Slashdot Mirror


"Clock Boy" Ahmed Mohamed Seeking $15 Million In Damages

phrackthat writes: The family of Ahmed Mohamed, the boy who was arrested in Irving, Texas has threatened to sue the school and the city of Irving if they do not pay him $15 million as compensation for his arrest. To refresh the memories of everyone, Ahmed's clock was a clock he disassembled then put into a pencil case that looked like a miniature briefcase. He was briefly detained by the Irving city police to interview him and determine if he intended for his clock to be perceived as a fake bomb. He was released to his parents later on that day and they publicized the matter and claimed Ahmed was arrested because of "Islamophobia".

818 comments

  1. Litigious Much by slackerfilm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok, I liked Clock Boy but this is just dumb. And $15 million? I sure hope he plans on donating a lot of that to science

    --

    throw the baby out. The bathwater is cold

    1. Re:Litigious Much by rhazz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Suing for such a ridiculous amount just shows that he is truly American.

    2. Re:Litigious Much by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> $15 million? I sure hope he plans on donating a lot of that to science

      Or...he could STFU and leave it with the local school district...which would use it to teach science.

    3. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What did you like about him? His ability to order a clock off the internet, his ability to take it apart, his ability to have his family involved with Cair, perhaps his fathers ability to be involved in failed lawsuits against the city and its manager for the past 2 years, or maybe his ability to get suspended less than 48 hours after being let back in from a previous suspension at a different school?

    4. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So I'm white and got in trouble all the time as a kid for being a nerd and building/assembling poorly designed shit that looked like a bomb or otherwise dangerous even though it was completely benign. Where do I collect my hundreds of millions of dollars, or are you all a bunch of filthy racists?

    5. Re:Litigious Much by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> by "science" you mean creationism/intelligent design

      Christ, what crappy school did you attend? Irving schools look pretty mainstream to me:

      http://irvingblog.dallasnews.c...
      http://www.irvingisd.net/site/...
      http://www.irvingisd.net/Domai...

    6. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I liked Clock Boy but this is just dumb. And $15 million? I sure hope he plans on donating a lot of that to science

      I thought this fraudster and his parents left the United States of America and returned to the Middle East. Time for President Obama to man-up and order a bombing run over whatever village is home to these cretins. Strap a clock to the drone for effect.

    7. Re:Litigious Much by hawguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I say give him and his father the $15M in the form of Hellfire missiles from a Predator drone. Or 3.

      Money well-spent IMO.

      See how fast some other "bright boy" tries that sort of stunt again after *that* sort of "payoff"!

      Strat

      I don't see how that would help, he'd surely get into trouble again if he tried to bring a Hellfire missile to school, even if he has all of the paperwork for it.

    8. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If by "science" you mean creationism/intelligent design, Pi=3, genetics is wrong, evolution is a sin, and scientific theories are just "crazy ideas someguy once had that can't be proven"

      You do realize that lots of religious schools, even in Texas, teach evolution even with respect to humans, teach the big bang theory, teach that the discoveries of science are not in conflict with religion, that science and religion search for answers in orthogonal fields.

      FYI, genetic science and the big bang theory began with members of the clergy.

    9. Re:Litigious Much by WheezyJoe · · Score: 0

      FYI, genetic science and the big bang theory began with members of the clergy.

      Please cite. Like, seriously, would like to know.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    10. Re:Litigious Much by theArtificial · · Score: 5, Informative

      History of the Big Bang Theory cites a Belgian Catholic Priest named Georges Lemaître as the originator of the theory.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    11. Re:Litigious Much by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 5, Informative

      For the genetics part see Gregor Johann Mendel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Mendel was a monk.

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    12. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of like this sort of "science"?
      http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html

      To be sure there is a lot of violent Muslim extremists out there. What isn't being talked about so much in America the days there is also a growing number of violent Christian (and Jewish) religious fundamentalists as well. Unfortunately some xenophobic extreme nationalists have learned to mask their agenda with "human rights', "minorities" and "freedom" word games. The way to distinguish between the crypto-fascist manipulators and those with actual ethics... don't trust those that wholesale condemn other groups. Trust the ones that staunchly protect the rights of innocent Muslim, Jews, and Christians (and other anyone else that is targeted by hate and prejudice purely because of their background)

    13. Re:Litigious Much by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      I agree. I thought the school administration and the police were pretty dumb in this case, and I'd even have supported a minor lawsuit for some expenses related to moving schools and some punitive damages to prevent idiocy in the future, but fifteen million is ridiculous.

    14. Re:Litigious Much by njnnja · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please excuse the karma whoring but you did ask: Gregor Mendel was a monk who did pioneering experiments on heredity. Although it seems obvious in retrospect, even after Darwin first published the theory of natural selection it wasn't until it was put together with Mendel's work that evolutionary theory as we understand it today came about.

    15. Re: Litigious Much by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I think I can answer, for everyone, what people liked about him. His desired to take apart a clock he bought.

      Did he really have that desire? Were his motives pure? I dunno. But that's what people are identifying with.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    16. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 0, Troll

      You could also say "The big bang theory began with the Belgian Army", because he was also in that.

    17. Re:Litigious Much by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bump.

      To name three things that happened to me off the top of my head:

      1. Accused of criminal hacking (by, you guess it, gaslighting asshole managers^H^H^Hadministrators) and had my computer privileges revoked for a few weeks. Told me I was lucky they didn't have me arrested by the FBI and imprisoned in the big city. I was also lucky my parents didn't believe their version of events.

      That one turned out to be blatant gender discrimination. I later found out they had no problem with what I was doing, as long as it was an empowered young woman doing it.

      Oh, edit: 1.5. After I warned the librarian responsible for the open-use computers that they were infected with a virus, I was given a stern warning and told I may have broken the acceptable use policy.

      2. Accused of plagiarism because obviously a however year old I was at the time couldn't possibly program something in Pascal. They were never quite able to figure out what and who I plagiarized.

      3. Had a calculator game I'd put perhaps 3 or 4 weeks of work into erased after leaving my calculator unattended. That was definitely a lesson in keeping backups! (As in I didn't have a single backup anywhere.) That one almost escalated to a lawsuit, but to her credit, the teacher that did it became apologetic once she realized what she had actually done.

      On the other hand, I was never actually arrested.

      On the other, other hand, my motives were authentic unlike "Clock Boy," who seems to have had questionable motives. I also learned that computers are magical palantirs into cyberspace powered by waldos and that any display of talent on my part would get me labeled a dangerous criminal hacker.

      On the 3rd other hand, at a different school, my talent got me a summer and after school job. I'm certain I must have been a misogynerd who prevented a more talented woman from being offered that job. (I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, since my specialty is software development and the only woman in the class specialized in hardware and network, which would have been more relevant to the job.)

    18. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could also say "The big bang theory began with the Belgian Army", because he was also in that.

      He was no longer in the Army. However he was teaching at a Catholic university at the time.

    19. Re:Litigious Much by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Mendel - an Augustinian friar - is the father of genetics. Sheesh didn't you go to school at all?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    20. Re:Litigious Much by warrior · · Score: 1

      While it's hard to say where any idea truly began, the GP is correct that members of the clergy did make large contributions to those fields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ître Both articles state that these men are largely accepted as the fathers of these theories. I'm not religious, quite the opposite. However, facts are facts and we must give credit where credit is due. I wonder if some of these men would be into religion if they lived in modern times. It seems to me that back in the day the church was a great place for someone into science to get "funded" to do some research. For the cost of performing a few silly rituals, you get room and board with a life of brewing beer and having time to do some research. Just be careful about where and when you publish the results. I'd say sign me up, except for the one other cost - no time with the ladies. That's kind of a deal-breaker. Okay, so it probably wasn't all that great anyway, I'm probably visualizing something from 'Anathem' when it was more like Python's 'Holy Grail'.

      --
      Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
    21. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You do realize that lots of religious schools, even in Texas, teach evolution even with respect to humans, teach the big bang theory, teach that the discoveries of science are not in conflict with religion,"

      Indeed.. and that is a serious problem because creationism and science ARE in conflict. The "scientific" and even moral claims to be found in the Koran, Torah and Bible are often dead wrong. There is no coherent ambiguity over the matter the earth isn't 6000 years old. Adam was not the first man. The story of Noah is untrue. Stoning people for being gay is morally wrong. And so on...

      Religionists need to understand from the standpoint of those that don't believe their religion, that their choices are their choices not something that should be muddled in affairs of state.Think of religion as akin to shopping. As long as someone is doing the shopping on their own dime and not trying to shove their choices down everyone else's throat, that is a right and it should be respected. Start mixing their personal religious choices into state affairs though... when government controls force....that needs to be called out as religious fanaticism and threat to freedom. (no matter what religion is being plugged). Even atheism should be taught in schools. Schools are for learned about how our universe works to the best of our current knowledge. Not for personal pet theories on metaphysics.

    22. Re:Litigious Much by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Although he didn't name it the big bang theory, Lemaitre was the first to propose the idea that would bear its name. Lemaitre was an ordained priest, though he worked as a professor. Gregor Mendel who conducted the first empirical experiments on genetics at a monastery was also a member of the clergy.

      Not every religious person is some creationist nut that believes the earth is only 6000 years old. For a portion of Europe's history, one of the best ways to get an education if you weren't rich was to become a member of the clergy.

    23. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we did say we wanted immigrants to assimilate didn't we? I guess this is part of those unintended consequences. He's right up there with the white woman suing for her coffee being too hot, and winning, against McDonalds.

    24. Re:Litigious Much by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Mendel was also a YEC.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    25. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      #whitelivesdontmatter

    26. Re: Litigious Much by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Well, I think I can answer, for everyone"

      No... You cannot.

    27. Re: Litigious Much by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cool, what else is admirable about him?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    28. Re:Litigious Much by Beck_Neard · · Score: 0

      > You do realize that lots of religious schools, even in Texas, teach evolution even with respect to humans, teach the big bang theory

      How kind of them to teach kids actual facts and provide them with a useful education instead of their religious dogma that is backed by zero evidence. A bunch of selfless humanitarians, that bunch!

      > teach that the discoveries of science are not in conflict with religion, that science and religion search for answers in orthogonal fields.

      And just when I was beginning to praise them...

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    29. Re:Litigious Much by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 0

      he could STFU and leave it with the local school district...which would use it to teach science.

      Bull. The school is in Texas.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    30. Re:Litigious Much by ADRA · · Score: 1

      They are clearly Americans because nobody can sue one another like an merican.

      --
      Bye!
    31. Re:Litigious Much by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      You could also say "The big bang theory began with the Belgian Army", because he was also in that.

      Which would only be relevant if people were complaining that the Belgian Army was an enemy of science. However given that at the moment they seem to be deployed on the streets of Brussels trying to keep religious fanatics from killing people I don't think this is something we need to worry about.

    32. Re:Litigious Much by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      To be fair, evangelic christianity has come to dominate the discourse, and this is where the insane ideas of the young Earth, flood geology, creationism etc. find their most militant supporters. Catholics largely don't care, and muslims don't believe in a young Earth (although they do dispute evolution).

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    33. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With respect to Lemaître we are talking the 1920s. He had studied civil engineering, math and physics. Had a doctorate. He was a WWI vet, a former officer. I don't think becoming a priest was necessary for him to find room and board.

    34. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you like about him?

      Primarily his ability to troll retards who thinks that bombs looks like clocks.

      The boy and his family might not deserve the $15 million, but the school certainly deserves having it taken from them.

    35. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please take note that both of these men members of the Catholic Clergy and not some fundamentalist offshoot that could not learn to get along with others. The Catholic church was a big supporter of science for the sake of learning. Contrary to /. opinion the church didn't put Galileo in jail because he said the earth rotates around the sun but because he used the Popes friendship to publish the paper without permission. The Protestants made a big deal out of a lie. The same Protestants who today have so much trouble understanding science isn't an attack on thier religion.

    36. Re:Litigious Much by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I guess you never heard about a monk and his pea plants then?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    37. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say give him and his father the $15M in the form of Hellfire missiles from a Predator drone. Or 3.

      Money well-spent IMO.

      See how fast some other "bright boy" tries that sort of stunt again after *that* sort of "payoff"!

      Strat

      I don't see how that would help, he'd surely get into trouble again if he tried to bring a Hellfire missile to school, even if he has all of the paperwork for it.

      If he get's his skin bleached like Michael Jackson and starts praising Jesus, he'll at least be able to get the NRA behind him to defend his second amendment rights.

    38. Re:Litigious Much by neoritter · · Score: 2

      And Isaac Newton spent a lot of time trying to figure out when Armageddon would happen (sometime after 2060 apparently) so what's your point?

    39. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole thing pained me so much. Everyone acted like the 'Little Boy Who Would Get Us To Mars' had been traumatized so much that he would now give up his future career as a scientist.

      The kid took a clock out of its plastic case and mounted it into a different case. WTF?

    40. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then you have catholics like my father who claim mendel and Lemaitre faked their experiments, and Darwin's goal was the destruction of the Church.

    41. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other, other hand, my motives were authentic unlike "Clock Boy," who seems to have had questionable motives ascribed to him without supporting evidence.

      FTFY.

    42. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pardon.. I should have added qualifier to my statement. "Even atheism "shouldn't" be taught in schools. I'm a non-believer myself but i don't think I schoolchildren should be forced to be non-believers. Choice has to be protected. That is what freedom is about.

      For choice to be real, the government can't take sides on issues like metaphysics. It has to stick to things we know for sure. Religions has to be a personal decision not something for politicians to decide for us. Otherwise if the majority believe something foolish they will inch by inch try to shove it down all our throats using government (as currently happened in ISIS territory)

    43. Re:Litigious Much by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately - none of them are in politics with the ultimate goal of running the United States.

    44. Re:Litigious Much by neoritter · · Score: 1

      [quote]I wonder if some of these men would be into religion if they lived in modern times. It seems to me that back in the day the church was a great place for someone into science to get "funded" to do some research. [/quote]

      That may be a viable argument for Mendel and early scientists that laid the foundation for modern European intellectual thought, it doesn't apply to the ones making contributions today or in recent history (like Lemaitre).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      You might find some chaff in that list, but you'll see there's still plenty of scientists in multiple fields that are tied to the Church. In just the field of astronomy we have comets, areas of moons/planets, and space craft named after them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    45. Re:Litigious Much by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      That one turned out to be blatant gender discrimination. I later found out they had no problem with what I was doing, as long as it was an empowered young woman doing it.

      Ah yes, the downtrodden privileged class, upset when privilege is given to anyone outside the official privileged class. We should just solidify it into castes. It'd make things simpler, if those underclass knew to not get uppity.

    46. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The old testament does not say the world is 6,000 years old. Some bishop interpreting the old testament came to that conclusion, however it rested on the assumption that a "day" in genesis was literal not figurative. Many christian denomination believe "day" to be figurative, not a 24-hour period.

      Elements of the story of Noah may be true. Ancient Mesopotamia, a wealthy trader lashing together various small vessels he possessed and bringing his family and a section of livestock on board. Severe 1,000 year sort of flooding causing the flotilla to drift down to southern Arabia, having spent many days "at sea". The story gets simpler and simpler and more plausible the older the clay tablets discovered get.

      To many Christians Adam is not the first man in a biological sense, again many churches accept human evolution. What makes Adam the first man is not his biological form but his having been given a soul. Its is the human soul that separates "man" from the other creatures. So there is no inherent conflict with science since science only addresses the biology and not the soul.

      As for atheists, many are "believers" just like christians. They merely draw the opposite conclusion that god does not exists, however like christians they are drawing a conclusion in the absence of evidence, they have an article of faith of their own. And many are just as proselytizing as some christians, very fervent and very quick to attack and belittle those who think differently. Only the agnostics are really scientific, not drawing any conclusion due to a lack of evidence, and not being overly interesting in debating the topic unless pretty stoned.

    47. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He was not doing cosmological research when in the army, however he was doing cosmological research as a priest and a professor at a catholic university. Research done with the full knowledge and support of his church, including some funding. A church that fully embraced his discovery. A church that continues to participate in and support serious cosmological research.

    48. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 2

      And Isaac Newton spent a lot of time trying to figure out when Armageddon would happen (sometime after 2060 apparently) so what's your point?

      If we apply relativistic theory to that 2060 calculation do have more or less time?

    49. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, he'd build a new case for it and get another blowjob from Obama.

    50. Re: Litigious Much by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, people admired that he built a clock, when in fact he just took apart a working clock to make a shitty clock that looked like a bomb, then took it to school to "show people."

    51. Re:Litigious Much by DroolTwist · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      On the one hand:
      On the other hand:
      On the gripping hand:

    52. Re:Litigious Much by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Maybe he could turn one into a working clock. Kind of like turning swords into plowshires.

    53. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well and the fact that Galileo mocked the pope in his book. Mocking the pope alone is quite sufficient to get your book banned and you ass under house arrest, actually historically its kind of getting off easy.

    54. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just shut the fuck up you stupid retard.

      You'd be the first one to say Achmed (The Dead Terrorist), I mean Ahmed, was a victim of a broad generalization of Muslims, but here you are doing the same.

      Stupid Dolt.

    55. Re:Litigious Much by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You DO realize that he's moving to Qatar right? The worst school in America isn't gonna be as religiously batshit and backasswards as a country under Sharia.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    56. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion should not be taught whatsoever, except in the same vein as ancient history mythology.

    57. Re:Litigious Much by fey000 · · Score: 1

      I think you are conflating evolutionary theory (such as Darwin fathered) with genetic evolution (or heredity). That which Mendel showed is not a theory, but well understood and proven fact. The specifics of evolutionary theory however is still very much a debate.

    58. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the Lutherans, Church of England and various other Protestant denominations have pro-science positions like the Catholic Church.

    59. Re:Litigious Much by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Not here it's not. Here it's a fact. This is /. after all.

    60. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I assure you, this is far from his own idea.

      Parents / lawyers are feeding this frenzy. Pretty much describes the human race these days. Looking for any way to cash in a payday.

    61. Re:Litigious Much by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I need to agree. Getting presidential press, being called a wiz-kid on a national scale... Really does really compensate for an unfair arrest. 15 million dollars is way too much to ask for an unfair arrest. I could see a million dollars a high end compensation but 15 million. That is just greed.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    62. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's different. When muslims do it, it's not backwards or batshit crazy.

    63. Re:Litigious Much by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      I agree with the school and police paying out for being idiots, preferably the individual administrators and police not the departments. I dont agree with this kid and family getting it. Split the different and pay the layers and give the rest of it to a registered charity of their choosing.

      We realy need school admins and police to worry about being this blatantly stupid. The kid was told to put it away multiple times, teachers are fully capable of telling him to give me that and I'll give it back when it's time to go home, at the office, or make the parents come get it, that would be a reasonable response no different than a cell phone or video game.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    64. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no. You are both batshit crazy.

    65. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The old testament does not say the world is 6,000 years old."

      Be that as it may, in practice you well know no small number of christian fundamentalists believe this nonsense.

      "Elements of the story of Noah may be true"

      Elements of virtually any story are true. This does not dismiss the point there are clearly many factual errors in the Bible, Torah and Koran. They are works of mostly fiction with often questionable values but are pawned off as unquestionable. No book is beyond error or criticism. Just because someone assigns the word "religious" to them and forms a cult that treats them as unquestionable truths doesn't actually make it so.

      "To many Christians Adam is not the first man in a biological sense"

      According to bible it is... ergo an instance where we can say the bible is wrong. (one of many)

      "Only the agnostics are really scientific"

      To be blunt, I see agnostics as cowards. Agnostics act like they are open minded but what they are really doing is playing Pascal's wager on some level. If someone came up to an agnostic and claimed that aliens dressed as Elvis would abducted them and put a probe up their anus if they didn't believe in them.. they wouldn't take them remotely seriously. There, literally, is a far far more realistic chance of that happening than there is of some super being that created all of existence with all the details described by sundry religions of the world. These are the myths of more preemptive times. Not something that withstands the more rigorous standards of modern science.

      That said, even our current understanding of science will probably one day look primitive to more advanced humans than us. This is why its important to remember to err is human and people still have feelings. It is not our job to tell other people how to live. We should respect a person's right to believe in their religion, or leprechauns, or fairies, or anus probing aliens, or anything nearly else they wish... with the caveat they support peaceful co-existence.

    66. Re:Litigious Much by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      You might want to bone up on the Liebeck vs. McDonalds case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Irrelevant.

    67. Re:Litigious Much by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 0

      Clock Boy, the sidekick to Litigation Man!

    68. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern Evangelicalism is the predominate form of Christianity in most of the Southern United States. It crosses denominations--there are Evangelical Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and even Catholics. (At my Roman Catholic church near Pensacola, FL, there was a small group of of parishioners who met on weekends and would speak in tongues. Our Cuban priest would nearly roll his eyes when you asked him about it. Some of our parishioners, as well as some ministers in the area, would gossip that he wasn't Christian "enough"--he drank beer and drove around in a nice cadillac. And yet he was the only minister in the area regularly volunteering at and donating to the local, non-denominational, shelters and food banks. Shocker. Whereas every other church in the area had their own tiny poverty programs which did little for poor residents who weren't members of that particular church, with the possible exception of the mega churches.)

      Evangelicalism being predominate, I wouldn't surprised if most Christian schools in the South are hostile to Darwinian evolution and favor some form of creationism al al biblical literalism. I'm sure there are some Evangelical schools that have found a way to teach the science earnestly and sincerely, but I'd be surprised if they weren't few and far between, simply because of the level of involvement of the local communities, which are unarguably hostile to evolution.

      By contrast, Catholic schools won't do this even if the parishioners are largely Evangelical because the curriculum is controlled by the higher-ups, and Darwinian evolution (as it accords with modern science) is the official stance of the Church. It's not quite doctrine, but nearly so, as the Catholic church (Roman, Eastern Orthodox, modern, and historical) has _always_ eschewed biblical literalism from the earliest years. Some of the earliest writings of Catholic leaders (i.e. from the 2nd century onwards) would rebuke gnostics on the one hand and biblical literalists on the other. Literalism of some form has flourished among the community, but it's never been doctrinal, per se, even when Galileo was punished. And Roman Catholicism at least holds that God wouldn't play tricks, so to speak, by making the empirical world appear intrinsically contradictory with the underlying truth. According to Roman Catholic theology (though not necessarily other Catholic religions) the relationship of the mystical world and the empirical world is unknown and unknowable, except that the empirical world is structured such that a person is capable of discovering the Christian God through reasoning--self-reflection, examination of his conscience, and examination of the empirical world. The bible isn't even necessary. This is obviously an inheritance from the Greek schools and Plato in particular. Other Catholics churches drew from heavily from other philosophical traditions, with much less emphasis on Plato and his heirs. But the general ideas should be quite similar, especially as compared to later Protestant traditions.

    69. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it depends

    70. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no. That simply isn't so. Logically, if you accept that somewhere at sometime, some religious person is nuts and stupid, then it is clear that all religious and all religion is nuts and stupid, and only those uttering half-intelligible slanders against religion have true enlightenment. Counter examples of religious moderates behaving reasonably will not help your case here.

    71. Re:Litigious Much by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Many people believe that something is needed to start the Universe (God). That does not mean that they agree with any particular Theology and in fact may speak against their practices.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    72. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how much is an acceptable amount to sue for? What value would be low enough to not financially bankrupt them, but still high enough that it cannot simply be written off as the cost of doing business? No I am not saying that $15 million definitely fits the bill, but you seem to be of the impression that $15 million definitely does not fit the bill. So I am curious what number you came up with, and how you arrived at that amount.

    73. Re:Litigious Much by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You DO realize that he's moving to Qatar [cnn.com] right?

      Qatar is Amsterdam compared to Texas. You know, they only have two things in Texas, right?

      And you don't look like a steer.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    74. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If agnostics are "cowards" then atheists are fools. They are making a universal statement without the proof to back it up. "There is no god" .... really? “Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” -- G. K. Chesterton.

    75. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As for atheists, many are "believers" just like christians"

      Lack of belief is not belief. It's is a logical contradiction akin to saying 0 is 1. Atheism is no more an ideology than non-belief in a tooth fairy represents an ideology. All atheism represents is non-belief in religion. Religion has accompanying canon. With a non-belief there is no canon. This is precisely why atheists fall all over the map ideologically. (conservatives, liberals, communists, fascists, libertarians, you name it)

      Mind you, I also get annoyed by those that form "atheist" churches (which is just falling back into the same trap of religion as you mention) . I don't even like the word "atheism" because it leads to this sort of nonsense. While I use it to be coherent (for lack of a better term) I find the term silly. There is no special term for non-belief in unicorns but seemingly because of the pressure of various religions we have have to have a word for non-belief in God. (blasphemy being another one.... a capital offense even in the west not so long ago)

      I used to know someone Hindi that accused atheists (including me) of being "arrogant". This is a common accusation by believers and agnostics. From my standpoint it's the believers and agnostics that appear to prone to arrogance. Try and look the issue of belief in anything whatsoever not from the standpoint of atheism, agnosticism or religion but purely through an examination of reason itself.

      X believes in Z.
      X has no evidence Z is true
      Y says they don't believe Z theory because X has no evidence Z is true
      X says there is no way to prove Z is not true - ergo accuses Y of "arrogance'

      Who is the more arrogant? Faith alone is not an argument pro or con something. Faith is not a legitimate form of evidence. Faith effectively is an argument against reason. It is an argument to put aside reason precisely because the person knows their case is weak.

      The error in agnostic line of thinking is very similar. They confuse absence of evidence as evidence. Every individual believes things to be true and false (including agnostics). Using the rational of an agnostic, any answer of false could be argued as "close minded". The agnostic thinks the atheist is close minded to possibilities because they misunderstand the rationale behind the firmer stance. Provide evidence, a booming voice from the skies, angels, something tangible, and even the most hardened atheist would alter their world view.

      We have never seen alien life, but it's plausible based on the size of the universe and other things we know about it, that there are some out there. The problem for the religion and the agnostic argument, is not only is there no evidence, there isn't even plausible evidence. It's like asking someone to believe in flying unicorns. Sure maybe somewhere in the universe there is a planet with less gravity that has something approximating a unicorn.. but it wasn't a unicorn in the sense of those that claimed to have seen one on earth. Its something completely different that just coincidentally had a few similar properties . So is it close minded and arrogant to consider unicorns a myth? Or is it foolish to consider it a realistic possibility?

      For the record, I'm not saying being a non-believer is some sort of moral and intellectual panacea. Again, atheism isn't an ideology. There is still lots of room for bad behavior and believing stupid things.. Nor do I believe that all religious people are evil dumb fucks. Religion or non-religion is just one aspect of a person's personality. What defines a painting isn't just dab of paint in one corner. It's the entire work.

    76. Re:Litigious Much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "the big bang theory began with members of the clergy"

      Yes, but I hear Johnny Galecki has finally gotten over that after years of therapy.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    77. Re:Litigious Much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Friar is the Father I see what you did there!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    78. Re: Litigious Much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Please take note that both of these men members of the Catholic Clergy and not some fundamentalist offshoot that could not learn to get along with others. "

      Right! They are no offshoot that could not learn to get along with others, they are the king kahunas of religions that could not learn to get along with others, to the point where they killed, maimed, and tortured people on a fairly regular basis for quite some time. Now it's pretty much limited to child molestation I suppose, but agreed, the Catholics are no offshoot!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    79. Re: Litigious Much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I just basically like anyone who breaks up the status quo.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    80. Re:Litigious Much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm white and I agree, but then I'm a Nihilist :-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    81. Re: Litigious Much by roca · · Score: 1

      "500 years burning alive anyone who practiced science"?

      I assume this is a troll, or just a bad joke.

    82. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's okay because it's islam.

    83. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really. They moved to the middle east

    84. Re:Litigious Much by gringer · · Score: 1

      I don't see how that would help, he'd surely get into trouble again if he tried to bring a Hellfire missile to school, even if he has all of the paperwork for it.

      Ah, the old slashdot switcheroo.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    85. Re:Litigious Much by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      I know it's really really hard to overcome your deep-seated internal stereotypes, but just because someone is religious does not mean they don't do science.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    86. Re:Litigious Much by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Qatar is Amsterdam compared to Texas. You know, they only have two things in Texas, right?

      Really? I didn't know they had mandated religious courses in public schools in The Netherlands. They sure do have mandated classes in Qatar for religion though. Texas on the other hand, doesn't.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    87. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the amount of inconvenience, a couple of hundred bucks sounds about right.

    88. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing to "bone up" on for that case. Idiot spills hot coffee in her own lap, blames McDick's for it being too hot. Anyone not touched in the head knows that coffee is made with water that is up to and including 100degC. Hence, expect coffee to be up to 100degC when served and act accordingly. Fail to act accordingly, and you get reminded as to why you should respect hot liquids with the burn you deserved.

      Pandering to whiny shits like that is what is dragging America into the ground. A once great nation of independent thinkers and hard workers, now a playground of crybabies who want their easy windfall so that they never have to work again.

    89. Re:Litigious Much by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Goddamnit!

      You owe me for a new monitor, I was taking a drink when I read that..

    90. Re:Litigious Much by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      ...and yet nothing was needed to start god. curious that.

    91. Re:Litigious Much by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I was never actually arrested.

      Trust me, I recognize the privileges my European ancestry gives me.

    92. Re:Litigious Much by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 1

      Your mistake is that you seem to think that agnosticism is a position on a linear spectrum somewhere between the fundamentalist and atheism extents, where the 'God' on the left side is one of your dictative, vengeful, scripture-dispersing types. Personally, I think it is as silly to state with certainty there is no larger force or entity at work in the universe as it is to state that you have any clue as to what that entity is thinking. If such an entity exits, its patterns of thinking or action would be so impossible to distinguish from the general workings of the universe as to make its existence irrelevant to us. It sure as hell isn't telling us to eat fish on Friday, of that I feel quite certain. I can't possibly prove/disprove know what to make of this entity if it exists, consequently I waste very little time worrying about whether or not it does. This strikes me as a far more rational position than either fundamentalism or atheism, who both spend far more time arguing this question than it deserves. If it turns out the universe is a hologram projected on the back of a turtle, both fundies and atheists will be proven to have wasted so much energy being wrong, and I will just say 'Oh, shit that's pretty cool'.

    93. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The old testament does not say the world is 6,000 years old."

      Be that as it may, in practice you well know no small number of christian fundamentalists believe this nonsense.

      It is only no small number because you limit the count to fundamentalists. If you go with Christians in general it is a small number.

      "Elements of the story of Noah may be true"

      Elements of virtually any story are true. This does not dismiss the point there are clearly many factual errors in the Bible, Torah and Koran.

      You are thinking like a creationist, expecting these books to be literal not figurative. Again, many churches take the figurative view and believe that a social lesson is being conveyed in the narrative not a historical lesson.

      They are works of mostly fiction with often questionable values but are pawned off as unquestionable.

      Again, you are thinking like a fundamentalists, a literalist, most christians are not.

      "To many Christians Adam is not the first man in a biological sense"

      According to bible it is... ergo an instance where we can say the bible is wrong. (one of many)

      Uh, no, this was explained. In theological circles modern man is defined by when the "soul" was installed. This theological definition is not in conflict with science, the biological definition of Homo sapiens sapiens is not disputed.

      "Only the agnostics are really scientific"

      To be blunt, I see agnostics as cowards. Agnostics act like they are open minded but what they are really doing is playing Pascal's wager on some level. If someone came up to an agnostic and claimed that aliens dressed as Elvis would abducted them and put a probe up their anus if they didn't believe in them.. they wouldn't take them remotely seriously. There, literally, is a far far more realistic chance of that happening than there is of some super being that created all of existence with all the details described by sundry religions of the world.

      Your dogma blinds you. :-) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic or religion. It is a big leap to your Elvis impersonating aliens, a small leap from there to aliens mistaken as gods. Aliens capable of traveling interstellar distances should have no trouble with genetic engineering of species and claiming some sort of creator status, interacting with them on a large scale catastrophe scale if desired, etc. So no, your premise of creator god-like aliens is not less likely than your Elvis impersonating aliens.

      And you fail with respect to understanding agnostics. Without any evidence of their existence the Elvis impersonating aliens are of no more interest than god. Again, both require a bit of pot or beer before any conversation on those topics gets going. :-)

    94. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science not legal in jeebus land. Brains too burned out from hot sun.

    95. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not just that, Qatar is one of the 2 Wahhabi countries in the Islamic empire - the other being Saudi Arabia. While the Emirates and Oman are relatively liberal by Muslim standards, that's not true about Qatar. There, if you are a non-Muslim and are caught practising your religion by others - even within the privacy of your home - you are in trouble. That's not true about either Irving nor Amsterdam.

    96. Re: Litigious Much by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I think GP was being facetious. Although at times, it's tough to tell

    97. Re:Litigious Much by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Ok, I liked Clock Boy but this is just dumb. And $15 million?"

      Imagine how much this kid might be suing for if he had done something original.

    98. Re:Litigious Much by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      With all due respect to your father, Mendel and Lemaitre (and Lamarck, for that matter) probably knew more about both religion and science than he did.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    99. Re: Litigious Much by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "A church that spent 500 years burning alive anyone who practiced science and singlehandedly held back humanity's progress for 5 centuries.

      Flog Torquemada and the Dark Ages Vatican all you want to, but it eventually learned to live as part of civilization, and practices astronomy today. Imagine if there were a religion that once practiced astronomy, but degenerated over the years to burning people alive today.

    100. Re:Litigious Much by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      It would be more correct to say that some specifics are up for debate, in the sense that the work of science is never done.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    101. Re:Litigious Much by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      You might find some chaff in that list, but you'll see there's still plenty of scientists in multiple fields that are tied to the Church.

      If the alternative is the tenure track, grant-chasing, publish-or-perish career path, I can kind of see the appeal.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    102. Re:Litigious Much by quenda · · Score: 1

      That which Mendel showed is not a theory, but well understood and proven fact.

      So you think the word "theory" means an unproven hypothesis? Are you from Texas?

    103. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 1

      "As for atheists, many are "believers" just like christians"

      Lack of belief is not belief.

      Atheists with a more agnostic disposition don't seem to be the topic. Atheists who offer a firm "there is no god" position are. They are believers.

      ... it wasn't a unicorn in the sense of those that claimed to have seen one on earth.

      Well someone may have seen one on earth in the sense that they misinterpreted fossilized remains. Fossils are believed to have contributed to many mythological creatures. Even modern paleontologists have misidentified remains and put together a creature using fossils from two different species that were coincidentally found together. Some such composites sat in museums unchallenged for decades.

    104. Re: Litigious Much by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      The Protestants made a big deal out of a lie. The same Protestants who today have so much trouble understanding science isn't an attack on thier religion.

      No, they are not "the same Protestants". The post-1970s US-style evangelical fundamentalists weren't around in the days of Galileo.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    105. Re: Litigious Much by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      [...] the Catholics are no offshoot!

      There are some Eastern Orthodox would would disagree with that assessment.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    106. Re:Litigious Much by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Some bishop interpreting the old testament came to that conclusion, [...]

      James Ussher gets a lot of crap for this, and I think it's quite unfair. He didn't just use the Hebrew sacred texts, he actually used all ancient texts at his disposal, such as Greek mythological texts, and found that they all stopped at around the same point. When you consider the constraints that he was working with, this is actually quite a scientific approach. Moreover, 4000 BCE is probably close to the limit of human cultural memory, given that writing wasn't developed until about 3000 BCE.

      Ussher was neither the first nor the last person to try this and come up with a similar figure. We probably wouldn't remember Ussher's chronology today if it weren't for some idiot adding it to annotations in the King James Bible.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    107. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Lemaître was horrified when people would associate his religion with the science he did.

    108. Re: Litigious Much by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      The boy and his family might not deserve the $15 million, but the school certainly deserves having it taken from them.

      If I could give you all the mod points, I would.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    109. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know? Racist much?

