided the boy should be held in jail for 12 days.

    116. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, odds are pretty good that the Principal won't get fired even though she appears to richly deserve it. Teachers are protected by Civil Service Laws and that makes them pretty untouchable even for instances of utter criminal stupidity like this one.

      She could always do the honourable thing: Jigai.
    117. Re:Can you say... by RedBear · · Score: 4, Informative

      Guantanamo Bay does not have a prison, it is a detention facility for enemy combatants. Before jumping on the band wagon and accusing the US of treating people as "guilty until proven innocent" you should examine the subtle differences.
      A prison is a facility used for housing people who were convicted of crimes and sentenced to serve time in confinement.
      A detention facility is used during times of war to house those enemy forces who were captured on the battlefield until such time that the war is over or the captured individual will no longer pose a threat to the capturing country if released.
      Guantanamo Bay had released more than half of those who have come through its doors and is one of the most transparently operated detention facilities in the world.The people in Guantanamo weren't just picked up off of the streets as suspects in criminal investigations, they were captured while engaging in active combat operations and are considered prisoners of war. Read up on military law before making such ignorant accusations.

      Really? Did the US Congress make a declaration of war at some point that I missed out on? Because my reserve unit seems to have forgotten to call me up to say, "We're goin' to war, Devil Dog, oorah! Report for duty in 24 hours. Semper Fi." If you're speaking of Bush's "War on Terror" that he begins and ends every other sentence with, that's called a figure of speech and has no legal backing no matter how many times he repeats it. Even if it did, it wouldn't suddenly make it acceptable to indefinitely detain people with no known connection to terrorist groups, including foreign nationals who were simply visiting some area where we happen to have some troops stationed, or in some cases were kidnapped from an adjacent area and turned in by others.

      You should probably watch something besides Fox News every now and then. You might become a little less ignorant yourself. The established facts (as reported by crazy, liberal, non-Fox News stations like NPR and the BBC) are that the US military/government has been in the habit of offering rewards for the capture of "terrorists". Many of the people who have languished in the black box called Guantanamo (not allowing any communication or even access to a lawyer does not rhyme with the word "transparent") were simply random people scooped up off the street by Afghani warlords and such and turned in to the local US military posts for cash money. What makes this infinitely worse is that the military has already admitted many times that a large portion of the inmat--sorry, "detainees" have no actual evidence against them whatsoever beyond someone saying, "this guy is a terrorist, gimme some money". None, zip, zero, nada, el zilcho. They weren't keeping the evidence under wraps for security reasons, they simply didn't have any in many cases. That's already been established, from their own mouths. And yet they "detained" these people for literally years, and continue to do so, EVEN AFTER running their own investigations and finding no evidence with which to place charges. Worse yet (I know, how could it get worse!), they have done their level best to block all attempts at providing these unaccused (unaccusable!) persons with any due process, even though many have never been proven to be terrorists or enemy combatants or even that they were ever present near a location that any combat took place. The worst serial murderer/bomber/rapist/child molester gets at a minimum a chance to talk to a lawyer and due consideration by a court of law. These people got nothing. For years.

      You admit yourself that they have already released many people, finally, after really having no choice due to continuing public and legal pressures. Obviously they aren't going to be releasing actual proven terrorists anytime soon, so who are all those people? There are hundreds of people in Gitmo, yet more than half have simply been released? Do you even have a functioning brain beyond the part that regulates your automatic

    118. Re:Can you say... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      he's not a US citizen, so he doesn't get the same protections and access to a legal trial that a citizen of the US does. It sucks, but nothing about war is ever great.
      So, by your "logic" (if such a malapropism may be used), all I need inorder to commit rape or murder is to find someone who is not a US citizen? After all, according to you, since they are not US citizens, they don't get the same protections and access to a legal trial that a citizen of the US does. Or, perhaps you are a stupid fuckwit who knows dick about the law.


      Rat-fucker

    119. Re:Can you say... by number1scatterbrain · · Score: 1

      This year, the time change was unusually early because Congress passed a law moving the date on which the clocks were changed. So to my way of thinking, he can sue Congress for passing the law, and W for not vetoing it.

      --
      Remember the future...
    120. Re:Can you say... by swissfondue · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is this is a 12 year old boy. There is no reason in modern society to jail 12 year old boys "until further notice". But then, this is the USA we are talking about.

      --
      Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
    121. Re:Can you say... by DavidShor · · Score: 1
      We're at war with Gambia? And there are several people on the Supreme Court who believe that US citizenship is not required to have constitutional rights and access to the legal system, just presence on US soil.



      I resent the assertion that we are incapable of prosecuting terrorism without resorting to torture, improper detention, and foreign abduction. I understand that terrorism never stops, so it is difficult to present evidence without corrupting ongoing operations. However, these are the same challenges that police deal with every day. How is this any different from prosecution of drug gangs or organized crime? Somehow, we manage to give every drug lord and every crime boss a free and fair trial, without sending their tortured bodies to Cuba.

    122. Re:Can you say... by iocat · · Score: 1

      $20K buys a lot of PS3 games.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    123. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great. What more could make one happy than being indefinitely locked away somewhere where you get specially prepared meals, more calories a day than you need, a cell with an arrow painted on the floor that points to Mecca, and prayer time?

    124. Re:Can you say... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought people homeschooled their kids to socially stunt them and make them overly dependent on mommy and daddy for the rest of their lives
      I know I probably shouldn't be responding to flamebait, but home schooled kids by and large and more socially adjusted than kids who go to public school. There is something unnatural about having a bunch interact only with other kids who are within a year's difference in age. Plus, public school now is more of a combination baby sitting service/prison facility than anything else where knowledge is doled out McDonald's fashion.
    125. Re:Can you say... by MyOtherUIDis3digits · · Score: 1

      PERL:

      All of the power of Voodoo with most of the innate understandibility!


      OT, I know, but I had to tell you that's one of the best sig's ever! How true!

      --
      Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
    126. Re:Can you say... by NickFitz · · Score: 1

      (Not sure why I'm bothering to reply to an AC who's in denial about his own sexuality, but there's nothing on the box and I'm not due down the pub yet, so...)

      Simple, really: I don't litter. It's all part of being a responsible citizen. And frankly, if you tried walking through the centre of the city I live in at 2am on a Saturday morning, you'd be glad of the CCTV.

      Sometimes "they" (whoever "they" are supposed to be) really are out to get you, but I think you're just paranoid if you object to a simple and effective way of making sure the police collar the wankers before they kick your teeth in, rather than after. (Before the wankers kick your teeth in I mean, not the police - the police find it hard to get away with that nowadays, what with being on camera all the time...)

      (As it happens I have two friends who are employed watching the CCTV. Neither of them bears the slightest resemblance to a jackbooted totalitarian oppressor. In fact, the female one is really cute, even without jackboots.)

      --
      Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
    127. Re:Can you say... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      k.charlton@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us

      I think I see part of the problem right there in the email address.
      Seriously, I hope the kid gets a house and nice car out of them.
      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    128. Re:Can you say... by NickFitz · · Score: 1

      That's right, he's a resident of the United Kingdom - you know, that country whose armed forces are dying so you can have cheap gasoline.

      --
      Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
    129. Re:Can you say... by MyOtherUIDis3digits · · Score: 1

      "People in public offices can be convicted if they bread the law"

      But it's so tasty with a little mustard and lettuce!

      That was not a typo, it's a reference to increasingly popular theorem referencing the directly inverted relationship of bread vs law, in that the more you have of the former, the less you have to worry about the latter.

      --
      Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
    130. Re:Can you say... by MyOtherUIDis3digits · · Score: 1

      Why? They had their chance and fucked up big time. When someone has proven he is unfit to do a task, I certainly won't hand him the same one twice.

      Too bad there weren't more voters like you in the 2004 US presidential election.

      Waitasec, GWB actually got less votes in BOTH elections. Um, nevermind...

      --
      Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
    131. Re:Can you say... by hunterkll · · Score: 1

      what will you do with the $19K left over after buying all two games?!

    132. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is the quality and goal of the eduction system now. Schools are set up to make sure people are good factory or Walmart workers. They're not set up to create engineers or researchers. They'll pay plenty of attention to the type of CEO who ran Ford and GM into the ground, but not to the people who created things like Google.

    133. Re:Can you say... by umeboshi · · Score: 1

      French grammer nazi's decited that they didn't like my french and moded every post I ever made down. So this account sits at 0 now. You should have seen it 3 years ago when it was at -2. It was just a case of abuse of the mod system before they "fixed" it. I'll remember that next time I have mod points, and browse at 0. I'll at least try to put you back up to 1 if I see you at an unmoderated 0, in a discussion I'm moderating. I took the liberty of browsing through some of your more recent posts determine if this would be appropriate. I hope you don't mind. I did happen to snicker at the interstellar bypass remark, regardless of your instructions not to laugh :)

      I really have no clue where the rights of the child end and the parents begin. From what I've started to figure they begin and end where its convenent for the system. After all they think nothing of jacking a child up an try him as an adult it there was enough money involved. I can't think of the case right now but it involves a 14 or 15 year old hacker getting his case jack up to tri him as an adult. I'm pretty sure someone will remind me sooner or later. I really aggravates me that a 14 year old will be treated as an adult for capital offenses, yet not be eligible to vote until reaching adulthood. The hypocrisy here is staggering, and it really takes an irrational mind to consider this right and proper. I remember being warned of being tried as an adult when I was a mischievous 12-13 years old and thinking that this was an idle threat told to keep me in line. It's too bad that isn't true, although I understand that it varies from state to state.

    134. Re:Can you say... by rifter · · Score: 1

      What makes you think they didn't? If you look the case up almost anywhere other than the crappy source linked in the summary, you'll find that they did indeed have an attorney. It still took twelve days to get the charges (of threatening to use weapons of mass destruction, no less) dropped, and then the state authorities tried to have him held for a psychiatric evaluation because he had refused to admit to the charges.

      Your link confirmed my suspicion, which is that the IT department (or worse, lack thereof), screwed this one up. There was a funny bit about this on the local news here about the 911 call center's plans for DST. The IT department had set up central time syncronization and was busy making sure all the relevant systems were patched so that DST would be properly rendered. Yet the most often asked question, including by the reporter covering the story (which was later asked, eerily, by the knobs that read news at CNN), was "Why do you need to apply the patch? Can't we just set our clocks manually?"

      To anyone who knows anything about clocks or computers, the answer is obvious and the fact someone could be clueless enough to ask that question, especially when it comes to 911 center computers or those o fa major news organization, just boggles the mind. But when at a loss for an answer, this story provides a ready one. We do it that way to prevent this very shit from happening. Thank God the cell phone company had the right timestamps in their computers. I guess that means their IT people weren't nimrods and weren't prevented from doing their job by nimrods.

      BTW, even with the lack of an IT department someone has to be responsible for maintaining the system just like someone is responsible for cleaning the floor. These things don't run themselves. And they should have remembered that they manually set the clocks forward over a day late when they were accusing this guy. Especially since they did this manually, and the Principal herself knew all about it.

      From the newly linked article:

      High school Principal Kathy Charlton confirmed that some of the district's clocks were wrong because of the changeover to daylight-saving time, which was three weeks earlier this year.

      "All the time stamps were screwed up. Some did (change over), some didn't," Charlton said. "Everyone's system had to be set manually. There were a lot of clocks involved."

    135. Re:Can you say... by Wisconsingod · · Score: 1
      From the law linked in the parent...

      Damages are limited to either twice the claimant's income in the year prior to imprisonment or $20,000, whichever is greater, for each year of imprisonment. The claimant shall also be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Please people. when quoting your own law, get the facts straight. These amounts are for YEARS of imprisonment. Odds are, the state would rule at 12/365ths this amount plus attorney fees. The minor has no income, so the income amount would be defaulted to 12/365ths of 20k, or $657. The kid's parents cannot claim their income as they were not imprisioned. Know a law before you try to use it.

      Better to plead guilty to something you never did and get a few weeks in jail and probation and be labeled for life than wait in jail to see what happens Again, from your own law, it stipulates that a confession null and voids the rights to sue for wronful imprisonment. Now, in confessing, you still have a case for coersion or torture.
    136. Re:Can you say... by rifter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      he's not a US citizen, so he doesn't get the same protections and access to a legal trial that a citizen of the US does. It sucks, but nothing about war is ever great.

      Actually that is not true. Not only does the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which also defines what a citizen is protect all persons within the States

      No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      but there are several treaties which we have signed which would likewise require due process. This notion that non-citizens do not have rights has been perpetuated as fact in order to justify the mistreatment of non-citizens. In any case, some of the people who are in GITMO are citizens of the United States, and many other have been citizens of countries with which we are not at war, including the UK.

      This country was founded on the principal that all men are created equal and thus have equal rights under the law. Until recently we were in a business of perpetuating that idea. Now some people are trying to change our mission and justify activities that most people would normally consider un-American with bogus legal arguments that anyone with a 7th grade education should not be making, much less the Attorney General of the United States.

      This guy has actually proposed completely reinterpreting the Constitution such that anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is not a protected right. Not only is that backwards, he has even made that argument about things that are spelled out in the Constitution. How a lawyer gets anywhere by saying "this is the law because I say so" as a legal argument is beyond me, but this is what we have now.

      Anyway, I know you have a bunch of White House officials suggesting and talk show hosts outright saying that you can do whatever you want with non-citizens because they don't have rights. I know that this message is being trumpeted loud and clear on every channel, especially some particular ones. But it is not true, has never been true, and people only believe it because it is a lie that has been repeated enough.

      There are a whole lot of false messages in the media which tend to have common threads. You're supposed to think for yourself and maybe wonder "why are they telling me this, particularly this way?" Like all the time spent covering the story that Obama was substituted for Osama in a CNN news story. Or the endless repeating of the word "madrassa" without a single mainstream journalist (John Stewart was the only person on a major television series who brought it up) pointing out that this is the word for school in Arabic. Followed by tape of people saying they thught Obama was a terrorist. When you see a news story you need to realize there is always an idea for sale here. And sometimes you have to learn not to buy it.

    137. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that it's a great situation, but it's not as if these people are just thrown in a hole and left forever. All of these people were determined to be associated with terrorist organizations that we are at war with. The people are captured and held until enough information can be gathered to show that they will not pose a danger to the US if released. It's very similar to the way in which someone accused of murder sits in jail until they are tried and found innocent.
      It's not as if the US is running around and grabbing all of it's own citizens, we are just doing exactly what is done in every war.
      I don't know if conditions were much worse when Guantanamo was camp X-ray, but as it is now it's just one of those unfortunate reminders that we are at war. If I recall correctly 775 people have come to Gitmo and more than half of them have been released, the others are either still thought to be a threat to the US or awaiting release. Many of the "prisoners" are actually not being released for their own safety. For example, China has a policy of executing anyone that the US returns from Gitmo so the US is not releasing them until they can find a country to accept those people and guarantee their safety. I'd much rather sit in a cell being fed than send off to the firing squad.
      And as I said before the very existence of Gitmo is less than ideal, but it's not the atrocity that the media would have you believe.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    138. Re:Can you say... by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      Basically the top of my list is Bishop Kearney, and knowing the tech deal they just got with Galisano, it's even more appealing.

      We still have 3 years before we need to decide though.

    139. Re:Can you say... by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they appreciate that arrow on those days they are not bound between matresses, being sprayed and random intervals with a fire hose.

    140. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      Mr Rawi, an Iraqi citizen with UK residency, was reportedly sent to England in 1985 after his father was arrested by Saddam Hussein's secret police.
      Mr Banna is a Jordanian refugee who had been living in north-west London.
      Both men were alleged to have been associated with al-Qaeda through their connection with the London-based radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada.


      Please get proper information before posting, especially when it's as close as a previously linked story.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    141. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      I could also point out that these people are not being charged with any crime, simply detained as enemy combatants. And I have yet to see news of anyone who was sent to gitmo without having been tied to known terrorist organizations.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    142. Re:Can you say... by Flendon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bulletproof evidence? How about asking the phone company for records instead of relying on a caller-id for evidence?

      --
      chown -R us ./base
    143. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have to leave so I'll reread your post in full later, but just skimming over this phrase is an incorrect statement: "not allowing any communication or even access to a lawyer does not rhyme with the word "transparent"
      There are over 1,000 lawyers for the 300 or so people being detained. And for the record I don't watch Fox news.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    144. Re:Can you say... by Don+Qigong · · Score: 0

      Sending someone...a whole pile of abusive emails On Slashdot they call that "posting as anonymous coward", but it's tolerated as long as the inner circle admins are the ones doing it.
      --
      Once the line is crossed then it's on.
    145. Re:Can you say... by laron · · Score: 1

      So, i take it you ddid not read the grand-parent post?
      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231129&cid =18769185

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    146. Re:Can you say... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Why are people talking as if the school system / cops / whoever is some sort of single unified entity.

      In this case someone made a fuckup and the wrong person was sent to prison. That person does deserve some sort of compensation for the aggravation and inconvenience caused. But lets not forget that the compensation will be paid out of our taxes. (Not mine as I am not a US resident, but possibly yours).

      This is always the dilema when the state makes mistakes. It's not like a company where punitive damages hurt the shareholders profits, which hopefully trickles down in the form of better governance (Shareholders get pissed and sack board unless the manager who screwed up get severe reprimand).

      In this instance the best policy for instituting change is to lobby the decision makers using democratic means. Write a letter to the relevant elected official complaining that you will not vote for them if they ignore these sort of mistakes by their own employees.

      I know many people will reply to this that it is ineffective, maybe they are right. But any attempt to punish state mistakes with huge sums of damages just results in raising the tax burden or less money to spend on essential services. Both of these outcomes punish us all.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    147. Re:Can you say... by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Dude, is this school seriously from a place called HEMPfield? Far out!

      --
      Property is theft.
    148. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heheheheh. A sensical statement in a /. discussion. Who'd have thunk it...

    149. Re:Can you say... by SweetComputerGuy · · Score: 1

      Ok, I admit, I must be missing something here. So what exactly does the DST have anything to do with him being jailed? I mean if he called in a bomb threat, then him being jailed was the right thing to do. Again unless I'm missing something here I can't see where the DST has anything to do with it.

    150. Re:Can you say... by slashrogue · · Score: 1

      I dunno, you could still be a screenwriter some day...

    151. Re:Can you say... by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      The 'illegal justice system' in the US is among the best legal systems in the world, its the people running the show AND the front liners that are not educated properly in the laws of the land (or justify their actions with cognitive dissonance and should be taken to task for it).

      Any justice system that allows "front liners that are not educated properly in the laws of the land" to administer itself is a broken justice system. The best? Hah! I oughta sue you for speaking bull.

    152. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      Both men were alleged to have been associated with al-Qaeda through their connection with the London-based radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada.

      Maybe you didn't read the linked article?

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    153. Re:Can you say... by Mathonwy · · Score: 1

      THANK YOU.

      That is the kind of post that I always imagine or wish I could write as a response to idiocy. Well reasoned, with facts to back it up, and hitting all the important points rapid fire.

      Thank you sir, for providing a complete and total rhetorical beat-down, of the sort that I can never seem to manage myself. It was clearly needed in this case.

    154. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      I agree with your beliefs, and I don't support torture. As for the detainment, it's the best system that we have in place now. I think there should be some open dialog and eventually we may have a procedure for dealing with terrorism that is more public, but the threat is still so new we're dealing with it in the best way we know to keep the US safe.
      Personally, I think all of this mess could've been avoided if we didn't send so much aid to Israel, but that's another discussion.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    155. Re:Can you say... by slim-t · · Score: 1
      "Timezones get British man wrongfully extradited to US for threatening E-mail"

      He must be a terrorist if he can send emails at noon that arrive at 6am. A terrorist from the future.

    156. Re:Can you say... by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      ... when he replied 'she started waving her hands in the air and saying "we got him, we got him."

      This is hardly the procedure that should be used if you are considering jail time.

    157. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      but somehow I can't imagine that mistakenly detained POWs from countries on our own side would have been kept completely isolated without due cause for years

      Could you provide evidence that backs up the fact that someone from a country on our own side was kept completely isolated, without due cause for years?

      What were those people all doing locked up in Gitmo for up to 6 YEARS and then just being released with nothing but a "Bye now! Come visit us again soon!" Maybe they were never actually guilty of being "enemy combatants", eh?

      These people were mostly captured on the battlefield, engaged in combat with US forces, but are no longer considered a threat beyond direct combat. Basically they are just foot soldiers, not anyone engaged in planning.

      Thank you for not falling back to argumentum ad hominem, as many others have. Show me a few of your sources and we can discuss this further.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    158. Re:Can you say... by vimh42 · · Score: 1

      Not entirely sure if this is correct but based TFA, the phone company did give the correct times. Which matched the schools time. It's just that the schools time was an hour off, but the phone company couldn't have known that. So between the Principal, her staff and the Police, they royaly screwed up.

    159. Re:Can you say... by h2g2bob · · Score: 1

      the parents probably believe the police and thought he did it too

      TFA:

      Webb, who's never even had a detention in his life...

      I'll let you decide for yourself
    160. Re:Can you say... by hahafaha · · Score: 1

      The problem was that the school's entire philosophy on the matter was ``guilty until proven innocent''. 12 days is a huge time to be in jail, particularly if you did not do anything.

      Realize that it does not end at his aquittal. His friends and classmates will treat him differently. He has a police record. Et cetera.

    161. Re:Can you say... by hahafaha · · Score: 1

      The problem was that the call he made was exactly an hour before the bomb threat. So, when they looked at the caller ID of the call made at the time of the bomb threat, they found his phone number, because the caller ID clock and their clock was off by an hour, due to DST.

    162. Re:Can you say... by dan828 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the friends and own parent couldn't look in his eyes and believe him when he was saying "I didn't do it", then they are much more guilty than him.

      When he was initially being accused his parents came to the school and the tape of the bomb threat was played for them. According to them, they both told the principle that the voice on the recording was not that of their son. The principle disregarded them and called the police. So pretty much from the get go the parents believed that their son was not guilty.

      http://kdka.com/topstories/local_story_094135948.h tml/
    163. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What aquittal? The charges have been dropped. And the school should make it known that they wrongly accused him of something. But I have some real issues guilt until proven innocnet line people crap out.

      You see, Being accused of something isn't judging guilt. What do you want? For the student to never get arrested and walk free until a jury convicts them and then take them into custody? How would that work if he was accused of killing or raping someone? How about if he was accused of starting fires? What do you do with someone accused of something?

      It is unfortunate that this happened. But there is nothing wrong with it happening. They made a mistake and then set the record straight. You "guilty until proven innocent" type people are the same jack asses crying when the cops stop and harass someone but then say they should have done more to stop the crime they end up committing. I suppose if the police placed the campus on lock down and posted guards at the doors of every building after the first few deaths last week, you would be bitching there too. It is a no win situation. Sure the school wrongly accused him of something. But the school also proved it wasn't him that did it. Why don't we get real about this.

    164. Re:Can you say... by yderf · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing about Godwin's Law is that I'm pretty sure that as a discussion thread increasing, the probability that ANY statement will be uttered would approach 1. So it would be vacuously true.

    165. Re:Can you say... by alissy · · Score: 1

      Actually, he's 15. In my mind, there's a big difference between jumping to conclusions about a 12-yr-old and jumping to conclusions about a 15-yr-old. Not that either one is in any way good, but you're statistically more likely to be right when assuming the worst about the older one. Unless there are some really crazy 12-yr-old bombers I don't know about. In any case, this is the logical conclusion to the spate of "zero tolerance" policies - circumstances mean nothing, the point becomes to inflict pain, to make examples of supposed "offenders," instead of to investigate and promote justice.

    166. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as we are on the subject, Those detainees also get review processes each and every year to make sure they are indeed the people we want and that they are actually capable of the stuff they are suspected of doing. Think of it as a mini arrangement. But it isn't like they are without recourse.

    167. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go that far but whoever neglected to switch out the caller id that couldn't switch the time properly and whoever failed to note this problem sufficiently as to avoid the principle thinking a bomb threat was made by the wrong person should get suited along with the principle who made the acusation and the cop who failed to look at the evidence.

    168. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      (Side note: $20,000 for 12 days in jail ain't too bad, not that anyone, especially a kid, should have to suffer that.)
      Yea, that something like $70 per hour that you are on site.
    169. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, there!! It's not like she called him a Nappy-Headed Ho!!

    170. Re:Can you say... by adamruck · · Score: 1

      I don't care about telling what I think to the principal. What is the email address of the school board?

      --
      Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    171. Re:Can you say... by vertigoCiel · · Score: 1

      I believe you mean "Minitrue" there, comrade! Newthinkers unsay oldspeak "Ministry of Truth."

    172. Re:Can you say... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      ...so that you, too, can try, convict and punish on less than complete evidence.

      Nice... Because sending lots of e-mail is real punishment. And to think, we've been wasting all this money on JAILS for all these years.

      I think sending numerous e-mails is right about on-par with "waving her hands in the air and saying 'we got him, we got him.'"
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    173. Re:Can you say... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      They do have a status that allows imprisonment without determination of innocence or guilt, or even accusation of a crime.

      Prisoner of War. POWs are allowed to be held until the end of the conflict; or the end of the prisoner's ability to participate in said war*.

      Now, the way they're being held violates rules for holding a POW, but that's a different matter. Many have also been accused of being unlawful combatants, which alters the situation somewhat. Personally, I think that the administration has a point about many held there. Still, I would at least allow them the standard 'You're allowed to write letters home, we'll even arrange for delivery, but we're allowed to read all your mail**'.

      *IE disabled grunts can be sent home.
      **For things like military secrets.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    174. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand what color of law means. For it to apply, someone would have been planing to violate his civil rights and used a law to do so.

      I also don't think that giving your lack of understanding on the issue of color of law, you should use more then one "pay" in each sentence.

      And finally, teachers aren't untouchable on anything criminal. Further more, there are only certain things they are immune from a lawsuit on. There was nothing criminal about this situation or the actions of the teacher/principle. I think your lack of understanding of a few key things you chose to comment about, show you aren't in a position to suggest criminality of anyone's actions. Maybe you should just look for a few different pronouns and adjectives.

    175. Re:Can you say... by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I didn't spend my time bouncing around juvey because I'm not a fucking moron. From what I've heard, though, it's not exactly a fun place to be.

      Oh, and no, I wasn't a goody two-shoes as a kid, I just learned quick how to talk my way out of trouble with my parents and teachers, then applied the same techniques to the cops the couple of times it became an issue.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    176. Re:Can you say... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      12 days is a huge time to be in jail, particularly if you did not do anything.


      Considering that there are adults who have spend over 20 years in prison for a crime it turns out they didn't commit, 12 days is NOT a huge amount of time.

      As for those that spent years in prison; many would be lucky to get 20k per year of imprisonment. Many get nothing, sometimes even less than somebody guilty who's being released for time served. The proven innocent just gets released, the guilty get employment and housing assistance. Heck, over in england they charge the innocent room&board!

      Not that I don't think that there shouldn't be any compensation in this case; but I personally think that a couple thousand plus the family's legal bills should be enough. Of course, I also think that it'd be good for the state to set up a compensation fund for people who are found innocent(as opposed to not guilty), but have been imprisoned for an extended period of time.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    177. Re:Can you say... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Those detainees also get review processes each and every year to make sure they are indeed the people we want and that they are actually capable of the stuff they are suspected of doing.

      ...which is rather like the principal in this story conducting a review.

      There's a reason we have a court system with jury trials and an adverserial process.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    178. Re:Can you say... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Prisoner of War. POWs are allowed to be held until the end of the conflict; or the end of the prisoner's ability to participate in said war*.

      But the United States is not at war. Congress has made no such declaration, and there is no government (or in civil wars and revolutions, putative government) with which we are engaged in armed conflict.

      A war ends when the two governments agree, or when one government is destroyed and the other occupies it, extending its own governance or setting up a new government in the conquered territory.

      It is only because war has such a rather clear end, that the concept of "prisoner of war" has meaning.

      The "Global War on Terror" is a branding campaign for various acts of military agression; it is not a war.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    179. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but somehow I can't imagine that mistakenly detained POWs from countries on our own side would have been kept completely isolated without due cause for years

      Could you provide evidence that backs up the fact that someone from a country on our own side was kept completely isolated, without due cause for years?

      *David Hicks*

    180. Re:Can you say... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      The 'illegal justice system' in the US is among the best legal systems in the world, its the people running the show AND the front liners that are not educated properly in the laws of the land

      You contradict yourself; if the people running the show are not educated properly in the laws, that's a pretty lousy system.

      The fact that we have the world's highest prison population, both per-captia and in terms of absolute numbers; that in some cities thousands of arrests without merit are made per year; and that the system is known to have a strong racial bias, all show that the system needs sustantial improvement.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    181. Re:Can you say... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      But the United States is not at war. Congress has made no such declaration, and there is no government (or in civil wars and revolutions, putative government) with which we are engaged in armed conflict.

      Unneeded. There is no need for a country to formally declare war.

      The "Global War on Terror" is a branding campaign for various acts of military agression; it is not a war.

      It involved uniformed soldiers conducting military operations on foreign soil. Close enough. As for the terrorists, insurgents held as POWs, it sucks to be them. They have no clear release date other then 'when our administration feels like it'.

      I'd still rather be held in gitmo than be held in a WWII German or USSR POW camp, much less North Korea or Vietnam.

      Another point I'll make is that in many ways the UN and international law is in a more primitive state than for individuals inside first world countries. There's very much a problem of who'll enforce the law? In other words, as Country A, I can violate the civil rights of my civilians, as well as the people of Country B as much as I like until somebody comes along that's able and willing to stop me. Country B is likely to try to make Country A's life miserable, but if it's the proverbial 500 pound gorilla, and the next heavyweight is 300 pounds(and busy scratching it's ass), and Country B is a 75 pound lightweight, there's not much actual enforcement to be seen.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    182. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think it's worse than your excellent post describes.

      The Geneva Convention quite plainly says that if there is any doubt about whether a detainee qualifies as a POW, there is supposed to be a hearing on the question, in the form of a "competent tribunal" (literal term used in the Geneva Convention). Until that happens, detainees are supposed to be treated AS a prisoner of war with all the rights and priviledges therein. Period. Bush can't designate people "enemy combatants", because he obviously isn't a tribunal, and some of the people in Gitmo sure weren't being treated as the POWs they should have been.

      People pointed this out from the very start, but Bush and his legal advisors just skipped that step until, finally, the Supreme Court forced them to follow it. Years after it should have happened, prisoners are finally getting their hearings, very slowly (and there is debate about whether they really qualify as "competent tribunals"). So, Bush et al. were indeed originally breaking the Geneva Convention, apparently did not know or think that they were (even though it's freaking obvious in Article V of the convention what should have been done), and they only started doing the right thing because they were legally forced to.

      How is anybody in the world supposed to take Bush seriously when he talks about "freedom, liberty, and justice"? Yes, these are bad people in Gitmo, but so what? They don't deserve due process? That doesn't sound like "liberty and justice for all" to me, and some of the people involved were U.S. citizens.

      Worse, what kind of precident does this set for the situation when U.S. or allied troops are captured by an enemy? Can some tinpot dictator somewhere else in the world be inspired to designate those prisoners as "enemy combatants" and deny them their rights as POWs? Or leave people in prison for indefinite periods of time without charge or hearings about their POW status? The whole thing jeapordizes the protections of the Geneva Conventions for OUR troops -- also something that military personel pointed out when this whole thing started.

      So, I agree with you, except that while this travesty is bad now, I think it is potentially much worse in the future. If Bush et al. can twist the Geneva Conventions so perversely in a country with a strong history of freedom and rule of law, what do our troops have to look forward to someday in legally dubious nations that could be even more "creative" with their interpretation of the Geneva Convention?

    183. Re:Can you say... by DieByWire · · Score: 1

      Nice... Because sending lots of e-mail is real punishment. And to think, we've been wasting all this money on JAILS for all these years.

      You're right, it's not punishment... it's just a form mob revenge.

      The courts, lawyers and voters will deliver the real punishment after everyone has had their fair day in court.

      I think sending numerous e-mails is right about on-par with "waving her hands in the air and saying 'we got him, we got him.'"

      Which was exactly my point.

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    184. Re:Can you say... by Oldav · · Score: 0

      "These people were mostly captured on the battlefield, engaged in combat with US forces, but are no longer considered a threat beyond direct combat. Basically they are just foot soldiers, not anyone engaged in planning." What a load of crap you write. You are completely deluded fella, most of the detainees were captured away from the battlefield, and the only "evidence" is the word of the same people who lied about WMD, and have zero credibility with thinking people. As for evidence of isolation, Australian David Hicks is an example, he was kept in solitary confinement for the last 2 years, and has had a total of less than 5 visitors in 5 years. Guantanamo is the shame of the free world. He was called the worst of the worst, then eventually setenced to 5 years for "Material support for terrorism" a newly invented charge, created to legitimize the illegal kidnapping of this person. He pled guilty after basically being tortured for 5 years, with no hope of release. There was no evidence, or even accusation he even fired a shot, he did train with alQuieda-when that was not against the law. The only redeeming factor was the exemplary representation by his excellent Marine lawyer Major Michael Mori, who fought tenaciously for his client, even though it may well cost him his career propects in the future.At the present time I would have zero respect for Americans in general if it were no for this man who holds sacred the principles of the country I used to think were the most advanced in the free world. The apparent greed and cowardice of the US government is undeniable. The terrorists have won already, you just havent noticed yet. America home of the captives of cowardice.(formerly home of the free and brave)

    185. Re:Can you say... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Can't vote in the US. But don't feel disappointed, our government is just as full of it.

      An idea: How about getting all the people with a clue together somewhere and dump the rest on some other part of the globe? I mean, after all, they obviously want it that way...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    186. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...that they are actually capable of the stuff they are suspected of doing. Sumdumass, are you capable of going on a shooting rampage? Didn't you confess under torture that you had it in mind? Off to Gitmo with you!
    187. Re:Can you say... by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 1

      I'd still rather be held in gitmo than be held in a WWII German or USSR POW camp Under the Geneva conventions, you are guaranteed food, shelter, and not to be tortured. The inmates of Guantanamo have none of the above. If someone tortures a POW, they can go to jail for war crimes. In Guantanamo, they'd probably get a commendation or job security.
    188. Re:Can you say... by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 1
      "Presumed" innocent until proven guilty.

      How about if he was accused of starting fires? What do you do with someone accused of something? That's why judges have the power of bail.
    189. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of those released were picked up in Pakistan and other countries on the say-so of "informants" who were using the process to rid themselves of rivals and personal enemies, many of whom had no connection whatsoever to terrorism. Meanwhile, the president of Pakistan, who is propped up by an intelligence service that supported the Taliban with financial and military resources, is invited to Camp David for a friendly chat now and then.

    190. Re:Can you say... by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 1

      Legally speaking, stuff that happens to "non-citizens" often eventually winds its way into being applied to "citizens."

      Also, read the constitution, it does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. Habeus corpus is not a citizen-only right, but for anyone arrested.

    191. Re:Can you say... by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course, and living in UK they had no reason to arrest him for years, but one day, with a battery charger in his luggage, then BAM they need to send him to Guantanamo immediately.

      This whole thing, years of painful separation and allegations of mistreatment, could have been avoided if he was treated according to international standards and rule of law.

    192. Re:Can you say... by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      They do have a status ... Prisoner of War.

      But the administration has explicitly refused to accept that as their status.

      Now, the way they're being held violates rules for holding a POW, but that's a different matter. Many have also been accused of being unlawful combatants, which alters the situation somewhat.

      The way they are being held violated the rules of holding POWs, because their status as such is not accepted. All of them have been labelled "unlawful combatants." This is status, dreamed up by Gonzales, which is not recognised at law. It's the excuse provided not to treat them as POWs (which they probably aren't), but also not to treat them as criminals (which a percentage may be).

      So OP is quite correct in eir observations, even if a bit off-topic.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    193. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      could you provide some examples of things that have happened to "non-citizens", then happened to citizens or is this just a poorly constructed "slippery-slope"?

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    194. Re:Can you say... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      How would that work if...? How about if...? What do you do with someone accused of something? Then the situation would have been different. For a 12-year-old accused of a bomb threat, incarceration until further notice on the strength of dubious reasoning definitely seems harsh.

      Fact 1: The hoax call was made at time X.
      Fact 2: The boy's home number made a call, also at time X.

      Even if the times had been right, that's not enough evidence to convict him of anything without further investigation.
      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    195. Re:Can you say... by syousef · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to say thank you. It's very heartening to see that there are still U.S. citizens (an ex-military one at that) who "get it".

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    196. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Could you provide evidence that backs up the fact that someone from a country on our own side was kept completely isolated, without due cause for years?"

      David Hicks, an Australian citizen, has been locked up there for years, accused of 'training with a terrorist organisation'. This wasn't even against the law in Australia when he allegedly trained (before 9/11). Nevertheless, he sits and rots. They refuse to bring him home, and only recently has he been given any kind of trial.

      There is hope now that he will be transferred back to Aus soon. Right before our election (fancy that!!!).

      The question is: What is due cause?

      Sorry for posting AC. I don't really have an account.

      -James

    197. Re:Can you say... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I agree that Gitmo is a modern day "abberation" and maybe there are some inmates who should never see the light of day but as the (new) US secratary of defence says, it's reputation has sunk so low that it will never be viewed as legitamate.

      As a particular example of injustice at gitmo, the handling of David Hicks has been nothing short of the US administration and the Australian government turning a hapless fool who they "puchased" from the northern aliance for $1000 into a high profile scapegoat for their "terrorists under the bed" propoganda.

      "Just because you linked to some detention center site doesn't prove anything along these lines."

      I agree that sites lobbying one point of view are hard to take seriously. I have tried to link to reputable sources (the SMH leans right, the Age leans left, both are major papers in Oz) I have also had the chance to compare the information to what the people involved were actually saying/doing. The issue has been (and still is) a big deal over here, just prior to the "trial" there was a live one hour debate on TV between Hicks miltary lawyer, military prosecuter, the Aussie AG, Hicks parents and other involved and interested parties in the audience.

      The defence lawyer was nothing short of fucking brilliant and completely demolished both the AG and the prosecutor with their own words. That one defence lawyer's passion for justice (as we commonly understand it in the west), did more for US foriegn policy than your government has done since the Indonesian tsunami. Sadly it is quite likely he also flushed his own military career down the toilet at the same time.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not as my government would have it a "Hicks supporter". I support the basic foundations of western law and those foundations are not available to gitmo inmates unless your own government is willing to stick up for you (as the UK and every other western nation except Australia did for their citizens after the US supreme court's decision).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    198. Re:Can you say... by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 1

      Internment of the Japanese during World War II. First they rounded up all the non-citizen immigrants, then went and arrested thousands of Japanese-American citizens and their children (also citizens). Once they justify rounding up all non-citizens of a specific group (Arabs, Mecixans, etc) then that justification can be used to minority citizens too, in the name of National Security. When the government aims at noncitizens it often hits citizens as well, particularly when it encourages or engages in ethnic profiling, since one cannot tell without investigation whether a person who "looks Arab" or "looks Mexican" is a citizen or a foreign national.

      American citizens Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla have been declared "enemy combatants" as well. (Hamdi is alleged, but has not been proven, to have fought for the enemy abroad; Padilla is alleged, but has not been proven, to have conspired on U.S. soil to aid terrorists in procuring a "dirty bomb.") As a result, both men were held, in military prisons. It took years to charge either with a crime, and only did so for Padilla after a large public outcry. Neither citizen was afforded access to a lawyer for years after their arrest. And when Padilla, a U.S. citizen finally goes on trial, the government may prosecute them based on "secret evidence - "proof" that they will never have the opportunity to challenge because they won't know what it is. So much for limiting civil rights infringements to aliens alone.

      The Fifth Amendment says, in relevant part, "no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Person, not citizen.

      I suggest reading "Enemy Aliens" by legal expert David Cole. He has a good grasp of US legal history and how it applies to current events.

    199. Re:Can you say... by Mr.+Safety+EFT · · Score: 1

      chown -R us ./base hahahahaha love it. (sorry to wander off topic - but this was far too funny.)

    200. Re:Can you say... by peter318200 · · Score: 1

      because we dont want it to happen again?

      --
      boldly going nowhere
    201. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      A sensationalist as the media is these days the entire "battery charger" incident had probably gotten blown out of proportion. If anything it was just a story to separate him from everyone else at the airport without causing a huge scene. Did you happen to notice the list of countries that he had traveled to? Is it that hard to believe that he may have been under suspicion for his ties to known terrorists and his journey through terrorist countries gave his observers reason to act?
      Even in the BBC story they mention his alleged ties. If he really was a terrorist do you think he'd admit it? Or do you think that he'd come with stories that discredit those he is fighting against?
      I am constantly being told to pull my head out of my ass for my views, but those same people telling me that just wholeheartedly agree with what they hear on NPR.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    202. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so that you, too, can try, convict and punish on less than complete evidence.

      Hey, I only emailed her to ask her if the story was true.

      If she says it's not true and she didn't do it, I'll ask whether
      I should believe her since she's not a criminal and therefore not
      lying or whether I should not believe her because she's a criminal
      and therefore lying.

      The only problem will be if she says it's true. Then I will
      have to work tirelessly to see that she loses her job.

    203. Re:Can you say... by brightmidnight · · Score: 1

      The article you link to says that the US gov. said this guy and his friend had ties to a Muslim cleric in London affiliated with al-Qaeda.

      There are two sides to every story. Perhaps the US was right in suspecting them of having terrorist ties-- but if that's the case, they should be tried in a court of law rather than languishing in Gitmo. If they're terrorists, I see nothing wrong with putting them on trial and punishing them.

      --
      -- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
    204. Re:Can you say... by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      That's hardly fair. I've been reading about how Americans treat their kids like shit for years. Are you an elementary school kid playing doctor with someone around your age? BAM. You're going to be sent to desexualization programming where the kids are subjected to discredited techniques used to "cure" homosexuals in the 1930s. Are you an eagle scout who forgot your scout knife and brought it to the front desk so you can get it back at the end of the day? BAM. Expelled, and you should hope you don't get in legal trouble over this.

      It's disgusting. Every time I read another story like it, I despair for the children whose lives are being destroyed.....for the children.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    205. Re:Can you say... by PorkNutz · · Score: 1
      It's not about "What if", it's about "What is". Should they be monetarily punished for their actions? Yes, but not because of something that could have happened while he was incarcerated. Lots of things could have happened while he was incarcerated, but none of them did.

