Slashdot Mirror


School Pays To Get an Algorithm To Scan Students' Social Media For Threats and Suicide Risks Posts (wbur.org)

When someone visits the buildings of Shawsheen Valley Technical High School in Billerica, as they walk through the secure foyer, they have to get their driver's license or another state-issued ID scanned. But the secure foyer does kind of a high-level national background check, too, explains Superintendent Tim Broadrick. From a report: The "LobbyGuard" scanner is the size of a computer tablet. It scans a driver's license, takes a picture of the school visitor and if all is OK with the person's background check, almost instantly clears the person to enter the school. An employee behind a window then pushes a button and unlocks the door to the school hallway. Amid nationwide concern about school shootings, there's talk at Shawsheen Tech of covering the wall of glass in the lobby with a special film to make it harder for a bullet to pierce. There's also a police officer -- known as a school resource officer -- stationed at the school. He has an office in the lobby. And the school has adopted another security measure to try to protect students from attacks -- one you can't see. It's a computer program designed to detect threats against the school in social media posts. And it runs 24/7.

"It's receiving and filtering and then gives us alerts when certain kinds of public communication are detected," Broadrick explains. Shawsheen Tech buys the social media scanning service from a Vermont-based company called Social Sentinel. It's one of many technology firms doing some form of social media scanning or monitoring. Social Sentinel claims it's the only one with expertise in protecting schools. Shawsheen Tech has about 1,300 students. It pays Social Sentinel approximately $10,000 per year, according to Broadrick.

96 comments

  1. Tell these asshats to fuck off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would not have presented any ID entering my schools. If they want to keep me out it's a violation of their mandate.

    1. Re: Tell these asshats to fuck off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay awesome man.

    2. Re: Tell these asshats to fuck off. by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      mh ... to protect your privacy thunderbird has blocked remote content in this message , however facebook presents me with a lot of bikers today after listening to some blues yesterday on youble ... blatant violation of privacy, id even say human rights ... assuming that this "algorithm" is supreme glorified a.i. eg. searches for keywords how long will it take before every student on campus adds #cia#alqueda#bomb#kill at the end of every post ? sounds hackable enough lol (which means its a total waste of money ... and if it bypasses private profiles then its a total legal intrusion too)

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. School or prison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what you get when you value guns more than freedom

    1. Re:School or prison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice false dilemma there, comrade.

    2. Re:School or prison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always knew school was a prison. Now this confirms it. Shall students get cavity searches too?

    3. Re:School or prison. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Squat and cough on the way in isn't too far off, if the NRA gets it's way. The message has always been "don't take guns away from US", and "don't let THEM have guns".

  3. Social media is ANTI-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not time to stop being social but tis long past time to stop using "social media". You can be social without Facebook harvesting everfuckingthing you say and do and giving it away to companies like this. You can chat directly with your friends via encrypted IM. You can exchange pictures, same.

    Stop putting mega data harvesters in the middle of everything. Eschew Google, esp Docs. Eschew Facebook and Instagram. Bring the internet back to its peer to peer distributed concept.

    Social media is antisocial The way you be social is with your friends and family not with Facebook

    1. Re:Social media is ANTI-social by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      i.e. Avoid the Cloud. It's actually made up of mustard gas and chlorine, not water vapor.

  4. This is a hell of a lot of trouble by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    so we can avoid a few common sense gun regulations like background checks with enforcement to own guns, waiting periods and the like. But of course if we did that it would add delays to gun purchasing and cut down on impulse buys. A friend of a friend just the other day walked in to buy a pistol and managed to walk out with an AR-15 because he got caught up in how cool it looked. Make him wait 3 days and he'd have come to his senses and just bought the pistol he came in for.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is a hell of a lot of trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you really think this is about guns? This is not about guns.

      This is about harvesting data so creepy assholes like school admins can play Orwell. These people are not friends and they are out to get you

      Whenever they say it is for the children, it is not for the children. For instance, when the Kentucky Family Association lobbies to continue to keep the practice of rapists marrying their 12 year old knocked up victims legal, it is not about the children. When focus on the family sets up re-education camps for homosexuals, it is not about the family.

      Whenever an organisation says it is for something, it is vehemently against said thing.

      Good rule of thumb, whenever these types of organisations rear their heads burn their buildings to the ground, pepper spray any public members, and throw rocks at them when you see them in the streets.

    2. Re:This is a hell of a lot of trouble by mukinrestak · · Score: 1

      We already have mandatory background checks, many states have waiting periods, and there's an abundance of "and the like".

      I conclude that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

    3. Re:This is a hell of a lot of trouble by cstacy · · Score: 4, Funny

      A friend of a friend just the other day walked in to buy a pistol and managed to walk out with an AR-15 because he got caught up in how cool it looked. Make him wait 3 days and he'd have come to his senses and just bought the pistol he came in for.

      I'm sorry your "friend" blew that money that you needed for groceries, but it's amazing that you desire for a federal law to keep your impulse shopping under control! You try to make it sound like buying a semi-automatic rifle, rather than a semi-automatic pistol, is a bad thing. Get over your buyer's remorse, enjoy your AR-15, and next time you can get another Glock. If your wife will let you go there unchaperoned again.

    4. Re:This is a hell of a lot of trouble by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The shooters who killed more than a couple prepared for years. Your friend chose the superior weapon, unless you think he needs to be armed in everyday life; but don't worry, he will certainly buy the handgun too

    5. Re:This is a hell of a lot of trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how impulse buys are a problem. It's not like if a kid walked into a store, impulse-bought an AR15 and impulse-killed everyone. The impulse buy still get background-checked, and that just means a connection to a database that lets the vendor know if they're allowed to sell. It's not a FBI agent going to spy you while you take a shit or shower (in certain countries, its actually a little more like that, where they call your friends and family and ask questions).