    110. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably all Eastern Orthodox churches would disagree, even the ones still in communion with Rome. Eastern liturgical rites are more recent than some of the oldest rites still practiced in the Roman church, but they're still older by almost a millennia compared to the previous Tridentine liturgy, not to mention the modern Vatican II liturgy.

      Eastern Catholics overstate how "original" they are (especially the Russians), but it's beyond dispute they're more "authentic" than modern Catholic rites.

      That said, in the United States, Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians all share the same lectionary--order of official readings for daily and weekly worship. They coordinate through a national body, the CCT. (See http://www.commontexts.org/history/members.html) Of course, some of the latter Protestant denominations allow their individual churches to depart more freely from the official calendar of readings and liturgy. But I still think it's rather interesting.

      The general progression of service in all the above denominations is still roughly same as described by, e.g., the apologist Justin Martyr in the 2nd century AD. The biggest difference being the regularity and treatment of taking the eucharist.

      FWIW, I track this stuff out of sheer curiosity, not because I'm devout. I find the habits of other cultures similarly interesting, although I have much less personal experience with such things.

    111. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The orthogonal fields being reality and bullshit.

    112. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I know it's really hard to overcome your deep-seated internal stereotypes, but just because someone thinks religion is bullshit does not mean they have claimed or think that no religious people can do science.

    113. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Just because people are claiming that religion is an enemy of science doesn't make the claim "Person X is associated with Y and is a scientist, therefore Y is very scientific", any more legitimate, regardless of whether it's the catholic church, belgian army, republicans, democrats, communists, or nazis.

    114. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A church that spent 500 years burning alive anyone who practiced science and singlehandedly held back humanity's progress for 5 centuries. Seriously, if it wasn't for the damn catholics I'd be living on a spaceship right now.

      Burning anyone who practiced science? That is simply not true. Do you know what the word "anyone" means?
      And if you think Bruno was burned for practicing science, then you have been mis-informed.

    115. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 1

      Some bishop interpreting the old testament came to that conclusion, [...]

      James Ussher gets a lot of crap for this, and I think it's quite unfair. He didn't just use the Hebrew sacred texts, he actually used all ancient texts at his disposal, such as Greek mythological texts, and found that they all stopped at around the same point. When you consider the constraints that he was working with, this is actually quite a scientific approach. Moreover, 4000 BCE is probably close to the limit of human cultural memory, given that writing wasn't developed until about 3000 BCE.

      Ussher was neither the first nor the last person to try this and come up with a similar figure. We probably wouldn't remember Ussher's chronology today if it weren't for some idiot adding it to annotations in the King James Bible.

      The problem is not the historical post-genesis chronology. The problem is the literal interpretation of a "day" in genesis as a 24 hour period. That is the critical flaw. Saying that about 6,000 years ago a homo sapiens sapiens named Adam was the first given a "soul" and thus became the first "true man" and things get quite a bit less controversial. Then we're squabbling about 200,000 vs 6,000 years with respect to common ancestors of modern humanity. A bit of an improvement over 13 billion vs 6,000 years.

    116. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      Science is a process of acquiring knowledge (i.e. the scientific method). The church can support science all it wants. Anyone can support science. Nazis supported science. This doesn't make Catholicism scientific for the same reason it doesn't make Nazism scientific.

      I resent the disingenuous attempt to legitimize religion by associating it with religion. Religious people are able to be scientists because people are apparently able to harbor conflicting ideologies. An atheist can be a priest. A creationist can be an evolutionary biology teacher. I was actually taught evolution in the 11th grade by a catholic science teacher who did not believe in evolution, and he did a perfectly good job.

    117. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 1

      The orthogonal fields being reality and bullshit.

      No. The measurable and the philosophical. Your dogma is interfering with your understanding, you are so amusingly like some fundamentalist christians.

    118. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck I saw: I sure hope he plans on detonating a lot of that to science

    119. Re: Litigious Much by jasno · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A few of us current engineers got started as kids doing stupid things that only resembled real engineering. I used to spend my allowance at radio shack buying random components only to hook them up to a 9v battery and a metal file to make sparks.

      Take away the backstory about how his dad probably used the kid for politics and political gain, and take away the family's scary religion, and you have a guy a lot of us would sympathize with. We were weird kids who did stupid things and scared people.

      I guess if I sat around listening to the right wing shitstorm over the issue I might feel differently. As much as I am appalled at the family's lawsuit and monetary demands, I have to admit that they did a good job trolling a bunch of stupid school administrators and small town law enforcement. The over reaction of the school and cops opened them up to this. Seriously... interrogating a kid without his parents? I remember when they tried that shit on me.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    120. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You liked him? Is it wrong for me to expect more from slashdot people? You guys are supposed to be intelligent.

      Clock boy didn't invent anything. He dissembled a 1980 Tandy alarm clock and taped it back together and said he invented a clock. A clock that suspiciously resembled a miniature suitcase bomb. Why anyone would do this is a mystery. I have my theories of course, such as the islamacist father putting him up to it bc he knew there would be an uproar.

      Come on people. It was a setup, designed to make money and show the world that all muslims are peace loving people. These people cleaned up after it and want even more. I can't be the only person here to see the obvious.

    121. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      There were some great philosophers who also happened to be Catholic. That doesn't make Catholicism or religion in general equivalent to the field of philosophy. There were some really great scientists who were Nazis. That doesn't make Nazism scientific.

      Also science is not *just* about the measurable (i.e. the empirical), it also involves the theoretical and philosophical. In addition to answering questions, science also requires some insight into what questions are worth asking. Religion really has not offered a whole lot on this front. Sure some religious people have thought of some very good questions to ask, but given that most of the world (including scientists) were religious for the vast majority of human history, it sort of makes sense that a lot of contributors were also religious. You could also say that most scientific discoveries were made by people wearing clothing. That doesn't make the clothing responsible for the discoveries.

      In fact the guiding philosophy of nearly every religion is antithetical to the guiding philosophy of science. The fact that some of the more progressive religions feel the need to associate themselves with science to gain legitimacy is a testament to the credibility of science. No amount of religion was going to get us to the moon. There were a lot of religious people who helped us get to the moon. But if they tried to justify a formula by saying God told them it was correct, they would not have had a job for very long.

      Yes science and religion are orthogonal, just like how science and astrology are orthogonal.

      If I find a good philosopher who is also a practicing palm reader, should I be able to claim that science and palm reading are non-overlapping majesteria, where science provides the empirical and palm reading provides the philosophy? What if he is as smart as Thomas Aquinas and has some really beautifully written justifications on why all metaphysical truths can be known from deciphering the meanings encoded in the creases in hand skin.

      I think I can appreciate the intelligence of a person without believing everything they say, especially in light of more recently acquired knowledge.

      I can appreciate the genius of Isaac Newton without believing in his theories on the occult, alchemy, etc. We shouldn't grant alchemy credence just because the great Isaac Newton is associated with it.

    122. Re: Litigious Much by Sun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's because people are ignorant.

      The learning process starts where he did. Take something apart, try to put it together. Hailing him as a genius was being carried away, but labelling him a terrorist was even worse. This is how children learn. It's how we want children to learn.

      Anyone who expects a child that has never learned proper electronics to build an electronic clock from scratch on first attempt is simply ignorant.

      Shachar

    123. Re:Litigious Much by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      I think you're confused about the meaning of agnostic and atheist, as these are answers to different questions. The agnostic answers "no" to the question "do you know God exists?". The atheist answers "no" to the question "do you believe in God?". In many cases, the agnostic answer automatically leads to the atheist position (why would you believe in God if you have no knowledge of her?)

    124. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God and "here is no larger force or entity at work in the universe" are nor the same thing. There might be many entitiesfar more advanced then us.. none of them the same "God" as described by religion. Keeping things vague is one of traps of agnosticism.

      b. You confuse our lack of omniscience as meaning we can't know things that fall out of the range of our senses. Reason allows a human being, with a high degree of confidence, to be able to predict aspects of existence that we have never experienced through extrapolation. None of us have never set foot on the on distant stars we have never seen be we all know they are hot because of our comparable experiences here on earth. This isn't to say there isn't aspects of reality we haven't yet even imagined by I suspect they are far far richer than myths by primitives of some "god".

    125. Re:Litigious Much by rhodium_mir · · Score: 1

      Or a countdown timer. He could set it for 48 HOURS.

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    126. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #worldssmallestviolin

    127. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not racist to discriminate against "our own", apparently. How the logic works, I'm not sure, but that's how most people react.

    128. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nazis main contribution to science was the idea that intelligence is genetic, based on data from studying twins and flawed statistical analysis. It wasn't until the 1990:s that mainstream science realised that the twin studies where wrong and that the brain could vary its size like muscles.

      The nazis poured in money into research that would validate their claims and anyone that would question them or don't ridicule those who did wouldn't get funding.

      That made a lot of the nazi ideology scientific, as in accepted as science by the scientific community. In turn that did a lot of damage and still does. Many people still believe that intelligence is genetic and makes decisions based on that.

      Similarly the Catholic Church has spent an incredible about of money onto research that supports a creator and other ideas that benefits them. The dominance of the big bang theory for example has a lot to thank Catholic funding, other theories that doesn't support creationism doesn't get funding. And if you do not ridicule people that claims that the universe always existed, you will have problems getting Catholic and other Christian funding. Or any other idea that contracts that the universe was created.

      The church does invest a lot in science, and therefore has a lot of influence over it. That possibly makes it a bit more scientific than it should be.

    129. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, that's not impressive. Until about 100 years ago, pretty much the only way to work as an intellectual was if you were a priest. Moreover, being an avowed atheist was not the smartest move, just as admitting today that you're an atheist in parts of the US is STILL not the smartest move.

      Basically, the church was so strongly embedded into society that you either played their game, or wasted half your life fighting them. If all you want to do is a bit of physics or some other science, it's silly to waste half your life fighting matters of principle.

    130. Re:Litigious Much by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      And Isaac Newton spent a lot of time trying to figure out when Armageddon would happen (sometime after 2060 apparently) so what's your point?

      The attempt alone is pretty blasphemous, as the scripture says that only the head honcho knows, and no one else.

      And the only hint we have is "soon", coming from a timeless entity whose perception of time might not necessarily corrsepond to ours.

      My guess is that it happens around the time the universe has expanded enough to preclude the existence of atomic nuclei.

    131. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but that's not the incorrect assumption you made. You assumed that they do science in contradiction to their religion which they don't. Not only do they do science in the name of God, they tend to explore and support theories that are in line with their religion. And they tend to disregard or ridicule those that doesn't.

    132. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muzzie is not a race. Excrements are not a "race".

    133. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You are thinking like a creationist, expecting these books to be literal not figurative. Again, many churches take the figurative view and believe that a social lesson is being conveyed in the narrative not a historical lesson1"

      Although you claim that most are looking at their religious works figuratively this is just you projecting your own views on others. Polling on the other hand consistently shows large numbers of Americans take religious works literally.
      http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html

      "Again, you are thinking like a fundamentalists, a literalist, most christians are not."

      An inversion of the facts. I am not the one that take religious work literally.. that would be many deists that do that. I well understand that some Christians try take things metaphorically. However this does not dismiss that contrary to your prior assertion many do take parts of the bible literally.

      Let me say it again. the Bible, like the Torah, like the Koran, is a work of mostly fiction. What's very troubling is some of those complaining about Islamic extremists are religious extremists themselves. There are far more Christian and Jewish extremists in America than Muslim ones. Nearly 50 percent of Republicans think Islam should be illegal. That is an extreme position and extreme number. (essentially the same position ISIS has towards Christianity). I couldn't care less about Islam but I do care about freedom. Those that look to ban an entire religions are not to be trusted around the word freedom. The wise forefathers understood this but some seem to have forgotten that lesson today.

      "Uh, no, this was explained. In theological circles modern man is defined by when the "soul" was installed. This theological definition is not in conflict with science, the biological definition of Homo sapiens sapiens is not disputed."

      You are projecting your own perceptions again rather than what people actually believe. There is no religious consensus as you are trying to suggest. Many Americans take the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth. This is precisely why a large segment of population doesn't believe in evolution. Given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary this is also an extreme position.

      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic "

      Love that saying... but you are taking Arthur C. Clark out of context.

      "It is a big leap to your Elvis impersonating aliens, a small leap from there to aliens mistaken as gods. Aliens capable of traveling interstellar distances should have no trouble with genetic engineering of species and claiming some sort of creator status, interacting with them on a large scale catastrophe scale if desired, etc. So no, your premise of creator god-like aliens is not less likely than your Elvis impersonating aliens."

      Based on this.... and your prior assertions...I can clearly see the flaw in your reasoning process. You keep making the exact same mistake. I am going to tell you what it is even though based on the combativeness of your last reply it is unlikely you will listen. There is a wonderful zen koan about a cup being too full. Your ego is going to step in the way from listening to good advice. Here goes any how...

      You abuse metaphor. One can certainly use analogy until they "prove" entity A is essentially entity B but this doesn't make it so.

      So in this instance, even if there were God-like aliens they would still not be the God as described in the religions of the world. All the analogies you make to try to find real world "proof' that sundry religions are plausible are just distortions of concepts. Anyone can found an religion/ Claim a long list of untrue things. If someone questions them they can also start saying it's all just metaphorical and drawing analogies up the ying yand to "prove" their religion is real.. when what it represented was a work of fiction. (much like science fiction but sc

    134. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Atheists with a more agnostic disposition don't seem to be the topic. Atheists who offer a firm "there is no god" position are. They are believers."

      Non-belief is not a belief system because again there is no accompanying canon. Atheism isn't like a religion. It isn't a philosophy Someone can certainly analogize atheism in that manner beause they are hostile towards atheists but it is their own broken logic due to poor understanding of metaphor. Its like claiming those that have a non-belief in the tooth fairy subscribe to a belief system of atoothfairyism. There is no such ideology. It's a fiction of words.

      "Well someone may have seen one on earth in the sense that they misinterpreted fossilized remains."

      A misunderstanding of reality is precisely what I am arguing. Unicorns and religion are untrue.

    135. Re:Litigious Much by SomeoneFromBelgium · · Score: 1

      You could also say "The big bang theory began with the Belgian Army", because he was also in that.

      Which would only be relevant if people were complaining that the Belgian Army was an enemy of science. However given that at the moment they seem to be deployed on the streets of Brussels trying to keep religious fanatics from killing people I don't think this is something we need to worry about.

      Just to keep you on the good side: religion is not an enemy of science either. At least not in Belgium ;-)
      The Catholic University of Leuven (one of the biggest univeristies of Belgium) is very much against teaching anything else that science in science class. I can assure you that.

    136. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agnostics should learn to be more open minded about aliens dressed up as Elvis looking to examine human anuses.

      The above is essentially the absurdity of the agnostic position. It is not "open minded'. It is not "tolerant'. These are emotional based moralistic arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the known physics and math of the situation. Not a single atom has ever hinted at the existence of Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, God, Mithra or any number of entities people have claimed over the ages. Not one. Its plausible there are far more advanced intelligence out there but rest assured they are not the same "gods" that religions were referencing. Religions are essentially stories people with anxieties over death to sooth their fears over death. There is no need for these stories though. If anything they have become a negative and destructive towards humanity.

      When it comes to metaphysics.. this is about as deep as anyone can speculate with any degree of confidence with out current level of knowledge.

      While some atheists claim death is the end for certain this is very possibly a poor extrapolation of the available evidence. Although we can't say for certain yet, there are plausible reasons to suspect that our deaths are not the end. In nature, no matter how rare an event might be, given enough time rare events happen. We may not understand consciousness completely yet but we know for certain our consciousness, whatever it might represent, existed once. I think therefore I am.

      If time and existence is infinite, which it very plausibly might be, there is good reason to believe no matter how improbable the chances of our arising again may be, given enough time it will occur. I can't give details, I don't believe gods are involved, or karma. It seems to boil down to chance. The infinite is a very long time and very big place. It seems plausible the dice will roll our way once and awhile.

    137. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " They are making a universal statement without the proof to back it up"

      Another poor agnostic argument. One could argue that about practically anything we've never seen.

      "Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” -- G. K. Chesterton."

      An inversion of logic... it the believer that is asserting that one has to prove a negative. The onus is the one making the claim not the one that disputes it due to lack of available evidence. One doe not require omniscience to extrapolate on things outside of our line of our sight.

    138. Re:Litigious Much by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      If by "science" you mean creationism/intelligent design, Pi=3, genetics is wrong, evolution is a sin, and scientific theories are just "crazy ideas someguy once had that can't be proven"

      You do realize that lots of religious schools, even in Texas, teach evolution even with respect to humans, teach the big bang theory, teach that the discoveries of science are not in conflict with religion, that science and religion search for answers in orthogonal fields.

      FYI, genetic science and the big bang theory began with members of the clergy.

      You could add 'revisionist history' to what is taught in Texas, even in public schools.
      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
      http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    139. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 1

      Also science is not *just* about the measurable (i.e. the empirical), it also involves the theoretical and philosophical.

      No, its not that simple. A key part of science is being able to test theories. Make predictions, make observations (measurements), determine if the predictions hold, etc. Untestable theories, things that can not be measured are of little interest to science, for example the existence of god and what god's intentions and expectations are. Note that the unobservable is not necessarily unmeasurable, things can be measured by their effect, ex. dark matter's gravitational effect.

      In fact the guiding philosophy of nearly every religion is antithetical to the guiding philosophy of science.

      That is a historically ignorant statement. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc had no conflict with science. Their knowledge may have been limited, their interpretations of observations wrong, but they had a curiosity and a desire to understand their world. The modern scientific method evolved and was formalized out of their limited but improving efforts.

    140. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the Texas schools that tend to do better with science tend to do better with history too.

    141. Re:Litigious Much by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      I hope he does, just so you go apoplectic and have a stroke.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    142. Re:Litigious Much by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Your understanding of what "theory" mean is the problem.

      Evolutionary "theory" has been proven, over, and over again. We can even demonstrate it very, very well with computer programs. We rely upon it for our daily lives when we eat meats, vegetables, grains, and fruits that have been anthropomorphically coerced to evolve to their present states. We see it happen in viruses, and fruit flies (to name but a few species) in our own very short life spans.

      Sorry, there is Zero debate about whether the theory of evolution is correct - at least among people with a brain.

    143. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conflicting ideologies? Actually, science is merely a subset of theology. Theology being the study of everything, and science being the study of nature (a subset of "everything"). A religious scientist tries to understand God's creation and the philosophy driving natural design. Whereas other scientists stop at the "nature" part of the equation.

    144. Re:Litigious Much by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      He was probably also a nice person, which means you and he are nothing alike.

    145. Re: Litigious Much by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      I dunno. He's not violent, but he and his family are now terrorizing the school district and/or the police department.

      He was told to do what he did, and his father almost certainly coached him on how to "show" it in class to garner the precise reaction he got. Ahmed and his family should be airdropped into Aleppo and left to fend for themselves.

    146. Re:Litigious Much by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      It would do you a world of good to take some of that McDonalds's coffee and dunk your head in it for approximately 30 minutes.

    147. Re:Litigious Much by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      He didn't suffer in the slightest. He should be paying for all the attention he got, not being paid for it. And his father should be raped by a bulldog.

    148. Re:Litigious Much by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Or if he actually suffered!

    149. Re: Litigious Much by Sun · · Score: 1

      While I agree 15M is overboard, I still wouldn't call what they're doing "terrorizing". Both the school and the police fucked up royally. There is no other way to look at it. Furthermore, they refused to acknowledge their fuckup. This is true even if he was coached to behave as he did (for which I'd love to see evidence). In the end, the way he behaved did not warrant the response he got.

      Shachar

    150. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He needs the pocket change to feel he is at the same level as the local kids.

    151. Re: Litigious Much by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I dunno. He's not violent, but he and his family are now terrorizing the school district and/or the police department.

      That's bullshit, and you're a bullshit person for saying it. Actions have consequences. The school district and the police department are rotten. The people of the region have permitted them to become that way, and now they are going to have to pay for it. Perhaps they will get a little more involved in their local government in the future when they have to pay the taxes that will cover their upcoming budget deficit, and fuck them anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    152. Re:Litigious Much by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Or...he could STFU and leave it with the local school district...which would use it to teach science.

      From the evidence available, they would use it to abuse students. I think it's responsible to take their money away. If they fail, perhaps we can get a working alternative.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    153. Re: Litigious Much by Maritz · · Score: 1

      It's nice that they've finally removed all doubt as to what was going on. This was the whole point.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    154. Re:Litigious Much by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The lawsuit for 15M is pretty good evidence that it was all about getting into a position to launch a lawsuit for 15M.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    155. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see...
      The boy's father is an "activist".
      The boy's sister did a bomb scare in 2009.
      This has little to do with the boy or his sister, but is obviously a scheme by the activist father.
      The scheme didn't work in 2009 on the first attempt with the sister.
      The scheme in 2015, on 2nd attempt with the boy, is working wonderfully.

      Lesson?
      The "public" remains ignorant, as very few people due any fact checking.

    156. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What part of...

      I'd even have supported a minor lawsuit for some expenses related to moving schools and some punitive damages to prevent idiocy in the future

      ...do you not understand? I wasn't asking people who disagree with that notion, I was asking the person who actually said that line that I just quoted.

      You are free to disagree all you want, but your answer is completely worthless for the question that was asked.

    157. Re:Litigious Much by godefroi · · Score: 1

      OP didn't say it began with the clergy, he said it began with MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    158. Re: Litigious Much by MastaBaba · · Score: 1

      Are you saying Ahmed got suspended twice in 48 hours?

    159. Re:Litigious Much by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Surely if he was American he'd be suing the for dissembling his clock

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    160. Re:Litigious Much by neoritter · · Score: 1

      That's kind of a different discussion.

    161. Re:Litigious Much by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Not to get off topic, but that's kind of the appeal and the strength of the Church's scientific work. They don't have to worry about those profit or subsistence driven timetables. They can take their time, study, restudy, then restudy some more. They can do the whole reproducibility part of science pretty well.

    162. Re:Litigious Much by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He asked for $15m, doesn't mean he is entitled to it or that he will get it. On top of that he seems to have some expensive legal representation, because his family isn't exactly poor. I don't see any reason why a rich white person couldn't file stupid lawsuits.

      No need to play the victim just because someone filed a ridiculous lawsuit. Stella Liebeck was white and got $2.86m out of Macdonald's for spilling coffee on herself. Are you going to claim ageism too because she was 79?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    163. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +10. More people should read and understand what you're pointing out here.

    164. Re:Litigious Much by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Had a calculator game I'd put perhaps 3 or 4 weeks of work into erased after leaving my calculator unattended.... That one almost escalated to a lawsuit

      That explain a lot. You are the type of person who gets so upset about misunderstandings and accidents that they consider litigation a suitable way to resolve them. What would you even have sued for, emotional distress?

      That one turned out to be blatant gender discrimination. I later found out they had no problem with what I was doing, as long as it was an empowered young woman doing it.

      I'd love to know how you made this determination, and considering your other comment why it didn't proceed to trial resulting in a big payout for yourself. If you are willing to sue over a calculator game, and you are certain that there was gender discrimination, that one seems like a slam dunk.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    165. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly my thoughts :-) Nothing has made this country greater than frivolous lawsuits :-)

    166. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qatar schools are secular for the most part and probably on par with the nicest private schools in America...that $15M might help pay for them...

    167. Re: Litigious Much by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Both the school and the police fucked up royally. There is no other way to look at it.

      Well, if the school board was specifically set up, I see it totally differently. We don't allow police entrapment for very good reasons. I don't think it's unreasonable to disallow citizen/b'crat entrapment for the same reasons.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    168. Re:Litigious Much by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Look you misandrist piece of shit, one of the things about supporting gender equality is the expectation that it means gender equality.

      That means not expecting favours because of your gender, and not expecting to be treated worse due to your gender.

      Is that so hard to grog?

    169. Re:Litigious Much by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Grok.

      Grog is a cause of spelling grok grog.

    170. Re: Litigious Much by kenh · · Score: 1

      He will use the money to fund his own university, Ahmed's Institute of Clock dis-assembly.

      --
      Ken
    171. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, considering he's a kid, he's got a bunch of years ahead of him to do more. But I'd also say the fact that he got interrogated and apparently kept his cool (in the face of police officers and school authorities badgering him to admit to a crime he didn't commit) is an admirable trait, especially in one so young.

    172. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His parents are known gold diggers. This was a rouse from the beginning.

    173. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She initially only asked for her medical bills, McDonalds treated her to a crappy offer of some pittance.

      Jury ended up awarding her the equivalent of two days worth of coffee sales...and held her partially at fault.

      So yeah, don't believe the marketing campaign. McDonald's was also found guilty of libel and slander for attacking critics in the UK.

    174. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      No, its not that simple. A key part of science is being able to test theories. Make predictions, make observations (measurements), determine if the predictions hold, etc.

      Yes that is a key part

      Untestable theories, things that can not be measured are of little interest to science

      It sort of depends. There is a difference between things that are practically untestable (e.g. string theory) and things that are untestable in principle.

      for example the existence of god and what god's intentions and expectations are.

      And also what the favorite color of invisible unicorns is

      Note that the unobservable is not necessarily unmeasurable, things can be measured by their effect, ex. dark matter's gravitational effect.

      I am quite familiar with how science works. And the terminology you are using is wrong. Dark matter is observable, it just doesn't interact electromagnetically, so it doesn't absorb or emit light. This makes it less observable not unobservable. Just like how infrared is less observable to humans not unobservable with the right instruments.

      That is a historically ignorant statement. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc had no conflict with science. Their knowledge may have been limited, their interpretations of observations wrong, but they had a curiosity and a desire to understand their world.

      A curiosity and a desire to understand the world is not sufficient for science. The innovations Egyptians, greeks, romans largely did was proto-science. It had a lot of the features of science, but it was also missing some key features. Science is not just proving what you know, it is also about proving what you don't know.

      Also, we have theoretical physics, mathematics, and logic, which are some of the non-empirical foundational building blocks of science. Black holes were predicted using mathematics before they were ever observed. The greek philosopher Democrates suggested the indivisibility of matter before such an idea could ever be tested.

      Divine revelation is not a valid move in the game of science. Any "knowledge" tainted by this sort of flawed methodology needs to be excised from the knowledge-base. It's not that nobody religious ever had a good idea. It;s that religion doesn't provide a good mechanism for relinquishing bad ideas. The good stuff is mixed in with centuries of bad ideas, and there is no good way to separate them.

      The scientific method is about weeding out the bad ideas.

      The modern scientific method evolved and was formalized out of their limited but improving efforts.

      Yes it did. And those key evolutionary changes that happened were extremely important. They allowed us to go from primitive societies where intelligent people occasionally had very good ideas to a society where the process of producing good ideas and weeding out bad ones is streamlined.

      And now with my main point out of the way, I will say that a lot of Greek mathematics were definitely legitimate math, and there was some overlap with science (e.g. Arhicmedes, Euclid, Pythagoras etc). But this was more in the theoretical realm moreso than the empirical realm. And as such, they were very good at coming up with ideas, and not so good at weeding out bad ones.

    175. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... actually ...

    176. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I can't be a nice person without accepting the belief's of others?

      I'm sure you are a very nice person, so make sure you respect my beliefs and accept them as the truth.

    177. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      And I am pointing out that this is as irrelevant as saying that it began with people who ate chocolate.

    178. Re:Litigious Much by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When you are given an advantage 99 times, and a disadvantage once, that doesn't mean you are "treated worse" because of your gender. You are treated better. Your confirmation bias doesn't change reality.

    179. Re:Litigious Much by Cederic · · Score: 1

      When you are discriminated against because of your gender, some cunt is being sexist.

      Why is that so hard for you to accept?

      I have no confirmation bias. I don't recognise this bullshit male privilege nonsense that feminists keep bleating on about. I sure as shit don't benefit from it. You'll have to forgive me for working for my own success, despite fighting against the multiple ways in which society disadvantages me, whether on gender or other grounds.

    180. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't kid yourself, most places in America are more batshit crazy than schools in Qatar.

    181. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lack of belief is not belief.

      Lack of belief is agnosticism. Atheism is a belief. It's just a belief in a negative. There's an important difference between "I don't believe that there is a god" and "I believe that there is no god".

    182. Re: Litigious Much by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I think you have theology confused with philosophy.

    183. Re: Litigious Much by Sun · · Score: 1

      Entrapment is when you solicit someone to break the law, and then arrest them for it.

      There was no solicitation here. There was a certain behavior that violated the "norm", and, arguably, socially accepted standards, but not the law and not the spirit of the law. Even if it was done on purpose, there is no justification for handcuffing someone, let alone a kid.

      And we do allow the police to pose temptations in order to apprehend criminals. We send undercover police women dressed in min-skirts to catch rapists and people soliciting for sex for money. That is far more "entrapment" than what this kid did.

      The bottom line is this. This kid did nothing wrong, and was harassed, handcuffed and arrested. This means the police, for sure, and the school, probably, fucked up. If he was an activist fighting for his right to bring weird shaped electronics to school, and not an innocent kid (which, again, I am yet to see evidence of), the police and school still fucked up.

      Shachar

    184. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen all of the dumb shit you did?

      You are just a stupid twat.

    185. Re:Litigious Much by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i don't know, but i'm not going to second-guess a man that invents calculus out of whole cloth... i think he should get the benefit of the doubt no?

      all i'm saying, is i'm going to enjoy the shit out of 2059.

    186. Re:Litigious Much by vilanye · · Score: 1

      That coffee was served at least 50 degrees hotter than it should have been.

      That is not a good example of a frivolous lawsuit, because it was anything but frivolous.

      As for this kid, I agree it is excessive but the school and cops need to be smacked down hard over their stupidity. Maybe it will force the teacher and cops into getting fired which is what should have happened the day of the incident.

    187. Re: Litigious Much by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      even at that age though... is there any sense of accomplishment?

      taking things apart, and trying to put them together again, that's the sense of accomplishment, figuring out how things work...

      changing enclosures isn't about curiousity.

    188. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 1

      I am quite familiar with how science works. And the terminology you are using is wrong. Dark matter is observable, it just doesn't interact electromagnetically, so it doesn't absorb or emit light. This makes it less observable not unobservable. Just like how infrared is less observable to humans not unobservable with the right instruments.

      No, your understanding is coming up short. Your infrared analogy is complete failure, an instrument to detect dark matter is as real today as your beloved unicorn. The direct detection problem, what I refer to as "observable" is not limited to electromagnetism. Only indirect inference has been used, what I refer to as "measurable".
      "Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    189. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 1

      i don't know, but i'm not going to second-guess a man that invents calculus out of whole cloth... i think he should get the benefit of the doubt no?

      all i'm saying, is i'm going to enjoy the shit out of 2059.

      Einstein might say you really want to do the partying in 2058.

    190. Re:Litigious Much by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      well that just goes without saying.

      but einstein wasn't as crazy as newton :)

    191. Re: Litigious Much by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Entrapment is when the illegal act would not have occurred but for the influence of the officer. We don't know if he influenced a harsher response, similar to how we don't often know if the cop was beating someone who wasn't resisting or if the criminal was resisting arrest.

      We only allow temptations to a degree.

      We have no clue if this kid did anything wrong. It depends on what was said inside the room. Arresting him seems over the top, but they arrest kids for using cellphones in class too. If he was disrupting the class with an electronic device, I don't see how the school necessarily fucked up in trying to get it away from him.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    192. Re: Litigious Much by kenh · · Score: 1

      Just curious here, if I'm reading your screed properly, all Christians that consider themselves 'good christians' must believe all the stories in the bible, and since you can point them out as false, then all Christians are ignorant fools for believing what's in the bible - is that about it?

      Then tell me, where does that leave people like President Obama, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi?

      Remember, President Obama attended Rev. Wright's church for over 20 years, had him officiate his wedding, baptize his children AND dedicated at least one of his two autobiographies to Rev. Wright. Rep. Pelosi said her favorite word is 'The Word' and speaks of her swap catholic faith every two years when she is up for re-election.

      Are they both ignorant fools to be openly mocked?

      --
      Ken
    193. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I liked him less and less as things went on - his family staging the picture of him in cuffs at the police station, and the fact that he didn't really build the clock - just took one apart and put it in a suitcase, for instance. The school was still wrong to involve the police, I think, but not $15M wrong.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    194. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      From what I read - and I admittedly don't have a source right now - the picture of him handcuffed in the station was staged by his family. The school still overreacted, but I think his family has certainly been stirring things up a lot too.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    195. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      If a man and a woman do the same thing, and the man gets in trouble and the woman doesn't, how is that not gender-based discrimination?

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    196. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      When you are given an advantage 99 times, and a disadvantage once, that doesn't mean you are "treated worse" because of your gender.

      Well, in that specific instance, it actually does. You know, like how men routinely get much longer and harsher prison sentences than women for the same crime.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    197. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      That one turned out to be blatant gender discrimination. I later found out they had no problem with what I was doing, as long as it was an empowered young woman doing it.

      I'd love to know how you made this determination, and considering your other comment why it didn't proceed to trial resulting in a big payout for yourself. If you are willing to sue over a calculator game, and you are certain that there was gender discrimination, that one seems like a slam dunk.

      Presumably, a young woman did the same thing and didn't get into trouble. As for not going to trial - men suing for gender discrimination are incredibly unlikely to a) win, and b) get much even if you do.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    198. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If with "religious schools" you mean "Catholic schools" then you are right.

      The Catholic church has long ago made "peace with science" and has understood that there is no conflict between science and religion. Evolution, genetics, big bang, none of that a problem for the Catholic church and their schools.

      However, there are plenty of other "Christian schools" which very much follow and teach a creationist view, say that evolution is merely a suggestion, not proven, and so on. Those schools need to be avoided!

      If you want your children to have a Christian education that doesn't teach them to be stupid and narrow minded, you need to send them to a Catholic school.

    199. Re:Litigious Much by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      I wasn't clear. My apologies.

      To answer AmiMoJo's question and your point, it would have been small claims court likely for perhaps a thousand or two for property destruction--nothing extravagant like Clock Boy here. I like how AmiMoJo didn't read the part where I mentioned the teacher was apologetic when she realized what she had done. I decided to forgive her and move on.

      The other incident, the one I suspect was blatant gender discrimination, was completely unrelated. Heh, perhaps I should have just replied to AmiMoJo instead, but that would be straying from why I registered an account again. To answer his concern that I'm the type of person that gets worked up over nothing, I'd like to think I'm not.

      Going through the effort to start an after school computer club, having it shut down by lying assholes threatening felony prosecution, and finding out years after I'd graduated that the district's "first" computer club was founded by a bright young woman, that is no small thing. In fact, I did get worked up about it when I found out. But that was over two decades ago.

      Oh, and regarding the computer club incident, having school officials blatantly lie to one's parents is also no small thing. So yes, I did get worked up about that as well. I'll bet the asshole administrators were disappointed that my parents didn't ground me for life lol.

      (Truth be told, at that time in my life, I was too naive to suspect I had just become an early victim of "two wrongs make a right" sexism.)

      Of course, since I'm just a dirty, mentally ill trans woman, I'm sure none of that would register for AmiMoJo had I responded to him. I just wanted to clarify.

    200. Re:Litigious Much by MercTech · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, how much money do you take from the idiots when they blithered their way to being a national laughing stock?

          I'd sue for 30 million then settle for sacking the idiots that pressed charges, a formal public apology from the school board, and lunch at MacDonald's.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    201. Re:Litigious Much by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Ugh, sorry to reply to myself.

      finding out years after I'd graduated that the district's "first" computer club was founded by a bright young woman, that is no small thing. In fact, I did get worked up about it when I found out.

      I got worked up because had I been given proper credit for what I did, starting a computer club, that would be something to put on a resume. The young woman? I don't know her, but hopefully she's a geek and a good-type hacker, so I guess more power to her.