      Reality trumps fantasy.

    206. Re:Can you say... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Well he WAS a crime....inal a criminal.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    207. Re:Can you say... by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, that 20,000 would come from the taxpayers. Instead, a lawsuit ought to focus on the people involved, to dissuade them from affronts to justice in the future.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    208. Re:Can you say... by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even if you want to cast doubt on his story, how about Khalid El-Masri? The guy who was detained in Macedonia for having a the same name as a terrorist, kidnapped using "extraordinary rendition," held for months and then dumped on a desolate road in Albania (too embarrasing to release him with an apology or any acknowledgement of their mistake).

      This debacle resulted in a lawsuit and a costly souring of German-US relations. He was cleared of all charges and by all accounts it was a mistake. Are you going to defend that mistake too? This wasn't some "No-fly" list inconvenience of a few hours, this involved torture and violations of international extradition laws.

    209. Re:Can you say... by brightmidnight · · Score: 1

      She admits in the Pittsburghlive article that half the clocks at the school were right and half were wrong. When she was reprogramming the microwave clock in the break room, it seems evident she would have thought, "Wait a minute, that log from the bomb threat could be off, too." The police, of course, should have thought of this also, but she was at the school the whole morning when by her own admittance half the clocks were the wrong time. If what the kid is saying is true, she really, really messed up. She did the opposite of what she was supposed to-- this kid was an honor student. Now his school has let him down and he won't be back. What if someone was really calling in a bomb threat who meant to actually do something that day? The threat should have been thoroughly investigated. Her interviewing techniques seem lacking. She failed at her job and she should resign.

      --
      -- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
    210. Re:Can you say... by PorkNutz · · Score: 1
      I've been to juvenile detention myself (25 years ago) and I can tell you, Juvenile detention is jail.

      I've been to juvenile detention recently (to pick up my nephew), and I can tell you, Juvenile detention is STILL jail!

      Just because the inmates are under 18 doesn't mean it's not jail. The other inmates still want to beat (and fuck) your ass. You still sleep in an overcrowded cell. You still eat food you wouldn't feed your dog. You still have to take a shit on a ice cold stainless steel toilet/sink in front of 3 other guys. You DON'T get to go to the playground. You DON'T get to sit around and watch TV. You don't have any communication with the outside world except through your attorney.

      Juvenile detention is still jail!

    211. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been out of public school for awhile, but if memory serves being a Nazi was in the job description for principal. The only exception was one Mr. Rogers type fellow who wandered the halls asking students not in class if they shouldn't be, to which they would reply that they had a spare, to which he'd respond fine. But he had a vice principal who was a Nazi. If sent to the office, the student usually got to see the vice principal. I remember being sent to the office and having the vice principal peer at me through his monocle while sucking on a filterless cigarette, saying things like "Do you like zis school? Zere are other schools, you know."

      So sorry to see you were modded troll. Must have been a Godwin's Law pedant.

    212. Re:Can you say... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      you seem to be just another ignorant America basher.

      Torture and show trials have a lot of people on edge and jumping to conclusions about the rest of the place that follows due process.

    213. Re:Can you say... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Wasn't another GITMO prisoner arrested at an airport in Chicago?

      It's worth paying attention to news sources outside of your own country guys - I certainly do the same in my country.

    214. Re:Can you say... by brightmidnight · · Score: 1

      Or give ALL her bosses a call or email.


      Wayne Doyle, Superintendent
      wayne.doyle@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us

      Dr. Barbara J. Marin
      assistant superintendent, elementary

      http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/webdir/marinb /index.htm

      Name: Dr. Barbara J. Marin
      E-mail: barbara.marin@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us
      Location: Administration Office
      Phone: (724) 850-2227 FAX: (724) 850-2089

      Dr. Rebecca Costello, Director of Pupil Services
      http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/webdir/costel lor/index.htm

      School: Administration Building
      E-mail: r.costello@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us
      Phone: (724) 850-2229
      Secretary: Beverly Hudson
      Phone: (724) 850-2224 Fax: (724) 850-2089 ---------
      School Board

      School Board Webpage http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/members.asp

      John Henry-President

      Anthony Bompiani abompiani@comcast.net

      Betty Valerio, former board president
      Betty L. Valerio, President R. R. 6, Box 76. Greensburg, PA 15601-9315 (724) 834-2590

      Louis DePaul
      http://www.reedsmith.com/our_people.cfm?cit_id=1 437&widCall1=customWidgets.content_view_1&usecache =false

      # Email: ldepaul@reedsmith.com
      # T: +1 412 288 3054 (Pittsburgh)

      David Higinbotham
      http://www.basd.org/page.php?12#
      dhiginbotham@basd.org

      Linda Zundel
      http://www.w1w.cc/psba/Districts_Policies/H/Hemp fieldArea/
      linda.zundel@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us
      # F: +1 412 288 3063 (Pittsburgh)

      --
      -- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
    215. Re:Can you say... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Mod up?

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    216. Re:Can you say... by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      What horrible parents! You're absolutely right, every parent should have at least 100 grand in their pocket to hire attorneys or bail money to rescue their children from the "legal" system when the police make a little boo-boo.

      Damn right, regardless of the sarcastic tone. Here we are, outraged about how a kid spent 12 nights in jail because nobody bothered to review the log/hour change, nor believed him, while simultaneously jumping to conclusions about the parents and finding them guilty with no evidence necessary.

      Irony, indeed.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    217. Re:Can you say... by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      link?

    218. Re:Can you say... by Drantin · · Score: 1

      Of course, other news sources say nothing about the topic...

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    219. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Leave it to the lawyers. If the facts in the story are straight, there will be plenty of pain to share.


      Hehe, and even more pain to share if your cellmate is gay...

    220. Re:Can you say... by sohare · · Score: 1
      Emailing someone to complain about the way that they have handled a problem is considered the proper way to handle things in a democracy.

      How do those of us living in a Republican form of government handle problems like this?

    221. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holding the principal in jail for 12 days might make it even, but I think a better chance to fix the problem is to take the principal out of the hemp field for 12 days, that might clear her mind a bit.

    222. Re:Can you say... by nevesis · · Score: 1

      I wrote the superintendent instead:

      Your high school principal is obviously not qualified for her position, and by allowing her that position, you are obviously not qualified for yours.

      I hope that your district is rightfully sued by the Webb family.

      I hope the presiding judge makes an example out of your district.

      I hope that both Ms. Charleton and yourself are terminated without severance, and that this incident will have significantly tarnished your reputation, leaving you unemployed and eventually homeless.

      Sincerely,

      nevesis

    223. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Could you provide evidence that backs up the fact that someone from
      >a country on our own side was kept completely isolated, without due
      >cause for years?

      *Murat Kurnaz*

    224. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But lets not forget that the compensation will be paid out of our taxes.

      Although that is true, at least here in Germany, if it happened due to negligience by someone (very likely here), the state can sue them in return to pay back the compensation. So the only amount the state looses is whatever the one responsible can't pay or if it was just a honest mistake (in which case I read that you sometimes don't get any compensation in the US?)

    225. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between an alleged tie and a real tie. We don't know if those fellas attended that cleric's home group, do we?
      The released fella has firmer ties to British intelligence than to Al Qaeda, which is why he finally was released.
      To put it another way: That kid we're talking about was allegedly tied to a bomb threat by a Caller ID log. It happened to be an incorrect Caller ID log, but the tie was alleged...

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    226. Re:Can you say... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      But any attempt to punish state mistakes with huge sums of damages just results in raising the tax burden or less money to spend on essential services. Both of these outcomes punish us all.



      And in a democracy, that serves "us all" exactly right for electing morons to govern "us all". "us all" are responsible for the people we put in office.

    227. Re:Can you say... by Prune · · Score: 1

      Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The boy is fifteen years old. Where did you get that twelve years old idea from? Pull it out of your ass?

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    228. Re:Can you say... by VShael · · Score: 1
      Former LCpl, USMC

      Sir, there's no such thing as an ex-marine. ;)

    229. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      I really don't have enough information to comment on any of the other "secret" prisons that the US may be maintaining around the world, if torture and abuse is going on in any of those then it needs to be addressed. In this thread I am speaking only of Gitmo, it seems to be run fairly transparently and I have not seen any valid evidence that torture was being carried out there.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    230. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      Of these two separate allegations, one is easily verifiable and poses no grave danger, the other would be much harder to verify and could pose an immediate danger to the US. And we still don't know whether or not the Iraqi fellow did have real ties, but was released because of political pressure.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    231. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Sure, I see your point and agree with it. I was just addressing the "common" place argument of it. It isn't common in America like what was stated. The chances of being held without due process or habeas corpus is less then the chances of being wrongly convicted on evidence and later being proven innocent of the crime.

      And yes, I agree that some people are caught up in the system that probably should be there. My understanding is that there is a review process each year that is supposed to help find and release these people. It isn't perfect and it isn't close to regular processes we would normally see.

      I guess the common part of the statement is what really got me going here. It is the only thing i'm disagreeing with.

    232. Re:Can you say... by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 1

      According to Pentagon investigations after the Abu Ghraib scandal, officials cited the fact that interrogation tactics as well as personnel were moved to Abu Ghraib after their success in "breaking" detainees at Guantanamo. More focus was paid to Guantanamo since then, but the military has stonewalled everyone, even the Red Cross.

      May I suggest:
      The Road to Guantanamo
      Tipton Three Complained of Beatings
      Washington Post: FBI Agents Allege Abuse of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay and FBI Files Detail Guantanamo torture tactics
      Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo

    233. Re:Can you say... by Lord_Breetai · · Score: 1
      --
      "You are only young once, but you can be immature forever." -www.animemusicvideos.org
    234. Re:Can you say... by number1scatterbrain · · Score: 1

      Why fool around with the bottom-feeders? Go straight to the top...

      --
      Remember the future...
    235. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You must have spent time in the San Fransisco juvi centers.

      First, when someone is held for trial, they aren't in general population. All this everyone drools over your sexy ass bit doesn't come into play. Second, the people they are held with are other kids that have been acused of something but not adjudicated. This means they won't be picking fights and shit like that. There is a change they will get different sentences. Third and probably most important, the juvenile detention centers don't mix age groups and segregate based on size too. You are about the same age and strength of the people your being held with.

      Maybe you and your nephew are hardened criminals and they made examples out of you. But I have worked in the juvenile detention systems before through a community service project I had forced on me. Maybe it differense from state to state. But the impresions I had were totaly different then yours, at least in this state. Juvi hall was a picknick compared to the regular jails in the area. And no, they aren't as bad as you see on TV either. Even federal prison isn't as bad(maybe closer).

      It isn't all fun and games either but there is nothing wrong with holding a person suspected of committing a crime. And It isn't like he was with hardened criminals durring his stay.

    236. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The principle is the one who claimed he was a criminal and criminals lie. The principle has no legal authority to hold this person or hold him without bail. And as far as we know, he wasn't held without bail.

      People are acting like the principle held the kid in detention for 12 days straight as punishment. They are acting like he had no due process or no other from of recourse. This simply isn't true. Someone was suspected of doing something based on time stamps of phone records. Once this happened, they determined there was a mistake and did whatever was necessary to invalidate this so called evidence. If you ask me, this is how the system should work, If you are accused of something the evidence should set your free.

      I see nothing wrong with what they did outside making the mistake in the first place. But it is the mistake that I find fault with, not the handling of anything concerning this boy. The principle cannot direct the police to hold the kid in a detention center without any rights.

    237. Re:Can you say... by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Yay, so I can go kidnap people and imprison them in my basement as long as they're not U.S. citizens? Good to know!

    238. Re:Can you say... by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I think the point was more along the lines of re-enforcing the -innocent until proven guilty concept- rather than -does the punishment fit the crime.

      To play the devil's advocate, I don't think the kid was ever convicted. There are tons of "innocent until proven guilty" felony suspects currently in prison awaiting trial. Or are you angry that he wasn't offered the chance to pay a $20,000 bale?

      That being said, I hope the family gets a big fat settlement out of this mess.

    239. Re:Can you say... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      How on earth was a school operating an hour off? While that could be possible, it would rather have to be deliberate.

      I think the only way this story makes any sense is if this kid calls at 8:15 or whenever and the caller ID equipment at the phone company is wrong and sends them a 9:15 stamp. An hour later, at 9:15, a bomb threat is called in, getting a 10:15 stamp, and the school evacuates.

      When they look through the caller ID, they know when roughly the incoming call was, and match it up to this kid.

      They then go to the phone company, and ask for phone records, and discover that this completely wrong. Or they don't, because they're a bunch of incompetent assholes. Competent cops are actually interested in finding out who actually committed crimes, instead of finding one suspect and stopping.

      Now, it's possible the phone company didn't bother to inform anyone it was an hour off, and the police actually did go and check the records and they were in fact wrong(1) too, but that sounds not only like a lawsuit waiting to happen, it still shouldn't matter. The police shouldn't just assume their clock is accurate when their entire case depends on it, they should actually check it. It could have been ten minutes off, or who knows how much.

      1) Which, incidentally, is flat-out illegal. If people have calling plans that include anything to do with the time, and a lot of people do, and even if they don't we had a month-changeover in there, you can't just decide you're going to randomly have the time off an hour and bill them wrong.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    240. Re:Can you say... by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      Well, to be Nazi like he would have to become a Christian, then gas people and bury them in mass graves. Just for historical accuracy, you know.

    241. Re:Can you say... by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      Former SSgt, USMC... there are ex Marines. They usually end their career in leavenworth though. (A dishonorably discharged Marine is an Ex Marine....)

    242. Re:Can you say... by swissfondue · · Score: 1

      "Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The boy is fifteen years old." Thanks for the corrrection. But how does your comment in any way contribute to this discussion?
      --
      Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
    243. Re:Can you say... by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      Not angry at all. I just think that people are playing a double standard by assuming the Principal was in the wrong without knowing all the facts. As you point out the kid was never convicted, a fact that many people (including myself) didn't think about. So what if the teacher knew something more than we're aware of? My guess would be that it's unlikely, but I'm not going to sling shit before I know, else the blame just becomes cyclic. The fact that the kid spent a full 12 days in a jail, is a different problem altogether.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    244. Re:Can you say... by alienmole · · Score: 1

      oh Christ... you obviously have a dramatic personality.
      Getting upset over something like this doesn't require a dramatic personality. I'd be disturbed by someone who isn't very upset by it. Something like this should never be allowed to happen. If it does happen, it's cause for serious concern, and it means that the people involved made serious errors in judgement, and should be subject to consequences. The kind of blind and rigid rule-following that seems to have happened in this case is certainly, understandably, comparable to the attitude which Nazis had to law and order, and I wouldn't want the people involved in this debacle in positions of power any more than I'd want Nazis in power.
    245. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Because you will get further with the people who fail to correctly deal with a laws implementation then you will with anyone who is charged with making the laws by by charter of their existence.

      Unless the law is unconstitutional, congress can claim a constitutional right as their defense and have likely passed laws stopping you from suiting them. Most people don't realize it, but unless there is a law allowing you to sue the government already, you have to get their permission to suit them. Government aren't like the guy next door where you can launch a lawsuit because he looks funny or has an unmaintained yard and lowers your property values. You can suit anyone for about anything except the government. Of course suiting anyone for anything doesn't mean you will even get anything, even if you win.

    246. Re:Can you say... by hiroller · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's certainly true as the length of the discussion approaches an indefinate amount of time. The point of interest is at the frequency of occurance for a discussion to degrade to accusations that one or the either is a Nazi. Not too often you hear a discussion degrading to the parties calling each other a cannibal or a nerf-herder ;)

    247. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "not allowing any communication or even access to a lawyer does not rhyme with the word "transparent"

      That doesn't mean that the lawyers have access to their own clients--I've heard them complain about that very thing many times. They're fighting blind, as it were. So the reason there are so many lawyers is because people are outraged at our own government doing something unjust.

      If they're terrorists, I have no doubt that a jury would sentence them--I know I would. But the people there deserve a chance to have their guilt or innocence proven. The US Constitution specifically forbids bills of attainder ("lock that guy up, don't ask questions") and that's effectively exactly what the "enemy combatant" label has become. I find that a disgraceful.

    248. Re:Can you say... by number1scatterbrain · · Score: 1

      Yes, my friend, I know all this. The goverment cannot be sued under most circumstances. I was just making fun of the whole thing. You are taking it all way too seriously. By the way, you "sue" someone in courts of law, you don't "suit" them. Work on your English.

      --
      Remember the future...
    249. Re:Can you say... by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      1st: Which nation are we at war with? ie. With whom could we accept a surrender from?

      2nd. If there is no clear answer to the above questions, how do we decide when the "war" is over?

      3rd. If there is no clearly defined, attainable end to the said "war" then, you, the common person is as likely to eventually be treated as an enemy.

      Please note: I say this a 21 year (and counting) veteran of the US armed forces.

      4th. Wars can only be declared against a specific, identifiable enemy. These are usually nation states. Occasionally alliances of nation states. There are none in this "Global War on Terrorism" to deal with. Therefore this "war" will be as effective as the "War on Drugs". (of course, looking at the latter title, it could almost be applied to the one on terrorism....as in "This is a war. This is a war on drugs."

    250. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      Lol. My English has nothing to do with it. And it isn't apparent you know this from your reply.

      A suit is a legal proceeding the definition is

      2. (Law)
            (a) To seek justice or right from, by legal process; to institute process in law against; to bring an action against; to prosecute judicially.
            (b) To proceed with, as an action, and follow it up to its proper termination; to gain by legal process.


      And the usage was Most people don't realize it, but unless there is a law allowing you to sue the government already, you have to get their permission to suit them. And You can suit anyone for about anything except the government. Of course suiting anyone for anything doesn't mean you will even get anything, even if you win. So lets explore the usage. When you sue someone, you bring a suit on them. But once you are suing using the term suit is almost interchangable but the reference I was making was the actual "Suit" tense in where your allowed to (b) To proceed with, as an action, and follow it up to its proper termination; to gain by legal process.

      If suing stops for lack of grounds, you never had a suit. We are talking about having a suit in both situation. Maybe you should spend less time making fun of things and more time making sure you correcting people with the correct usages.

      And yes, Someone was incarcerated because of a glitch that was warned about well in advance and there was ample time to do something about it. The people offering this as evidence and the people who failed to make sure it was correct or adjustments that could have been made were in place are just as much at fault as any agency that held him for 12 days on bad evidence. And if he did have an arrangement and someone passed on bail for whatever reason, the time serve as far as unlawful imprisonment will stop at the time hew had a bail hearing. The supreme court just ruled on that in a case from Chicago.

      A simple act of requesting telephone records for both numbers could have shown the problem the first day he was held. The officer who took someone else word for it without verifying it is just as much to blame.
    251. Re:Can you say... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And it appears I should do the same. I just caught that I pasted the definition of the wrong word.

      2. The act of suing; the process by which one endeavors to gain an end or an object; an attempt to attain a certain result; pursuit; endeavor. and 4. (Law) The attempt to gain an end by legal process; an action or process for the recovery of a right or claim; legal application to a court for justice; prosecution of right before any tribunal; as, a civil suit; a criminal suit; a suit in chancery. It still fits though.

    252. Re:Can you say... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Time is the one resource that is impossible to make up, regardless of how much money he could have earned if he were free there are somethings that are priceless. If I were in jail during any of the above listed times for something I was truly innocent for I would want so much monetary compensation that it really hurt those who wrongfully accused me.
      That sounds fair enough. I'm curious, though. How much would you have sued for in his situation?
    253. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

      Well, if the kid really had made the bomb threat and had followed through on it, he would've been a grave danger to those going to his school. While it was easily verifiable that he didn't make the threat, it was hard to convince the authorities to make that verification.
      Those who distrust America's use of Guantanamo Bay think that America isn't making serious efforts to verify the people in there are terrorists because the government doesn't want to find that it may have imprisoned people who aren't.
      I consider the movement to jail people for bomb threats (as opposed to actual bombs) part of the War on Terror.

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    254. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm not one to sue, but if I did I'd find out how much the annual budget for all parties involved was and try to sue for at least 5% of that.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    255. Re:Can you say... by mink · · Score: 1

      scruffy.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    256. Re:Can you say... by mink · · Score: 1

      The threat of terrorism is new?

      Terrorism has been around for a LONG time and countries have been dealing with it. For instance the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center resulted in fairly normal arrests and trials.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    257. Re:Can you say... by mink · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember reading in a newspaper that there were one or two people who died while being "vigourously interrorgated" in GITMO. I read this before the Abu Ghraib events happened.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    258. Re:Can you say... by jwhyche · · Score: 0

      I went back an read my past posts too. I couldn't remember that by pass post. I've come to one in escapable conclusion though. I'm a bigger asshole than I though I was.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    259. Re:Can you say... by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      If you can provide a reliable source I'd be glad to read it.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    260. Re:Can you say... by mink · · Score: 1

      Well, unless I am just not finding what I remember (memory is never perfect) it looks like I might be mixing up 2 different news stories. One involving a witness to killings before being sent to Guantanamo and another about tactics that were used at Guantanamo being used in Abu Ghraib (where interrogation death(s) were covered up).

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    261. Re:Can you say... by number1scatterbrain · · Score: 1

      It fits, eh? Well, if the suit fits, wear it.

      --
      Remember the future...
    262. Re:Can you say... by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Bulletproof evidence, yeah right.

      What happened to the notion of 'motive'? What happened to the notion of 'means' (to actually commit the crime)?
      I guess the dog ate those two pages from the dictionary...

      Soon they will just compute 32 bit checksums of surveillance camera snapshots and match them with the criminal mugshot database with a fuzz factor of 20% "because facial recognition is too damn difficult."
      That's a joke, obviously. How about this one: what if you get yanked off the street and shoved in a van because some crook 'cloned' your RealID card and you happened to walk past that traffic light (containing a RFID scanner) at the wrong time?

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    263. Re:Can you say... by init100 · · Score: 1

      since when is juvi hall a jail?

      For many if not most people, being locked in by the authorities equals being jailed, whatever fancy name the authorities hang on it this week.

    264. Re:Can you say... by init100 · · Score: 1

      They made a mistake and then set the record straight.

      Let me guess, when he was arrested, it made headline news in the national media, while when he was released, a news notice was put in very small print among the least read pages of the local newspaper? This isn't bashing the US, since it happens everywhere. The problem is that many people believe that "if you're arrested, you're probably guilty". This could earn you a label of being a criminal for a very long time.

    265. Re:Can you say... by init100 · · Score: 1

      And I have yet to see news of anyone who was sent to gitmo without having been tied to known terrorist organizations.

      Let me guess, Dubya told the public that they were terrorist organizations, so they must be. After all, he has a private telephone line to god.

    266. Re:Can you say... by init100 · · Score: 1

      he's not a US citizen, so he doesn't get the same protections and access to a legal trial that a citizen of the US does.

      Is this official US policy? Then it wouldn't be more than right to have other countries issue reciprocal rules regarding visiting US citizens. In other words, usually foreigners have the same rights as the natives, at least in western countries, but if the US have rescinded this rule, other countries should rescind it too w.r.t. US citizens. I wonder how long it would take before the US would issue strong complaints, not to mention direct threats of economic sanctions and trade embargoes.

    267. Re:Can you say... by init100 · · Score: 1

      I know that it is a less than ideal situation, but the media blows the whole thing way out of proportion

      Exposing torture can never be considered out of proportion. I just read up on waterboarding, one of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" allegedly used by the US govenment to extract information from these prisoners. It sounds absolutely horrendous. If this really is used by your government, your country is no better than the terrorists it is interrogating. And your Dick Cheney actually openly supports this technique.

    268. Re:Can you say... by init100 · · Score: 1

      Worse, what kind of precident does this set for the situation when U.S. or allied troops are captured by an enemy? Can some tinpot dictator somewhere else in the world be inspired to designate those prisoners as "enemy combatants" and deny them their rights as POWs? Or leave people in prison for indefinite periods of time without charge or hearings about their POW status? The whole thing jeapordizes the protections of the Geneva Conventions for OUR troops -- also something that military personel pointed out when this whole thing started.

      Good point. Dubya and his henchmen must know this, but either they don't care or they think that no US soldier will ever be captured by an enemy until the end of time.

      Just yesterday I read about some new directive in Russia that media should portray the US as the enemy. Maybe a future war is coming, and US troops should be aware that they would probably be treated in the Gitmo way by the russians if they were ever captured.

    269. Re:Can you say... by init100 · · Score: 1

      Former LCpl, USMC. Semper Fi.

      Thank you! An excellent post that shows that there are people in the United States that still know how to use their brains.

    270. Re:Can you say... by init100 · · Score: 1

      I'd still rather be held in gitmo than be held in a WWII German or USSR POW camp, much less North Korea or Vietnam.

      How do you know being held in Gitmo is any better than being held in any of the other camps you mentioned? Is it because it is operated by the US government, and you trust them not to do as bad things as the operators of those other camps? Sorry, but the world does not agree with you.

    271. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can you not read? I said he would have to become Muslim (really any non-christian religion will do) and then the POLICE would gas HIM. I was refuting a comparison of the POLICE to nazies. Go read a damn book.

  2. Be careful what you wish for by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This kind of draconian, presumptive, knee-jerk response is exactly what people seem to be calling for from Virginia Tech...after all, "what if" this could have been a real bombing? Maybe even the worst school bombing in US history? They needed to react vigorously and without thinking and full consideration of the situation, right? I mean, after all, the daylight savings change is just a minor oversight. They could have been saving lives, right?

    I mean, we should be able to, within less than two hours, have an overly aggressive "lock down" a 700 building, 2600 acre, 30000+ person city-like area because of an isolated domestic incident in a dorm, but we shouldn't have an overly aggressive response against this kind of possible school violence?

    To anyone who thinks Virginia Tech has ANY culpability here,

    1. Remember what your response would be to ridiculous "zero tolerance" tactics on any topic, and

    2. Read the below first.

    Commentary included from here, here, and here.

    And yes, I believe this is "on topic" and highly related given the accusations that are being levied against VT.

    -----

    When what is believed to be a single, isolated shooting in a dorm happens on a 2600 acre public, open campus with hundreds of buildings, you can't assume that you're about to have the worst shooting incident (of any type) in US history.

    Yet, people are already blaming Virginia Tech.

    Would we close or "lock down" a city of 40000 people if there was a shooting? Because that's exactly what a campus of this size and type is (including students and faculty/staff).

    No, but people are already calling for siren/PA systems in EVERY of HUNDREDS of buildings, of varying ages and constructions, centralized door locking/control and camera systems for not just outer building doors, but ALL doors.

    The University reacted in a reasonable way. Yes, a shooter was "on the loose". Someone who had shot a person in a dorm, and the University immediately sent out notifications that such an event occurred; to be cautious and aware, and to report any suspicious activity to campus police. The area was "locked down", but after over two hours elapsed, there was no reason to believe that a madman was about to go on a random killing spree across campus.

    This is not an elementary school. This is not a high school. This is a massive, open research campus with tens of thousands of people spreading over 2600 acres, with private, residential, and other buildings intermixed.

    The only person to be blamed here is the shooter. And yes, he's dead. But Virginia Tech is not at fault.

    -----

    Colleges and universities do have the same kinds of procedures.

    But a hospital is typically one building. Virginia Tech is hundreds of buildings - I believe close to 700 - of varying types, purposes, and ages. There is no central PA system or door locking system. Most of the buildings are wide open. They're intermixed with non-university lands and buildings, and span 2600 acres. Some of the buildings are over 50 and 100 years old. Do we retrofit literally tens of thousands of doors with centralized locking and cameras and install central warning/PA systems in all buildings, just because you might be the site of a madman's rampage?

    There's security and prudence, and there's waste and ridiculousness.

    And the area in the vicinity of the shooting was locked down and blanketed with police. It was determined to be a domestic-type, targeted incident. And by the time VT had a handle on the situation, thousands of students were already on their way to campus. Nothing happened for over two hours. Then what do you do when you have no means of directly communicating with everyone? Should the university have had a knee jerk to a shooting in one d

    1. Re:Be careful what you wish for by jimbobborg · · Score: 1

      Having actually gone to VT, 2600 acres includes the FARM that's attached to the school. The main campus rings the drill field. Locking down the buildings would have been trivial, and everyone in the dorms could have been notified.

    2. Re:Be careful what you wish for by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it would not have been "trivial", by any stretch, and the area with several hundred buildings is still some 500 acres. Claiming it would have been "trivial" represents a massive misunderstanding.

      I'm glad you clearly don't grasp anything I said and just latched onto "2600", though.

      But if you think that a campus of this size and scope could have been, or, rather, should have been "locked down", it would require a pretty comprehensive (and much larger) police and central monitoring/camera/locking and building access infrastructure, which itself would be extremely costly and far from perfect, and also pretty much requires you to support the knee-jerk like response to "school violence" that we're talking about in this article.

    3. Re:Be careful what you wish for by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This kind of draconian, presumptive, knee-jerk response is exactly what people seem to be calling for from Virginia Tech...after all, "what if" this could have been a real bombing? Maybe even the worst school bombing in US history? They needed to react vigorously and without thinking and full consideration of the situation, right? I mean, after all, the daylight savings change is just a minor oversight. They could have been saving lives, right?


      I think a morning show radio personality here in Tampa said it best: "These kinds of things (referring to the shootings at VT) happen in a free society. And that's that unless we all want to live in a police state."

      It's along the same lines as the infamous, possibly misquoted, possibly misattributed Ben Franklin quote: "They that would trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither."

      So what is it? Do you want free society, where safety is sometimes an issue, or do you want a police state, where you might possibly be safer, but have no rights? Because those are your choices.

    4. Re:Be careful what you wish for by AxemRed · · Score: 1

      Thank God! Someone who has common sense. I was arguing this with people at the bar yesterday. I asked them, "Do you think that, if there is a shooting in this bar, the Wal-Mart (which is about a half mile away) should close?" They told me that "it's not the same thing." Somehow, I doubt that they had ever seen a university though...

    5. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Lockejaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This kind of draconian, presumptive, knee-jerk response is exactly what people seem to be calling for from Virginia Tech
      I don't know what they've been calling for, but if I were there, I would have liked to have been emailed at 7:30 instead of at 9:30.

      A proper response is quick, not clumsy. This is both quick and clumsy. VT was slow and clumsy (though clumsy seems unavoidable given VT's size).
      --
      (IANAL)
    6. Re:Be careful what you wish for by eln · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I thought if 9/11 taught us anything, it's that Americans are perfectly content to live in a police state in order to keep this sort of thing from happening.

    7. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But would you have done anything even if you got the email? I know I would have thought it was just a domestic dispute and headed off to my engineering class feeling safe knowing all the guys there don't have girlfriends so none of them could have been the shooter in the domestic dispute. ;-)

    8. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Locking down the buildings would have been trivial
      BS. My wife works there, I've spent countless hours on campus. Locking down an entire campus is far from trivial; it is damn close to impossible. There are many ways to get on/off campus and in/out of every academic building. They did the best they could in the time span in which things occurred.
      I guarantee you that VA Tech, the pres. and the Tech police chief will be blamed for this just as your post implies. Of course if the shooter was still alive and in custody no one would be pointing fingers at the officials, even if the same number of people were killed.
      One of the questions asked at the press conference is (approx.) "What will you do to guarantee this wont happen again?"
      Unless people want to send their kids to a college run like a police state, there's no guarantee.
    9. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The University reacted in a reasonable way. Yes, a shooter was "on the loose". Someone who had shot a person in a dorm, and the University immediately sent out notifications that such an event occurred; to be cautious and aware, and to report any suspicious activity to campus police.

      Two hours later is "immediately"?

      I knew about the death of Anna Nicole Smith faster than that and I was 1200 miles away and in no way associated with her.

      If it weren't for all the cries for gun control over this people would instead be outraged by the time and tons of slashdotters would have scoffed at the time it took to send a simple e-mail. Why is this such a hard concept for people?

    10. Re:Be careful what you wish for by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know what they've been calling for, but if I were there, I would have liked to have been emailed at 7:30 instead of at 9:30.

      So, you think you should have been emailed that something happened 15 minutes after it occurred, when chances are the police themselves didn't even have a handle on what happened yet, much less University administrators? Acting without thinking, right? Just like the school officials did in this case.

      And if they'd emailed out something, it wouldn't have been to close the university because there was by all appearances a domestic shooting in a dorm - which do happen at universities, by the way. Hell, it probably takes a minimum of 15 minutes to even coordinate a mass email, knowing the bureaucracy of a campus that size. Within a couple of hours of what is believed to be an isolated incident with no real reason at the time to believe otherwise is perfectly reasonable.

      A proper response is quick, not clumsy. This is both quick and clumsy. VT was slow and clumsy (though clumsy seems unavoidable given VT's size).

      Your parenthetical statement at least shows some understanding of the situation here. Even IF they'd decided to cancel classes and close the University, that email probably wouldn't have been able to go out in any practical sense, and after having a very minimal handle on the situation, for at least 45 minutes to an hour. And even then, many students, and even faculty, would either never see it that morning, or already be on their way to class. And even if you could muster enough police presence to start going around locking buildings, how do you, in one hour, lock several hundred buildings, clear them, and then what do you do with the thousands of students already on campus?

      Even in the best case lockdown scenario, if we're playing the "should have, could have, would have" game, what if there was then an outdoor shooting that killed 5 instead of an indoor one killing 32? 5 is better than 32? Except all we'd know about is the 5, and Virginia Tech would get raked over the coals for having a lockdown without thinking about it. Not to mention that we can't live in a state where we think that the worst shooting in US history may be about to occur, so we'd better react accordingly.

      That's why I'm saying be careful what you wish for. We look at a daylight savings time story like this and scoff at its ridiculousness, and at the same time, believe that Virginia Tech should have made the same kind of reactive knee-jerk decisions without thinking and full consideration.

    11. Re:Be careful what you wish for by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? Do you think you are any safer in a police state? Ask the citizens of China if they feel safe. And if there's one thing the fall of the Soviet Union has taught us it's that people prefer a free society where chaos sometimes happens to any sort of totalitarian regime.

    12. Re:Be careful what you wish for by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Two hours later is "immediately"?

      Yes, in this context, it is.

      A minimum of 15 minutes for police response and to secure the immediate area.

      A minimum of 15-30 minutes for information to be assessed, and filter back to university officials and other police agencies.

      A minimum of probably another 15-30 minutes for university administrators to consider the response, and the fact that thousands of students will be coming to campus soon, with many already on campus or en route.

      A minimum of another 15-20 minutes to organize a mass-email, and up to another 15 minutes for it to propagate. (Hint: for mass email on a 30000+ person campus, it's not just sending an email to a single distribution list that magically goes to the entire campus instantaneously).

      And then, many people wouldn't have even seen this message, and several thousand students would still be coming to campus, and many would already be there.

      The Virginia Tech police force and physical plant can't even begin to clear and lock all buildings, even the dozens of major classroom buildings.

      So, even if they sent out an email message before they knew anything at all, what would it have said?

    13. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Trails · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make a good point. One is not safer in a police state, but from the perspective of someone living in a free society, who's been force-fed sensationalised stories by foxnews and their ilk, and hepped up on vague fear-mongering by their gov't, it looks safer.

      The problem is that people think a gov't is more than the sum of its parts, that it's somehow more responsible, more honourable, and less corruptible than the people that make it up. Watch the news for five minutes about the current US admin (or any other country's gov't for that matter) and it's obvious how flawed that notion is.

    14. Re:Be careful what you wish for by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      The argument might stand on a rhetorical level, but in all the police states of the XXth century I could remember, most of the population didn't considered itself safe. OTOH, althouth I consider I live in a fairly free society, the only time in my life I came close to the risk of real physical violence, the threat was a policeman (who seemed to be a fan of Judge Dread).

    15. Re:Be careful what you wish for by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think we would be any safer in a police state, and I never said we would be. My point was that after 9/11, it seems that Americans are perfectly willing to give up all sorts of personal freedoms and accept a police state if those in charge promise to keep them safe. It's as if we have all regressed back into childhood, desperately looking for someone to protect us from all the bad stuff in the world.

    16. Re:Be careful what you wish for by jimbolauski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Couldn't agree more at campuses like The University of Cincinnati, which is in a high crime area, locking down the campus every time a gun gets brandished would not only be costly but the students would not be taught. At some point people have to realize that not all tragedies can be avoided. Knee jerk reactions are rarely correct and lack foresight needed to make intelligent decisions (Patriot Act, Duke Lacrosse). The blame resides solely on the Principle, Officer, and Prosecutor who failed to look at all the facts.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    17. Re:Be careful what you wish for by virtual_mps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having actually gone to VT, 2600 acres includes the FARM that's attached to the school. The main campus rings the drill field. Locking down the buildings would have been trivial, and everyone in the dorms could have been notified. I can only imagine the press if they had managed to lock the shooter into a building with a bunch of students...

      A lockdown is something you do with elementary school kids so they don't wander off before their parents show up. It's a measure to control the students, not a perpetrator.
    18. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Zxeses · · Score: 1

      Nice try at an example, however...

      The initial response to any threat is hardly the equivalent of the follow-up investigation. They didn't find those time-phone records until after the sweep and clear. They knew there was no bomb long before this kid was arrested.

      In fact, there very much could have been a bomb, that even blew up, and this kid would have still be arrested wrongfully.

      You simply cannot use the justification for threat response as a valid argument for a poorly done follow-up.

    19. Re:Be careful what you wish for by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ask the citizens of China if they feel safe.

      They'd answer yes. Much like in Russia, citizens in China are quick to provide an apology for authoritarianism. You know, it's necessary to keep the state together in a land of mavericks, or whatever. And it's not that people living in China are simply afraid to speak out. I've often heard Chinese students who have left China and come to the U.S. or Europe for university education claim that the Western press doesn't get China, that people there really are happy with the system, and that any hints at oppression are lies and slander by foreign powers who want to rape that great land.

    20. Re:Be careful what you wish for by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      I consider police, much less ordinary citizens imprisoning you against their will in no way trivial.

    21. Re:Be careful what you wish for by bigpat · · Score: 1

      So what is it? Do you want free society, where safety is sometimes an issue, or do you want a police state, where you might possibly be safer, but have no rights? Because those are your choices. It is a false choice, I am sure my crime statistics would go down if I could shoot the statistician and get away with it... crime still happens in a police state, otherwise the police and politicians couldn't justify their holding onto power, but the perception of the level of crime is manipulated effectively or crimes are built into the law and perpetrated by the police themselves and those in power and thus covered up even more effectively. At some level of police control information is only released in order to serve the purposes of "the State" in controlling the population. The aim of a police state is usually to derive the greatest tax on a population and not for anything to do with security or well being of the people.

    22. Re:Be careful what you wish for by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to hear a little reason amidst all the frantic calls of "they should've done...".

      I had the exact same reason. Someone posted they should have "shut down the state all the way to Roanoke", apparently not thinking how absurd that is, or the fact that if they did that for every shooting, the "state" would rarely be _not_ shut down.

      Let's stop blaming the University, the gun lobby, the Virginia General Assembly, Charlton Heston, George Bush and the CIA Orbital Mind-Control Lasers.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    23. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My condolences for their losses, but you know, maybe it's not a good idea to let them make policy while they're upset.

      Maybe it's not a good idea to make policy on the basis of what makes you feel most comfortable.

      Maybe... just -maybe-, it's not a good idea to make policy based on emotional rhetoric.

    24. Re:Be careful what you wish for by annodomini · · Score: 1

      Um, most of the people I've heard blaming VT haven't been calling for a "lockdown". They've been wondering why they weren't even informed of what happened in the morning, until 9:26, two hours later and after the second shooting had begun (according to some sources; it seems that some are claiming the second shooting began after that, and I can't judge which is accurate). They've been wondering what evidence the school and police had to indicate that the shooter had left campus, which is why they didn't consider him a threat. I don't think there should have been a lockdown, but I do think that the campus should have been informed, and possibly that classes should have been cancelled.

    25. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      And what do you say to the families of 72 million dead? That is, _if_ there was any family left to speak of.

      If you've just bought an expensive house, do you burn it down just cause you don't want to buy some new light bulbs once in a while?

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    26. Re:Be careful what you wish for by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Blame the NSA mind control lasers instead!

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    27. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The show as ESPN's The Herd and the host is Collin Cowherd. He also gave the same Ben Franklin quote.

    28. Re:Be careful what you wish for by jandersen · · Score: 0, Troll

      These kinds of things (referring to the shootings at VT) happen in a free society. And that's that unless we all want to live in a police state.

      Ye gods, what an idiotic thing to say. No these things happen in a society where 1. Guns are more or less freely available and 2. Nobody, least of all the state, cares about the ones that are weak. Because whatever else one can say about this incident, it would most likely not have happened if it wasn't so incredibly easy to get a gun; and if society actually took care of the ones that were in danger of going out on a tangent. Most people who commit this kind of actions are desperate (as opposed to eg. psychopaths, who tend to kill with cold premeditation) - they may be psychically ill, they may have lost everything. If society took care of these people, they would most likely not get as far out as this.

      Compare to most European countries - we have next to no murders compared to the US, because guns are not easily available and society at least tries to take care of the weak

    29. Re:Be careful what you wish for by nicklott · · Score: 1
      They don't happen in my free society, or at least only once every 20 years or so.

      What's the difference? Ah, your freedom to bear arms...

    30. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Eochai · · Score: 1

      Cancelling classes immediately after the first incident is NOT an "overly aggressive lock-down" NOR a "draconian, presumptive, knee-jerk response" NOR a "police state" -- it WOULD have been a move on the side of caution and safety and COULD have saved lives. I'm not "blaming" VT (I live in Blacksburg and my wife is a student at VT, but she was not on campus yesterday), but I do think that they were a bit presumptuous to think that the first shooting was an isolated incident or that the shooter had fled the area. I would (and I'm sure that many others here would agree) rather the University had been more cautious and canceled classes immediately upon learning of the first incident and lost a day of classes than all those lives in Norris Hall.

    31. Re:Be careful what you wish for by k12linux · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The typical excuse for allowing unfettered wiretapping, monitoring (video, electronic and otherwise), spying on your Internet traffic, etc. etc. etc. is "If you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about."