      Instead, they're unstable, bullied, depressed, hateful, on (usually legal) drugs and some eventually go all the way, find someone's gun and use it. If they don't, they'll build a bomb (that's super scary if you ask me), use an automatic crossbow (these make the 22LR bullet look like nerf guns..), etc.

      Also, don't believe for a second that pistols cannot be used for this. Pistols are arguably *better* at this than AR15s because they're smaller. Don't have to believe me though, here's an example:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... glock 19, walther p22 (that's a 22LR bullets.. you know, tiny bullets) => 33 dead.

    6. Re:This is a hell of a lot of trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hardly just about guns. Guns are a big part of it, this is all about scaring people so they vote for Republican'ts. Nobody votes for the GOP because the GOP has good ideas, or really any ideas, they vote for the GOP because they're scared and the GOP claims that if we just blame the gays and the trans people and the foreigners that the problem will go away.

      Of course it's bullshit and anybody who isn't a coward sees through it, but between those votes and the gerrymandering, they win enough races to pretty much destroy the country.

      The fact that it sells more guns is just gravy. The NRA isn't anywhere near powerful enough to get officials voted out of office. Even their own membership wants universal background checks and limits on magazine capacity.

    7. Re: This is a hell of a lot of trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your friend gonna shoot someone now that he has that gun? Probably not, why would the three day waiting period do anything.

    8. Re: This is a hell of a lot of trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got statistics on that? Also people vote republican because the alternative is voting for an incoherent group of people who seek to continue our path to a dystopia both sides are awful but you can't blame people for wanting to keep thing from getting worse.

    9. Re:This is a hell of a lot of trouble by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      We abandoned common sense, the very second we treated social media as true and factual. Social media is meant to be a social playground of fun and fantasy, not real world. It corruptly got turned into real world to ruthlessly exploit the psychology of people, for governments to attack citizens and for an endless flow of advertising bullshit.

      Social media should be a game, a complete fantasy, have fun creating what ever identity you like, want to call yourself a space pirate, feel free to do so. Want to self identify you colour, maybe a nice plaid green and purple combination, it should not be illegal. Want to invent your own gender, attack helicopter, be happy in your individual gender. Make up your address, invent friends and associates, have as much fun with it as you can. What to be a bright orange vampire space ninja nazi online, have at it hoss.

      Treating social media seriously has been a major blunder, especially when it was done on purpose to target and manipulate people. Social media should be make believe, the identity you spread should be nothing but a toon, a make believe character you play with. Not reality for arseholes to datamine.

      Reclaim you social media by setting it free from reality, make of it, anything you want to make of it, even if that is a green and purple polka dot octopus love child of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, a very conflicted octopus mind you, with a different gender for each tentacle (heh heh, anime and tentacles, ugh).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:This is a hell of a lot of trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he wouldn't have because that AR is way more fun to take to the range, and is better for home defense anyway.

    11. Re: This is a hell of a lot of trouble by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      The regulations you want have been in place for decades. Have you ever bought a gun in the US?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    12. Re: This is a hell of a lot of trouble by datavirtue · · Score: 0

      Rifles are not a good idea for home defense. The bullet will go through the assailant, through the wall, across the street, through the next wall, and possibly through the next person it hits.

      Shotguns are a far better choice. The mere sight of them will turn a situation around. You can wrack the pump a few rooms away making a sound that is unmistakable and very unnerving. You can load the first rou d with bird shot so that if you do have to shoot someone they get another chance to change thier mind without being killed and if that doesnt work you can follow up with buckshot without killing your next door neighbor by accident. Get a fucking clue.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    13. Re: This is a hell of a lot of trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect, with the 556/223 round that the AR uses.
      It's very small, very fast, and tailheavy. Only its high rate of spin and gyroscopic effects keep it flying straight.
      The first object that one of these bullets hits takes off the spin, the bullet rolls on its side, and frags.
      This fragged bullet causes more damage to the target, and prevents the bullet from going "through-and-through" and continuing downrange.

    14. Re: This is a hell of a lot of trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>The mere sight of them will turn a situation around.
      Only if your target knows nothing about firearms.

      >>You can wrack the pump
      "rack"

      >>a few rooms away making a sound
      and tell your opponent exactly where you are. I keep my Mossberg with one in the pipe, same as all defense firearms.

      >>Get a fucking clue.
      Good advice for you.

    15. Re: This is a hell of a lot of trouble by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Facts discernible from your shitpost: You have never used a firearm.

  5. Let me fix this by p51d007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is what you get when you value SAFETY more than FREEDOM. 40 years of liberal logic & indoctrination, lack of morals, lack of ethics, lack of manners, lack of respect, no family, and on and on... When I was in high school in the 70's, pretty much every pickup had a gun rack with a .22 rifle and or shotgun. Some had pistols in the glovebox. Not one was locked. Kids carried pocket knives, or buck knives in a sheath on their belt. NOT ONCE was there ever a shooting, stabbing or anything else. The gun hasn't changed...the KIDS have changed. And NOT for the better. Liberal logic & indoctrination hasn't worked!

    1. Re:Let me fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it made it worse. In fact it provably made it worse.
      Ban guns, next ban knifes, next ban screw drivers, next pens. Think I'm joking? UK does this right now and it looks absolutely normal and "progressive" to them.

      The fact of the matter is that the human brain is easy to manipulate especially at a young age. Brain wash them the wrong way and this is what you get. Including "mass" shootings. The prior way wasn't super great, but it was certainly much better.

