"Hmm, sounds like the logical next step is a dating service to match those traits. Who's doing the cyber-squatting for 23harmony.com and eugenicsmingle.com?"
It really does look to me like it should have failed the obviousness test.
"Sounds a bit paranoid, quite honestly. I'm one of the saddest no-lifers I know and even I wouldn't waste my time on something like that. Wouldn't that also take a huge amount of accounts to pull off reliably, given that mod points are distributed randomly?"
It only sounds paranoid until it happens to you.:)
It's not a new phenomenon, and others have complained about the same thing. There are a few people here on Slashdot (at least a few...) who do this regularly. I can even tell who some of them are by the way they write... but of course I do not have any practical way to prove it.
I've read Hemenway and I'm unimpressed. Others more knowledgeable about the subject than me have torn his arguments to shreds. As I stated yesterday, if you'd like to see the statistics that show gun control doesn't work, I can give you lots, BUT probably not until Monday.
It should be noted, however, that gun bannings have led to higher crime rates in ALL "Western" countries, even when the law was nationwide. England and Australia are both good examples. (Even though the English government doesn't want to admit it, their own statistics show the rise in crime, which was quite dramatic. Firearm violence very nearly doubled after the gun ban of 1998.)
Pardon me, I mis-wrote. You can't mod down from an AC account. I meant people who ARGUE with you via AC accounts because they're too ashamed to do so via their normal account), and then mod you down via sock-puppet accounts when they lose.
"... and several people have multiple accounts here. I've run across them and had my karma croppy-flop from excellent to neutral in just a few minutes because I told an Apple fanboy their god was dead."
Haha. (Not laughing at the karma thing, because I've run into it before, more than once.)
But just think about the KIND of person who does that.
First, sock-puppetry is generally considered to be a hangin' offense in online forums like Slashdot.
Second, they are SO upset by your "non-mainstream" comment that they risk (however slightly) ostracism for signing into a sock-puppet account (Anonymous Coward counts here) to mod you down. They could not argue with you honestly, so they backstabbed you instead.
While I agree that it's a shitty thing to do to somebody, and I probably get more such than most, I have learned to take it philosophically. The occasional down-mod doesn't hurt me that much, and I can only laugh at people who are so sad and pathetic that they have to hide around corners and shoot you in the back, rather than argue with you honestly.
"The mean factually incorrect things could still be modded up.
Read the study on why that turns out to be bad."
There have been several studies, at least.
But I don't think that's really the issue here. Scientific American is a CONSUMER magazine. It's not a peer-reviewed journal, and never has been in its (150-year or so?) existence. If they open it to comments, they should EXPECT to get non-factual, consumer-grade comments. Period.
"it's clear to me that the issue isn't with science itself, or how it's "done" in some sort of ontological sense. the issue is with how people perceive science, and how they perceive others' perceptions of science to be. These meta-perceptions are really what the whole issue is about."
Not really, in this case. The REAL issue, is that Scientific American has been getting increasingly involved -- and writing about -- issues that are more political than scientific. Like for example the issue of "gun control". Empirical evidence -- statistics gathered by the the relevant governments themselves -- overwhelmingly indicates that it just doesn't work in the United States. (Or, for that matter, in Western nations). After the recent shooting they re-published an OPINION piece on gun control, written 2 years ago, that contained exactly zero science other than a vague reference to one study and an even vaguer reference to "other" studies (not a single, reference, citation, or footnote).
Commenters on the SciAm site have increasingly been people who disagree over these POLITICAL issues. After all, if a "science" magazine publishes non-scientific political opinions, then commentors feel free to chime in. Why not? Everybody has an opinion on politics, whereas many people would not be comfortable or qualified to criticize an article that was hard science.
SciAm was getting exactly what it deserves. But now apparently they can't take their own medicine, so they've decided to stifle dissent. Well, that's nice. It's their choice. But it's not exactly going to win them any friends. I stopped buying it years ago, because of its obviously biased reporting. I don't feel the need to pay for somebody's propaganda.
That's sad, though, because it used to be one of my favorite magazines.
(Note to flamers and trolls: if you really want to pull the "[citation needed]" crap over something that has been well-known for decades, I can give you more than Slashdot would probably allow in a single post. But it will probably have to wait until next Monday because of my schedule. You don't get to bitch about that; it's a legit schedule issue and I'm warning you up front.)
"What a ridiculous rule. Next we're going to hear about a law prohibiting spreading rumors about someone after a breakup."