      I call "bullshit." I am a boring person. I don't do anything illegal. I don't even speed (55 means 55) unless not speeding means creating a hazardous situation on the road. I don't do drugs. I don't drink much and if I do I don't drive. I have paid for every single piece of music I have with not a single song downloaded illegally.

      Yet I am vehemently against unfettered government monitoring and control of every aspect of my life and computer use.

      But if I don't break the law then why care? Because "the law" is not static. What happens when some really stupid law (or yet another really stupid law) hits the books? How about prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and early '30s? Imagine if every time someone brewed beer, made wine or ran a still they were caught?

      The point is that something you feel is completely and morally acceptable can be banned and with enough spying you could be jailed. And "the government" is just people. People who may or may not have your best interest in mind. Do you really want eyes peering into every aspect of your life?

      I guess you only have to worry about it if you are a troublemaker or rule breaker. After all certainly you wouldn't do anything illegal like watch a DVD on Linux. Right?

    32. Re:Be careful what you wish for by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Don't talk to us about Europe. In France they would have been arresting the students who took video of the incident with their cell phones! In Europe most of these kids wouldn't have been in college - they would have been standing around in the streets unemployed.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    33. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Lockejaw · · Score: 1

      The university officials, thinking the crisis had passed, decided not to inform the students about it (then changed their minds later). Thinking that the situation was over makes sense. However, I would prefer to have let the students themselves decide how safe they felt instead of having the decision made for them and keeping them in the dark. That's what really pisses me off about how VT handled the incident -- they thought informing the students just wasn't all that important.

      --
      (IANAL)
    34. Re:Be careful what you wish for by maxume · · Score: 1

      Agenda much?

      I don't disagree with your sentiment, but pasting 1000 words into a your 150 word comment is just you pushing whatever agenda you are pushing, it doesn't 'add' to the conversation. And you do it all the goddamn time.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    35. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't really see the problem.

      This is America. And this is how we behave. If you think it's bad here, try Iraq, or any of the other countries we've invaded recently. The kid's lucky he's not in Guantanamo - if he'd been a foreign national that's where he'd be by now, and there are lots of people there on less evidence than a logged phone call. And once you're there no evidence will let you out, because no court in the world has jurisdiction...

      And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us....

    36. Re:Be careful what you wish for by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      Another interesting possibility is that you could learn to defend yourself instead of expecting everyone to be nice and then have the government fix all the problems. For instance I carry a firearm and am well versed in its care and use, a person walks into a building where I am and starts spraying bullets around I'll put a quick end to it provided I'm don't get shot in the first few seconds. I'm a big fan of communities policing themselves, after all someone on /. once put it the Police are only there to do the paperwork after you were unable to protect yourself.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    37. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose the third option, freedom and safety, that is Europe.

    38. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in some cases, yes. I've lived in both Singapore and the United States.

      (Having spent over 20 years in Singapore, I wouldn't call it a police state, but that's a different debate.)

      I feel a lot safer in Singapore. Granted I can't chew gum, but I also don't have to worry about being mowed down by gun-toting lunatics.

    39. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having actually gone to VT, I call BS on you. If you can honestly say that in a town of 35000 people anywhere else, that if someone shot their ex-girlfriend (or someone they imagined to be their girlfriend) and some other guy the police would lock down the entire city, then I'd say fine, it would be the right thing to do, but I don't think you will ever find that place (and I hope for the sake of freedom it doesn't exist). Most people who have taken up your stance don't understand what VT is like. They hear school and campus and think of their local high school or community college. They look at the map, and don't realize that you can fit over 6 football fields inside the drill field, and between any class change, that field is filled with people. There is also a large complex of steam tunnels under the campus that even if the campus was put in lock down, the shooter could have used to get to Norris Hall if he was actually targeting a specific class, and not just randomly got to that building after wandering around for 2 hours. This is more like a small city. It has its own power plant, its own water treatment facility, its own restaurants, MANY apartment buildings (you call them dorms), A golf course, for crying out loud, it even has its own airport. There isn't a doubt in my mind that any reasonable person yesterday morning at 9:00 would have done EXACTLY what the campus police and senior faculty did, and felt perfectly fine about the decision. It is only this 20/20 hindsight, somebody should have done something attitude that is making people question the decision.

    40. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Peet42 · · Score: 1

      How would you communicate with those people? (Email is really the only practical different option for the university.)


      Until they lock down all the computer rooms so nobody can pick up their email...

      (Forgive me for replying to a quote from your message, Dave; it just seemed like the best place to put the response...)
    41. Re:Be careful what you wish for by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly believe that the classrooms would have been any emptier even if the same exact email had gone out at 7:30 or 7:45 when only preliminary information was known? No, it would be, "damn, that sucks...a shooting in the dorms - I know someone who lives in that building!" etc., and then they would have come to class.

      There was also consideration for causing a panic, or having rumors spread. There was no possible reason to consider closing and clearing the entire campus, which wouldn't have been possible, especially in that timeframe. The ONLY thing they could have done was "canceled classes", which itself is something of a nebulous concept when you have thousands of students who either are already on campus, already en route, or won't hear about it until they get to campus.

      I simply don't see any way the practical, real life response could have been different, or anything that would have changed had an informational email gone out even at 7:30. And even if they decided to cancel class, you'd have the situation I spoke about above, and in any situation like this, you think, "What's safest? What's most prudent? What makes the most sense?" And that's what the University did.

      You don't assume things like, "Gee, this guy could be on his way across campus to chain up a building and start mass-executing people in classrooms." The very fact that this is the worst shooting in US history in itself kind of confirms that there is NO WAY that VT could or should have foreseen anything remotely like this. I'm sure policies will change as a result of this, and things will tilt to the overly cautious. And still, even if you know about everything going as the University knows it with an implant to your brain, how would this situation have unfolded any differently, unless you're in the vanishingly small minority of people who would have even *considered* not coming to class because there was a shooting in a dorm?

    42. Re:Be careful what you wish for by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Those are my words.

      And please, tell me what my "agenda" is. I'm dying to hear it.

      (And no, I don't do it "all the goddamn time". It's probably 1 in 40 of my posts, if that, and only when I've *just written* something that is exactly what I want to say.)

    43. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 1

      Compare to most European countries - we have next to no murders compared to the US, because guns are not easily available and society at least tries to take care of the weak I doubt that those are the prime causes. You can't easily buy arms in Europe legally, but they are commonly available through clandestine channels. Everything from handguns, shotguns and automatic machine-guns to grenades, plastic explosives, RPG's and bazookas, though the latter ones will cost you big bucks. But even criminals and organized crime use them far less than in the USA. Also, I don't think there is a strong causality between protecting the weak and psychotic (mass)-murderers. We might have more accessible healthcare, the people who commit these crimes are not the ones who would access such healthcare voluntary. I think the main difference lies in the history, culture and the social structure. Europeans tend to be moderate and introvert, whereas Americans are more expressive/extrovert and assertive upto a point where the average European might call it aggressive and dominant. Both have their merits and both have their flaws, but you can't say that one it better or worse than the other. In this case, it seems it was an Chinese student, which makes it all the more puzzling.
      --
      It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
    44. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TO: Emergency Broadcast
      FROM: Security Officer Barney
      SUBJECT: Incident at West Ambler Johnston Hall

      FYI, we have had an incident at West Ambler Johnston Hall involving the discharge of a firearm. Please report all suspicious activity to campus security.

    45. Re:Be careful what you wish for by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Yes, I understand that, but I don't know what would have happened differently.

      I just followed up on your points in another post here.

      I simply don't know how even an earlier notification would have led to any different outcome at all, or whether a much "earlier" notification was really even possible or practical.

      And canceling classes probably wasn't anything they had even considered, and even if they wanted to, they'd still have thousands of students who didn't know, and no practical way to clear and lock buildings (which would have been the only way to keep people out of classrooms). And even if they didn't do that, you'd still have thousands of people on campus milling around.

      If people would just think about this for a few minutes, instead of imagining that an email could have magically been fired off at 7:20am and classes canceled on a 30000+ person research campus for a shooting in a dorm room, they'd realize there was nothing VT could have really done to prevent this.

    46. Re:Be careful what you wish for by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      Yeah, uh, that's not how it works, or even should work, on a campus of this size. Oh, policies will be changed now to allow for a lot lower echelon people to have a technical mechanism to initiate a mass email to a distribution address for the entirety of the campus. (Hint: that is NOT how it works now. Like, at all. It's not just something like all-campus@vt.edu, and yeah, cue the responses saying "but they could just have their smtp server xyz do this and that and only accept from such and such and blah blah blah cuz I do that with my home Linux box and yammer yammer yammer"...that's not how these kinds of things are done. There is a bureaucratic and technical process that takes place when you initiate an email to 30000+ people, and it's not just a "To" address.)

      And even if that email had gone out the second the first responding officer notified the dispatch center that there was indeed a shooting, what would have been different?

    47. Re:Be careful what you wish for by maxume · · Score: 1

      Having something you want to say *is* an agenda. If you don't agree with that, then accept that we disagree. Using enormous filibusters to do it is not common practice on slashdot(or anywhere else for that matter, except congress). Reposting your own content to new discussions probably puts you in the 99nth percentile of Slashdotters, which, in many systems of measurement, would make describing the incidence of self quoting/posting that you achieve as 'often' (a less crass equivalent of all the goddamn time) quite appropriate. "Agenda much" comes from just how baldly you push your opinions around.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    48. Re:Be careful what you wish for by toleraen · · Score: 1

      daveschroeder, I wasn't 100% convinced before, but I am now. You are a MASSIVE tool. If they brought the kid INTO THE SCHOOL TO QUESTON HIM, they had certainly already determined that there was no threat. Trying to tie this in to the VT tragedy just makes you look like all the other attention whoring, agenda pushing asshats out there. I'd go so far as to say that you're as big of a tool as Jack Thompson. Afterall, you're posting this crap in a thread that has nothing to do with VT. As others have pointed out, there's already a thread for VT comments.

      Now get back to work and stop wasting my tax dollars.

    49. Re:Be careful what you wish for by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      If there is anything I've learned on slashdot, it's that you need to preemptively argue against every possible ridiculous counter argument, or else the salient points get lost in a sea of followups and responses; attempting to include rebuttals to most of the (quite frankly, nonsense) replies, on for example, this topic, cannot be done briefly. The three blurbs of text I included in my initial post cover nearly all of the common issues people have with seeming to think that VT could have done something differently and had a largely different outcome; they're actually merely footnotes to my initial, actually "comment" on this story, and had I not included them, I guarantee there would have been dozens of followups raising objections as to why VT "could have" done something differently, that were instead covered in explanatory text I already had, which I did acknowledge were previous slashdot posts of mine.

      It "adds to the debate" because it's relevant, and prevents a barrage of ridiculous objections that can be quashed by simply explaining why the objections are invalid in advance. I suppose I could have a disclaimer that everything below is a footnote, but I've found that if I just link to previous posts or other information, the vast majority of people who post followup comments are virtually guaranteed to not have read them. Thus, the decision to include them in the post. It's not a filibuster at all, as no one is required to read it and it does not delay anyone's capability to respond to this article or any other, or to participate in the discussion. If people DO choose to read it, hopefully they will either get something valuable out of it, or not post the asinine followup they were about to about how something could have been done "differently" (when it really couldn't have in any real or practical sense).

      The larger point is that thinking VT should have done something "differently" necessarily implies the kind of reactionary knee-jerk security response - action without thinking - against possible school violence, that is exactly the subject of this story.

      Hopefully this clears things up.

    50. Re:Be careful what you wish for by jimbobborg · · Score: 1

      Ok, I exaggerated. But, considering that the perp himself locked the other students in,..

    51. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want free society, where safety is sometimes an issue, or do you want a police state, where you might possibly be safer, but have no rights? Because those are your choices. Or maybe those are the ends of a continuum. Maybe there's an optimal middle ground somewhere on that continuum.
    52. Re:Be careful what you wish for by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Yeah. And I posted there.

      This is not on-topic for this exact story, no, but it is spot-on for the larger issue of "school violence" and the kind of security environment we want to have in the nation at large.

      And yes, I guess I do have an agenda: it's logical consistency of thought on issues like this. If there are people out there who think that this daylight savings story is ridiculous and the school went way overboard and acted without thinking, and ALSO are the same people who think that VT could have easily prevented this tragedy by doing X, Y, or Z, those views are diametrically opposed.

      I want those people - which there are probably quite a few of here - who would instantly dismiss this school's reaction to a bomb threat as ridiculous and ignorant to understand that advocating for an environment where VT could have responded any differently (which would have required, for lack of a better phrase, a massive police-state like infrastructure on campus[1] and a very reactionary attitude to any possible threat) to understand that they also implicitly need to support just this type of behavior on the part of schools.

      There might be a threat? Overreact.

      Oh, I know, you and others will say it's not the same. It's intensely the same, and in fact, that line of thinking with VT is even worse. Throwing the wrong kid in jail for a few days is a small price to pay for safety, right? I mean, we have people thinking that what is essentially a 35000-person *city* should be able to be locked down in literally minutes when there *might* be a threat, especially before you have all the information. So not realizing the daytime savings difference came into play is just another one of those kinds of little oversights we'll get if we advocate an act-without-due-consideration mentality like so many of the SAME people want with VT. And yes, they are out there, en masse. If you're not one of them, congratulations. I'm not talking to you, then.

      I am glad, though, that the thread/thought police seem to be out in full force on slashdot.

    53. Re:Be careful what you wish for by dosius · · Score: 1

      "Patrick Henry did not say 'Give me absolute safety or give me death'" - source unknown.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    54. Re:Be careful what you wish for by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's pretty silly to think you're either totally free or in a police state with no freedom. It's not so black and white as that. Americans aren't completely free, so by that logic is America a police state? Gun control doesn't make a police state. If the people don't want to have to be their own police force (with all the responsibility that entails, frequently un-met by many gun owners in the US and around the world), then why should they have to be? When freedom allows a minority to control, hurt or even threaten a majority, then the majority is no longer free, but subjugated by the minority in question. Some people would rather have the freedom of not being shot at than the freedom to shoot at people who shoot at them, and make sure they have a police force, who are paid, well-trained, well-armed, not drunk, not mentally unstable, and physically capable, to act as their guardians.

    55. Re:Be careful what you wish for by maxume · · Score: 1

      But this story wasn't even about their knee jerk response. This story is all about their investigative response(which has already been pointed out here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231129&cid =18767361). This kid going to jail is the equivalent of the push back about gun ownership that is going to result from these shootings and last for several years, not the fact that the police response failed to prevent the second round of shootings.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    56. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Draconix · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the Soviet Union taught us that if you force a country to keep up an insane arms race and flood their economy with counterfeit money, they'll eventually fall and become a charlie-foxtrot of crime and poverty. Some of the former Soviet republics _might_ arguably be better off now than they were under the USSR, but that sure as hell can't be said for Russia. More to the point, the social aspects had very little to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union; it was almost entirely due to economic issues and political corruption.

      --
      By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
    57. Re:Be careful what you wish for by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was 100% analogous; obviously it's not.

      I'm aiming for a larger examination of what kind of infrastructure would have been required at VT to provide the kind of response people think they should have been able to, which necessarily would have included canceling classes and clearing the campus, and having a capability to inform people NOT near computers en masse. That means a lot more police, a lot more centralized cameras/monitoring/PA systems, extremely costly central locking and door control systems for hundreds of buildings and literally thousands of doors, a reactionary response whenever a possibility of a threat exists (there was NO REASON whatsoever to believe there was going to be another shooting - zero), etc. I do agree that if we're going to try to draw direct analogies, I'd agree that your point about the longer term gun control debate is a correct one.

    58. Re:Be careful what you wish for by dosius · · Score: 1

      Heh. Freedom. In Poland, it's illegal to criticize the Kaczyski brothers at all, and you say the whole of Europe is more free than somewhere where it's fully legal to rant about the president's, ahem, bad judgment calls?

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    59. Re:Be careful what you wish for by micheal676 · · Score: 1

      we had a somewhat similar situation at my university where there was a student holed up in the physics building with "anthrax" and a knife and immediately after the authorities heard of it they canceled classes by sending out mass emails and posting it on all the doors leaving the dorms. and i knew about it before i read my email or went outside because who really wants to go to class let alone when there is a crazy wondering around with weapons. everyone was talking about it. i think if they had canceled classes the second shooting wouldn't have had as many casualties and the shooter would have been more conspicuous on campus. sure they could have said it was a domestic issue and such, but they should have thought about at least covering their own asses liability wise, you miss a day of class oh well, but atleast then you won't be sued by parents of dead students.

    60. Re:Be careful what you wish for by maxume · · Score: 1

      As a practical matter, universities that receive federal funding are generally 'gun free' zones. That doesn't mean you can't carry a gun there, but it means that you are exposing yourself to an uncomfortable conversation with law enforcement and the likely confiscation of the firearm. So carrying wasn't really a solution in this case, simply because it is not the status quo.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    61. Re:Be careful what you wish for by delinear · · Score: 1

      The trick seems to be convincing the public that the dangers from outside are worse than the dangers from the police/government. Given such a situation, people will generally choose what they see as the lesser of two evils. Which is why control of the media is vital to running a successful police state.

    62. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But I do think that they were a bit presumptuous to think that the first shooting was an isolated incident or that the shooter had fled the area.

      Why is that presumptious? While there's alot that will be flushed out about the events, based on the information available so far, it sounds very much like the initial incident was a domestic type shooting. Thousands of them occur every year. How often is a domestic type shooting followed by a rampage like this? I'd imagine saying less than .01% is a very gererous overestimate estimate. So then for the chance less than .01% chance that a seemingly isolated incident might be followed by a terrible tragedy like this, you would do what? Cancel all of the classes? OK, with the perspective that we have looking back from after the incident, it is likely that yes canceling classes COULD have saved lives. This is based on the shooter going into classrooms and shooting people, even if you knew this person was going to go on to cause a tragedy, how would you know that canceling classes would make everyone safer? OK, say classes were canceled, you're just moving your victims back to the dorms or having them milling about the campus trying to figure out what to do with themselves. (I know if I was a student and classes were canceled based on what appeared to be an isolated incident, I'd be out enjoying my Administrative overreaction day off) What if the shooter decided to start shooting from a rooftop (which is of course not without precident), then you've created more potential victims with everyone leaving the academic buildings because class was canceled. But if classes were canceled after the first shooting, the most likely outcome is still the university being criticized for overreacting.

      Another AC response in this thread said "Tell that to the families of the dead. I'm sure it'll give them comfort."

      I think loosing a young family member is one of the worst things that can happen to a person, I say this having lost a daughert myself.

      In looking back I can see many things that could have happened differently that day that would have resulted in her death not occuring, but nothing that would have been reasonably been thought of as such at the time, only in retrospect. I spent days, going over in my head, if only this happened differently, or if that happened differently. And I came to the realization that not all bad things can be prevented. In retrospect, it's almost always possible to see a way to prevent tragedy after the fact, and it's far to easy to say if X had done Y differently, Z wouldn't have hapened, but decisions aren't as easy when the action can't easliy match up to the potential outcome, especially when the outcome is so far outsied the expected norm.

      You can live each day taking reasonable precautions, knowing that not all bad things can be avoided. Or you go through life being paranoid over every little thing and end up missing life in the process.

      While I'm sure that there are small things that VT could have done better, they're probably mostly irrevent. Ultimately, their's probably verry little that could have been done to prevent this reguardless of how vigilant of a response there was.

    63. Re:Be careful what you wish for by eric76 · · Score: 1

      This was not the worst shooting in US history.

      The Mountain Meadows massacre of September 11, 1857 left between 100 and 140 people dead. See Mountain Meadows massacre.

      There may have been worse that I don't know about.

      There was also a worse school massacre on May 18, 1927 in Bath, Michigan that didn't involve firearms. A schoolboard member dynamited a school building killing 45 and injuring 58. See Bath school disaster

    64. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Lockejaw · · Score: 1
      If you're going to talk about why a lockdown wouldn't work, go tell it the people who think it would.

      I'm also having trouble reconciling these two ideas:

      Do you honestly believe that the classrooms would have been any emptier even if the same exact email had gone out at 7:30 or 7:45 when only preliminary information was known?

      There was also consideration for causing a panic, or having rumors spread.
      What would the panicking people have done? Go to class like normal? Run out onto the streets? Hide someplace?
      People in the dorm who heard about it hid.

      Keeping people uninformed about a disaster doesn't help them.
      --
      (IANAL)
    65. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that the violent crime rate would be lower (or non-existent) under a totalitarian government (police state), then reality has a bridge it wants to sell you. History shows that typically, as governments expand in power, crime becomes more widespread, not less.

      These kinds of things ... happen in a free society. And that's that unless we all want to live in a police state.

      Bullshit. Don't fall into the trap of believing that more government means less crime, as government spends billions each year trying to convince you. In reality, it's the exact opposite: freedom means individual responsibility, and individual responsibility means respect for your fellow man. No, freedom can't provide 100% security, but neither can government, and in fact, excessive government (as we see in most of the world today) doesn't take long at all to hit the point of diminishing returns.

    66. Re:Be careful what you wish for by maxume · · Score: 1

      The infrastructure discussion is tangential enough to this story to be off topic. The rest of what you said is a shorter, clearer version of your original post, which was much of my point, that posting a large amount of text from previous comments rather than a focused and on topic statement of something or other isn't a particularly great contribution.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    67. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So what is it? Do you want free society, where safety is sometimes an issue, or do you want a police state, where you might possibly be safer, but have no rights? Because those are your choices.

      I wish, oh how I wish, that were true. Lamentably, the fact is that it doesn't matter what I think or what I would choose. Rather, I am bound by the decision of either the not-very-bright, ill-informed majority or those in government (depending on whether you think that "the people" actually have any useful power in modern so-called democratic states).

    68. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      Hrm... I apparently have you marked as an enemy for some reason I can't remember.

      It was probably a good reason, but regardless, I agree with you in this case.

    69. Re:Be careful what you wish for by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I consider police, much less ordinary citizens imprisoning you against their will in no way trivial. Indeed. How do you get others to unwillingly imprison you? Not trivial at all. Unwittingly, that's easy: conceal your presence in the room before they lock it. Unwillingly, that's harder.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    70. Re:Be careful what you wish for by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

      That's a false choice. A police state will not prevent this kind of event. I want a free society where things like this are less likely to happen, which does not mean I want a police state either. The two things are entirely unrelated.

    71. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lockdown is something you do with elementary school kids so they don't wander off before their parents show up. Actually it's not. Except maybe in America.
    72. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. And then another vigilante with a gun kills you.

    73. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      WTF is wrong with you?

      When a bomb threat is called into a school, a "kneejerk" response is hardly imprisoning some kid for 12 DAYS while they figure out whether he was the real caller or not.

      The bomb may be on the campus. The person operating it may not be. The "kneejerk" response that I would hope for at a school like this would be to evacuate it with the fire alarm, having adults outside moving the kids WAY the hell down the street. We'll find suspects later, but right now, make sure the bomb doesn't explode before everyone gets out! That's proper kneejerking.

      You do know that your knees jerk for a reason? It's called a reflex. It's just like the human rational ability to "fill in" details in a distressing situation that aren't immediately observable (estimating numbers, predicting others' behavior, etc.). Both kneejerking and psychological heuristics are blamed for much of bizarre/uncalled for human behavior; but if we didn't have these imperfect abilities, we'd be a lot more vulnerable to sudden danger, wouldn't we? It's no accident that these traits were not selected out of our gene pool (and that of countless animals and a few plants). It's why you duck at the right moment. It's why so many close calls weren't catastrophes.

      "What if" this could have been a real bombing, you really mocked that question? Well fuck you, dude, seriously - what if it had been? Assuming they followed the evacuation procedure, it wouldn't matter if this kid was the suspect/in control of the bomb or not, the bomb would go off, nobody would die. Either that, or they'll turn the school upside down, fail to find any evidence of a bomb, and nobody would die.

      Notice the part about nobody dying. That's important.

      Then we can start worrying about suspects and caller IDs. Arresting this kid was an accident, although the principal ought to have her ass fired by the superintendent for not even hearing the kid out. Would it take that much work to go find the person he called an hour earlier, fail to see this on the caller ID, and start putting two and two together? Would it have killed them to look at the live timestamp on the box and see that it's not the correct time? Leaving the kid locked up for nearly two weeks is absolutely not excusable, but it really has nothing to do with kneejerking.

      But hey, good for the real caller - he had 12 days to figure out how to get the fuck out of Dodge unnoticed! Morons.

      So: this article is entirely unrelated to VT in every way except for the word "school".

      Incidentally, at VT, here's the reason they didn't lock the campus down military style after the first shooting, straight from VT president Charles Steger:

      You have to remember that of the 26,000 [students] that we have, only about 9,000 are on campus. When the classes start at 8:00 A.M., thousands of people are in transit. The question is, where do you keep them when it is most safe? We concluded that the incident at the dormitory was domestic in nature. These other events occurred two hours later...It is very difficult, because we are an open society and an open campus. We have 26,000 people here. The best thing that we can do is to have people report anything that they saw that was suspicious. We obviously cannot have an armed guard in front of every classroom every day of the year. ...What we try to determine is are they kept out of harm's way by staying in the dorms or staying in the academic buildings. We send out communications by e-mail, we have an emergency alert system to get the word to our students as quickly as we can. With 11,000 people driving in to campus, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to get the word out instantaneously.

      They WERE kneejerking. They issued emails and an emergency alert system. 99.999% of all killers don't return to the crime scene multiple hours later, so I can see why they didn't do more. Their email and emergency system failed because the majority

    74. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keeping people uninformed about a disaster doesn't help them.

      At what point does the university email everyone?

      7:15 a.m. -- Shootings at West Ambler Johnston Hall

      At this point nobody really knows WTF is going on. Is it real? A prank call? Some dude walked in on the guys from his BBall team banging his girlfriend? This last one is far more likely to be the case than that some dude just snapped and is going to kill 31 more people before the day is done.

      7:30-9 a.m. -- Police, university leadership assess situation

      So sometime between 7:30 and 9:00 the cops notify the school and eventually they all know that it wasn't just a case of some guy walking in on his girlfriend and his best friend in bed. We don't know what point that realization came to them. We don't know when someone thought/said, "Hey, we don't know where this guy is or if he's done shooting people!"

      But even with that realization, would YOU think the gunman was done? Wouldn't it seem likely that if he was on a rampage he would have shot at least one more person in the nearly 2 hours since the first 911 call?

      9:26 a.m. -- Campus e-mail urges caution

      We know it took at least 26 minutes to send the email once they realized the guy might be on a rampage. Maybe much more. Maybe not. Regardless it's not likely that most students/staff read it before the 2nd shootings. Even if they sent it at 8:26 a.m. how many would have seen it. And would it have made sense to cancel classes?

      9:55 a.m. -- Officials send message about second shooting

      Only 10 minutes after the 2nd shooting the university realizes that the gunman didn't just flee and head to Mexico. They email everyone and send a notice to the phones.

      10:16 a.m. -- Campus e-mail announces classes canceled

      Some people think the uni should have done this from the start back at 7:15 before they were even told about the fist shooting. BULL! Even if they knew he was still on campus is this what you want to do? What if he took up a spot in the clock tower and started firing on students as they poured out of the buildings?

    75. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, it's not all that big a deal to shut down a campus. When I was a student at UC Berkeley, in the Fall of 1990 we had a general bomb threat, and the entire campus was evacuated. Not just the central campus, but ALL university buildings (external research buildings, residence halls, etc.). A police state did not subsequently emerge and take hold of the entire campus or city. That same fall, a gunman took several people hostage (shooting several, an event that led to at least one death). The word got out VERY quickly (mind you, before everyone was on email or had cell phones), and the first news we all got when we rolled out of bed was not to go to class until it was sorted out.

      It's frustrating to listen to the Va Tech admins (and even admins from other universities) say that this "just can't be done." When Va Tech has a home football game, it becomes the second largest city in the entire state, and they're suggesting that they have NO contingencies for control of crowds and their facilities? Right.

    76. Re:Be careful what you wish for by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Acting without thinking, right? Just like the school officials did in this case. In this case, they acted and didn't start thinking until 12 days later!

      "A field officer, like myself, is frequently required to make fast, unconsidered decisions. You were all field officers, you know that's true. Time to think is a luxury battle seldom affords you. You react instinctively. Your actions, your decisions, all instinct, nothing more. But, an officer's instincts are the product of his training. The more thorough the training, the more predictable the instinct, the better the officer! And I am a good officer. I have been in the service all my adult life. I'm totally dedicated to my duty and highly trained in how to perform it. On Serkasta I, I reacted as I was trained to react! I was an instrument of the service! So if I'm guilty of murder, of mass murder, then so are all of you!"
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    77. Re:Be careful what you wish for by naasking · · Score: 1

      I think a morning show radio personality here in Tampa said it best: "These kinds of things (referring to the shootings at VT) happen in a free society. And that's that unless we all want to live in a police state."

      I would add, "where the shootings will be reserved for the state."

    78. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
      But one thing modern Russia (and 1930s Germany, and arguably Iraq) should teach us is that enough people *will* prefer a sort of totalitarian regime to a free society where chaos *often* happens.

      Now where is the boundary between often chaos and sometimes chaos?

      The triumph of free society is not pre-ordained. You need to work hard to achieve it, and you need to work hard to retain it.

    79. Re:Be careful what you wish for by russotto · · Score: 1

      You don't evacuate or "lock down" a 40,000 student university campus because a murderer is on the loose. You sure as hell do let people know he's out there.

    80. Re:Be careful what you wish for by toleraen · · Score: 1

      I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with anything you said. Like so many others though you're using the VT tragedy to push an agenda. I don't care what the agenda is, I don't care what your opinions are. You're only vaguely tying your VT thoughts into the topic at hand. Like I said, you're using the exact same tactics as Jack Thompson.

    81. Re:Be careful what you wish for by eckeric · · Score: 1
      Lockdowns are used at Middle and High Schools as well. In Arizona the procedures for a lockdown are: Lock classroom doors. Cover windows of classrooms. Have everyone get down on the floor. Allow no one outside of classrooms until the Incident Commander gives the all-clear signal. I think it is used most often when there is a shooting near a school and police are still chasing the person. While public schools are different from the open campuses that colleges have, there are still some things to think about. This statement from a professor posting on metafilter made me think:

      And yet, the first thing that came to mind when I heard about this was that the building at the university I teach at is unsecured 16 hours a day. The building and 95% of the classrooms in the building (except the computer labs) are not securable by anyone other than custodial staff and campus police. These rooms also do not have phones or a call system in them or accessible to them. In the event of a "lockdown," my students and I would literally be holding the door shut with our feet, waiting for help to find us.
    82. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      These kinds of things (referring to the shootings at VT) happen in a free society. And that's that unless we all want to live in a police state."

      And that won't stop it either. These things happen in police states as well. Hell do you ave any idea of what goes on in the police state we call "prison"? Murders are committed in some pretty high security prisons. Drugs are found in them - the kind made on the outside.

      Some things you simply can not stop 100%. Some things will happen so long as someone wants them to.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    83. Re:Be careful what you wish for by virtual_mps · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lockdowns are used at Middle and High Schools as well. In Arizona the procedures for a lockdown are: Lock classroom doors. Cover windows of classrooms. Have everyone get down on the floor. Allow no one outside of classrooms until the Incident Commander gives the all-clear signal.

      I think it is used most often when there is a shooting near a school and police are still chasing the person. While public schools are different from the open campuses that colleges have, there are still some things to think about. I stand by my original analysis: the lockdown is to control the students, not the perp. If you think the average classroom door is going to withstand more than a couple of kicks from someone who wants to get in, you're mistaken. Again, the primary intent is to keep curious kids from wandering around, not to prevent a determined attacker from getting to them.

      This statement from a professor posting on metafilter made me think:

      And yet, the first thing that came to mind when I heard about this was that the building at the university I teach at is unsecured 16 hours a day. The building and 95% of the classrooms in the building (except the computer labs) are not securable by anyone other than custodial staff and campus police. These rooms also do not have phones or a call system in them or accessible to them. In the event of a "lockdown," my students and I would literally be holding the door shut with our feet, waiting for help to find us.
      What, exactly, did it make you think about? You realize, don't you, that a lot of VT students locked themselves in offices and such and were found when the police kicked down the doors?
    84. Re:Be careful what you wish for by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If someone is shot in the dorms, why would you cancel classes, thus resulting in larger than normal amounts of people in the dorms?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    85. Re:Be careful what you wish for by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      They've been wondering what evidence the school and police had to indicate that the shooter had left campus, which is why they didn't consider him a threat.

      The presumed domestic shooter was not a student, and they couldn't find him in the dorms.

      I don't know if they're reevaluating what they thought happened at the first shooting or not.

      Honestly, if someone goes onto a college campus to shoot his girlfriend or someone he's jealous of, and then isn't there anymore when the police look for him, there's not a lot of reason to assume he's wandering around plotting mass murder. The police, I'm sure, were looking for him, and asking the students to help would be a) stupid, as he wasn't a student and was unlikely to be on campus, and b) dangerous if he actually was.

      In fact, we don't know, to this point, if they were connected. Yes, it seems an incredibly coincidence, but we still don't know what happened. It's even possibly the first shooting triggered the second, that it caused someone to snap or that the person that got killed was important to the shooter.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    86. Re:Be careful what you wish for by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      E-mail is not the proper tool for notification of emergency situations.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    87. Re:Be careful what you wish for by PinkPanther · · Score: 1

      Keeping people uninformed about a disaster doesn't help them.
      The point that your parent poster (David?) has been making, and I think he's been quite articulate about it, is that there was no disaster to inform people about. The disaster didn't happen until later.

      Do you think that an entire office building should be informed if the coffee shop in the lobby is robbed? It might not be another 2 hours before that burglar hits another business in the same building...if at all.

      When I was in university, we had a professor murdered in one of our engineering buildings. I was a resident assistant at the other end of campus. I happened to learn about the incident via the grapevine (a friend in the campus police force dropped by while doing rounds when he got word). We knew the killer was out there, but we had absolutely no reason to think that such an incident would head our way. I did nothing out of the ordinary (normal rounds, check doors and windows, etc.) and likely wouldn't behave any differently today. If the school had shut down or there had been a lockdown in residence (which would likely be unenforceable anyways) I know we would have been raked over the coals for over reacting.

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    88. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      There is a bureaucratic and technical process that takes place when you initiate an email to 30000+ people, and it's not just a "To" address.)

      The place I work only has about 3000 people locally, and it actually is just a To: address. Of course, we have exchange, so when it works, it allows us to lock down specific aliases so that only a small number of people can send to it.Campus cops should be able to have a streamlined process that allows for mass emails within 15 minutes. If we trust them with guns, then surely we trust them with a large email list.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    89. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, I hope you don't believe what you write!

    90. Re:Be careful what you wish for by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that pisses me the hell off.

      My childrens class roooms have a door that opens right out into the play ground.

      Thre response should not be, turn off the lights, stay quite and hope for the best.
      It should be Line up the students and run like hell.

      If a shooter decides to force intry into the room, he ahs 20 targets sitting there.
      IF a shooter decides to fire upon fleeing kids, his might get 1 or two, but he sure as hell won't be able to get them all.

      Of course, if the students at VT were armed and educated in the weapons use, there probably would have been fewer deaths.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    91. Re:Be careful what you wish for by 3choTh1s · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. A lockdown is something for elementary school kids only if you don't give them enough information before hand because you don't think it's in their best interests. If everyone was notified then they would be able to leave on their own (to go to a safe place) and then the building locked down so that the perpetrator wouldn't have a place to go, I would consider that a good lockdown procedure.

    92. Re:Be careful what you wish for by YodaYid · · Score: 1

      Ask the citizens of Oceania if they feel safe.

    93. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have obviously never been to VT. If they had canceled classes, there would probably have been MORE casualties. Classes at VT start at 8:00 in the morning. There is no way possible that the first class could have been notified in time to not have people arrive to it. You have to realize, this is MUCH more like a small city than it is a college campus (to give you some perspective, that oval in the center of the campus map called the "drill field" could EASILY fit 6 or 7 football fields). There is no way that the cops or anybody else could have gotten to all the doors on all the buildings to close them in 1/2 an hour Probably not even in the two hours they potentially could have had. It takes about 15 to 20 minutes to walk across campus from AJ to Norris, and that is if you are walking pretty quickly. During class changes, forget about driving. There are just way too many pedestrians. It takes a couple minutes just to walk from one building to the next in some areas. People who had 8:00 classes would have had to have left AJ or the other dorms on that side of campus a few minutes after the first shooting took place and very possibly before the police arrived to get to a class on the other side of campus on time. Anybody who was on their way to class would have arrived at the class and then they would not have been allowed to leave or would they be sent away from the building and forced to go somewhere else? Add to that, the students that would have been arriving for their 9:00 classes. Where do you send all these people. To run around the drill field where there isn't anywhere to hide?

    94. Re:Be careful what you wish for by virtual_mps · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. A lockdown is something for elementary school kids only if you don't give them enough information before hand because you don't think it's in their best interests. If everyone was notified then they would be able to leave on their own (to go to a safe place) and then the building locked down so that the perpetrator wouldn't have a place to go, I would consider that a good lockdown procedure. Well, sure, if you define "lockdown" to be something completely different from what was being discussed, I'm sure it would be implemented differently. The context of this thread is a suggestion that the whole campus should have been locked down to protect people, which implies a shelter-in-place kind of lockdown. I am curious how your sort of lockdown would be at all effective, since the perp could simply leave with everybody else. It's kind of hard to pat down 30k+ people as they all run away on their own ("to go to a safe place"), no?
    95. Re:Be careful what you wish for by eckeric · · Score: 1

      Sure, lockdowns seem to be designed for situations that are only tangentially related to the school, such as when someone is fleeing police through a campus. You are correct that someone who really wanted to get into a classroom can kick the doors in. And that some students were safe because they found rooms that they could lock themselves into. What that prof seems to be saying is that he has no control over the classroom environment and no set system to communicate with the outside world in case of a "lockdown." I guess what I am wondering is if his concerns could be addressed in schools (I don't know if his school is typical). Is there a better way to inform people about what is going on, is there a better way for people to call out from classrooms, and is there a way to make sure that professors can lock the doors if necessary? Again I don't know if his school is typical. When I was I was TA long ago, the classroom had a steel door in a steel frame, but I sure didn't have a key.

    96. Re:Be careful what you wish for by virtual_mps · · Score: 1

      You are correct that someone who really wanted to get into a classroom can kick the doors in. And that some students were safe because they found rooms that they could lock themselves into. No, they were safe because the guy didn't really try. In other cases people held the door closed with their feet. The point is that people got killed at random by a crazy dude who was having fun shooting people at random. There is no practical security measure that would prevent that, regardless of how much you might wish there were.

      What that prof seems to be saying is that he has no control over the classroom environment and no set system to communicate with the outside world in case of a "lockdown." I guess what I am wondering is if his concerns could be
      addressed in schools (I don't know if his school is typical). I find it pretty much impossible to believe that in the 21st century in the US there'd be a classroom in which nobody had a cellphone.
    97. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I'd like to pose a question to you: How long do you think it will be before someone can smuggle a nuke in a briefcase undetected into downtown LA and set it off?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    98. Re:Be careful what you wish for by eckeric · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with you. The students in offices probably benefited from the fact that he had no reason to think anyone was in there, while he would know that there should be people in the classrooms. As far as the cell phone, yeah, most classrooms would be close to one phone per person in the room.

    99. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That will greatly depend on your situation there.
      If you are a woman and divorced the police will not stop your ex-husband from beating and raping you because they consider it a domestic issue no matter how many times you call them for help.
      I know someone in Shanghai that was confined to her ex's home for many days, beaten, raped, held out of a window on the 28th floor of a highrise, her daughter dangled out the window and threatened to be dropped out and nobody would do a thing when she cried out for help.
      It took a lot a bribing to get anyone in athority to lift a finger.

      In a police state you have no one to hold the police accountable.
      I think we have it lucky here in the US compared to what it could be.

    100. Re:Be careful what you wish for by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      Ballistics studies have confirmed the same guns were used at both shootings.

    101. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing children with parents.

      Children don't want to be protected from all the bad stuff. Parents want them protected.

      Quite simple, really.

      Think of the children, "protecting their innocence", etc...

    102. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      And if there's one thing the fall of the Soviet Union has taught us it's that people prefer a free society where chaos sometimes happens to any sort of totalitarian regime.
      Not all of them. I remember a National Geographic interview on the subject in Russia a few years ago, where many, especially among the elderly, strongly preferred the old totalitarian regime.

      It evens goes so far as to have quite strong Communist parties which get a surprising amount of votes (and I believe they've won an election or two in the old USSR block)
      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    103. Re:Be careful what you wish for by tftp · · Score: 1
      Some of the former Soviet republics _might_ arguably be better off now than they were under the USSR, but that sure as hell can't be said for Russia.

      This is not so. Russia is doing very well in all aspects - definitely better than in 1980-90; In 90's stores were empty; now there is no free shelf space for Moldavian products even. I would only place some Baltic states in a better position, though some of those states have a lovefest with ex-NSDAP killers right now, so it's yet unclear how they will get out of this.

    104. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an American, and if you think I'm "perfectly willing" to give up my freedom then you have been listening to presidential bullshit so long that you now take the presidential lie for the truth. I simply have no other choice but to lose my freedom since I value "not being put in jail" and "not being terrorized by my own government."

    105. Re:Be careful what you wish for by advid.net · · Score: 1
      Your comment is the only one in the discussion mentionning Patriot Act. Strange.

      Here's more from passablynews reactions (article link):


      p1 "The treatment of Cody reflected the result, and the intent of the Patriot act 1 & 2. Cody was deemed a terrorist and as a result, his rights were suspended. Is what happened to Him, what's happened to others, whats going to happen to countless more, the absolute disrespect, humiliation, and utter disregard of Constitution O.K.? This is the Security we have been given in exchange for Liberty?

      Here is the patriot act itself.

      http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

      "


      Alex Epstein "This is exactly how the Patriot Act operates. Innocent people being jailed on hysterical accusations while the real culprits go free. And this is why we need our civil rights protections. When you can jail people without a trial, it's just too easy to jail the wrong guy."