    2. Re:Let me fix this by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, a bigger problem are the media. Not the "liberal" media, but media of all political views that talks about mass shootings non-stop, publishes the faces and names of the criminals responsible for weeks afterwards. If it bleeds, it leads. I get that that's their bread and butter, but publicizing those kinds of heinous crimes constantly glorifies them and breeds copycats.

      What's the answer? We can't legally restrict the press, nor should we. But perhaps if we choose not to watch segments on those crimes nor read about them online, the ad revenue from glorifying those heinous acts will decrease and the media won't have an incentive to do so.

      This is one part of the equation. The other is over-medication of children in the US, the fact that bullying has become easier online, and yes, the lack of GOOD (i.e. not just pill-pushing) mental health treatment options at a reasonable cost.

    3. Re:Let me fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >What's the answer? We can't legally restrict the press, nor should we.

      What's wrong with "common sense regulation" on the press? Seems to be in vogue for the 2nd amendment, why shouldn't we try it for the first?

    4. Re:Let me fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love it how you've got the liberals responsible for the mass shootings, when it's every day conservatives that love to joke about violence and murder, partially cuz it upsets the lefties so much. I guess it's the lefties fault for being so butt hurt eh? They get so upset against casual violence that suddenly they get not only violent, but good at violence. Your GOP's logic days are numbered, please keep it up! Tell me about crisis actors.

    5. Re: Let me fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because "common sense" anything is never an answer. It's the knee jerk response that people have when something bad happens and they want something to be done about the bad happening.

      Restricting guns won't prevent someone who's already justified killing someone else from killing them anymore than restricting the press will prevent someone from wanting to kill others.

      You don't need the press or a gun to kill someone. You do need justification to commit the crime, morals or ethics aside. That's what gets ignored, the criminals justification for their crime. Why? Because figuring that out and what can be done to ensure another person doesn't wind up in the same line of thinking is hard, costly, and time consuming. People can't be bothered to give enough of a shit about others to do it, so they blame whatever's convienent and point fingers when the shit happens again. Just so they can say "they did something", without actually doing anything.

      Sorry, I injected some logic into your thread. Please go back to arguing over scapegoats again.

    6. Re: Let me fix this by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      What's wrong with "common sense regulation" on the press? Seems to be in vogue for the 2nd amendment, why shouldn't we try it for the first?

      Sorry, I injected some logic into your thread. Please go back to arguing over scapegoats again.

      It's pretty clear to me that the grandfather poster was both being sarcastic and pointing out that any arguments used for denying second amendment civil rights can be used to deny all the others, too.

      "That's different!" doesn't cut it - because it's not.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    7. Re:Let me fix this by booboo · · Score: 1

      I graduated in 91 and it was the same then, too. Kids brought guns to school to shoot trap in gym class, showed off their butterfly knives at recess and nobody got hurt. I mean there were some righteous beat downs but they were always one on one and the fight stopped when someone quit or got knocked out.

      Not sure when the gun safe trend started either. Nobody ever locked them up at home, or if they did the key was always on the top of the cabinet and ammo in the drawer at the bottom.

    8. Re:Let me fix this by xlsior · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's the answer? We can't legally restrict the press, nor should we

      In much of Europe, with few exceptions newspapers typically won't print the names of criminals (whether just accused or actually convicted), but only refer to them by their initials -- less "glory" to go around while they still report what happened. In many cases because they are required to, but because naming & shaming is against their code of conduct.

      (Added benefit is that someone who does get convicted and served their time, won't be instantly unhirable in perpetuity, giving them a chance to make an honest living)

      Even in the US, most papers have policies of not printing the names of victims involved in sex crimes -- would it be that much of a stretch to do the same to perpetrators of mass shootings and such? Witholding their name denies them a huge chunk of the 'recognition' the so often seem to yearn for, and it's not not knowing the name of some random criminal is going to have a big impact on the average person's day to day life.

    9. Re:Let me fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1930s

      Huh lots of school shootings in the 1970s.

      So much for your theory.

    10. Re: Let me fix this by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Perhaps soon we will get back to educating our children instead of sending them to school.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    11. Re: Let me fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 17th amendment was repealed. So can the 2nd amendment.

    12. Re:Let me fix this by uncqual · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't have a clue how much of this has to do directly with school shootings, but I agree inappropriate brainwashing of kids that ignores the reality of the real world seems quite damaging (and probably better explains the large percentage of young people who end up living at home for years after college than the "great recession" does).

      The zero tolerance policies for fighting and "bullying" (whatever that means) and the "everyone gets an award" philosophy and over-stressing "being respectful" eliminates many important life lessons from children when they are best equipped to deal with and learn from them.

      When I was in school, teachers didn't usually stop fights between boys (or girls, but those were quite rare) if the combatants were somewhat reasonably matched, it was one-on-one, there was little danger of lasting physical damage (for example neither party was trying to poke the other's eyes out or using weapons or beating up a lot on someone who was down on the ground), those involved weren't notorious bullies (of which there were few if any) or particularly vulnerable and were picked on very often. Sometimes we would get disciplined very lightly (have to stay in over the next lunch break rather than go outside for example), but that was it. Trips to the principal's office over such things were very rare, parental notification was even rarer, and suspension (let alone expulsion) was extraordinarily rare (I think we knew it was possible, but I don't think I ever knew anyone very well who it happened to).

      Very important life lessons were learned at an appropriate age through such physical combative situations. Most kids learned that they were not as tough as they thought they were (or, conversely that they were actually tougher than they thought). Most kids learned that they could, and should, defend themselves (this lesson sometimes took a while for some). Most kids learned that even though they "win" a fight, sometimes it takes a physical toll on them so fighting may not be the best strategy. Most kids learned that you can have a fight with someone and still be friends. Some, including myself, discovered that after fights with relative strangers, both parties respected each other more having tested the limits of the other party and demonstrated their own abilities -- in fact, after most such fights, regardless of who won, I ended up being substantially more friendly with the other kid.

