The school gives no comment to the article - so we can't possibly know the original instigator of the investigation/disciplinary actions.
It is rather more likely that a parent looked over their teen's shoulder and had a fit to see that other kids at the school was leading their innocent babe (read: depraved little drunkard IIRC my schooldays correctly) astray and made a complaint to the principal/board.
The school must at that point act - their reputation is dependent not only upon results of exams etc. but also on the community's perception of the kinds of citizens they are producing. If the community feels that the school is producing students who binge drink, the school gets less support. The board gets voted out, the management gets fired etc.
And yet a lot of the discussion is about "why did the admins spend their time crawling facebook?", which is neither factually established (except as a throwaway line by the OP) nor relevant to what I see as the real issue - which is the process by which young people are learning to protect their privacy in the online social networking context. To me they didn't, and they are facing the consequences. I'd like to propose a school curriculum that has as part of its programme positive sessions on online discretion, and I would expect such sessions to go far beyond the now hackneyed don't-give-your-name-out-to-pedophiles line.
Thanks for pointing that out, but in actuality no I don't believe movie characters are the same as the real people who play them. My opinion of the man is based on observing his inability to form a stable relationship with any of the reputed 9000 women he has been intimate with.
I was aware the GP sort of attributed Nicholson's characters' statement to the actor himself, however I responded in kind so as to enter into the spirit of the discussion rather than nitpick about terms.
It's an astounding mix of the superhero procedure with female ethics and interpersonal relationships.
When characters in are in conflict in male-written comics... they resolve it through a nice big punch up.
Gail Simone's characters resolve conflict in a way that is always surprising but also subtly reflects both who each character are, and (more importantly) reflects the nature of their relationship at that point in time - and the resolution of the conflict will change that relationship in the future, so future conflicts are resolved in an intelligently different way.
Jack Nicholson is cool, but he's also vastly immature, which is part of his appeal I guess. Reasonable and accountable are the last things I think of when I think of the man.
And you fail to address the majority of my point - that you cannot control remotely stored information, and thus your assertion of ownership rights, while brave and indeed admirable, is not matched by your ability to defend that right in any meaningful sense.
Responding to one line is great troll tactics, but try entering into an intelligent discussion just this once.
If I speak, do I own the soundwaves? The thought patterns created in the ears of people near me?
Obviously no.
These are media (in the most literal sense of the word) that I have no direct control over once I have created a pattern of meaning within them, short of murdering the person who heard my words.
Similarly, if you choose to view information you store on a server physically remote from yourself, over which you have no absolute administration rights as owned by you... then you are mistaken.
Short of physically destroying said server you have a necessarily limited ownership of that information, and even then a copy could easily have been made between the time you created the information and the time you acted to destroy it.
You do have a valid legal claim to having rights over it, and a basis for recourse within the legal system which is balanced by any agreements you assented to in the process of gaining access to said server.
Even the notion of "I created it so it's mine" is easily broken. I work as a creative, and I am very aware that any creative effort I produce while on salaried time belongs to those who are paying me. Should I wish this to change my recourse is to resign my position and find a way to market my talents.
At the end of the day, rights only exist as legally defined, maintained and enforced. Absolute rights (or natural rights)in the terms you describe here are a wonderful ideal, but a poor actuality.
In the words of Jeremy Bentham:
Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense -- nonsense upon stilts.
Recently I was reading the public notices in my local newspaper. In NZ development is moderated through a resource consent court, and I was amused to see the Westfield group (which is in the business of building malls) putting in a submission against further development of the Albany Megacentre (another samey shopping complex, but not done under the aegis of a definable international conglomerate).
The essence of the submission? Naughty old Albany Megacentre was far too retail oriented. Just not appropriate for a shopping centre at all.
It's a very similar thing here. Microsoft learnt from being hit by the US DOJ (and EU equivalent) naughty stick. The lesson? That it's much better to be holding the business end and swinging.
I think pretention. To call out the GP for posting from Python, but not have an idea of what is possibly their most famous skit... that's the definition of pretention to me.
"That's right your honour, we clicked on the client's My Documents folder as it's usually the easiest source of a handful of files worth burning. We were shocked when we saw what appeared to be child pornography."
While I agree with comments up the page stating that they should do a test burn using files on a known-safe memory stick, given that the weren't surely we're applying Occams razor better if we suppose they found them in the most easiest place to look for files. It's one click into a document folder, and a series of clicks or a timewasting search to find jpegs and avis otherwise hidden.
I don't know of a good geek who wouldn't go for the one click option. It's probably the geek efficiency drive that lead them to not bother with the USB dongle.