    106. Re:Be careful what you wish for by tsdw · · Score: 1

      I am so glad to see a modicum of intelligence here about the VT incident. I almost threw my phone at the TV this morning in disgust at the talking heads.

      VT did the best they could, they acted appropriately and in a timely manner. What if instead of an email the initial reaction was to broadcast on the supposed campus loudspeaker system and cause a panic (or create concern where there was none had it been a one shooting affair)

      Lets say they caused a panic and 12 students were trampled to death in the pandemoniom .. you can bet the media would be lambasting the administration for not handling it properly, not to mention the lawsuits from the parents.

      I hope and pray that our society wises up, but it doesn't look like its going to happen

    107. Re:Be careful what you wish for by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Well, that makes it that much weirder, as the second gun was, IIRC, a semi-automatic with a didn't-used-to-be-legal sized clip. (By 'second gun', I mean 'gun recovered from shooter'.) That would imply at the time the first person was shot, more murder was, indeed, planned.

      But, like I said, in hindsight, sure, people say 'They should have done something', but the reality is that someone getting murdered in an apparently domestic dispute in a city the size of 25,000 is not a logical reason to shut down said city, and that's equally likely to have resulted in him opening fire in a dorm or the cafeteria or an off-campus bookstore somewhere that still had people in it. (And I don't know what notifying the students without shutting down the school is supposed to accomplish at all.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  3. An actual example of BEGGING THE QUESTION! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    'Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time.'

    1. Re:An actual example of BEGGING THE QUESTION! by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1

      Which begs the question of how Kathy Charlton got her Master's degree in education with that kind of thinking.

      (Disclaimer: This is a joke designed to irritate the overly literate. Please do not post corrections.)

  4. I'd laugh, but... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

    My history in K-12 is that most school staff (secretaries, teachers, administrators) really are that impervious to logic.

    1. Re:I'd laugh, but... by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why, yes they are!

      Back in my HS days I found a VCR in a locker. The VCR had been stolen from a classroom. I reported it to the administration office. The VP promptly accused me of getting "cold feet" about the theft and called the cops on me, even though I was in class when the supposed theft occurred two days prior (there was an exam, thus I had a reasonable alibi). None of my explanations mattered, nor apparently did the B&E that I committed in opening the locker. She was fixated that I (or my buddy who was with me) had stolen the VCR. Cops were called and we were separated and interviewed by the sheriff.

      Funny thing, we both told the sheriff the same story, but when pressed we both confessed to the B&E portion (which was a crime as there was a lock on the locker). I actually did it, but out of some sense of loyalty he confessed to it. Ultimately the VPs single mindedness that we stole it was in our favor, as once the unit was dusted for prints, ours were nowhere to be found. No charges on the B&E because the VP continued to insist that we must have stolen it somehow, and simply wiped our prints off it. You can't argue with people like that. They're nearly as fanatical as those FSM creationist folks :-)

      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:I'd laugh, but... by visualight · · Score: 1

      I'd like to add to your comment that kids are not very articulate when they have to stand up for themselves. This is obvious with the elementary school children (and the adults act accordingly) but in high school a teenager is often on his or her own in a confrontation with one or more adults.

      I recall a few situations where I was presumed guilty of an infraction when in fact my only crime was to react emotionally and illogically to the accusation.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    3. Re:I'd laugh, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [i]My history in K-12 is that most school staff (secretaries, teachers, administrators) really are that impervious to logic.[/i]

      The logic was flawless, it was the initial axiom "1. This kid is a criminal" that was the problem ;P.

    4. Re:I'd laugh, but... by GmAz · · Score: 1

      I work in a high school as a computer tech and yes, the staff at K-12 schools lack logic and a bit more. The simplist of issues, as they like to call them, are nothing more than them not looking at the screen. For something like not putting the daylight savings time change to the caller id timestamp, its quite easy to realize that they could do that. However, on the police department that arrested the young man...it was totally in their wrong for doing a half ass investigation and not seeing this. But in the light of things, I would rather see someone put in jail for 12 days on a small mistake such as this because they acted promptly and in the best interest of the school's populus than to dick around for months trying to figure out what to do.

      --
      Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
    5. Re:I'd laugh, but... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      The logic was flawless, it was the initial axiom "1. This kid is a criminal" that was the problem ;P


      No, it was actual lack of logic. It's, in fact, a classic fallacy called "Begging The Question". It's circular logic in which the conclusion is also used as the (or one of the) axioms it's based on.

      In effect, "the kid is a criminal" was _also_ the conclusion there. And choosing which facts to base it on, was based on the notion that the kid lies (so let's not even hear his side of the story), which in turn was based on the same "the kid is a criminal".

      I don't know, even bigotry and block-headedness I'd somewhat tolerate there. But the principal is being a mental midget who can't even apply the most elementary logic. Someone like that should't be allowed to teach. Heck, she shouldn't even be allowed within 100 yards of a school.
      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    6. Re:I'd laugh, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to this it was valid logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

    7. Re:I'd laugh, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone with many family members who work in the school system, I feel I should point out that not all - heck, not even most - of the staff are as impervious to logic as these anecdotes would imply. Many of them (especially the teachers) are overworked and expected to do a top-notch job with limited - and ever shrinking - resources. They're constantly losing respect and authority due to the unwillingness of upper management (i.e. school boards) to stand up for them when parents decide to take complaints to the next level. When your workplace is nothing but stressful demands, it's inevitable that you're going to start making bad decisions.

      Another point is the total lack of legal support teachers have. My high school seemed particularly draconian to me back in the day, though a discussion after graduation with one of my former teachers provided a lot of insight. He told me that the strictness was pure bravado, as if any student were to challenge their authority on things like attendence or detention, the staff wouldn't have a leg to stand on. By putting forth the image of authority and control, it was enough to deter all but the worst offenders from starting trouble. The unfortunate consequence was that simple mistakes or misunderstandings often ended in ridiculous and often unfair punishments for kids who really didn't deserve it. A lot of teachers felt bad about this, but there wasn't really much they could do about it.

      Of course, some of the staff were just plain stupid. But that happens everywhere, so people should consider this kind of stuff a crash course for kids in dealing with reality. Hopefully the poor kid involved will be better able to stand up for himself if he's railroaded again later in life.

    8. Re:I'd laugh, but... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Well, that's true, but you can beg the question in the other direction, too. For example, if the "question" is the matter of whether the kid is a criminal, you can't use his own trustworthiness as evidence for the conclusion. The problem here was that they refused to believe even statements that did *not* rely on his trustworthiness i.e. that they could independently verify. If you don't take his word that DST happened on a different day this year, fine. If you won't believe your own internal school district newsletter, well ...

    9. Re:I'd laugh, but... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      According to this it was valid logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


      Actually, you'll notice that Wikipedia too places this under "fallacies", i.e., bad logic.

      The fallacy is basically the whole "X => Y => Z => X" construct. The individual "X => Y" pieces may well be valid logic, but the whole construct doesn't prove X.

      What's wrong about it is that "A => B" _only_ says something about B, if A has been proven true. If A isn't known to be true, then basically we don't know anything about B either. E.g., "if I finished a game, I exit it" doesn't say anything about what happens when I _didn't_ finish the game. Maybe I'll keep playing, or maybe I'll exit the game anyway, or maybe I'll even uninstall it.

      The problem with circular logic is that, even if the individual "X => Y" parts are valid, the whole construct reduces to "X => X". To prove X (the right side there), you need to already have proven X (the left side). As long as you don't already know if X is true (e.g., if the kid is indeed a criminal), you can't use "X => X" to prove itself. You can't start from "you're a criminal" to prove "you're a criminal", no matter how many obfuscation layers are shoved in between.
      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    10. Re:I'd laugh, but... by HappyHead · · Score: 1

      I would rather see someone put in jail for 12 days on a small mistake such as this because they acted promptly and in the best interest of the school's populus

      That's a really easy claim to make when you're not the one who has been 'inconvenicenced' by something like this.

      Will you say the same thing when it's you who spend the better part of two weeks in jail on terrorism charges because of raving incompetance? (Yes, it is exactly that - incompetance with the daylight savings thing, and a lack of verification before or even immediately after the arrest was made, and raving as in "You're a criminal, criminals lie all the time!") Will you sit there in the cell for twelve days being happy that you're locked up in a little room with no job, and a brand-shiny-new criminal record for something someone else (who is free, and probably laughing at you as we speak) did? Or are you going to scream bloody murder, and sue the crap out of everyone involved?

      In anybody's case, I'm willing to bet they'd take the second option - if the bomb threat had been real, there'd be a very destroyed school building, and possibly dead and injured people, all because some brainless twit decided that "even though this person claims innocence, we're going to just assume he's guilty, and not bother even trying to verify his story". The principle in question, as well as the police involved in the arrest all need to be given large ammounts of unpaid time off, as a reward for potentially endangering the lives of the students at that school with their stupidity. That, in addition to the massive lawsuits that this kid is hopefully going to be laying on them.

    11. Re:I'd laugh, but... by Zephyr14z · · Score: 1

      I have also been presumed guilty of various infractions (many of which I didn't commit) in high school, though I had the opposite reaction, responding logically and calmly. Same result though, as I still got punished for insubordination. In my experience, the one thing school administration hates more than being wrong, is being shown that by "some dumb kid."

    12. Re:I'd laugh, but... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I would rather see someone put in jail for 12 days on a small mistake such as this because they acted promptly and in the best interest of the school's populus than to dick around for months trying to figure out what to do.

      So it doesn't matter that someone innocent is deprived of their liberty and gains an arrest record so long as the government is "doing something"?

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    13. Re:I'd laugh, but... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Back in my HS days I found a VCR in a locker. The VCR had been stolen from a classroom. I reported it to the administration office. The VP promptly accused me of getting "cold feet" about the theft and called the cops on me, even though I was in class when the supposed theft occurred two days prior (there was an exam, thus I had a reasonable alibi). None of my explanations mattered, nor apparently did the B&E that I committed in opening the locker. She was fixated that I (or my buddy who was with me) had stolen the VCR. Cops were called and we were separated and interviewed by the sheriff. I'm curious, did you see the VCR and then break into the locker, or did you break into the locker and then find the VCR? I'm just wondering because if you were someone known for breaking into things (like lockers) she would have been somewhat justified in her suspicion of you, on the other hand if you broke into the locker to retrieve the classrooms VCR (which wouldn't be the wisest course of action but is understandable) then her suspicion loses a lot of its justification.
      --
      I stole this Sig
    14. Re:I'd laugh, but... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen Cry_Wolf? It wasn't that great of a movie, but it proved a point. Once you're a liar, no one will ever believe you. And when everyone is a liar, you can't believe anybody.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    15. Re:I'd laugh, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're nearly as fanatical as those FSM creationist folks :-)

      Hey! Ho! Hold it there! You are making fun of my religion you anti-pasatafarian! Don't you fear that He who created the universe will come upon thou with furiously sharp noodley appendages!!?!??!?
    16. Re:I'd laugh, but... by YodaYid · · Score: 1

      This sort of horror story strikes me as typical. I remember when I was in high school, a bunch of kids got busted for pot. They were separated and each told that if they ratted on their friends, they wouldn't get expelled. They did, and got expelled anyway. Cooperating with the school administration is almost always a no-no - the only reason I could think of to be a "Good Samaritan" in high school is to kiss the principal's ass. And that's the best case scenario.

    17. Re:I'd laugh, but... by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Specifically I was proving to my buddy how insecure the locker locks were. Not that I had a reputation for breaking into things and/or lying, just picked a damn unlucky locker to pop open. But pragmatically I broke in, then discovered the VCR, hence my open admission of B&E, though the VP didn't care or register that, she could have just used that against me with or without the VCR. Her fixation on the VCR ultimately saved my ass as the cop(s) realized that I was scared enough and there was no case on the point of VCR.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    18. Re:I'd laugh, but... by Prune · · Score: 1

      What the hell are VP and FSM?

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  5. Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blame? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    While daylight savings is a somewhat interesting factor & the school's principal sounds like (frankly) a raving nutter - shouldn't the blame for incarcerating this kid lie with the local police? What were they thinking?

    Article doesn't contain too much information, but the reg (byo grain of salt) sez:

    Webb refused to confess, was arrested "on a felony charge of threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction and related misdemeanor counts" [emph mine]
    wtf? WMDs? I guess they just can't be found anywhre huh?
    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  6. Let the lawsuit commence! by Billosaur · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unfortunately, the school forgot that the clocks had switched to Daylight Saving Time that morning. The time stamps left on the hotline were adjusted by an hour after Day Light Savings causing Webb's call to logged as the same time the bomb threat was placed. Webb, who's never even had a detention in his life, had actually made his call an hour before the bomb threat was placed.

    These are the people we want teaching our children? Or we want our children to become/emulate? I'm not sure which is more shocking -- the fact that they jumped to conclusions based on a couple of pieces of evidence or the fact that it took 12 days for some bright person to remember the switch in Daylight Time.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      Sadly, in my experience public school administration has become like the Presidency.. if someone really wants the job, they are almost definitely insane and unfit for the position.

    2. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      What I don't udnerstand (and doesn't seem to be properly explained) is that surely the log of the phone call made by the 'kid' and the bomb threat won't exactly 1 hour apart to the second? Also, surely the phone calls logs would have showed different call duration figures.

      If the kid has protested innocence and stated his earlier use of the phone, then by noticing the times were probably slightly off and that the call duration was almost certainly completely different, surely someone should have realised that a mistake had been made!

      I agree that I would not want these people teaching my kids.

    3. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Well, keep in mind, they had to pull the LUDs (local usage details) to do this. That means they had to go through the phone company. And what could have been the phone company? VERIZON! So any hope at understanding simple logic, was gone.

    4. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by mausmalone · · Score: 1

      ... had actually made his call an hour before the bomb threat was placed.
      I wonder what he called about? Also, I wonder why nobody remembered that call being placed.
      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    5. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by Speed+Pour · · Score: 1
      While I agree that there was a huge lack of common sense applied in this situation, and the 12-day lag time is absurd, I must defend the particulars that you happen to be questioning.

      What I don't udnerstand (and doesn't seem to be properly explained) is that surely the log of the phone call made by the 'kid' and the bomb threat won't exactly 1 hour apart to the second? Also, surely the phone calls logs would have showed different call duration figures. Imagine for a second being the person to receive that call. Are you going to remember that the bomb threat took 3 minutes to make, or 5? Will anybody remember that the bomb threat came at 8:02 or 8:09? It's not about the calls landing within a minute of each other, it's about calls that landed close to each other. It's understandable to make THESE mistakes...

      The question I would ask, why didn't somebody look at the caller ID during the call? The first thing I would do after a bomb threat is inform somebody else in the office and immediately call the police (who would have logged the time of the call and should have promptly called the phone company).
      --
      - Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
    6. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      At least the difference between dollars and cents didn't come up during the discussion with Verizon. :-)

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    7. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      These are the people we want teaching our children?
      No, these are just the best people taxpayers are willing to pay to hire to teach our children.

      I seriously researched switching careers to teach computers at a high school level since the school where my wife teaches has a converted English teacher filling this role who is clearly out of her element. However I'd barely have made a third the salary compared to my current day job -- after tenure.

      Also, though not pertinent to this discussion, you need a business degree (not computer science or some related discipline) to teach computers in schools here-abouts if you weren't already teaching computers when the law went into effect, so it'd have been a minimum of 2 years full-time education to get the necessary business & education degrees.
    8. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I don't know what he called about, but if it was something like "I can't come in today, I'm sick" then it probably was less than a minute long. If the device measuring call durations measured calls in minutes, then the two calls may well have appeared to be one minute long.

      That said, given they had a record of a call being received from the "kid", it still doesn't make sense. Kid makes one call according to the records, and they assume they received two from him? At the very least, it would have merited a second glance given the stakes involved.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by HoldenCaulfield · · Score: 1
      Try to read the article before defending something - the call happened at 4:17 AM and was recorded on a machine. From the original article, "They believed they'd found the culprit when they traced the phone number they thought was responsible to Webb" - which seems to imply that they used call ID. This article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review mentions clearly that the call happened in the middle of the night, that a message was left, and there was some variation in the time of the calls logged:

      The district placed the blame by matching Webb's call, recorded on his phone at 3:12 a.m. daylight-saving time, to the threat recorded by the school as having been received at 3:17 a.m. Eastern Standard Time -- but that was 4:17 daylight-saving time, or an hour after Webb's call, Andrews said.
      Perhaps more interestingly, nine days after the event, the school district passed what seems to be this knee-jerk policy (as the actual bomb thread had a blocked caller ID), that states the district will no longer accept calls from those with blocked caller ID
    10. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      Imagine for a second being the person to receive that call. Are you going to remember that the bomb threat took 3 minutes to make, or 5? Will anybody remember that the bomb threat came at 8:02 or 8:09? It's not about the calls landing within a minute of each other, it's about calls that landed close to each other. It's understandable to make THESE mistakes...


      I'm referring to the electronic logs of the calls which would surely have specified the call time and duration to the precise second or less.
    11. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those that can adjust their clocks for daylight savings time, do so.
      Those that can't, teach.

    12. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by Kismet · · Score: 1

      Yes, these are the people we want our kids to emulate. If we don't learn to make thoughtless, reactionary decisions then our economy will utterly collapse. Why else do we have public schools?

      If we want kids who think for themselves, we shouldn't be sending them to such schools in the first place. These people teach masses, not individuals.

      Let's not be shocked about a "broken" school system that arose from a another, very similar system originally designed to produce good soldiery for the Napoleonic wars.

    13. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Caller ID doesn't record length of call.

      Of course, Caller ID is trivially spoofed, and hence is not admisable in court. You don't find out who called where from caller id, you find out from phone records.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    14. Re:Let the lawsuit commence! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      How many MBAs are willing to teach high school students?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  7. Money! by Taelron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This kid is not going to have to worry about college tuition... His family will sue and they will be awarded a large settlement because of this... Just you wait and see...

    1. Re:Money! by texastexastexasdfw · · Score: 1

      Heck, just demand his diploma with honors to go along with that. The folks who tried to pin this on him are going to need to shake out their shorts if his parents do not go after them.

      --
      Please note for future reference
    2. Re:Money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This kid is not going to have to worry about college tuition... His family will sue and they will be awarded a large settlement because of this... Just you wait and see...

      This is precisely the type of incident where litigation is not only warranted, but a moral imperative. It's too bad our courts are abused so much that folks want to put restrictions on litigation that would eliminate the possibility of a suit like the one you mentioned.

      *sigh* Hopefully, the BAR will keep things in perspective and eliminate any knee-jerk legislation. It also helps that many politicians are lawyers.

    3. Re:Money! by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the settlement will be paid by the town's taxpayers (IE, the kid's friends parents and neighbors), and the person responsible will get off with, at worst, the loss of her job.

    4. Re:Money! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His family will sue and they will be awarded a large settlement because of this... Just you wait and see...

      He should, and I hope he does.

      I'm about as anti-lawsuit as you can get, but the kid was in jail for 12 days because someone screwed up royally. Jail. An innocent kid. For no reason whatsoever. I hope he gets so much money from them that the school is absolutely freaking paranoid about ever accusing someone again in the future.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    5. Re:Money! by Cocoronixx · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the settlement will be paid by the town's taxpayers (IE, the kid's friends parents and neighbors), and the person responsible will get off with, at worst, the loss of her job.
      And maybe that will cause the taxpayers to actually be involved in their local governments and schools to prevent the hiring of an inept crazy person in the future.
      --
      "Obscenity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker." - cloak42
    6. Re:Money! by CokeBear · · Score: 1

      The penalty will be applied to all the taxpayers, each paying a tiny portion, and I think that is actually an appropriate punishment to be applied to them for electing the brain-dead morons who hired that principal. Actions have consequences, and if you elect and appoint people like that in your town, you pay the consequences.

      --
      Reality has a liberal bias
    7. Re:Money! by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The penalty will be applied to all the taxpayers, each paying a tiny portion

      In a small town (Yes, I understand that in this case the population is almost a million people), a settlement like this does *not* result in a "tiny portion" being paid by each resident.

      Each resident should be financially responsible for the actions of somebody hired by somebody who was hired by somebody they elected? That's ridiculous. You assert that it's the voters that need to learn a lesson from this, and not the individuals that imprisoned this kid for making a prank phone call (which he didn't even make)?

    8. Re:Money! by CokeBear · · Score: 1

      It is the voters who are electing people who represent them, and to make decisions on their behalf. Voting is not only a right, it is also a responsibility, and one that people need to take more seriously. If the only way to get them to see that is a direct link between votes and the consequences, then so be it. Also, a million dollar settlement in a city of a million people would only mean one dollar per person (yes, very exaggerated, rounded numbers, I have no idea what the population is there) but if everyone pays a dollar (or 5 or 10 dollars) and *knows* it, hopefully they will take that into account next time they vote.

      --
      Reality has a liberal bias
    9. Re:Money! by TheGreek · · Score: 1

      It is the voters who are electing people who represent them, and to make decisions on their behalf. Voting is not only a right, it is also a responsibility, and one that people need to take more seriously.
      So, uh.

      The other people on the ballot for school board—the ones who didn't get elected—wouldn't have hired that principal?

      Is that what you're saying?
    10. Re:Money! by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a multi-million dollar settlement in a town of 3000 sucks. A lot.

      This is all beside the point, because the town probably has liability insurance, so the only thing that would really happen is the premiums will go up a bit... But even if I were to agree with you (and I do agree about taking voting more seriously), there should be some consequences for the responsible individual as well.

    11. Re:Money! by n-baxley · · Score: 1, Insightful

      yeah! That's what we want. Our educational system mired in paranoid legalistic butt covering. The kid was in juvey for 12 days. Yes it's horrible and was handled terribly, but why do we have to sue the school district back to the stone age? Typical American response.

    12. Re:Money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah! That's what we want. Our educational system mired in paranoid legalistic butt covering.

      Don't forget that the kid was in jail because of 'paranoid legalistic butt covering.'

      captcha:sneakily
    13. Re:Money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the police that should be sued, it should not take them 12 days to check this evidence. It should take a day or 2 at most and they probably should have waited until they checked the evidence before the arrest unless they felt the child was a genuine threat.

      The school may be partially at fault, but the police should not lock people up without proper evidence.

    14. Re:Money! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Where have you been? The whole zero tolerance mess is a result of legalistic butt covering. Explain to me what consequences this principal would face if she wasn't prime lawsuit bait? Getting fired doesn't quite cover it.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    15. Re:Money! by Qbertino · · Score: 1

      That would be my question to US slashdotters.

      1.) Innocent until proven guilty. Ok, so we're in the US and Innocent until proven guilty becomes 'sort of, kinda, if we have a good day, innocent until proven guilty otherwise GUILTY! until we feel like maybe looking at the hard evidence' ... This is the US, we can fuck you from all sides without lube and tell you you're living in the land of the free and most of the time you'll believe it too. Nothing new here (see Guantanamo and US inmate quota for further reference).

      but (!)

      2.) Isn't this also the famous US where people can sue each other into kindom come for sums that go bejond bizare proportions? Isn't the county, school, whoever in for their lawsuit of a lifetime? From what I can tell from here this kid can basically retire more or less straight away, or am I missing something here? What's in for him - a two digit million sum of dollars at least I'd say. 75% for the lawyers gives him a handfull of millions at least. No? ... Cue educated US opinions, please ...

      --
      We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  8. Stupidity should be painful... by duh_lime · · Score: 1

    At least then the principal would have known it was time to buy a clue...

  9. Tag This Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tag this article DaylightSavingsTimeIsStupid

  10. Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in law enforcement should be punished - it would provide some pressure for them to improve themselves.

    1. Re:Incompetence by sirket · · Score: 1

      This is exactly the problem. People end up with little or no recourse against law enforcement abuses. Worse yet is the fact that the average American just doesn't care.

  11. Principal owes public apology by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Schools seem hell-bent on denying kids due process... at least in this case they were exposed. Sounds like he's got a big payday coming!

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:Principal owes public apology by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2

      Yeah! Public Apology! It's not like intentional denial of due process is worthy of prison time and never being allowed in a position of authority again or anything, he should say he's sorry, and he should mean it!

      Sarcasm is the highest for of wit.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    2. Re:Principal owes public apology by eriklou · · Score: 0

      Schools seem hell-bent on denying kids due process... at least in this case they were exposed. Sounds like he's got a big payday coming! Its more then schools nowadays, sadly we're losing all that we originally fought for.
    3. Re:Principal owes public apology by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and typos are the most annoying form of spelling error :/

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    4. Re:Principal owes public apology by visualight · · Score: 1

      I think the woman who was yelling "We got him! We got him!" needs to have her picture on a bunch of newspapers for a few days so everyone will know what a ninny she is.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    5. Re:Principal owes public apology by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Having a 1/4 of a million strangers emailing her telling her the same thing will probably help as well.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:Principal owes public apology by Trails · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all the emails with links to goatse.cx and subject lines like "R U A GURL?!?!?! BUTTSECKS?!" will really change her perspective on individual rights and due process. Grassroots at its finest.

    7. Re:Principal owes public apology by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Nah, she needs to be forced to issue a complete public apology, only after she spends 12 days in a county lockup.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    8. Re:Principal owes public apology by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After reading the more detailed article, I was even more upset that after the kid had been cleared the authorities still insisted on keeping him jailed in order to perform a mental health evaluation because he wouldn't admit to making the call. I hope that the kids parents decide to sue. I doubt that they will because they sound like they have no backbone. The principal should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  12. Give the Students More Credit by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Disclaimer: I have yet to rear a child.

    Perhaps it took so long because of the principal's Catch-22 attitude about Cody's guilt -- she said, 'Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time.
    I like to believe that, in America at least, we avoid this "Catch-22" wherein we assume from the get go that the alleged criminal is innocent until proven guilty. Which gives them no motive to lie. After the fact, it may be revealed they were lying but you have to prove it first. Most of the time, they are caught within their lies and their guilt is exposed that way.

    Relying on one instance of evidence that relies heavily on technology, is a pretty shaky case in my opinion. The principal has graciously illustrated why this is a risky assumption to make. I don't think I need to expound on my general feelings of how the RIAA uses the same techniques in their settle out of court cases but there is definitely a direct relationship here.

    I feel that, as a society, we don't give our children enough credit. I've posted about this before and I'm sure I'll post about it again. If you don't apply the same ideas of justice & freedom to children, how can you expect them to grow up with those same virtues instilled? You can't, really. Once they turn 18, they still remember a lot prior to being 18. Any injustices they suffered are probably not forgotten.

    While I have not raised a child, I have volunteered at local grade schools to teach the children about engineering. I go and set up some sort of challenge that involves engineering with limited resources. One of my most horrific experiences wasn't watching some child verbally or physically assault another child, it was actually a teacher/student exchange. The challenge was to build a tower out of cards and after several failures and few successes, I decided to wrap up with some basics in mechanical engineering. I asked the class why they chose a square structure to build their tower in. One particularly energetic imp told me it was clearly the most stable. I corrected him and said that actually a dome is a more stable structure. But he persisted and asked why were 99% of buildings made in a square formation. I really didn't have an answer ... so I kind of filibustered. But the teacher cut off his questions and told him he was flat out wrong. And the kid responded with something on the order of, "You say that because that's all you ever expect out of me. You just like it when I'm wrong and the other kids are right. That's what you like." And I waited for the teacher to correct him. To tell him that this wasn't the case. But the teacher just sat there and stared at him. After an awkward minute, I proceeded but I never forgot that exchange. The kid had clearly demonstrated a very astute analysis of building structure so much so that I couldn't reply to him intelligently. I don't care what his history was, the teacher seemed to pigeonhole him back into being "just wrong."

    I pretty much blame myself for not encouraging the kid to research it on his own. But I thought about it a lot afterwards and wondered if we don't give our children enough credit. Does this happen often? Do children get stereotyped as "the problem child" with no possible second chance? Are they doomed once teachers look for this type of behavior. I hope not but this story with the principal assuming the kid was wrong is just another example, though my personal example is probably a case of no exoneration.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Give the Students More Credit by cowscows · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know it's not really the point of your story, but in case it comes up again, the main reason that most of our buildings are generally rectangular is because it's much easier(read: cheaper) to build them that way.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:Give the Students More Credit by mikearthur · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I think one of the reasons this happens with teachers now is that, as beautifully parodied by the Simpsons, they rely on textbooks rather than actual solid knowledge of subjects.

      One of my high school computing teachers repeatedly became annoyed with me for helping other kids with problems and expanding on his answers when he didn't know. He has never had any computing education, was a Latin teacher who just ended up teaching computing somehow.

      As you astutely say, teachers don't seem to encourage innovation and discovery and hate to admit they might know less than the pupils in an area.
      I was considering becoming a teacher last year but the main thing that put me off was the sheer lack of real personal growth through the job. Having taught Computing for 40 years, I probably wouldn't know as much as a current 1st year college student. I think the type of people attracted to teaching as a result don't have the same craving for knowledge that some of their kids do, so can't understand the need for explanations outside of the syllabus.

    3. Re:Give the Students More Credit by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Being a child sure doesn't help, but I would tend to beleive that being innocent is the worst possible defense strategy: you don't have any aliby (moreover can anyone remember what he was doing just two weeks ago if he had no reason to in the first place?) and you don't know what they are talking about, so whatever you say cannot match what they are expecting from you and sounds like a lie.

    4. Re:Give the Students More Credit by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Heh. Square isn't most stable, but it is more easily constructed, and more space efficient. In a place where stability is paramount, you'd see a lot more domes.

      I understand what you're saying though. I've seen things like that myself, where teachers are so dogmatic and so set on their tiny subset of information that anything that's not on their holy fact list is completely incorrect.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    5. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have told the kid that domes are harder to construct because they are not stable until they are completed and that circular floor plans waste space when the buildings are tightly packed together.

    6. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Retric · · Score: 1

      I would like to point out that most building are constructed as square boxes because it cheeper and strong enough.

      Anyway, when dealing with children you need to understand on average they are smarter than you are. IMO the problem with public schools is they operate under the assumption that children are stupid and need extremely simple explanations. This creates a situation where children are constantly provided inaccurate lists of pseudo facts to memorize which basic critical thinking skills tend to expose as wrong.

      EX: Columbus discovered America.

      Conflict, people where already living there.

      Resolution from the European perspective Columbus discovered America.

      IMO we should just teach it that way in the first place.

    7. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      99% of buildings are square because it's cheap and easy to build them that way. Also, when you push your cheap couch or bookshelf against the wall in a round building, there is perceived "wasted" space.

      The kid was making a proper observation about the world around him, but was drawing an incorrect conclusion. Buildings aren't built that way because it's better, they are built that way because it's cheaper.

      B.t.w. Kudus to you for helping out at your local schools.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    8. Re:Give the Students More Credit by MojoRilla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think teachers lashing out at students who are more intelligent than them is common. A relation of mine was in a grade school science class and the teacher said that liquids are always less dense than solids. My relative said that the teacher was wrong, and that ice is less dense than water. Instead of the teacher admitting she was wrong, she sent my relative to the principal's office.

    9. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Saxmachine · · Score: 1

      Would mod this up again and again. Why do we have so many parents and schoolteachers who think that it's okay to ban Harry Potter from the library? Because their parents and schoolteachers taught them that it was okay to ban books from their libraries when they were kids. No amount of civics lectures or self-esteem-boosting mantras will undo the very real ACTIONS that kids see and, sometimes, are the victims of.

    10. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Also you don't have any information to trade in a plea bargain. A real criminal might be able to finger an associate.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    11. Re:Give the Students More Credit by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To be honest, a lot of the time in school, especially in second grade, I felt exactly this way. It's like, whatever I did was wrong. I think it seriously tainted my outlook on the world, with effects that persist to this day. And before you accuse me of making whiny excuses, I'm consciously trying to "retrain my neural network", for lack of a better term, and I don't intend to use that excuse to justify further failures.

      But seriously: track that kid down. Whatever the cost. He deserves vindication. This isn't a matter of which building is best. (Though I'd recommend the geodesic dome article on Wikipedia for why they're not used.) It's a matter of whether you've taught this kid to suppress his own reason.

    12. Re:Give the Students More Credit by maxume · · Score: 1

      Trees grow straight. Rectangular stones are uniform and don't need much math to be shaped.

      Depending on the age of the kids you were dealing with, it might not have been the most productive thing to do to be so pedantic about 'the most stable', because the kid would have been right had he appended 'with straightforward application of the materials we have' which is a good insight into engineering, but maybe not something you should have expected to pop forth, unprompted, from their minds.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a given plot size, a semi-spherical dome only encloses a little over half the volume of a half cube. That's why, duh! And you can't stack cubes into 10 story buildings. Engineering is about more than load bearing capacity. It involves cost of materials and labor, esthetics, and the utility of the final product for its intended use (of which load bearing is only one item).

      i.e. (1/2)*(4/3)*pi*r^3 / (1/2)*(2*r)^3 = 0.52

      Now if you had been thinking quickly enough (I know, it's not easy in that situation), you could've given a lesson in the larger context of real engineering.

    14. Re:Give the Students More Credit by virtual_mps · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know it's not really the point of your story, but in case it comes up again, the main reason that most of our buildings are generally rectangular is because it's much easier(read: cheaper) to build them that way. And because efficiently fitting square furniture into a round room is a bitch.

      Before anyone suggests making the furniture round, consider that you'd need custom furniture for every size of room.
    15. Re:Give the Students More Credit by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Anyway, when dealing with children you need to understand on average they are smarter than you are. If you are of average intelligence, then yes it is likely that half the class has a higher intelligence. It's not that they are smarter than you, in fact they likely are not (on average) as you have more experience as an adult, but rather that adults have a seemingly inescapable compulsion to think kids lack the ability to reason, when they do not.

      IMO the problem with public schools is they operate under the assumption that children are stupid and need extremely simple explanations. your opinion. I would propose that the problem instead, is that public schools teach to the lowest common denominator (that is the slowest, dumbest, brick headed kid who is not actually retarded) in the class. It is sad because by teaching to the lowest level we are dooming ourselves. I would propose instead that we teach to an expectation, one that is reasonable to the average ability of the class, and be unafraid to hurt some parents feelings and hold kids back. Finally, at 10th grade or 17 years of age a child should be allowed to choose: Continue with academic education, or drop high school and go into vocational school to be a welder, plumber, ASE tech, framer, ditch digger, fruit picker, etc.

      -nB
      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    16. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Sique · · Score: 1

      Actually no :)

      Rectangular forms have two advantages:

      1. The rectangle is the halve angle of a straight line, thus you can easily separate each room into two rooms which are rectangular again. Each other angle causes the remaining angle to be of a different size.
      2. Rectangular forms have parallel sides, thus they don't change the distance between walls, allowing for instance an easy sliding in of furniture. Try for instance a triangle grid and then slide in furniture! Sokoban raises it's ugly head.

      Because the rectangle as itself is instable, frame work buildings always have diagonal bars to stabilize them. With mural buildings you hope the structural integrity of the wall itself keeps it from collapsing.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    17. Re:Give the Students More Credit by mdielmann · · Score: 2, Informative

      More than that, how do you double the height of a dome? Yep, you make it twice as wide. How do you double the height of a straight-sided building? You make the walls stronger. Straight-sided buildings make better use of airspace, and so make better use of the surface area of our planet.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    18. Re:Give the Students More Credit by orielbean · · Score: 1

      And domes/spheroids are ugly too. See many Bucky domes around lately? There's not just a cost reason for that...

    19. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Age discrimination is one of the last acceptable forms of discrimination in our country. Anybody under 18 is treated like crap merely for being their age. In a way it's not so bad since you grow out of it, yet in some ways it's worse than any other discrimination. It happens to people during the period of their lives when they're learning the most about society. And worse, after growing up under discrimination there are far too many people that turn right around and practice the same discrimination themselves. Why? Because they've been trained to think that's how it should be. How horrible is it that we use people's youths to train them that being young is bad?

    20. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to believe that, in America at least, we avoid this "Catch-22" wherein we assume from the get go that the alleged criminal is innocent until proven guilty.

      I'm sure you'd like to believe that, but I have two words for you: Guantanamo bay.

    21. Re:Give the Students More Credit by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      Before anyone suggests making the furniture round, consider that you'd need custom furniture for every size of room.

      eh, for rooms larger than a few meters across the walls will be approximately flat.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    22. Re:Give the Students More Credit by radtea · · Score: 1

      I like to believe that, in America at least, we avoid this "Catch-22" wherein we assume from the get go that the alleged criminal is innocent until proven guilty.

      Unfortunately, regardless of what you like to believe, America has pursued a deliberate and considered policy of "guilty and not allowed to prove innocence" for the past several years. The innocent people being held in Guantanamo Bay are routinely describe by government officials from the President on down as "terrorists". Apart from one Australian guy who plea-bargained his way out recently, they have not been convicted of any crime and never will be, because they will never have access to any court of law, only military tribunals that do not meet the ordinary standards of criminal justice.

      There are about 500 people being held at Guantanmo Bay. They were all taken into custody either in battlefield conditions, via raids on villages and homes, or captured by ever-reliable authorities like the Pakistani and Afghan police and armed forces.

      Statistics from evil, America-hating, left-wing organizations like the National Rifle Association show that when a cop intervenes during a crime in progress and they use a firearm, they shoot the wrong person about 10% of the time. Armed citizens shoot the wrong person about 1% of the time.

      Let's be generous to the organs of the state, and assume they are able to achieve the same impressive accuracy that well-armed American citizens are able to achieve when they are actually faced with a crime in progress. That means that there are on average 5 innocent people in Guantanamo Bay. P(0) for a Poisson distribution with a mean of 5 is 0.67%, even with this vastly generous assumption. If we adopt a more realistic assumption that in the midst of the fog of war the armed forces of America and other far less professional organizations have only half the same failure rate as the NRA says American cops have, P(0) ~ 1e-11. This is, as my .sig points out, what would commonly be called a statistical certainty.

      So unfortunately, tragically, at the presumption of innocence is not a prominent feature of American jurisprudence, although the story is not yet over. Sarcasm aside, there are great, pro-American organizations like the ACLU still fighting before the courts for the rights of these innocent people.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    23. Re:Give the Students More Credit by tringstad · · Score: 1
      I asked the class why they chose a square structure to build their tower in. One particularly energetic imp told me it was clearly the most stable. I corrected him and said that actually a dome is a more stable structure. But he persisted and asked why were 99% of buildings made in a square formation. I really didn't have an answer ... so I kind of filibustered.

      I can't help but wonder what answer you were expecting to your own question that wouldn't have provided the answer to the student's exact same question.

      -Tommy

      --
      "I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
    24. Re:Give the Students More Credit by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I like to believe that, in America at least, we avoid this "Catch-22" wherein we assume from the get go that the alleged criminal is innocent until proven guilty. Which gives them no motive to lie. After the fact, it may be revealed they were lying but you have to prove it first. Most of the time, they are caught within their lies and their guilt is exposed that way.

      Have you ever been to traffic court? I am from Texas, where they are actual crimes. You can demand a criminal trial with a jury and everything, as well as appeal all the way up to the TX Supreme Court. "Presumed innocent" means that if the cop says you ran the stop sign, with no evidence at all, and you take the stand and say "He must be mistaken because I did come to a complete stop at that stop sign" you will be presumed a liar and found guilty, whether in front of a judge (much better than a jury trial for a traffic ticket) or if you elected to have a jury trial. "Presumed innocent" means near 100% conviction rates with no evidence at all, other than a single witness with contradicted testimony.

    25. Re:Give the Students More Credit by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Funny

      eh, for rooms larger than a few meters across the walls will be approximately flat.

      Your remote will find that "approximate" rounding error and fall behind the couch every time.

    26. Re:Give the Students More Credit by raddan · · Score: 1

      Often young bright people question their teachers. They do this out of curiosity, but I've seen many teachers interpret this as a student being an antagonist. Seeing this happen again and again to my peers in high school (who sometimes shocked me with their insights) lead me to have an antiauthoritarian streak, which got me into some trouble myself.

      The fact is, good teachers are few and far between. Most teachers teach the same lesson for decades. They simply do not want to be bothered with an intelligent conversaion. Now that you've been exposed to students' lines of questioning, which may be unpredictable, and which you may not be able to answer, you'll be better prepared. I have the utmost respect for someone who says "You know, that's a really good question, and I don't have an answer for you." Those questions are the BEST ones, because you can turn them around and say, "Well, I don't know, but why do YOU think that is?"

      One of my favorite quotes is by Whitehead: "It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious." The thing is, teachers generally hate unusual minds. Unusual minds make their jobs harder. The best teachers are the ones who rise to the occasion of a bright student, but most teachers adhere to the mistaken belief that students are a tabula rasa, which is simply naive.

    27. Re:Give the Students More Credit by vimh42 · · Score: 1

      The problem you had is not having no child rearing experience. You simply didn't have the answer to a question and did not come up with a way of dealing with it until after the fact. The teacher wasn't particualrily clever in the way they dealt with it. Never tell a student they are just plain wrong. You must tell them why they are wrong or you must tell them that you do not know the answer. Your idea of having the kid research it on his own would have worked quite well. Maybe the teacher could have turned it into extra credit.

      I remember in highschool I had an English teacher who would tell me that I was plain wrong. This really bothered me so I made it my mission to always disagree with him. The thing was I always provided a valid argument. To his credit, he would listen to my arguments and occasionally I convinced him that I was correct (or that we were both correct from different points of view).

      I also remember some of the trouble maker kids. Occasionally they had something intelligent to say. It's great when the teachers can look past their typical behavior and actually encourage learning. It's too bad that teacher did not try to do the same.

    28. Re:Give the Students More Credit by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with reasoning or intellectual capacity. The teacher has a lesson plan that has been either handed down or approved. This calls for certain milestones to be reached. So when the end of the term comes around everyone can happily say that the milestones were completed.

      Once you start down the "reasoned explanations" trail in a classroom with open ended questions and following where the discussion leads, you end up at the end of the day with "where did the day go?" While this may be entertaining and even beneficial once in a while, it doesn't get the job done.

      While the children might actually learn some useful information from such a format, it doesn't result in their being able to do long division by the end of the year, or whatever was on the schedule originally. You can say "but it would be so much more meaningful and beneficial", and yes it might be - but some kids are going end up in the end without some pretty fundamental building blocks, like long division and the like.