      To deprive kids of these experiences seems unwise.

      Similarly, when I was in school, everyone didn't get an award or trophy (even for "participation") and little attempt was made to mask the fact that some students were more capable than others at some things. In this environment, students learned what success and failure felt like, how to deal with constructive (and sometimes not so constructive) criticism, that to get an award or recognition or even a good grade could require hard work and focus and that such hard work and focus could often be the difference between being at the top and in the middle. Having to learn these lessons later in life is much more difficult and, it appears, happens too rarely.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    13. Re:Let me fix this by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      When I was in high school in the 70's, pretty much every pickup had a gun rack with a .22 rifle and or shotgun. Some had pistols in the glovebox. Not one was locked. Kids carried pocket knives, or buck knives in a sheath on their belt. NOT ONCE was there ever a shooting, stabbing or anything else.

      There were at least 30 school shootings in the US in the 1970s.

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

      By the way, do you know which states have the most school shootings? Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Can you tell me what those states have in common? Very lax gun laws. They have other things in common, but I don't want to make this political.

      Do you know which states have the FEWEST firearm deaths per 100,000 people? Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii, New Jersey, Minnesota, California. Can you tell me what those states have in common? I'll help you: they all require a permit to carry a handgun, and law enforcement has discretion over who gets those permits.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re: Let me fix this by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The 17th amendment was repealed. So can the 2nd amendment.

      But those who are, and who are attempting to expand, infingement of 2ndA Rights aren't trying to "repeal" it (FYI: Amendments are not "repealed" as in removed, another Amendment is passed to nullify or alter it) they are attempting to *bypass* the Constitutional processes set in place because they know the majority of Americans would not vote to pass an Amendment that eliminated or severely restricted or altered 2ndA individual rights to firearms.

      If you can bypass or end-run one civil right, you can do the same to any or all of the others.

      Aren't there any Amendments you value? Are you willing to trade individual liberty for safety?

      That's what you do when you work to weaken a single Amendment you personally disagree with by bypassing the Democratic process to Amend the Constitution.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    15. Re:Let me fix this by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      but media of all political views that talks about mass shootings non-stop

      We used to have that problem in Australia. Then we tackled the root issue and stopped mass shootings. Funny enough it stopped being a media sensation after that.

    16. Re:Let me fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually your evaluation doesn't match the numbers. I decided to go through the entire Wikipedia list starting in 1900 and counting by state by decade, then pulled in a "gun control grade" published in Slate in 2015. I've also marked the highest number of shootings per decade. If there was a tie I marked them all. If you only start in 1970 only two of those 5 states you mention - FL, TX (with gun grades of F) - show up as having the highest number of shootings. The other states in the top 5 after 1970 are CA, MI, IL and OH (IL and OH had same number) all of which have gun grades higher than F. Seems your interpretation of the data is backward.

      1900: CA: 4 IL: 3, KY: 2, AK: 1, CO: 1, IA: 1, MA: 1, MS: 1, SC: 1
      1910: CA: 3, KY: 2, MO: 2, NY: 2, PA: 2, FL: 1, IL: 1, KS: 1, MN: 1, ND: 1, UT: 1, WA: 1
      1920: GA: 2, OH: 2, OK: 2, IL: 1, KY: 1, PA: 1, UT: 1
      1930: MA: 2, MN: 2, IA: 1, KS: 1, NY: 1, OH: 1, PA: 1
      1940: NY: 5, CA: 1, OH: 1, OK: 1
      1950: NY: 9, IL: 2, NC: 2, MD: 1, MA: 1, MO: 1, PA: 1
      1960: CA: 2, FL: 2, MN: 2, NC: 2, TX: 2, AZ: 1, DC: 1, IL: 1, IN: 1, NY: 1, SC: 1, SD: 1, WI: 1
      1970: CA: 4, MI: 4, TX: 3, IL: 2, MO: 2, OH: 2, PA: 2, VA: 2, AL: 1, CT: 1, IN: 1, KY: 1, MA: 1, MS: 1, NJ: 1, NY: 1, OK: 1, WA: 1, WV: 1, WI: 1

      1980: MI: 5, CA: 3, IL: 3, MO: 3, AR: 2, TX: 2, AL: 1, CO: 1, CT: 1, FL: 1, IA: 1, KS: 1, MS: 1, MT: 1, NV: 1, NH: 1, NC: 1, OH: 1, OR: 1, PA: 1, SC: 1, UT: 1, VA: 1, WA: 1, WI: 1, WY: 1

      1990: NY: 6, CA: 4, TX: 4, FL: 3, GA: 3, OH: 3, PA: 3, SC: 3, TN: 3, AR: 2, KY: 2, MN: 2, WA: 2, AK: 1, CO: 1, CT: 1, DC: 1, ID: 1, IL: 1, IA: 1, MA: 1, MI: 1, MS: 1, MO: 1, NM: 1, NC: 1, OK: 1, OR: 1, VA: 1, WI: 1, WY: 1

      2000: CA: 6, TN: 5, FL: 4, IL: 4, LA: 4, PA: 4, AR: 3, OH: 3, VA: 3, WA: 3, MD: 2, MI: 2, MN: 2, MO: 2, NY: 2, WI: 2, AZ: 1, CO: 1, DC: 1, IN: 1, MA: 1, NV: 1, NJ: 1, NC: 1, OR: 1, SC: 1, VT: 1, WV: 1

      2010: CA: 18, FL: 13, TX: 9, GA: 8, NY: 8, AL: 6, MI: 6, OH: 6, IL: 5, WA: 5, IN: 4, MD: 4, TN: 4, AZ: 3, CO: 3, KY: 3, LA: 3, OR: 3, PA: 3, UT: 3, VA: 3, WI: 3, CT: 2, IA: 2, MA: 2, MS: 2, MO: 2, NM: 2, SC: 2, HI: 1, MT: 1, NE: 1, OK: 1, SD: 1

      California wins the top spot in 6 of the 12 decades, NY wins it 3 times

      The top 5 states for school gun shootings total since 1900 are:
      1. CA - 45
      2. NY - 27
      3. FL - 24
      4. IL - 23
      5: TX - 20

      The top 5 states for school gun shootings total since 1970 are:
      1. CA - 35
      2. FL - 21
      3. MI - 18
      4: TX - 18
      5: IL & OH - 15

      Of the states you listed according to the gun grade at Slate
      FL, GA, NC, TN & TX all have an F.