      I'm just not the kind of person to roll over and let somebody else take undeserved credit. Well, I suppose credit is due where credit is due. Because of her gender, she was able to get through whatever the "proper channels" were for founding a club, whereas I got sandbagged, gaslighted, and ultimately accused of felony computer misuse because I didn't "go through the proper channels." I went to my homeroom teacher, and I put my faith in her that she knew what the "proper channels" were. The next year, the computer club's patron teacher was, well, what we call SJWs now, frankly, looking back. What a lesson a year and a half later when we were shut down and then a decade later when I found out about the founder of the district's "first" computer club!

    202. Re:Litigious Much by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      So... do you have to be a Roman Catholic virgin to apply?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    203. Re:Litigious Much by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I don't want to get into an argument about biblical exegesis (reading ancient texts with our post-Enlightenment mindset is fraught with difficulty at the best of times). My point is that what Ussher did wasn't at all stupid. Actually it was remarkably smart and scientific by the standards of his day, and given what little he had to work with.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    204. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I assure you, this is far from his own idea.

      Parents / lawyers are feeding this frenzy. Pretty much describes the human race these days. Looking for any way to cash in a payday.

      +1

    205. Re:Litigious Much by billd10 · · Score: 0

      If you look like a terrorist and act like a terrorist, you will be treated as a terrorist. It's not the town's fault most terrorists look like clock boy or his relatives. The Muslim community needs to be more proactive in weeding terrorists out--otherwise they are just enabling them.Suing for $15 million proves you are a terrorist.

    206. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I liked Clock Boy but this is just dumb. And $15 million? I sure hope he plans on donating a lot of that to science

      Clock Boy !== Cock Boy

    207. Re: Litigious Much by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Forcing the school board to eat McDeath would be cruel and unusual punishment.

    208. Re: Litigious Much by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      If by "science" you mean "football stadium", perhaps.

    209. Re:Litigious Much by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Actually, a lot of science was done by the church once upon a time. Before trotting out the Galileo line (which you're probably itching to do) you might actually want to look into him a bit more closely too. He wasn't put under house arrest for science but for being an idiot. However, the church did lots of science and weren't even particularly anti-science for much of their history. They're still doing science today - quite a bit of it in astronomy and no, no they're not looking at the heavens for God or anything, they're doing real science stuff with their expensive telescopes and full Ph.D scientists.

      No, no I'm not a Christian but I am sort of religious. I'm not a member of a religion that the Christians are very fond of either. So, no, this isn't some biases talking - you can look this all up and verify it. I'm a Buddhist, you'd probably say Secular Buddhist, but I prefer a "really piss poor excuse for a Buddhist and sure as shit not a monk." So, while I kind of don't really like the Church, I don't have different reasons for not liking them. They've actually contributed quite a bit to science over the years and some of them are of the mind that the two coexist nicely and don't need to be separated.

      Err... Some even postulate that science (at least math) proves that there is a creator. There are more than a few documentaries on the subject and there's at least one episode of the hour-long program with Morgan Freeman that goes into this at some detail. Quite frequently they posit that our very existence is so improbable as to be considered mathematically impossible. While I am inclined to disagree, it's really not much more than a negative and thus can't be proven really. I see no reason to believe it is the case but I figured that I'd share what I know of their views. In other words, take it up with them if you want to argue - it's not my argument.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    210. Re:Litigious Much by KGIII · · Score: 1

      So the Belgian Army is engaged in a war on religion!!!

      Heh... I'm actually kind of surprised that no one has jumped to those conclusions, based on your comment, and used it for a tirade. No, really, I scrolled down and checked. I'm kind of surprised. This particular subject, Clock Boy, tends to bring out some eccentric (for wont of a better word) people who are quite eager to use anything as an excuse to lash out. Hell, I'm pleasantly surprised that nobody commented along that line. Err... Except for me, of course. I'm not sure that it counts when it's done in jest.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    211. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first you pound on about science and then you mention morals. morals are not scientific! stoning people because they are gay is not something science has much capacity to lay claims to. science can not say that killing gay people is wrong nor can science say that killing gay people is right. science can say that it was a painful death and that the person is no longer exhibiting signs of life but science does not offer an opinion as to its moral relativity nor can it! if you want to do "social science" and make a determination that will be really hard! we're going to need to be able to do a double blind study with a controlled society in which to do these experiments so we have to grow a bunch of kids to live in this closed society and see what the benefits and negatives are at a meaningful timescale which means something like a hundred generations before we can even really look at the data objectively! do you want to do that? do you think they'll let you do that? no? why not? morals! morals are not scientific! it's like the brain telling you what the most important organ is in the body! yeah look at what is telling you that - it's not without its biases.

      so, don't preach about science unless you understand the scientific method. unless you're willing to do double blind studies over the long term to gather meaningful data then you can't say that stoning gay people, or heterosexual people, is bad. that you'd make such claims after pounding on about science is a good indicator that you're not a scientist and don't actually understand how science works. science holds no opinion on morals nor is it allowed to until you can use the scientific method to collect and measure data and until you can accurately interpret that data in a meaningful fashion. so don't speak about things you don't understand, thanks! you not only make yourself look stupid but you make others look stupid by virtue of your ignorance.

    212. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the size of his penis

    213. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we are a geek site...

      50kg air-to-ground Hellfire rockets cost an eye-watering $115,000 each

      source: http://www.zdnet.com/article/h...

      we can fire 130 hellfire missiles and have money to spare or about half as many if we cover the cost of actually sending the drones to do so and do not lose any of the drones due to mishaps. at one missile per drone we can send 62 but the drone that would likely be used can carry two so we'd be able to fire 86 of them with one left over and have money for beer afterwards!

    214. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're right! they don't! you cis-gendered nerd. your time is almost up and you will be dethroned and prevented from keeping the rest of us down while you keep your cushy jobs that afford you the time to post on the internet you racist, sexist, prick.

    215. Re:Litigious Much by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Oooh, the MRAs are pissed off that a female might not be treated worse than a man.

    216. Re:Litigious Much by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We appreciate the MRA point of view. But that's irrelevant to my point. I said 99:1, and you named 1. It is, in fact, the same 1 mentioned previously.

    217. Re:Litigious Much by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I don't recognise this bullshit male privilege nonsense that feminists keep bleating on about. I sure as shit don't benefit from it.

      Yeah, a dumb jackass male won't be CEO above a qualified woman, but a qualified man will be CEO over a qualified woman. Just because you are digging your own hole doesn't mean that men don't have it easier. I'm a man, and I see it every day.

    218. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Science can not say that killing gay people is wrong nor can science say that killing gay people is right."

      That's your personal philosophical beliefs not a fact. Although I similarly can't prove my view given the state of our current technology (we can't yet visit our star systems to empirically confirm), I believe ethics are intrinsic to the universe. Morals, like biology itself, are not outside of the realm of physics, they are just a more complex form of physics. If a civilization wants to advance and survive it has to conform to the universes rules or it will decline or die. This is why I suspect if you visit any advanced civilization in the universe their codes of conduct are very similar.

    219. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've said nothing about my views on science. You are just making a patronizing personal attack to boost your ego... to be the alpha male. I can play the same game is you wish. Your description of science indicates a weak understanding of not only science but philosophy as well.

      I'm done debating. Good luck edumacating everyone.

    220. Re: Litigious Much by Asha2004 · · Score: 1

      That distinction between church and religion is important. The church as an institution was a very wide economic and regulatory entity. Parts either stimulated or prosecuted science or certain findings. Religion however is a censor. Scientific findings are very likely to be interpreted within the boundaries of the religious dogma. So a church can facilitate science but religion may influence the findings.

      However he who is without dogmas cast the first stone.

    221. Re:Litigious Much by neoritter · · Score: 1

      To be a priest? Yes. But a monk? No. Though yes on all counts to being Roman Catholic. I guess you could lie, but that'd be unethical and technically theologically sinful. And you'd have to take those vows that monks usually take.

      Thinking about it, up until maybe this last decade, if you were a nerdy Catholic kid that'd be a pretty easy gig to get into.

    222. Re: Litigious Much by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      nobody said he was a terrorist. they only arrested him for the hoax, for being a troll.

    223. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15 million is just STUPID money for a punitive sum. I think if he gets 500k It would be far too much. A reasonable person could easily come to the conclusion that at the very least he was trying to get a 'rise' out of the classroom and it is NOT Islamophobic to be wary of the possibility that the device could have been real. That is called deductive reasoning, and it's not against the law (YET) to use your brain.

      I think this punk and his parents should be compensating the school and the police department for creating this false alarm.

      What kind of brainless society would not take an apparent threat seriously? If my kid went to that school, I would be more apt to sue the school if they HAD NOT made all appropriate moves to mitigate the potential loss of like.

      Bottom line: Muhammad is a straight up IDIOT for doing this. It's an obvious ploy to get paid. I say give him and his phucking crazy parents plane faire to another country!

    224. Re:Litigious Much by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You DO realize that he's moving to Qatar right? The worst school in America isn't gonna be as religiously batshit and backasswards as a country under Sharia.

      you mean they might speak as fact about something without even googling it? http://www.lifeinqatar.com/Pag...

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    225. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words take away all the facts, circumstances, and motive and the kid is a totally sympathizeable character. You can do the same thing with any criminal.

    226. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come such an excrement wants millions for a real blunder, but I was only offered small claims court for at most 5000 with onus, but my health was totally ruined and being ruined in consequence? You better do SOMETHING than just post silly see-how-bad-and-ridiculous-things-are-going? new.

    227. Re: Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Imagine how many clocks they could buy with that. Terrorists around the world would be able to mark the passage of time with reasonable accuracy!

    228. Re:Litigious Much by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      When you are given an advantage 99 times, and a disadvantage once, that doesn't mean you are "treated worse" because of your gender.

      Confirmed!

      Ok, I'll report back after I've begun living as the female gender 100% of the time instead of just 50% of the time, when I get an advantage 99 times instead of just 49 times!

      Actually, I was treated the best when I had my slim 130 lbs body. I need to get that thing back. Boys couldn't resist me. One lesson to look back on: boob size doesn't matter and no need to worry about being a little flat-chested. A handful really is just enough. 3rd wave feminists hated me. One weird old trick to pissing off 3rd wave feminists: be way more cute than they can muster!

      I'll tell ya, working in man's world, being presumed a sexist because of the gender I'm forced to present as, is a real drag. So, to conclude, I'd better get in some DRAG!

      That is, if I don't get too old too quick. How time flies. Now I just get "Religious Objection!" these days. Thanks, Obama!

    229. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it depends on your frame of reference. With an atheistic reference frame you have infinitely more time, however with some religious reference frames you substantially less time before Armageddon.

    230. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      No, your understanding is coming up short. Your infrared analogy is complete failure, an instrument to detect dark matter is as real today as your beloved unicorn.

      You don't know what you are talking about. What counts as direct detection for you? When you see an object you are only indirectly detecting it by detecting photons emitted or reflected form the object.

      The direct detection problem, what I refer to as "observable" is not limited to electromagnetism

      Well if it's not limited to electromagnetism, why isn't gravitation a valid tool for detection? Furthermore, I would advise you to discard your limited definition of what is "observable".

      "Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe.

      Once again you seem to be fixated on photons as the only way to "see" things.

      The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe.

      Just like how the existence and properties of stars are inferred from their electromagnetic effects (i.e. photons).

      Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics.

      1. we have not even detected the sun "directly", we have only ever detected photons emitted form it (we assume). 2. It's not like something can't be a mystery once you detect it. Case in point, we *can* detect dark matter, but since we don't know everything about it, it's still a mystery. Just like how gravity itself is a mystery because we haven't yet rectified the theory of gravity with both relativity and quantum mechanics, even though we have "detected" it.

      This terminology of not "detecting dark matter directly" is specifically referring to the fact that we have not seen photons emitted from dark matter. And what I am suggesting is that this point of view only makes sense when you make photons a more valid form of detection (e.g. like making visible light photons a more valid form of photon to be detected). It's all detectable with the right tools and algorithms. You're choice in what you call "direct" vs. "indirect" is arbitrary and relative.

    231. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Actually, a lot of science was done by the church once upon a time. Before trotting out the Galileo line (which you're probably itching to do) you might actually want to look into him a bit more closely too.

      Which is why I have yet to mention Galileo in any of my comments? Because I'm itching to bring him up? Believe me, if I wanted to bring him up I would have.

      Galileo is not important to the point I am making, which not that "no religious person or organization ever did science". It is that the tenets of religion are antithetical to the tenets of science. Religion assumes it knows things that do not meet the standard of proof in science.

      What makes religion antithetical to science is not that they persecuted Galileo, it's that they have other modes of determining truth that are incompatible with science.

      They've actually contributed quite a bit to science over the years and some of them are of the mind that the two coexist nicely and don't need to be separated.

      The Nazi's also contributed quite a bit to science. This should not lend any credibility to the validity of Nazism.

      Err... Some even postulate that science (at least math) proves that there is a creator. There are more than a few documentaries on the subject and there's at least one episode of the hour-long program with Morgan Freeman that goes into this at some detail.

      Anyone can make a documentary about anything. Morgan Freeman is an actor.

      Quite frequently they posit that our very existence is so improbable as to be considered mathematically impossible.

      Have you ever heard of the anthropic principle?

      I can create a lottery with thousands possible numbers to choose from and hundreds that are chosen, and the number of possibilities will be more than the number of atoms in the known universe. Each possibility is "mathematically impossible", but the odds that one will get chosen are 100%. Extremely improbable things regularly happen with very high probability, because of the countless number of things that are constantly happening.

      This logic is flawed:

      1. The chances of winning the lottery are so small they are basically 0.

      2. Because the chance of all the possibilities is zero, the chance that someone will ever win the lottery is also 0 (the sum of lots of zeroes)

    232. Re:Litigious Much by drnb · · Score: 1

      No, your understanding is coming up short. Your infrared analogy is complete failure, an instrument to detect dark matter is as real today as your beloved unicorn.

      You don't know what you are talking about. What counts as direct detection for you? When you see an object you are only indirectly detecting it by detecting photons emitted or reflected form the object.

      That is yet another flawed analogy. The photons are reflected or emitted directly from the object. As opposed to its gravitational influence on some other object, where one is directly observing the *other* object, hence the inferred indirect detection of the first object.

      "The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    233. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I'm not an MRA. I want people to be treated equally; isn't that what feminism is about? Seems like you're the one not living up to feminist ideals.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    234. Re:Litigious Much by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope. For one, I don't speak for feminism. For another, fighting for "equality" for some specific things, while others are obviously still inequal is not fighting for equality, it's perpetuating inequality.

      Think of it this way, you are playing Fallout, and you have 35 points to spend on SPECIAL. Is 10,4,4,4,4,4,5, "equal to" 5,5,5,5,5,5,5? Or, we'll make them equal by giving the second a +5 strength hat so the S isn't unequal. Then everyone's equal. Except they aren't.

      When nothing is equal, inequality can only be measured on the whole. Picking one stat to increase for one person or class almost never increases equality. So why would you think it would in this case, when the person with 40 points in a 35 point world is complaining because he needs a speech check and wants his C to be no less than anyone else on the planet, for equality's sake?

      In a 35 point world, the 40 point person will be at a disadvantage at times, but less than anyone else overall. Subtracting points from the 35 point person to make sure nobody is better than the 40 point person seems a very backwards, but is the type of "equality" you are asking for, then attacking anyone pointing out your logic error.

      You are an MRA in that you are arguing on holding down the 35 pointers to make sure they never have an advantage over the privileged class of 40 pointers. That's not equality, that's privilege. As I'm for equality, I'm against your MRA privilege agenda.

    235. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1
      I didn't say you spoke for feminism, I said you were failing to live up to its ideals. You're also assuming that I'm not fighting for equality everywhere, but you don't know that and have no reason besides your biases to assume that.

      I don't play Fallout, and that was a weird metaphor. Moreover, it's fundamentally wrong. Making the sentencing of men more equal to what women get doesn't make the women lose anything - it's not a subtraction. We should be aiming to lift everyone up to equality, not lowering everyone. Lowering everyone else isn't what I'm asking for, and you're misrepresenting my argument there. We should be addressing all forms of inequality we see, and just changing one isn't a perfect solution, but it brings us closer.

      When nothing is equal, inequality can only be measured on the whole. Picking one stat to increase for one person or class almost never increases equality.

      If, as you say, picking one stat to increase for one person or class doesn't increase equality, why do we change anything? Any laws we pass have to address specific things. Giving women the right to vote was, to use your metaphor, increasing a stat for one class of people, but arguing that that didn't increase equality is ludicrous.

      Moreover, your 99:1 ratio is horribly, horribly off. While I think women do have it worse overall, men have more disadvantages than you think.

      I'm not an MRA because I'm not part of the movement. You're conflating MRAs with everyone who has an "anti-equality" mindset, which is inaccurate. I'm also not trying to hold down any "35-pointers"; just trying to address a pretty big injustice.

      As I'm for equality, I'm against your MRA privilege agenda.

      As I said, you've used a flawed analogy, misrepresented my argument, and assumed a whole lot about me. You aren't for equality in any meaningful sense, if you ignore large structural inequalities just because you think the disadvantaged group has more privilege.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    236. Re:Litigious Much by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Making the sentencing of men more equal to what women get doesn't make the women lose anything - it's not a subtraction.

      It is if the means of making the sentencing equal is to increase the sentencing of women to match men, you would hold that women didn't lose anything?

      As I said, you've used a flawed analogy, misrepresented my argument, and assumed a whole lot about me.

      You are the one calling me feminist (then denying it, as if your implications weren't clear), when I can easily scroll up and see your words and their context.

      I didn't misrepresent anything. I spoke about inequality in general, and how single-issue inequality leveling is inherently flawed.

      You are content in your opinion being factually wrong, and lying about it to keep from having to think.

      And I haven't even gotten into the reasons why your stated "inequality" isn't.

      What would you prefer when the sole care giver of a child is sent to prison? Kill the kid, to keep things clean and easy? Or make them legal orphans, sending them through foster care, even when there's someone who wants to and is capable of taking care of them? Send the kids to prison, so the primary caregiver can take care of them?

      No, often the choice made is to probate or shorten a caregiver's sentence so that whatever crime they did doesn't destroy the life of the child. Yes, the "anti-crime" people don't care about the child when sentencing the parent.

      And women are more often victims of certain crimes. Such victimization gets considered at sentencing.

      But the MRAs *want* there to be a difference. MRA was founded on complaints about the courts. Prick husbands beating their wives, disowning their kids, then fighting for custody after they get the child support bill. It's not about equality. It's about punishing women.

    237. Re:Litigious Much by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Making the sentencing of men more equal to what women get doesn't make the women lose anything - it's not a subtraction.

      It is if the means of making the sentencing equal is to increase the sentencing of women to match men, you would hold that women didn't lose anything?

      What I said means changing what men get to what women get - as in, decreasing the terms men get while not changing what women receive. So yes, I would hold that women don't lost anything.

      You are the one calling me feminist (then denying it, as if your implications weren't clear), when I can easily scroll up and see your words and their context.

      You're right, I assumed you were a feminist, based on your previous post history. If you'd rather not use that label, it doesn't matter much to me.

      I didn't misrepresent anything. I spoke about inequality in general, and how single-issue inequality leveling is inherently flawed.

      Ah, but you either a) represented my argument as single-issue inequality, or b) attacked what you knew wasn't my argument, and wanted to attack anyways.

      You are content in your opinion being factually wrong, and lying about it to keep from having to think.

      What, specifically, is "factually wrong" about my opinion? What have I lied about?

      And I haven't even gotten into the reasons why your stated "inequality" isn't. What would you prefer when the sole care giver of a child is sent to prison? Kill the kid, to keep things clean and easy? Or make them legal orphans, sending them through foster care, even when there's someone who wants to and is capable of taking care of them? Send the kids to prison, so the primary caregiver can take care of them? No, often the choice made is to probate or shorten a caregiver's sentence so that whatever crime they did doesn't destroy the life of the child. Yes, the "anti-crime" people don't care about the child when sentencing the parent. And women are more often victims of certain crimes. Such victimization gets considered at sentencing.

      My stated inequality is based on men and women committing the same crime and receiving vastly different sentences, so your argument about who the victim is doesn't apply. Even if it did, men are generally more likely to be victims of violent crime, which tends to be the stuff you get long prison sentences for. Moreover, it's important to note that while women are often given sole custody of children, but that shouldn't shield them from the consequences of their actions. Unless the father is actually unfit (a lot of fathers without custody aren't), let the child live with him. Otherwise, do what you'd do if only the father had custody and got sent to prison.

      But the MRAs *want* there to be a difference. MRA was founded on complaints about the courts. Prick husbands beating their wives, disowning their kids, then fighting for custody after they get the child support bill. It's not about equality. It's about punishing women.

      This is irrelevant, as I've already said I'm not am MRA. I don't know much about the movement (except that Erin Pizzey is in it), but unless you can source that, I'm just going to ignore it as the unsupported assertion it is.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    238. Re:Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      That is yet another flawed analogy. The photons are reflected or emitted directly from the object. As opposed to its gravitational influence on some other object, where one is directly observing the *other* object, hence the inferred indirect detection of the first object.

      I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

      Yes the photons are being "directly" emitted from the object, and the fact that we are observing not the thing itself, but the photons directly emitted from the thing is a layer of indirection. How directly something is observed is relative. It's not discrete, it's a spectrum.

      As opposed to its gravitational influence on some other object, where one is directly observing the *other* object, hence the inferred indirect detection of the first object.

      Yes it is *one more* layer of indirection. This doesn't mean we are not observing dark matter. It means we are observing dark matter in a more indirect way than we observe most other stuff in the cosmos (which we also observe indirectly).

      "The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics."

      As opposed to what? What properties of anything do we know about anything that are not inferred from their effects on other things?

      Yes we don't know that much about dark matter. It's not because we can't observe it (which is what you originally claimed). Yes we can't observe it directly, I am not disagreeing with that. What I am saying is that we can't directly observe anything. Everything we observe is indirect, some more indirect than others.

    239. Re: Litigious Much by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Theology is not the study of everything, unless you believe in that particular brand of theology. One could just as easily say that palm reading is the study of everything, because the whole universe both natural and super natural are governed by the lines in people's hands.

      The reason science does not have anything to say about the super natural is not because it is out of the realm of science (e.g. as opposed to theology). Science does not have anything to say about the super natural because the ideology of science rejects the legitimacy of "knowledge" based on holy books, or divine revelation, dreams, spiritual experiences, etc.

      Science does not reject that God exists or any other supernatural claims. Science rejects the method by which religion claims to have acquired this knowledge.

      There are always things science is not going to know. Science will never prove or disprove God, and neither will any theologian in a manner that science deems legitimate.

      Furthermore, if something actually happened in a way that it could be observed, (e.g. Jesus walking on water), then according to science, this is a natural phenomenon, and it can be studied just like any other natural phenomenon. It's not so much that science rejects anything supernatural, it's that it treats anything observable as natural and therefore in it's domain.

      Ghosts are not super natural if they actually exist and haunt houses.

  2. That won't last long... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The school certainly overreacted, but...

    1) the kid was not arrested, nor did he suffer any "damages" in light of the celebrity and overly-friendly treatment from the President, and
    2) once the jury hears about his overly-activist father and the lawyer's insinuation that the whole thing was a set-up?

    I'm not seeing this one going very far.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:That won't last long... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OH, almost forgot - won first place in a science prize in which he bumped off a teenaged kid who found a cheap/easy means of detecting *ebola*?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:That won't last long... by slimdave · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... the kid was not arrested ...

      Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested, after being questioned for an hour and a half (how is that even possible?), and was taken to a detention centre, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned further.

      He was not charged. Possibly that's what you meant.

    3. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I assume there's some desire to make it punitive. He was only treated that way because he was perceived to be a Muslim - I bet the school district can't point to a bunch of other cases where white kids have brought in electronics projects and had the police called. I imagine i'm not alone in the slashdot demographic as someone who brought random electronics to school, yet I never got anywhere close to arrest because of it.

      I don't think it matters if the whole thing was orchestrated to show the school district was discriminatory. It appears that they are, and they should have to pay the price of that.

    4. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The school certainly overreacted, but...

      1) the kid was not arrested...

      Yes, $15 million (or anything million) is dumb, but yes he was arrested and threatened with charges and the school and police were wrong. I'd settle for something less than $120k which is about the cost of sending him to a private school for a few years plus change

    5. Re:That won't last long... by sjames · · Score: 1

      He was arrested. If you are not free to go, you are arrested. If you are "free to go" but will be arrested if you do, you are arrested, just not on paper.

    6. Re:That won't last long... by dadelbunts · · Score: 0

      Uh no. Thats called being detained and is totally different.

    7. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The school certainly overreacted, but..."

      And if it had actually been a bomb, we'd be saying "thanks to the alert teacher who was overly cautious in this situation, averting the possible death of dozens of students or more".

    8. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Um, the majority of nerds I knew growing up had the same exact issue. The only difference is none sued.

    9. Re:That won't last long... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      He was only treated that way because he was perceived to be a Muslim ...

      Perceived? Is he not Muslim? Perhaps you meant something else.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    10. Re:That won't last long... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ahmed was not detained. He was arrested. At no point would he have felt that he was free to go. Also, 'twenty minutes' seems to be the rule of thumb for how long somebody can be 'detained' before it turns into a de-facto arrest.

      Ahmed was hauled off in cuffs, for zero reason. The American legal system specifically puts a dollar value on damages, as well as having the idea of putative awards. Ahmed deserves both.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    11. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will last long enough to cost a butt lode of money, grief and aggravation. There lies the 'threat' they are using to try and cop some easy cash. IMO I think this was the parents hope of what would happen when they encouraged their kid to bring in a device that was sure to cause controversy.

    12. Re:That won't last long... by harrkev · · Score: 0

      The whole thing was INTENDED to be discriminatory. I can just imagine the father saying "This ought to panic them because you are Muslim."

      The reason that I say this? Sorry, but the kid did NOT make a clock. Not even close. He took a commercial clock, removed it from it's case, and put it in a briefcase. Period. I am not sure that the kid learned anything scientific except maybe pain associated with not touching the primary inputs on a 120V transformer.

      Here is a link where some engineer was able to identify the MODEL of the clock that was taken apart.

      http://blogs.artvoice.com/tech...

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    13. Re:That won't last long... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I assume there's some desire to make it punitive. He was only treated that way because he was perceived to be a Muslim - I bet the school district can't point to a bunch of other cases where white kids have brought in electronics projects and had the police called. I imagine i'm not alone in the slashdot demographic as someone who brought random electronics to school, yet I never got anywhere close to arrest because of it.

      I don't think it matters if the whole thing was orchestrated to show the school district was discriminatory. It appears that they are, and they should have to pay the price of that.

      So you didn't here about the kids who are as young as 4 being accused of sexual harassment at school and having that as part of their permanent school record ... schools are f*'d up.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    14. Re:That won't last long... by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      I don't think it matters if the whole thing was orchestrated to show the school district was discriminatory. It appears that they are, and they should have to pay the price of that.

      The problem is that it is not the school district that will pay for it but it is the students that will pay through fewer programs and lower funding levels. This suit in effect penalizes student for the actions of staff.

    15. Re:That won't last long... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      The question is "was it a lawful arrest" We know now that more of the story has come out, he had this suspect looking thing. Some people recognized it for what it was and told him to put it away.

      He didn't follow their advice and continue to wonder around the school with it, not obeying other instructions, which could be seen as suspicious. Assuming there was not communication among the staff that knew it was just a stupid clock to those other people, I can see who it would meet a standard of 'reasonable suspicion' to justify an arrest. Would it have happened to someone who isn't brown skinned I don't know, but I am not sure that matters. If it does matter maybe the problem is authorities are not cautious enough about what white people are doing near high impact (I won't say value) targets like schools.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    16. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe that he is, but i'm not sure the school has the right to demand to know the religion of students.

      Honestly it's likely because he had brownish skin. I wouldn't by surprised if a Christian from the middle east would face much the same discrimination.

    17. Re:That won't last long... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that in Texas now that Paris has been attacked.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    18. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Since when does the quality of his work have anything to do with the discriminatory behavior?

      Sure it was a shit science project, but the question is: "would the school district have behaved the same way if he was white?". If they claim they weren't discriminating then they can surely find examples of other students who've been subjected to the same scrutiny for their projects.

      I brought things at least that bad to school, and the worst i got was told to not be screwing with them during class.

    19. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 2

      That's fucked up in its own way, but doesn't seem to be a discriminatory policy

    20. Re:That won't last long... by hawguy · · Score: 0

      The question is "was it a lawful arrest" We know now that more of the story has come out, he had this suspect looking thing. Some people recognized it for what it was and told him to put it away.

      He didn't follow their advice and continue to wonder around the school with it, not obeying other instructions, which could be seen as suspicious. Assuming there was not communication among the staff that knew it was just a stupid clock to those other people, I can see who it would meet a standard of 'reasonable suspicion' to justify an arrest. Would it have happened to someone who isn't brown skinned I don't know, but I am not sure that matters. If it does matter maybe the problem is authorities are not cautious enough about what white people are doing near high impact (I won't say value) targets like schools.

      A 9th grader didn't put away a fun toy that he built for himself, and that's "suspicious"? That sounds like pretty normal behavior for a 9th grader, and it'd probably be more suspicious if he immediately hid it away in his locker.

    21. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the amount is ridiculous, and win or lose, the tax payer is going to suffer for it. But I'll say this without support of clock boy specifically: the threat of such lawsuits seems like the only way to see public servants, and the people who elect them, held responsible for their decisions. I'd rather officials actually go to jail for violating civil rights, but until then, these suits will have a place.

    22. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually it is $1 for direct damages plus $14'999'999 for punitive damages so next time school, police, and goverment even think about acting so racist they start $hiting their pants instead

    23. Re:That won't last long... by roca · · Score: 1

      Baiting schools into overreacting to security threats isn't that hard. There have been numerous cases involving toy guns, and even kids pointing their fingers like guns (and who hasn't done that?). Do you really think it's a good idea to support families who bait schools into overreacting in search of a payout? Not only does that mean transferring money out of already-strapped school systems, but it makes the lives of school administrators just that much harder.

    24. Re:That won't last long... by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, the majority of nerds I knew growing up had the same exact issue. The only difference is none sued.

      They same exact issue? They were questioned for 90 minutes, accused of making a hoax bomb, then taken away in handcuffed to be processed at the police station? Are you *sure* it was the same?

    25. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a good point that they are milking the situation for excessive amount on cash. On the other hand, some people have received vast sums of money for far more petty lawsuits (e.g. spilling hot coffee on oneself is apparently sometimes the fault of a company thanks to some retarded judges and lawyers)

      The kid was clearly harassed because of his background. The idiots that detained him were clearly motivated by prejudices towards Muslims( a muslims... gasp.. it must be a bomb). There is zero chance the kid would have been detained like he was over what was very obviously not a bomb if he wasn't Muslim. He has a legitimate case and those that harassed them should face blowback for their unethical behavior.

    26. Re: That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are right this discrimination needs to stop! The other day I walked into a bank with a mask on and my airsoft gun. Can you belive they acted like I was robbing the place ! Not every one who plays airsoft is a criminal!

    27. Re:That won't last long... by ProfBooty · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The kid kept on playing with the clock during class, even plugging it into the wall and setting the alarm off.

      The kid obviously wanted attention. Was it an innocent act, or was he influenced by his dad's political views and presidential run?

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    28. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      But when it comes to toy guns the reaction (or overreaction) is at least consistent. I don't think many school districts would have a problem finding an example of when "Brad" took a toy gun to school and showing that his punishment was comparable to "Mohammed".

      All the school district really has to do is point to other situations where students have brought in electronic projects and show they were treated similarly. If they can do that then they are surely off the hook.

      I've personally taken electronic projects which have 7-seg red leds to school and i once built a circuit which used some kind of oscillator/transformer/rectifier combination to charge a capacitor up to some kind of high voltage so i could shock people with it. I find it hard to believe a school district of this size won't have plenty other examples of that, and all they need to show is a consistent overreaction.

    29. Re:That won't last long... by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      I don't believe the litmus test for discrimination is whether or not you can find a case like this in the past. That's a pretty naive definition of discrimination.

    30. Re:That won't last long... by DarkOx · · Score: 1, Informative

      He did not build shit, he put the guts of a commercial clock in another box. So first off clock-boy does not deserve credit for being some kind of STEM hero. Here that is the kind of stuff I would expect a fifth or sixth grader to be doing.

      Second schools are what they are. They are full of little people that we all worry about and place a higher value on the safety of than we probably should. Look 'zero tolerance' is stupid but its the governing priciple. This isn't a case of discrimination really, its not. Schools have ejected white children for biting pop-tarts into the shape of hand gun. Its a panicky place, just like an airport.

      You can be safe or you can be sorry. You can be safe and still end up sorry. I suggest we learn to be more tolerant of being sorry on occasion so we don't create problems like this in the way of safety. What I can say is knowing what I know about schools, and the whole of the situation, if I were on that jury the kids family would not be award one thin dime.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    31. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 2

      Isn't that the very nature of it?

      If everyone is treated the same way for bringing a toy gun to class then it's not discriminatory
      If everyone is treated the same way for fucking around with their electronics project in class then it's not discriminatory.
      If everyone is treated the same way for wearing a miniskirt to class then it's not discriminatory.

      The onus is on the school district to show that they always act this way.

    32. Re:That won't last long... by drnb · · Score: 0

      Honestly it's likely because he had brownish skin.

      Wrong. I know of a white kid in liberal California who was arrested for bringing a hoax bomb to his high school. It was a box that ticked and then ticked faster when moved. His name was Steve Wozniak, google him if the name is unfamiliar.

    33. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Now that's something I'd argue you should be disciplined for. I assumed he'd stripped the transformer and was running it off the backup battery.

      Taking the transformer out of the double insulated case it was designed to be in and plugging it into the wall is potentially dangerous and should be grounds for removing him from class.

      But the question still remains. If a white kid was fucking around sticking stuff in a power outlet, would the police be called? Again the school district surely has other examples they can point to.

    34. Re:That won't last long... by bigwheel · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take much google prowess to see all the kids who were arrested for bringing toy guns to class. https://www.google.com/search?... That doesn't include the one(s) suspended for pointing a finger http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      How is a toy bomb any different?

    35. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation?

    36. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they're guilty until they prove they're innocent!

      Just the way our founding fathers designed our legal system.

      In fact, the kid, as the accuser, has the burden of proof to show that other examples exist where they did NOT behave the same way. Good luck finding a previous test case.

    37. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume there's some desire to make it punitive. He was only treated that way because he was perceived to be a Muslim - I bet the school district can't point to a bunch of other cases where white kids have brought in electronics projects and had the police called.

      Not quite. He was perceived as an Arab with a device that could have been a hoax bomb or a real bomb. Would a White or Latino be treated the same had they brought in a suspicious device?

      I imagine i'm not alone in the slashdot demographic as someone who brought random electronics to school, yet I never got anywhere close to arrest because of it.

      Could your random electronics project have been (reasonably) confused with a hoax bomb or a real bomb? Did you do this pre- or post- 9/11? A bunch of stuff I did was considered harmless fun back in the 80s, but I wouldn't dream of coming anywhere close in today's police state. Mixing chemicals to create homemade fireworks? Forget about it today; most teachers only know what's in the textbook, so they wouldn't recognize the formula.

      I don't think it matters if the whole thing was orchestrated to show the school district was discriminatory. It appears that they are, and they should have to pay the price of that.

      If it was orchestrated to show the school district was discriminatory, I place it at the same level as entrapment. It was creating a fake scenario trying to get a payday from a lawsuit.

    38. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you some kind of fucking moron? Do you really believe the crap you're typing?

    39. Re: That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know how it was in your school.
      But when the teacher told us to put away our toys and pay attention we damn well did.

      We certainly didn't plug it in an outlet and set it to make an alarm sound in the middle of class.

      But hey, if you want to drink the kool-aid and believe this BS narrative, be my guest.

    40. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it a clock that looked like a clock and ticked like a clock and was obviously a clock and everyone knew it was a clock, even when he was arrested? Apparently not, since this one ticked DIFFERENTLY to a clock.

      So, no, you don't know someone white who had this done to them.