      Holding kids back has been pretty much pushed out of the school system because it causes social problems. The kid that is held back ends up with a bunch of younger, smaller kids that know he was a failure and he feels like a failure. Then, because he is bigger and stronger he can take it out on his new classmates. Happened a lot. Enough that schools pretty much just don't do it anymore. Period. Certainly not in the US - it would destroy their poor little feelings and scar them for life.

      Vocational school? Ha. We are busily purging the economy of those sorts of jobs. If the job involves manual labor, it is done by cheap immigrants paid 50% of what anyone from that country would ever get. All other jobs are "knowledge worker" jobs where you need a college degree to get in the door. What happened to factory jobs and welder, plumber and such skilled trades? They were outsourced or outmoded.

      Besides, what everyone wants to hear is how their child is above average. All children deserve the right to be above average, right? No parent wants to hear how their child can grow up to be a welder when held out in front of them are successful "knowledge workers" every day. How many television shows are about factor workers or welders? How many television shows are about lawyers, doctors, and other highly educated folks?

    29. Re:Give the Students More Credit by ErikInterlude · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of something that happened to my brother in high school. He was taking a test in math class, and of course had to solve an equation as part of the test. Naturally he also had to show how he solved it. As far as any of us know there wasn't a restriction as to methodology, or anything like that. He didn't have to solve it in a specific way, he just had to solve it.

      Anyway, he solves it in a way that is completely unlike the related methodology presented in the textbook. The teacher decides to count that against him, so he passes the test with a lower score than he would otherwise. I can't remember specific details since this was over ten years ago, but I do remember everyone shaking their heads over it.

      --

      --Erik
    30. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to believe that, in America at least, we avoid this "Catch-22" wherein we assume from the get go that the alleged criminal is innocent until proven guilty. Which gives them no motive to lie. After the fact, it may be revealed they were lying but you have to prove it first. Most of the time, they are caught within their lies and their guilt is exposed that way.

      Yup, thats right. Innocent until proven guilty is baaaad.

    31. Re:Give the Students More Credit by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's another story of dumb principals - A school prefect has been banned by the principal from attending the final year prom simply because she refused to attend after-hours revision sessions. This is despite the fact she got
      straight A's.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    32. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      rounding error
      Best pun ever.

    33. Re:Give the Students More Credit by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      I pretty much blame myself for not encouraging the kid to research it on his own. But I thought about it a lot afterwards and wondered if we don't give our children enough credit. Does this happen often?
      I have raised kids, been a Boy Scout leader, 4-H leader, Explorer leader, Science Fair judge and so on. You just have to do the best you can. I used to feel bad about that too. If you think you can do better, do better next time or if you can still contact the kid, fix it now. Be careful of being too helpful, that can be bad too. Some things they must do themselves. The good news is that most kids are very tough. If they were going to be something in life, they will be. He will get it in his head you are wrong and try to prove it, learning a lot while doing it. I have learned a great deal trying to show one of my elders was wrong. Sometimes I really was right and (s)he learns. You may want to bring up geodesic domes and perhaps Buckminster Fuller himself.
    34. Re:Give the Students More Credit by enochweedy · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually, this is exactly what happens. Kids do get labled and then make their way through the school system tagged as un-teachable. This almost happened to me. At a private school in Florida I was sent to the Principal's office almost daily for disciplinary action, usually corporal punishment. The problem? I would get up from my desk and wander off. Bad case of ADD and Disgraphia. I had gone through two grades, and I was starting to figure that they were right. Luckily my parents had me tested and discovered what the real issue was.

      This is indicative of the culture of education in America today. Not just in dealing with little kids (I was 8 at the time), but teenagers as well. Just look at the movie "Kids". Granted, this was supposed to be a cautionary tale for teenagers, kind of like "requium for a dream", but this is how adults view teenagers these days. Teenagers have been demonized in the media constantly for the last 20 years. Why would anyone believe this kid? All teenagers are automatically suspect. They all carry weapons, they all do drugs, they all drink, they all engage in illegal activities of every kind.

    35. Re:Give the Students More Credit by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I've always personally thought they should lower the edges of single store rectangular houses, to, for example, door height. I.e., build the house to exactly high enough to fit a door in, and then raise the attic up back to normal height. This would result in the same size everything except the walls along the outside of the house would slope inward (Because of the roof), and the attic would be a lot smaller.

      They sometimes build second stories like this, but never first. They have A-frame houses, too, which is lowering the roof all the way down. But with what I said, you could put doors and windows on the two 'roof' sides without either buying weird doors and windows that are non-vertical or building a gable.

      OTOH, I'm not actually sure that it would save any money, and, it almost certainly would take longer, because they sell boards exactly the right height to make existing walls.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    36. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he persisted and asked why were 99% of buildings made in a square formation.

      I read a book by Buckminster Fuller (perhaps the most famous dome advocate) a few years ago. The reason he gave is that much more precision is required for a dome.

      For a rectangular house, if your room is 5 cm longer than the plan, the house is still structurally fine. For a geodesic dome, if your room is 2 mm longer than the plan, it loses all its strength. It's far cheaper to build things when you're allowed an order of magnitude worse precision.

    37. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Retric · · Score: 1

      You sound like a down in the trenches teacher which I am not. In the past I was a tutor and my mother has 2 doctorates in education, which is only relevant because we spend a lot of time talking about education theory. Anyway, let's say you're going to teach a 3rd grade science class.

      You can say:

      Plants take Light + Carbon Dioxide + water and make Food + Oxygen.

      Or you can say:

      Carbon Dioxide, water, food, and Oxygen are all molecules made from atoms. (Insert some pictures)
      Plants use the energy in light to rearrange the atoms in Carbon Dioxide and water to make food and oxygen.
      (Food as a rechargeable battery like you use in a cell phone.)

      And then say what you need to know for the test is:

      Plants take Light + Carbon Dioxide + water and make Food + Oxygen.

      Now in the first case you have an abstract "fact" that's basically useless and uninteresting which can be force fed with a lot of repetition. In the second case you have a more complex fact that will interest many children. You can still use repetition etc, but because you are placing the "milestone" as part of a larger and more interesting story you help people learn.

      Or in your example you can interest students in learning addition by showing them how Romans counted and why they switched. (How would they count to 1billion or devide 140 by 7 etc..) Anyway, early on you have a lot of time to cover a small number of facts, but the approach is so bad it really does take that long.

    38. Re:Give the Students More Credit by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      It does that already.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    39. Re:Give the Students More Credit by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Those are both good points, but as someone involved in the design and construction of buildings, I can assure you that even if a client/architect/contractor are willing to deal with necessary design/construction effort to make a non-orthagonal building work, the costs tend to quickly go up, and that'll kill most projects faster than anything else.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    40. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Vocational school? Ha. We are busily purging the economy of those sorts of jobs. If the job involves manual labor, it is done by cheap immigrants paid 50% of what anyone from that country would ever get. All other jobs are "knowledge worker" jobs where you need a college degree to get in the door. What happened to factory jobs and welder, plumber and such skilled trades? They were outsourced or outmoded.

      Moron. You can't outsource welding, plumbing or auto repair. Furthermore, vocational education is potentially fairly lucrative and is by no means unskilled. Right now, the trades are having a bitch of a time finding new recruits, largely due to the idea that trades are somehow lower than professional jobs.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    41. Re:Give the Students More Credit by dcam · · Score: 1

      And because efficiently fitting square furniture into a round room is a bitch.

      And tetrahedron rooms aren't much better.

      --
      meh
    42. Re:Give the Students More Credit by AhtirTano · · Score: 1

      Do children get stereotyped as "the problem child" with no possible second chance? Are they doomed once teachers look for this type of behavior.

      Yes, they do get stereotyped and blamed for behavior they didn't do.

      My mother transfered to a new school as a third grade teacher. She had a student in her class who, the year before (second grade), had pulled a knife on a girl and then tried to cut the principal. My mother didn't have any preconceived notions about him, and treated him just like the other students. Because she was virtually the only person (student, teacher, administrator) that treated him like a good albeit troubled child, he latched onto her. He would often spend his recess with her, instead of with the other kids; same with lunch. Sometimes he would stay after school awhile (bad home life). During these times when he was with her, bad things would happen (kids getting beat up, windows broken, etc.), and the lunch duty people would insist that he had done them. They would claim that they had personally seen him do it. But he was with my mother at the time.

      Do "problem" kids get stereotyped and scapegoated? Absolutely.

    43. Re:Give the Students More Credit by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      Has anyone seen the Simpsons episode where Lisa steals the teachers "answer books"? Absolute classic. Most of my teachers were like that.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    44. Re:Give the Students More Credit by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      That dome probably would be easier to install kitchen cabinets in thant the two houses I did it in. The first one, the wall was so out of plumb that even though the countertop had a cut away section of about 1 inch, I maxed that out and still had about an inch gap on both sides (the wall bowed in, think reverse dome). The other one, the wall was about at an 80 degree angle, instead of the usual 90 degrees. I had to shim the cabinets like crazy and they were still so crooked you could see it easily with the naked eye. And don't get me started about installing the baseboards....

      At least with a dome, they pretty much have to do it right otherwise it falls apart.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    45. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Eythian · · Score: 1
    46. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Acer500 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Anyway, he solves it in a way that is completely unlike the related methodology presented in the textbook. Well, this story illustrates your point perfectly (left unquoted for readability):

      "The following concerns a question in a physics degree exam at the University of Copenhagen:

      "Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper with a barometer."

      One student replied:

      "You tie a long piece of string to the neck of the barometer, then lower the barometer from the roof of the skyscraper to the ground. The length of the string plus the length of the barometer will equal the height of the building."

      This highly original answer so incensed the examiner that the student was failed immediately. The student appealed on the grounds that his answer was indisputably correct, and the university appointed an independent arbiter to decide the case.

      The arbiter judged that the answer was indeed correct, but did not display any noticeable knowledge of physics. To resolve the problem it was decided to call the student in and allow him six minutes in which to provide a verbal answer that showed at least a minimal familiarity with the basic principles of physics.

      For five minutes the student sat in silence, forehead creased in thought. The arbiter reminded him that time was running out, to which the student replied that he had several extremely relevant answers, but couldn't make up his mind which to use. On being advised to hurry up the student replied as follows:

      "Firstly, you could take the barometer up to the roof of the skyscraper, drop it over the edge, and measure the time it takes to reach the ground. The height of the building can then be worked out from the formula H = 0.5g x t squared. But bad luck on the barometer."

      "Or if the sun is shining you could measure the height of the barometer, then set it on end and measure the length of its shadow. Then you measure the length of the skyscraper's shadow, and thereafter it is a simple matter of proportional arithmetic to work out the height of the skyscraper."

      "But if you wanted to be highly scientific about it, you could tie a short piece of string to the barometer and swing it like a pendulum, first at ground level and then on the roof of the skyscraper. The height is worked out by the difference in the gravitational restoring force T =2 pi sqr root (l /g)."

      "Or if the skyscraper has an outside emergency staircase, it would be easier to walk up it and mark off the height of the skyscraper in barometer lengths, then add them up."

      "If you merely wanted to be boring and orthodox about it, of course, you could use the barometer to measure the air pressure on the roof of the skyscraper and on the ground, and convert the difference in millibars into feet to give the height of the building."

      "But since we are constantly being exhorted to exercise independence of mind and apply scientific methods, undoubtedly the best way would be to knock on the janitor's door and say to him 'If you would like a nice new barometer, I will give you this one if you tell me the height of this skyscraper'."

      The student was Niels Bohr, the only Dane to win the Nobel Prize for physics."

      This is allegedly an Urban Legend according to Snopes, but it's no less good for it :)

      Source:
      http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/barometer.asp
      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    47. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      Interesting tangential thought about dogmatic teachers, non-orthagonal rooms and furniture fitting and highly stable structures. Amazing how the mind works...

      If you'll forgive my -3.14~ Offtopic here, I'd like to raise the question -- is Hell round or square? Is there a place for mathematicians where transcendental numbers aren't allowed? If the rooms are all Bucky hemispheres, then where is Fuller now? If the rooms are triangular, where is Pythagoras? I suspect that for at least one CEO the chairs will be fastened securely to the floor, though, and probably densely populated with poo-flinging monkeys with flying spreadsheets. But that's neither here nor there. Well, here, anyway.

      Don't mind me folks, it's been a 3 Sudafed day...

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    48. Re:Give the Students More Credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do children get stereotyped as "the problem child" with no possible second chance? Short answer, yes. If you take a look at the psychology of a family unit, people tend to develop roles in the family. Through whatever means they get (put?) in this role, it is a self perpetuating scenario. Schools seem to be the same in the respect that there are roles that each person plays, though on a larger scale. From the students to the teachers (yes, even teachers get put into categories/roles) to the administration, everyone is sized up and put into roles by everyone else. There may be differences in the roles/categories that students put student A into, as compared to the role/categories teachers put the same student A into, yet it is there.

      We all do this on a daily basis. The trick is to keep an open-mind and continually re-evaluate, lest you get stuck viewing someone as a static being that never evolves, and/or letting a possibly false impression affect the way you view others. Also, it may serve us all well to realize that what we do get to see of other people is never the full story. Most of the time, we only see the tip of the iceberg.
  13. Egg/School Principle In Massive Collision. by Zygamorph · · Score: 1

    Principal meet egg, egg meet face.

    At least they figured it out.

    1. Re:Egg/School Principle In Massive Collision. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Funny

      And in other news, "Zygamorph expelled for inciting violence against principal because school doesn't understand common expression, 'egg on your face' and assumed the principal was to be assaulted with actual eggs." ;-)

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  14. Please Explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone please explain this story? What call did Webb make exactly? How does the time of the call mean anything?

    1. Re:Please Explain by east+coast · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live in the area and have known about this story for a week or two...

      We was calling to see if school had been canceled due to weather. He called an hour before or after the bomb threat. When they matched the phone records versus the actual time of the call they found his number erroneously because of DST problems and the time difference.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  15. More details by scottennis · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a more detailed account of the story here.

  16. Re:YRO??!! by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

    The kid's phone probably has wireless internet access. Plus, I guess the article is posted online!

    In conclusion... INTERNET.

  17. Cannibis ObJoke... by Corporate+Drone · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's Hempfield, not Hempstead. Insert your favorite cannibis joke here...

    --
    mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
    1. Re:Cannibis ObJoke... by spun · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, there was, uhh, hehehe, um, this guy. No wait he was a priest, hehehe, and uhhh, wait, was he a priest? No it was a chick priest. Anyway, uhhhh, hehehe, so she lights up a... hey! Don't bogart that just cause I'm tellin' a joke!

      Ssssssssss.

      Wait. What were we talking about?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Cannibis ObJoke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the names Hempstead of Hempfield was more than likely derived from the fact that hemp was the major crop grown in that area at the time.

      Despite all of the 20th century hype surrounding cannabis and its illegality, it wasn't until the 1920's that it was declared "dangerous" and banned.

      Hemp (cannabis) was a major cash crop in the 17th and 18th centuries and was grown all around the eastern U.S. and used for making paper, rope, fabric, oil, and *gasp* even smoked!

    3. Re:Cannibis ObJoke... by spun · · Score: 1

      The Marijuana Tax Act was passed in 1937. It didn't make it illegal per se, as long as you had the tax stamps. Which you couldn't get without having marijuana. Which was illegal without the stamps, catch-22.

      It wasn't until 1971 that it was actually made completely illegal.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Cannibis ObJoke... by savage1r · · Score: 1

      Not a joke, but I'm currently working on a reality pilot about the legal medical marijuana dispenseries here in la. One of the guys there makes edible forms of marijuana, specifically, he uses "Cannibutter" (butter made out of THC) to make rice crispie treats. They also have chocolates, brownies and sodas. I haven't tried anything but I'm damn sure tempted, lol.

  18. When did the RIAA... by robinsonne · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time."

    When did the RIAA go into the education business?

    1. Re:When did the RIAA... by jefu · · Score: 1

      See also todays article in which it is stated repeatedly that customers are always liars.

    2. Re:When did the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Here's one to fire back at the principal:
      "Well, you say you are straight, but why should we believe you? You're a homosexual. Homosexuals lie about their sexual orientation all the time."

  19. Daylight Saving Time by Chickan · · Score: 1

    It's Daylight Saving Time, there are no "Savings" only a stupid attempt at "Saving" the daylight ... And in other news, as long as it affects "security" the police/whomever can basically lock you up for as long as they would like. Where is your "Freedom" now?

    1. Re:Daylight Saving Time by normuser · · Score: 1

      DST shouldn't have had any thing to do with it.
      Caller ID records are the most unreliable type of "record" I know of. They shouldn't have arrested him even if the time matched.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      XXX#######
    2. Re:Daylight Saving Time by krakass · · Score: 1

      First, please be aware that it is Daylight Saving Time, not Daylight Savings Time. The extra 's' is extra.
      Please be aware that it is the Department of Redundancy, not the Redundancy Department of Redundancy. The redundant redundancy is redundant.
    3. Re:Daylight Saving Time by sorcerykid · · Score: 1

      I agree. It is correctly Daylight Saving Time.

      Checking headlines for accuracy is always a good idea before submitting a story.

  20. Schools..... by ThreeDeadTrolls · · Score: 1

    I know here in Arkansas, students are pretty much presumed guilty before proven innocent. Acually I had a run in, not as severe, but basically the same senario. Kid gets blamed for something, gets locked up, kid is proven innocent after lockup, when its over. But here is how screwed up things are. Kid gets In School Suspension (basically, you stay in school, away from any other students, and get treated like the dog crap of society), Parents know 100% that the student did not commit the act, so parents want to take the kid out and goto another school, because of racism (which if you have ever been to a Pulaski county (Little Rock area) in the administration, taking an athlete's word over a normal student, or some other act, but of course, you can't do anything about it.... Because If the student is a Criminal, so are the parents, why should they listen to them. Criminals lie all the time. Not to mention, if you try to take your student out of his current school when he has ISS, they wont release his records. Which again, is crap.

    1. Re:Schools..... by Benanov · · Score: 1

      Parser error; unclosed (

      Some of that is to prevent actual abuses of the school system. I've done quite a few ISS's in my time; mostly for fighting. Then again, I was always guilty.

    2. Re:Schools..... by ThreeDeadTrolls · · Score: 1

      True, and arkansas is on the low end of the totem pole for national education... so I guess its well founded... in some ways.... definatly not favoratism though.

  21. But what does the principal have to do with it? by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The principal is an ordinary member of the public. She didn't arrest the kid or charge him. She supplied mistaken evidence that this was the culprit, which was pretty inept, but the rest of the system should have caught this.

    Why wasn't he interviewed by the police in the prescence of an adult immediately? Isn't there meant to be some advocate protecting the accused rights, especially with a 15 year old?

    Surely a decent investigation should have gone something like:

    cop: We have this recording of the threat.
    Defender: Uhm. That doesn't sound much like this kid. Are you sure you got the right guy?
    Defender and cop disappear. Re-appear later.
    cop: Sorry about that. You're free to go.

    1. Re:But what does the principal have to do with it? by Himring · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hi.

      You've had no run-ins with police have you?

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    2. Re:But what does the principal have to do with it? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      :)

      I know the police can often be inept, but this kid was celarly innocent, and there should have been somebody to take his side when he was being charged. The system should handle incompetent police.

    3. Re:But what does the principal have to do with it? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I know the police can often be inept, but this kid was celarly innocent, and there should have been somebody to take his side when he was being charged. The system should handle incompetent police.

      Yes. Yes it should.

    4. Re:But what does the principal have to do with it? by MadJo · · Score: 1

      it should have been seen sooner, that his number didn't appear on the call list of the hotline at 3.12am, but at 2.12am... that SHOULD have rung a bell, yet it didn't.

      Well, what could we have expected, when certain law-enforcers have to deal with a possible terrorists attack, common sense goes right out the window.

    5. Re:But what does the principal have to do with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's a principal of a public school, so she is an official in charge of a government institution which regularly works closely with the police. Further, she's in charge of the school's disciplinary system, so I think it's fair to expect her to be sensible.

    6. Re:But what does the principal have to do with it? by nwmann · · Score: 0

      it's funny they relied on the evidence that the pricipal provided, and didn't say... ask the phone company for their records?

    7. Re:But what does the principal have to do with it? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yep. You would have thought they would have wanted to get all their evidence lined up for an easy conviction. Surely the school's call logging system isn't going to be enough on its own, and the kid's inexplicable insistence that he's innocent would cause problems.

    8. Re:But what does the principal have to do with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in my high school days I was hanging out with some friends and my little brother tagged along as we wandered around the neighborhood one night. We see a tiny car parked on the street and get the bright idea that we could pick it up and move it. We have nothing better to do and a few minutes later the car is sitting perpendicular to the curb in the middle of the street. The next day at school, my dumbass little brother brags about it and someone must have overheard because the next day the cops show up at my house looking for him. The officer took one look at him, standing about 4 1/2 feet tall and 65 pounds, says "this must be a mistake," and leaves.

      But then again I guess this was pre-9/11.

    9. Re:But what does the principal have to do with it? by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      Defender (in private discussion with parents): Be patient, let them stew in it as they start to realize the magnitude of the error, and we will all retire on this.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:But what does the principal have to do with it? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The principal is an ordinary member of the public. She didn't arrest the kid or charge him.

      Of course not, she merely: "started waving her hands in the air and saying 'we got him, we got him.'"

      Principals aren't police, but they are authority figures, and their statements carry weight.

      The fact that it "sounded nothing like Webb," he "never even had a detention in his life," and they probably lacked any motive, sounds incredibly damming for the police and judge.

      But, still, the principal isn't exactly squeaky clean here.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  22. Stupid Time Change! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I almost missed a connecting international flight because the Boeing 777's clock had not been updated. Had to run like @#%! to reach the next flight.

    What idiot came up with the idea to move the daylight savings time change anyway? What idiot came up with the idea of daylight savings???

    1. Re:Stupid Time Change! by eln · · Score: 5, Interesting

      George W. Bush came up with the idea to move it. Benjamin Franklin came up with the original idea of daylight savings, but having actually read the essay in which he proposes it, it sounds to me like he meant it as a joke. I mean, he says that while he was trying to explain that he had woken up at 6am and it was light, no one would believe him that it could possibly be light outside at that hour! As if no one had ever awoken at 6am before he did. In the same essay, he also advocates the following energy saving measures:

      First. Let a tax be laid of a louis per window, on every window that is provided with shutters to keep out the light of the sun.

      Second. Let the same salutary operation of police be made use of, to prevent our burning candles, that inclined us last winter to be more economical in burning wood; that is, let guards be placed in the shops of the wax and tallow chandlers, and no family be permitted to be supplied with more than one pound of candles per week.

      Third. Let guards also be posted to stop all the coaches, &c. that would pass the streets after sunset, except those of physicians, surgeons, and midwives.

      Fourth. Every morning, as soon as the sun rises, let all the bells in every church be set ringing; and if that is not sufficient?, let cannon be fired in every street, to wake the sluggards effectually, and make them open their eyes to see their true interest.

      The essay was either sharp social commentary regarding man's (and government's) attempts to rule everyone's lives by the clock (even going so far as to mandate daylight should only occur during certain hours of the day!), or Franklin was at least half off his rocker when he wrote it. I choose to believe the former.

    2. Re:Stupid Time Change! by KingPrad · · Score: 1

      I've never heard this before, the idea that it might have been a joke. I'll have to go read his essay and think about it. This is a pretty interesting idea.

      --
      Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
    3. Re:Stupid Time Change! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.passablynews.com/index.ph...&id=1175830 780

      backup /. link since news site is getting hammered:
      http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/04/17/1240237.shtml

      Quote:
      A fifteen-year old boy in America was incarcerated for twelve days, wrongly accused of making a hoax bomb threat - because his school had forgotten that the clocks had gone forward.

      Cody Webb was arrested last month, after Hempfield Area High School received a bomb threat on their student hotline - which provides a range of information to students about the school - at 3.17am on March 11th. They believed they'd found the culprit when they traced the phone number they thought was responsible to Webb.

      Unfortunately, the school forgot that the clocks had switched to Daylight Saving Time that morning. The time stamps left on the hotline were adjusted by an hour after Day Light Savings causing Webb's call to logged as the same time the bomb threat was placed. Webb, who's never even had a detention in his life, had actually made his call an hour before the bomb threat was placed.

      Despite the fact that the recording of the call featured a voice that sounded nothing like Webb's, the police arrested Webb and he spent 12 days in a juvenile detention facility before the school eventually realised their mistake.

      Webb gave an insight into the school's impressive investigative techniques, saying that he was ushered in to see the principal, Kathy Charlton. She asked him what his phone number was, and , according to Webb, when he replied 'she started waving her hands in the air and saying "we got him, we got him."'

      'They just started flipping out, saying I made a bomb threat to the school,' he told local television station KDKA. After he protested his innocence, Webb says that the principal said: 'Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time.'

      All charges against Webb have now been dropped.
      Principal: Kathy Charlton
      E-mail:
      k.charlton@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us
      School: Hempfield High School
      School Phone: 724-834-9000
      Voice Mail: 724-850-2058

  23. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by Intron · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've eaten in the Hempstead cafeteria. They definitely have WMDs.

    --
    Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  24. Sounds like by SuperGillies · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow. Sounds a lot like America's attitude to terrorists.

    --
    sig not found. please replace sig.
    1. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll go along with this. The Principal and the Police Chief are guilty of no more than obeying the President when he called for no thought, just action.

      "You're either with us, or you're against us"

      Welcome to America and it's plans for World Domination

  25. Miscarraige of Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they actually look at the numbers on the Caller ID?

    Sounds like the local police and principal are the ones who need to spend a few years behind bars.

  26. Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by redelm · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    ... just look at France (where guilty is the rule). People because very mistrustful of authorities and evade them and laws as much as possible. A lot of potentially productive activity is stillborne by fear [prior restraint].

    This is a clear case of police malfeasance, however accidental, there was serious harm. Police are in the business of making people pay for their mistakes and harm to others. Will they accept their own? Or evade it? Criminals prey upon civilians. Police prey upon criminals. What should happen when police reach too far down the food-chain?

    Ideally, the police chief admits wrongdoing and reaches some financial settlement, min 10 k$. If this _doesn't_ happen, the police have loudly shouted they're nothing but bullies and will attack whomever they wish.

    1. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      ... just look at France (where guilty is the rule).
      Huh? From Wikipedia:

      In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Every man is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.
      And interestingly...

      Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilty_until_proven_i nnocent
    2. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by mpoulton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ideally, the police chief admits wrongdoing and reaches some financial settlement, min 10 k$

      These sorts of incidents (wrongful arrest) are usually worth about $20,000 if the person is NOT held for any significant time and NOT charged inappropriately with a crime. This is very likely to be a mid six-figure settlement against the city, due to the length of time he was incarcerated, the charges that were filed and maintained, and the appalling lack of evidence in the first place. The high school may not bear true legal responsibility in a strict sense, but if they're smart they'll settle for a 5-figure sum to avoid the litigation and the risk of a jury award. If he has a good attorney and invests his money, this kid will be wealthy for the rest of his life. And he should be, I think.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    3. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by redelm · · Score: 1
      Yes, I'm aware of the pretty windows dressing. However, magistrates ask questions, rather than weigh both sides. And there is much more credibility assigned to prosecutors. The French Civil Service is very high status and has high credibility.

      What it really boils down to is that a person may be nominally "innocent until proven guilty", but that burden of proff isn't very high. A suggestion of a plausible case is enough. Then the person has to prove innocence.

    4. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by redelm · · Score: 1
      Thank you for the additional details. I'm glad to see this is sufficiently recognized that rough standards have evolved (must vary by locale). This not only compensates the victim, but also gives the police some pause and highlights the need for caution.

    5. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by spun · · Score: 1
      Do you have any references that back up the claim that in France, people are guilty until proven innocent? I lookup up Law of France and the Napoleonic Code upon which it was based, from which I quote:

      The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries. However, the legal proceedings certainly did not have de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror's oath explicitly recommended that the jury did not betray the interests of the defendants, and took attention of the means of defense.

      Now that is the Napoleonic Code, not the present day law of France. It appears that even under the Napoleonic Code, there was no legal presumption of guilt, although it was criticized for what appeared to be a presumption of guilt in practice.

      I could find nothing about presumption of guilt or innocence in the present day French legal system on wikipedia, and I don't speak French, so I can't go right to the French sources listed. Do you have anything to back up your claim?
      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you haven't spoken to a french police officer recently... They are always right and, should you argue with them, there is the offence of 'outrage' (said with a french accent 'oot-raj') which seems to be defined as 'not showing enough respect the the officer'. However the exact point at which you cross the line from acceptable protest to 'outrage' is known only to the police, hence the increasing feeling of powerlessness in the french population when faced with the police. By default, it's best to be incredibly polite... especially as a foreigner (a brit, in my case).

      Should enough of the general public feel strongly enough to try to protest - attempting to prevent the arrest of an elderly gentleman collecting his grandchild outside a Paris school in order to deport him, for example - the police have batons and tear gas at their disposal. Apparantly it's perfectly normal to use tear gas in a street full of parents and young children, and to detain the director of the school for attempting to prevent the arrest.

      So, the presidential elections should be interesting this weekend!

    7. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm french, and although the law explicitely say we are innocent until proven guilty (some newspapers were condemened for having printed photos of people with handcuffs before the trial), I have a story for you (remember that we didn't have much terrorism or mass murder here, and peadophilia is therefore the most horrible crime the average french man can think of).

      A few years ago, in Pontoise (a small town near Paris), several men (about 15 if I remember well) were put to jail after someone anonymously reported them to have raped their own children. Of course, they've lost everything and their wifes got whatever was left at the divorce. Until one policeman noticed that all those divorced were initiated BEFORE the anonymous report and that all the wifes had the same lawyer, who was eventualy identified as the anonymous source. Those people were released, but most of them were already destoyed.

    8. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by austinpoet · · Score: 1

      sadly, claims of such a horrible offense in america tend to have the same guilty before proven innocent feel to them.

    9. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell us the rest of the story. Was the lawyer disbarred and charged with filing a false police report? And were the wives charged for lying under oath?

    10. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by Prune · · Score: 1

      As usual, you omitted the most interesting part. What happened with the lawyer and wives, and were the men compensated--was justice served? These are such obvious questions that I fail to see the reason you did not anticipate them, other than to tease and frustrate us--I see already one other poster got curious.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    11. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I don't have the exact information. I just know that the lawyer was disbared and jailed. But anyway, if after being falsly accused, everyone I know (and many I don't know) believed I was a monster and I had to spend over a year in prison where no one would really take any blame for killing me, I don't think any amount of money could "compensate".

    12. Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES by Prune · · Score: 1

      Didn't you sue for wrongful imprisonment after you were cleared?

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  27. The principal didn't put him in jail by GoatMonkey2112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time I checked, high schools do not have jails. Maybe the principal pointed his finger at this kid, but it's the police who were dumb enough to believe him without doing the proper investigation.

    1. Re:The principal didn't put him in jail by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      I'd say there's plenty of blame to go around.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    2. Re:The principal didn't put him in jail by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      My high school had a "resource" officer with a SUV with lights & a cage in the back they'd stick your ass in if you so much as got into a fight. This was 11 years ago in a very, very rural town BTW.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    3. Re:The principal didn't put him in jail by HiVizDiver · · Score: 1

      Umm... when was the last time you were in a high school? The whole THING is a jail.

    4. Re:The principal didn't put him in jail by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Last time I checked, high schools do not have jails.

      I suggest you write to you congressman immediately and ask for this to be rectified. Hich school kids are definitely more dangerous than terrorists. I sure as hell was when I was in high school.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    5. Re:The principal didn't put him in jail by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      Of course the principal didn't put him in jail. Can't you read?
      Daylight Savings Time Puts Kid in Jail for 12 Days :-)

      The principal was the ... principle witness, and the cops will listen to her. That's reasonable, and although she might be mistaken, she was credible (yeah, that sounds like an oxymoron). But reasonable followup investigation should have not only concluded that it wasn't him on the phone, but that most 15yo are NOT flight risks and released him to his parents or own recognizance. And this should've happened WELL BEFORE 12 days. 3 days tops, counting a weekend.

      But my question is ... "Why was the kid calling the school at 2 in the morning in the first place?"

    6. Re:The principal didn't put him in jail by compro01 · · Score: 1

      But my question is ... "Why was the kid calling the school at 2 in the morning in the first place?"

      to find out if school was canceled due to a snowstorm.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    7. Re:The principal didn't put him in jail by B33R+N1NJ4 · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you've never been in Detention, or even worse, a school that has OCR (On Campus Reassignment)

      Basically when you 'earn' an OCR you're put into a solitary room, told to sit and do nothing, for an entire school day. While the school make money (well at least in Arizona) from you merely attending school, but you, the student, are denied the ability to go to class and get your education. Furthermore when you come back the next day you are forced by the teacher to make up what you missed for the day without fail or your grade shall suffer.

      When I was in high school I was placed blame for a bomb threat as well. Although this was merely because a teacher misheard a conversation a friend and I were having about a video game. Jokingly the other students said "Look out ! he's gonna bomb the school!" Followed by laughter. The teacher in response also laughed and said "Looks like I have to call this one in. It's the rules." All of this taking place merely from being misunderstood. A 'WEEK' Later I found out the teacher seriously called this incident in and my friend and I are being escorted to the VP's office. ** Before even talking to us they have us fill out a 'form' giving your statement of what happened in the incident and they force you to sign it (Not by force of hand but by threat of more detention/OCR). Our case was reviewed and our supposed threats taken seriously we were lead into a small office with the police and read our rights even BEFORE our parents showed up. Luckily my mother was one who didn't stand lightly and showed up to save me by having to force her way to where I was and proceeded to yell at the police officers / VP.

      Many months down the road again I end up in the principals office for "Not eating lunch where you're supposed to" (another fun story). So I bring up that school isn't like a democracy at all. We're forced to self incriminate even if we didn't do anything. The VP responds with "You're right. This isn't a democracy. It's MY school."

    8. Re:The principal didn't put him in jail by BigDaddyNyth · · Score: 1

      It may not be a jail but according to its website, http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/hsteachers.asp it has a probation officer.

  28. or better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PeopleAreStupid

  29. Re:YRO??!! by Alchemar · · Score: 1

    It is about someone that was locked up for making a phone call (using a phone line), and then having no one believe that there was a computer error, even though there was public notice to double check anything that had a timestamp until it was verified that it handled the time change correctly. This error was caused by a tracking/surveliance system that was put in place to eliminate having to "run a trace" when someone called and someone needed to know for where. If you make a phone call, then it could very easily be you that is mistaken for a terrorist, though it is statistically unlikley. I think that taking blind faith in a computer system that automatically monitors your phone calls instead of doing investigative work to verify that a suspect is or is not lying because of something they did on a comminication network classifies in losing your right to "innocent until proven guilty" while online, but others may disagree.

  30. Re:YRO??!! by LordEd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For most of us who have real IT jobs, the DST update was a pain. The article is about how an online nuisance to us has caused a real-world nuisance to this kid.

  31. What a shocker! by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A public school worker who doesn't believe in the rights that our forefathers shed blood for and died for? Anyone actually surprised by this?

    The public school system is the love child of 1984 and Lord of the Flies. I would have thought that people would have learned by now that it is unfixable.

    1. Re:What a shocker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only unfixable because the Christians keep trying to put God in there.

    2. Re:What a shocker! by Bearpaw · · Score: 1
      A public school worker who doesn't believe in the rights that our forefathers shed blood for and died for? Anyone actually surprised by this?

      The public school system is the love child of 1984 and Lord of the Flies. I would have thought that people would have learned by now that it is unfixable.

      Obviously there's at least one school out there that was lax in teaching about basic principles of logic -- like not drawing absolutist conclusions from limited and/or anecdotal evidence.

      Or maybe you just weren't paying attention that day.

    3. Re:What a shocker! by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      That's like saying Iraq is only unfixable because Bush keeps trying to put more troops in there.

      It certainly isn't helpful, but it is by far not the only factor. In the case of schools, the far more important and problematic factor is that the system teaches you to stop thinking.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    4. Re:What a shocker! by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      Public schools should be transformed from the monolithic installments they are today, and turned to something more community oriented.

      I'm still trying to reconcile having an extensive curriculum available (many foreign languages, high quality arts and sciences, etc) in a small school building without having many redundancies (inefficiencies) across the school system. Here's my current proposal:

      Small classrooms (student size) in small high tech schools. More schools, less students per school. They typically walk or ride a bike to school, because they're within a half mile. Much, much closer if in an urban environment. Once at school, their core curriculum is taught in the morning. There are no 'elementary,' 'middle,' and 'high' schools: the levels of instruction available in each school are determined by demand. Cafeterias sell subsidized locally grown foodstuffs, all fresh. Most school cafeterias follow the mantra: open the box, put the box in the microwave, set the box out for the kids to eat. It's disgusting, and terribly unhealthy. One school in the midwest for problem children switched from the typical foodstuffs to healthy locally grown stuffs, and the mood and attitude of the children improved. Imagine that.

      At the beginning of each school semester, the parent comes in with the child (depending on age; older children likely don't need a parent there but will need one to sign off on things) and discusses with a counselor possible "extracurricular activities:" art, music, computer science, specialized interests, performing arts, etc. Depending on their competency (based on a personal assessment, not a standardized test, from a teacher of the subject the student has not been involved with before: similar to a job interview), they are grouped into classes based on skill level and age.

      The core classes make up what everyone should know: math, history, english, science, foreign language. Later on, personal finance is a required core course.

      One of the reasons for treating the extracurriculars like job interviews is to invoke a sense of competition with other students. You would never "not get the job," but you might be delegated to a beginner class. This gives everyone the chance to try everything without discouraging them, but still helps drive them to be competitive. It's also more indicative of how the student will do in the real world: if they can make it through their interviews, show that they have the knowledge, and get the knowledge to move up a class next year... they are shown what they can do, and they shoot for the sky. The key is to get the kids excited about learning these extracurriculars; help them find what they're most interested in; encourage them to try new things if they aren't happy / are bored with their current extracurriculars. Build in methodologies for students to change extracurriculars if they are unhappy, so they aren't stuck in a bullshit class that they hate for an entire semester.

      These arts and sciences campuses could be made out of current school establishments after some refurbishing and upgrading.

      Allow 16-18 year olds still in the system to opt out of extracurriculars - if they show that they are employed part time. Bonus points if they're employed in a sector they're interested in, instead of fast food. Set up mentoring programs between local business and schools.

      Get kids ready for success, not ready for standardized tests.

    5. Re:What a shocker! by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      I would have thought that people would have learned by now that it is unfixable.

      Oh people know it is not providing good education. They generally don't really want to do what it takes to "fix" it. For the vast majority of parents, the public school system is not about teaching: it's a "free" babysitter. Private schools have shown how to educate children quite well. But the voting public is swayed by emotional arguments made by so-called teachers unions that the changes would be "bad for the children". In areas where there is strong parental involvement with education, teacher's unions are significantly less politically powerful or common.

      The truly difficult part about "fixing" a school system is that the people you need to convince to change things went there. It can bes tbe summed up in a line for the movie "Evolution". There is a scene in which the military is trying to convince a judge that the local community college has inadequate facilities. He says they are "A joke". The judge bristles with indignation and says "There weren't a joke when I went there!"

      People don't want to admit that they are a product of broken schools. Therefore you have an uphill battle because first reactions are that if the school you wnet to is broken, you are somehow less. So it's always some other state's schools that need fixing, not yours. Compound that with parents in those schools feeling that if they let their kids go to schools they admit are broken, what does that say about them the parents?

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    6. Re:What a shocker! by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Board of Education, and most notably, public school systems, have this kind of attitude that they are the keepers of all that is good. They also seem to be so desperate to make something of themselves that they try to implement this mentality that they can control and regulate students lives not just at school, but also at home or anything even remotely involving school. The school district that started expelling students (yes that happened) for having MySpace pages is a great example of Administrators' over-stepping of the line between private lives and school, and trying to make a name for themselves.

      Administrators need to learn that their authority stops at the school property line. If they want to be more powerful, then they should have chose a different career.

      School system administrators: An occupational example of "Small Man Syndrome".

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    7. Re:What a shocker! by syousef · · Score: 1

      The public school system is the love child of 1984 and Lord of the Flies. I would have thought that people would have learned by now that it is unfixable.

      So what's your brilliant solution? To abolish public education or to give up and let it descend even further into hell?

      Defeatism shouldn't be modded up as insightful. Shame on slashdotters.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  32. Nice Trolling by giafly · · Score: 0

    This kind of draconian, presumptive, knee-jerk response is exactly what people seem to be calling for from Virginia Tech...after all
    1. The people over-reacting over V Tech are different people than those criticising this boy's mistreatment.
    2. +5 Insightful?!! 4ailchan was more insightful about this.
    3. Off Topic
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
  33. Innocent until proven guilty by Luzumsuz+Lazim · · Score: 1


    > she said, 'Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time.'


    Constitution says, people are innocent until proven guilty. I guess, the idiot was confused "suspect" with "criminal"

  34. I bet the video games made him do it! by LoudMusic · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can we please blame this on video games? Maybe the educator assumed that since he played video games he was a bad kid.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  35. Re:Slashdot Effect.. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    ... and the quarterback is toast!

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  36. Damn, we coulda got a gold medal for sure... by Two99Point80 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.

    1. Re:Damn, we coulda got a gold medal for sure... by rarel · · Score: 3, Funny

      Must be on the way, I heard someone created a special mat just for that!

    2. Re:Damn, we coulda got a gold medal for sure... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      Damn i wish i had mod points.. hope my karma can help you out.

      going to steal that for a sig

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:Damn, we coulda got a gold medal for sure... by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      +1 "Proof I actually watched the movie and just didn't do the Cliffs Notes like all the other losers"

      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  37. Re:YRO??!! by hey! · · Score: 1

    Well, for one thing if you use any anonymous services like freenet, they may well do things like correlate bandwidth usage to downloads. If you use strong encryption to protect your communication, they may correlate message ties to events -- it's elementary spying.

    It also points out something very, very important. The presumption of innocence does not really protection you from cops. For practical purposes cops work on the presumption of guilt, only the nicer word for this is "suspicion". Falling under suspicion has been found by the courts NOT to be a deprivation of liberty. As long as they don't step over the line into a technical presumption of guilt, or violate narrowly drawn limits on unreasonable searches and seizures, it means they're pretty much within their powers to investigate you and in some circumstances detain you for varying lengths of time.