The hell of it is: it's probably already covered under existing law.
In most states, it is illegal to take pictures or movies of people without consent, when they are in a place where they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Most private homes are exactly the kind of places that are normally covered under the law.
So if the pictures / movie were taken clandestinely, then (again, in most states) there is legal recourse if those pictures or videos are then published.
"The fact that you HAVE a high school degree matters (tho not much if you have a college degree with a good GPA). There is no legitimate reason to know the year you graduated from high school. It's only value is to pinpoint when you were 18."
And the fact that they do it has no bearing on whether it's actually legal.
"Businesses also manage it in several other ways.
One-- there are basically no one over 67 in the pool to begin with."
That's why I wrote: "Never mind that it is inherently discriminatory and unfair in other ways;"
"Two-- Businesses discriminate against people over 50 (many job sites and Infosys require the exact year you graduated from high school. Even if you have several advanced degrees and years of experience)."
Illegally. It is illegal in the U.S. to discriminate based on age, and it is illegal to have questions on employment questionnaires that are intended to reveal age. Look it up.
"You must have never worked a day in the private sector. Not a single person working in the private sector gets "free" insurance."
Where did you learn how to read? What I actually wrote was that some people THINK it's "free". My whole point was that they are badly mistaken.
"Employers only pay for a portion of healthcare costs, the remaining "premium" that the employee pays normally amounts to a few thousand dollars a year. "
Not only have I worked in the private sector, I worked in some jobs for which the company picked up the ENTIRE insurance bill. But I didn't delude myself that it was "free". If they didn't pay for my insurance, they would have had to pay me more.
" The normal, everyday average worker is going to ask about benefits such as healthcare and weigh them along with compensation when looking for a new job."
Most of them, probably. But there are a great many who still think employer-sponsored insurance plans are "free". As I mentioned before, these people tend to be (but are not always) on the political Left.
"So you really think that by next year, there will not be more people covered by health insurance (i.e. the "intended end" of Obamacare)?"
You mean covered by health insurance AT A LOWER PRICE, which was the REAL, original "intended end" of Obamacare?
Not just no, but hell no.
Even the government has been saying that premiums are going up... just "not as much as expected" (expected AFTER the plan was already passed and was being evaluated, that is). And it's only ONE of the three primary categories that is actually not going up "as much as expected".
Remember that people weren't buying insurance because it was too expensive for the perceived value it gave. Making it more expensive probably isn't going to make that any better. If I were to wager, I'd wager it's going to make things much worse.
It's terrible. The text area is 20 pixels narrower, and the sidebar is 60 pixels wider! Yes, it eliminates the left-hand sidebar but the resulting space for actual posts and replies is still SMALLER than before.
BAD idea, Slashdot! Even worse than your other recent ideas.
Give people MORE space for reading and typing, and LESS space for bullshit. Not the other way around.
"Hear, hear! Health care should be completely decoupled from employment. That would be pro-business, and I'm always amazed it hasn't been promoted as such. It works for Canada and many other countries."
The reason they don't do it in the U.S., is because if the employer pays for it, the cost is "hidden" from the worker.
Yes, many people are stupid enough to believe it's "free" if it comes from the employer. Never mind that it is inherently discriminatory and unfair in other ways; that's the only way they've been able to sell it to the people (I'll probably take flak for this but I'll say mainly people on the political Left), who see this as a "free" benefit.
Never mind the fact that it DOES come out of their paycheck, directly or indirectly. The reality is that the employee still ends up paying for it. It's just that many people refuse to acknowledge that it is the way economics actually works.
"OMG, holy cow and all that. Speaking as someone who has started and sold a couple of small businesses, I can promise you that Obamacare will NOT make it easier."
The people who say "Obamacare can be a good thing" are the kind of people who believe that the end justifies the means.
Except they're really worse than that, because their intended "end" is purely hypothetical and will probably never happen.
I'm not sure I explained myself well. I did not mean that the Amish would object in this particular instance. I simply used them as an example of a group that often objects to things done in public schools.
How many of them go to public schools that are just like the rest of Pennsylvania schools? That was my only point. Many of them (maybe not all) have objections to some of the things the PA school board does.
I know all about Rumspringa, and that the Amish are not "anti-technology". They just pick and choose what technology they want to embrace.
"The question is why SHOULDN'T they keep trying... the upside of winning is pure gold for them."
No, it isn't. Not even close. It's the opposite.