    41. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you must be at +5 Interesting for talking about something that wasn't this.

    42. Re:That won't last long... by WheezyJoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      THIS. My bet is they did not once ask him to name his religion or what religious establishment his parents drag him to each week. Nor would they have cared what his answer was. It wouldn't have mattered if had a stack of Joel Osteen books in his locker and a card-carrying member of the "700 Club"... he LOOKS LIKE one of 'em terrerists ya see on TV, and had the NERVE to come to school with a thing with wires and flashy lights on it.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    43. Re:That won't last long... by PRMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      He actually was invited to visit the fair—which he declined—and Olivia's ebola test won first prize.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    44. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how many times the same things hapen to white christian kids I doubt race or religion were the motivating factors here.

    45. Re: That won't last long... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Taking a clock out of it's case is not an electronics project. It's a Phillips screwdriver project at best.

    46. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it a clock that looked like a clock ...

      Disassembled clock parts wire together in an adhoc fashion and found in an ordinary box unrelated to time keeping looks like the detonator to an IED.

    47. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was questioned for 60 minutes and threatened with expulsion and arrest for writing a program in my programming class.

    48. Re:That won't last long... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      And just because he wasn't Caucasion doesn't make this discrimination.

    49. Re: That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big deal though 90 minutes of questioning, pay him minimum wage for his time and he gets to keep all the free stuff companies sent him

    50. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had the exact same issue, they just didn't respond to it the same way. When asked to put away their contraption they did so, instead of making a federal case out of it.

    51. Re:That won't last long... by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      Steve Wozniak spent the night in jail over his device

      even better is this tidbit from the article:

      He taught the other prisoners how to disconnect the wires leading to the ceiling fans and connect them to the bars so people got shocked when touching them.

    52. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His science project specifically looked like stereotypical movie suitcase bomb, he was aware of that, and still brought it to school to show off and play around with it. That he was called to task for that was not simply because of his religion or skin color, though maybe that exacerbated the situation, his arrest was made because he appeared to be a stupid kid flashing a fake bomb at school.

      We all know how crazy schools nowadays get about *any* sort of potential overture towards violence since school shootings had become such a frequent occurrence. His arrest is nothing different that a kid bring a fake gun to school. If because of his religion he was treated differently, that is unfortunate, but it was entirely *his* fault that he was arrested, and no matter what skin color you have if you're stupid enough to bring a faux suitcase bomb to school you're going to get reamed.

    53. Re:That won't last long... by darkain · · Score: 1

      No, I was personally questioned quite a bit longer than just 90 minutes. I was detained for the entirety of the school day more once, even after switching schools multiple times.

      This has happened to TONS of us, but it was back in the day before the internet was really the internet we know and love today. Mine happened in the days of AOL dialup, so it was hard to spread information other than for televised, mass print, or radio media. We didn't have court of public opinion via social media to help stand up for us back then. We were all simply labeled as "hackers" which Hollywood did a damn good job of painting us all to be criminals regardless of what we were all actually doing.

    54. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" mean the onus is on the boy to show the school district wasn't acting the same way as they would for anyone else in the same circumstances?

    55. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why should the school necessarily have examples of "a white kid" in a similar situation. it's not too much of a stretch to postulate that this incident, maybe, was the first of its kind, for a kid of any background.

    56. Re:That won't last long... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Yeah. He took a clock and put it into another case so it sorta looks like a Hollywood version of a bomb. Then when they started asking him questions his answers were designed to provoke suspicion.

      The whole thing was a political stunt, most likely dreamed up by his activist father. The case should be thrown out with prejudice, and the plaintiff ordered to pay fees.

    57. Re:That won't last long... by istartedi · · Score: 2

      My first thought was to wonder how she knew the test worked. For example, if I wrote a C parser I could feed known valid C programs into it for testing. If you make an Ebola test, a 16 year old can't just feed Ebola into it for testing. This article does a good job of explaining how she gets around that. The test doesn't need the whole virus. It just needs a protein that the virus makes. I don't think you can run down to the drugstore and get that either, but at least you could probably order it from somewhere without causing an international incident.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    58. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > THIS. My bet is they did not once ask him to name his religion or what religious establishment his parents drag him to each week

      Yeah. His name didn't give it away at all...

    59. Re:That won't last long... by cnaumann · · Score: 1

      The school certainly overreacted...

      Initially I though the school over-reacted. My opinion on this changed as more facts came in. It was the nerd community that certainly overreacted.

    60. Re:That won't last long... by 91degrees · · Score: 1
      The article doesn't go into a lot of detail about the justification for the lawsuit. It looks like they're after punitive damages for wrongful arrest discrimination and whatever else they can get to stick. No idea how successfuk this would bel

      2) once the jury hears about his overly-activist father and the lawyer's insinuation that the whole thing was a set-up?

      I seriously doubt that they expect this to get anywhere near a jury. These things are usually settled out of court. Lawsuits are expensive for the defendant even if you win.

    61. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      I'll admit I don't know how big the school district is, but i know i've brought random electronic projects into school from time to time. I'd honestly have expected a good chunk of slashdot would concur with me on that stuff. I wasn't the only person in my school that was bringing in stuff like that and i was in a school district of about 2000 students.

      The worst I ever experienced was "put that thing away or i'll confiscate it". If this were happening in my former school district (and i wasn't 20 years out of high school) then you can bet i'd be there pointing out how my experiences differed.

    62. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Well except this is a civil case.

      The plaintiff will make certain claims and the defendant will be pretty much forced to refute them. The plaintiff will claim that "you did this because I'm a Muslim" and as far as I can tell the district has two broad defense arguments.

      * We thought this was a credible threat to safety
      * We treat all incidents like this and any time we aren't satisfied with the safety of an electronic project we call the police

      The argument of "you're just doing this because you want to make us look bad" seems unlikely to fly in court.

    63. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >He was only treated that way because he was perceived to be a Muslim

      If I brought Ahmed's clock into school after my sister had previously threatened to bomb the school you can bet I'd be going to jail.

      I'm not perceived to be a muslim though, so I probably wouldn't get any of the handouts or charity he received.

    64. Re:That won't last long... by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      While I am unable to determine your age, unless you just graduated recently then the school you attended is far from what schools are today :D

      This is most certainly the case for me. I could bring all manner of electronics to school without worry. Back in the day, kids even kept rifles in the car for shooting club events after school without any issue. I brought my archery setup ( compound bow ) to school for that club on a regular basis. No one even looked my way twice.

      Today, if you brought a half assembled Surveillance Barbie, you'll get the local Swat Team showing up, maced, beat down, arrested and probably shot for " resisting arrest " or " looking like he was about to resist arrest " :|

      Future generations are going to look back upon us in a similar fashion as to how we look upon the whole " Witch Hunt" era. It's just a really sad time in history.

    65. Re:That won't last long... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      He is a kid the cops should have never spoken to him without his parents or a layer of their choosing present. The school failed to protect the child from the police as is their duty to do so in there role as caretaker to the child till the parents arrived.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    66. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      > Not quite. He was perceived as an Arab with a device that could have been a hoax bomb or a real bomb. Would a White or Latino be treated the same had they brought in a suspicious device?

      You mean to tell me that teachers and administrators looked at this, said "well it looks like a bomb to me" and then sat there with him until the police arrived?! If they thought there was even a 1% that this was real bomb then they absolutely should have evacuated the school and brought in the bomb squad.

      They knew fine well it wasn't a bomb.

    67. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of that comes down to how you present something. The kid who got punished for making a gun out of his fingers also told the other student "you're dead". Seems like play to me, but in a technical sense you could probably view that as a threat of violence.

      If you are like "Hey look at my bomb" then it doesn't matter if it's a suitcase with leds or a cheap nokia phone with a hotdog taped to it. But that doesn't mean anyone taking a hot dog and pay-as-you-go phone to school is making a bomb threat. If he's running round with his clock threatening to blow up the school then that's one thing, but I haven't seen much evidence.

      Sure he's playing into paranoia but I don't think that'd be there if he were white.

    68. Re:That won't last long... by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      I perceive the sky to be blue. Are you saying that because I perceive it to be, it must not be true?

      In the OP's context, I'd take "perceived" to mean that he was believed to be Muslim, and whether he was or wasn't is immaterial to the treatment, so long as it was believed so. Perceived: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Perceived... let us know which definition is invalid in this context.

    69. Re:That won't last long... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've heard of him. Like the terrorists in France, he was the son of immigrants. Proof that sealing the borders is the *only* option.

    70. Re: That won't last long... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are quite dumb. I've seen science fair winners that had step one as that. Use the LCD to display words, have the clock trigger other events, rather than tick time. I've used a literal clock to clock a CPU on a breadboard, so the clock speed was 1/60 Hz, to allow for easy following of a long-term process.

      By your logic, building a security system from parts at a Radio Shack (another thing I may have done, back when Radio Shack carried parts) isn't an electronics project. After all, I didn't build the resistors or capacitors I used in it. No True Electronics Project.

    71. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it matters if the whole thing was orchestrated to show the school district was discriminatory. It appears that they are, and they should have to pay the price of that.

      Let's try this logic elsewhere, shall we?

      "I don't think it matters if the whole thing was orchestrated to show the black teenager was robbing that store. It appears that they are, and they should have to pay the price of that."

      The ends can't possibly justify the means when those ends are predetermined ahead of time.

    72. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      I graduated in the late 90s and was a straight A student. I'm sure i pushed a few boundaries but other than a few "i'll pretend i didn't see that" responses from teachers nobody really seemed to mind.

      If what you say is true then i'm sure the district will have lots of comparable examples to draw on. However, my gut feeling is that someone made the decision of "he's fucking with us, let's teach this little shit a lesson". They acted like the children in this situation and are now going to have to defend that in court against someone who claims that they did it because of his race.

      I think he's in the right (though certainly not $15M in the right), however I feel firmly that the school district is in the wrong and frowning on this kind of tinkering is a massive blow to that whole generation.

    73. Re:That won't last long... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      But the question still remains. If a white kid was fucking around sticking stuff in a power outlet, would the police be called? Again the school district surely has other examples they can point to.

      Most likely? Yes, the white kid would be arrested. Columbine was white kids, OK City was white guys, I have read tons of stories where white kids are arrested and expelled for bringing in toys that look like guns (more than other races at least in media).

      Now you may say "this kid didn't have a gun and it was small so probably not a bomb" which nobody would argue. The question is whether or not we can prove it's not a bomb and prove that his intent with the device was not related to terrorism. Ever see how phones are used to set off IEDs? Have you ever seen a homemade detonator? I can say yes to both of those things, and yes I would question what the kid had.

      Kind of like the toy gun at a distance, once you are close you will notice the fakery. That does not indicate that the kid found with the fake was not behaving in an abnormal/threatening way. Do those kids get sent back to class after their toy guns are found to be toys?

      I have no qualms with people saying that there is discrimination all over the place. I think that is an easy to prove theory. Was _this_ a case of discrimination? Only if those toy gun toting kids received similar treatment, and the reality is they are treated much harsher.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    74. Re:That won't last long... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      How is a toy bomb any different?

      Uh....the fact that it was neither? Trolls haven't exactly sent out their A team today....

    75. Re:That won't last long... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      This suit in effect penalizes student for the actions of staff.

      You mean it penalizes the districts insurance company . Big difference. And if enough insurance companies started threatening districts and police departments with higher premiums, if they don't reign in their fuckstickery, then maybe fewer districts and cops would be full of fucksticks?

      Nah. Let's cry crocodile tears for "the taxpayers". 'Murica.

    76. Re:That won't last long... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "I was questioned for 60 minutes and threatened with expulsion and arrest for writing a program in my programming class."

      That certainly explains why you are posting as AC without supplying any links and/or citations. We totally believe you dude!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    77. Re:That won't last long... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      (Back in the 90s): 4 of us were taken to the principles office for the entire day after being separated and interrogated. We were told if we didn't confess and agree to 50 hours of community service they would call the FBI and we would probably have lifetime felony charges on our record. So just "Agree to the community service and terms of your punishment for the next year and it'll all go away."

      Yes, it's as nefarious as you expected. We logged onto computers using the sys admin's password (half to fuck with 7th graders and half to actually do his job since he was an inept nitwit whose solution to every problem was re-install windows and couldn't even be bothered to change the 17" monitors from 640x480 to something reasonable like 1024.)

    78. Re:That won't last long... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      He was only treated that way because he was perceived to be a Muslim ...

      Perceived? Is he not Muslim? Perhaps you meant something else.

      He stated it correctly. If he was Muslim, but was perceived to be a God fearing young Christian lad, it wouldn't have been a problem. It is indeed the fact that he was perceived to be Muslim that was the issue. Indeed, if he was Christian, but perceived to be a Muslim, same problem ... arrest now, and think later. See. It really is the perception that is the problem. The reality isn't a problem at all, at least in this case. The reality is that a young kid hacked together something that probably resembled a movie style bomb (not a real one) for whatever reason (but almost certainly non-nefarious), and no harm was intended. Youthful indiscretion is what we call it, unless of course we perceive the young lad to be a perpetrator, because we perceive him to be Muslim, and perceive all Muslims to be "bad actors" (again, despite reality to the contrary.)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    79. Re:That won't last long... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Disassembled clock parts wire together in an adhoc fashion and found in an ordinary box unrelated to time keeping looks like the detonator to an IED.

      Until you pull your head out of your ass and ask where the explosive is that the wires are hooked up to. Guess you didn't make it that far.

    80. Re:That won't last long... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      "Disassembled clock parts wire together in an adhoc fashion and found in an ordinary box unrelated to time keeping looks like the detonator to an IED."

      Or it looks like some shit a 14 year old might throw together, being unlikely to have training in bomb creation and access to the explosives required to make that little box dangerous. It depends if you have a basic grasp of Occams Razor and a rational thought process,or watch a lot of Fox news and believe Muslims are the latest scourge of ne'er do wells looking to kill whitey and rape his woman.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    81. Re: That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He was only treated that way because he was perceived to be a Muslim"

      Proof, please.

    82. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you assume that whole thing wasn't a setup, 15M$ in damages is batshit insane for what he went through.

    83. Re:That won't last long... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Again the school district surely has other examples they can point to."

      That only makes sense if some white kids actually did something similar in the same school, with the same administration in place. If there are no instances of that, pointing out that none have been treated badly for it is a complete Red Herring.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    84. Re: That won't last long... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Taking a clock out of it's case is not an electronics project. It's a Phillips screwdriver project at best."

      Not every 14 year old kid is a budding Steve Wozniak. It may have been a very advanced activity for him. How would you know? Are you his teacher?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    85. Re:That won't last long... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" mean the onus is on the boy to show the school district wasn't acting the same way as they would for anyone else in the same circumstances?"

      No, because "innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for criminal offenses. This is a civil case, and the standard is the much easier to meet " beyond a preponderance of the evidence ."

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    86. Re: That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is zero chance the kid would have been detained like he was over what was very obviously not a bomb if he wasn't Muslim."

      Proof?

    87. Re:That won't last long... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      " Do you really think it's a good idea to support families who bait schools into overreacting in search of a payout?"

      It may not be ideal, but if it gets these dumb bastards to stop and think, maybe it is worth it.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    88. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a white kid out here (in the bay area) that put a power transformer on a toilet and ran wires under the seat. He was arrested, charged with "planting a false bomb", spent a couple nights in juvenile detention, and later had the case dismissed with diverted sentencing.

    89. Re:That won't last long... by hawk · · Score: 1

      >Big difference.

      Only in that it spreads the same amount among multiple school districts in the form of future payments--plus a bit of overhead, etc. . . .

      hawk

    90. Re:That won't last long... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      This makes no sense. How many people w/ the name 'Mohammed', 'Mehmet', 'Mehmed', 'Muhammad', 'Mahmud' or any variations thereof are anything other than Muslim? (Not counting Atheists or Agnostics)

    91. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disassembled clock parts wire together in an adhoc fashion and found in an ordinary box unrelated to time keeping looks like the detonator to an IED.

      Until you pull your head out of your ass and ask where the explosive is that the wires are hooked up to. Guess you didn't make it that far.

      Actually you're the one falling a little short with respect to thinking things through. A hoax does not require identifying all components, and a resemblance is sufficient. Again, Wozniak had a box that ticked, no fake explosives visible. What we do have is a kid told not to show it to anyone else yet kept doing so. Its reasonable to wonder why and what reaction he was hoping for. A childish joke is one possibility. As is disregarding instructions and an unfortunately coincidental resemblance. You know what determines which is the case, an investigation.

      Now consider the current state of public education in the US with its zero tolerance policy of anything remotely resembling a "weapon". Kids getting in trouble pointing their fingers at one another. Again, it is you whose thinking is stopping a bit short.

    92. Re:That won't last long... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Disassembled clock parts wire together in an adhoc fashion and found in an ordinary box unrelated to time keeping looks like the detonator to an IED.

      Until you pull your head out of your ass and ask where the explosive is that the wires are hooked up to. Guess you didn't make it that far.

      Actually you're the one falling a little short with respect to thinking things through. A hoax does not require identifying all components, and a resemblance is sufficient. Again, Wozniak had a box that ticked, no fake explosives visible. What we do have is a kid told not to show it to anyone else yet kept doing so. Its reasonable to wonder why and what reaction he was hoping for. A childish joke is one possibility. As is disregarding instructions and an unfortunately coincidental resemblance. You know what determines which is the case, an investigation.

      Now consider the current state of public education in the US with its zero tolerance policy of anything remotely resembling a "weapon". Kids getting in trouble pointing their fingers at one another. Again, it is you whose thinking is stopping a bit short.

      Apologies for accidentally responding AC

    93. Re:That won't last long... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      "I was questioned for 60 minutes and threatened with expulsion and arrest for writing a program in my programming class."

      That certainly explains why you are posting as AC without supplying any links and/or citations. We totally believe you dude!

      Steve Wozniak is not white enough for you? he had worse, for basically bringing a box of electronics to school.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    94. Re:That won't last long... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Steve Wozniak built a box that ticked, and then ticked faster when moved, and brought it to his high school. He was arrested and questioned by police for having a hoax bomb.

    95. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hoax bomb is no zero reason.

    96. Re:That won't last long... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That other kid did not "detect Ebola". She merely found a cheaper and more effective way to ship samples. Nice, but a small incremental step only, like most research.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    97. Re:That won't last long... by Comen · · Score: 1

      I thought the clock looked enough like a bomb to at least have it checked out. I think I could have been able to tell myself, but if someone protecting my child's school thinks something looks sort of like a bomb, I hope they check it out before letting it go myself. And I am not a "Islamophobe" at all, I just think when it comes to bombs and schools it is better to be safe than sorry, and no excuses are needed.

    98. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the GP is pointing out that, even if the school district is perfectly non-discriminatory, there may be no examples of other students being treated this way because no other students acted the same way in the first place. The father's background in public relations is relevant here, because it makes it more likely that this was deliberately instigated, with the student deliberately attempting to draw a response, which other students would not have done.

    99. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can't find examples of girls being subjected to the same treatment, that makes it discriminatory against males, too, right?

      (Actually, to be perfectly honest, I think they'd be more likely to treat a white boy this way than a brown girl.)

    100. Re:That won't last long... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I've heard of him. Like the terrorists in France, he was the son of immigrants. Proof that sealing the borders is the *only* option.

      Um...you are being ironic right?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    101. Re:That won't last long... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      OH, almost forgot - won first place in a science prize in which he bumped off a teenaged kid who found a cheap/easy means of detecting *ebola*?

      I take it by "bumped off" you're not using it in the UK colloquial sense of "murdered"? Is that some sort of US slang?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    102. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... If you're a US-ian, you're the descendent of immigrants. Or, one of those displaced by them. Remember that Thursday when you get stuffed.

    103. Re:That won't last long... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Given what he intended it to look like, combined with the number of school shootings in the past 10 years in the US, combined with the fact that Muslims are known to blow themselves up for shits and giggles, I think it was valid to at least ask a few questions.

    104. Re:That won't last long... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      They appear to have played right into his Daddy's hands. Seems he knew all too well that they'd flip upon seeing a brown skinned kid with a clock dismantled carefully so as to look like a bomb (complete with wires wrapped around the handle).

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    105. Re:That won't last long... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The argument of "you're just doing this because you want to make us look bad" seems unlikely to fly in court.

      How about 'you're doing this because you want fifteen million dollars'? ;) The father appears to have previous for this kind of thing.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    106. Re: That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if I shot a random man on the street and he had a bomb vest I would be a hero. See how fucking stupid that argument is?

    107. Re:That won't last long... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      This looks to me to be the most likely explanation of what's going on. His father has a track record for this stuff and that has to be factored in. Why wrap wires around the handle of the case unless you're intentionally making it look suspicious?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    108. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teenage kids finding cheap ways to diagnose ebola sounds incredibly impressive.

      I actually thought the US school system is bad and somewhat anti-science, but obviously you can spare a large amount of laboratory resources for bright minors and even allow them to work with deadly diseases.

    109. Re:That won't last long... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Don't you think?

    110. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not, but if this was staged then I actually wonder if there is another example. Perhaps some clipping from a local newspaper about another student making something similar and getting praise for it.

    111. Re:That won't last long... by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      It also seems challenging to find another example because most of the time it's completely unreported. Around my group of friends maybe 1 in 10 seem to have taken electronic projects to school, but that's probably more like 1 in 1000 in the general population. And who knows what the number is in podunk texas.

    112. Re:That won't last long... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      One never knows...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    113. Re:That won't last long... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Sufficiently advanced sarcasm is indistinguishable from extremism.

    114. Re:That won't last long... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I knew a guy in charge of security that had aardvark as his password. I think he was worse.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    115. Re:That won't last long... by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      He didn't follow their advice and continue to wonder around the school with it, not obeying other instructions, which could be seen as suspicious.

      You don't arrest people because you're suspicious. This culture of fear is a terrible thing and it really needs to stop.

      You see a kid with something that might be potentially dangerous, you approach him and ask him, "what's that?" He shows it you, tells you it's a clock. You look at it, you let him explain it to you. At that point, you said, "cool" and leave him alone because it's clearly not dangerous. There's no reason he should put it away, there's no reason he shouldn't have it on him. The next person who sees it and is concerned should simply follow the same procedure and ask.

      Doing anything beyond that is completely unjustified. If he tried to pass it off as a bomb, that'd be another thing, but everyone who asked was told it's a clock. He deserves a settlement for the shit he was forced to go through. I don't know about the amount, but that's all up to the lawyers.

    116. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at a factual level, which is the legal definition since we're discussing the law, he was not arrested at all - he was detained and not arrested. arrested has a legal definition and he was not arrested. he was detained, brought in for questions, and even handcuffed - none of that meets the legal criteria for being an arrest.

    117. Re:That won't last long... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The school certainly overreacted, but...

      1) the kid was not arrested, nor did he suffer any "damages" in light of the celebrity and overly-friendly treatment from the President, and 2) once the jury hears about his overly-activist father and the lawyer's insinuation that the whole thing was a set-up?

      I'm not seeing this one going very far.

      You wouldn't be one of those who is against the overly oppressive government intruding on freedom, would you?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    118. Re:That won't last long... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The question is "was it a lawful arrest" We know now that more of the story has come out, he had this suspect looking thing. Some people recognized it for what it was and told him to put it away.

      He didn't follow their advice and continue to wonder around the school with it, not obeying other instructions, which could be seen as suspicious. Assuming there was not communication among the staff that knew it was just a stupid clock to those other people, I can see who it would meet a standard of 'reasonable suspicion' to justify an arrest. Would it have happened to someone who isn't brown skinned I don't know, but I am not sure that matters. If it does matter maybe the problem is authorities are not cautious enough about what white people are doing near high impact (I won't say value) targets like schools.

      "told him to put it away". He put it in his backpack. That's not away enough for you? What do you suggest? If he had put it in his locker, nobody would investigating it beeping and the papers wouldn't be full of "Muslim student hides fake bomb in locker"?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    119. Re:That won't last long... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the very nature of it?

      If everyone is treated the same way for bringing a toy gun to class then it's not discriminatory If everyone is treated the same way for fucking around with their electronics project in class then it's not discriminatory. If everyone is treated the same way for wearing a miniskirt to class then it's not discriminatory.

      The onus is on the school district to show that they always act this way.

      I venture he would have been treated differently than others if he wore a miniskirt

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    120. Re:That won't last long... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      ts reasonable to wonder why and what reaction he was hoping for. A childish joke is one possibility

      We've been over this. No one would be more vested in hinting at a suggestion that Ahmed came within a 200 foot pole of making a "childish joke" than the school district and the police department. Yet they aren't doing that. Why?

      Because there was no joke, there was no bomb, and there was no hoax. Period. Do you go into police brutality stories and argue that the cops were justified, despite all evidence to the contrary, when not even the cops in question are making that argument?

    121. Re:That won't last long... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Only in that it spreads the same amount among multiple school districts in the form of future payments--plus a bit of overhead, etc.

      If insurance companies could arbitrarily jack up rates without losing customers, they wouldn't wait for a settlement for a reason to do so. They'd jack up the rates and pocket the extra profit. Else the customer would move on to the next insurance company - supply and demand, market forces, the invisible fapping hand of capitalism, and all that.

      So it's back to the districts/departments bad behavior. There's no reason this has to work any differently than with any other kind of insurance. You have no accidents or tickets on your record, you're going to have lower car insurance rates than a chronic speeder with half a dozen DUI's under her belt. You're a school administrator or a police chief that doesn't have his head up his ass, you have low insurance rates. You're an incompetent racist authoritarian - high insurance rates. Stick, carrot, and all that.

    122. Re:That won't last long... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Because there was no joke, there was no bomb, and there was no hoax. Period.

      Intent can not be determined without investigation. Having the kid, and Wozniak in his day, spend a few hours answering questions with the police is **investigation**. Investigations happen when there is **suspicion**. A suspected bomb hoax warrants investigation. Whether it is later determined that intent was or was not present does not change this.

    123. Re:That won't last long... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      WHOOOOSH!

      the point
      ----------
      Your Head

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    124. Re:That won't last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being illegally detained is still a crime

  3. Integrated very well by Brama · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How much more American can you get?

    1. Re:Integrated very well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOLssssssss.

    2. Re:Integrated very well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much more American can you get?

      EPIC, this is so damn american

    3. Re:Integrated very well by andymadigan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, he's moving to Qatar, so apparently he doesn't like the idea of being American anymore. I can't blame him for that, but I have no sympathy for someone who complains their civil rights have been violated and then moves to a country that still practices slavery.

      He shouldn't get a cent.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    4. Re:Integrated very well by willworkforbeer · · Score: 0, Troll

      In Qatar, that $15 Million will buy a lot of Allahmunition though.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    5. Re:Integrated very well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had to leave the country before the social media hype died down and people started looking at the incident with a more discerning eye.

    6. Re:Integrated very well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he's the son of an Islamist activist, who intentionally put a clock into a briefcase designed to look like a bomb. This is precisely the kind of stunt his dad would dream up.

      Furthermore, he "invented" nothing. He cracked open an LED clock and put its innards in a briefcase, intentionally purchased to look like a movie version of a bomb. Then little Ahmed was sent to school and advised to show it off.

      Profit.

      Or should I say, Prophet?

    7. Re:Integrated very well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic no one who lives in the US should complain about being raped because our government has a de facto policy of prison rape.

      At least in qatar he won't be persecuted for his religion.

      The real world is whole lot more complex than you seem to think it is.

    8. Re:Integrated very well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he's moving to Qatar, so apparently he doesn't like the idea of being American anymore. I can't blame him for that, but I have no sympathy for someone who complains their civil rights have been violated and then moves to a country that still practices slavery. He shouldn't get a cent.

      As the Washington Post noted at the height of the controversy over his “clock,” Ahmed was showered with support from “Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and Google co-founder Sergey Brin,” while “Tweets, think pieces and daytime TV segments were dedicated to dissecting how Ahmed’s situation typified racism and Islamaphobia [sic] in America,” and he “visited the Google Science Fair, met with Sudan’s President Omar al Bashir, posed with the queen of Jordan at a United Nations Summit, appeared on the ‘Doctor Oz’ show and last night, made it to the White House.” Ahmed Mohamed became the darling of the political and media elites and met Obama. He was celebrated everywhere as an innocent victim of “Islamophobia.” He became an international hero. Yet now he claims to be “traumatized,” and wants $15M.

      After withdrawing from school in Texas, the boy’s family embraced the opportunities that came from his brush with the law. He visited the Google Science Fair, met with Sudan’s President Omar al Bashir, posed with the queen of Jordan at a United Nations Summit, appeared on the “Doctor Oz” show and last night, made it to the White House.

      One statement of Ahmad from the Washington Post: “I loved the city of Doha because it’s so modern. I saw so many amazing schools there, many of them campuses of famous American universities. The teachers were great. I think I will learn a lot and have fun too.” Ahmed’s sister Eyman said the Middle East won’t feel too different from the U.S., except that the family will be surrounded by Muslims like themselves.

      They've made the right call. Let's see how Qatari teachers react the next time Ahmad goes to class with a clock in a box.

    9. Re:Integrated very well by bsolar · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked being an hypocrite or an unlikeable person doesn't mean your rights can be violated without repercussion, but maybe nowadays damages get awarded depending on how many funny jokes you can crack instead of whether your rights got infringed.

    10. Re:Integrated very well by nachtelfjeiu · · Score: 1

      How much more ridiculous can US culture get? Sometimes i wonder if they realize just how sick this absurdly disproportionate sue culture comes across to foreigners.

    11. Re:Integrated very well by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      He's a child. He doesn't get to just stay in the United States if his parents are moving.

      I'm not sure whether there is anything he could possibly do to stay in the US in this circumstance if he wanted to.

      He should absolutely get restitution; 15 million dollars is obviously crazy though. I was thinking along the lines of 10 thousand. Certainly not much more, and possibly a bit less.

    12. Re:Integrated very well by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      I guess I would agree with this. Somewhere in the range of $5K-15K is probably appropriate. However, his father raised as much hell about his son's civil rights, and it really does sound like the son was offered the move to Qatar (and allowed to bring his family along) as a sort of PR stunt by Qatar.

      Meanwhile, slaves are still dying in the construction of their new stadium. I find his decision disgusting, he obviously has no problem with racism when it's to his benefit.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    13. Re:Integrated very well by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      How many slaves can you buy for $15 mil?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  4. eh don't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say what you want about the "clock" but being arrested and treated like he was; not able to have parents there for questions and such. I wouldn't feel bad if he took the city to the cleaners.

    1. Re:eh don't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Treated like he was? You'd like to see the lifetime tax yield of numerous American tax payers go to this kid for enduring a few hours of (at worst) humiliation? Wow. Just wow.

    2. Re:eh don't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. While it would be better if the family said they were going to donate the money to further scientific education, the school district and police need to learn that stupid hurts. Eh, it' likely they'll settle for a lot less and it will be swept under the rug by the media.

    3. Re:eh don't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      screw him and his shakedown artist parents.

  5. NO WAY... by SuperDre · · Score: 3, Interesting

    F-ing moneygrabbers, they got a lot of positive attention because of it, he had his 15 minutes of fame..

  6. WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by CajunArson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So when people tell me to check my white privilege, what they are saying is that if I'm not white I can really bank some serious money without doing any honest work simply by accusing "society" of being [racist|sexist|homophobic|islamophobic|everythingphobic]??

    WHERE CAN I SIGN UP TO CHECK IT IN!?!?!?

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act like he have received the money when he really only have asked for it. We don't know at this point in time how much money he will get or if he will get any for that matter. As far as I can see this is very common among Americans: to sue for millions and millions.

    2. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I keep trying to play on the relentless oppression of my German people since the Roman empire and how this is a crime that hasn't been addressed and has been repeated over the centuries, from the 100 years war, the Napoleonic wars, the anti-German discrimination against German Americans during and after WW I, the internment of Germans during WW II.

      My people are being picked on, and it's been going on FOR MILLENNIA and I deserve a check in the mail.

    3. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Don't bother. People who screamed the loudest about societal moochers are the same people who can't explain how the system work. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how to sign up for a free iPhone from the government.

    4. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of like the relentless oppression of Christians... Jews....blacks.... Asians... Hispanics... women...

      The only person that can't possible by a target of bigotry is a white male atheist. This is why polling shows the majority of Americans won't vote for an atheist irregardless of their views....and in Muslim dominated countries there is a good chance of a white atheist male that speaks too loudly of even being killed.

      So-called "human rights' these days is essentially anyone deemed a minority automatically receives special treatment rather than treating all bigotry and racism as equally bad.

    5. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stopped reading after irregardless.

    6. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how you changed the free cell to a free iPhone.

    7. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I didn't change anything. I've been hearing for years how the government hands out FREE iPhones like candy. When I press people on exactly how to get a FREE iPhone, they either shut up or point to the government program for a FREE cellphone. An ordinary cellphone is not in the same league as an iPhone.

    8. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait no longer, here is how you get your very own Obama Phone: http://www.obamaphone.com/get-obama-phone

      Here is info on what a scam it is: http://fortune.com/2015/11/23/fcc-never-collected-lifeline-fines/

      This woman explains how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

      You're welcome.

    9. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You do know what an iPhone is? None of your links informs on where I can get an iPhone from the government.

      P.S., The original "scam" got started underneath President Reagan.

      P.P.S., You're welcome.

    10. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to get basic income first, then you just buy it. But that makes a lot of assumptions about prices not changing. I don't know what they do after that, but probably price controls of some sort... hard to say.

    11. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm part Jewish, so I want part of that cheque when you get it. And something from Egypt, too! And Spain, for the Inquisition! (Bet you didn't expect that.)

    12. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who work for a living generally dont know how the system works. They feel guilt at stealing from others. If you want a free phone you can quickly google and find out how.

      http://www.obamaphone.com/get-obama-phone

      All you have to do is vote in someone who has no problem stealing from those who work to give to those who dont.

    13. Re:WHERE CAN I CHECK MY WHITE PRIVILEGE?!? by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

      People just keep assuming that because I'm Irish that I'm a drunk. They should have to wait to find that out just like everyone else

  7. Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No way the school district is going to pay 15 mill to this family that has already emigrated to Qatar. It will probably cost a few thousands in lawyer fees. On the other hand, that clock boy is going to lose all sympathy from most people. It lends credence to the accusation that the boy's father, a presidential candidate in south sudan or chad or some such place is quite media savvy and has manipulated the media and gamed the system.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way the school district is going to pay 15 mill to this family that has already emigrated to Qatar. It will probably cost a few thousands in lawyer fees. On the other hand, that clock boy is going to lose all sympathy from most people. It lends credence to the accusation that the boy's father, a presidential candidate in south sudan or chad or some such place is quite media savvy and has manipulated the media and gamed the system.

      Tell Dad to not worry. If voting and corruption is anything like America, he'll still win.

    2. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by kheldan · · Score: 2

      It lends credence to the accusation that the boy's father, a presidential candidate in south sudan or chad or some such place is quite media savvy and has manipulated the media and gamed the system.

      Precisely. As soon as I saw this story on Firehose, I lost all sympathy for this kid, as he lost any and all credibility that he might have had. This had to have all been a scheme cooked up by the kids' father, and this is the end-game. They should get precisely ZERO dollars, and perhaps counter-sued for being a nuisance and conspiring to create these shenanigans.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    3. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by Threni · · Score: 1

      First you get the money.
      Then you don't care about opinion.
      Because money pays for food and stuff.
      And opinion is just the sequence of words in people's tweets/facebook pages etc. It really doesn't amount to very much.

    4. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Lets connect the dots. Child is arrested with no legitimate charge. Police release him. If there was a crime to be sued over dad/kid will probably will, and if its frivolous then probably not

        I don't see how your subjective hyperbole / speculation will change the facts of the matter. Instead, you'll play up on people's inherent group biases to sow resentment in those 'other people'.