      The grades for states with strong control on the lists above are:
      CA: A-
      NY: A-
      MI: C
      IL: B+
      OH: D

      And as for your firearm deaths per 100,000, since we're talking about criminal gun violence here, you might want to look at the chart of murder's by gun per 100,000 o

    17. Re:Let me fix this by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      California wins the top spot in 6 of the 12 decades, NY wins it 3 times

      You're using absolute numbers instead of number of school shootings per 100,000 people. Oklahoma has 1700 schools, but California has over 12,000 just in K-12.

      I decided to go through the entire Wikipedia list starting in 1900

      The Heller decision wasn't until 2008. You should take a look at this thorough study of the impact of that decision. The raw data is included in case you want to do an extensive comparison to some random Slate article.

      http://injuryprevention.bmj.co...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:Let me fix this by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Yes/No. It's true that bullying is natural, and a part of the way humans naturally react, and if you want to live in the trees, it's a reasonable approach. But it penalizes the intelligent as well as the stupid. In fact, it penalizes anyone identifiably different in some "important to fashion" way. So if you want a technical civilization, you need to suppress it.

      OTOH, you also need to reward achievement of any sort. Sports and martial arts teams are a good idea, as long as you don't make everyone participate. But basic physical activity is also important...so you need classes for those who *aren't* on the activity teams. Mechanics classes are important for those with skills in that area, etc. And everyone needs to master the basics.

      Perhaps the mistake is to separate kids by age rather than by aptitudes, but you need to be careful to not create an us-vs-them within the structure, and that's difficult unless there are a lot of shared activities where accomplishment is a shared result.

      I think the basic problem is that schools are designed to create assembly line workers. Most people don't like that, so it creates resentment which expresses itself in some way. "Summerhill" is a very interesting book on the subject of schools, but it required a selected student body and a special teacher. And a high teacher to student ratio.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    19. Re: Let me fix this by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The second amendment (and many of the others) has already been adapted counter to its wording to adjust it to fit modern situations. This is really something the Federal government should have no say on, as the clear wording of the 2nd amendment says. (Nowhere does it say that the federal government has anything to do with "a well regulated militia", and originally it didn't.) This is something that should be handled by the states, or better by the cities and counties. There are areas where a gun is a useful tool...but it's not inside the cities.

      So the mistake is that the rules that were supposed to restrict the federal government are applied without consideration to the states, and that doesn't work properly. So they have to use perversions of the proper understanding of what the words mean to get things to work at all. Of course, that was what some people wanted all along....

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    20. Re:Let me fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say the schools themselves have had a part in why kids get angry enough to want to shoot their classmates/teachers in the first place. The ideological assumptions going into modern disciplinary regulations and curriculum are probably the root cause. We've got several generations of kids, now, who've been taught that they're perpetual victims and that it is immoral to stand up for themselves as individuals. It's no wonder we've gotten these nasty pathological corner cases..

    21. Re:Let me fix this by uncqual · · Score: 1

      My point about bullying certainly wasn't that it was a "good thing" in itself or that it is a behavior kids should be encouraged to instigate. However it is a reality and most people will encounter "bullying" behavior (generally emotional rather than physical as adults in polite society) in professional and social life and maybe, particularly unfortunately, in their personal life. Thus, even though they don't "live in the trees" or want to do so, it is valuable to recognize it instinctively, realize people will try to bully you, and develop strategies to cope with bullying (other than just running to an authority figure as a first or even second resort -- managers rightfully expect professionals to work things out among themselves to the greatest extent possible).

      A limited amount of bullying on the schoolyard, is a mechanism for kids to develop innate skills for recognizing and coping with bullying -- and also potentially, if they have a tendency to bully, to learn that the consequences can be quite painful when you misjudge and bully the wrong person. Certainly bullying should not be allowed to run so rampant that it's interfering substantially with other growth opportunities for children including, but not limited to, educational ones. As well, if a particular individual is the target of excessive bullying that should be addressed (both by having a discussion with the target to find out what is happening and providing suggestions on how to counter or avoid the bullying and, ultimately, by stopping those doing the bullying with whatever means necessary - all the way to expulsion or school reassignment if needed).

      Some level of fighting and bullying on the schoolyard is not unlike how kittens play with each other while still depending on their mother for support -- it trains their hunting skills so they can survive on their own. In the case of the schoolyard, it trains kids to cope with bullying in a low stakes environment so they are prepared to do so in a higher stakes environment.

      There are plenty of intelligent bullies in professional world - including managers, coworkers, and people in other organizations that are trying to coerce you to do something for their benefit when you have neither the free time or responsibility to do. Thus, I feel the complete tamping down of bullying in the school (and similar) environments is actually harmful to even intelligent people.

      Of course, threading the needle on determining the level of "bullying" to accept is a task that requires judgement and discretion and, unfortunately, organizations (not just schools) have largely migrated to a "rule book" approach that is applied "evenly" without much discretion. Part of this is probably laziness on part of those managing these entities but I suspect a lot of it is done to reduce the threat of discrimination complaints and lawsuits.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    22. Re: Let me fix this by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      There are areas where a gun is a useful tool...but it's not inside the cities.