In the very short term they'd enjoy an advantage. Sure. BUT... as has been proven time and time again (which was part of my point), they really aren't the smartest guys in the room. The smartest guys won't even work for them.
So what inevitably happens is somebody else gets the technology -- because of leaks or parallel research -- and their advantage is not just lost, it's given to somebody else. Because now THEY can access all these things now, too, without the USA knowing about it.
And so they don't use it themselves. So THEY begin to enjoy economic advantage over the country that tried to keep things "secret".
We saw this back in '98-'00 when the government tried to outlaw the export of "encryption technology". Everybody else had it anyway. They were giving others economic advantage over the US. We could not compete in the field because of government regulation.
It's a BAD idea, and always has been. It's a short-term gain for government over its own people, while at the same time a long-term loss for the entire country.
"First, you cant enforce a contract that relinquishes your rights."
Who said anything about rights? I stated that it should eliminate MOST suits, which tend to be over petty things that have little to do with "rights".
"If the school board fails to impliment policies that give 'reasonable' protection to the child, then the contract is unenforcable. The trick is defining what 'reasonable' is."
Since schools are in the business of education, not censorship, I would say that internet blocks are far from "reasonable". Hell, (according to TFA we're talking about high school here) half of them have phones with unrestricted internet access anyway. Who do they think they're "protecting"???
Another very big issue is one that has been known for many years: any attempt to block "unsuitable" material will also block a lot of suitable and relevant material... often things that are useful for research of school assignments.
"This is particularly important when you propose to use these devices in largely low education, low income populations like L.A., where providing these devices is meant to be a boost to kids who would not otherwise be able to obtain them. "
Right. Some favor. Give poor kids access to devices that block them off from much of the culture their richer neighbors can access. Somehow I have a bit of trouble endorsing that idea.
"Second, lets say I refuse to sign the petition slip because I dont want to risk me taking the heat for what my kid does, or maybe because I dont want my kid to have access to a device that allows him or her to do things I do not approve of."
I was thinking about that very scenario. But here's the thing: you can't force the kids to take the devices if their parents object on religious or moral grounds anyway. So that's a non-argument. They ALWAYS have the right to refuse on those grounds, permission slips or not. That can (and has) led to tension between parents and public schools. Nothing is changed.
"Does that mean that the school must have a different curriculum that is paper-based?"
I don't know. Does it? I repeat: I don't think anything significant has changed.
"Does my kid have to do homework differently, turn in homework differently, or take tests differently?"
If you're Amish, or have other religious/moral objections to what the school is doing? Yes. This has been established for many years. If the parents and the schools simply can't agree, they can have their own community schools or home-schooling.
"Can the school ensure that my child is not at a disadvantage because of these differences? "
See the paragraph I wrote just above. That's pretty much up to the school, isn't it? Again: these problems have always existed. What is new here?
"How long do you think it would take for a parent of a failing student who didnt have an iPad/laptop to sue the school for unfair treatment. How does the school defend against that?"
If the parent refused, in writing, to let the child have one, what kind of suit do they have? Seriously. They might sue but if any court is halfway rational they won't win. It might even be tossed out before it even gets started.
There is no guarantee, in law or anywhere else, that a school must pass your child if you refuse to let your child have relevant study or research materials. The school is not the parent here. People must have some responsibility for their own actions.
"The "invisible hand" includes all of the factors which influence decisions. This includes both private profit motives as well as government regulations."
Not in the original sense as written about by Adam Smith. The "invisible hand" referred solely to the automatic price leveling that occurs in a free, voluntary market. Regulation interferes with the "invisible hand".
Having said that, even Smith realized that some regulation would be necessary, in order to keep free markets from developing monopolies. But the regulation he envisioned was almost purely antitrust.
You can look at it as a contract: "We release this device to the custody of the child *IF* you assume all responsibility and waive any liability on the part of the school board."
It may not prevent all suits, but normally that would be a binding contract and stop most of them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hmm, sounds like the logical next step is a dating service to match those traits. Who's doing the cyber-squatting for 23harmony.com and eugenicsmingle.com?"
It really does look to me like it should have failed the obviousness test.
"Sounds a bit paranoid, quite honestly. I'm one of the saddest no-lifers I know and even I wouldn't waste my time on something like that. Wouldn't that also take a huge amount of accounts to pull off reliably, given that mod points are distributed randomly?"