    In a highly technological society, suspicion takes on a very different aspect. It is both less personal and more pervasive. Whereas once the redneck sheriff might have had it in for you, now every transaction you take part in exposes you to suspicion. This case is an example of somebody who was swept up into suspicion because of an electronic correlation in a system he was using -- faulty it turns out. Which points out another problem with electronic suspicion. It may not be subject to the kind of personal animus the Sheriff might have toward you, but it also lacks common sense.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  38. -1 Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, you.

    Asshole.

  39. Call for Healing by MoronBob · · Score: 1

    The only thing that really matters is that we begin now to call for Healing. The sooner the healing begins the better everyone affected by this incident will be. So I am calling now for the healing to begin.

    --
    Telecommuting! What about socialization?
    1. Re:Call for Healing by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      ... I can't decide if that was an attempt at being funny or not.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    2. Re:Call for Healing by MoronBob · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. All I heard on the radio this morning on my way to work was the parade of our "Leaders" calling for healing as if this is the answer to all bad behavior, false accusations, false imprisonment ..etc. Just a contest to see who is first to forgive any act no matter how destructive. For the perpetrators..forgiveness and understanding of how we are all responsible and for the victims... suck it up..."you must forgive" blah blah. The choice to forgive is up to the victims and their families. I was being sarcastic. Trying to imitate our "Leaders". I hope you took no offense.

      --
      Telecommuting! What about socialization?
    3. Re:Call for Healing by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      I suspected you were going for sarcastic, but wasn't sure. It was either that, or you were an unbelievable asshat, glad to know it was being sarcastic.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  40. Feel free to check out her website: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Feel free to check out her website: by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Judging from her markup, she certainly believes in using <strong> words.

      I'll assume the second <HTML> section for the footer is due to using Microsoft FrontPage 5.0.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:Feel free to check out her website: by Drantin · · Score: 1

      Of course actually reading the source shows that She didn't make the page at all; but edited someone elses and saved it as hers...

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    3. Re:Feel free to check out her website: by Mondor · · Score: 1

      Not really. You can follow the link to Main Page to see that it has the same second and body. The reason is that some smart ass added in their Microsoft Internet Information Server option to add extra footer to every page on that website...

      But what I love most in this web page is ... Well, take a look for yourself.

      For example, you can read absolutely racist things on this website. Just take a look at http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/webdirdisclaime r.asp?sp=http://www.kkk.com/?&sn=niggers%20suck and click on "niggers suck" label. You see, this school is a place for young Nazi.

  41. All the time... by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

    Criminals lie all the time.


    And especially in Daylight Savings Time! :P

    1. Re:All the time... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      And twice as much in daylight saving time - see a clear benefit to DST has now been identified! I bet you never thought it possible!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  42. That's no Catch-22 by JerSully · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time."

    That's no catch-22. A catch-22 is a situation whereupon two actions are dependent on one another. A chicken-or-the-egg sort of thing. This quote is close, but it's not a catch-22.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

    Sorry to pick a nit.

    1. Re:That's no Catch-22 by wes33 · · Score: 1

      Yes, if the crime involved was perjury it would be closer :)

    2. Re:That's no Catch-22 by potpie · · Score: 1

      I believe the term is "circular reasoning." It should be linked somewhere in the above Wikipedia article.

      --
      Esoteric reference.
    3. Re:That's no Catch-22 by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

      That's no catch-22. A catch-22 is a situation whereupon two actions are dependent on one another. A chicken-or-the-egg sort of thing. This quote is close, but it's not a catch-22.

      It's the old "Spock blows the robot's mind.... Literally" trick. You need to go back to starfleet academy and watch some of the old episodes.

      BBH

    4. Re:That's no Catch-22 by NereusRen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seems like it applies just fine.

      Here's an example from the article you linked: "[O]ne cannot get a job without work experience, but one cannot gain experience without a job."

      Here's the current situation: One cannot prove one's innocence to the principal without giving trusted evidence, but one cannot give trusted evidence without being considered innocent by the principal.

      It's parallel to th example I always think of for Catch-22: you need a permit to get into a secure building, but the only office where you can apply to receive the permit is inside the building.

    5. Re:That's no Catch-22 by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Maybe not, but it reads just like a scene from Catch-22.

      "Yes I suppose it is. Didn't you whisper to Yossarian that we couldn't punish you?"

      "Oh, no, sir. I whispered to him that you couldn't find me guilty-"

      "I may be stupid," interrupted the colonel, "but the distinction escapes me. I guess I'm pretty stupid, because the distinction escapes me."

      "W-"

      "You're a windy son of bitch, aren't you? Nobody asked you for clarification and you're giving me clarification. I was making a statement, not asking for clarification. You're a windy son of a bitch, aren't you?"

      "No, sir."

      "No, sir? Are you calling me a goddam liar?"

      "Oh, no, sir."

      "Then you're a windy son of a bitch aren't you?"

      "No, sir."

      "Are you trying to pick a fight with me?"

      "No, sir."

      "Are you a windy son of a bitch?"

      "No, sir."

      "Goddamit, you are trying to pick a fight with me. For two stinking cents I'd jump over this big fat table and rip your stinking, cowardly body apart limb from limb."

  43. Brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remindes of that movie Brazil.

  44. I have raised a child, two actually by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's interesting. My son, who's eight, never lies. In fact, if I ask him if he's done something and I say I don't believe him, he gets incredibly upset. My daughter, who's three, will freely lie if it gets her out of anything. "Did you wash your hands? Did mom say it's okay?" To some degree, it's a measure of maturity. Eventually people figure out that the elusive concept of "trust" is more valuable than the short-term gains made by lying. Not everyone figures this out, and many people lie about small things ("Yes, honey, that dress looks great."). Still, I'd like to think that most kids are mostly honest.

    What's frustrating to me is when school officials "play detective" when they're so clearly untrained to do so. I've had to play detective at work, tracking down people doing bad things electronically. While it was interesting, I had absolutely no interest on doing anything other than gathering information to present to someone else. Jumping up and down and yelling "We got him!" sounds like poor deductive reasoning.

    1. Re:I have raised a child, two actually by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not everyone figures this out, and many people lie about small things ("Yes, honey, that dress looks great.").

      I'm your wife, you insensitive clod!!!

  45. Yes, RTFA by LordEd · · Score: 1

    They read the caller ID. That's the WHOLE BASIS of the article. The issue was the time on the caller ID was an hour wrong!

    1. Re:Yes, RTFA by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I read the article... It seems to me that the bigger issue is that they put a kid in jail for a prank phone call. The fact that he didn't actually do it just makes it that much worse, but the fact of the matter is that they put somebody in jail for a prank phone call.

    2. Re:Yes, RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary paragraph makes it sound like Cody Webb was the one that made the actual bomb threat, but suggests that he did it an hour earlier than they thought, and that somehow that should have been a mitigating factor in his jail time. None of the early comments in this thread address this issue or even bother to explain that he was actually innocent. I had to RTFA to find that out. *stare*

      Here's my correction:

      Original:

      "Cody Webb was jailed for calling in a bomb threat to his Hempstead Area high school (near Pittsburgh). He spent 12 days in lockup until the authorities realized that their caller-id log was off an hour because of the new Daylight Savings Time rules and that Cody had only called one hour prior to the actual bomb threat. Perhaps it took so long because of the principal's Catch-22 attitude about Cody's guilt -- she said, 'Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time.'"

      Fixed:

      "Cody Webb was jailed for allegedly calling in a bomb threat to his high school near Pittsburgh. He actually called one hour prior to the threat, but the school's caller-id log said that his call coincided with the threat. Unfortunately Cody spent 12 days in lockup before the authorities realized that Cody was innocent because the new Daylight Saving Time rules caused their caller-id log to be off by an hour. Perhaps it took so long because of the principal's presumption of Cody's guilt -- she said, 'Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time.'"

      I would blame the /. editors for failing to fix the summary, but I think they realized that omitting important details would generate more discussion.

  46. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "WMD" has become almost as much a euphemism for "The Man can do anything he wants" as "terrorism" and "child pornography"; not the root password to the Constitution, say, but at least superuser. And it's been written into all kinds of state and local criminal codes which will never, ever, under any conceivable scenario, be applied to people actually using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. It's been used to charge drug dealers on the absurd theory that drugs are WMD -- er, no, people don't generally wander the streets begging dealers to sell them sarin gas to use on themselves! And of course any explosive device (whether said device exists or not ...) will be labeled WMD by some ambitious prosecutor, because it grabs headlines. The original meaning has been diluted to the point where the phrase is useless, and can therefore mean anything you want it to, which is exactly how the people who abuse it want things.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  47. The principal also asked the kid... by PurifyYourMind · · Score: 1

    ...when did you stop beating your wife?

    1. Re:The principal also asked the kid... by ToxikFetus · · Score: 1

      ...does this dress make me look fatter than normal?

    2. Re:The principal also asked the kid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Mu

      tm

  48. No need to fuck with the school. by spun · · Score: 1

    What, exactly, is slashdotting the school's web server going to do?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  49. When I was a lad... by VorpalRodent · · Score: 1
    I'm glad that not all high school administrators are like this one.

    When I was in high school, I can clearly recall doing some stupid things, including waltzing into the teacher's lounge during lunch in order to grab a copy of whatever paperwork they put in the teacher's mailbox I made for myself. After getting caught, I made the mistake of asserting that it wasn't my fault that the school had lax security policies. This was shortly following the Columbine incident.

    Now, with the hysteria occurring during that time, they could very well have expelled me and caused who knows what kind of trouble for myself and my parents. But they brought in the police liaison, gave me a good scare, and essentially realized that I was just a kid who made a stupid decision. I didn't even get a detention.

    I understand that this situation is different, in that the kid didn't actually do anything wrong, but even still, having administrators who can step back and look objectively at the situation, even when there is some stupidity involved, is a must, especially when dealing with children.

    --
    Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    1. Re:When I was a lad... by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      in order to grab a copy of whatever paperwork they put in the teacher's mailbox I made for myself
      Huh? Did you:
      • Make the teacher's mailbox for yourself?
      • Make the paperwork for yourself, then someone else put it in the teacher's mailbox?
      • Make the paperwork for yourself, then someone else made an unauthorized copy, and then put it in the teacher's mailbox?
      • Do something, which caused paperwork to be made, which you wanted to see?
      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    2. Re:When I was a lad... by VorpalRodent · · Score: 1
      Aah, parsing...what joys it doth bring.

      I was involved in theatre at the time, which meant I had some access to various areas of the school after hours. One night, I put my name on an open mail slot. The secretarial staff just put a copy of administrative announcements in each mail slot, so when I would check the mail box, I would have lists of currently ineligible students, etc.

      My error wasn't so much that I checked it during lunch, but that during a class period I was talking with some friends, and spoke too loudly. The teacher called the principal, and it went downhill from there.

      I got in much less trouble when I brought in a broadsword (at the request of a teacher, he needed a prop). I brought it in well before school, but some teachers saw this kid walking down the hall with a broadsword over his shoulder.

      --
      Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. put the principal and sheriff in the pokey next by swschrad · · Score: 1

    and they won't lose track of a case again.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  52. Principle should still be held accountable by WZ1116 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I agree that it was ultimately the fault of the police for wrongfully arresting and holding the child, and not the principle. However I do believe that as somewhat of a figurehead in the community, the principle of the HS should be held publicly accountable for her actions. It was completely unprofessional, and she should loose her job for it, as well as be required to make some sort of public apology or reparation. I'd love to see that, personally I had so many disciplinarians in high school say whatever they wanted without backing it up, and without having to later answer for their actions.

    1. Re:Principle should still be held accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i love it! everyone who feels victimized for being disciplined by previous teachers stand up and get your visceral satisfication by seeing one dragged through the crapper.

    2. Re:Principle should still be held accountable by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      She shouldn't lose her job. That's a BIG punishment reserved for much more heinous actions. Although she made a mistake, and is a prick she didn't arrest and imprison the child, the police did. Her punishment should be on the job probation and mandatory training on counseling and empathy with some community service thrown in. She needs extensive training on handling disciplinary measures appropriately and actually listening to children instead of assuming every single one is liar. The kid had never been in trouble before, that alone should have gotten her attention that maybe just maybe he was telling the truth and it required further investigation before she assumed guilt.

    3. Re:Principle should still be held accountable by quag7 · · Score: 1

      There's a big fuckin' difference between the chair warmers who work administrative jobs (like grossly overpaid principals) and teachers who actually go in to educate children. This wouldn't have been okay if it was a teacher who did this either, but it ticks me off twice as much that it was a principal.

      This woman is a bully and an authoritarian. It would have been different if they held the kid, took a few hours to investigate, and admitted their mistake publicly - these things happen, especially in the irrationally paranoid environment we live in. I'm sure the mistake would have been understandable had this been dealt with rationally, and an honest apology was issued.

      Instead, they jailed the kid - who is, incidentally, an honors student who had never even had detention before, without even investigating the situation.

      The little kangaroo-court-style comment by the principal suggests to me that she is yet another little authoritarian with her dumb little fiefdom, and I openly hope she suffers, personally. I hope she is sued personally somehow (whether this is possible I do not know), and the kid gets his college education paid for.

      Your point has some merit though - I never got in trouble with teachers. I never had detention. In my entire academic life, the only discipline I had to suffer was a one-time suspension for one day for defending myself against someone who physically attacked me. Yes, it sticks in my craw to this day - not because of the incident itself, but because it makes me think about what the real victims of injustice go through around the world to this day, and yes, this includes the as yet uncharged prisoners denied due process in Guantanamo Bay. Even as a "good kid" who never got into trouble, I was always wary of school administrators, who never seemed to do much but gladhand parents and shuffle paper around in offices while our educational system sunk lower and lower into the toilet.

      If there is one class of people who I'd like to see purged from this society, it is authoritarians like this principal. Based on her comment alone, there's no doubt she's cut from the same cloth as the statist junta presently in charge of the United States government. Only chance has relegated her into the relatively impotent position of being a school principal.

      This could happen to you, or your kid. We'll see how flippant and sarcastic you are then. It's always a bunch of people whining until it affects you personally, but hey, that's the American way. That attitude has served the agendas of our reprehensible authority figures magnificently.

      Just don't forget that they're doing it *in your name*.

      "Fall mountains, just don't fall on me."

  53. Wow by spamking · · Score: 0

    It took 12 freakin' days to find that hour we lost?

  54. hmm by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1, Troll

    that would piss me off enough to call in a bomb threat...

    1. Re:hmm by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      the mods are schizophrenic- for what its worth, I meant it as a joke.

  55. Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the link to a real, local news source. It's annoying to be thrown links to crappy pseudonewsblogs that simply chase ad revenue by borrowing the content feeds of others before crashing under the weight of more than their normal 100 visitors per month.

    Granted, most news papers have a sufficient chunk of their business following the same model (re-brand unoriginal news from a single source AP/Reuters, then slap it generously with ads). At least they can withstand something of a slashdotting.

  56. Re:Slashdot Effect.. by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    Looks like they don't allow blocked callerid any more:

    http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/mainnews.asp?ln gindex=18

  57. Re:Slashdot Effect.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a password for the staff page floating about?

    Don't post it, just an evil side of me coming out. I don't advocate criminal activity to strike back at stupidity, just like to fantasize about it.

  58. Kid's Parents by lazlow · · Score: 1

    If I were the kids parents I would looking to relieve everybody involved of a lot of money... I would with phone company, and work my way down the list. The whole thing is unacceptable. Phone switches are supposed to be within one minute by law to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

    1. Re:Kid's Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phone company does not control the schools PBX. Which has it's own clock.

  59. Smellls like a lawsuit to me by throatmonster · · Score: 1

    Poor kid's family has probably got lawyers crawling all over them to file defamation and other lawsuits. Then again, they might not be so poor after awhile if they do file a lawsuit.

    --
    All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
  60. Re:YRO??!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    For most of us who have real IT jobs, the DST update was a pain. The article is about how an online nuisance to us has caused a real-world nuisance to this kid.


    Nah. We who have real IT jobs, don't use Windows.

  61. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  62. Meanwhile... by leereyno · · Score: 1

    ...the person who is actually responsible has a free hand to implement their dastardly designs because no one is looking for them, the "guilty party" having already been apprehended.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  63. A good case to cite in RIAA and other cases. by RichMan · · Score: 1

    A good example of why data integrity and checking of log files is needed. And why time is very very important in automatic logging systems.

    If the RIAA says "We have a log of your assigned IP downloading this song at 12:31pm". They had better have some way of proving the clock on that system was correctly set.

    This is a good example to show how incorrectly set clocks can go unnoticed and how the wrong results can be concluded.

  64. Re:Give the principal a break by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My actions at work would never result in a minor's civil rights being trampled on. Apples & oranges. People who we basically put in charge of raising our kids should have at least a grain of foresight & should be held to higher standards. Also, in general, they should be paid a lot more.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  65. Re:Give the principal a break by maxume · · Score: 1

    She demonstrated an utter lack of judgment, not a little lapse in judgment.

    Or were you joking?

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  66. Guantanamo anyone? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this different from the way we treat any of our terrorism suspects? It was a bomb threat. He should be happy he was only in jail 12 days and not 5 years.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Guantanamo anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just imagine what would've happened had the kid been Arabic...

    2. Re:Guantanamo anyone? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Ummm, you mean something like this?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:Guantanamo anyone? by asninn · · Score: 1

      The fact that others are worse off than you is not usually a consolation - and also, when I'm mistreating someone, the fact that I'm mistreating others in ways far worse is not an excuse for my mistreating that person, either.

      --
      butter the donkey
    4. Re:Guantanamo anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should be happy he was only in jail 12 days and not 5 years.

      What kind of asshat drivel is that? Equating the detention of armed un-uniformed enemy combatants, with the wrongful imprisonment of a falsely accused minor, is absurd. The principal jumped to conclusions, based on her perceived intellectual superiority, summoned law enforcement who also assumed her perceived intellectual superiority with little or no apparent investigation, who also jumped to conclusions. The "authorities" in this situation forgot that they have a duty to the public they serve, and that they are human, therefore fallible.
      Perhaps you should be incarcerated for no good reason and see if you are still happy it was only 12 days. Moron.
  67. Angst by Etherhelix · · Score: 0

    I am pretty upset that a principal, a school administrator, who is supposed to have:
    A) the best interest of the student body,
    B) the best interest of the individual students and
    C) a moderate level of education
    Would gleefully persecute one of her own charges. It seems to me that someone with the accountability for the welfare of so many impressionable minds would be more interested in ferreting out the right answers before causing an uproar in the larger student body, or the life of one individual student. Kudos to this kid for hanging tough. Thoreau spend one night in jail for tax evasion. This kid got 12 for checking the weather over the phone.

    --
    The opinions listed above reflect the positions of management, largely cause I am management.
  68. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by Bocconcini · · Score: 1

    "WMD" has become almost as much a euphemism for "The Man can do anything he wants" as "terrorism" and "child pornography"; not the root password to the Constitution, say, but at least superuser. And it's been written into all kinds of state and local criminal codes which will never, ever, under any conceivable scenario, be applied to people actually using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. It's been used to charge drug dealers on the absurd theory that drugs are WMD -- er, no, people don't generally wander the streets begging dealers to sell them sarin gas to use on themselves! And of course any explosive device (whether said device exists or not ...) will be labeled WMD by some ambitious prosecutor, because it grabs headlines. The original meaning has been diluted to the point where the phrase is useless, and can therefore mean anything you want it to, which is exactly how the people who abuse it want things. But doesn't that mean, that there really are WDM:s in Iraq? So the white house was not lying after all! Bush was just a little ahead of the curve in the evolution of English language.
  69. Re:Look at the bright side.. by zyl0x · · Score: 1
    --
    Blerg.
  70. Re:Give the principal a break by LLKrisJ · · Score: 1

    She didnt give the kid a break either, now did she??

  71. Funhouse mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My history in K-12 is that most school staff (secretaries, teachers, administrators) really are that impervious to logic. Correction; your history on Slashdot is you really are that impervious to logic.

    Please turn in your credibility card and prepare for re-assignment to Digg.
  72. Daylight Saving Time by mothlos · · Score: 1

    First, please be aware that it is Daylight Saving Time, not Daylight Savings Time. The extra 's' is extra.

    Second, the cops really dropped the ball on this. When they request caller ID records they should be getting a list of all of the calls put into a certain number. When they identified the culprit they should have had a list of all of the other calls for the previous hour above it and should have been scratching their heads as to how many people called since the bomb threat.

    Third, as is a widely held view 'round these parts, DST is a big pile of imaginary poo. Most people hate DST in the spring, but love it in the autumn. I vote that we do away with DST as well as time zones and just go with TAI. Sure, it means that kids across the country won't get out of school at 3 and there would have to be some work on when the day flips, but problems like this and the difficulties of getting air support at the Bay of Pigs would be greatly reduced.

  73. wow, jail him again, else he will sht 42 in future by slmdmd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wrongful punishment has screwed his brain, so he is unfit to live in the society of peace loving principals. jail him again to prevent future 42 sh00ting + the pricipal.

  74. Hempfield by shiznatix · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was Hempfield Area High School, not "Hempstead". Also, a link to a story that actually works: story time

  75. Re:Give the principal a break by jboggs · · Score: 1

    You can't honestly justify the imprisonment of a student with PMS; persons in authority can't afford to have emotional lapses of judgment, if that's what you want to call it. It's closer to a complete lack of reasoning ability, and she should be removed from the public school system.

  76. Schools == Prisons??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, when we structure our schools and administer them also just like... prisons... then should it become any surprise when more students start behaving like criminals.

    PS: "Lockdown" is, after all, a prison ops term.

  77. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by ijakings · · Score: 1

    Except iraq

  78. Anonymizing phone lines ? by steveoc · · Score: 1

    In the same way that you can anonymize a web request by going through some proxy server, is there a way to place phone calls anonymously ?

    ie : to call 8203-MYSCHOOL, I dial 1800-ANON (which connects to some unaudited telephone exchange in Chechnia), connect to the operator, and type in 8203-MYSCHOOL to connect to the school anonymously before placing my bomb threat.

    is there a market for such a thing do you think ? Its technically feasible anyway, and no real way to prevent it from happening.

    1. Re:Anonymizing phone lines ? by lightversusdark · · Score: 1

      Skype?

      --
      "There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
    2. Re:Anonymizing phone lines ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Google's new phone lookup service? Or even basic information connection?

      I'm not sure what comes across the caller-ID when you use that service. After the /. story about it, I decided to try it on a local restaurant to check on reservations. I called the Google number, was given the information and connected.

      Which number would pull up on the caller-ID? A Google registered number? Or mine? I'm assuming using basic information (411) and having them connect you would come up as 411 and then their call logs would be looked at. But what about Google? Would their call logs be available for review, with or without warrant?

  79. All too true by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you don't apply the same ideas of justice & freedom to children, how can you expect them to grow up with those same virtues instilled? You can't, really. Once they turn 18, they still remember a lot prior to being 18. Any injustices they suffered are probably not forgotten.

    Too true my friend, too true. A good example from my own past is cops.

    I was a teenager and I got pulled over for having a crappy car. Twice in two different cities. I wasn't speeding, I wasn't playing loud music - I was just trying to get to work. How do I know that's what I was pulled over for? Both times the cop said so.

    I was searched. My car was searched "for drugs". One cop told me to get my "piece of shit car out of his city and not come back".

    That was close to 20 years ago. I'm now nearing 40, have a nice job, and drive a brand new Prius. Or my minivan. I am invisible to cops, and haven't had any reasons given in the last 20 years to dislike them.

    But still every time I pass one on the road I think "motherfuckers".

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:All too true by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Only twice?

      I had a crappy Dodge Ram truck (with so many dents and dings that I nicknamed it "Others Dodge while I Ram" - although I was not responsible for any of the dents, I got it that way).

      I was stopped FIVE TIMES in less than a year. The Police always claimed a valid reason, but I only ever once got a ticket (so I suspect once they had pulled me over and noted I was indeed licensed and insured and the vehicle wasn't stolen, they didn't write a ticket because what they told me was really just an excuse. Also, I make a point of being polite even when pulled over without justification, and I think the police are so shocked when someone's polite to them, they completely forget to write a ticket :-)).

      Once I had some more money, and bought a two year old F150 in like new condition - with no change in driving style, I was only stopped once in the following five years, and that was entirely valid (I had forgotten to get the inspection done, and a cop at a junction noticed that the sticker was out).

      I'm convinced I got stopped in the Dodge all the time was simply because it looked crappy.

    2. Re:All too true by eratosthene · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Amen to that. A few years, I actually had a two or three year stint of no tickets at all (which, if you knew me in high school, is pretty amazing). I was quite proud of my l33t driving skillz. About a month before Halloween one year I decided to grow out a mohawk just for fun. In the less than two months sporting this hairdo, I got pulled over no less than five times. Every time the officer just gave me a warning and told me to be on my way, but this just cemented my hatred and paranoia of cops even more.

      --
      -- There, everybody likes a gorilla.
    3. Re:All too true by Xylaan · · Score: 1
      Ah, but see, you're not doing much better than they did.

      You were pulled over by some unethical cops for driving what they considered a suspicious looking vehicle. This was probably based on the idea that either 1) You're young and driving a crappy car, and likely to have drugs or 2) You're driving a crappy car, and hence must have something that they can write you up for. They basically assumed the worst based on what they could see.

      Now, of course, every cop you meet has been colored by those events, and you assume the worst based on those events. Again, assuming that someone you've never interacted with behaves in line with your past interactions.

      What those cops did was wrong. But I know very few people who have lots of good interactions with cops. Is it because cops are inherently bad, or is it because most people only interract with cops in already stressful situations? And therefore most peoples memories of the events are not pleasant ones.

    4. Re:All too true by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I never heard of getting stopped for that reason. Nobody ever stopped me when I had my crapmobile. The cops probably figured that if I was driving that POS, I couldn't afford drugs.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    5. Re:All too true by MarkCollette · · Score: 1

      It's because crime is a natural outgrowth of poverty. When you display signs of being poor, then you're statistically more likely to be a criminal. Of course there are millions of honest working poor...

    6. Re:All too true by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      "Is it because cops are inherently bad, or is it because most people only interract with cops in already stressful situations?"
      Does it matter? If most times when you deal with police they act like jerks, who the hell cares if they are nice to old people and their friends? The best advice I ever had on dealing with cops: Dont. Their job is to intimidate, sumarize and further their own position. I haven't ever met a cop who wasn't condescending, rude or belligerent and who didnt lie or twist things in order to get some kind of confession or reaction.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    7. Re:All too true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The official term is 'pigs'.

    8. Re:All too true by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      I was a teenager and I got pulled over for having a crappy car.

      Used to happen to me a lot.

      Then one day in the early '70s a police inspector (whom I'd met once before - when he was a sergant - when the only pistol I owned was stolen) dropped by to ask to use my apartment to set up a stakeout on a neighbor suspected of passing bad checks. I invited him in and (as we had recognized each other) showed him my collection. Included a Savage Riot Pump shotgun I'd gotten at a motorcycle shop a couple years back, and a Walther PPKS. As I handed him the Walther I said "Be careful. It's loaded." (He almost dropped it on his foot.)

      (Handing loaded Walthers around with the safety on is probably safer than handing believed-unloaded pistols of most any other sort around, due to the quintuply-redundant safety mechanisms.)

      He asked me how long I'd had these things (living, as I did, about a block from the Cop Shop along one of their main drags). I told him a couple years. He asked why. I told him that I took the Second Amendment, not just as a right, but as an obligation. He asked what I did for a living. I told him classified research at the University's remote sensing labs. We continued in that vein for a while.

      And he decided our ratty apartment really wasn't suitable for staking out the neighbors.

      Funny thing: I never again had a problem with a bogus traffic stop. B-)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    9. Re:All too true by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      and I think the police are so shocked when someone's polite to them, they completely forget to write a ticket

      I think everyone thinks this and most probably act polite (especially in this nation of sheep), so the cop probably wasn't shocked. I'm fairly certain that it has no effect on him. Everyone has some theory about what got them out of their ticket, but you'll never truly know.

    10. Re:All too true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the lesson you learned from being wrongly stereotyped is that all cops should be treated like they fit the stereotype of the bad cop? Smart.

    11. Re:All too true by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's profiling. It happens and is not always some sort of "ism". Anyone who looks out of place or just happens to be going by a long time after the last check gets stopped. As a student I was frequently stopped while walking and was asked to empty out my bag because I looked out of place while everyone else was driving.

    12. Re:All too true by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      He says his *instinct* is cops are bad, he doesn't say he *treats* them that way. Looks to me the lesson is that young minds are impressionable minds. If your childhood was full of bad X, your gut instinct is going to say "bad" every time, even if you know the particular X in front of you is a living saint.

    13. Re:All too true by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that's it exactly.

      And there is no way I'd treat a cop poorly. The simple truth is that they are people with guns who are allowed to shoot you on a judgement call. When they do, they get paid leave while their friends investigate.

      Treating cops poorly never helps. Smile through clenched teeth, take the ticket with a smile, and get away from the guy in the uniform with the hand cannon as quickly as possible.

      BTW, traffic stops are not my only bad run-ins with cops. As if you couldn't tell. =)

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    14. Re:All too true by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Not judging by quite a lot of people who I knew, many of them would get very belligerent with cops (even when they were stopped for reasons that were entirely justified).

  80. Until? by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

    Surely it should be: "Innocent UNLESS proven guilty"? the original seems to include a degree of inevitability

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  81. Re:Give the principal a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I just had a strange thought, I can totally see Hilary saying this in a year or two if she gets elected in 08... Haven't you ever had a little lapse in judgement, when your emotions were running strong during a small time of the month and bombed Iran off the face of the earth? No? Go to hell!

  82. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by Peter+Mork · · Score: 2, Informative

    A more reputable source (namely the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) confirms this: "charged with a felony count of threatening to use weapons of mass destruction and misdemeanor counts of making false alarms."

  83. They did make one good decision at least! by RingDev · · Score: 1

    http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/mainnews.asp?ln gindex=18

    The school will no longer except calls from phone's with their number blocked from caller ID.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  84. Monday morning quarterback by Lurker2288 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In hindsight, maybe evacuating campus immediately after the first shootings (when there was no reason to believe they were anything other than an isolated incident) MIGHT have saved lives. But think about it--as far as I'm aware, they don't really know what the shooter was doing in the two hours between incidents. For all we know he was hanging around on the drill field, waiting for an evacuation to send hundreds of panicked students out into the open. Or maybe he was in one of the buildings, hoping a lockdown would give him plenty of time to do his work while preventing his victims from making a run for it (from what I've read, he attempted to do just this on his own by chaining a door shut). Keep in mind, we're not just talking about evacuating a dorm here, but an entire campus. How do you move that many people quickly? Where do they go? Or do you lock them down in place without having any idea of where the killer might have gone? Givn that the first killings were in a dorm, do you ask everybody who lives in that hall to rush back there and lock themselves in? MAYBE evacuation/lockdown would have saved some lives. Maybe it wouldn't have. But to suggest that the VT cops should have made that call with little or no information to justify it is nothing more than Monday-morning quarterbacking.

  85. err, type-o by RingDev · · Score: 1

    Sorry, answered the phone and posted with out proof reading. To clarify, the phones in the previous post are not actually in possession of anything, the apostrophe is a mistake.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  86. Re:YRO??!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. Running "apt-get update; apt-get -y upgrade" or "yum -y update" is a near impossible task.

    If you're stuck running Windows (I unfortunately have to admin several hundred xp boxes), downloading the fix adding "\\server.dom\dstfix\DaylightSavingFix.exe /qinstall" to a logon script or update script is also near impossible.

    How could anyone manage to do something so incredibly complex?

  87. Could NOT happen in Arizona ! ! ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Arizona about 90% of the population lives within either the Phoenix or Tucson metro areas. This is within the great Sonoran Desert (extends into the top half of Mexico). In the summer we typically have about 100 days where the temperature exceeds 100 degrees (often above 115).

    Too much sunlight! We value an early sunset and subsequent cooling. By state law, we have not observed DST here since the 1960's.

    1. Re:Could NOT happen in Arizona ! ! ! by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      But it's a dry heat!

      Seriously, I know those of you that live there think of that as something of a joke, but I visited my in-laws in Arizona for two weeks in August with no problem whatsoever. I got back to Detroit, got off the plane, and it was hot!

    2. Re:Could NOT happen in Arizona ! ! ! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      If it's 95 it can feel like 130 degrees with 75% humidity. This happens repeatedly in the summer in Georgia. I'm sure Boston may get humid, but the South wins that little contest. ;)

      Not the coast, the coast always has cooling breezes, but the internal areas, especially the cities, get fairly hot and very humid. People from here go to the Midwest and West and hear 'The temperature is 110 degrees' and cringe in terror, as 100 is right at the very top of the maximum temperature we get and fairly unsurvivable, but then they walk outside and are like 'Wait, what? This feels like maybe 90.'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  88. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by freakmn · · Score: 1

    Bush was just a little ahead of the curve in the evolution of English language. If that's true, I have a little bit of future English to study.
    --
    warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
  89. Everywhere that is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Webb refused to confess, was arrested "on a felony charge of threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction and related misdemeanor counts" [emph mine]

    wtf? WMDs? I guess they just can't be found anywhre huh?

    Everywhere that is... except Iraq.

  90. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  91. Good work if you can find it by drix · · Score: 1

    Divide those 12 days by the multi-six-figure lawsuit this kid is going to successfully bring against the school district, principle, police department, etc. and you figure the kid probably got paid at least $1,000 an hour to sit on his ass.

    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    1. Re:Good work if you can find it by faedle · · Score: 1

      .. money that will likely come from taxpayers, not from the principal's pocket.

      Which, once the kid becomes a homeowner, he'll be paying back anyway.

  92. Re:Give the principal a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Minors have no civil rights.

  93. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by dave420 · · Score: 1

    The UN has a definition of WMD that these folks should look at. Emotive mis-use of technical terms is fucked up, especially when people's crimes get blown out of all proportion. It's stupid.

  94. Blocked caller ID - police dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police departments all across the nation commonly have the number blocked on all outgoing phone calls. Mine does (I'm the telecom admin for a city PD). That's OK, because if our local school district suddenly stopped accepting our phone calls, we'll just come and visit them in person, in uniform, and definitely not amused.

  95. Re:Give the principal a break by Caffeinate · · Score: 1

    Then I don't want to see any more smart aleck replies, GO TO HELL. And if there ARE any more smart aleck replies, he'll send you to a detention center for 14 days . . .
    --
    Godless heathen.
  96. begging the question, not catch-22 by portscan · · Score: 3, Informative

    this is actually the perfect example of begging the question. contrary to popular opinion, "begging the question" does not mean "demanding that the question be asked." it is a form of logical fallacy in which you assume what you are trying to prove.

    using the fact that someone was accused of a crime to discredit their defense of that crime is a prime example of begging the question.

    the example of "a catch-22" from the book catch-22 is the following: if a pilot is crazy, he will not have to fly more missions (since he will be placed on medical leave). if a pilot does not want to fly more missions, he is not crazy (since he values his own life, therefore he has to fly more missions). so if you're not crazy, you fly more missions. if you say you are crazy, the army assumes you are just trying to save your own life, therefore you are not crazy, and therefore you still fly more missions. that's the quick summary, anyway.

    1. Re:begging the question, not catch-22 by Matthew+Strahan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is actually Catch-22. If the boy is innocent then he will not have to go to jail. If the boy says he's guilty then he will have to go to jail. If the boy says he's innocent then the principal assumes he is just trying to save going to jail, therefore he is guilty and therefore he should still go to jail.

      Think of it this way: The statement made by the principal is Begging the Question. The situation the student was put in was a Catch-22.

  97. why was the kid jailed at all? by canadian_right · · Score: 1

    Why was the kid jailed at all? Even if he phoned in the hoax I don't see it as a crime deserving being locked up for 12 days BEFORE reching trail, especially considering the kid was never in trouble previously. A reasonable response would to charge the kid, and release him to his parents until trail. That is what happens in civilized countries, and is exaclty what happened in my city. A local kid did phone in a hoax bomb threat, the school was locked down, armed police on the roof the whole bit. And the kid was not charged with some outlandish terrism crime, but simple mischief. He was released to his parents, he did go to trail, he was found guilty, and he was sentanced to community work - not jail time. He was suspended from school too.

    Americans seem to be in love with incarceration.

    --
    Anarchists never rule
    1. Re:why was the kid jailed at all? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Ever had someone call in a bomb threat and have the bomb go off?

      First time that happens people start taking bomb threats a lot more seriously. Until then it is fine to joke about it and dole out minor punishments.

  98. So much for "rights" by Endo13 · · Score: 1
    Quote from http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news /westmoreland/s_501066.html

    "Legally, we were OK. We didn't step on this kid's rights," said Mike Sturnick, supervisor for the juvenile probation office.

    That's truly appalling. Maybe we should lock him up for 12 days and see how he feels about not having his rights stepped on?

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  99. Bush's fault again? by laing · · Score: 1

    All Bush did was sign the bill. He did not author it. See this.

    1. Re:Bush's fault again? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It's highly unlikely that Bush wrote the bill himself personally, but government policy bills like these are typically authored by the executive's administration, for instance, the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, Thomas doesn't track the original authors of bills (and wiki doesn't even bother to note the bill's sponsors).

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Bush's fault again? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      He could have said "that's stupid", dusted off the veto stamp, and vetoed the bill. That's what I would have done, atleast.

  100. The Real WTF by CrazyTalk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Real WTF (tm) is that they would jail a student for making a bomb threat, even if a hoax. What ever happened to just a week of detention? If we are that paranoid, then the Terrorists Have Already Won (tm).

    1. Re:The Real WTF by khallow · · Score: 1

      Crying "wolf" is a serious problem when it comes to responding to danger. The terrorists have already won to the point that most authorities will evacuate a location for a phoned in threat. In those circumstances, it makes sense to have jail time for a bomb hoax because even the hoax is a serious cost.

    2. Re:The Real WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea is to discourage them from doing it. Giving them nothing but a week off of school will only encourage them.

    3. Re:The Real WTF by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      I guess you are not familiar with the concept of detention (as opposed to suspension). It means MORE school, you have to stay in the evenings.

    4. Re:The Real WTF by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      I guess you are not familiar with the fact that calling in a bomb threat, real or not, is illegal. And for good reason.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    5. Re:The Real WTF by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      I know its illegal - but weather the punishment to a 15 year old fits that particular crime is up for debate.

    6. Re:The Real WTF by stmfreak · · Score: 1

      Of course we have to jail them for life. Otherwise, we could be accused for not doing enough after they shoot all their classmates.

      I would however expect police and prosecutors to be familiar with the percentages of prank bomb threats vs. the real ones. Young children seem to think things like this are funny until the first time. Whereas a serious psychopath might rather deliver the message with a boom. If there is a strong correlation between pranks/threats and future bombing attempts, then jail is appropriate.

      Unfortunately, this case was yet another example of guilty until proven innocent. It will make for great discussion when his history course gets around to discussing the deprecated constitution.

      --
      These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
    7. Re:The Real WTF by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      What to you want the police to do? Put the little bastard in Time-Out for 15 minutes? Or, maybe they should take away his desserts for a week.....

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    8. Re:The Real WTF by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      Sounds better than lock up. Didn't you ever do stupid stuff when you were 15 years old? Some punishment is in order, but not to the extent of essentially ruining their lives due to poor judgement. As the judge on The Simpsons might say, I dismiss the case on the grounds of boys will be boys.

  101. Re:Give the principal a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Hello, USA? Hi, this is Iran. Umm, we were just wondering, why are you bombing us?
    "Oh, like you don't know!"

  102. Re:YRO??!! by LordEd · · Score: 1

    I didn't say it was hard, i said it was a nuisance. If is wasn't a nuisance, why were there so many slashdot articles on it ?

  103. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    A more reputable source (namely the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

    Richard Mellon Scaife's local rag? LOL... I lived there for years, buddy, you ain't fooling me.

    I had to laugh when I saw this happened in the Pittsburgh area BTW. It totally makes sense. And the further away you get from the city center, the more whacked the place becomes.
  104. Obsession by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    it's been written into all kinds of state and local criminal codes which will never, ever, under any conceivable scenario, be applied to people actually using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.
    WMD is the root password to the disbursement of Homeland Security funds.

    It's been used to charge drug dealers on the absurd theory that drugs are WMD -- er, no, people don't generally wander the streets begging dealers to sell them sarin gas to use on themselves! And of course any explosive device (whether said device exists or not ...) will be labeled WMD by some ambitious prosecutor, because it grabs headlines. The original meaning has been diluted to the point where the phrase is useless
    Indeed. Why, I remember a time when the only thing you could call a WMD was a magnetic bottle of antimatter used to destroy sweet-like-honey smelling blood-sucking cloud creatures.
    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  105. In Soviel Russia ... by PPH · · Score: 1
    ... bomb calls and threatens you!


    Also, caller ID logs are always wrong. We forget to wind clock again.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  106. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

    ...not the root password to the Constitution, say, but at least superuser...

    Ummm, root is the superuser. They are equivalent...

  107. Re:Great! by SuluSulu · · Score: 1

    Now if a real bomb threat is ever called in they won't get the call.

  108. Re:Give the principal a break by superbus1929 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And if there's anything a minor needs more of, it's more reasons to have a nice, healthy hatred for the system and the "Man". Shit like this for minors just makes more anarchists as adults. What do you do? Shoot them all? Congratulations: you are now a fascist government.

    --
    Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
  109. Right... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Leave it to the lawyers and courts, because that's what the they did before they put the kid in the slammer.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sig.Hide(); Your signature reminds me of "Sieg Heil"... you should reconsider it.
  110. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  111. Minor? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Hmm, well since he's a minor, would it be possible for one of his parents (or better, both) to be able to sue for their son? Assuming an income of 30-50k, an individual parent could sue for 60-100k or both for 120-200k

    That might make the cops take notice a little bit more.

    1. Re:Minor? by masterzora · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't understand where your numbers come from. Firstly, it would make no sense to use the parents' income in place of the son's, since they weren't behind bars and thereby lost no income. Secondly, if we do assume they could, and we do assume an income of 30-50k, we're looking at $100-200 per day. So, for 12 days, we arrive at $1200-2400 lost, meaning they could sue for a whopping $2400-4800 based off of income. Remember, it is *lost* income that they get to sue for.