      --
      Bye!
    5. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by s.petry · · Score: 1

      But President Obama said "we need more kids like him". Are you telling me that the President is wrong? *gasp* *snark*

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    6. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by s.petry · · Score: 1

      When you open with a complete fabrication, your concluding opinion becomes suspect at best. The kid was not arrested, he was detained. He was detained for reasons you can find pretty easily.

      I don't see how your fantasy / delusion which counters reality will change the facts of the matter. Instead of using facts, you simply lied in an attempt to manipulate opinion.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by kheldan · · Score: 2

      Oh come on. The whole thing was fishy to start with. What I and others are saying at this point, is that the kids' father probably concocted the whole thing to troll the school and the cops into 'detaining' or 'arresting' or whatever word you want to use to describe it, for the sole purpose of this end-game, being the ability to sue someone for 'how poorly his son was treated'. If it looks like BS and smells like BS, then it's probably BS. The key factor here is the impending lawsuit. If all they wanted was to be left alone to live in peace they wouldn't bother.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    8. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add to that this is the kid that very publicly debated that pastor in Florida planning to burn the Quran. This whole thing stank from the beginning. Badly.

    9. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way the school district is going to pay 15 mill to this family that has already emigrated to Qatar. It will probably cost a few thousands in lawyer fees. On the other hand, that clock boy is going to lose all sympathy from most people. It lends credence to the accusation that the boy's father, a presidential candidate in south sudan or chad or some such place is quite media savvy and has manipulated the media and gamed the system.

      His father ran for President of Sudan - not South Sudan or Chad - on 2 occasions. He is an Islamic activist. South Sudan is Christian, while Chad is like Darfur - Muslim but not Arab. His father ran for president of Sudan twice - once in 2010 and once this year. He's ain't your average Achmed Omar from the streets of Omdurman

    10. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by SomeoneFromBelgium · · Score: 1

      First of all: I agree with you. I have no sympathy for this move.
      But I must say that I'm a bit curious about the reaction in the US.

      This whole thing reminds me a bit of the case of SCO vs. IBM and Novell and other Linux users (strange how the mind works).
      In that case too it was obvious that they didn't have a thing in their hands and were just gaming the justice system in the hope they would hit the jackpot.

      Daryl McBride almost litterally said in an interview that, faced with the imminent demise of SCO, he looked for a way to 'activate' the IP they had.

      I thought that everyone would be appalled by this type of behaviour. But no. Apparently the public liked it. SCO was 'a fighter' and 'defending their business'.

      I wonder if this boy will get the same response. My guess is: nope. Why? It's not such a high profile case as SCO (which had managed to get BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER to defend them) and because he has said that he is leaving the US.

      What do you thing?

    11. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      He was arrested, it's not anyone's fault but your own that you can't understand that being put in cuffs by the police == arrest.

      Hell even a legal dictionary says you're wrong:

      An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    12. Re:Fantastic way to lose all sympathy by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. The whole thing was fishy to start with. What I and others are saying at this point, is that the kids' father probably concocted the whole thing to troll the school and the cops into 'detaining' or 'arresting' or whatever word you want to use to describe it, for the sole purpose of this end-game, being the ability to sue someone for 'how poorly his son was treated'. If it looks like BS and smells like BS, then it's probably BS. The key factor here is the impending lawsuit. If all they wanted was to be left alone to live in peace they wouldn't bother.

      yeah. like ahead of time, you could be absolutely sure that your kid would be arrested for bringing a clock in a box. happens every day. same way the socialists knew that in 2000, america would elect a black guy from hawaii, so they faked obama's nigerian birth to look like hawaii.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  8. Why not? by p0p0 · · Score: 1

    Now he'll definitely be smarter than the other kids as the school closes down because of lack of funding. A true american success story.

  9. Lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I totally feel like some 2bit lawyer decided to contact them about this, just so he'd make money

  10. Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys are fucking crooks.
    Islamophobia my ass. He wasn't the first kid who got stopped because of "scary electronics" and it wasn't for being a muslim either.

    http://boingboing.net/2007/09/21/mit-student-arrested.html

  11. good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love crushing pussy just as much as anyone but, Jesus Christ, just fuck off.

  12. Lawyers by ardmhacha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am sure that this is all his own idea and no lawyers were involved in the decision to sue for $15 million.

    1. Re:Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lawyer: What would you like to have as compensation?
      Clock Boy: I lost 1 month because of this ordeal, and I want to be an engineer, so let's ask for 1 month of an engineer's salary.
      Lawyer: Can you compute the dollar amount?
      Clock Boy: Yes, $15,000.
      Lawyer: That's too reasonable, let's add 3 zeros to that figure.

    2. Re:Lawyers by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

      When are lawyers not involved in making this decision?

  13. Dad of Ahmed is an Islamic Supremacist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed and Robert Spencer once debated on the topic, “Does Islam Respect Human Rights?” The results were so bad for him that after the debate, The American Muslim pleaded with Muslims not to debate Spencer. In any case, this debate is one indication that Mohamed Elhassan has been trying for several years to make his bones as a warrior against “Islamophobia.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8BLtBFeyyo

    The debate starts at 31:48, after an interview with Walid Phares. On a separate note, this Sudanese Islamic activist once claimed that that incident would “spread Islam” in America

    That kid may have been innocent, but his father is an Islamic activist trying to intimidate anyone who has any concerns about Islamic activism.

    1. Re:Dad of Ahmed is an Islamic Supremacist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do what I do when faced with religious and political "activism": ignore it. Even acknowledging that there is a debate is giving the activists too much footing. Religion is BAD. This includes science fetishism. This includes Nationalism. Anyone who holds a certain outlook above all others should be considered a radical and should be sent to the gulag.

    2. Re:Dad of Ahmed is an Islamic Supremacist by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. (Edmund Burke)

      Ignoring loud people with dangerous stands gives ignorant bystanders the impression that there's nothing wrong. There's no requirement that I actively oppose villains, but I'm not improving the world when i fail to do so.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:Dad of Ahmed is an Islamic Supremacist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All Muslims are Islamic supremacists. The superiority of believers is baked into the religion. If you read their holy texts and see what Allah does and says, its fairly obvious he's the Christian devil.

    4. Re:Dad of Ahmed is an Islamic Supremacist by youngatheart · · Score: 1

      That kid may have been innocent, but his father is an Islamic activist trying to intimidate anyone who has any concerns about Islamic activism.

      It is perfectly acceptable to condemn a father's actions and still also condemn unreasonable actions taken by a school and police officers. It is even possible for a reasonable person to condemn the opinions of a person and still defend the rights of the person to express those opinions.

      I don't know much about the dad, nor do I honestly know much about the kid, but the fact is that a kid was arrested at school when he obviously presented no harm or danger to anyone then held and questioned without a guardian or attorney present. The facts condemn the actions of the authorities and it is perfectly reasonable to demand that people who abuse power be held accountable.

  14. A cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if it's going to be a mega-million lawsuit either way, would it be cheaper in the future if they just go ahead and shoot the kid?

    1. Re:A cheaper solution by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      So, if it's going to be a mega-million lawsuit either way, would it be cheaper in the future if they just go ahead and shoot the kid?

      Setting aside that this would be an outrageous violation of civil rights and our own sense of morality, the cost in lost international goodwill and in gained propaganda value for terrorists would, IMHO, result in a financial loss far greater than $15 million.

      He has sued for $15 million. He may get all of it, or none of it, or something in between. The courts will decide. That's what they're for.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:A cheaper solution by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That just stupid. They should of blown him up, then said that he suicided himself with his briefcase bomb.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:A cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know what it means to HAVE done something.

      I am confused about what it means to OF done something.

  15. Aint nobody got time for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you I'll be here all week. Remember to tip your waitress. Try the fish!

  16. money for lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only one that's going to get paid is the lawyer's.

  17. Reads like a script by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This whole story since the day after the incident reads like a script from exactly what the tinfoil hat crowd said would happen. His father is laughing all the way to the bank and laughing at the foolishness of gullible Americans. They not only duped the SJW crowd, but even duped Obama, and they have already cashed in on their successful plan and sounds like they will continue to do so via a lawsuit. Even though there weren't any actual damages, it will be cheaper for the school district to settle, and then raise taxes so that they can afford to keep the school functioning for the other students in the district.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Reads like a script by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This whole story since the day after the incident reads like a script from exactly what the tinfoil hat crowd said would happen. His father is laughing all the way to the bank and laughing at the foolishness of gullible Americans. They not only duped the SJW crowd, but even duped Obama, and they have already cashed in on their successful plan and sounds like they will continue to do so via a lawsuit. Even though there weren't any actual damages, it will be cheaper for the school district to settle, and then raise taxes so that they can afford to keep the school functioning for the other students in the district.

      And maybe while they are at it, they'll put policies in place to prevent such an overreaction the next time -- as will school districts across the country.

      Without the threat of a lawsuit and large payout there'd be no incentive to this school (or others) to change, they'd continue to overreact to minor things and escalate to the police without reasonable cause.

      Maybe the kid doesn't serve such a large payout, but the school deserves to pay it.

    2. Re:Reads like a script by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They not only duped the SJW crowd, but even duped Obama

      Obama is a member of the SJW crowd. The more I listen to him the clearer it is he has never a thought of his own. He has been spooned leftist nonsense from birth and learned to repeat it, sometime eloquently. We should just put a picture of him next to 'Social Justice Warrior' in the urban dictionary.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:Reads like a script by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Without the threat of a lawsuit and large payout there'd be no incentive to this school (or others) to change, they'd continue to overreact to minor things and escalate to the police without reasonable cause.

      Somewhat untrue. There's a counter-"zero tolerance" movemnet gaining steam. And politicans are driven more by PR than monetary fines anyway.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Reads like a script by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They duped the SJW crowd, including Obama, and they...

      Fixed that for you.

      The bolstering of this kid, who made a device that looked like movie-style bomb, only shows the stupidity of everyone that was backing him up. He should not have been arrested, but he should have been written up for doing it. Hindsight is 20/20, but people learn from their mistakes. It was a mistake to bring this thing into a school. But it was also a mistake for people to proclaim this to be any kind of feat of engineering (he's 14; not 6) because the sole challenge was to not cut any wires -- that's it.

      The fact that the family wants $15 million for being arrested (not charged!) for a dumb mistake, theoretically of his own doing, with or without the suggestion of a lawyer, is reason enough to vilify the kid and his family.

      And, for anyone complaining that perhaps a payout is due, then it should be done by the police department who are the ones that arrested him. Just because the police are called, it does not mean that they need to arrest someone.

      School's are taught to overreact to everything because they are hyper sensitive to school violence. It only makes sense that a device like this will cause a bit of concern because it looks like a bomb from a movie and, frankly, you'd have to be pretty stupid to not recognize that problem in hindsight at least. No one would have batted an eye if the kid brought in toy gun, unannounced, and got himself arrested.

      It truly upsets me that people think that a payout is in order for such stupidity, especially given the kind of response that the kid already received: all sorts of free electronics from companies (including many thousands of dollars worth of equipment from Microsoft), being put in front of Google Science Fair finalists (for changing the case on a clock!!), and a meeting with the President.

      No, future responses do not need to be stopped. If someone walks into a school with a device like that today, then I want the police called, but I want the student to not be arrested if it proves to be safe. That's the only thing that needs to change. And, what should happen to the kid afterward? They shouldn't be giving awards for something that shouldn't even win a local science fair contest. They should be writing them up for doing something stupid (not the device, but bringing it in without permission).

    5. Re:Reads like a script by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And maybe while they are at it, they'll put policies in place to prevent such an overreaction the next time

      There was no overreaction. Hoax bombs are illegal there. Even if the school did not agree with the law they should not ignore it. Mohamed was suspected of bringing a hoax bomb to school, and the school rightfully called the cops to deal with with the hoax bomb. The cops didn't even charge him since he is Muslim.
      Everyone did everything right (the school called the cops to investigate; the cops dropped it because it was an obvious trap), except for Mohamed who set the alarm off during class.

    6. Re:Reads like a script by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I saw this coming from day one.
      It seemed very likely that they were deliberately doing this just to get sympathy for the poor muslims and some money.
      If he'd been white he would have been expelled and people would be talking about those racist, mass murdering whites who aren't sensitive enough to keep their home made clocks out of the school's save space.

    7. Re:Reads like a script by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a counter-"zero tolerance" movemnet gaining steam.

      There is? About time. It's really stupid when a bully hits you then complains to a teacher that his hand hurts and is able to get you expelled for not moving out of the way fast enough. Then again, our high school had a lot of odd students. We had our share of drugs in the free brownies at bake sales, bomb threats, and greased up naked guys . Even The Daily Show called us Gaylords. Maybe a vital nutrient was missing from our food...

    8. Re:Reads like a script by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They not only duped the SJW crowd, but even duped Obama

      Huh?

    9. Re:Reads like a script by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      SJW crowd

      There is no such thing, and any liars talking about it should just call it "the boogeyman" as that's what they mean when they say it.

    10. Re:Reads like a script by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      This whole story since the day after the incident reads like a script from exactly what the tinfoil hat crowd said would happen. .

      And the 'tinfoil hat gang' who called it on day one are still considered morons and wrong.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  18. That is the American way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they win we all pay with USD, if they loose, we all pay with freedom.

  19. Yes, he was arrested [Re:That won't last long...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative

    The school certainly overreacted, but...

    1) the kid was not arrested

    Yes, he was. He was taken away from the school by the police in handcuffs. That's an arrest.

    I think what you meant to say was, the kid was not charged. That's correct. He was arrested, but released without charges.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  20. I Should Be A Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Clock Boy: I was arrested for making something that was designed to look like a bomb. Even though this was made illegal so that the cops wouldn't have to spend all of their time chasing down false alarms, I still want $15 million.

    Judge Me: This is pretty much the most frivolous lawsuit that has ever come across my desk. I'm fining you $15 million for filing such a frivolous lawsuit. If you fail to come up with the $15 million in the next 5 minutes, you will be spending all day, every day making little rocks out of big rocks until you do come up with the $15 million. Case dismissed. Have a nice day.

    1. Re:I Should Be A Judge by hawguy · · Score: 0

      Clock Boy: I was arrested for making something that was designed to look like a bomb. Even though this was made illegal so that the cops wouldn't have to spend all of their time chasing down false alarms, I still want $15 million.

      Judge Me: This is pretty much the most frivolous lawsuit that has ever come across my desk. I'm fining you $15 million for filing such a frivolous lawsuit. If you fail to come up with the $15 million in the next 5 minutes, you will be spending all day, every day making little rocks out of big rocks until you do come up with the $15 million. Case dismissed. Have a nice day.

      It wasn't designed to "look like a bomb", it was designed to look like a clock a kid modified. It just happened to look like a cartoon or movie bomb, which is nothing at all like what real IED's look like.

    2. Re:I Should Be A Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Looks nothing like a clock. You are full of it.

    3. Re:I Should Be A Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how does taking the innards of a clock and putting in a box make it look like a clock that he modified? At the very least his behavior was suspicious. Why did he plug it in and set the alarm to go off during class? Suspicious. And when I say suspicious I don't mean suspicious as in actual bomb, I mean suspicious in his true intent in having the thing there in the first place. It looks a heck of a lot more like a set up than an "invention".

    4. Re:I Should Be A Judge by qbast · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was designed to look like typical bomb from a movie. Do you think that teachers have much experience with 'real IEDs' ?
      The whole thing was a set up designed to provoke exactly this kind of reaction. And apparently since they story is out of first pages of the press, it is time for payday.

    5. Re:I Should Be A Judge by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Because of the improvised nature of IEDs (the first word genius), real IEDs can look like anything. So in effect the clock he made looks like an IED, because anything can. The law is there for the common person not have to deal with believed threats that are not real. If it looks like something "like a cartoon or movie bomb," which is what most people expect an IED or terrorist bomb to look like, than it's illegal.

    6. Re:I Should Be A Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It wasn't designed to "look like a bomb", it was designed to look like a clock a kid modified. It just happened to look like a cartoon or movie bomb,

      "It happened to look like"? Are you kidding? The kid and his father deliberately made it look like a "cartoon or movie bomb". And the school got upset with him because he behaved like a jerk. The kid and his father were agents provocateurs. Or call them "trolls" in new terminology.

    7. Re:I Should Be A Judge by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was designed to look like typical bomb from a movie.

      That's a rather low bar, since a "typical bomb from a movie" is nothing but a bunch of random electronics thrown together—plus, typically, a block of modeling clay meant to represent "explosives". (Perhaps they should be investigating the art department instead.) As a result, you can't ban "things that look like fake movie bombs", sans anything resembling an explosive, without banning electronics projects generally. Granted, this device did include the stereotypical digital clock, but it was counting up, not down. And both count-up and count-down clocks are standard training circuits for beginners in electronics.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    8. Re:I Should Be A Judge by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      It wasn't designed to "look like a bomb", it was designed to look like a clock a kid modified. It just happened to look like a cartoon or movie bomb, which is nothing at all like what real IED's look like.

      Nobody knows for sure what actual intent was.

      What did it for me was when he plugged in and set the alarm of his suitcase clock to go off in the middle of class. Given family history I'm more inclined to believe they got precisely response they were hoping for and then some.

    9. Re:I Should Be A Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was a parent at that school, I'd be raising seven kinds of hell with that administration. Forget Ahmed for the moment - explain to me which of these two scenarios you want me to beat you with a stick for:

      Option 1: You had a suspected bomb in your school and chose not to evacuate the school. In what world is it an acceptable level of risk? That level of negligence is criminal.

      Option 2: You know the bomb ain't a bomb, but you got a kid being stupid in school. Why were the parents not called? Who gave the school permission for a child to leave school grounds? Who gave permission for a child to be interrogated (without counsel present, no less)? (And anyone with an elementary school kid knows that the kid can't give themselves permission to leave grounds during school hours). How many other times has school staffed whisked kids away off school grounds without talking to the parents?

      No matter how you slice it, the school Done Goofed. Maybe not 15 million of Goof, but they Done Goofed.

  21. Comedy of errors by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    The school district were clearly beyond clueless, I mean anyone with less half a clue can see it couldn't have been a bomb. I mean the lack of any explosive would be the first clue. But it seems to me that the larger fault here was the president's.
    He clearly tried to politically capitalize on an unfortunate local event by blowing it out of all proportion and turning it into a country-wide sensationalist media circus. So now of course the money-grubbing parents are going to try for all they can get in the best of capitalist traditions, That doesn't make any of this right though.

    1. Re:Comedy of errors by geantvert · · Score: 1

      Since you are obviously an expert you can probably tell me what explosive look like?
      It's a red tube with TNT printed on it, right?

    2. Re:Comedy of errors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The school district were clearly beyond clueless, I mean anyone with less half a clue can see it couldn't have been a bomb. I mean the lack of any explosive would be the first clue.

      So teachers are supposed to be explosives recognition experts now? Bullshit! If I had been the teacher in the classroom the clock-toting student would have been shot dead. Better one "innocent" student be put to death than 29 other students be maimed or killed by a bomb.

    3. Re:Comedy of errors by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      They can look like a number of things. Grey putty is a common one.

      What they don't look like is the innards of an electronic clock.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Comedy of errors by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      What they don't look like is the innards of an electronic clock.

      Right because somone who does not possess electronics knowledge can tell the difference between a PCB for a cheap electronic clock and one that is some kind of detonator. I think that expectation is unreasonably. Ask youself had 'you' carried that thing thru the airport security line would you average TSA agent have likely pulled you off for some questioning?

      You and I both know the answer is yes. The reality is here some people did know what it was at the school and they told him he should put it away. He did not do that. He continued to be disruptive, which could have been mistaken for agitation and when he encountered other people who were not sure what it was the responded out of an abundance of caution; and followed procedure.

      The kid is NOT in the right here.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:Comedy of errors by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      You don't need to be an expert to know that at least it must be something other than circuit boards and wires.
      Oh wait thats all there was?

    6. Re:Comedy of errors by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Right because somone who does not possess electronics knowledge can tell the difference between a PCB for a cheap electronic clock and one that is some kind of detonator.

      Even assuming your point is completely true, you're still making the same dumb mistake that the school did.
      Do you REALLY believe that a timer alone can explode? It requires just basic common sense to spot the complete lack of explosive material, such as a blob of grey putty or a jar of liquid with a detonator cap or a couple of wires sticking out of it.

      Apprently even basic common sense is an unrealistic expectation let alone requirement for your average US public school staff and principal these days.

    7. Re:Comedy of errors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can look like a number of things. Grey putty is a common one.

      What they don't look like is the innards of an electronic clock.

      Modding ... sorry for a/c post

      While teacher and school administration seem like half wits, imaging that you have to make the call. right now. How could you be so sure that the plastic housing was not some advanced composite explosive? You going to put kids into the line of fire? No way, you have to assume it's dangerous because (I'm guessing this is true but i wasn't there) the kid was acting strange about it and now you just cannot trust what he was up to.

    8. Re:Comedy of errors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever seen an IED? They can look like any number of things. Bombmakers in Afghanistan and Iraq have gotten very creative over the years and there are video tutorials from jihadist websites on how to make these things.

    9. Re:Comedy of errors by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Right because somone who does not possess electronics knowledge can tell the difference between a PCB for a cheap electronic clock and one that is some kind of detonator.

      The school officials, and the police, all asserted that they had exactly that ability, as none of them actually invoked a single procedure that they had in place for dealing with a suspected bomb.

      Schools get evacuated on the basis of a single anonymous phone call which says there's a bomb in a locker. It happens on a regular basis. Yet when they had the device IN HAND, they very obviously made the determination that it was in no way, shape or form dangerous. They did not evacuate the school. They did not call in bomb disposal. The teacher kept it in a desk drawer for a fair length of time. The police transported the 'device' in the same vehicle that they used to perpshame Ahmed.

      They didn't just believe it wasn't a bomb, they made a specific determination, at every level and at every point in the debacle, that it wasn't a bomb, and SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to not invoke the procedures that all start with 'If there is ANY possibility that there is a bomb, do this....'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    10. Re:Comedy of errors by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You are aware that you keep timers detonators and explosives apart until it's time to blow things up?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    11. Re:Comedy of errors by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Your argument makes no sense, since that would mean pretty much any timing device is also a bomb.

    12. Re:Comedy of errors by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      It only makes no sense to someone purposefully being dense

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    13. Re:Comedy of errors by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Since you are obviously an expert you can probably tell me what explosive look like? It's a red tube with TNT printed on it, right?

      if the thing was the innards of a radio shack clock as everybody says, then there's nothing in there that doesn't look like the innards of a radio shack clock. a battery, a circuit board, a display, a power cord. if you can see an explosive in that, then every cellphone or other electronic gadget is a bomb threat.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  22. Cha-CHING! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were "alarm clocks" going off all over Paris not long ago. A big settlement will let Ahmed fund more of these activities.

  23. Step to the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perhaps this case will be dismissed or jury will decide not to award damages.

    However this will be an example. There was a story recently where two arab speaking US citizens were not admitted to the plane, because somebody feared.

    http://news.yahoo.com/two-men-kept-boarding-us-plane-speaking-arabic-023330187.html

    These two fellow American,s US citizens would have been better off recording the encounter, missing the plane and then suing for bona fide discrimination and would have won big time.

    This paranoia needs to stop and one or two cases with proper settlements would help.

    1. Re:Step to the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the case of Ahmed, I think a lot of people were quick (and right) to jump the gun on the discrimination part.

      However, as more information came to light about his father, it started to look more and more like a setup. Does this make the situation worse? indeed. Considering the racial tensions with police lately, It wouldn't surprise me if this was meant to increase Ahmeds father's standing among his peers rather than Ahmed.

      Still, I if this happened again I probably wouldn't try to tear down Ahmed for what amounts to a clock in something that looks enough like a hollywood bomb, but might be more suspicious of the motives. The original social media pictures showed a Ahmed being taken away by the police, not the clock.

    2. Re:Step to the right direction by cbraescu1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested

      Actually, he was *NOT* arrested. He was detained.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    3. Re:Step to the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he was *NOT* arrested. He was detained.

      I spent a few minutes on Google, and I was overwhelmed by the mainstream journalism pieces that specifically assert that he was arrested.

      Unless I see a citation from a reputable source that we was not arrested, I will continue to believe the facts as they are presented by mainstream journalism.

    4. Re:Step to the right direction by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Troll

      However, as more information came to light about his father, it started to look more and more like a setup.

      Well, sure, if you're the sort of person that thinks that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation, or a moron, for short.

    5. Re:Step to the right direction by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Actually, he was *NOT* arrested. He was detained.

      He was perp walked in handcuffs, taken to the station, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned for over an hour. On planet is that *NOT* arrested? Did y'alls leave your brains parked by the front door?

    6. Re:Step to the right direction by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      Actually, he was *NOT* arrested. He was detained.

      If you're being booked, you've been arrested.

      Of course, the police report also reads "Arrestee being in possession of a hoax bomb at MacArthur High School." Maybe you should call the Irving police and explain to them how you belive that he was not arrested.

    7. Re:Step to the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These muslim "activists" pull this shit all the time to get people to be sympathetic to them. It's a tactic they stole from the Jews. Take a look at this story. Paints the whole "I'm just an innocent immigrant who was treated poorly for no reason, boo hoo" picture, then you find out the woman and her husband are activists and affiliated with the muslim brotherhood. Calls the validity of the entire story into question. Was it embellished? Was it provoked? Did it even happen at all?

      This isn't the first time, and it won't be the last. Any time one of these stories comes up, people need to do a bit of digging instead of just buying into the lies and propaganda.

    8. Re:Step to the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not detained when you are questioned for an hour and a half, taken to the station, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned further. That is an arrest.

    9. Re:Step to the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only he asked "Am I being detained?" repeatedly in an annoying manner. Oh well.

    10. Re:Step to the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it leave a permanent arrest record that he has to mention every time he fills out any government form? If not, then he was not arrested.

    11. Re:Step to the right direction by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I think the "moron" aspect kicks in if you attempt to equate two events that could scarcely be more different.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    12. Re:Step to the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why does it need to stop? do you know how profitable this shit is? shit's cash dude! cash!

    13. Re:Step to the right direction by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested

      Actually, he was *NOT* arrested. He was detained.

      "An arrest, on the other hand, involves the police taking someone into custody through a more significant restraint on movement. The quintessential example involves the use of handcuffs and an advisement that the suspect is under arrest."
      http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPAFMKrUkAABI2a.jpg
      his movements do seem significantly restrained, by what appear to be handcuffs presumably associated with the police officer in the background

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    14. Re:Step to the right direction by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      So no, you didn't leave your brain by the door - you stuffed it down the garbage disposal and flipped the switch.

      Does it leave a permanent arrest record that he has to mention every time he fills out any government form?

      He's a minor. He wouldn't have to do that even if had jumped up on his desk screaming 'it's a bomb, it's a bomb', then been tried and sentenced to juvie. Christ, you wingers are stupid.

    15. Re:Step to the right direction by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Obviously, what they have in common is the drooling right-wing stupidity. It was a simple enough point, but right-wing morons could miss water if they fell out of a boat in the middle of the Pacific.

  24. Islamophobia is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Atheist from a Christian family here.

    Although Islamaphobia like antisemetism is sometimes just used as a manipulative method to silence legitimate criticism about extremists within these groups... Islamophobia is just as real as antisemitism. For proof of this one needs look no further than the millions of racists that argue to keep out legitimate Syrian war refugees. Given the religious extremism going on much in the middle east, there certainly should be a vetting process but when people use lame excuses of "security" to keep out even orphaned children (that are hardly a terrorist threat) they reveal themselves as heartless racist bigots.

    When German Jews were fleeing persecution by Nazis, some American's refused to take Jews in (treating them all like a plague). Today some Americans are repeating the exact same mistake with Muslims. In so doing they not only shame America they shame themselves. The populists may be popular in the moment but history will not be kind to them.

    1. Re:Islamophobia is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that fits in with claiming 15 million in damages for a false arrest how exactly?

    2. Re:Islamophobia is real by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of anybody arguing to keep out legitimate Syrian war refugees. I *am* aware of plenty of people rightfully arguing that we need to figure out how to screen Syrian refugees before letting any more into the country to make sure that we're not paying ISIS members to come to the US. That's a whole nother ballgame.

    3. Re:Islamophobia is real by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You are aware that it takes two to three years for a refugee to pass security screenings before being allowed into the country?

    4. Re:Islamophobia is real by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, there are heartless self-entitled racist bigots everywhere. Hopefully their bad behavior will convince others that judging people solely on where they were born or their ethnicity is just plain dumb. The republican candidates for president are doing an effective job in that respect, catering to their base via fear-mongering.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Islamophobia is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In an islamic country you would be beheaded for being atheist. Do you want these nuts in the united states?

    6. Re:Islamophobia is real by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      Islamophobia is just as real as antisemitism. For proof of this one needs look no further than the millions of racists that argue to keep out legitimate Syrian war refugees

      there are plenty of good reasons to not want to import more people to our country that have nothing to do with with their religion. for example close to 20 trillion in debt, job rates for actual americans is not good, homelessness in america.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Islamophobia is real by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1
      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:Islamophobia is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch and learn https://youtu.be/SQHZ0kAInxY?list=PLsLoRe0UGyyhBtQcSdyYAsa6XDO1PnCT2

    9. Re:Islamophobia is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that it takes two to three years for a refugee to pass security screenings before being allowed into the country?

      I live in Utah. Instead of calling for an all-out refusal of the refugees, our governor did some fact-checking. He talked with DHS and other agencies to determine how these refugees were vetted. After learning that these refugees live in refugee camps for 2+ years while DHS runs background checks and fingerprints are shared with our alphabet soup, our governor decided (last I heard) to accept some refugees.

      Despite 2 or 3 years of background checks, some refugees have been identified as members of Islamic State. This number is so small to be statistically insignificant, but it only takes one of them in your community to create chaos. What course of action would you suggest?

    10. Re:Islamophobia is real by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Americans are more likely to get killed by a gunman with an assault rifle and extra clips than a team of ISIS terrorists. What course of action would you suggest?

    11. Re:Islamophobia is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish that were true but it's not. I would agree with your very reasonable point that any refugees should be carefully screened for terrorists (and criminals) but what's actually going on is far more insidious.

      A large number of Americans (obviously not all :) not only want to keep out Syrian refugees but in my opinion (as an atheist) are virulently racist towards both Arabs and Muslims (not the same thing). Xenophobia and racism towards Muslims is rampant even in the mainstream the days. This is especially among any fundamentalist Christian Republicans where half are o extreme and intolerant they argue that their entire religion should be banned.... something Nazis would have argued.

      This shameful behavior goes against the constitution and spirit of tolerance America was founded on... by people that are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants themselves.

      "Poll: A Majority of Americans Oppose Accepting Syrian Refugees"
      http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-majority-americans-oppose-accepting-syrian-refugees-n465816

      "Governors rush to slam door on Syrian refugees"
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/16/governors-rush-to-slam-door-on-syrian-refugees/

      "A disturbing new poll says that only 49% of Republicans think Islam should be legal"
      http://fusion.net/story/202263/iowa-poll-majority-republican-voters-think-islam-illegal/

    12. Re:Islamophobia is real by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      there are plenty of good reasons to not want to import more people to our country that have nothing to do with with their religion. for example close to 20 trillion in debt,

      So spreading the debt across more people is a bad thing? What logic do you have in that refugees shouldn't go to high-debt countries?

    13. Re:Islamophobia is real by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      my argument on the matter is simply we cant afford to take in new people when we have homeless people in our country. until every american has a home and a job, we should not be be bringing in people who will compete with americans for our resources

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    14. Re:Islamophobia is real by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Ah, so that's why the Republicans try to sabotage the economy every chance they get, so we'll never be "good enough" to allow in those evil immigrants.

    15. Re:Islamophobia is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh believe me I know about Islamic religious crazies that would kill me given half a chance. For those, I am a firm believer of a steady diet of cruise missiles. We should not only wipe them off the face of the earth, but history should forever shame them by recording their behavior as evil.

      However, some make the mistake of confusing every Muslim as a member of ISIS. Indonesia has the largest number of Muslims in the world.. and their human rights record is far better than Israel (don't see Indonesia's government stealing the property of Jews to give to Muslims like Israel continues to do with native Palestinians). Although I'm a nonbeliever (my parents were Christians but tolerant ones) I would trust a moderate Muslim, or moderate Jew with my rights over some Christian fundy wackjob that wants to ban Islam and teach creationism in schools. It's important to recognize people are individuals not stereotypes.

    16. Re:Islamophobia is real by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      If that gunman with an assault rifle just turns out to be a Muslim I bet you would be claiming it had nothing to do with Islam and that he was a lone nut.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    17. Re:Islamophobia is real by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I would reserve judgment and wait for more facts. It's call being open minded.

    18. Re:Islamophobia is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that gunman with an assault rifle just turns out to be a Chistian I bet you would be claiming it had nothing to do with Christianity nd that he was a lone nut.

      Of course religion plays a role for religious acts of terrorists. However this doesn't mean everyone in that religion is an extremist or part of cabel. We went over this during WW2 with Jews and Nazis. Lets not repeat the same mistakes.

    19. Re:Islamophobia is real by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of anybody arguing to keep out legitimate Syrian war refugees. I *am* aware of plenty of people rightfully arguing that we need to figure out how to screen Syrian refugees before letting any more into the country to make sure that we're not paying ISIS members to come to the US. That's a whole nother ballgame.

      To begin with, it takes two years at least to process before coming to the US. As Trump will tell you, they can just walk in from Mexico quicker than that.
      In that 2+ years they are already investigated by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, Homeland Security, and the State Department (in addition to the usual health screening and personal questioning every immigrant gets). What additional screening do you suggest is going to do the trick, which we are now missing?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  25. Re:Yes, he was arrested [Re:That won't last long.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Detained* not arrested. At least I'm pretty sure, arrested only counts if they charge you, if they handcuff you without issuing charges than you're only considered to be detained

  26. did he just move? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to UAE on scholarship?

    1. Re:did he just move? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire family moved to twatar (Qatar) and he's supposed to have a free pass to their best university. The family probably planned the whole thing to get rich quick and fuck as many Americans as they could.

  27. What is the option by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, suing a school just de-funds the school, but what is the option? How else can you force the school to come to terms with the fact that it's principal is a braying ass? You're not allowed to sue a school to force it to re-train or replace a bad teacher or administrator.

    1. Re:What is the option by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Perhaps sue for a reasonable amount? Maybe a few thousand plus court costs? Perhaps requiring the school officials found culpable be fired? Suing for $15M is just pure greed as all it does is take money away from students.

      You're not allowed to sue a school to force it to re-train or replace a bad teacher or administrator.

      As far as I know a lawsuit settlement can be just about anything. Do you have references showing that requiring teacher/administrators to be fired is not allowed?

    2. Re:What is the option by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You could sue for a realistic damages figure. If its about principle and not money than wining a case like this should be enough in itself. I can understand why he might want to get the school to admit wrong doing or have a finding against them that they did wrong.

      How exactly was he harmed to the tune of $15 Million? I mean seriously if nothing else thanks to Obummer deciding to make a political football out of him he gained from it.

      Now if they family said he now needs therapy for anxiety or something, and does not want to go back to that school, and sued for oh I don't know $300 - 400k and an apology for the cost of private school, therapy and pain suffered; I'd say well lets see what comes out in court or if the district settles.

      $15 Million on the other hand is a naked cash grab. 15 Million isn't about fair compensation.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:What is the option by sjames · · Score: 2

      $15 million might be intended to be a scary figure designed to prompt a settlement offer. It may also reflect that a judge is more likely to adjust the amount down than up.

    4. Re:What is the option by sjames · · Score: 1

      A SETTLEMENT can be, but a SETTLEMENT isn't a judgement. You can sue for money and accept a non-monetary settlement if you like.

    5. Re:What is the option by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      How about settling for 1.5 million plus the termination of the teacher, principal, and arresting and booking officers?

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    6. Re:What is the option by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Then sue for a reasonable amount and negotiate a settlement. Any school board who refused a settlement would have a hard time being elected next time. All suing for an unreasonable amount does is lose support fro the plaintiff.