It only sounds paranoid until it happens to you. :)
It's not a new phenomenon, and others have complained about the same thing. There are a few people here on Slashdot (at least a few...) who do this regularly. I can even tell who some of them are by the way they write... but of course I do not have any practical way to prove it.
I've read Hemenway and I'm unimpressed. Others more knowledgeable about the subject than me have torn his arguments to shreds. As I stated yesterday, if you'd like to see the statistics that show gun control doesn't work, I can give you lots, BUT probably not until Monday.
It should be noted, however, that gun bannings have led to higher crime rates in ALL "Western" countries, even when the law was nationwide. England and Australia are both good examples. (Even though the English government doesn't want to admit it, their own statistics show the rise in crime, which was quite dramatic. Firearm violence very nearly doubled after the gun ban of 1998.)
Haha! Oops! :(
Maybe that will teach me to dash off replies in a hurry before I go out of town.
"Ah, but in these cases, consent was probably given to take the pictures, but later retroactively revoked."
In some cases, probably. I did not make it clear that I was referring to the "hidden camera" scenario, which does happen.
Pardon me, I mis-wrote. You can't mod down from an AC account. I meant people who ARGUE with you via AC accounts because they're too ashamed to do so via their normal account), and then mod you down via sock-puppet accounts when they lose.
"... and several people have multiple accounts here. I've run across them and had my karma croppy-flop from excellent to neutral in just a few minutes because I told an Apple fanboy their god was dead."
Haha. (Not laughing at the karma thing, because I've run into it before, more than once.)
But just think about the KIND of person who does that.
First, sock-puppetry is generally considered to be a hangin' offense in online forums like Slashdot.
Second, they are SO upset by your "non-mainstream" comment that they risk (however slightly) ostracism for signing into a sock-puppet account (Anonymous Coward counts here) to mod you down. They could not argue with you honestly, so they backstabbed you instead.
While I agree that it's a shitty thing to do to somebody, and I probably get more such than most, I have learned to take it philosophically. The occasional down-mod doesn't hurt me that much, and I can only laugh at people who are so sad and pathetic that they have to hide around corners and shoot you in the back, rather than argue with you honestly.
"The mean factually incorrect things could still be modded up. Read the study on why that turns out to be bad."
There have been several studies, at least.
But I don't think that's really the issue here. Scientific American is a CONSUMER magazine. It's not a peer-reviewed journal, and never has been in its (150-year or so?) existence. If they open it to comments, they should EXPECT to get non-factual, consumer-grade comments. Period.
"it's clear to me that the issue isn't with science itself, or how it's "done" in some sort of ontological sense. the issue is with how people perceive science, and how they perceive others' perceptions of science to be. These meta-perceptions are really what the whole issue is about."
Not really, in this case. The REAL issue, is that Scientific American has been getting increasingly involved -- and writing about -- issues that are more political than scientific. Like for example the issue of "gun control". Empirical evidence -- statistics gathered by the the relevant governments themselves -- overwhelmingly indicates that it just doesn't work in the United States. (Or, for that matter, in Western nations). After the recent shooting they re-published an OPINION piece on gun control, written 2 years ago, that contained exactly zero science other than a vague reference to one study and an even vaguer reference to "other" studies (not a single, reference, citation, or footnote).
Commenters on the SciAm site have increasingly been people who disagree over these POLITICAL issues. After all, if a "science" magazine publishes non-scientific political opinions, then commentors feel free to chime in. Why not? Everybody has an opinion on politics, whereas many people would not be comfortable or qualified to criticize an article that was hard science.
SciAm was getting exactly what it deserves. But now apparently they can't take their own medicine, so they've decided to stifle dissent. Well, that's nice. It's their choice. But it's not exactly going to win them any friends. I stopped buying it years ago, because of its obviously biased reporting. I don't feel the need to pay for somebody's propaganda.
That's sad, though, because it used to be one of my favorite magazines.
(Note to flamers and trolls: if you really want to pull the "[citation needed]" crap over something that has been well-known for decades, I can give you more than Slashdot would probably allow in a single post. But it will probably have to wait until next Monday because of my schedule. You don't get to bitch about that; it's a legit schedule issue and I'm warning you up front.)
"What a ridiculous rule. Next we're going to hear about a law prohibiting spreading rumors about someone after a breakup."
The hell of it is: it's probably already covered under existing law.
In most states, it is illegal to take pictures or movies of people without consent, when they are in a place where they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Most private homes are exactly the kind of places that are normally covered under the law.