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    2. Re:Minor? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      I believe you may have missed the part where the GP said "whichever greater", read it again.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    3. Re:Minor? by masterzora · · Score: 1

      No, I got that they could sue for $20k. My post was based purely on how much suing for lost income would yield them, in reply to phorm saying they could make $60-100k. My reading was just fine.

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    4. Re:Minor? by phorm · · Score: 1

      You're right there... the parents wouldn't be able to claim that due to the short duration of time and/or no actual loss of income.

      However, with the potential of a criminal record looming due to police mishandling, I wonder if he could sue for lost potential income? I know that if you're injured that you can do so at times, and both a potential criminal record and a police record (*EVERYTHING* goes on a police record, even if you aren't found guilty of anything, so that one might stick around) are detriments when it comes to finding a job etc.

    5. Re:Minor? by masterzora · · Score: 1

      That is a much more likely possibility, I would think, though I am very far from an expert in the matter. It would be an interesting venue to look down for the family, at any rate.

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
  112. Atari, or Hacker Quarterly? by tepples · · Score: 1

    I'm glad you clearly don't grasp anything I said and just latched onto "2600", though. It's forgivable that the eyes are drawn to this number. Geeks might be interested in the Atari Video Computer System and the Hacker Quarterly, both of which use this number. "Four square miles" doesn't have the same l33t ring to it.
  113. Heh. by BJH · · Score: 2, Funny
    From a local newspaper:

    "All the time stamps were screwed up. Some did (change over), some didn't," Charlton said. "Everyone's system had to be set manually. There were a lot of clocks involved."

    Bit of a spelling mistake in there...
    s/clocks/cocks/
  114. Obligatory SNL quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chevy Chase: Weekend Update recognizes its obligation to present responsible opposing viewpoints to our editorials. Here to reply to a recent editorial, is Emily Litella.

    Emily Litella: I'm here tonight to speak out against busting schoolchildren. Busting schoolchildren is a terrible, terrible thing. I hear this is going on all over the country. Mean policemen arrest little children and put them in jail in the wrong neighborhood, so they can't even play with their little friends. Imagine, busting schoolchildren! The food in jail isn't good, and even though they get bread, I don't believe they can get toast. Or nice cake. Now, who will tuck them in? Where will they hang their leggings? Where will they set up their little lemonade stands? Well, they don't have toys in jail, except maybe..

    Chevy Chase: [ interrupting ] Miss Litella?

    Emily Litella: Yes?

    Chevy Chase: I'm sorry. The editorial was on bussing schoolchildren. Bussing. Not busting.

    Emily Litella: Oh. I'm sorry. Never mind.

  115. It's from... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    ...when I was doing some Windows Forms programming. All controls have a Hide() function. I got sick of my sig, so I hid it one day.

    I'm sorry that it reminds you of Nazis. But, really, it's a programming thing.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  116. Please knock it off. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 3, Insightful


    "The Slashdot effect" is bad enough. We can all individually look this information up, but when people start posting it with requisite "tee-hee, let THIS guy know" comments, it's an attempt to incite an electronic flashmobs and that is totally irresponsible, abusive and in the end pointless.

    1. Re:Please knock it off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny


      "The Slashdot effect" is bad enough. We can all individually look this information up, but when people start posting it with requisite "tee-hee, let THIS guy know" comments, it's an attempt to incite an electronic flashmobs and that is totally irresponsible, abusive and in the end pointless. Absolutely! This kind of thing is only acceptable if you call to warn the recipient an hour before the "electronic flashbomb" detonates.
    2. Re:Please knock it off. by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "totally irresponsible, abusive and in the end pointless.

      Wait, are you talking about slashdot or that idiot principal?

    3. Re:Please knock it off. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if you don't like the thought of a grassroot effort to make public sentiment known to the principal's employers, perhaps you could suggest another means of communicating the message?

      It's easy to say 'Don't do that, it's rude'. It's a lot harder to come up with means of civil expression that AREN'T rude. And if rudeness is the only the public has left of expressing our disgust at the actions of authorities, then I say bring on the rudeness.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    4. Re:Please knock it off. by NewWorldDan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, if you want to do something useful, send the kid a printout of 18 USC section 1983.

    5. Re:Please knock it off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may be immune from legal action as long as they followed proper procedure but they are sure as shit not immune from revenge. Another reason they should focus on competence.

    6. Re:Please knock it off. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, because dashing off emails from a random /. flamewar is really going to represent well-reasoned, well-informed concern for a situation that truly has impacted the authors of those e-mails, rather than just thousands of morons in need of a Satyagraha du jour screaming "UR TEH SUXX0RZ!!! LOL!!" from behind cubicle walls a thousand miles away who in reality couldn't care less and will have forgotten this story by this time tomorrow.

      There's a reason, for instance, that FARK has a standing policy of deleting such incitements and banning the offending user from posting. It's not political activism, it's just harassment.

    7. Re:Please knock it off. by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      "and in the end pointless."

      If we dont crash at least one PBX or mailserver then, and only then will it have been pointless.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    8. Re:Please knock it off. by asninn · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume that anyone who IS going to sit down and write an email isn't going to come up with something better and more productive than "OMGUR TEH SUXX0RZ!!11eleven"?

      Sheesh, give people some credit. I see allegation along these lines being thrown around every single time anyone on Slashdot makes a suggestion that people get involved that goes beyond "if you are bothered by this, write to your senator", but I've never actually seen any evidence that the mails that are being sent are all counterproductive trolling. Of course, I haven't seen evidence to the contrary, either, but that just means that I can't say either way - and therefore, I simply don't make any claims about what kinds of emails do get sent.

      Similarly, how do you know thousands of mails get sent? How many people read Slashdot (the comments), anyway? And how many of those will go ahead and spend time composing an email? It might well be "thousands", but it just as well might not. Again, how do you know?

      --
      butter the donkey
  117. Honors student? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1
    From the Pittsburgh Tribune,

    [Cody] Webb, an honors student involved in student council, tennis and the Japanese Club...

    Hmmm...further down...

    "I wasn't going to admit to something I didn't do," he said. "Me and God know I didn't do it."

    I hope his English teacher wasn't reading that article...
    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  118. typical by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    This is the problem with public schools. The principals view most of their students as trouble-making hoodlems, so when shit like this happens, they jump on the student like stink on shit..

  119. Forgive Me But Someone Has To Point Out That... by gravityzone · · Score: 1

    It's "Daylight Saving Time," not "Daylight Savings Time." There's a difference. For an explanation on this and all things DST, see http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/b.html.

  120. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Blame the police for imprisoning him. Blame the politicians who make laws that make it possible (or maybe even mandatory). Blame the people for electing politicicans who pass those laws (not despite them passing such laws, but because). Blame the media for generating spin and hype around alleged threats to throw the masses into hysteria. Blame sensationalism that makes such stories top sellers. Blame our sheltered life being so boring that we need such "sensations" to have at least a little thrill in our boring lives. Blame...

    Well, blame whom?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  121. Actually... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Those who can, do.
    Those who can't, teach.
    Those who're even too dumb for that, supervise.

    Too dumb even for that? Run for presidency.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  122. We need to educate the educators, sadly by v3xt0r · · Score: 1

    As someone who has been wrongfully 'punished' in class (consistantly throughout the years) for expressing vasts depths of intellectual superiority, rather than 'assessed' and properly placed in a program for others like me, who ended-up being educationally-abandoned by the wonderful world of the Academia, I salute you all the bird.

    Sincerely,
    Some high-school drop-out who is (actually) succeeding in life, despite the discouragement and misguidance of the public education system.

    --
    the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
  123. A small woman with too much power. by TheGeneration · · Score: 1

    I managed to find the school that was responsible for this...

    HEMPFIELD AREA HIGH SCHOOL
    Phone: (724) 834-9000

    The student, Cody Webb, was on the honor roll with "High Honors" according to this page: Honor Roll HAHS

    I think the principle who apparently fashions herself as judge, jury, witness, prosecution, and executioner needs to be reminded that she is nothing but a pathetic public employee with a tiny tiny life destroying other people with more promise than she ever had.

    This is all about the Principle:
    The Principle's Page

    --


    The Generation
    I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    1. Re:A small woman with too much power. by Lxy · · Score: 1

      I think somebody needs to learn the PRINCIPLE of spelling PRINCIPAL before posting said PRINCIPAL's info on Slashdot.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    2. Re:A small woman with too much power. by TheGeneration · · Score: 1

      heh. You're right, my bad. She ain't my Principle Pal though that's for sure.

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
  124. More details are out by Kelson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Technically, he could have been out a lot quicker had his parents hired a lawyer and bailed him out, but the parents probably believe the police and thought he did it too.

    Not according to this article. They did have a lawyer, who managed to get him released to their custody before charges were dropped. It's not clear why it took 12 days to do it, but they didn't believe the principal over their son.

    Webb's parents, Linda and Budd Webb, arrived at the school and listened to the recorded bomb threat. Linda Webb told administrators it wasn't her son.

    "They kept saying that it was his voice. They didn't even know him," she said.

    After a state trooper arrived, Charlton told the teen he was being arrested, and the trooper read Webb his Miranda rights.

    "I was in shock," Webb said.

    The family's lawyer is quoted a number of times in the article as well.

  125. Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Or perhaps someone was going to email her a go directly to jail card.

    Start sending those cards.

  126. Original story source - KDKA TV, 4/4/2007 by shewfig · · Score: 1

    Local TV news coverage from April 4.

    Includes video feed.

    It's also the only source I've seen that mentions that 34 other calls were logged that night.

  127. Hempfield by bmantz65 · · Score: 1

    I am a recent alumni of this school and this news really didn't surprise me. The principal was there and in the same position when I was up there. She had a reputation of being, well, not so nice and she always wore skirts, whatever you want to make of that. This has been a bad year PR wise for the district that started with a nasty two week teacher strike and a $8 million dollar fieldhouse that has a slew of constructional faults two years after completetion. Now they are raising taxes and have to cut a few million from the budget and they are talking about curriculum cuts. Looks like time finally caught up from them. I think what the kid went through was total BS, someone got lazy and or a big head.

  128. Re:Give the principal a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, in general, they should be paid a lot more.

    Are you SURE? Why? Do you know how much they really make for only 9 months of work? Do you know the full value of their benefit packages? What is the value of a guaranteed job where you can't be fired unless you rape or kill a few hundred students?

    Sorry, I think most teachers are making plenty. They just choose to take a good portion of their compensation in non-cash methods... In my area, teachers are making more than twice the median income. Just how much more should they make???

  129. Luby's in Texas by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

    One of the first things I thought of when I heard about all this was "That could never happen in a Luby's in Texas."

    For those that don't know, the second-worst mass shooting in U.S. history (IIRC) was in a Luby's restaurant in Texas. A guy crashes his truck through a window then gets out and opens fire on the diners with a gun in each hand. In the political aftermath years later, it was the testimony of one of the victims, an accomplished handgunner, that she had a clear, close-range shot at the gunman and could have ended the whole situation before most of the victims were shot. Unfortunately, at the time Texas didn't allow carrying concealed weapons and her gun was in her car. That testimony recieved much of the credit for the passage of CCW legislation in Texas. After the legislation was passed, businesses were allowed to prohibit guns on their premises. Luby's, however, immediately announced that people carrying concealed weapons were welcome as customers.

    Nope. I sincerely doubt such a thing could happen at a Luby's in Texas.

    1. Re:Luby's in Texas by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Funny

      Let's hope this tragedy leads to repealing the laws banning firearms on college campuses in VA. After all, one guy with a pistol could've cut his rampage short.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:Luby's in Texas by roystgnr · · Score: 1

      For those that don't know, the second-worst mass shooting in U.S. history (IIRC) was in a Luby's restaurant in Texas.

      Not quite - even if you exclude the Civil War and Indian massacres, the Luby's shooting (and the VT shooting) were both topped by the Mountain Meadows Massacre, with over a hundred victims.

      The moral is the same, though: in Mountain Meadows, the initial attack inflicted casualties, but was finally fought off by the armed emigrant victims. The emigrants believed the attack to be the sole work of Paiute Indians, however, and surrendered their weapons after a promise of protection from the Mormons, who rewarded that surrender by killing every man, woman, and child old enough to talk.

    3. Re:Luby's in Texas by syukton · · Score: 1

      I have a similar take on letting people carry guns on airplanes. If somebody got wild and tried to hijack the plane, he'd be guaranteed to be shot by 5 or 6 people instantly. If you used some sort of frangible bullet, you'd have even less risk of a ricochet or puncturing the cabin.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    4. Re:Luby's in Texas by maxume · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have easy access to alcohol than better concealed carry rights, and I'm pretty sure you can't have both. There is certainly going to be an effect on methodical violence if concealed carry were made easier(because the bad guys would think), but I have a feeling that it would more or less be balanced out by new spontaneous violence(because normal people occasionally don't think).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  130. Reasonable risk management by ehud42 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am reading the comments, and most are very quick to rip apart the principle for acting improperly. However, I am sitting here trying to think, if I was the principal - what would I do? In short how does one reasonably ensure the safety of the school?

    At the extreme is arresting all childer, their parents, friends, etc. and shutting down the school until every room in the school and home of the 'accused' are thoroughly searched to ensure there is no threat.

    At the other, we ignore it as a typical stupid teenager prank and when the bomb goes off we deal with a lot of fallout.

    What is reasonable? A principal is not a bomb expert. Hopefully the police are better trained in this field. Once she had the number and approximate time confirmed, I don't think she was wrong in calling the police and detaining the boy.

    What should the cops have done? Can't they hold him for 24 hours without charges? Take him to the cop shop, get a search warrent for his house, search the school and when nothing turns up, apologize and let him go? Maybe even this is too extreme. I'm not sure.

    I agree that what happened was over kill. But I am trying to figure out what would be the proper thing to do.

    --
    I'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!
    1. Re:Reasonable risk management by compro01 · · Score: 1

      all this happened after they checked the school and determined there was no bomb, so there was no safety issue at the time.

      one thing that would be a good idea is to make damn sure that your evidence is correct before you go after someone, not almost 2 weeks later.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  131. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    Not quite UID [Zero] is a superuser (normally called root) but it is possible to have others in the root group act as superusers/admins but not be root (and bet able to act as THE ADMIN)
    plus you can get into client V server root (having the root account on clients but not the root for say a master key server or an AD server)

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  132. Re:Give the principal a break by lahvak · · Score: 1

    They should be paid enough for competent and intelligent people to be attracted to the job. Apparently it is not the case now.

    --
    AccountKiller
  133. Law suit.... by axia777 · · Score: 1

    ...and it would very justified in this case. He and his parents should sue their asses off. The cops in this case left them selves wide open for a law suit. Can you say morons????

  134. Re:Give the principal a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Hello, USA? Hi, this is Iran. Umm, we were just wondering, why are you bombing us?

    "Oh, like you don't know!"

    Well if you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you!

  135. Re:Give the principal a break by kimvette · · Score: 1

    OK

    Detaining an innocent child for an hour's detention = a little lapse in judgement

    Sending an innocent to JAIL for 12 days = a royal fuckup and a major violation of his civil rights

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  136. when I was in High Shcool..... by urban_warrior · · Score: 1

    the security got deleted off the entire network, they blamed me (i had not done it, but mabe i should have!)i was ushered to the principals office where they handed me a 2 week suspension, i protested, they said they had 20 people with statements against me, i asked to see the statements, they denied on the grounds that they had to protect those who made the statements against me, i then asked them again to show me the statements but without the names of those that made them. again the school refused without giving me a reason.i asked how i was to defend myself if they would not let me see what had been said about me. the principle said while youre guilty anyways and your suspended for two weeks what do you have to say to that? I then requested to phone my parents they denied me, i then went to leave the office and they had an sro stop me, i sat back down and refused to talk, about 15 minutes later the sro got up to go do something and i then walked out of the principles office walked out the front door and all the way home. I had my parents phone the school and they responded by adding another week to my suspension for leaving school grounds, i then phoned the school and informed them that i was willing to take the matter to court and that they should keep a copy of their log filee so that the circumstances of the incident could be determined, they responded by reformatting all their computers destroying all traces of the incident. i got my dad who happens to be a lawyer to go down to the school with me, they realized they had no case against me if they went to court so they said they would drop the hacking incident from my recore, however they then revised my suspension for leaving the school grounds too 3 weeks insted of one. long story short, screw high school administrators they don't know jack.

    1. Re:when I was in High Shcool..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather than threatening to sue them over the suspension, you should have sued them for failing to teach you to properly read or write English; it would have been a slam dunk.

    2. Re:when I was in High Shcool..... by urban_warrior · · Score: 1

      nobody likes a grammar nazi

  137. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "If you have kids and don't have even $500-1000 in funds of some sort for any emergency, you are not being a good, responsible parent."

    Yeah, well, that's what happens when you work for Wal-Mart. You get no health care insurance, and just enough money to pay for rent and food.

    Selfish parents, spending that money on food.

    Seriously, what world do you live in that working poor people have $1,000 set aside to pay for an attorney?

    It's my belief they should sue, not for damages, but to punish the idiots who can't actually do their job.

    1. Re:Nice by xero314 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, well, that's what happens when you work for Wal-Mart. You get no health care insurance, and just enough money to pay for rent and food. Selfish parents, spending that money on food. Selfish parents, having children when they aren't capable of caring for them.
    2. Re:Nice by Zanth_ · · Score: 1

      Right, because everyone starts out in this situation...working for minimum wage. No one is ever laid off and can't immediately find a better paying job. No of course not, not in the US of A wherein outsourcing, natural disasters etc never ever ever occur. Bloody hell man, just because someone is poor and has children does not automatically make them 1) idiots 2) selfish 3) irresponsible.

    3. Re:Nice by stinerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the same vein, would you like to live in a society where only the rich have the resources to reproduce?

    4. Re:Nice by sckeener · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Selfish parents, having children when they aren't capable of caring for them.

      I remember a court case a few years ago where a housewife was testifying against a homeless couple for having public sex. The house wife was tried of it and didn't want it done in her area. It didn't even seem to register with the woman that everything the homeless couple did was public. Who was selfish, the homeless couple for indulging in a human condition or the housewife that didn't want the act to soil her neighborhood?

      Apparently you believe that the poor shouldn't have sex. Maybe you are more open minded about sex morals, believing that they can achieve enlightenment through non-baby producing means...say homosexuality...but...I doubt it. I'm willing to bet you are conservative and have a low sex drive.

      At the homeless level of poverty taking reliable birth control is a bit unpractical and a bit unreasonable to take away the one human joy we come equipped with...

      Also parents are not selfish for indulging in a god given need. That is nature. Selfishness is a cultural issue and in reality it is our western society that is selfish for punishing children for a parent's poverty.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    5. Re:Nice by Arterion · · Score: 0

      Then your parents must have been rather selfish indeed, for your attitude is certainly one absent careful rearing.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    6. Re:Nice by xero314 · · Score: 1
      My number one concern is for the well being of all children. They did not ask to be brought up in a situation where they can not be well cared for, and should not be punished from birth for there parents situation. I would much rather have all people have access to the same resources, and hope that someday that happens. In the meantime, while we live in a world and nation of inequality, people should do what they can to make sure that no children are brought up in less than acceptable situations. When you are homeless, and you actually wish to improve your situation to the point where you are capable of caring for a child, you should probably be working on finding work and a home, or, at the least, the resources to provide you access to these things, rather than having sex at all. Sexual intercourse and, even more so, procreation are not needs by any stretch of the imagination. Considering sex to be the only "joy" a person can naturally have is a narrow view of joy at best, but most likely bordering on sociopathic.

      I'm willing to bet you are conservative and have a low sex drive. I'd be happy to take you up on the bet for any thing you feel you can spare. Just so you realized I already know the answer so I do have a bit of an advantage in the wager. But even if you don't decide to go through with the wager you did provide me, and those that know me, with great amounts of laughter and hilarity. Unless by Conservative you mean "anyone that does not think like I do" and by low sex drive you mean "considers being able to provide for family as more important than sex"
    7. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soo.. Liking sex and having it when you are working a horrible job that you are stuck with makes someone a bad person?

      On a side note I know alot of people my age now who grew up in the similar POVERTY conditions I did, and my parents did a great job of raising me. Caring for a family is alot more than just having the money....

    8. Re:Nice by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Caring for a family is alot more than just having the money.

      Certainly that is true, but you need to have sufficient resources to pull it off or you'll become a burden to your extended family and the State. Now, your parents may have been poor, but not so poor that they were incapable of raising you. That's not always the case, and in fact much of the drain on our welfare system is from people who had kids and couldn't handle it. Is that fair to the children? No, not really. Is that fair to the taxpayers who foot the bill? "No" again.

      As a side note birth control is readily available in our society and isn't very expensive (even free), and in any event is cheaper than raising a family. It's not an issue of liking sex and having it: as a society we have to come to grips with the fact that people will do that whether we want them to or not, whether they should do it or not (the right wing has a real problem with that, I've noticed.) However, it is about having sex when you are incapable of dealing effectively with the consequences. Millions of people do just that, and those consequences are often severe, both to the parents as well as to their offspring.

      So, I'm glad that your parents raised you successfully under difficult circumstances, matter of fact I'm rather impressed, but unfortunately the same cannot be said for a lot of families who find themselves in the same position. Usually, the appearance of children when a couple is undergoing hard times makes things go from bad to worse.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Nice by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Every poor person I know has a cell phone, a newer car and a drinking habit. Tell me that money couldn't have been managed better. I know one person who complains that his food stamps aren't enough to buy groceries for the entire month. Then you look at all the pop and chips he buys with the stuff. I mentioned something once and It was like he had a god giving right to spend the government assistance money on junk food and then complain it wasn't enough.

    10. Re:Nice by scottblascocomposer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder who you think is qualified to decide when someone can take care of their children? Or who sets the standard of what "caring for them" looks like? Should it be enforced? Do we sterilize the poor so they don't have children which, in our opinions, they are not "capable of caring for?"

      Seems to me some notable people grew up well below the presumably expected level of affluence necessary for being "cared for" properly (Abe Lincoln's three-walled cabin?). Calling their parents selfish imposes on them a whole system of values and thought foreign to the overwhelming majority of people on earth both now and throughout history.

      --
      To reign is to serve.
    11. Re:Nice by RobinH · · Score: 1

      Since the people with the means tend not to reproduce as much, and the people without the means tend to breed like rabbits, I would have to say, YES, that would be an improvement. I think modern society is selectively breeding out successful people.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    12. Re:Nice by SageLikeFool · · Score: 1
      At the homeless level of poverty taking reliable birth control is a bit unpractical and a bit unreasonable to take away the one human joy we come equipped with...

      If that isn't an argument for universal health care and prescription coverage, I don't know what is.

      While I think you should need a license to have children (in a perfect world where birth control was 100% effective and non-consensual sex and/or rape just plain didn't happen), I am not saying the poor shouldn't be able to have kids. There are plenty of bad parents out there at all income brackets.
    13. Re:Nice by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      Since the people with the means tend not to reproduce as much, and the people without the means tend to breed like rabbits, I would have to say, YES, that would be an improvement. I live in Uruguay, one of the more succesful countries in South America. We have a very good literacy rate, decent education (lots of university graduates which emigrate :( ), more doctors per capita than any other country in the world, a thriving IT community (0% unemployment, you wouldn't like the wages though - even India outsources here, I wish I was kidding), 4 cows per person... yet the future looks dire, because the poorer 20% of society has 80% of the children.

      Educated but relatively poor people understand they don't have the means to adequately raise more than 1 or at most 2 children, while the poorest breed like rabbits and send their children to ask for money in the street, ransack through garbage, etc.

      Whenever I see a poor mother with a kid begging in the street (way too often) I feel angry at the mother - I understand she's a by-product of society, education, etc. but strict measures have to be taken, or else the future will be dire. Maybe I'm being Malthusian about it and the poor kids will grow to actually improve their stock

      I think modern society is selectively breeding out successful people. Hmm. I don't know about that, I've seen very poor kids that looked smart (or at least street-smart), and you wouldn't believe it but kids getting 4 dollars a day off begging spend 1/4th of their income to go to cyber-cafés to get a dose of 1st world bliss. That's an odd combination you get only in Uruguay I think, where beggar kids are literate and go to school (mainly because of a well thought out plan where they are rewarded with a good meal a day if they attend)
      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    14. Re:Nice by stinerman · · Score: 1

      In an odd way I agree with you. I know there are certain people I could name of the top of my head I don't want having kids. The only problem is if you allow any body to have that power, there is a nonzero chance that you might be on the "you can't have kids" list. This is why I don't want anyone to have that power; i.e. you can't give the government the power to ban "bad speech" without giving them the power to ban "good speech".

      In fact, my politics starts from the principle that the best government is one where I am the absolute dictator of the Earth. Of course, this is unlikely to happen. So the next best government is one where no one person, group, or organization has such powers, because I know I wouldn't like to live under an absolute dictatorship. This is why I'm a staunch federalist (I actually prefer the self-made term "states' rights liberal"). Decentralization to the lowest point gives people more freedom to live under a government they agree with. I want James Inhofe to have as little say in my life as possible, just as I'm sure conservatives want Dennis Kucinich to have as little say in their lives as possible.

      Pardon my tangent, but I think it was sort of relevant :-)

    15. Re:Nice by AmiAthena · · Score: 1

      Another "faultless" poverty scenario, that I am intimately familiar with, is when mom stays home with the kids until dad moves in with his girlfriend, they get divorced, and he rarely if ever pays child support. That's how it went down with my partents. Between the mid-70s when she started being a stay at home mom and the mid-80s when she had to rejoin the workforce, the job market changed dramatically. She got a sucky job. She rotated which bill doesn't get paid that month (since there's never enough to pay all of them), usually managing to avoid shutoff. Around the same time, her father suffered a stroke and her elderly parents moved in so she could take care of them, too. When her car broke down, she went to the library and got a book, and fixed it herself if she could. We ate government peanut butter. I can assure you that we never had any magical emergency money hanging around. Quite the opposite: we had a backlog of "emergencies" waiting for money.

      If something like this had happened to my brother or me, my mother couldn't have done anything about it, and my father probably wouldn't have. Hell, I failed classes for having too many unexcused absences, because we couldn't afford to go to a doctor (to be told it was the common cold, they can't do anything, and I should stay home a week), so I had no note.

      I fail to see how any of this was due to a lack of responsibility on my mom's part. I'm sure there's plenty of single parents out there in the same boat. Sure, there are people who should probably not have kids when they know they can't take care of them, but that's not the only way to end up a parent without spare cash.

    16. Re:Nice by csplinter · · Score: 1

      Bullshit! After one year you get great health insurance.

    17. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in a world where healthcare is free to all, and I can get free legal representation for certain defence positions such as this.

      Obviously I do not live in the USA, and I pay more taxes to cover such things, but I still shake my head at the knee-jerk US attitude of "Social responsibility = Communist = Bad!"

    18. Re:Nice by RobinH · · Score: 1

      I think what you are is called a libertarian. A libertarian supports both individual social freedoms and economic freedoms and wants to limit governments' roles to national defense (military), personal/property protection (police) and enforcement of contracts (civil).

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    19. Re:Nice by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Not really. At the federal level I'm libertarian, but at the state level I'm downright socialist. I'm for socialized medicine, smoking bans, increased taxation for the upper 90%, etc. Federally, I'm for an abolishment of the income tax, increased power to the states, abolishment of the Dept of Education, etc.

      So I'm hardly a libertarian. I just believe in a plain reading of the Constitution, which specifies a limited role of the feds, with all other powers reserved to the states.

    20. Re:Nice by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Another "faultless" poverty scenario, that I am intimately familiar with, is when mom stays home with the kids until dad moves in with his girlfriend, they get divorced, and he rarely if ever pays child support...I fail to see how any of this was due to a lack of responsibility on my mom's part Try not to get too offended here, but making poor life choices, such as who to have children with, is not "faultless." I'm personally sick of people not taking responsibility for their own action.

      I do hope that you an your brother got any help you might have needed to get out of the situation.
    21. Re:Nice by AmiAthena · · Score: 1

      That's why I put faultless in quotes. It's still a result of a person's decisions. In some case, the person made what was obvious decision. In others, it's impossible to know at the time that a mistake is being made. I'm not offended because you didn't have enough information to know whether what you said applied to my example. In the case of my parents, my mom was unaware when she got married that my father is a sociopath and has no conscience. Obviously she would not have chosen to marry someone like that if she knew ahead of time. There's no easy way to determine antisocial personalties because they're good at blending in, so her decision to get married and have chldren with him was made with the best information she had at the time. In retrospect, sadly, it was not the best path to choose for her life, but I hardly think it qualifies as irresponsible.

      A person's actions and choices can have a negative impact on their life, without it being their "fault." A pedestrian run over by a car on the sidewalk could have prevented that by not being on that sidewalk at that time, but it would be ridiculous to blame them for choosing to walk there, unless they could have reasonably known that there was a high probability of a car ending up on that particular stretch of sidewalk. It would be different if hypothetical pedestrian chose to jaywalk and then got hit by a car- they knowingly did something they shouldn't have, putting themself at greater risk.

      I'm not saying there aren't plenty of people in messes of their own making, and those people should take responsibility. I'm just pointing out there are people who aren't, and nobody has the right to judge which is which without knowing all the facts. Doing so is a slippery slope to blaming the victim.


      My brother turned out OK; he is happily married and is a wonderful father to his three beautiful children. I stagnated in my oppressive small town for a long time, but I'm getting out of here now to what I hope will be a better life somewhere else.

    22. Re:Nice by mink · · Score: 1

      Have you tried buying fruits, vegtables, dairy and meat recently? It's sad that the junk is cheaper then eating healthfully.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  138. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Don't talk about how it's stupid. Talk about how it's slander.

    Possessing a WMD and threating to use a WMD are, in fact, actual crimes, and if you accuse someone of committing that when the actual crime you mean is something else, you've just slandered them.

    Now, if they've possibly committed said crime, but have not been convicted, that's one thing. You can get sued, but it's much harder. But if, for example, you have evidence they sell drugs, but they have not been convicted of it, while calling them 'drug dealers' may or may not be slander, calling then rapists certainly is.

    A 'WMD', under US law, is a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon. While calling in a false bomb threat is certainly illegal, it is not the same thing as threating to use a WMD, which carries much harser penalties. Threating to use a WMD is always considered terrorism, while theatening to use a bomb isn't automatically, although if you do it to terrorize they can add 'making terroristic threats' and various other anti-terrorist statutes on.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  139. Yeah, China's great... by PRMan · · Score: 1

    As long as you are not a Christian or some other group they dislike.

    You're fine in America, too, as long as you tow the company line. That's the problem with police states. It's not the sheep who line up to follow all the rules that have a problem, it's anyone considered "different". That's what America is supposed to protect. My ability to believe and speak as I please as long as I am not hurting anyone else. But we seem to be quickly losing those rights.

    The only thing the Chinese students saw was that the propaganda is different, and they decided ours was wrong, while most Americans would say theirs is wrong.

    Most likely, the truth is that they are both wrong.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  140. Compensation by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 0

    Well the answer is simple enough. They should compensate him. I think a million dollars a day sounds about fair. $12M to the kid who was wrongfully jailed.

  141. It's Hempfield Area by Expertus · · Score: 1

    calling in a bomb threat to his Hempstead Area high school (near Pittsburgh) Actually it was Hempfield. When I saw this, I thought, "Huh, I went to school near there, and I've never heard of Hempstead. I wonder if they mean Hempfield." I graduated from Hempfield Area, and my next thought was about the principal, "Please let it be Charlton, please let it be Charlton." Imagine my surprise. She struck me as a former cheerleader-type that never turned in her uniform when she left the squad. Jocks with good haircuts were the favoured sons, and anyone with more brains than school spirit was left to find their place in the geek underculture in the school of over two thousand students. Her attitude towards Webb is consistent with her style of running the school ("let's make snap decisions based on intuition rather than take the time to gather the facts and weigh the evidence against you"), and I don't think he can expect much more than a sullen apology (and that only if the School Board insists on her giving one).
  142. Re:Give the principal a break by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Union seniority rules weed out the competent and intelligent long before they reach levels of compensation and responsibility commensurate with ability.

    An anecdote proving my point did you say? That'd be the best evidence? Well sure, I've got one in my personal experience even: my HS computer teacher. Who'd apparently actually studied computer science in college. So we were actually learning about algorithms and structures and the meat of programming...

    He taught the upper-level computer courses for all of one year. At which point a more senior teacher with no actual experience ("I'm learning C with you," she said...) decided she wanted the HS job. He ended up teaching remedial math, being completely unappreciated there, and I think he's no longer teaching now. We ended up taking quizzes on windows behavior and wondering why we didn't just take band instead.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  143. Catch-22? by SoulRider · · Score: 1

    Someone didnt read the book. A catch-22 is doing something to achieve the opposite result. I.E. (from the book) if you want to fight in a war tell the army you are a pacifist, if you dont want to fight tell them you only joined because you love to kill.

    1. Re:Catch-22? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I didn't read the book, but that sounds an awful lot like an Arlo Guthrie song.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  144. Re:Give the Students More Credit??? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    It depends. I was somewhat like that kid myself. I was finally vindicated with the teacher apologizing to me towards the end of school. While the experience stays with me to this day-- that short moment of vindication doesn't seem to mean that much to me in retrospective... I'm sure it altered my perception of authority figures, but I had determined they were fallible in so many ways yet unknown to me at the time.

    I would say it matters that the kid know they are correct, but beyond that it doesn't probably do a whole lot-- as the damage has already been done. It would be better to correct the teacher ASAP so it doesn't amount to a long period of such treatment, which has more impact.

    Mine was odd because I had a NUN, who spent the rest of the time treating me the SAME WAY except then it was all about the fact I would not forgive her and I would go to hell if I didn't learn to forgive her. (same treatment except then it was a single issue - and in private - so I was still wrong in the eyes of my peers; she couldn't undermine her infallibility or ability to instill fear in students.)

  145. Being poor is a crime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because by staying poor, you are stealing thousands of potential income tax dollars from the government that you would otherwise be paying if you had and kept a good-paying job.

    That's right in line with the way of thinking that organizations like RIAA/MPAA/??AA see it, anyway.
    Why not the government too?

    Flamebait or Insightful? You decide!

    1. Re:Being poor is a crime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Flamebait or Insightful? You decide!

      Bzzzzzzzzzzzt.

      Try Offtopic.

  146. I Blame Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Importing us North Korea terrorist shit, let us grow our own garbage at home and maybe we won't have a shooting because his penis is only 1"

  147. Re:YRO??!! by crabpeople · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Ah yes I'll just deploy some aftermarket non vendor supplied patch from some random website to all the workstations in my organization. Why didn't I think of that??

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  148. hindsight by mythar · · Score: 1

    you guys need to cut it out with the "i knew he was innocent all along" bs. the fact that this kid was wrongfully charged is the fault of the district attorney, not the school officials. the principal honestly thought that the school's records implicated cody webb, so she took the prudent course of action: call the police. would you rather see school officials release all students that proclaim their innocence? i'm sure you all went to high schools where nobody ever lied.

    1. Re:hindsight by mythar · · Score: 1

      replying to myself to add this: so soon after the events at va tech, i'm surprised to see so many people clamoring to punish school officials for simply trying to protect their school.

    2. Re:hindsight by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      I think that for the most part you are right, but there's a subtle difference here. At vTech there was an incident actually in progress, here she was interrogating a student two weeks after the anointed date (is that fact right?). My only real problem with her actions is that quote where she leaps to conclusions instead of listening to the kid and having him watched while they attempted to correlate evidence. They could wait and call the police later if necessary. The kid should have gotten more rational process than You're a criminal, and criminals lie! or however that quote went.

    3. Re:hindsight by mythar · · Score: 1

      the bomb threat was made on march 11th, and cody was arrested on march 12th. the principal didn't leap to any conclusions. she had a call log that pointed to cody webb, and so she concluded that he made the bomb threat. it's a pretty standard problem-solving technique which i'm sure many people here have used. and, when you're looking at computer logs, the thought "i can't assume the timestamps are correct" doesn't exactly leap to the front of your mind. you may come around to it later if you notice a discrepancy somewhere.

      how this relates to va tech is that you want school officials to take prudent steps to protect their schools, such as calling in the police when they find a student they strongly suspect of making a bomb threat. you don't want them to just let students do what they want and say what they want because of some vague notion that all people should be free, even students.

    4. Re:hindsight by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      She did have some substantial evidence I agree (although the prevalence of messed up clocks probably should have jogged her memory). However, she didn't give the kid a fair hearing, that's why I say she was acting unfairly (which I admit is possibly different from jumping to conclusions). She had data, but she should still have verified the validity of the data or at least listened to him before getting the kid arrested.

      That's not unreasonable I think.

  149. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by budgenator · · Score: 1

    This "nutter" is uncomfortably common in the american public school system. What happens is someone goes to school to be an educator, their college training is rather specialized and not readily transferable to other fields. After graduation, they find that their personality isn't really suited to being a teacher. The kids being rather astute to such things, quickly start to pick on the misfit teacher who eventually goes into administration with a me vs. everybody attitude, when a career change would be more appropriate. Now factor in the fact that
    1. our courts allow schools much more latitude in areas like probable cause for searchs,
    2. the courts and police will jump through their asses to support the schools and protect the kids,
      3. it's easy to get 13 year old tried as adults for infractions at school and,
    4. school policies aimed at litigation avoidence rather than what's in the kids best interests
    it's easy to see how things like this happen.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  150. Re:Slashdot Effect.. by mythar · · Score: 1

    no. read my post titled "hindsight" and stop screwing around with the school.

  151. Forced to Apologize? by srobert · · Score: 1

    I see a lot of comments here on "forcing" the officials involved (especially the principal) to apologize to the boy, to the community, etc. What does it mean to be "forced to apologize"? We can make consequences for them if they refused to apologize, such as jail or job loss. But who the hell wants a phony apology from someone who's only saying the words to save their own neck? The only apology I would want to hear is from someone who says they're sorry because they realize they have actually caused me some harm and they feel bad about what I had to go through. A forced apology is not a real apology at all.

  152. Two for Zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, not only did the Democrat's Daylight Savings shift FAIL to save any energy in the end, but it also imprisoned an innocent boy for 12 days. Way to go, lefties. Feel proud of the accomplishments of the "100-hours" Congress. Last year's lame ducks were more effective than these senatorial wannabes.

    1. Re:Two for Zero by toddestan · · Score: 1

      So, not only did the Democrat's Daylight Savings shift FAIL to save any energy in the end, but it also imprisoned an innocent boy for 12 days. Way to go, lefties. Feel proud of the accomplishments of the "100-hours" Congress. Last year's lame ducks were more effective than these senatorial wannabes.

      Are you retarded? The daylight savings time changes were put in by the last congress, you know, last years lame ducks?

  153. Everyone needs to be fired. by insomniac8400 · · Score: 1

    The police, the principals, and anyone else invovled all need to be fired. Then he needs to turn around and sue the school for millions as well as personally sue the arresting officers and the principal. I would also expect criminal charges against the prinicpal. A decade in jail should straighten her out.

  154. You smell that? by MrCreosote · · Score: 1

    I love the smell of lawsuits in the morning.

    --
    MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
  155. I don't understand... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    I am missing something in this story. They had a hotline that saved voicemail with timestamps and I guess CID, right? So, it had the message in question at timestamp 3:17, with no CID info (as the more thorough articles mention), right? Or they had a separate system to record CID's and one of those two systems was at DST and the other was not?
    I am not getting how the confusion could have happened. If the school phone system was not on DST, then both the kid's call and the bomb threat would have been registered at non-DST time, thus more than one hour apart.
    Anybody can explain here?

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  156. as someone who has actually lived in china... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'd say yes, china is definitely more safer than america. walking around late at night in china vs in america? i'd take any city in china over any city in the US. one might say there's less visibility on crime with a controlled press, but i've personally seen a *lot* more crime in america (violent and otherwise) than compared to china.

  157. wtf? by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you?

    Would you consider Ghandi, Martin Luther (the OG, or the King), Jesus, or any of the historical freedom fighters that brought the masses to bear against tyranny as "rude".

    Are you a complete and total fucking idiot?

    That question is rhetorical, by the way, but since I am assuming you are an idiot by your own statements, I'm going to tell you it's rhetorical since I already know you're an idiot.

    Just wanted to add some circular logic to my post so you can realize what an idiot you are defending this principle.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  158. That's school for you. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Sounds to me as though the administrators were simply performing their prescribed job descriptions:

    Break the spirit of everybody moving through the system when they're young. Make sure all boat rockers, (i.e., people who have a brain and the ability to question authority), are DESTROYED. Never lose an argument to a kid. Make sure kids feel the quiver of fear and straighten their backs at the mere whisp of 'authority'. Only when our entire population of public school-going middle class citizens have been reduced to well-behaved machine parts who don't mind living in a 'Prison of the mind', will the school authorities have performed their task.

    I hope you have learned from your lesson and became an even bigger boat-rocker once you left school. I hope you discovered that you can ignore the system's mandates and actually build a happy life and that you do not need to fear the clowns with their hoops and their demands that you jump through them.


    -FL

    1. Re:That's school for you. by urban_warrior · · Score: 1

      learned ecactly that lesson, i'm now studying to become an ee, also once the suspension was up i taught everybody I knew how to boot up a linux live cd on their machines to bypass all the schools stupid internet restrictions. for some reason the school implemented a software solution on their machines rather then a network solution.

  159. out of school by ncohafmuta · · Score: 1

    at least he got out of class for 10 days or so. i'm just sayin', could be worse, yeah?

    -Tony

  160. Are you sure that's your point? by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Because it sounds like your point is that he was in jail because everyone assumed he was guilty until proven innocent - especially assuming that your assumptions are correct (which there is no proof of).

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  161. What if he was a sport star. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    What do you bet that he would have just gotten a slap in the wrist if he was sports star at his school. Normal students will get 0 tolerance and 0 rights but if they are sports star at the school there is a high degree of tolerance because "He is really a good kid."

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  162. Not all the poor are homeless by mangu · · Score: 1
    Who was selfish, the homeless couple for indulging in a human condition or the housewife that didn't want the act to soil her neighborhood?