    7. Re:What is the option by chispito · · Score: 1

      The option is to let it go because THIS WASN'T A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. If it was anything, it was an education issue. Let kids explore and learn, and don't be scared if they do things you don't understand. You think the school is still going to call the cops the next time they see an electronics project?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    8. Re:What is the option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about settling for 1.5 million plus the termination of the teacher, principal, and arresting and booking officers?

      How about the kid is put before a firing squad and executed like the little terrorist that he has proven himself to be in light of his own actions and admission. A hot shot to his genitals will prevent breeding if you cannot stomach his execution.

    9. Re:What is the option by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Even $1.5M is unreasonable as the damage was actually minimal. To me it is worth $2K max. You also need to be careful who you grab in the net. To me the only one who should be fired is the Principal as he is the main one responsible because the principal was the one to get the police involved. Why not the teacher? Sure it was an over reaction but being sent to the principal's office is not a big deal. Why not the arresting officer? If he did not comply with the principal's demands and if he was wrong he could lose his job. The arresting officer was in a "damned if you do damned if you don't" scenario. Same goes for the booking officer. Maybe suspensions for the teacher and arresting officer but not termination.

      Basically this could all have been stopped if the principal had done his job and overruled the teacher. Punitive damages against a public institute only harms the people servers by that institute.

    10. Re:What is the option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It stopped being an 'education issue', and started being a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE when he was arrested by people who have publicly acknowledged that *at no time* did they actually think they were dealing with a bomb ('hoax' or otherwise).

      Admittedly, they were forced into that admission, when it was pointed out (rather early on) that the course of action of *every* authority figure involved was diametrically opposed to what they would do had they *actually* thought they were dealing with a bomb.

    11. Re:What is the option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, suing a school just de-funds the school, but what is the option? How else can you force the school to come to terms with the fact that it's principal is a braying ass? You're not allowed to sue a school to force it to re-train or replace a bad teacher or administrator.

      Ironically you liberal SJW's upset about Ahmed's feelings now are pointing out how hard it is to remove a bad teacher. The same thing the liberal establishment has fought conservatives on for years.

      Let me go pop my popcorn.

    12. Re:What is the option by sjames · · Score: 1

      They turned it into a civil rights issue when the school called the police.

      There was a time when schools handled internal discipline internally. These days they seem to default to call the police for anything more serious than "forgot to study". Perhaps that's something they should learn to go back to.

    13. Re:What is the option by sjames · · Score: 1

      So because I support slapping the school and it's administrator for panicking and calling the police every time someone sneezes you somehow decided I'm a SJW? Looks like your meter needs re-calibration.

    14. Re:What is the option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just leave this here so you have some idea of the weight of evidence against the boy's claims of it just been an innocent clock project.

      http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-con...

      I doubt that Obama will let that family damage his credibility again so their will be no strings to pull this time and the school's lawyers will go full tilt at the kid to prove that he deliberately tried to induce fear or terror in the teacher, and that it was politically motivated. i.e. The boy is a terrorist, just not a very competent one.

    15. Re:What is the option by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You can sue for non-money as well. It just works out better when the non-money has a monetary value. You can sue for a retraction of an article, but you need to have the monetary damage of the defamation listed as well, even if you aren't trying to collect on it.

    16. Re:What is the option by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      How exactly was he harmed to the tune of $15 Million?

      Since when did a large award require large harm?
      http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

    17. Re:What is the option by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      The point isn't really the amount of damage done to Ahmed. The point, IMO, is to see to it that this never happens again. At any point in the chain from teacher to principle to arresting officer to booking officer, someone could have looked at the situation with a level-headed, rational, non-racist view, realized that his/her underlings were engaged in a massive and unjust cock-up, and put a stop to Ahmed's ordeal. Hell, they could even tried admitting that they screwed up and apologizing. But all the way up to the town's mayor, none of them did so. Even as the president, Google, MIT, Facebook, NASA, George Takei, and no less than Steve Wozniak (!!!) were all telling them that they screwed up; the school, the police department, and the city government all just kept doubling down on stupid.

      Heads need to roll, from the bottom to the top.

      A big problem is that it's so hard for public employees to be held accountable. Personally? I think a just and adequate compensation would be tuition costs in full for a private high school of Ahmed's choice; plus the aforementioned terminations. There's no need for him to come out of this a millionaire. But how likely would it be, in that case, that anyone *does* get fired over this? Not likely, unfortunately. But if someone's personal maliciousness and incompetence costs the city millions of dollars, it's much more likely that they'll be punished.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    18. Re:What is the option by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Perhaps sue for a reasonable amount? Maybe a few thousand plus court costs?

      Maybe an utterly meaningless sum that will do nothing whatsoever to compel other districts not to get their xenophobic paranoid authoritarianism on, much less the district that committed it in this instance?

      Suing for $15M takes money away from insurance companies

      FTFY. The constant hand-wringing over "oh noes, the taxpayers" is more obnoxious when it's the insurance company that's going to be footing the bill. But even if it were "the sainted taxpayers" on the hook directly, if that's the only way change will be effected, so be it. You think Democrats would be "ready for Hillary" if there was a $3,000 line item on their 1040's for the Iraq War?

    19. Re:What is the option by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      if he did not comply with the principal's demands and if he was wrong he could lose his job. The arresting officer was in a "damned if you do damned if you don't" scenario.

      That dog also don't hunt, unless the principal has a side job as the chief of police. And, as was reported from day one, the cops never thought it was a bomb, as they never treated it as a bomb. They didn't call out the bomb squad, and the transported "the device" in the same car as "the suspect".

      Cops were inexcusably incompetent, no matter which way you slice it.

      To me it is worth $2K max.

      If that's the price you set on your Constitutional rights, no wonder the government feels so free to violate them.

    20. Re:What is the option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked in K-12, there is no money there. If they are hit by this amount every student in that district will be hurt. Massive staff cuts will mean less teachers, school programs, and specialists (special needs children and the like).

         

    21. Re:What is the option by sjames · · Score: 1

      So I guess it makes sense to behave reasonably so that this sort of thing doesn't happen.

      Realistically, I'll bet the school can settle for a lot less.

    22. Re:What is the option by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      You could sue for a realistic damages figure. If its about principle and not money than wining a case like this should be enough in itself. I can understand why he might want to get the school to admit wrong doing or have a finding against them that they did wrong.

      How exactly was he harmed to the tune of $15 Million? I mean seriously if nothing else thanks to Obummer deciding to make a political football out of him he gained from it.

      Now if they family said he now needs therapy for anxiety or something, and does not want to go back to that school, and sued for oh I don't know $300 - 400k and an apology for the cost of private school, therapy and pain suffered; I'd say well lets see what comes out in court or if the district settles.

      $15 Million on the other hand is a naked cash grab. 15 Million isn't about fair compensation.

      Actually given all that clock boy has benefited from this event he should be thanking the school and paying them a percentage of all the benefits that he's received as a result.

      I'm half joking. Of course the school and the local police are idiots but this kid is coming out of the whole thing much better off than he went into it.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    23. Re:What is the option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it be in the headline and on /. if he asked for $1500? There you go.

    24. Re:What is the option by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Heads need to roll, from the bottom to the top.

      Then we definitely need his politician father as he supports the whole head chopping thing.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    25. Re:What is the option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $15 Million on the other hand is a naked cash grab. 15 Million isn't about fair compensation.

      It's called tort abuse, a form of unethical practice of law. In the USA, merely one of many: every major area of law has serious legal ethics problems.

      Basically, the issue comes down to two factors:

      Factor number 1: Most of the people writing the laws, voting on the laws, prosecuting the criminal laws, bringing cases under the civil laws, creating precedents to govern interpretation of the laws, and determining who gets to be a judge, are all legal professionals. Huge numbers of lobbyists are as well, and there are powerful lobbying organizations looking out for the interests of the legal profession: the few politicians that aren't lawyers are most likely still accepting lobbying money from these organizations.

      Factor number 2: The legal profession - as a class or group within society - is in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the law. A scary, complex, confusing, even contradictory legal system creates an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals.

      The effects of these two factors in combination over many years had made the US legal system into an ethical disaster. There have been issues from the beginning, of course, with ethics problems carried over from English Common Law. Some of these still exist today: even England now recognizes the right to roam on large tracts of land away from private homes, but US property law still has the old unethical version of property law that doesn't recognize this, intended to keep those uppity serfs off the nobles property!

      For that matter, the continuation of slavery in the laws of a nation founded to 'protect the rights of man' was certainly unethical practice of law (as were the later 'Jim Crow' laws).

      Unfortunately, the ethics problems in US law are not simply a matter of history, but very much still present today. It's not an accident, for example, that Obama Health Care involved over 2000 pages of new law, while the Canada Health Act only required 14 pages (including the French translation). A similar issue applies to the federal tax code, at over 2700 pages (one would think they could keep it to, say, 50 pages at most, but I suppose it's a lot harder to hide tax loopholes in a shorter document).

      Land of the Lawsuit, indeed.

      Since the right to ethical practice of law is certainly a basic human right in any nation based on the rule of law, and since the 9th Amendment exists to protect basic human rights (unspecified rights 'retained by the people'), all these ethics problems in law actually violate the highest law in the land. But so long as the legal profession pretends that isn't the case - as long as they pretend that the 9th Amendment doesn't exist - the lawyers can get away with this.

      Don't the Emperor's new clothes look nice?

      Unfortunately, with the lawyers busy creating artificial complexity in the laws to generate demand for their services, we are now in a situation where the police no longer really understand the law. That in turn leads to invalid and illegal searches, seizures, and arrests, as happened in this case. It's also the reason government agencies can run amok: there are so many contradictory elements in the law that these agencies can readily find pretexts to do all kinds of things they shouldn't be doing (and with whistle-blowers getting accused of treason and espionage, it's going to get harder and harder to stop this kind of abuse).

    26. Re:What is the option by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

      Or you can have the opinion that the school reacted appropriately. If you ignore the color of his skin, people would instead assume the kid was going for a bomb scare (which is what the school did). The school was in a corner IMO.

      An engineer who assembles something resembling a gun should still get in trouble if they brought it to school without warning.

    27. Re:What is the option by sjames · · Score: 1

      No. If he was a WASP, the treatment would still be crazy and the principal would still be a braying ass. The police treatment would still have been outrageous.

    28. Re:What is the option by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Perhaps sue for a reasonable amount? Maybe a few thousand plus court costs? Perhaps requiring the school officials found culpable be fired? Suing for $15M is just pure greed as all it does is take money away from students.

      You're not allowed to sue a school to force it to re-train or replace a bad teacher or administrator.

      As far as I know a lawsuit settlement can be just about anything. Do you have references showing that requiring teacher/administrators to be fired is not allowed?

      you can't sue for a few thousand. because no lawyer will do so.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    29. Re:What is the option by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Maybe a few thousand plus court costs?

      Lawyers fees are included in court costs.

      Maybe a few thousand plus court costs?

    30. Re:What is the option by ToddInSF · · Score: 0

      When are you going to just admit that you were played by this kid, his family, and their lawyers, and the media ?

      Fuck this kid, fuck Islam, and fuck this kids family. If they wanted to live under Sharia Law, they never should have been allowed IN this country in the first place.

      We need to immediately DEPORT ALL Muslims who prefer Sharia Law. These are NOT people who have ANY respect for ANYBODY. They happily murder atheists and gay people and idiots like you keep making excuses. FUCK THEM.

  28. Is he suing his sister too? by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    ...since they'd removed the cuffs, and she asked them to re-cuff him to she could take the much-ballyhoo'd picture? Surely being re cuffed induced some of his "suffering"?

    For those countering the suspicion that surrounded this kid's actions with "why would he possibly put himself through this? What did he have to gain?"...there's 15 million reasons for you.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Is he suing his sister too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...since they'd removed the cuffs, and she asked them to re-cuff him to she could take the much-ballyhoo'd picture?

      source for this assertion?

    2. Re:Is he suing his sister too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > she asked them to re-cuff him to she could take the much-ballyhoo'd picture?

      You can't be an attention whore without being an attention whore.

    3. Re:Is he suing his sister too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >since they'd removed the cuffs, and she asked them to re-cuff him to she could take the much-ballyhoo'd picture?
      That seriously sounds like right wing propaganda. I'm sorry; I don't believe you.

  29. The proof he's a *$%#... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  30. More like $100k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I think something around $100k could be reasonable as the price to send him to a private school for a few years.

    1. Re:More like $100k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it appears he doesn't need private school tuition or anything since he is getting a free ride... in Qatar If anything he has benefited from getting arrested.

    2. Re:More like $100k by Holi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This, This why his law suit should go nowhere. To sue for damages one has to show they were financially damaged. Good luck proving that a full scholarship is somehow a financial hardship.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    3. Re:More like $100k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you simply need to show that you were *harmed*.
      Having your civil rights violated under color of law is a demonstrable harm.

    4. Re: More like $100k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't the color of his skin, it was his rock-worshipping medieval religion that got him in trouble. If he was white, he'd still be in trouble for being a muzzie.

    5. Re:More like $100k by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      " To sue for damages one has to show they were financially damaged."

      Where did you ever get that idea? You've never heard of compensation for Mental Anguish?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re:More like $100k by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      If anything, the teachers should be suing him for mental anguish, not the other way around.

    7. Re:More like $100k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, it is the only way to punish the stupid teacher and cops since none of them will get in trouble for being stupid.

      It is expected that cops are stupid but to have a teacher this ignorant and not get fired in itself deserves a $15 million punishment.

  31. gone and stay gone by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The kid and his dad are provocateurs who deliberately baited the school teachers. Dad's sounds like he's been wanting to leave for a long time, probably spent his time dreaming this s**t up. They get nothing and need their visas pulled as undesirable aliens.

    1. Re:gone and stay gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can prove this, ... how?

    2. Re:gone and stay gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The daughter being suspended for making bomb threats, and the father being a douche owning a transport company that mocks the twin towers.

      The whole Clock-med family is all kinds of crazy. And seriously can we drop the whole "Clock Boy" name? Clock-med rolls off the tongue so much better.

    3. Re:gone and stay gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the kid ever say "hey, check out my bomb!" Did he ever wave it around and shout something about the one god, or ISIS? Did he subtly hint that his device might be more than a clock, or dangerous? Did he threaten anyone, even jokingly?

      No. He called it a clock. He demonstrated it as a clock. He did nothing suspicious at all. He did the exact opposite, in fact, and tried to assuage fear when it arose.

      There isn't much evidence that he was deliberately provoking. Your claim is only worth listening to if you can find evidence that this incident was intended as provocation.

    4. Re:gone and stay gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He and his sisters have done this before. He asked for the handcuff to be put back on, he set it for a alarm to go off in the middle of one of his classes, 5 teachers told him to put it away before the one teacher thought it was a bomb, and he had wires sticking out of it. I'm not even mentioning the fact it was a prebuilt clock he took apart, and that his father ran for president in a middle east country and is moving to another one.

      He is a scammer who used a "racial inequality" sham and tried to fool all of America.

      So why should he get paid after hes got world famous, he raised half a million (if i remember correctly) on a go fund me page, got over thousands of $$ of free stuff from microsoft and other companys and tricking all of America? Did the school even act inappropriately? No. People making a gun sign with there hands and getting out of school suspension are not suing.

    5. Re:gone and stay gone by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Of course you have no evidence they were provocateurs in this but hey, who needs evidence when you can just make something up that supports what you want to see happening.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    6. Re:gone and stay gone by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      The conspiracy theory that he "baited" his teachers is one thing, and that seems sketchy enough to me...after all we know that nobody believed for a moment that it was a bomb (or a "bomb trigger" as somebody on slashdot insisted); at worst they thought it was part of a failed plot to do a bomb hoax. A bomb hoax would be bad.

      But seeing as there is no clear and present danger posed by something that could be mistaken for a hoax bomb, an immediate arrest was unwarranted. It shouldn't be possible to bait a school teacher into arresting you by having a disassembled alarm clock go off in your knapsack, especially when you identify it as a clock upon questioning.

      It's substantially more wrong that a person can be arrested for this, than a student can play a prank.

      That doesn't mean I think 15 million dollars should change hands. He did get arrested, but he was let go on the same day; he was unlawfully denied his civil right to speak with his father, but again, same day. He also got a short school suspension, which was also stupid but also doesn't mean a great deal of money should change hands. Bad arrests should be punished, commensurate to how bad it was.

      I imagine 15 million dollars is just some lawyer throwing out a worst-case-scenario number and that literally nobody on Earth thinks 15 million dollars is on the table. My gut number is 10 thousand dollars. The law was abused and broken, and there has to be punitive measures taken for that; but mistakes will happen and the mistake was relatively low in scope.

    7. Re: gone and stay gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why he is suing the school then, as it wasn't them who arrested him. The police arrested him. All the school did was call them and report a suspicious device. It was the police who decided it was worth detaining him for questioning. So I'm not sure how the school is the one being sued..

    8. Re:gone and stay gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kid and his dad are provocateurs who deliberately baited the school teachers.

      Maybe, but that isn't an arrestable offense, even in Texas.

      If a school calls the cops, they should have a reasonable belief that a crime was committed.

      When the police arrest someone, they should have a reasonable belief that a crime was committed, and have a reasonable belief that that the person committed the crime. Didn't happen in this case.

      Further, there are protocols to follow when arresting a child. Didn't happen in this case.

    9. Re:gone and stay gone by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The kid and his dad are provocateurs who deliberately baited the school teachers. Dad's sounds like he's been wanting to leave for a long time, probably spent his time dreaming this s**t up. They get nothing and need their visas pulled as undesirable aliens.

      muslim kid baiting school, like black tennis pro baiting undercover police by standing outside hotel doing nothing.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  32. He learned to threaten by phantomfive · · Score: 1
    From his lawyer's letter:

    Ahmed never threatened anyone, never caused harm to anyone, and never intended to. The only one who was hurt that day was Ahmed, and the damages he suffered were not because of oversight or incompetence,” said the letter to the city authorities.

    I guess he's learned how to threaten people, and in a very American way.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:He learned to threaten by phrackthat · · Score: 1

      Of course, the school and police will logically counter that threats can be conveyed by means other than words.

    2. Re:He learned to threaten by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      tbh I don't think they have a case at all......demonstrating harm will be difficult. They are counting on the fact that the opposing counsel will tell them it could be cheaper to settle, because a court case could be expensive.

      If they thought they had a strong case, they would have just filed it, instead of threatening to file it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:He learned to threaten by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Many idiots are routinely kicked out of planes without any devices, just because of stupid and annoying jokes about bombs they have. They never intend to harm anybody, and nobody seriously believe they can. But they are still kicked out and arrested just to be safe, for good reason. I never heard any of them getting any compensation. It is airline who would be getting compensation from them if they have to delay or divert.
       

    4. Re:He learned to threaten by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Is it bad of me to hope the case goes to court, just to see what would happen?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  33. Try resisting "Detainment" and see what happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Detained is Arrested. If you struggle against the police slapping those cuffs on you, you don't get charged with resisting detainment, you get charged with resisting arrest, probably with a good beating thrown in to "make you comply" with your friendly, "not a arrest" detainment.

  34. Makes me wonder... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    ... if the outrage against this lawsuit would be as much if the kid weren't thought to be a Muslim.

    .
    On the other hand, the lawsuit shows just how American this kid really is. :)

    1. Re:Makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be both American and Muslim. One is a citizenship, one is a religion.

      At any rate, a large part of the antisemitism in all of Europe at the start of the 20th century was that a disproportional amount of control over the financial and judicial systems was in the hand of Jews. Not all that surprising, giving that they were prohibited from a lot of "honest" jobs in the middle ages and earlier and learnt splitting hairs in Talmud schools. And over the centuries, they got pretty good at the few jobs they were allowed to do, and ultimately those professions actually turned to become rather influential.

      These days, religion and ethnicity are no longer in active use for scapegoating. But the popular resentment over inordinate amounts of money being controlled by lawyers has returned. And once associated with the Jews in a handwaving mixture of ethnic and religious pseudoarguments, it is now associated with "big corporations" mostly breeding off the U.S.A. And it turns off people and they don't quite know what to do about it.

      All of the popular scapegoats in the U.S. have the wrong religion or skin color for starting pogroms. Which is too bad since the Klan and other white supremacists would be more than willing to crank out their bedsheets, but not in order to weed out themselves.

  35. You can take the boy out of America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but you can't take the American out of the boy. Suing, it's the American way!

  36. Re:Good by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Schools violate children's civil rights every day. So do parents. Ever been sent to your room and told you can only come out when you apologize? Ever been kept after class as punishment? Ever been spanked? Ever been punished for swearing? All these would be illegal to do to an adult.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  37. Citation required. by Brannon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This smells like bullshit to me.

    1. Re:Citation required. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      He did not receive first place, he was just the featured "scientist" of the photo in which the finalists appeared.
      http://mashable.com/2015/09/22/ahmed-mohamed-google-science-fair/#1U20iipN1sqm

    2. Re:Citation required. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously? It was all over the news. He did not eliminate Olivia Hallisey from winning her scholarship prize from Google, but he did steal the spotlight of the event. Her amazing discovery went from headline news to buried byline at the bottom.

      Take a look.

      This was all over every meaningful news outlet for a couple weeks. I don't understand how you could have the ignorance to miss something like that but still have the self-confidence to call it out as bullshit. Shame on you and whomever modded you up for not knowing how to google or keep abreast of the news you are commenting on.

  38. clock boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just became cock boy. he's fucking the taxpayer in the ass.

  39. incompetent people are cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Columbine. If their bombs had worked, there would have been a lot more casualties. So, there is precedent for schools being paranoid.
    2) The school district said there was some stuff they couldn't legally talk about.
    3) Considering all the crap kids do, and budget pressures, I am surprised school districts are as competent as they currently are.

  40. Achmed the Terrorist by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

    Personally, I think Ahmed is incredibly like Achmed, the Dead Terrorist https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    I'd arrest him too. Just for that horrible name, The clock makes for a better excuse.

  41. Sympathy only goes so far. by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The school district acted inappropriately. A written apology is warranted. But even I want to tell the kid's family to GTFO at that price tag.

    1. Re:Sympathy only goes so far. by pz · · Score: 1

      The school district acted inappropriately. A written apology is warranted. But even I want to tell the kid's family to GTFO at that price tag.

      And then the kid's lawyers will procure a settlement for a mere $1.5M, one third of which will go to them, the kid will have a really, really nice college fund, and the school district will have been slapped back into rational awareness, firing both the kid's teacher and the school principal. With hope, the next election will result in the wholesale replacement of the school committee.
       

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    2. Re:Sympathy only goes so far. by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      It's not about sympathy, and may not even be about the family. It's about lawyers, and whether it can be shown that the kid was singled-out because of his appearance or (what people assume to be) his religion.

      Yeah, today it's fun/acceptable to assume he's a bad guy because his name is Ahmed. But sub in some other minority (e.g., Asian, Canadian, Mutant, Prawn, or White-Male) who got the third-degree over a completely false alarm, and you clearly have a case that has been time-tested in the courts. The lawyer just has to show a jury that none of this would have happened if the offensive clock had belonged to Susie Blue-eyes with curly red hair and a polka-dot skirt, instead of a brown-skinned boy named Ahmed (or an even darker-skinned fellow named Flav). If so, he was singled-out because of his ethnicity/color of his skin, and we can move on to discussing damages.

      Q: How do you know she is a witch? A: She looks like one!

      Regardless, it's entirely about lawyers now. Ahmed is reduced to just a pawn in a bigger game, particularly as he's just a kid and all. Chances are anyway this will end in a settlement. By the time this ever gets to trial, maybe some other ethnic group will be on the hot-seat.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  42. Cool ransom note Ahmed by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Want to bring it to the White House?

    1. Re:Cool ransom note Ahmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this president has started the "negotiating with terrorists".

  43. Money isn't enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for prosecution for kidnapping, false arrest, false imprisonment and misprison, since no one called the bomb squad or evacuated the school NO ONE thought this was a bomb. This was Contempt of Authority and the acts of said authority are criminal!

    1. Re:Money isn't enough by phrackthat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The police don't have to prove that anyone thought it was a bomb. They only have to show that there was probable cause to believe that Ahmed intended for the device to be perceived as a bomb. Given that his sister had been suspended for threatening to blow up the school and Ahmed had been suspended just two days prior at another school and the fact that the clock was not his design and clearly not intended to function as a clock (as the housing, which looked like a briefcase, would keep one from reading the clock face), they should have little to no problem to show probable cause (which under the law is not 51% probability, just a substantial possibility).

    2. Re:Money isn't enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no. They have to show that *they* had reason to believe that Ahmed intended for the device to be perceived as a bomb. There are several large hurdles to that claim already part of the public record.

      They have acknowledged that Ahmed never claimed it was a bomb.
      They didn't treat it as if they *ever* believed it was a bomb.
      They have already acknowledged that, at no time did they actually believe it was a bomb. (They had to do this in an attempt to avoid looking utterly incompetent for transporting the supposed 'bomb' in a squad car rather than calling the bomb squad in, and keeping the supposed 'bomb' in a school full of children for a few hours.)

      Remember, nobody ever called for the evacuation of the school, so they *OBVIOUSLY* knew from the get-go that they weren't dealing with a bomb.

      They might be able to try making some arguments to get out of this, but I suspect they'll sound a *lot* like the department that blamed the baby in a crib for 'knowingly deciding to live in the home' after they threw a smoke grenade through the window and into the baby's crib.

  44. Citation needed. by Brannon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a good story and all, but is it true?

    1. Re:Citation needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://youtu.be/SQHZ0kAInxY?list=PLsLoRe0UGyyhBtQcSdyYAsa6XDO1PnCT2

  45. Re:Good by neoritter · · Score: 1

    Why is the school being punished? The police decided to arrest him.

  46. Was he arrested by the school or the county? by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    I suspect the distinction is important because I can't imagine a county can't be sued for executing an arrest, provided there was a basis for the arrest.

    1. Re:Was he arrested by the school or the county? by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Meant to write "I can't imagine a county can be sued for executing an arrest..."

    2. Re:Was he arrested by the school or the county? by phrackthat · · Score: 1

      He was arrested by the Irving, Texas Police Department but ultimately not charged.

    3. Re:Was he arrested by the school or the county? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Whether he was charged or not isn't particularly relevant. People are arrested all the time and not charged. In fact people are arrested all the time and beat up by the police and not charged.

      People rarely win when suing the cops for arresting them. His lawyers need to prove there was discrimination and all the school and police need to prove is there was legitimate suspicion.

  47. Bombs are for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are all Cows. Cows say Mooo. Moooo! Moooo! Moooo cows moooo. Mooo say the cows. YOU BOMB BUILDING COWS!!!

    1. Re:Bombs are for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cows are for bombs. Bombs say boooom. Booom! Boooom! Boom bombs boooom! Boom say the bombs. YOU BOOMING BOMBS!!!

    2. Re:Bombs are for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cow go moo , bomb go boom, cow go splat and that is that.

  48. Which Begs the Questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    - If you are muslim and support the notion of sharia law, and most do, why not move to a muslim nation where you will feel more at home.

    - If you are muslim and hate most Jews and the notion of a Jewish state, and most do, why move to the West where most democracies are based on Judeo-Christian ethics, which are wholly incompatible with islam and sharia law.

    And, perhaps most important, why are other middle east countries, especially the wealthy ones like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and others not stepping up first to offer their muslims brothers and sisters refuge? Oh, wait...

    1. Re:Which Begs the Questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - If you are muslim and support the notion of sharia law, and most do, ...

      Fallacy: Improper generalization. You have generalized a personal perception to a broad population without supporting evidence.

      - If you are muslim and hate most Jews and the notion of a Jewish state, and most do,

      Fallacy: Improper generalization. You have generalized a personal perception to a broad population without supporting evidence.

      And, perhaps most important, why are other middle east countries, especially the wealthy ones like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and others not stepping up first to offer their muslims brothers and sisters refuge? Oh, wait...

      Fallacy: Argument from silence. You haven't *heard* of refugees being accepted into the countries you list, therefore you assume they have not been.
      In fact, the countries you mention *have* accepted Syrian refugees, they just aren't signatories to the UN refugee program, so their numbers aren't included in the UN numbers. The most conservative estimates for Saudi Arabia put the number at roughly 500k Syrian refugees currently living with the Saudi borders. Saudi Arabia itself claims that they currently have 5 *times* that number, though they do not plan to settle all 2.5 *million* within their borders permanently.

      Of course, you won't actually believe any of this, because it conflicts with what you've been fed already...

    2. Re:Which Begs the Questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "why move to the West where most democracies are based on Judeo-Christian ethics"

      A myth typically promoted by Christian or Jewish extremists. America has many influences but if there is any cultures we can narrow down American values it would be Greco-Roman. . Greek and Roman influences are intricate to our form of government, the architecture of our power institutions, our education system, and our way of life. If our societies were run by Judeo-Christian values (as written in the Torah and Bible) we'd be just as bad as the Taliban.

  49. They didn't treat it like a real bomb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The teacher took it off of him and put it in her desk drawer and carried on with the lesson. If she had thought it was a real bomb, they would have evacuated the school and called the bomb-squad. At no point in this charade did anyone ever think it was an actual bomb.

    1. Re:They didn't treat it like a real bomb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The teacher took it off of him and put it in her desk drawer and carried on with the lesson. If she had thought it was a real bomb, they would have evacuated the school and called the bomb-squad. At no point in this charade did anyone ever think it was an actual bomb.

      Correct. And at that point his "my school thinks all Muslims are bomb-carrying terrorists" story collapses.

      The school detained him and disciplined him because the kid was misbehaving and was disruptive. Neither bombs nor religion nor ethnicity had anything to do with it.

    2. Re:They didn't treat it like a real bomb... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      The teacher took it off of him and put it in her desk drawer and carried on with the lesson. If she had thought it was a real bomb, they would have evacuated the school and called the bomb-squad. At no point in this charade did anyone ever think it was an actual bomb.

      Correct. And at that point his "my school thinks all Muslims are bomb-carrying terrorists" story collapses.

      The school detained him and disciplined him because the kid was misbehaving and was disruptive. Neither bombs nor religion nor ethnicity had anything to do with it.

      Being disciplined for an academic transgression requires being arrested and booked by the police?

    3. Re:They didn't treat it like a real bomb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's illegal to bring a fake bomb to school, and that's what he was arrested for. Not for bringing a real bomb.

  50. Some questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A) Does the kid actually possess the knowledge and skills required to make this device? Has anyone actually verified it was his own work product?

    B) Or, was he provided the device by his dad, or another actor, for the express purpose of causing a civil rights ballyhoo that could result in a lawsuit?

    C) If another actor, who? Perhaps an Islamic group of some kind?

    I find it plausible that a terrorist organization gave him this device, which was constructed with the express purpose of making it look menacing (absolutely no need for those long, coily wires and stuff, since what you actually want to use in a design are wires that are as short as possible), with instructions for using it to create a scare that could result in exporting 15 million dollars to the terrorist group in the UAE.

  51. What if it was a bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He was not making a alarm clock - as was widely reported.

    Rather, he took an off-the-shelf alarm clock, and made it look like a bomb. He did this very deliberately.

    Should the school have ignored, what could have been a bomb, because the kid was a Muslim?

    What sort of litigation would there have been if it was a bomb, and the school did nothing?

    1. Re:What if it was a bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What sort of litigation would there have been if it was a bomb, and the school did nothing?

      NOTHING. Just look at all the successful bombings and shootings, did you see any of authorities got sued because they missed all the clues before hand?

      The question makes a nice CYA strawman for people in authority to justify doing practically *anything*, e.g., since anything you carry *could* being a bomb, and if they didn't strip search you on the spot, oh no!, they might get sued if you really DID have a bomb on you.

    2. Re:What if it was a bomb? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Rather, he took an off-the-shelf alarm clock, and made it look like a bomb.

      You mean he made it work as a clock again. Lots of kids take apart shit, not many of them get it to work again.

      He did this very deliberately.

      Deliberate sophistry.

      What sort of litigation would there have been if it was a bomb, and the school did nothing?

      You mean like not call the bomb squad? You mean like transport "the device" in the same vehicle as "the suspect"?

      Racist morons.

    3. Re:What if it was a bomb? by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      he took an off-the-shelf alarm clock, and made it look like a bomb. He did this very deliberately.

      Reasonable doubt regarding motivations aside, there were a number of issues with the device being a bomb. Yes, it looked like a bomb if the only bomb you've ever seen has been from a Tom Cruise / Bruce Willis / Liam Neeson movie...but that that point, you're not qualified to determine what is and isn't a bomb. There was nothing even resembling an explosive charge in the case, and even Achmed the Dead Terrorist knows that you don't build a bomb that is required to be plugged into an electrical outlet in order to work, as you'd be rather defeated by way of unplugging the bomb.

      Should the school have ignored, what could have been a bomb, because the kid was a Muslim?

      No. You follow actual procedure, like "evacuating the building" and "calling a bomb diffusion team", and you treat it like it's actually got an explosive charge, none of which was done. Sure, hold the kid in the principles office (or some approximation thereof as a result of the evacuation procedure), and when the bomb squad tells you that it's absolutely not a bomb, you hand the device back to the student and say, "even though it's not a bomb, I don't want to see this in school again". THAT is how you deal with this situation - treat the device like a bomb, and then when you find out that it isn't a bomb, you treat the student like he's not in possession of a bomb. Not that hard.

      What sort of litigation would there have been if it was a bomb, and the school did nothing?

      Oh plenty...but the reason why they'd be lawsuited to hell and back in that case would be because they didn't follow the procedures they were supposed to follow when dealing with a bomb scare.

      Now, all of that being said, even RIAA/MPAA math would have trouble coming up with $15 million in damages from the situation. A mess was made by all parties involved, these things happen, apologies were made, and I wouldn't be patently against filing a four figure lawsuit + court fees, just on principle. Lawsuits like this though are why we can't have nice things.

    4. Re:What if it was a bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now every circuit board with a display on it is a bomb? A clock isn't a bomb unless its connected to a "bomb", which this clearly was not. It was in a tiny box. If you want to be paranoid then stop letting the 95% of kids bringing phones to school do so. In the past 15 years I would guess that phones have been much more widely used to set off bombs than timers have.

    5. Re:What if it was a bomb? by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      A bomb, or an easily transportable clock (handles are good for that).

      What the school should have done, is once they understood it was not a bomb, was to not call the police, and not act like chicken little.

      What sort of litigation should there be for you posting hyperbole and being incurably stupid (I blame your Mom)?

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    6. Re:What if it was a bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn;t make it look like a bomb. he made it (intentionaly or otherwise) look like what movie goers have been kidded into thinking looks like a bomb (James Bond, Goldfinger etc.) None of us woud know what a real bomb looks like anyway (nor would the schoole folks, or probably the law enforcement folks that arrested him).
      The wwhole thing has been blown out of all sensible proportion from day one - yawn, yawn, yawn

  52. Bullshit. by khasim · · Score: 4, Informative

    Assuming there was not communication among the staff that knew it was just a stupid clock to those other people, I can see who it would meet a standard of 'reasonable suspicion' to justify an arrest.

    Of course you do. But that's only because almost every person believes that THEIR opinion is a "reasonable" one.

    I remember back in the day (I'm old) when a student would bring something distracting to school the teacher would confiscate it and the student collect it at the end of the day.

    At worst, a student's parents would be called in.

    But students were never arrested for bringing toys to school. That's just stupid.

    1. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      An exposed circuit that has a direct line to 120V is not a toy. The fact he was told to put it away and he continually disregarded the instructions to make things worse shows he was stupid. It was also pretty stupid he disguised it, and also refused to explain what it was / what he was doing when questioned. The arrest was completely legitimate due his disregard to instructions and his resistance to ascertain the facts. No one said he was a threat--that is a distortion in the media.

    2. Re:Bullshit. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I remember back in the day (I'm old) when a student would bring something distracting to school the teacher would confiscate it and the student collect it at the end of the day.