      I disagree. Cities pose far more risk to personal safety from others than outside cities where there are fewer people and fewer criminals.

      "When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act." -- Marko Kloos

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    23. Re:Let me fix this by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You didn't even read his post, you fucking shitstain cuck.

      And as for your firearm deaths per 100,000, since we're talking about criminal gun violence here, you might want to look at the chart of murder's by gun per 100,000 on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] that doesn't include accidents or suicides. According to that list the top five states with the least numbers are Vermont (Grade: F), New Hampshire (Grade: D-), Hawaii (Grade: B+) , North Dakota (Grade: F) and Iowa (Grade: C-).

    24. Re:Let me fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the "everyone gets an award" philosophy and over-stressing "being respectful" eliminates many important life lessons"

      I think this tends to happen in a society and more specifically country like our own where we have become engorged with wealth, resources, and material items aplenty. We are all very complacent and now find ourselves with nothing but mostly trivial matters to complain about. Competition is stifled so there are no means to release tension and frustration. I personally do not subscribe to "all men are created equal". We are not. Some are geniuses, some are dumber than a box of rocks. Some can lift mountains while others can barely lift themselves. However, I do believe in fairness, but just not equality. We all have different jobs to do in life.

      I think that times were tougher in the past and that taught resilience and gave people "fighting" skills and the ability to achieve even in when the odds were against you. It meant something to achieve and you derived a great deal of satisfaction from your accomplishments. Perhaps once American begins to backslide from being a world power and China and/or Russia begins to surpass us our country will once again need to struggle to keep up and our kids will learn the benefits of being tough-skinned and leaning to work hard for everything instead of being given hand-outs and free passes for everything they do?

    25. Re:Let me fix this by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      You'd throw away your right to parent, your right to privacy, and your right to free speech just to hang onto your guns? Which, by the way, nobody wants to eliminate, they just want some minor restrictions.

      Should we send our kids to a state run boarding school where they can be properly indoctrinated?

    26. Re:Let me fix this by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I've heard this bullshit being spouted by my conservative family. This ignores the fact that those same assholes are the ones who raised this crop of parents and made these decision.
      Take your bullshit somewhere else. Kids have always been shitheads and parents are much more involved with them today. You can't compare your mythical yesterday that never existed.

    27. Re:Let me fix this by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Bullying and teasing are not the same. I've seen both and you've seen both, let's not make false equivalencies.

    28. Re: Let me fix this by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
      - Matthew 26:52

      https://www.npr.org/2012/04/16/150728003/bigger-taller-stronger-guns-change-what-you-see

    29. Re: Let me fix this by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one."

      Luke 22:36

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    30. Re: Let me fix this by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Got more then 2 guns? Don't forget your purse either.

  6. Sure glad I don't have any social media accounts by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Then again, I'm not likely to shoot up anybody with my Mini 30, 92f, 10/22, nor Mark 2 pistol. Point being, I'm a damned good shot with all of them, but if you ain't made of paper nor trying to break into my house you have nothing to fear from me.

  7. Imagine The Possbilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much better would those students' lives be if the school spend all that money (software, hardware, employees) they're spending on maintaining 'security' on helping the students instead? Schools don't teach life skills nor social skills and parents have stopped teaching those things as well.

    This is a high school with kids who know how to think. My high school had many doors. We often opened them to sneak out and sneak back in during break periods. Some had security cameras. So what? They are passively and randomly watched, can't ID you if you cover yourself correctly, and are only looked at after someone already gets caught. All of their security is focused on the main point of entry. It does nothing for side doors, windows, and I'd bet money there isn't a backup database to use during power outages (well maybe it uses a cell connection, how about the door buzzer's power or saturated airways?).

    There's also no metal detector or x-ray machine, so this will do nothing to stop a shooting except make it more difficult for people to escape. The shooter isn't going to have a profile until she starts shooting, or if she does, it'll be ignored like all the other shooters. Even when you are prepare for something, almost everybody thinks it'll never happen to them. You only see what you want to see, so almost everyone will overlook the signs.

    1. Re:Imagine The Possbilities by mnemotronic · · Score: 2

      The military-industrial complex sells guns to one segment of the population, gun protection to a different segment, then pays the media and their politician-shills to get both segments riled up and feeling self-righteous.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  8. Re:Sure glad I don't have any social media account by burtosis · · Score: 2

    No social media accounts will be the next round of privacy victims. You don't have one? You must be hiding something!

  9. Sounds more like a prison... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    Sounds more like a prison than a rural high school. Is this what we've come to as a country? Easy availability of powerful guns, but not mental health therapy. Easy prescription of drugs that numb the mind, but strict penalties for drugs that expand the mind. Bullying and violence being legitimized and/or ignores. Long working hours, broken families, absentee parents. Media looking for more, more, and more ad revenue, even if it means glorifying heinous criminals, discussing their crimes non-stop for weeks, and encouraging copycats. Multiple studies have shown that things like suicide increase when other peoples' acts are publicized.

    1. Re:Sounds more like a prison... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like a prison than a rural high school. Is this what we've come to as a country?

      I give to you Prison Hill Elementary School. Er, excuse me, Mission Hill. But we called it the first thing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Sounds more like a prison... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Easy availability of powerful guns

      Whenever I see someone talking about AR-15's as "powerful guns", I realize that that person knows nothing about firearms.

      My .30-06 is a powerful gun. It'll drop pretty much any North American game animal in one shot. Which is a good thing, since it's a single shot rifle. Likewise .45-70 (replica of a 19th century firearm). Or my shotgun.