    The homeless were more selfish, but not for making public sex or for being poor. They were selfish because they were homeless. It takes a huge amount of "fuck everybody, I don't care" attitude for anyone to become homeless.


    When I was a child, in Brazil in the 1960s, I knew people who were poor. I mean, not poor as in not affording a new car or home appliance, but abysmally poor. I knew people who lived in shacks made of mud with a grass roof. I knew people so poor that they had only one pair of shoes for a family of eight. Their kitchen was a piece of metal plate over some rocks where they burned pieces of wood they scrounged from the trash. But these people had a basic dignity. They didn't live in the streets, even if their huts were little better than a refrigerator box.


    In my twenties in 1981 I lived for some months in Sweden. There can be hardly more contrast in social services for the poor between Brazil and Sweden, but, to my surprise, there are many homeless people in Sweden too, almost as many as in Brazil. Because people do not become homeless just because they are poor. People who become homeless simply do not seem to care. That may be sign of a mental disease, maybe it's some sort of pathologic depression, I don't know, but living in the streets is a condition that goes much beyond poverty.

    1. Re:Not all the poor are homeless by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      A good majority of homeless people in the US are mentally ill. In the 80's the ACLU sponsored a lawsuit that went all the way to the supreme court. The verdict was that you couldn't hold a person unless they were a danger to themselves, the public or someone else.

      The result was that the asylums had to release a lot of their residents and most of them had no place to go but the streets. We cannot hold them to this day. If a homeless person or mentally ill person wants off the streets(or help) now, they have to endanger someone or commit a crime and goto jail.

    2. Re:Not all the poor are homeless by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I knew people who lived in shacks made of mud with a grass roof...They didn't live in the streets, even if their huts were little better than a refrigerator box.

      The people you mention in Brazil had one important thing that the homeless don't have in the U.S.: the ability to occupy land.

      I'm in Osaka, Japan at the moment. In larger parks, there are tents and huts that "homeless" people (I suppose if they have a hut, in a sense they're not homeless) have set up, made with government-issued tarps and scavenged materials. Some of them are remarkably engineered, have a bike parked outside (hmmm, I wonder if that's where my stolen bike ended up...), a few potted plants, an old car battery running a light at night.

      In the U.S., anyone trying to set up something like this would get it knocked down in about five minutes.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:Not all the poor are homeless by mangu · · Score: 1
      The result was that the asylums had to release a lot of their residents and most of them had no place to go but the streets


      It's the same in Brazil and Sweden, the current standard is that a mentally ill person is "free" to go anywhere. An incredibly stupid piece of legislation, or should we say a "meme", that's being accepted worldwide.


      Let's face it, if you are limited by an extreme form of depression, or any other kind of crippling mental disease, then you have no freedom at all. Being "free" necessarily implies in having a mind working well enough to allow one to choose freely among different options. If that's not the case, then releasing a person to the streets is just a cruel, baseless deception.

    4. Re:Not all the poor are homeless by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      I can second that, living here (Uruguay) right now, we unfortunately have an inordinate amount of poor people (even for one of the better off countries in South America), and yes, most of them make shacks out of cardboard or "bloques"-cheap bricks, corrugated steel/tin/glass?fiber("fibra de vidrio") and very similar conditions. It's similar everywhere in South America, the "favelas" in Brazil, "villa miseria" in Argentina, "cantegril" in Uruguay... that is the description of the typical aglomeration of poor people on the outskirts of the city of people living in those conditions.

      The Mevir movement (movement against unhealthy housing, government sponsored) tried to outfit some of the homeless or those in worse condition with houses... you know what happened? They sold the sinks and all the bathroom porcelain, took out the floor and burned it (in those houses with wooden floors), some tried selling, dismantling or just abandoning them, and it ended up very badly.

      Newer attempts try to determine that those receiving houses actually will care for them.

      There were some bad blunders, like uprooting people and giving them houses way too far away from their sources of income (garbage classification is a big one and a way of life for many poor families) or far from their extended family or whatever, but some people just aren't (mentally?) fit to live in a house (due to lack of education, experience, whatever)

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
  163. Re:Slashdot Effect.. by compro01 · · Score: 1

    come on! we want to punish the principle! not the IT Dept!

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  164. "best way we know to keep the US safe" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, the best way to keep the US safe is to pull your head out of your ass and LOOK at the reams of smoking gun evidence that is out there suggesting huge "inside the government" involvement with the COUP that occurred on 9-11. A reichstagg fire event, or a "new pearl harbor", direct from the PNAC documents where they clearly spelled out what they wanted to do, the excuse they would need to invade the middle east and establish a full time in perpetuity military presence, how it would most likely proceed, then when it happened just as they BRAGGED they would do it, they profited from it.. You can also read the mainstream press where despite a lot of pressure for suppression of evidence, they finally had to admit that saddam had NOTHING to do with "al queda" or 9-11, and didn't have WMD, which they blatantly lied about, over and over again, in order to push forward the extremist political agenda of the members of PNAC and AIPAC. Of course, you can still keep swallowing and regurgitating the government LIES about events. And we still have the so called "opposition party" not moving for any serious investigations or trials, because THEY are for the most part in it at the top levels as well, either from being fascists themselves (despite some nebulous party letter label which means *nothing*, or being bribed or blackmailed off.

    We are LESS SAFE and are rapidly, almost daily, losing what freedoms remained prior to 9-11, and since this completely phony war on terror started with an act of TREASON and the armed and violent COUP D'ETAT. The bulk of the rest of the planet sees this, because the evidence is so overwhelming. The war on terror is a front to hide the state sponsored fascist terrorism we have already suffered and will continue to suffer.

    Do the research, start with a clean slate like you never heard of these things before, with no preconceived notions,none, not even what I am saying, just blank it all out,then do the research, in depth, then you'll easily find out you've been used as a tool for the fascists. Last century, "sieg heil", this century "Let's roll!" Same shit, same dumbed down and kept half drunk all the time as policy (keep your serfs and menials stupid and brainwashed, works for rulers all the time) populations swallowing the big rah rah rah war cheerleading lie because the corrupt and illegitimate regime keeps repeating it over and over again and they have enough "true believers", fascist pig wannabes, spread out to insist they "win".

  165. Principal's Phone Number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why e-mail her when you can call her at work? :)

    Principal: Kathy Charlton
    E-mail: k.charlton@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us
    School: Hempfield High School
    School Phone: 724-834-9000
    Voice Mail: 724-850-2058

    Found on: http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/webdir/CHARLTON /index.htm

  166. Minimum wage, livable? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I once drafted up a budget for a 40hour/week minimum wage earner. It had money budgeted for food, housing, clothing, and transportation.

    I came in at a $100/month under income. Were there sacrifices made? Darn tooten. No eating out, no premium steak*, sharing an apartment(and phone), and walking, taking public transportation, or sharing a vehicle** at worst. You can buy an older used vehicle for a couple grand.

    Before you go on about healthcare, I'll point out that a minimum wage earner qualifies for a heck of a lot of governmental assistance, which I didn't account for at all.

    Is it a 'nice' life? Nope. Is it livable? Definately. Is it vulnerable to any disaster? Yep, though I'll note that that first month's $100 excess could buy the items needed for a health adult to last a month with no services. Others on the board where it was discussed got a month's survival supplies down to around $40. I was considered spendthrift. ;)

    *cheap steak is about the same price as ground beef, thus occasionally allowed.
    **The way I figure it, a business being so cheap as to hire an adult for minimum wage doesn't deserve to get an employee with a car.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      First question to ask...what location was this budget made for? Los Angeles, CA or Montgomery, AL? Big difference in cost of living between the two...

    2. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      More Montgomery than California, I'll admit.

      Then again, California has it's own minimum wage at $7.50.

      You'd probably be poorer in LA with $7.50/hour, than $5.15 in Montgomery, I'll admit.

      But then the question becomes a lot like the car. What's the business doing expecting a worker at Minimum in LA?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      Depends on the business. Some only expect students (high-school) or stay at home parents whose kids just started at school and so are now bored, and the extra cash gives them some play money...or perhaps money for the kids' college fund. Or they are in the Hollywood industry between gigs which may a hell of a lot more, but the only job which lets you go to auditions and interviews is one which pays less per hour.....because YOU are not an investment to them as you will leave for periods of time for your "real" career.

      And if you are a person who just a a streak of bad luck/choices, then you are in tough position. Take the job and starve...not take the job, live on welfare and still be bad off, but now get demonized by the right wing. In 20+ years of military service, I have lived in 8 states, Guam, and Korea. This does not count my time as a military brat and the places I lived at as a child. I have seen wildly differing cost of living throughout the US. A wage that would barely be survivable in Los Angeles would make you upper middle class in southern New Mexico.

      I think the show "30 Days" showed that living on minimum wage is a constant cycle of simply keeping your head above water, deciding which bill is more important this month (is power going to be cut off if I don't pay.....or is eating more important?) Especially for a person with a family....especially if they are young (diapers, formula, etc). It is real easy to go over the income threshhold to NOT get benefits from the state...and it only takes that penny extra to cost you serious help. And while WIC and other programs help, they don't cover the total cost of a young child's needs, but the loss of those programs can send a person into a death spiral of debt.

    4. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Depends on the business. Some only expect students (high-school) or stay at home parents whose kids just started at school and so are now bored, and the extra cash gives them some play money...or perhaps money for the kids' college fund. Or they are in the Hollywood industry between gigs which may a hell of a lot more, but the only job which lets you go to auditions and interviews is one which pays less per hour.....because YOU are not an investment to them as you will leave for periods of time for your "real" career.

      Where my parents live even the fast food joints are having to pay better than minimum in order to get even high school students. But I'll note that you're listing pretty much bottom grade employees. Though the stay at home parent is iffy; if he or she does have skills they should be able to do better. As for the Hollywood gigs; well, that's something of a distortion, and if you expect to be able to take off pretty much at whim for unknown durations you are indeed a less valuable employee for many jobs.

      And if you are a person who just a a streak of bad luck/choices, then you are in tough position. Take the job and starve...not take the job, live on welfare and still be bad off, but now get demonized by the right wing. In 20+ years of military service, I have lived in 8 states, Guam, and Korea. This does not count my time as a military brat and the places I lived at as a child. I have seen wildly differing cost of living throughout the US. A wage that would barely be survivable in Los Angeles would make you upper middle class in southern New Mexico.

      On of the reasons I object to increasing the minimum wage for the whole USA is that there are many areas where even minimum has a fairly good lifestyle as long as you're fiscally careful. From my experience; 'bad luck' is usually more a matter of the person's choices than true random events. And, while I don't consider myself right-wing, I do indeed dislike the idea of people being on welfare. This nation has a low enough unemployment rate that there are labor shortages in some areas. If necessary, go back to school, get new skills, and move to where there are jobs.

      I think the show "30 Days" showed that living on minimum wage is a constant cycle of simply keeping your head above water, deciding which bill is more important this month (is power going to be cut off if I don't pay.....or is eating more important?) Especially for a person with a family....especially if they are young (diapers, formula, etc). It is real easy to go over the income threshhold to NOT get benefits from the state...and it only takes that penny extra to cost you serious help. And while WIC and other programs help, they don't cover the total cost of a young child's needs, but the loss of those programs can send a person into a death spiral of debt.

      I haven't seen the show, but I know of many people having trouble financially, of many income levels. While it's far easier to get into trouble the lower your pay, people with 100 times the income still end up bankrupt. It's more about fiscal responsability and financial planning than raw income.

      But my whole point is what the heck are adults doing on minimum wage? They can move to my parent's area of the midwest, walk into a McDonalds and get hired at $7.50/hour assuming that they're worth anything at all. While not the cheapest part of the midwest by any means, it is far cheaper than California.

      Ultimatly though, their best option is to get education. Finish that high school degree if possible, get the GED if not. Go to a trade school*, learn some skills. Electricians and plumbers are always in demand.

      *Actually a better chance at a steady income than many college degrees.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True...very true, I was kicked out of my parents house (my fault for being a dumb kid) at the tender age of 17, I had to hold down two jobs and as a result, found my grades irrevocably slipping, it was eat or study, not both. Since then I have gotten my GED and my A+ Certification. But becuase of my location I am unable to find a decent tech job (North MS) or even a non-decent one for that matter. I have been in construction for the last six years or so, and it IS TRUE that Electricians and Plumbers are always in demand, but not in the way you would think...by that I mean there is a saying in construction, it's called: 'feast or famine' either you are working your ass off, or you are not working at all (I know this doesn't fit the stereotype of the lazy construction worker) and often times (as it was previously mentioned) you find yourself having to prioritize bills...it is a rough life, but it's to be expected, the only problem with such a life is that when you DO try to get some assistance they base it off your pay. Example I make about 14/hr, but I only work an average of 1 week out of the month becuase that's all the work my company can scrape up (excluding two months out of the year where we work 7-14 hour days), So I go to apply for food stamps to feed my family, it's not based on your monthly earnings, but rather HOW MUCH YOU MAKE AN HOUR, becuase of this I'm left wondering if I wouldn't be better off working in fast food. I have a wife and one child (with another one on the way) and although it is not my son's fault for our financial situation, having him there does tend to make things dificult, but it is important to remember that it is NEVER the childs fault and he/she should not be blamed. Just thought I'd add my two cents. Flame away.

    6. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      So I go to apply for food stamps to feed my family, it's not based on your monthly earnings, but rather HOW MUCH YOU MAKE AN HOUR, becuase of this I'm left wondering if I wouldn't be better off working in fast food.

      That's a messed up system. Still, it looks like the federal system is a monthly income level

      Still, while your situation is tough, there is assistance out there as you mentioned. Your situation is difficult, as while you're making more than minimum wage; you're still 'underemployed' in the sense that you're working less than 40 hours/week.

      I'd personally recommend trying to branch out a bit. Even something piecework could help. I'd see if you could find a scholarship.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      I think your solution is too simplistic: "If they can't afford where they live, they should move!" First, you are ignoring the fact moving costs money. Even if you have a car (and many poor do not), gas is not cheap. Any money earned goes towards living day to day. Fast food does pay more than minimum wage here (I know one local chain pays in excess of $10/hour to its employees, and they always appear happy). But even then....how do you move when you can't afford to move? You already have eliminated everything excess from your life but work, and only have enough to keep your family alive and housed...where is the money going to come to move? This does not even consider the cost to set up in the new location! Deposits, etc. I have moved enough time, and while Uncle Sam reimburses most of it, I stil pay some out of pocket expenses each time. Luckily, I can afford it. Some junior ranking troops have to worry if they will get sent to a high cost of living locale becuase they have children. And for those living day-to-day, working 2 or 3 jobs...when can they go to school? If they could afford to? While YOUR experience may be bad choices, you may want to realize that OTHER people's bad choices can impact YOUR ability to earn. Look at the number of people who lost jobs at Worldcom, Enron, etc. They made no bad choice, worked hard, thought they were safe....then discovered the bosses were corrupt and suddenly they were broke....through no bad choice or decision of their own doing.

      And while fiscal responsibility is always recommended....lose your job (see Enron), have a family member get sick or injured, need medicine (that is not covered by medicare, etc) and you can quickly get into major debt. Hell, my wife had some issues and hid her long distance calling from me for a while (I was deployed a lot at the time) that when it got bad and she fianlly told me, we had bills of $600-700/month (her payment plan to the phone company), on top of our day to day bills....my paycheck was not that much and she was going to school. Add in a tenant in the house we owned in Florida bailing out without notice (a second mortgage to pay) and suddenly we were in major debt.

      Granted, we sold the house (at a slight loss due to all the damage the tenant left), and my wife had finished school so had begun work....but we were able to crawl out from our debt in a reasonbale period of time. I am glad that I have good medical coverage being in the military....as my wife was diagnosed with a condition that requires a lot of expensive meds. I have blown a disk in my back and need surgery. I will have no cost and I will get full paychecks while on convalescent leave. But if I were not, I would have to consider simply living with no feeling in my legs and hope that I can keep working.

      Sometimes the solution is not cut and dried. And while a national increase in the minimum wage may not be needed, I would prefer to see federal legislation requiring a minimum Living wage for each local. That way the rate would vary based on the area, but you could get by on the minimum if need be....perhaps even being able to take classes to imporve your skill set and so eventually get a better job.

    8. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the solution is not cut and dried. And while a national increase in the minimum wage may not be needed, I would prefer to see federal legislation requiring a minimum Living wage for each local. That way the rate would vary based on the area, but you could get by on the minimum if need be....perhaps even being able to take classes to imporve your skill set and so eventually get a better job.

      I oppose the minimum wage on the grounds that it pretty much only increases unemployment and inflation. However, by the same token I support initiatives to increase education levels.

      Though I've proposed the idea to have a 'federal jobs program', that'll hire anybody for 40hours a week and provide a livable amount of food, shelter, and health care, plus a minimal stipidend. Plus, once certain levels of hours worked are met, credits for additional education/training would be awarded(and count, at least partially, to the 40hr/wk requirement).

      As for your situation, it's amazing how many situations like yours crop up; but you don't really need help because you had some margin. Sure, you lost money on the rental(welcome to self employment); but you have health care, and didn't need to depend upon government assistance outside of your job's benefits. Remember, part of prudent financial planning is building up a reserve.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      Building a reserve inplies an excess to income beyond your expenses. I had a house in one local becuase I was stationed there. While it was rented, the rental market was soft and therefore the rent covered the mortgage and realty agency costs (the house was in Florida, I was in NM....hard to manage from afar). The agency was useless and while I terminated the contract with cause (their failure to collect the rent and notify me of issues violated the contract we had), I was still left with financial hole at the end.

      I was a young E-5 at the time. Just promoted a short while prior to that. The lower grades do not get paid much. Having medical coverage helps, but at the time, our family members had a co-pay every time they saw a doctor off-base....and they could not see a doctor on-base (catch-22 situation). Every move in the military costs the member money. Especially if they have a family. While much of it is reimbursed, you still have out of pocket expenses (think deposits....while waiting for your deposits from your previous assignment to catch up to you....if they ever do! Again, hard to fight for from across the country or overseas...especially if it is a smallish amount). Many junior enlisted troops with families qualify for all sorts of government programs such as food stamps and WIC. Not a lot of reserves in those situations. I pulled out by negotiating with my creditors and pointing out to the hard cases that my choices were to negotiate with them to be ableot pay them off or declaring bankruptcy-this was before the changes to the laws- and they get nothing! I would keep my house (it was registered as my primary residence in my state of residency and I could afford the mortgage with all the other debt erased), the car (need to get to work), and walk away with more in my pocket. in fact, financially, I went the wrong way as I would have been more solvent by doing the latter. They realized that ONE creditor not working with me would cause ALL of them to not get paid. I guess they must talk to each other as the really hard cases suddenly agreed to payment schedules and lower interest rates. THAT was my only saving grace. They work with me or I pass on my bills to all you other people via higher interest rates.

      As far as minumum wage increasing unemployment and inflation....well, you may want to do some more research. Belief is not enough reason to deprive other people. (isn't that what the religious nuts want to do? Require all of us to follwo their beliefs?) An increase in wages can stimulate spending (bringing down inflation...increasing profits, allowing expansion) by giving people enough money to spend. Even Henry Ford realized that unless workers could afford a Model T, he would not sell very many. His workers were paid a rate that would allow them to be able to afford a car.

      Your idea for a Fereral Jobs Program would simply pass the cost to tax payers directly with little incentive for private companies to provide a living wage. And, may cause them to sue the Federal Government for unfair competion, as the government could use that labor for whatever it liked (within the law). A lving wage law would require businesses to ensure they are efficient and profitable...and history has shown that you can raise the min wage and businesses raise their prices a penny and press on. Little impact to the business, little impact to the consumer, big impact to those on the lower income levels.

      PS....I appreciate your responses and thoughts..without the flames. I prefer to engage in lively debate with intelligent people, even if I may disagre with them. I always come away with a little more knowledge no matter what.

    10. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Building a reserve inplies an excess to income beyond your expenses. I had a house in one local becuase I was stationed there. While it was rented, the rental market was soft and therefore the rent covered the mortgage and realty agency costs (the house was in Florida, I was in NM....hard to manage from afar). The agency was useless and while I terminated the contract with cause (their failure to collect the rent and notify me of issues violated the contract we had), I was still left with financial hole at the end.

      Like I said, welcome to self employment. Depending on many factors, over half fail in the first three years. I'm sorry for your loss, but my parents lost a lot of money due to job shifts(we moved a lot, frequently shortly after buying a home) and the dot com bust. Dad had invested in a mutual fund that was supposed to stay away from those businesses(dad knew trouble was coming), but well, the activly managed fund violated it's preciptus and was trading in those stocks to get better numbers. When the crash hit... Well, the managers were fired and such, but Dad couldn't recover his money. Stuff happens, you deal with it as best you can.

      I was a young E-5 at the time. Just promoted a short while prior to that. The lower grades do not get paid much.

      Guess what? I'm an E-5 at the moment. I have a very good idea what your pay is like. I also just effectivly paid cash for my first house. Borrowed some money out of my TSP to cover the rest. Now, yes, it's an incredably cheap house, but still structurally sound. As for the rest of your rant... I know your situation. I'm living it. And yes, I have a reserve sitting in my bank account.

      As far as minumum wage increasing unemployment and inflation....well, you may want to do some more research.

      I have done research, that's how I came to believe that. It's very simple math, actually. When the minimum wage goes up, businesses look to keep their costs down by decreasing employment. They fire people, in other words. Somebody who might be worth employing at $5/hour might not be worth it at $7.50/hour(california minimum). I saw it at the local McDonalds when average labor costs went up. They stopped toasting their buns at the store and went to 'pre-toasted'. You don't see those tiny-tile mosiacs in stalled in buildings anymore. Why? It costs too much in labor to make them.

      Inflation increases because where the labor cannot be eliminated or reduced(even if it reduces the quality of the product), but their payroll increases, they usually end up increasing the cost of their products. IE that value-meal costs more. The cost of goods goes up, that's real world inflation.

      The real way to increase wealth? Increase productivity. That's the true way to increase our standard of living. Reducing the man-hours required to make a car from over a thousand to under a hundred(to include part creation) is a good start.

      Belief is not enough reason to deprive other people. (isn't that what the religious nuts want to do? Require all of us to follwo their beliefs?)

      I believe that increasing minimum wage is, overall, an incredibly bad thing to do. It increases unemployment and inflation, increasing the cost of living for the rest of us and load on government services. Heck, for that matter it helps drive businesses overseas. It's all inter-related.

      An increase in wages can stimulate spending (bringing down inflation...increasing profits, allowing expansion) by giving people enough money to spend. Even Henry Ford realized that unless workers could afford a Model T, he would not sell very many. His workers were paid a rate that would allow them to be able to afford a car.

      Henry Ford, by paying what he did, also got an incredibly skilled, dedicated, and loyal workforce. He could afford to pick the cream of the crop. You should also note that he didn't fuel most of his car sales through his workforce. What happened in that time was a sort of labor shorta

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    11. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      Well...I was an young E-5 back in 1995...over a decade ago. Now looking at retiring early next year. The pay now is a lot better than it was. And BAH now is supposed ot cover 100% of costs, not the 75% earlier in my career.

      As for unions...in the early days (and even today....I have to deal with unions as part of my military job!) helped protect workers from abuse by the management. Using cancer causing chemicals....pre-union: Too bad. post-union: here is your PPE.

      The outsourced jobs are not solely to do with lower wages. Overall costs are lower...and no unions, now governmental oversite, etc. Even Haliburton has now become a foreign company moving its HQ to Dubai for the tax advantages. (Another rant!) If it were only wages, then you would have a point. But wages are usually the public reason, but in reality, low on the reasons for the move. Less restrictive government and evironmental controls plays a big part.

      If you look, you will see foreign companies move to the US to manufacture items (for example, Mercedes, BMW, and Honda). The tax breaks and benefits outweighed staying at home for them.

      As for your house....I bet you aren't in CA or DC. And, depending on the local, you can live very well as an E5, or just get by. I have been stationed in CA 3 times now (Victorville 86-87, Monterey 2000-01, and now LA 2005-present). Each time it was more expensive than the previous location I was at (Rantoul, Ill; Alamogordo, NM; Denver, CO), but as you know...we go where we are sent.

      So...are you a PO2, SGT, or SSgt type E5? Just wondering if I need to go to smaller words.... I keed....I keed....

    12. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      As for unions...in the early days (and even today....I have to deal with unions as part of my military job!) helped protect workers from abuse by the management. Using cancer causing chemicals....pre-union: Too bad. post-union: here is your PPE.

      Some unions are still doing their jobs; some have become corrupt. I'll never say that unions don't have their place; it's just that if they're not smart, they'll kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. On the other hand, I'd love to see them force the CEOs to cut their own pay. 100k plus or minus depending upon the company's profits, overall size, and net worth. IE no gain in pay if they create 'profits' merely by selling off assets.

      But wages are usually the public reason, but in reality, low on the reasons for the move. Less restrictive government and evironmental controls plays a big part.

      I work in the computer industry, so that's what I mostly track. Technical support and programming isn't that enviromentally impacting. The decrease in human costs was the driving factor for many places to send their technical support and programming to India.

      You do have a point about the less restrictive government controls. I don't like the pollution reason; I dislike pollution, it's one of the few reasons I can see to impose tariffs. It's a fact of life that governments impose costs on businesses, and we're getting pretty annoying with all the government regulations and taxes, though we're no where near as bad as Western Europe. For that matter, a number of countries have found that by lowering and flattening corporate tax rates they attract new business like crazy. For an Eastern European, former soviet block state, that's a highly desired condition.

      If you look, you will see foreign companies move to the US to manufacture items (for example, Mercedes, BMW, and Honda). The tax breaks and benefits outweighed staying at home for them.

      Europe, on average, has extremely tight corporate controls and heavy taxes. Moving here is their equivalent to moving to Mexico. In the case of Japan, everything is so expensive there, and the limited labor and resource pool makes building factories here make sense. Shipping stuff across the ocean a couple times costs money.

      I'm a SSgt style E5, and yeah, I'm in a cheap area right now. Minot, ND. But I started my savings(actually getting out of debt) in Colorado Springs as an E3. And if you thought it was bad in '95 as an E5, try moving off base as an E3 in '98, just before the reforms hit. BAH was less than half of any apartments I could find. Moving to Germany for a couple years allowed me to get the nest egg started.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    13. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      Why not Minot, Huh? I feel for you. But I can tell you that in 98, your pay was not bad as an A1C. Try 86-87 in southern CA. Granted, I lived in Apple Valley, in a decent house, but had several house-mates to be able to afford to move out of the dorm (we rented a 5 bedroom place). Went to Guam in 88, and again, lived off base (after a while in the dorms)...and had house mates once again.

      As far as companies moving to the US...they do have cheaper options closer by. Eastern Europe is a lot cheaper than Germany, and has a high umemployment rate that woudl jump on jobs...and very lax governmental evironmental laws. Even Japan has locales that are cheaper than the US closer to home. Makes control easier....India is not too far away from Japan, so if we outsource there, makes sense it would be cheap for Japan to do the same. And human costs are always only a tiny part of the overall cost of business. (I was a prime contractor part time when stationed in TX for home theatre installs. My labour costs were less than 25% of my overall budget. The bulk of my costs were equipment and supplies. I made a comfortable profit...which was used to finance my addiction to electronics....had a killer stereo system...by providing the value-added aspect of being the expert who put all the right pieces together to create a "Whole" greater than the sum of the parts.)

      Stay warm, fellow Airman! I'll try to send some Los Angeles sunshine your way!

      The US industry needs to go higher tech and fight for its place at the top of the innovation ladder..

    14. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      As far as companies moving to the US...they do have cheaper options closer by. Eastern Europe is a lot cheaper than Germany, and has a high umemployment rate that woudl jump on jobs...and very lax governmental evironmental laws. Even Japan has locales that are cheaper than the US closer to home. Makes control easier....India is not too far away from Japan, so if we outsource there, makes sense it would be cheap for Japan to do the same.

      In the cases of these companies outsourcing to the USA, I'll note that they're doing to feed our domestic market for the most part. Shipping stuff by sea is pretty cheap, but it still costs a few percentage points, then there's our import system to deal with. There are tax advantages to producing it domestically.

      At least in the case of many Japanese car companies, they'll import the engine from japan and build everything else here so it counts as an american car.

      In many businesses labor is the largest expense, still, saving 20% of your expenses is not small, right? Paying your foreign workers 1/5 of domestic wages, multiplied by it's 25% share.

      Heck, we're starting to see outsourcing of medical care to India. They've actually built hospitals especially for foreign patients. It's a sad statement about our medical care in that in India, they manage to meet US healthcare standards, yet do it cheaply enough that care there is often cheaper than the deductibles to have it done here in the USA, and that includes the round trip flight!

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    15. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      We have always had outsourcing of medical care. Abortions were obtained by the wealthy overseas (usually Europe) when it was illegal in the US. Surgery (especially extensive plastic surgery) is done in places like Thailand, and has been for years. The issue is how much risk are you willing to live with? Infection rates tend to be higher in those countries, but your money goes a little further..so you may be able to afford better care. But do you know if they meet US health stanards? Are they inspected and certified by a US health accredidation org? Most of the articles I found that mentioned it spoke more of things like specialists reviewing radiology exams (ie you get the MRI/Xray here in the US, they are looked at in India by telecommuting or record transcription work. Not something I would worry too much about. The transcription work could be a concern, but the decreasing number of medical practioners in the US would almost require some outsourcing.

      And I could always save on my labour costs but I was willing to pay for quality and that is not cheap. You just have to decide which 2 of the 3 you want: Fast, Cheap, Good.

    16. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      But do you know if they meet US health stanards? Are they inspected and certified by a US health accredidation org?

      Yes, they are. I heard about it on a radio program. It was explicitly said that they had been inspected to US accredidation standards.

      As for the cost of the care, it seemed to start at half price, in some cases going down to 10%. Being a fully modern hospital, it actually has lower infection rates than many US hospitals.

      And I could always save on my labour costs but I was willing to pay for quality and that is not cheap. You just have to decide which 2 of the 3 you want: Fast, Cheap, Good.

      In this case it seemed the dropped one was 'fast', after all, you have to make arrangements to travel there. I figure that it'll lead to a fixing of our system(incredibly inefficient) and an increase in their wages to parity to ours, more or less.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    17. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      "It was explicitly said that they had been inspected to US accredidation standards"

      But no mention on whether they actually were accredited? I can build a car to US safety standards, but until it is inspected by and recieves that all important certification, it is still not allowed to be sold in the US to be driven on public roads.

      And being new, there are no long term stats to say how infection rates really are. may look good initially, but after 10 years, will they still be better than an equivalent hospital in the west (US and Western Europe)?

      And if "Fast" is the one dropped, then the services provided are likely to be things that are voluntary (plastic surgery) or are tightly controlled (think transplants) that people would have to travel outside the US to get ahead of lists.

      Not really outsourcing then.....if you need a doctor NOW, then a hospital in another country does you no good. The telemedicine, however, would fit in the realm of outsourcing (or simply finding a source to fill your need due to a lack of qualified people in the US for those specialties like radiology).

    18. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      But no mention on whether they actually were accredited? I can build a car to US safety standards, but until it is inspected by and recieves that all important certification, it is still not allowed to be sold in the US to be driven on public roads.

      From what I understand, they meet all the standards, and do have many certifications. But some certifications are only issued to hospitals inside the USA. They have even reached the point where some insurance companies and businesses will pay for people to have medical treatment done there. While more a statement of cost savings, they do open themselves to being sued if it turned out that the hospital was inferior to the ones here. It was explicitly stated that many patients found the 'customer service' was much better there than here.

      And being new, there are no long term stats to say how infection rates really are. may look good initially, but after 10 years, will they still be better than an equivalent hospital in the west (US and Western Europe)?

      I guess it depends on how 'on the ball' they remain and whether they eventually slack off. I see them trying to raise the bar though. The better they are, the more business they get the more money that comes into the country, the more prosperous the country the more they get paid.

      And if "Fast" is the one dropped, then the services provided are likely to be things that are voluntary (plastic surgery) or are tightly controlled (think transplants) that people would have to travel outside the US to get ahead of lists.

      You're never going to get emergency surgury there, such as an appendecomy. But there are a whole raft of surguries today that are neither urgent to the point of 'I need it TODAY', nor really optional like most plastic surgery. Think about things like hip replacements, bypass surguries. For the 'average' american it'd take a month and a half to get there for a surgury as that's the time you need to get the passport. For me, it'd take a week, much like most non-critical surgeries as I already have a passport. They can even do things like cancer treatment there. You may not entirely approve, but in some cases they're ahead of US practices, in that they're much more willing to do what's considered experimental treatments here in the USA.

      Relativly speaking, it's a very minor trickle compared to the amount of medical treatment done here in the USA. But they are handling thousands of patients a year, not just from the USA. It was interesting enough that it made the morning show one day, and I thought it made for a rather different take on outsourcing.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    19. Re:Minimum wage, livable? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      Don't know about bypass surgery being done there...can see joint replacements, etc. My father had a bypass (quintuple it turned out after they opened him up) and they would not let him travel until after the surgery. I think I agreed that it woudl be as you said ("or are tightly controlled (think transplants) that people would have to travel outside the US to get ahead of lists.") Tightly controlled includes joint replacements, and other non-life threatening but sometimes necessary surgery. I gave transplants as the most obvious example.

      Agree that if they keep up the standards (and meet western standards- the US or Western Europe's) then they may end up being a shining light. And I can see service being better than in the US. Especially comparing the average American in the service industry to other nations (travelled a bit in my time), I have generally found customer service to be better almost ANYWHERE than in the US. Here it seems as if you are bothering the person, there the person seems to really want to help.

  167. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by evilviper · · Score: 1

    threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction

    wtf? WMDs?

    What's the problem? Anything more deadly than a gun is considered a weapon of mas destruction. If you want to build something like a (potentially working) replica cannon, you have to get permission to construct a WMD.

    It's a simple legal term, and a BOMB definitely qualifies as a WMD.

    I guess they just can't be found anywhre huh?

    It said "threat." You can threaten with anything, whether you have it or not.
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  168. Sue that dumbazz senator who changed DST by dwhite21787 · · Score: 1

    I hope the lawmakers who agreed with the change get the karma they deserve for screwing everyone.

    --
    "Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
  169. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything more deadly than a gun is considered a weapon of mas destruction.

    Would you agree that the US army routinely uses WMDs against it's enemies then?

  170. Priorities? by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    What, then, is the point of maintaining a phone number and email address if one isn't interested in feedback? Why should someone's civil rights take a back seat to your assumption /.ers will be pointless?

  171. Habeas Corpus was suspended by Bush. by Bazar · · Score: 1

    Actually that is not true. Not only does the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which also defines what a citizen is protect all persons within the States

    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You'll find that bush revoked the right for habeas corpus, for non-us citizens in the war on terror.
    The writ of "habeas corpus ad subjiciendum" is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a prisoner be brought before the court so that the court can determine whether that person is serving a lawful sentence or should be released from custody.

    Since i am not a us citizen, if i was detained over the war on terror, for whatever reason (or lack thereof), the US forces could detain me indefinitely, and would be completely at the mercy (if any) of my jailers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspens ion_in_the_United_States_during_the_.E2.80.9CWar_o n_Terrorism.E2.80.9D

    If i'm not mistaken, thats exactly what happened with one of citizens of Australian, only after having the presure of a 1st world government, and ally to America, did they start the processing him after he was jailed in Guantánamo Bay for years without charges.
    If he was American, he would of had his due rights, but alas not his case, and the cases of many many other non-US citizens.

    --
    To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
    1. Re:Habeas Corpus was suspended by Bush. by mibus · · Score: 1

      The Australian of which you speak is David Hicks.

      He was in US custody from December 2001, and was only charged last month (ie, over six years later!). I encourage you to read the page, it's quite enlightening (in a gruesome way).

      Most disturbingly, you've got to wonder why his release (probably at the end of the year) is conditional on him not talking to media for a year...

    2. Re:Habeas Corpus was suspended by Bush. by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Most disturbingly, you've got to wonder why his release (probably at the end of the year) is conditional on him not talking to media for a year...

      If I were him, I'd hire a bodyguard and a food taster for the duration of that year....

    3. Re:Habeas Corpus was suspended by Bush. by init100 · · Score: 1

      You'll find that bush revoked the right for habeas corpus, for non-us citizens in the war on terror.

      If this is true, I would support revoking similar rights of US citizens on EU soil. I mean, fair is fair, if I have no rights when visiting the US, US citizens should have no rights when visiting the EU.

  172. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by kocsonya · · Score: 1

    > WMDs? I guess they just can't be found anywhre huh?

    Well, all those stockpiles in Iraq that have never been found, they must be *somewhere*!

  173. caller ID spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one mentioned that the claim was based on caller ID WHICH CAN BE EASILY SPOOFED. Google for "caller ID spoofing".

    Also, if they had the audio on an answering machine, they should have been able to quickly use audio analysis tools to demonstrate that the voices did not match. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_identificatio n

  174. Negelegence by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    It's a clear case of negligence. At a firing time should be involved for those involved in that "investigation". To be just, jail should be involved... and not jail as seen on TV... PMITA jail. Where you get a boyfriend and everything.

    Bend over.

  175. Re:Give the principal a break by Acer500 · · Score: 1

    My actions at work would never result in a minor's civil rights being trampled on. Right... mine would result in 50-odd people losing their email and internet connectivity :P
    --
    There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
  176. Where's the court in all this? by jdp · · Score: 1

    > It is reasonable for police to believe a principal.

    Perhaps it's reasonable for the police to believe the principal *thinks* the kid has done it, but it's certainly not reasonable for the police to arrest anybody just based on somebody else's word -- they should have checked the evidence. The solicitor claims they didn't. As some of the other posters point out, police don't always act reasonably ...

    And what about the role of the court here? It sounds to me like the judge didn't even do the simplest weighing of the evidence: do the phone records support this claim?

    jon

  177. Get her incarcerated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a funny idea. Just like how the principal had this kid incarcerated because she thought he called in a bomb threat, let's get the principal incarcerated for calling in a bomb threat too. Everybody, call up the hotline. Tell them that you are Kathy Charlton and that a bomb will explode in the school. See if she gets to spend 12 days in the cooler too. You can call the school at this number: 724-834-9000

  178. If you're pissed off, like I am by Talgrath · · Score: 1

    Aside from the principal's numbers and e-mail at the bottom of the linked article, I suggest you contact their school board: http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/administration. asp. Here's the number for their administrative offices: 724-834-2590.

  179. It figures. by CoolCalmChris · · Score: 1

    I suppose one could blame this on Our Fearless Leader (ahem), who decreed that, effective 2007, DST would start three weeks earlier. Why? "To save energy." He didn't mention any of the following- driving less, turning the heat down, or using low-wattage bulbs, or carpooling. Or just eliminating DST altogether... Then again, I would expect no less from a third generation Texas oilman. Oh, and if this story is indicative of the way the principal treats her students, I'm surprised they don't have a dedicated "bomb threat" hotline.

  180. Captain Hollywood to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they boy is lucky. This story is curious enough to be into a film, either for TV or the silver screen. Anyhow, the family will be able to sell the rights to Hollywood for a souped-up adaptation (say a blow-up even instead of a mere bomb-threat) and cash in five or six figure dollars. Then it really doesn't matter any more if they can sue the state for 20 grands.

  181. yaaoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yet another abuse of authority: in 4th grade, we were to answer questions about a short story of a barn on fire.

    the question: could you feel the heat of the fire while standing nearby?

    my answer: duh!

    the answer key: no

    the teacher's rebuke to my answer: heat rises

    i've had issues with authority ever since;-}

    1. Re:yaaoa by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      yet another abuse of authority:



      Even better is ambiguity of authority:



      We learned in English class, from the textbook, that OPEC is short for "organization of petrol exporting countries". Later, on the same day, our geography teacher told us that OPEC stands for "oil producing and exporting countries". When we asked about the obvious difference between our textbook and his statement, he went on a screaming fit about him being the teacher and always right, and us being the students and always wrong.


      Well, the poor guy was having a hard time, having been victim of an, um, large homemade firecracker the previous year. The students responsible for this practical joke had been punished most harshly by being expelled. Of course, if the same happened today, they'd be disappeared for being terrorists. I miss the good old times.

    2. Re:yaaoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i forgot 2 mention: this was in a hempfield twp school;-)

  182. Aaaahhhhh modern society .... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1


    Where a modern man called Rob can be your wife, today ...

    call now ! 1-800-YO-WIFE!

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  183. The Colonial Rebellion was a bad mistake by SAABMaven · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > I'm tired of the illegal justice system in the US.
    > The one that lets the rich go free and throws the poor in jail

    Please correct that to:

    > throws the middle class in jail ...as you seem to be stuck in 1969.

    The 'poor' of today, who get free legal assistance, free health care and free university education, can afford to jaunt about in SUVs whilst blabbering into a cell phone. The middle class have to pay the taxes to support this; whilst paying out-of-pocket for university and marginal health insurance, and struggling to make ends meet. No wonder the middle class vote Republican so often... the Dems with their endless social programs ensure this.

    I sincerely doubt that this kid was 'poor'. There would be an army of lawyers who couldn't wait to get their names in the newspapers, if it were so.

    (But the Dems are rich too. Living in a gated community, one may actually think that the 'poor' need more help, at the expense of the middle class of course.)

  184. The only sure way to stop Fascism is to emigrate by SAABMaven · · Score: 1

    It's happening, how can you stop 'creeping fascism' with a few eMails? I was a student activist 25 years ago during the Reagan years, only to get my name on enough blacklists that I couldn't be hired for anything more cerebral than dishwasher. Do you think that the computer systems which keep track of people are _more_ efficient than 25 years ago, or _less_ ??

    I don't want my child to grow up in this fascist police state... only to get drafted... We're thinking about Canada, En Zed, Australia, anywhere which still has the benefit of British justice and the presumption of innocence. That leaves out Pakistan and the US, which broke it down by force.

  185. Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WMD & terrorism: the 21st-century police force's "get into jail free" card.

    [Har: the captcha for this article was "habeas"]

  186. Re:The only sure way to stop Fascism is to emigrat by mink · · Score: 1

    "Do you think that the computer systems which keep track of people are _more_ efficient than 25 years ago, or _less_ ??"

    That depends on who provided the hardware and what software they are running.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.