So if the pictures / movie were taken clandestinely, then (again, in most states) there is legal recourse if those pictures or videos are then published.
"So in the "olden days" i.e. pre-cheap digital cameras, nudey pictures were very rare."
They weren't "very rare". They were just mainly confined to those who had their own darkrooms.
"The fact that you HAVE a high school degree matters (tho not much if you have a college degree with a good GPA). There is no legitimate reason to know the year you graduated from high school. It's only value is to pinpoint when you were 18."
And the fact that they do it has no bearing on whether it's actually legal.
"Businesses also manage it in several other ways.
One-- there are basically no one over 67 in the pool to begin with."
That's why I wrote: "Never mind that it is inherently discriminatory and unfair in other ways;"
"Two-- Businesses discriminate against people over 50 (many job sites and Infosys require the exact year you graduated from high school. Even if you have several advanced degrees and years of experience)."
Illegally. It is illegal in the U.S. to discriminate based on age, and it is illegal to have questions on employment questionnaires that are intended to reveal age. Look it up.
"You must have never worked a day in the private sector. Not a single person working in the private sector gets "free" insurance."
Where did you learn how to read? What I actually wrote was that some people THINK it's "free". My whole point was that they are badly mistaken.
"Employers only pay for a portion of healthcare costs, the remaining "premium" that the employee pays normally amounts to a few thousand dollars a year. "
Not only have I worked in the private sector, I worked in some jobs for which the company picked up the ENTIRE insurance bill. But I didn't delude myself that it was "free". If they didn't pay for my insurance, they would have had to pay me more.
" The normal, everyday average worker is going to ask about benefits such as healthcare and weigh them along with compensation when looking for a new job."
Most of them, probably. But there are a great many who still think employer-sponsored insurance plans are "free". As I mentioned before, these people tend to be (but are not always) on the political Left.
"So you really think that by next year, there will not be more people covered by health insurance (i.e. the "intended end" of Obamacare)?"
You mean covered by health insurance AT A LOWER PRICE, which was the REAL, original "intended end" of Obamacare?
Not just no, but hell no.
Even the government has been saying that premiums are going up... just "not as much as expected" (expected AFTER the plan was already passed and was being evaluated, that is). And it's only ONE of the three primary categories that is actually not going up "as much as expected".
Remember that people weren't buying insurance because it was too expensive for the perceived value it gave. Making it more expensive probably isn't going to make that any better. If I were to wager, I'd wager it's going to make things much worse.
"but. the new design wastes 50% of my screen."
It's terrible. The text area is 20 pixels narrower, and the sidebar is 60 pixels wider! Yes, it eliminates the left-hand sidebar but the resulting space for actual posts and replies is still SMALLER than before.
BAD idea, Slashdot! Even worse than your other recent ideas.
Give people MORE space for reading and typing, and LESS space for bullshit. Not the other way around.
I'm starting a pool.
$1 to buy in. All those who guess how many days this lasts (including weekends) get to split 84% of the pot.
Hey... the house has to have a cut. That's the way Wall Street does it.
Wait... no, it isn't. I get a fee of 5% of the dollar as it goes in, 16% of the overall pot, then 5% of the remainder when it's paid out.
There. That's better. If you want a cheaper deal, next time ask for a "no load" pool.
"Hear, hear! Health care should be completely decoupled from employment. That would be pro-business, and I'm always amazed it hasn't been promoted as such. It works for Canada and many other countries."
The reason they don't do it in the U.S., is because if the employer pays for it, the cost is "hidden" from the worker.
Yes, many people are stupid enough to believe it's "free" if it comes from the employer. Never mind that it is inherently discriminatory and unfair in other ways; that's the only way they've been able to sell it to the people (I'll probably take flak for this but I'll say mainly people on the political Left), who see this as a "free" benefit.
Never mind the fact that it DOES come out of their paycheck, directly or indirectly. The reality is that the employee still ends up paying for it. It's just that many people refuse to acknowledge that it is the way economics actually works.
"OMG, holy cow and all that. Speaking as someone who has started and sold a couple of small businesses, I can promise you that Obamacare will NOT make it easier."
The people who say "Obamacare can be a good thing" are the kind of people who believe that the end justifies the means.
Except they're really worse than that, because their intended "end" is purely hypothetical and will probably never happen.
"You have an outdated stereotype of the Amish."
I'm not sure I explained myself well. I did not mean that the Amish would object in this particular instance. I simply used them as an example of a group that often objects to things done in public schools.