      My Mini-14 (functionally identical to an AR-15, but NOT an "assault weapon" since it was specifically exempted from being considered such when the last "assault weapon ban" was passed) is pretty much useless for hunting anything bigger than a rabbit, being a glorified .22 when all is said and done....

      Though I agree that the high school in question comes across more as a prison camp than a school....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Sounds more like a prison... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Go back to high school or college physics. Power is energy per unit of time. Watts are joules per second. So an AR-15 with a large mag is a more powerful gun than your 30-06. It can deliver more energy to the target in a shorter time, even if that energy isn't in a single round. So yeah, it's more "powerful."

    4. Re:Sounds more like a prison... by cstacy · · Score: 1

      Go back to high school or college physics.

      Power is energy per unit of time. Watts are joules per second.

      So an AR-15 with a large mag is a more powerful gun than your 30-06. It can deliver more energy to the target in a shorter time, even if that energy isn't in a single round.

      So yeah, it's more "powerful."

      In practice, it doesn't usually deliver more than one round to a given target.

    5. Re: Sounds more like a prison... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the mini is just as powerful yet not banned because people who seek to "regulate" weapons don't know squat about them.

    6. Re: Sounds more like a prison... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Government schools are on the ropes. People of means home school and supplement with private schools. Much better experience. No distractions or weird institutional decisions...

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    7. Re:Sounds more like a prison... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So an 18-wheeler full of bullets is a more powerful gun than anything on the market? After all, it can deliver more energy through bullets to a location than any AR-15 or 30-06.

      Not to mention that "over time" for semi-automatics is a stupid idea. Is there a standard measure of units for triggers-pulled? Do all people pull triggers at the same rate? No? Pretty shitty science there, buddy.

      No one using the term "powerful" in gun legislation ever refers to the physics term.

  10. Irrational Fear - Think clearly about the kids by FeelGood314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My kids' school has a locked front door and a fence around the school yard. They claim it's to prevent a kid being abducted but they will eventually open the door to everyone. So the extra security worthless, is a total pain and worse it means I have to walk my kids the long way round the parking lot. I'm in Canada. We average less than one abduction by a complete stranger every 3 years of a child not on a native reserve. It is so rare most Canadians know who Paul_Bernardo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is. Contrast that risk with the risk of my kids being hit in the parking lot. It's thousands a year with about 20 fatalities of small children.

    This is a school where they should be good at math. The risks to small children are childhood leukemia and traffic accidents. As they get older its meningitis, traffic accidents and suicide. How about we spend 1/10 of the money we spend on Hollywood threats on real threats to my kids?

    1. Re: Irrational Fear - Think clearly about the kids by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Schools are staffed with people who cannot grasp logic, math, reason, or deduction beyond a few shallow levels. The people who can do those things well are out making money.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    2. Re:Irrational Fear - Think clearly about the kids by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      My kids' school has a locked front door and a fence around the school yard.

      My wife's school is a building. You can walk in and out of it as you please. The fact you need more than that in the USA is troubling.

  11. Re:Sure glad I don't have any social media account by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    ... but if you ain't made of paper nor trying to break into my house you have nothing to fear from me.

    My feelings exactly.

    And yet, though most of us are fairly reasonable, well behaved, and start off with good intentions, it's hard to predict the future ... I was thinking of a line from "Chinatown".

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  12. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A shooter is no match for my army of robots.

  13. Grammar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could be reading the title of this incorrectly, but it seems a bit jacked up...

  14. They can hire ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... Cambridge Analytica.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  15. Re:Fâ(TM)em by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

    Considering that America is a 242-and-counting year long experiment in liberal government, I have to ask: Why do you hate America?

  16. Which definition of Liberal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because America's history seems a lot more filled with hubris, genocide, and treating its citizens like trash than anything else.

  17. Re:Sure glad I don't have any social media account by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Burtosis,

    So many random services and products now demand an email, cell phone other contact data.
    How long before they demand "social media" to stay in contact?
    The lack of social media now starting an investigation to find a hidden social media account?
    Trying to discover if a US student has another way of communication? An account lacking most account details but a classical music CD collection?

    The only way to detect that would be gov backed contractor malware pushed out to all home computers. Just to be sure.
    --

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  18. typical vs mass shootings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to focus on the small percent of shooting victims who were shot in a "mass shooting" event vs a "low victims" shooting of a person or persons.
    Depending on how you define a mass shooting, 4 or more killed or 8 or more, 90-99%* of shooting victims were killed in a "low victim" shooting.
    Mass shootings garner more attention, and are more newsworthy.
    If the goal is to reduce the number of shooting deaths** focusing of mass shooters has the opportunity of greater effect. Stopping one mass shooter saves more lives than stopping 3 or 7 non-mass shooters.
    But focusing on mass shooters too much to the exclusion of non-mass shooters is something I merely wanted to shine a light on.

    *I crunched some numbers found in an internet search. Mass shootings may account for more than 10% of shooting deaths, but that becomes less likely the higher the percent.
    Almost by definition victims of mass shootings are homicides and not justifiable, and many include random "uninvolved" bystanders, which increases the tragic aspect.

    ** if I read the comments right on various internet sites, I sadly conclude that a fair number of people don't care, or find stranger deaths entertaining, and some want to increase the deaths of some others.