      Your teachers were lenient. I remember at least one teacher I had who would confiscate things until the end of the school year.

      And yes, he did keep track and we did get our stuff back... er, those naughty guys got their stuff back.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Bullshit. by drnb · · Score: 1

      But students were never arrested for bringing toys to school. That's just stupid.

      Steve Wozniak was arrested and questioned for bringing a hoax bomb to school in liberal california. He made a box that ticked, and ticked faster when it was moved. So yes, students have gotten into trouble for this sort of nonsense. And Woz's incident was in the 1960s. Now jump to 2015 with its zero tolerance for anything resembling a weapon, an era where kids get into trouble for pointing fingers at each other.

    4. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How old are you? Steve Wozniak was arrested for bringing a fake bomb to school when he was in the twelfth grade. He was born in 1950, so that would have been around 1968.

    5. Re:Bullshit. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yeah, when I was a lad, if you brought a nuclear weapon into class as a prank, Sir just put it in a cupboard til the end of the day. Maybe you got six of the best if it was actually leaking radiation, but in any case we all just took things in proportion unlike the lily-livered hippies in charge today.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Bullshit. by vilanye · · Score: 1

      Of course it is a toy.

      Are you saying that HS and University digital labs are full of dangerous objects?

      If there was explosive attached to it you would have a point, but it was a power source and a small amount of electronics and nothing else.

    7. Re:Bullshit. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Assuming there was not communication among the staff that knew it was just a stupid clock to those other people, I can see who it would meet a standard of 'reasonable suspicion' to justify an arrest.

      Of course you do. But that's only because almost every person believes that THEIR opinion is a "reasonable" one.

      I remember back in the day (I'm old) when a student would bring something distracting to school the teacher would confiscate it and the student collect it at the end of the day.

      At worst, a student's parents would be called in.

      But students were never arrested for bringing toys to school. That's just stupid.

      "Johny, is that a time bomb you are playing with?"
      "Yes sir"
      "Well bring it up here. You can get it back after school"
      "But..."
      "No buts. It's going in my desk and that's final"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  53. Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by drnb · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... the kid was not arrested ...

    Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested, after being questioned for an hour and a half (how is that even possible?), and was taken to a detention centre, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned further.

    He was not charged. Possibly that's what you meant.

    Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal. Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer, was arrested and spent some hours with law enforcement when he brought a hoax bomb to his high school. A box that ticked, and then ticked faster when it was moved.

    As for whether what this kid did was a hoax bomb, any Iraqi / Afghanistan vet can explain to you how the detonators of IEDs are sometimes made from the components of off-the-shelf consumer devices. So, its not unreasonable to see disassembled clock parts in a negative light.

    1. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In 1975 I was in the 4th grade in Natick Massachusetts going to Johnson Elementary. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=johnson+elementary+school+natick+ma

      We where putting on a play that year in celebration of 1976 the bi-centennial of the country. We were reenacting George Washington's crossing of the Delaware river and our teacher had asked us to bring in props that could be used as guns.

      My father had a bolt action .22 hanging in the garage in a cloth canvas case. He had the rifle since he was a teenager from Ohio living on a farm. I thought that would be perfect to bring in. Without asking anyone, when leaving for school I went into the garage and swung the rifle in the case over my shoulder and walked to school which was only a few blocks away. Nobody said a word about a 9 year old carrying a rifle.

      I walked into school and went right to the teacher in charge of the play. The teacher said that we couldn't use something like that and was looking for more like wooden toy rifles. I zipped back up the case and carried it to my class. My teacher asked me what I was doing with it and explained that it was supposed to be for the play.

      No police were called, no parents were called. I wasn't sent to the principals office or even home. My 4th grade teacher Mr. Etters was going to put the gun in the storage closet and for me to come get it after school was over instead of leaving it by the coat rack where everyone hung their coats in a row. Which I thought was fine.

      After school, I got the rifle back and walked home like a normal school kid would. Gone are those days.

      We used to bring firecrackers to school too and set them off in the playground there where now is a baseball diamond. Not once ever got in trouble for that either. Those were the days.

    2. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal.

      True.

      As for whether what this kid did was a hoax bomb, any Iraqi / Afghanistan vet can explain to you how the detonators of IEDs are sometimes made from the components of off-the-shelf consumer devices. So, its not unreasonable to see disassembled clock parts in a negative light.

      But *nobody* actually thought the clock-transplanted-into-a-pencil-case was a bomb of any sort, and he never claimed it was. (Even the cops who arrested him never claimed that he gave any indication that it was a bomb.)

      They didn't evacuate the school. (That's step one of *any* scenario in which you believe there is a bomb in the school.)
      They kept the bomb in a room full of students after sending Ahmed to the principal's office.
      The police didn't call the bomb squad. Instead they transported the clock to the police station in a squad car.

      Nobody in this story acted AT ALL like they though they were dealing with a bomb. Not Ahmed, not the teachers, not the students, not the administration, not the police. Nobody.

    3. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Jr High, a former High School built in the 1930s, had an indoor rifle range for the school's shooting team. Suburban New Jersey about 30 miles from New York City. The town police still use it at night for pistol practice.

    4. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal."

      10 PRINT "Which is how we know he didn't do that, what with him not being charged with doing that and all."

      "As for whether what this kid did was a hoax bomb"

      20 GOTO 10

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      "Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal."

      10 PRINT "Which is how we know he didn't do that, what with him not being charged with doing that and all."

      "As for whether what this kid did was a hoax bomb"

      20 GOTO 10

      Line 10 contains a logic error. People knew the kid did not bring a real bomb based on observations. However people did not know whether he brought a hoax bomb until AFTER he was questioned and it was determined to be an unfortunate accidental resemblance. Its appropriate for the police to do such questioning. To investigate whether an element of a crime, intent, exists.

    6. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by hawk · · Score: 1

      It was a different world.

      I carried a pocket knife daily from getting my first one early in cub scouts until they put in the metal detectors at there courthouses, and it was too much hassle to check in the knife, and check it back out, three times a day. (They can't be checked anymore, anyway).

      In the 1970s, there was nothing unusual or noteworthy about a little boy with a knife in his pocket at school; it was the norm.

      hawk

    7. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a hoax bomb and it was never a hoax bomb.

      Something some people confused wiht a bomb that was never intended that way was not a hoax bomb. The definition of a hoax is that it's a "deliberately fabricated falsehood". If there was no intent on the kid's part then it was not a hoax.

      And so, what evidence do you have that it was actually a hoax bomb?

      Also have you ever seen a bomb? It looks nothing like a real bomb. Real bombs don't have cheerfully large countdown displays taking up most of one side of the case.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      In Jr High School I used to always have a pocket knife on me. I did use it a few times for opening plastic bags / candy. Also we had a shooting range sitting between the two sports fields next to the school, and got a shooting lesson once as part of P.E. when I was 14 (1993). That's in France, despite the heavy gun regs, mind you.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    9. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      If there was no intent on the kid's part then it was not a hoax.

      That is why the kid was not charged. But the lack of intent, the lack of a hoax, was not determined until after investigation. Prior to that investigation it was a legitimate suspect hoax bomb. That is why the detention and questioning were legal.

      Also have you ever seen a bomb?

      Yes, improvised and military. Assisted the EOD guy using the later to destroy the former.

      It looks nothing like a real bomb.

      A hoax bomb does not have to be very convincing, Woz's was a box that ticked. And some real improvised devices have detonators made from ordinary consumer electronics. So the "its just clock parts" is a pretty uninformed argument.

    10. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Christ.

      Here's what a REAL bomb can look like:

      http://images.sportsdirect.com...

      Because the IRA used to have the fun time putting a bomb inside a holdall and shoving them into a rubbish bin. For a more modern take, add a mobile phone for remote detonation as has been popular with some terrorist groups.

      About the only thing that doesn't look like a real bomb is that clock because outside of holywood, people don't stick fuck-off massive displays on the side of bombs.

      So literally everyone in that school was carrying a more realistic "fake bomb" than that clock.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the good old days when more people accidentally shot themselves. I don't miss them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      So if the dude brought shoes to school, both the school and the police would be perfectly justified to detain him to assess if that was a hoax bomb or not.

      Why the hell would the police need to be involved to figure out if a kid was looking for trouble?

    13. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would the police need to be involved to figure out if a kid was looking for trouble?

      Because a hoax bomb is a criminal issue, not a school regulations issue.

    14. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      A hoax bomb that looks fake, looks hollywood, is still a hoax. There is no requirement to look completely realistic. A hoax bomb is a prank that goes "too far" and moves from a school issue to a legal issue. A real bomb threat and a hoax bomb are too very different things and both illegal. It was not unreasonable for the police to determine whether it was a hoax or just an unfortunate resemblance. And the police determined it was an unfortunate resemblance. The kid was told not to show it to people by a teacher but he kept doing so, was he trying to get a reaction? That was a perfectly reasonable thing for the police to figure out.

    15. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by vilanye · · Score: 1

      Not when they are not attached to explosives.

    16. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Not when they are not attached to explosives.

      You are having difficulty with the word "hoax". "Hoax" has more to do with generating a desired reaction than being an accurate simulant.

    17. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      ... the kid was not arrested ...

      Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested, after being questioned for an hour and a half (how is that even possible?), and was taken to a detention centre, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned further.

      He was not charged. Possibly that's what you meant.

      Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal. Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer, was arrested and spent some hours with law enforcement when he brought a hoax bomb to his high school. A box that ticked, and then ticked faster when it was moved. As for whether what this kid did was a hoax bomb, any Iraqi / Afghanistan vet can explain to you how the detonators of IEDs are sometimes made from the components of off-the-shelf consumer devices. So, its not unreasonable to see disassembled clock parts in a negative light.

      if it's offtheshelf clock parts, what part looks like explosive? what, is he going to short the battery and make it blow up?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    18. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by Tungbo · · Score: 1

      It was a CLOCK.  It was counting UP.  Not Down as one would expect in a timer.
      More IMPORTANTLY, where is the explosive !!!!!!
      What good is a counter without explosives and detonator ???

      Any Vet with bomb training would instantly recognize that it is a clock not a hoax bomb.

    19. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by vilanye · · Score: 1

      You are having difficulty understanding that there is no evidence that he was trying to trick people into thinking it was a bomb.

      Where is your proof?

      Anyone who thinks that a clock in a empty case is a bomb has no business being an educator.

    20. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      ... the kid was not arrested ...

      Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested, after being questioned for an hour and a half (how is that even possible?), and was taken to a detention centre, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned further.

      He was not charged. Possibly that's what you meant.

      Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal. Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer, was arrested and spent some hours with law enforcement when he brought a hoax bomb to his high school. A box that ticked, and then ticked faster when it was moved. As for whether what this kid did was a hoax bomb, any Iraqi / Afghanistan vet can explain to you how the detonators of IEDs are sometimes made from the components of off-the-shelf consumer devices. So, its not unreasonable to see disassembled clock parts in a negative light.

      if it's offtheshelf clock parts, what part looks like explosive? what, is he going to short the battery and make it blow up?

      Its not required for a hoax to have a visible explosive simulant. A hoax mainly requires the intent to scare people with something that can be mistaken for a bomb. Its reasonable to have police determine the kids intentions, if he intended to prank anyone or if it was just an unfortunate accidental resemblance, and accidental resemblance seems to be what they determined so the case ended there.

    21. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      It was a CLOCK. It was counting UP. Not Down as one would expect in a timer. More IMPORTANTLY, where is the explosive !!!!!! What good is a counter without explosives and detonator ??? Any Vet with bomb training would instantly recognize that it is a clock not a hoax bomb.

      Really, because counting up to a time where an alarm has been set and external circuitry becomes powered up to do something like power speakers is not something that can be adapted for other uses? Hollywood has confused you.

    22. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      You are having difficulty understanding that there is no evidence that he was trying to trick people into thinking it was a bomb.

      No, you are having great difficult in understanding. I have pointed out numerous times that the fact that he was not charged indicates that police determined that there was no intent, that it was an accidental resemblance. However the resemblance to bomb components was sufficient for police to investigate a suspected bomb hoax, that means talking to the person who brought it to school.

      Where is your proof?

      Clock components have been used is improvised detonators. Once upon a time mechanical clocks, now electronic clocks. The circuitry that delivers electric current to a wire once a predetermined time is reached, the clock's alarm, is quite convenient in this regard. As is a cell phone ringer circuit. Go talk to an Iraqi/Afghan vet about the creative use of ordinary consumer electronics components.

      Again, in liberal California a white kid named Steve Wozniak was arrested for brining a hoax bomb to school and his hoax was just a box that made ticking noises. 1960s so it was going with the old school mechanical clock theme.

    23. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no hoax, just a stupid teacher and stupider cops.

      End of story.

      Just because Woz ran into the same sort of stupidity doesn't matter in the slightest.

      IT WAS NOT A HOAX

      WTF

      Any decent HS has a digital lab where students make little circuits attached to 7 segment LED's. Are those hoaxes also?

      You are truly stupid.

    24. Re:Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need any bomb training to see that it wasn't a bomb

  54. Yes, it has happened to "white guys" ... by drnb · · Score: 2

    Would it have happened to someone who isn't brown skinned I don't know, ...

    Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer knows. He was arrested as a high school student for having a hoax bomb. A bomb that "ticked" and then "ticked faster" when moved.

    1. Re:Yes, it has happened to "white guys" ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Would it have happened to someone who isn't brown skinned I don't know, ...

      Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer knows. He was arrested as a high school student for having a hoax bomb. A bomb that "ticked" and then "ticked faster" when moved.

      Sorry, "box" not "bomb". A box that "ticked" and then "ticked faster" when moved.

    2. Re:Yes, it has happened to "white guys" ... by hawk · · Score: 1

      Obviously not true, as he is white, and only racism causes arrests for such things . . . :(

      hawk

  55. Good luck collecting $15 million by phrackthat · · Score: 1

    I don't believe the demand is made in earnest. No one, particularly the law firm representing him, believes that the demand has even a remote relationship to the damages (if any) he may have been perceived to have suffered. It's a publicity stunt - it provides free publicity to a small Texas law firm who may be angling to acquire more Muslim clients and it's a few more minutes of notoriety for Amhed's family (who will probably start another online fundraising efforts to fund the lawsuit).

    This kid was sheltered from scrutiny by his family and his parents refused to permit the school to tell its side of the story. Now, the school and the police will be able to get their sides of the story on the record. Plus, I don't think little Ahmed would hold up well in a lengthy deposition or cross-examination by a competent lawyer.

    If the school doesn't pay something in "hush money" then the family will eventually dismiss the suit to "spare Ahmed from being re-victimized." Can anyone imagine getting jurors to agree that this wasn't a hoax?

  56. Clock Boy The Fraudster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Clock Boy is a fraudster and a hoaxster, and only an idiot would pay him 15 mil for 15 min of fame.

  57. "Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashion by drnb · · Score: 1

    If anyone thinks that parts from a consumer device are obviously not a threat, go find an Iraqi/Afghan vet and ask them what sort of parts detonators of improvised explosive devices are sometimes made from. What was their training with respect to "clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashion?

  58. Looks like he really is a true American by mrun4982 · · Score: 1

    Suing for no reason and for unrealistic sums of money. All he should get is a written apology. The negative press the school received is more than enough in terms of damages.

  59. Clock Boy Scam Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQHZ0kAInxY

    Just the beginning

    Look into who his parents are for example

  60. Deport this kid and his family by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem solved!

  61. Damn straight he should sue for 15M. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The morons who arrested him for NOT MAKING A BOMB. That's right, THEY ALREADY KNEW IT WAS NOT A BOMB. They will ONLY listen if they're hit hard. And the morons who voted them in will vote them in again unless the voters are punished, so it has to be enough money that taxpayers will notice the sting.

    Damn straight sue for millions. Shit, he should sue for ten times that at least.

    It's the only way to make morons who don't get affected by this moronic thought police notice that it's a tragically stupid idea.

    1. Re:Damn straight he should sue for 15M. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      Nice job of selective reading. You ignored all the clues that he and his father were trying to cause trouble in an Islamic manner. He deserves a crippling accident followed by weeks of intense pain and death.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re: Damn straight he should sue for 15M. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's still illegal to bring a fake bomb to school, so they were entitled to arrest him on suspicion of that. Hard to prove intent though.

  62. Venom by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who is responsible for my fear of snakes? Venomous snakes.
    Who is responsible for my Islamophobia? Jihadists/Islamic "extremists"/Islamic terrorists.
    If Muslims want to decry rampant Islamophobia, they should stop being the assholes of planet Earth.

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:Venom by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Your monkey brain, which is usually overruled by your conscious brain is responsible for your fear of snakes.
      Your monkey brain, which is unable to understand facts and statistics, is responsible for you being afraid of people you're unlikely to ever meet.
        If we want you to stop being a racist asshole, who do we get in contact with?

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    2. Re:Venom by friesofdoom · · Score: 1

      Statistics like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Tally up the Islamic terror events on one side, and every other event on the other side, then come back here and say that again (along with your tallies).

    3. Re:Venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your monkey brain doesn't seem to know the difference between racism and disliking a religious group. You get white muslims who have forgone the same critical thinking steps that the brown muslims have forgone...

    4. Re:Venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't stop. Allah is Satan. And they kill you if you leave.

    5. Re:Venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is responsible for my fear of snakes? Venomous snakes. Who is responsible for my Islamophobia? Jihadists/Islamic "extremists"/Islamic terrorists. If Muslims want to decry rampant Islamophobia, they should stop being the assholes of planet Earth.

      what is responsible for the crap spewing? your assholeness.

    6. Re:Venom by ToddInSF · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't loath Islam as much as I do Christianity if it weren't for their dogma, that is tacitly violent towards atheists and other nonbelievers. It's right in their holy shit book. Look it up.

      So honestly, fuck Islam and all Muslims, Christians and Jews that would have us live under their religion-based rule of phony law. They're all thieving, lying, murderous pieces of shit.

  63. Re:Yes, he was arrested [Re:That won't last long.. by Ramze · · Score: 1

    "arrest" -- from the French arrêter -- meaning "to stop."

    If you are stopped and prevented from leaving, you are arrested (stopped.) If you are stopped/detained against your will without either charges or probable cause, the party that stopped you is guilty of false arrest. The police most definitely stopped this person against their will and detained them. That's an arrest. It's legal because they had probable cause a crime had been committed, but they chose not to press charges.

    If you think this wasn't an arrest, then as a civilian, try putting cuffs on another random innocent civilian against their will and detaining them. You'd likely be charged with false arrest -- same as if the police did the same thing without probable cause.

  64. We had it, he lost it by alvieboy · · Score: 2

    All started with arrest of a young man at school for a hand-made, digital clock brought to school. Ended up not being that hand-made, was just some reassembly of some parts. Not much interesting, actually.

    It caught attention due to alledged racism or religion issues (still to be confirmed?). Even the White House and President of USA have spoken on behalf of this young, intelligent man.

    Which apparently was not that intelligent, techically speaking.

    And now he seeks damages of, what ? 15 million ?
    I would agree if he'd seek for 5 to 10K. But even then, after all publicity he got around him, probably not so much.

    There's a word for what he (his family) is seeking. The word is "extorsion".

    He had it (a plausible reason). He lost it. Nohing more to see here, really.

  65. Which everyone had to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To get into university, you HAD to go to a religious school.

    What, PRECISELY does him being a Monk have to do with religion not being antithetical to science? Because science means questioning (and looking for the answers in evidence, IOW "that which is seen"), whereas religion, to question is a sin, and the worst one in the book.

    The fact that nobody had an education unless it was via the church's "good graces" makes the fact he was a Monk irrelevant.

    1. Re:Which everyone had to be by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Is that why the "father of the modern scientific method" Robert Grosseteste was a BISHOP? Nevermind that monks are people who have taken religious vows. Mendel by the way was a Friar, which is similar but different than a monk. Either way, in both cases they join religious orders. This is something that any person wishing to get educated DID NOT have to do. Going to religious school and being a monk are not synonymous.

  66. That's crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems to me a hell of a lot more good happened to him as a result of his arrest than otherwise would have happened... He got his 5 minutes of fame and some expensive products for free from various tech companies. He might even be able to get a job out of it when he's older if he plays his cards right. I hope he loses.

  67. Oh, where are these "fundie atheist" schools, hmm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And what the hell does Mendel have to do with anything?

    Genghis Kahn made international travel safe. Does that mean that being a barbaric warlord means you're good for public transport?!?!?!

  68. Scientific method was also promoted by clergy by drnb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What, PRECISELY does him being a Monk have to do with religion not being antithetical to science? Because science means questioning (and looking for the answers in evidence, IOW "that which is seen"), ...

    Yeah, the scientific method, guess what ... in Europe various members of the clergy were partly responsible for its widespread adoption. A bishop in London comes to mind, don't recall the name. Sorry, most Christian denominations don't see science and religion as being in conflict, they study orthogonal topics. These religions specifically state that the discoveries of science, the observations of the workings of nature, are not in conflict with faith.

    1. Re:Scientific method was also promoted by clergy by neoritter · · Score: 1

      You might be thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... who was a Bishop of Lincoln. Not near London, but English.

    2. Re:Scientific method was also promoted by clergy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It seems that many schools teach their science majors plenty about the scientific method, and about the current state of the scientific knowledge base, but not so much the history of science (including the development of the scientific method, and many of the more impactful discoveries).

      This is part of why Scientists get so derisive of Philosophy and also of Religion; they simply don't know how much they have both fields to thank.

      There is also the issue that the most visible forms of Christianity today happen to be the most anti-science, creating a perception that all Christianity is that way and always has been (which is completely false, though this is only obvious to those who have studied up).

    3. Re:Scientific method was also promoted by clergy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without faith, and to some degree beliefs, and especially the urge the shatter superstitious beliefs, science would never have progressed into realms and ideas condemned by everyone at the time to be foolish to study. Certainly not by armchair sceptics.

      Captcha: passive

  69. Who cares about sympathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sympathy doesn't have anything to do with the law. If he's found in the right it won't be due to sympathy.

  70. Okay now I give up by chispito · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I defended this kid before, thinking that it sucks to get misunderstood and just because his dad is an obnoxious pot stirring lawyer doesn't mean the kid had anything to do with it but this is just stupid. I hope they get counter sued and lose hard.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:Okay now I give up by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      I hope they get counter sued and lose hard.

      My facts here might be wrong, but my understanding is that they have already lost hard: they are in Qatar.

    2. Re:Okay now I give up by ToddInSF · · Score: 0

      Qatar is a very wealthy nation with excellent medical care, which Muslims require since they have so many genetic diseases.

  71. Fuck Really? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

    RALPH: Now, look Norton, your gonna go to the school with this clock I made that looks just like a bomb from the movies.

    NORTON: Okay! What happens then, Ralph?

    RALPH: What happens then? What happens then? Then, they go completely ape shit, and they arrest you and cuff you and give you a good cavity search, and then, you and me call this lawyer I heard about, and we SUE and make MILLIONS! It's fool-proof, Norton! FOOL-PROOF!

    NORTON: I dunno Ralph! What if they think it's just a clock?

    RALPH: Norton!

    Enter ALICE

    ALICE: Ralph Kramden! Are you cooking up another one of your schemes again?

    RALPH: One of these days, Alice... POW!!! Right in the kisser!

    ALICE: Ahhh, shaddap Ralph!

    [Laughter, Applause]

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  72. I will be very disappointed if... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    the schools and people in the US offering him aid, scholarships are still offering.

    Let us not forget his sister was somehow involved in a similar bomb threat situation. That the reason he was even suspected was because the clock went off somehow.

    i can't say that he planned the suit from the beginning, but it was probably a possibility.

    I just hope the lawyers demand that the family put up a bond against judgement of a frivolous lawsuit, given that they no longer live in the US.

    Also, IO bet this thing does not survive his deposition.

  73. If they thought it was a bomb... by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    If they thought it was a bomb, why didn't they evacuate the school?

    1. Re:If they thought it was a bomb... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      They didn't evacuate the school because it was easier and safer to remove the child and his device from the school than to remove everybody from the school.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:If they thought it was a bomb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That took hours, and when it happened, it was by patrol car rather than a properly trained bomb unit. No one at any point in the day thought the thing was a bomb. Even cursory knowledge of the situation could have told you that.

  74. they elected assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parents elected the officials who are putting these totalitarian policies in place, so sure their kids deserve to pay for it.

    If you don't want your school and city sued and have to fork out more in taxes or less in programs; then stop electing assholes.

  75. summary biased as fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    summary biased as fuck.
    but hardly surprising for anything from islamaphobic samzpenis.

  76. I bet by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    that if the suit gets tossed, in 5 five years he appears in some ISIS-like clone threatening to kill Americans.

  77. Pretty good scam. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the courts can prove he made an obnoxiously ambiguous clock in order to profit off the backlash. It's something his father would certainly have thought of.

  78. Clocks are for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOO! MOOOO! Moo cows MOOOO! Moo sayw the cows. YOU CESIUM COWS!!

  79. Re:Oh, where are these "fundie atheist" schools, h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what the hell does Mendel have to do with anything?

    Well someone claimed that religion rejects genetics, and since the father of genetics was a member of the clergy ...

    Genghis Kahn made international travel safe. Does that mean that being a barbaric warlord means you're good for public transport?!?!?!

    Does that mean that being a barbaric warlord means you're good for public transport?!?!?!

    Probably, everyone admitted that those fascists European dictators of the mid 20th century got their trains to run on time.

  80. He's not helping his cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The request could have been for a public settlement with $1 + a written apology + a plan to prevent it from happening again + time spent + actual costs + a suitable lawyer contengency fee.

    Or maybe at most, also add in college tuition.

    As it stands now, he looks like he is motivated by the cash and unlikely to get or fix anything.

  81. Should have been more serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He should have made a bomb where an acid and a base are separated until a timer is let off. He could have used Vinegar and Baking Soda in water, set up a gate so when an alarm went off.... fizz..
    I'm not surprised he is doing this, just think the amount is ridiculous. Then again, he was arrested without just cause. The chief of police should have smacked the principal on the side of the head. in front of the students. Maybe a reaction like that could have avoided a reaction like this.

  82. Re:Yes, he was arrested [Re:That won't last long.. by bmk67 · · Score: 1

    No, that would be incorrect. If you're not free to go, you are under arrest.

  83. FAIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you submitted that to most professors at any major University, you would be failed on the spot for citing Wikipedia.

    1. Re: FAIL! by theCzechGuy · · Score: 1

      Doesn't make it any less (or more) true.

  84. Taken to police station as part of investigation by drnb · · Score: 1

    If recognized as a hoax there would be no reason to evacuate, yet as a hoax there is still a legal violation. The police could still become involved to determine if it was an intentional hoax or an unfortunate and accidental resemblance. Given that there were no charges it seems unfortunate resemblance was the result of the investigation. Keep in mind that people are also taken to the police station as part of an investigation.

  85. The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)

    Can Google explain proof my ware = safe via VirusTotal which GOOGLE owns by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit https://www.virustotal.com/en/... + 32-bit too https://www.virustotal.com/en/... models?

    Its installer's safe per VirScan http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF... also!

    Lastly - MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who also has the source & verified it safe too) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ---

    * AndyMadigan - QUESTION: What's it taste like "EATING YOUR WORDS" after you rammed them down your throat since YOUR FOOT IS IN YOUR MOUTH as well as "washing them down with the bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT"?

    APK

    P.S.=> Seeing you work for CLOUDWORDS (an advertiser affiliate of Marketo) tips your hand & PROVES YOUR ILL MOTIVES for your stupidity!

    ... apk

  86. The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

    Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

    UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

    * See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

    ---

    "which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

    WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    &

    ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

    ---

    "your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

    See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

    ---

    "I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

    You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

    APK

    P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

    "It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

    So

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

    ... apk

  87. Re:Good by Speck'sBacon · · Score: 1

    Presumably because they decided to get police involved in what the plaintiffs feel is a school disciplinary matter? Their "overreaction" is what brought the cops there in the first place. That's just a guess.

  88. Xenophobia is ubiquitous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being questioned sucks, prejudices are often wrong, but they do save time.

    Islamophobia? How would a suspected western person be treated in the stereotypical Islamic country?
    Until Islam chills the fuck out this will continue.

  89. So you admit the claim is BS. by Brannon · · Score: 2

    He didn't win first prize and didn't bump off a teenage kid who created an ebola detection kit. He hogged the spotlight, that's fair criticism but it's very different than what was claimed.

  90. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    Considering that an alarm based timer is fsking trivial yea, the device lacked anything that looked like an explosive, the most dangerous part was the exposed mains.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  91. No, a real cite, not a raving lunatic on Youtube. by Brannon · · Score: 1

    If this claim was true it would be widely reported, I can't find any reputable report validating the claim that the "handcuff photo was staged" and lots of reputable reports of the opposite.

  92. Self awareness? by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    Until Islam chills the fuck out this will continue.

    Islam isn't busy murdering people with robot planes in Central American, on the other side of the planet from where they live. Islam didn't bomb two hospitals in two months. Islam hasn't overthrown democracies around the planet.

    So again....self awareness much?

    1. Re:Self awareness? by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Islam has prevented democracies from happening.

    2. Re:Self awareness? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You misspelled the CIA.

  93. or....GTFO with those priorities by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    A written apology is warranted.

    Fuck that. The cops and the school knew full well it wasn't a bomb, yet interrogated him for hours and pressured him to sign a confession. And treated him like a bad seed just because he didn't roll over for the authoritarians.

    If municipalities had to fork out for their dumbfuckery, their racism, or their racist dumbfuckery on a more regular basis, then they would week out racist dumbfucks from positions of power.

    At least you didn't cry a river for "for the taxpayers", when it's the insurance companies who are the front lines of paying out settlements.

    1. Re:or....GTFO with those priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was HALF an hour, douchenozzle. And the family never allowed the school to release their records of the incident, because, SURPRISE, the family wants their narrative to be the ONLY narrative of it. Gee, doesn't that sound genuine! The school can only release their statement/records if the family allows (due to the kid's age). Why would the family block that statement if it supports their own?

      So the Dumbfuckery is solely on YOUR part. Now let me see you start doling out money for your dumbfuckery. Stupid asshole. Threaten to blow up or shoot up a school and you're going to have to spend some time around adults pretending that you're in deep shit.

    2. Re:or....GTFO with those priorities by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It was HALF an hour, douchenozzle.

      Times three, not including the initial freakout by the incompetent teacher and principal. Who's the dooshnozzle?

      the family never allowed the school to release their records of the incident, because, SURPRISE, the family wants their narrative to be the ONLY narrative of it.

      1) Irrelevant, we already know the record 2) no on would be more vested in claiming that Ahmed had come close to hinting at a joke of a hoax than the school district and the police department. But they aren't doing that.

      So why are you wingers grasping at the same straws passed up by both the principal and the police chief?

  94. This whole thing was a sham. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He and his sisters have done this before. He asked for the handcuff to be put back on, he set it for a alarm to go off in the middle of one of his classes, 5 teachers told him to put it away before the one teacher thought it was a bomb, and he had wires sticking out of it. I'm not even mentioning the fact it was a prebuilt clock he took apart, and that his father ran for president in a middle east country and is moving to another one.

    He is a scammer who used a "racial inequality" sham and tried to fool all of America.

    So why should he get paid after hes got world famous, he raised half a million (if i remember correctly) on a go fund me page, got over thousands of $$ of free stuff from microsoft and other companys and tricking all of America? Did the school even act inappropriately? No. People making a gun sign with there hands and getting out of school suspension are not suing.

  95. Re:No, a real cite, not a raving lunatic on Youtub by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Like it's hard to put your arms behind your back if all you want is a "pose".

  96. And Malia Obama's dad has bombed hospitals by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    WYFP, xenophobe?

  97. Cost Of Trial Outweights Greedy Muslim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A civl trial doesn't cost 15 million to run, so it would cost the taxpayers less to ignore Clock Boy, like he never existed.

  98. No! by s.petry · · Score: 2, Informative

    Being arrested requires that charges be filed. Ahmed was not arrested and not charged with any crimes, he was detained. Your twenty minutes is plucked out of the air and meaningless. Twenty minutes for a vehicle stop? Okay. Twenty minutes for charges relating to weapons or drugs? No way is that twenty minutes. The legal limit varies, but 24 hours is generally the limit that you can be detained without having charges filed (at which point you are arrested).

    Ahmed was hauled off and _DETAINED_ for a reason. YOU may not agree with the reasoning, but that does not mean there was no basis. How people keep modding this lie up when law dictionaries are pretty easy to find is astounding (https://www.law.cornell.edu/). Well, not really.. it suits a narrative.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even know what arrested is? It doesn't require being charged that is separate.
      Please do some basic reading before you go spouting off untruths.

      Is there a difference between being charged with a crime vs arrested?
      https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120702123323AAiWzWj

      http://www.jctlegal.com/immigration-blog/qa-whats-is-the-difference-between-being-arrested-charged-sentenced-or-placed-in-alternative-sentencing
      http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/arrest-detention.htm
      http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arrest-vs-detention-how-tell-whether-you-ve-been-arrested-simply-detained.html
      http://forums.officer.com/t72835/

    2. Re:No! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Being arrested requires that charges be filed.

      He was handcuffed, forcible led to the police station and questioned. That's fits the English language definition for the term. Trying to pretend otherwise based on some specific legal nomenclature is at best stupid, and at worst outright dishonest.

      Ahmed was hauled off and _DETAINED_ for a reason.

      No, he was *arrested*. Let's see what everyone else defines as arrest:

      Dictionary.com says:

      Verb: to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant; take into custody:
      Noun: the taking of a person into legal custody, as by officers of the law.
      Idiom: under arrest, in custody of the police or other legal authorities:

      Marriam-Webster:Â seize, capture; specifically :Â to take or keep in custody by authority of law

      The free dicionary: 2. To seize and hold under the authority of law.

      Oxford dictionary (not the OED): 1Seize (someone) by legal authority and take into custody

      Fenland Dictionary: (of the police) to use legal authority to catch and take someone to a place where the person may be accused of a crime:

      Wikipedia: An arrest is the act of depriving a person of their liberty usually in relation to the purported investigation or prevention of crime and presenting (the arrestee) to a procedure as part of the criminal justice system

      And before you start trying to legal-weasel:

      http://www.legalupdateonline.c...
      http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

      By any definition, the kid was arrested.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:No! by tricorn · · Score: 1

      No. If you aren't free to leave, you're under arrest.

      http://criminal-law.freeadvice...

    4. Re:No! by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Being arrested requires that charges be filed.

      Incorrect. You're 'detained' of the officer stops you for any reason. You're 'under arrest' if you don't feel free to leave, if the police transport you anywhere, or uses force to prevent you from leaving. The officer requires 'reasonable suspicion' to detain you, and requires 'probable cause' to arrest you, but it DOES NOT need to lead to charges. The officer can reasonably believe you were commiting a crime, then turn out to be wrong, or have new evidence come to light without it having been false arrest.

      Your twenty minutes is plucked out of the air and meaningless.

      Actually, it's a rule of thumb applied by the SCOTUS. Google it a bit and you'll find all sorts of case law, opinions, and the like.

      Otherwise, google 'detention versus arrest' and you'll find all sorts of legal jurisprudence about it. Like this. Or this. Or even this.

      TLDR: You can be 'detained' on suspicion. If you're not free to go, if the officer moves you, or if the officer starts calling in backup, drug sniffing dogs, and the like, you're under arrest. If he develops 'probable cause' to believe you've committed a crime, he can arrest you.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    5. Re:No! by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Being arrested requires that charges be filed. Ahmed was not arrested and not charged with any crimes, he was detained. Your twenty minutes is plucked out of the air and meaningless. Twenty minutes for a vehicle stop? Okay. Twenty minutes for charges relating to weapons or drugs? No way is that twenty minutes. The legal limit varies, but 24 hours is generally the limit that you can be detained without having charges filed (at which point you are arrested).