"You have an outdated stereotype of the Amish."
No, I don't.
How many of them go to public schools that are just like the rest of Pennsylvania schools? That was my only point. Many of them (maybe not all) have objections to some of the things the PA school board does.
I know all about Rumspringa, and that the Amish are not "anti-technology". They just pick and choose what technology they want to embrace.
"The question is why SHOULDN'T they keep trying ... the upside of winning is pure gold for them."
No, it isn't. Not even close. It's the opposite.
In the very short term they'd enjoy an advantage. Sure. BUT... as has been proven time and time again (which was part of my point), they really aren't the smartest guys in the room. The smartest guys won't even work for them.
So what inevitably happens is somebody else gets the technology -- because of leaks or parallel research -- and their advantage is not just lost, it's given to somebody else. Because now THEY can access all these things now, too, without the USA knowing about it.
And so they don't use it themselves. So THEY begin to enjoy economic advantage over the country that tried to keep things "secret".
We saw this back in '98-'00 when the government tried to outlaw the export of "encryption technology". Everybody else had it anyway. They were giving others economic advantage over the US. We could not compete in the field because of government regulation.
It's a BAD idea, and always has been. It's a short-term gain for government over its own people, while at the same time a long-term loss for the entire country.
"First, you cant enforce a contract that relinquishes your rights."
Who said anything about rights? I stated that it should eliminate MOST suits, which tend to be over petty things that have little to do with "rights".
"If the school board fails to impliment policies that give 'reasonable' protection to the child, then the contract is unenforcable. The trick is defining what 'reasonable' is."
Since schools are in the business of education, not censorship, I would say that internet blocks are far from "reasonable". Hell, (according to TFA we're talking about high school here) half of them have phones with unrestricted internet access anyway. Who do they think they're "protecting"???
Another very big issue is one that has been known for many years: any attempt to block "unsuitable" material will also block a lot of suitable and relevant material... often things that are useful for research of school assignments.
"This is particularly important when you propose to use these devices in largely low education, low income populations like L.A., where providing these devices is meant to be a boost to kids who would not otherwise be able to obtain them. "
Right. Some favor. Give poor kids access to devices that block them off from much of the culture their richer neighbors can access. Somehow I have a bit of trouble endorsing that idea.
"Second, lets say I refuse to sign the petition slip because I dont want to risk me taking the heat for what my kid does, or maybe because I dont want my kid to have access to a device that allows him or her to do things I do not approve of."
I was thinking about that very scenario. But here's the thing: you can't force the kids to take the devices if their parents object on religious or moral grounds anyway. So that's a non-argument. They ALWAYS have the right to refuse on those grounds, permission slips or not. That can (and has) led to tension between parents and public schools. Nothing is changed.
"Does that mean that the school must have a different curriculum that is paper-based?"
I don't know. Does it? I repeat: I don't think anything significant has changed.
"Does my kid have to do homework differently, turn in homework differently, or take tests differently?"
If you're Amish, or have other religious/moral objections to what the school is doing? Yes. This has been established for many years. If the parents and the schools simply can't agree, they can have their own community schools or home-schooling.
"Can the school ensure that my child is not at a disadvantage because of these differences? "
See the paragraph I wrote just above. That's pretty much up to the school, isn't it? Again: these problems have always existed. What is new here?
"How long do you think it would take for a parent of a failing student who didnt have an iPad/laptop to sue the school for unfair treatment. How does the school defend against that?"
If the parent refused, in writing, to let the child have one, what kind of suit do they have? Seriously. They might sue but if any court is halfway rational they won't win. It might even be tossed out before it even gets started.
There is no guarantee, in law or anywhere else, that a school must pass your child if you refuse to let your child have relevant study or research materials. The school is not the parent here. People must have some responsibility for their own actions.
"The "invisible hand" includes all of the factors which influence decisions. This includes both private profit motives as well as government regulations."
Not in the original sense as written about by Adam Smith. The "invisible hand" referred solely to the automatic price leveling that occurs in a free, voluntary market. Regulation interferes with the "invisible hand".
Having said that, even Smith realized that some regulation would be necessary, in order to keep free markets from developing monopolies. But the regulation he envisioned was almost purely antitrust.
Sure it could, if done right.
You can look at it as a contract: "We release this device to the custody of the child *IF* you assume all responsibility and waive any liability on the part of the school board."
It may not prevent all suits, but normally that would be a binding contract and stop most of them.