  19. Some badly needed perspective by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The U.S. causes of death statistics are readily available from the CDC website. For 2015, the leading causes of death for the 15-19 year old demographic were:
    • 3,919 deaths - Accidents (mostly automobile accidents and drug overdoses)
    • 2.061 deaths - Suicide
    • 1,587 deaths - Homicide (mostly outside school, and gang related)
    • 583 deaths - Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
    • 306 deaths - Heart disease
    • 195 deaths - Birth defects
    • 72 deaths - Influenza (the flu)
    • 63 deaths - Chronic lower respiratory diseases
    • 61 deaths - Cerebrovascular diseases
    • 52 deaths - Diabetes
    • 41 deaths - Complications from pregnancy and childbirth

    Where do school shootings rank? There have been about 250 deaths in school shootings over 18 years, or about 14 per year.(and K-12, not just ages 15-19). Since there are approximately 51 million K-12 students in the U.S., a student's chances of being killed in a non-gang, non-suicide school shooting in any given year are about 1 in 3.6 million. You are roughly 3x more likely to be struck by lightning (1 in 1.08 million).

    Like airliner crashes, school shootings are one of these extremely rare, statistically insignificant events whose emotional impact creates a large amount of social interest. This causes a disproportionate amount of press coverage, leading people to wildly overestimate the actual danger. If you really want to save high schoolers' lives, teach them to: drive safely and buckle their seat belts, not to abuse drugs, seek counseling for depression, stay out of gangs, use sunscreen, eat healthy and exercise, get the flu shot, don't smoke, don't eat too many sweets, and avoid teen pregnancy. Each of these will save many more lives than all the hand-wringing over school shootings, some (like suicide-prevention) around a hundred times more.

    1. Re:Some badly needed perspective by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for a mod up to the parent.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:Some badly needed perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up please. This country is run by grandstanding idiots at all levels.

  20. why this doesn't work by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    I'm 30 but still, all my posts are marked as non-public, friends-only. Any teenager who's too dumb to do the same to their account deserves to get "scanned" or whatever and basically have their privacy massively invaded. By the way, a lot of teenagers are smart enough to also not use their real names.

    1. Re:why this doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 30 but still, all my posts are marked as non-public, friends-only. Any teenager who's too dumb to do the same to their account deserves to get "scanned" or whatever and basically have their privacy massively invaded.

      Hate to break this to you, but marking things as non-public doesn't mean they won't be scanned. You gave them to a third party, and in their infinite wisdom US government has decided that means it belongs to them also, plus other governments via treaties and anybody that can hack government computers (the US government couldn't keep it's own security clearance database from being hacked, so basically you can expect anything the government gets to be available to third parties).

      No doubt all kinds of other third parties are directly scanning your account as well, and you have no real control over what the vendor is really doing either (what they say they are doing and what they are really doing are certainly different, the only question is how different: you are not the customer, you are the product).

      US law is full of contradictions and inconsistencies - the result of many decades of abuse by a largely unethical legal profession and politicians who accept campaign contributions from special interest groups - so don't expect the law to protect you. In this day and age, wrongful conduct is routinely hidden behind a bodyguard of lies, so you can't trust any assurances you are given.

      Your privacy is being massively invaded on a daily basis. Welcome to the Brave New World.

  21. ID Required? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    So, we are now going to require ID for this, but not to vote, right? Got it.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  22. Re:Sure glad I don't have any social media account by burtosis · · Score: 1

    It's comforting your post is still up.

  23. Re:Sure glad I don't have any social media account by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Have to wonder what software a gov at a state and city level are getting for the price. That they can map out most online usage.
    Facial recognition back over years of accounts to find patterns still in use?
    4 hops of most accounts would map a community. Finding many of the unexpected and random accounts in use?
    Creating new random accounts often and never going back for reuse them would not be protected from malware getting into the same home computer network.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  24. it's too late folks by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    WTF? IF this is the future I want to die now.

    1. Re:it's too late folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, according to gunfopics here, it's almost certain you'll die in some mass shooting in the near future.

  25. Re:Sure glad I don't have any social media account by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Snowden showed us how the NSA has equipment installed on the internet backbone all over the world, you wouldn't need to install malware on each device. But I seriously doubt they would stop there, beyond the obvious hacking tools (for example the ones the NSA lost incompetently like a toddlers gloves on a bus that caused the wanna cry epidemic), there is a new push to put the malware in dedicated hardware enclaves right on the chip. If you want an example of how social media and seemingly innocuous data can be used I suggest this clip because creating a psy-ops weapon to sway an election aka Facebook/Cambridge Analytica is about a 3/10. We are about 7-10 years out on the onboard computational power using moores law and the battery energy density only needs to increase about 10 fold to make those micro swarm bots a reality.

  26. Re:Sure glad I don't have any social media account by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    So the NSA/GCHQ backbone crypto keys got offered to the DEA, then the FBI. Now its down to state and city police. Then contractors got a support role.
    The network collects it all.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  27. The book 1984 by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Late, however it's almost here. Complete with a ministry of truth that people believe and is the lying news media.

    Far cry from when I was growing up. There was no police presence at the school. No panic button. Other than an occasional theft or assault they weren't needed. As a kid I also had guns in my bedroom. One of the was a high powered rifle. We learned marksmanship as kids. All of us did. We also learned respect. We had adults that for the most part told us the truth.

    Now we have political correctness - a leftist divisive idea. They're trying to put us all back into slavery. Most likely a Feudal system.

    1. Re:The book 1984 by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Everything was better back then.

      That has been true since Aristotle.

      Or not. I think we have a tendency to look at the past through rose-colored glasses.

      Domestic violence was higher, but we didn't talk about it.

      Drunk driving was higher, but we didn't talk about it.

      There were fewer school shootings, but far from zero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      There were less opportunities for women or minorities.

      All in all, while there have been many changes in society that might not seem positive, there have also been many that have been clearly positive. On balance, I think I am better off now compared to then, and not just because I am older and richer.

  28. Re:Sure glad I don't have any social media account by burtosis · · Score: 1

    And in case that wasn't enough, now we have this little gem too. I get the distinct impression the easiest way to implement a dystopian future is through the boiled frog approach and the water is pretty nice and toasty about now.