      Ahmed was hauled off and _DETAINED_ for a reason. YOU may not agree with the reasoning, but that does not mean there was no basis. How people keep modding this lie up when law dictionaries are pretty easy to find is astounding (https://www.law.cornell.edu/). Well, not really.. it suits a narrative.

      about those law dictionaries so easy to find, which you do not actually cite...
      "An arrest occurs when the police take someone into custody. People are in custody when they aren’t free to leave, whether or not the police take them to the police station or jail, use handcuffs, or even announce that an arrest has occurred. The question is whether the police control the suspect’s movement.
      Level of Restraint
      The use of force—for example, grabbing and handcuffing—is a common way to complete an arrest." http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
      is this some kind of rightwing thing? they're always citing something without actually giving an actual citation.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  99. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    If anyone thinks that parts from a consumer device are obviously not a threat, go find an Iraqi/Afghan vet and ask them what sort of parts detonators of improvised explosive devices are sometimes made from.

    Until they ask you where the explosive is that the wires are hooked up to, and after that, when they ask you what kind of moron you are.

  100. You're so full of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine the /. demographic didn't make a point of bringing fake bombs to school either. I sure as hell would have been arrested. The school district I was stuck in was insane as hell, and I'm white enough I may as well be albino.

    Yes it was just the guts of an alarm clock in a tiny briefcase, and it says something about the lack of competency of the teachers who saw those guts and didn't immediately recognize that the kid was deserving of both an F and a suspension for plagiarism, but you don't build something that takes the form of a bomb, even only the popular notion of a bomb.

    And guess what folks, the briefcase bomb is in so many books, television shows, movies, YouTube videos, etc. that this kid, especially at 14, should have known better. For that matter, what the hell is wrong with you? Why the hell can't you recognize that if the majority is terrified of a certain image or action, regardless of how silly it may be to you, you don't do it.

    Fucking-a.

    If you are so God forsaken certain that there is no chance that you would have been arrested, I challenge you to take a briefcase full of alarm clock parts to work - or your kid's school! (For the record, I recommend against actually doing this.)

    Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

    1. Re:You're so full of shit by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      I've taken my own half-assed version of a taser to school, only to have my physics teacher one-up with me with a far simpler circuit.

      Culturally that may no longer be acceptable, but I think that's a great shame.

  101. Payment to be tendered... by Alypius · · Score: 1

    ...in Radio Shack gift certificates. Also, the bigotry towards Texas is truly astonishing.

  102. Re:Taken to police station as part of investigatio by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    If recognized as a hoax there would be no reason to evacuate, yet as a hoax there is still a legal violation.

    Or if recognized as the Easter Bunny. There was no hoax. If Ahmed had made the slightest crack about it being a bomb, you would have been hearing about that from Day 1. That didn't happen.

  103. i have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we drone strike him and his dumb family

  104. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "If anyone thinks that parts from a consumer device are obviously not a threat, go find an Iraqi/Afghan vet and ask them what sort of parts detonators of improvised explosive devices are sometimes made from. "

    Nobody thinks that. We think that 14 year old boys bringing in clocks that they have torn apart and rebuilt in a new case for science class are not a threat, even if they might be Muslim!

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  105. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by drnb · · Score: 1

    "If anyone thinks that parts from a consumer device are obviously not a threat, go find an Iraqi/Afghan vet and ask them what sort of parts detonators of improvised explosive devices are sometimes made from. "

    Nobody thinks that. We think that 14 year old boys bringing in clocks that they have torn apart and rebuilt in a new case for science class are not a threat, even if they might be Muslim!

    Its not a Muslim thing. Your logic could also be applied to a situation where a white teenage high school student of the 1960s brings a box that ticks to school. Yet that white teenage student had to spend a few hours with the police too. The student's name was Steve Wozniak, later co-founder of Apple Computer.

    Again, its illegal to bring a hoax bomb to school. Even if something is recognized as a hoax there is still a violation of the law. Taking someone down to the police station to find out if it was an intentional hoax or an unfortunate accidental resemblance is something that has happened without race or religion being a factor. Note that one teacher told him to not show it to anyone, yet he continued doing so. Its perfectly reasonable to wonder if he continued to do so because he was playing a joke or something.

  106. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by drnb · · Score: 1

    Considering that an alarm based timer is fsking trivial yea, the device lacked anything that looked like an explosive, the most dangerous part was the exposed mains.

    Keep in mind that a hoax bomb is something illegal to bring to school. Even if recognized as a hoax it is reasonable to the police talk to the kid to determine if it was an intention hoax or an unfortunate accidental resemblance. Even if the "explosives" are missing there is the question of whether a kid who brought one major component had brought two. And once again I'll add, Steve Wozniak, cofounder of Apple Computer, spent a few hour with police when he brought a box that ticked to his high school. This sort of zero tolerance stuff has been happening for quite some time.

  107. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by drnb · · Score: 1

    If anyone thinks that parts from a consumer device are obviously not a threat, go find an Iraqi/Afghan vet and ask them what sort of parts detonators of improvised explosive devices are sometimes made from.

    Until they ask you where the explosive is that the wires are hooked up to, and after that, when they ask you what kind of moron you are.

    A hoax bomb is also illegal, so even if it is recognized as a hoax there is still a legal problem and spending some time with police answering questions is a thing that often follows. Its reasonable for police to determine if there was an intention hoax or an unfortunate accidental resemblance. Steve Wozniak, cofounder of Apple Computer, spent some time answer such questions when he brought a box to school that made ticking noises.

  108. what might help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IF there was an offer to drop the suit if those involved in the idiotic decisions are fired... that might do some good. Those people do NOT care if the district or whoever goes bankrupt paying for their stupid actions.

    I'd hate to see any cash go to those losers. Sometimes EVERYBODY is wrong, and this is one of those cases.

  109. Insult! by CanEHdian · · Score: 2

    You... you... you've insulted me. I'm hurt. I hurt, and my soul hurts!
    Here's $15,000,000.00
    Oh, now I'm OK!

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  110. Re:Taken to police station as part of investigatio by drnb · · Score: 1

    If recognized as a hoax there would be no reason to evacuate, yet as a hoax there is still a legal violation.

    Or if recognized as the Easter Bunny. There was no hoax. If Ahmed had made the slightest crack about it being a bomb, you would have been hearing about that from Day 1. That didn't happen.

    Cracks about a bomb are not required, resemblance is sufficient. He was told not to show it to people by one teacher yet he kept doing so. Whether a hoax or not is something determined through investigation, by determining if there was "intent". This is something the police do every day. And sometimes there is no intent, no crime, just unfortunate coincidences and people are free to go uncharged. Happens every day.

  111. money-minded family by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just ridiculous. What is the human rights anyway? Are they trying the abuse the "Human Rights"? are his parents trying to destroy him or he is willingly to be destroyed? I know he is still young. I have gone far worse than him. I didn't get arrested. I was the only one who was different race from the rest of the students. I got physically and academically bullied by my teachers. They assaulted me. All i did was, I moved to other school.

  112. Re:Good by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The rights of children are not the same as the rights of adults. The parents' responsibility for their children gives them special proper powers over their children, a subset of which, in loco parentis, are temporarily extended to schools.

    Using their best judgement, parents may spank their children to prevent them from running in front of cars or kicking the neighbor's pitbull. This is not a violation of a child's rights.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  113. $15 Million Is Not Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $15 million is just not enough to sooth this kid's greed. He should have asked for 15 Americas.

  114. Mohamed's presidential runs in Sudan by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Since the father - Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed - has twice run for president of Sudan, I decided to look that up and find out more. It's not your average immigrant to America who usually runs for the leadership in not just a foreign country, but one that is sanctioned by the US for its dismal human rights.

    So in my search on him, I found this. In it, one of the things that he said that was interesting:

    “When I went for the elections in 2010 they were rigid. When I was there my country was worse than I had left it. I saw people starve, and babies, die, and women cry in Darfur. No peace. No justice. So I am back to save my Sudan, so help me God. I’m hope for my country to become great, and to reestablish good connections with America. My country is going through economic hardship because of the embargo, and I would like to lift it.”

    Which is quite an interesting attempt by him to be on both sides of the Darfur issue. On one hand, he was lamenting the suffering in Darfur. But why is there that situation in Darfur? Reason is that in Sudan, aside from the Muslim-Christian divide that was there (and no longer, due to the secession of South Sudan), there is also a major divide within the Muslim population b/w Arabs and Blacks. The Khartoum regime has always been an Arab dominated regime, and they consider Black Muslims insufficiently Islamic. Which would be fine had that been just an opinion, but it has been the motivation behind the persecution of Black Muslims in Darfur. Which is why the US and a lot of Western countries imposed sanctions on Sudan.

    But those sanctions are something that the Clock-dad wants to get lifted. If the persecution of Darfur is ended, and proved to remain in that state for some time, the sanctions will be lifted - that's always happened. So whenever anybody talks about lifting the sanctions, they're talking about getting it done outside the framework of the persecution ending. So the man who was a provocative in the US is also someone who engages in sophistry about his own country.

    He currently has dual citizenship of the US and Sudan. Maybe he might like to drop his US citizenship, and instead add on that of his new home - Qatar. Not sure whether he's an Arab or a Black Muslim - that would certainly be a major factor in whether Qatar decides to grant him citizenship.

  115. Occams Razor suggests standard procedure by drnb · · Score: 1

    "Disassembled clock parts wire together in an adhoc fashion and found in an ordinary box unrelated to time keeping looks like the detonator to an IED."

    Or it looks like some shit a 14 year old might throw together, being unlikely to have training in bomb creation and access to the explosives required to make that little box dangerous. It depends if you have a basic grasp of Occams Razor and a rational thought process,or watch a lot of Fox news and believe Muslims are the latest scourge of ne'er do wells looking to kill whitey and rape his woman.

    The same can be said for Wozniak's hoax. Yet a white kid in the 60s had to spend some time explaining things to the police too. For a box that ticked, with no visible fake explosives. Now move the clock forward to 2015 with its zero tolerance against anything resembling a "weapon", where kids are disciplined for pointing fingers at each other. Racism and Islamophobia are not necessary to explain events, standard policy and a historical track record explain things quite nicely. A fan of Occams Razor should realize this.

    1. Re:Occams Razor suggests standard procedure by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Nice try at casting a Red Herring into the ring, comparing this kids non ticking device to Wozniak's which sat in a locker ticking and would tick faster when the locker door was opened. Even Wozniak admits it was supposed to seem like a bomb. So lets' not compare ... ahem .... Apples to oranges, OK?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Occams Razor suggests standard procedure by drnb · · Score: 1

      Nice try at casting a Red Herring into the ring, comparing this kids non ticking device to Wozniak's which sat in a locker ticking and would tick faster when the locker door was opened. Even Wozniak admits it was supposed to seem like a bomb. So lets' not compare ... ahem .... Apples to oranges, OK?

      Sorry, its not a red herring. You are conflating a lack of intent to mean that an investigation was not warranted. That is wrong, lack of intent is determined by investigation, by having the kid sit down with the police for a few hours. In the Woz case they determined intent was present, in the recent case they determined intent was not preset. However prior to investigation there was a suspected hoax bomb in both these cases, a violation of the law, not a school policy infraction. A suspected hoax warrants a police investigation. The outcome of the investigation does not change this.

  116. Re:Oh, where are these "fundie atheist" schools, h by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Probably, everyone admitted that those fascists European dictators of the mid 20th century got their trains to run on time.

    Mussolini made it illegal to point out that the trains weren't running on time.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  117. Good! by zelkovamoon · · Score: 1

    I know a lot of you might think this is a ridiculous thing for him to do, but maybe if there is actual punishment for people who freak out and accuse simple electronics projects of being terrorism - like 15 million dollars in punishment - people will start to use their brains and not running for the hills and calling the bomb squad for anything that looks remotely suspect.

    1. Re:Good! by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Talk about "freak outs". This type of nonsense is happening all over the country. It's the new normal under "zero tolerance" policies.

      http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

      *Finger gun at a Virginia grade school: suspension
      * Breakfast pastry "gun" at a Maryland elementary school: 2 day suspension
      *Hello Kitty bubble gun at a Pennsylvania kindergarten: 10 day suspension

      If a pop-tart gun is grounds for discipline, then why does clock boy deserve $15m for a freak out about a timing device in a metal case?

  118. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    Because it happened to Woz does not mean it was right. This device had no obvious explosive to be a hoax.

    Mind you he may well of violated the letter of texas hoax bomb law if so the law is at fault as it's entirely to broad etc etc etc else your average metal lunchbox looks like a bomb as it's metal and rattles if shaken.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  119. Miss Manners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We are all united in spirit, in our humanity, our sense of being the same, and the spirit of human greed.

  120. Ahmed should write /etc/host files by unixisc · · Score: 1

    APK, please teach Ahmed how to edit /etc/host files in all UNIX-like operating systems, so that he can do that instead of making fake time bombs to take to school. The Qatari authorities won't take that so lightly.

  121. God preexisting the universe is OK with science by drnb · · Score: 1

    ...and yet nothing was needed to start god. curious that.

    God preexists this universe because he moved in from a parental universe that spawned the current universe, various multiverse theories and such. See, no conflict with science. :-)

  122. I hope he fries those fascists to a crisp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until the fascists are howling in agony, this must go on. I personally know a kid who was fucked over by this bunch, and I'm sure there are hundreds more. Fifteen million is a start, but probably not nearly enough to end this bullshit. Go, clock kid, go!!!

  123. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by drnb · · Score: 1

    Because it happened to Woz does not mean it was right. This device had no obvious explosive to be a hoax.

    Neither did Woz's. The argument is not that it was "right". The argument is that this is a long standing type of occurrence, one that does not involve racism and islamophobia. Keep in mind Woz's incident was in the 60s, now in 2015 with US school's zero tolerance towards anything resembling a weapon, including kids pointing fingers at each other, things get even weirder. Something **resembling** a bomb component more likely to cause a reaction.

    And again, one the police are notified there is nothing weird about them talking to the kid for hours to determine if it was a prank or an accidental unfortunate resemblance. If the kid disregarded the first teacher who told him not to show it to anyone because, well, disregarding adults is something kids do, or if he was determined to get a reaction out of someone. And upon determining that it was all accidental it ends there. Well the legal stuff, not the media circus that misrepresents it all.

  124. Scientists reject theory because priest offered it by drnb · · Score: 1

    And Lemaître was horrified when people would associate his religion with the science he did.

    Well, yes, because some of the great "scientific" minds of the day were rejecting his theory because he was a priest, because his theory "smelled of creationism" as one eminent man of science, a leader in the field, had said. He knew that the closed minded existed in both the religious and non-religious camps, that personal politics is heavily involved in science.

  125. Now now guys ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember , we're talking about a kid here that "designed" his own CPU !! ...... Surely $15 million is not too much to pay for that level of genius ? ........

  126. Just goes to show... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Next time, the police should have just shot the shit. The damages for the accidental death would have been less.

  127. Handel on the Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should call Bill on Handel on the Law, so Bill can tell him how damages work before he says: You have no case!

  128. Re: God preexisting the universe is OK with scienc by oobayly · · Score: 1

    Ah, the "it's the turtles all the way down" defence. Nicely done.

  129. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woz was intended to be a fake bomb. That was the prank.

  130. Dilemma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they don't settle and compensate they will look like or rather be made to look like islamophobic crooks.

    If they settle they will look like dumb f**wits who spend tax payers money on baseless threats.

    Hence they will settle and agree full non disclosure. Which will of course be broken by those who have an interest in exposing ups no, creating the impression of a weak Western culture that appears to think every damage can be rectified by paying money.

    Can't win.

  131. Re: God preexisting the universe is OK with scienc by drnb · · Score: 1

    Ah, the "it's the turtles all the way down" defence. Nicely done.

    It is kind of amusing that various mythological descriptions of the origin or end of the universe match some of the various scientific hypothesis. However the fact remains that many world class scientists think the multiverse hypothesis is worth pursuing. Apologies if science is perhaps finding an explanation for philosophical questions like what existed before time began, before the universe was created.

    "Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Raj Pathria, Alexander Vilenkin, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sean Carroll."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  132. I wish BOTH sides could lose here by Erbo · · Score: 1
    If the school and the cops had actually believed or even suspected the clock was dangerous, they would have evacuated the school and called in the bomb squad. The fact that they did not indicates that they knew there was no danger...but, if that's the case, why did they come down so hard on the kid? I put that down to insane "zero tolerance" ( = "zero intelligence") policies. And, in doing so, they played right into the hands of the kid and his Muslim activist father, who I suspect deliberately baited the school to provoke such a reaction so they could claim "Islamophobia." The two of them shouldn't be allowed to profit from that.

    This is one of those lawsuits where you wish both sides could lose.

    --
    Be who you are...and be it in style!
  133. Blaming the victim by codeButcher · · Score: 2

    Gotta love muslims*. Move to a certain country ostensibly for a better future, then try to change that country and society to be the same as the one left behind.

    I know one shouldn't blame the victim, but in many cases the so-called victims of islama"phobia" weren't just innocently walking along minding their own business.... And I for one feel it is very applicable to also take a hard and critical look at the victim's actions that led to them wanting to be labeled victims.

    * = I also know I shouldn't stereotype and should have probably written "some muslims". It's just so sad that the daeshbag minority is so visible and vocal, while the silent, conservative, hard-working, intelligent, empathic majority are quietly working along being productive members of the societies they find themselves in.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    1. Re:Blaming the victim by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Gotta love muslims*. Move to a certain country ostensibly for a better future, then try to change that country and society to be the same as the one left behind.

      I know one shouldn't blame the victim, but in many cases the so-called victims of islama"phobia" weren't just innocently walking along minding their own business.... And I for one feel it is very applicable to also take a hard and critical look at the victim's actions that led to them wanting to be labeled victims.

      * = I also know I shouldn't stereotype and should have probably written "some muslims". It's just so sad that the daeshbag minority is so visible and vocal, while the silent, conservative, hard-working, intelligent, empathic majority are quietly working along being productive members of the societies they find themselves in.

      at what point did the muslim kid "try to change that country and society to be the same as the one left behind."? do kids in muslim countries routinely carry around clocks in pencil cases?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    2. Re:Blaming the victim by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      Thank you, excellent question!

      You will notice that the third word in my post was "muslims", not "Achmed". In other words, the (specific) clock incident is only a small part of a (general) larger trend.

      No, neither do western kids routinely carry around suitcases to school with countdown displays in pencil cases suggestive of hollywood bomb counters.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  134. Ahh, euphemisms by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    'briefly detained', to describe that he was fucking handcuffed, not given a friendly lecture by Sheriff Andy.

    What's next; 'sunshine units'?

  135. The plot finally revealed by dskoll · · Score: 1

    Aha, it's finally clear. It wasn't a bomb plot at all. It was just a cynical extortion scam.

  136. Both parties are wrong by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    On one side, the police and school administrators acted like total a$$holes in their handling of this situation. On the other side, the whole act of bringing a disassembled clock to school in a metal briefcase was a deliberate attempt to provoke this sort of over-reaction. Both parties are in the wrong.
    I call it an "over-reaction" but we live in a time where gun-shaped things made of pop-tarts or cardboard are grounds for disciplinary action under idiotic "zero tolerance" policies. The disassembled clock clearly wasn't a bomb, but a timing device in a metal case looks more like a bomb than a pop-tart looks like a gun.
    The kid's father is/was an activist with political ambitions. My guess is that he orchestrated the whole thing and it succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.

  137. Best Job Ever! by Spinlock_1977 · · Score: 1

    Hey, I can dis-assemble a clock radio and toss the components in a scary-looking box. Can I have 15 million too?

    --
    - The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
  138. Not about Ahmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really the issue isn't about him. It is about zero tolerance which needs to die. It and all of its brain donor administrators and bedwetter supporters need to have a stake driven through their hearts, their heads chopped off, garlic stuffed in their mouths, bodies thrown out into sunlight, salted, and set on fire.

  139. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    The correct response from the teacher would have been give that to me you can get it back at the end of the day or make the parents pick it up.

    Police should never question a child without a parent or attorney. Booking etc fine but a child can not reasonably waive their rights to an attorney / have not reached the majority to be able to waive their rights.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  140. good writeup by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    Snopes has a good write-up of the state of things around this:
    http://www.snopes.com/2015/11/...

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  141. Re:Good by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    The rights of children are not the same as the rights of adults. The parents' responsibility for their children gives them special proper powers over their children, a subset of which, in loco parentis, are temporarily extended to schools.

    Using their best judgement, parents may spank their children to prevent them from running in front of cars or kicking the neighbor's pitbull. This is not a violation of a child's rights.

    So you believe that spanking a kid will keep them from running in front of cars? How odd. If they're too young to understand the danger, spanking them does nothing. If they're old enough to understand the danger, talking about it is the better approach.

    If you think spanking is not a violation of a child's rights, better not come to Canada. You're never allowed to swat a kid on the head, never allowed to use anything except the palm of your hand, and hitting a child in anger or in retaliation for something a child did is illegal, as is any form of corporal punishment for children under 2 or over 12.

    It's completely banned in many other countries.

    So here's the real question: Why would you hit someone you love? You're showing by example that violence is how adults solve problems, and that hitting someone you love is okay. Not the best role model.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  142. Re: God preexisting the universe is OK with scienc by s.petry · · Score: 1

    The multiverse does not answer the question of causality, but it is often used to obfuscate and avoid the question. The root question of "does something need to cause the Universe?" simply becomes plural "Universes". "How space, matter and energy, and all of the laws of physics (quantum as well as Newtonian) begin?" is the root question, and it remains just as valid today as a few thousand years ago when we first documented the question. Science can refute theological beliefs but it can't answer that question.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  143. Clock boy.... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    This whole thing was a setup from the beginning. The kid brings something to school that looks a lot like a bomb. So naturally he gets arrested. Just like if a kid brings a toy gun to school. They would also get arrested for that, and it has happened many times before. The fact that he is Muslim has absolutely nothing to do with it and everyone knows that.

    Of course, the press sees this and immediately jumps on it as a discrimination story. Then, predictably, everyone is tripping over themselves to declare this kid as some sort of genius. Offering him scholarships and trips to the White House. Fox was the only network that actually fact checked it and exposed it as a fraud.

    And the parents...what kind of idiot would think it's a good idea to send their kid to school with something that looks exactly like a bomb in a briefcase? This was clearly a setup and now they are trying to extort 15 million from the school district. I wouldn't give them 15 cents.

    Fuck you, clock boy.

  144. Yup, he's a american by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How very United-Statian of him!

  145. It was Islamophobia, and tough shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So maybe instead of sueing for 15 million for your greedy selves, why not instead promote a 15 million donation to a charity that would help promote anti-terrorism (say by providing food and clothing to the displaced, or by educating orphan children, etc etc).

    So tired of people using their perceived 'right not to be offended' as a way to make money.

    You don't have the right NOT to be offended, and I'm sorry but if 30% of "you" are going to insist on living under sharia law, then maybe its time for you to leave and go help support the caliphate in the levant.

    You're going to need to develop a thicker skin if you want to live in a free society, so it's time to man-up.

  146. Re: God preexisting the universe is OK with scienc by NominalLoss · · Score: 1

    And neither does god. It just adds "magic" into the equation.

  147. Re: Nazi association with science by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    And here I thought it was rocketry

  148. Amhed Mohamed's "clock' was a fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kid didn't"invent" anything. He was RESPECTFULLY warned that some people might think it looks like a bomb; he persisted; he was arrested. His father is an agitator. Now, his family has moved to Qatar. I don't blame the kid, because he is just kind of stupid; I do blame his parents and the Imam-type lawyers who are probably advising in this case. Screw the lot of them! Would Facebook REALLY hire this kid? He's a lightweight!

  149. Re: God preexisting the universe is OK with scienc by s.petry · · Score: 1

    And a beginning of the Universe from absolutely nothing is not magic how exactly? That is rhetorical, I don't expect a troll to actually understand that either solution is plausible, and in fact something causing the Universe is far more likely. Now go back to your Kool Aide, I'm sure there is Theology you could be focusing on.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  150. Seconded by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    If I had to go talk to Obama, I would seek 15 Million in compensation as well.

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
  151. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by drnb · · Score: 1

    The correct response from the teacher would have been give that to me you can get it back at the end of the day or make the parents pick it up.

    Agreed, and the first teacher he showed it to in fact told him to put it away and don't show anyone. Another reasonable coarse of action. Unfortunately the kid did not follow these instructions and kept showing it around. However once one person thinks its a hoax bomb we move from a school matter to a police matter. Did he fail to follow instructions because he was hoping for a reaction? That is a very reasonable thing for the police to determine.

    Police should never question a child without a parent or attorney. Booking etc fine but a child can not reasonably waive their rights to an attorney / have not reached the majority to be able to waive their rights.

    That may only be true if you intend to prosecute. If you just plan to yell at the kid and have a "what the f' were you thinking moment" before handing the kid over to his parents then it would not seem necessary to wait for legal representation.

  152. Best proof he's no terrorist ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is more American than a lawsuit !!!
    We got it, you're not a terrorist kid. Enjoy all the gift you got, all the publicity, probably got his name on a list of future employee at a few firms.
    Want more still?

    Well you're not getting my respect anymore. for what it's worth.

  153. He should sue the teachers and cops personally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need to be broken badly. All parties involved were stupid as hell and have no business educating kids or having positions of power.

  154. Re: God preexisting the universe is OK with scienc by drnb · · Score: 1

    The root question of "does something need to cause the Universe?" simply becomes plural "Universes".

    Your off topic. I wrote that perhaps god pre-existed the universe, not that he created it. Hypothetically if an intelligent creature evolves in a parent universe and attains sufficient knowledge and technology perhaps they can somehow "move" into a child universe. Going with the a sufficiently high level of technology is indistinguishable from magic / godly powers idea.

  155. Re: God preexisting the universe is OK with scienc by drnb · · Score: 1

    And neither does god. It just adds "magic" into the equation.

    Of course a sufficiently high level of technology is indistinguishable for magic. Any species that acquired the knowledge and technology to move from on universe to another would probably seem to have godlike powers to humans.

  156. Re: God preexisting the universe is OK with scienc by drnb · · Score: 1

    And a beginning of the Universe from absolutely nothing is not magic how exactly?

    Not "the" universe, "a" universe. One of many. There are various theories presented by world class physicists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  157. Totally misleading summary by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

    This summary is a blatant attempt to rewrite events and put a spin on what happened. He was "briefly detained" so the police could "determine if he intended for his clock to be perceived as a fake bomb"??? That's certainly not what they said at the time. They actually claimed to have thought it might be a bomb, and that they arrested him as a suspected terrorist. Despite the fact that he never pretended it was a bomb, and told them very clearly from the start that it was just a clock. There was, of course, evidence to indicate they never really believed it was a bomb (like making no attempt to evacuate), but that's what they said.

    I don't at all support ridiculous lawsuits, and this has all the hallmarks of a lawyer scenting blood in the water. But let's be honest and not distort what actually happened.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  158. No. by AES84 · · Score: 0

    Nope. Have fun in Qatar!

  159. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    If they had no intention of prosecuting they should have never talked to the child forget removing him from the school, if that were the case (which I do not think it is) they should be arrested and convicted for kidnapping. In any case a police officer should never talk to a child without a parents permission to get more than basic info (name address parents contact info). A large civil penalty could help impress this on the police, I rather wish it were on the individual officers involved but we have thrown up far to many protections for that to be the case.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  160. Great, let's cut shool budgets for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are probably going to accept it and just cut the cost out of the school budget... So future idiots will start associating camera tripods with machine guns.. Oh wait.. Seewhatididthere

  161. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by drnb · · Score: 1

    If they had no intention of prosecuting they should have never talked to the child forget removing him from the school, ...

    Whether they intended to prosecute or not the kid was still a valid suspect in a potential criminal act. It was necessary to determine his intent. Starting from the position that this is most likely just an unfortunate resemblance does not change this, neither does the fact given his age if it were a stupid prank there will most likely be no prosecution, just administrative punishment by the school.

    In any case a police officer should never talk to a child without a parents permission to get more than basic info (name address parents contact info). A large civil penalty could help impress this on the police, I rather wish it were on the individual officers involved but we have thrown up far to many protections for that to be the case.

    And the stupidity you suggest is why things can no longer be handled in a reasonable informal basis as they were in the past. Your path will increase the number of overreactions and child arrests. My friends and I trespassed in some abandoned buildings when we were kids. The police caught us, asked us what we were doing and when satisfied that were we just "exploring" explained to us how old building like this can be dangerous and to stay out of them. You would put an end to informal interactions like that.

  162. Where's my $15,000,000? by BrainStain · · Score: 1

    I was half his age reading schematics, wiring and soldering circuits from scratch by 10, at a time before abundant large scale integrated circuits. I never got invited to the White House (for that). I got suspended in the 11th grade for "trying to blow up the chemistry lab" by testing a copper chloride sample under a Bunsen burner, not because I was doing it wrong, but because it wasn't part of the lesson plan that day. To spite the teacher, I got a perfect score on the final up from a D- for failure to do homework. I want my fucking $15 million.

  163. Re:Oh, where are these "fundie atheist" schools, h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, yes. Why do you ask? Perhaps you meant to ask if being a barbaric warlord was good for society overall? If that's your question then, no - not really. But if you're specifically asking about public transport then, by your own admission, he was not only good for it but the changes he implemented were likely revolutionary and had all sorts of good things that came about as a result. But, according to you, he appears to have been really good for public transport. Not that that justifies his barbaric actions or anything but, you know...

    Hell, look at what the Romans gave us? Look at the English's gifts to man? Look at the tech that comes from wars? The world is not that black and white.

  164. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    " Unfortunately the kid did not follow these instructions and kept showing it around. "

    According to the news report, the clock alarm sounded so the English teacher asked him what it was.  THUS, he had to show the clock to her.
    The English teacher than alerted the Principal.  I do not expect the English teacher to know the technical details.
    But I DO expect the Principal and Police to be more knowledgeable.

    The Police did NOT evacuate the school indicating that they knew the device was NOT a threat.  So the remaining question is WHY
    they feel it was a hoax bomb.  It's hard to see the same thing happening to a white kid in the 50's.

  165. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by drnb · · Score: 1

    It definitely happened to a white kid in the 60s, Steve Wozniak.

    Also a hoax bomb does not have to appear to be a genuine threat to a knowledgable person. There merely needs to be the intention to scare someone with something that can be mistaken for a bomb. Woz's hoax bomb was a box that ticked, no visible explosive simulant.

    Turning off an alarm that has been set would be a reasonable part of "not showing it to anyone else".

  166. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

    Yes, but to be a hoax *bomb* there would have to be a hoax *explosive*.

    Where's the fake explosive in any picture of this device???

    There isn't one.

    Did he even claim it was a fake bomb at any time??? The answer seems to be: no.

    It's all a load of rubbish, and the police knew that, which is why they let him go.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  167. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by drnb · · Score: 1

    Yes, but to be a hoax *bomb* there would have to be a hoax *explosive*.

    Actually no, not at all. Just a sufficient resemblance to bomb components. Visible "detonator" circuitry would be sufficient. Again, Steve Wozniak, his hoax bomb was a box that made ticking noises, no visible explosive simulant.

    Did he even claim it was a fake bomb at any time

    The resemblance was sufficient to have a suspected hoax bomb and to have the police determine if there was intent to hoax or if it was just an unfortunate accidental resemblance. The police determining that it was an accidental resemblance in no way disproves that we had a **suspected** hoax bomb at an earlier moment in time.

    The police were called in, they investigated, they found no intent and therefore no crime. The police did their job.

  168. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woz was intended to be a fake bomb. That was the prank.

    So what? In both cases a legitimate **suspected** hoax bomb existed. The fact that police found intent in one case and no intent in the other does not change this fact. It was correct to have the police investigate both.

  169. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

    But this wasn't an opaque box, there wasn't anywhere the hoax explosive could be. If there can be no explosive (or detonator) in it, and if he's not even presenting it as a bomb, then it's not a hoax bomb, whether there's superficial resemblances or not.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  170. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by drnb · · Score: 1

    But this wasn't an opaque box, there wasn't anywhere the hoax explosive could be. If there can be no explosive (or detonator) in it, and if he's not even presenting it as a bomb, then it's not a hoax bomb, whether there's superficial resemblances or not.

    It is only not a hoax bomb because of the lack of intent, and not because of the lack of a visible explosive simulant. The resemblance to a major component, a detonator, is enough to qualify it as a **suspected** hoax bomb. Again, note the word **suspected**, that it the bit you seem to be consistently missing.

    Also note that in the real world not only are actual bombs making use of off the shelf consumer electronics for detonation purposes, but detonators and explosives are sometimes things that are transported/infiltrated separately and assembled on site. The lack of a visible explosive simulant does *not* suggest that no investigation is necessary.

  171. Re:Taken to police station as part of investigatio by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    He was told not to show it to people by one teacher yet he kept doing so

    Irrelevant. Hoax requires intent. No intent, no hoax.

    This is something the police do every day.

    They freak out over supposed bomb threats at schools, while not evacuating the school, every day? The district and the police were incompetent reactionaries no matter which way you try to polish this turd.

  172. Good by jamthecat · · Score: 1

    I hope he gets it, though I'm sure it's just the opening salvo in negotiations, and he'll wind up settling for a lot less. But the Islamophobia of Irving's mayor and the flat out illegal actions and attitudes of the school and cops when dealing with this precocious kid will not even begin to change until it starts costing them a lot of money. It's the same with abusive cops -- the cities they work for will not rein them in until they are hit hard by hundreds of millions in settlements for the cops' misbehavior (I used to think tens of millions, but too many cities have shown not even that is enough). Justice doesn't matter. Rights don't matter. Decency and respect don't matter. All that matters to people like those who targeted this kid is their pocketbook. If you hit that hard enough, they will change if only to protect it.

  173. Re:Taken to police station as part of investigatio by drnb · · Score: 1

    He was told not to show it to people by one teacher yet he kept doing so

    Irrelevant. Hoax requires intent. No intent, no hoax.

    Yes, I've said that dozens of times. However a suspected hoax warrant police investigation to determine intent. **Suspected** is the point most people are failing to recognize.

    This is something the police do every day.

    They freak out over supposed bomb threats at schools, while not evacuating the school, every day? The district and the police were incompetent reactionaries no matter which way you try to polish this turd.

    Yes schools are a mess with their zero tolerance policies. However a hoax bomb is illegal, not simply a violation of school policy. A hoax bomb does not have to be ultra realistic, again, Woz's hoax was a box that ticked, not visible explosive simulant.

    This is not a case of racism or islamophobia. What happened to this kid is "normal", right or wrong, it is "normal" behavior for schools and has been for decades.

  174. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

    Is the Moon a hoax bomb? If I claim it is a bomb, about to go off, is that now a suspected hoax bomb? Give me a break.

    Anyone can suspect anything or anyone of anything. That doesn't make it a justified belief.

    In real life we want justified beliefs.

    The complete lack of anything resembling an explosive or detonator makes anyone suspecting it to be a bomb very stupid.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  175. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by drnb · · Score: 1

    The complete lack of anything resembling an explosive or detonator makes anyone suspecting it to be a bomb very stupid.

    Clock components can be used as an improvised detonator, the alarm circuitry. So we do have sufficient suspicion for a hoax. Note that in Wozniak's incident we had a box that ticked, which also indicates clock parts, so the long established precedent is not one of high realism.

  176. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

    On that basis, any clock is a hoax bomb, it could have been taken apart and rewired.

    This is just a moral panic. All Moslems are, of course, trying to blow up right-thinking Americans, and any behavior is interpreted as that.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  177. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by drnb · · Score: 1

    On that basis, any clock is a hoax bomb, it could have been taken apart and rewired.

    Not really, and the fact remains that in this case there was the ad hoc wiring of parts.

    This is just a moral panic. All Moslems are, of course, trying to blow up right-thinking Americans, and any behavior is interpreted as that.

    Nope. We've already shown it happens to white christian kids as well, even in liberal California. There is ample precedent to disprove your assertion.

  178. Re:"Clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashio by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

    Moral panic

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"