If not, in the absence of further evidence that is the simplest scenario to describe the situation.
We've established the accused is foolish enough to take a machine full of kiddyporn in for work. Why would he suddenly have the smarts to be subtle about it?
NB I wonder why the parent was modded informative? Any ideas?
Very true, and I also think it's due to the HR cycle.
HR controls training. HR also controls remuneration. CEO (ultimately) controls budgeting. HR recommends huge bonus for CEO. CEO likes HR. Recommends expanded HR budgets on all fronts, including HR staffing and training budget. Extra HR staff required to do something with their time occasionally. Search out courses on subjects they have no idea about and recommend them to managers. Managers lap up the opportunity to be seen as generous (or other resaons such as you described) and send staff on aforementioned training. Staff go to training, feel annoyed.
It's kind of like the mystery of life. And yes, all very irrational.
I have to say any movie adaptation of the Silmarillion would automatically be a disappointment for me. That work in particular is so much about the epic sprawl of history from creation through the first age through to the start of the third. Any tiniest part of it would make for a series of wonderful visual metaphors... but the whole would make for a very long, or a very bad movie.
I'm sorry, I don't expect you to necessarily understand this but you crossed the line between robust debate and abuse there. I'm sorry if I have caused any offence but if you feel a need to resort to calling people crude names you are lowering the tone of this open forum.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire.
Firstly, I'm not dictating I'm requesting, and I was doing so to the moderators not to you. I'm sorry if you feel offended by my expressing an opinion about your opinion, but that is the risk you take.
Secondly your argument is not only specious as I described above, it begs the question as to whether the US being a superpower is beneficial to either to US citizens or to the world.
Thirdly I question whether it has the "best" economy - could you please define your terms (what's best - most rich people? highest GDP?) and provide sources not just bombast.
Fourthly I'm not from the USA myself, so I'm not in a position to take your "advice".
Fifthly only an egotist would think that posting to slashdot is the same thing as providing advice to the US government. You're someone sitting at a computer, not Henry Kissinger.
the American government should be more concerned in getting ahead of China than in suing their citizens a hundred time for a simple crime.
Please mod down, this is a style of political argument that is absolutely unproductive. It posits an urgent political issue which has no bearing on, or relation to the issue at hand. The wings of the US government administering foreign and trade relations have nothing to do with the DOJ administering internal civil cases.
One can prove any political point from this argument. Let's take the basic form:
"the American government should be more concerned in getting ahead of China than in X"
and see a few of examples
the American government should be more concerned in getting ahead of China than in preventing child molesters from preying on their victims.
the American government should be more concerned in getting ahead of China than in protecting endangered wildlife.
and so on.
This particular issue may be right or wrong (and while it's an obvious slashdot hotbutton it's a proposal that hasn't yet been passed or played out) but any argument that sees the task of government as putting one single issue ahead of all others rather than managing the complexities of a very complex world has no place in a discussion board for people who are presumably of a higher level of intelligence.
I was talking to some slightly less techy people recently (I'm buying a house off them) who had had Vista replaced with XP on one of their new machines after witnessing 10 minute shutdowns etc. etc. etc.
They asked me why there wasn't a great outcry about this huge ripoff.
They got some comfort when I pointed out to them that there in fact was, and explained the role of developers in contributing to the success or otherwise of a platform.
All they wanted was a nice wifi home network on which they could play games and chat. Now they can, thanks to the removal of a certain monstrosity.
As a professional-level librarian I often Wikipedia as a starting source for research - far more than I would use Britannica, especially the print edition.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses - vandalism and the wars that rage over obscure topics being Wikipedia's (how many serious reference queries begin with the question "Did Jimmy Wales really market softcore porn"?). The big fault with Britannica is rather more serious - Britannica is appalling for currency. Why? Apart from the fact that Wikipedia relies on fanatics of various sorts who provide up-to-the-minute information (which is then edited by more moderate types interested in maintaining balance and so on) Britannica must operate from a fixed budget out of which it can pay a comparitively far more limited range of editors. That article you're looking at in Britannica could easily be 10 years out of date or more if it's at that end of its review cycle.
Clearly this means that for the researcher who is using a "starter" source, they can get a more accurate quick coverage of the salient details (and particularly keywords which are of fundamental use in starting a new path of research) out of Wikipedia which they can then use to embark on more detailed exploration.
In essence Britannica is an altar to worship at; Wikipedia is a hack, and a damn good one - when used intelligently, as all good hacks are.
Smart criminals are smart right up until they get caught. Having a lack of ethics has nothing to do with having a lack of intelligence. "Doing it illegally and unethically without being caught" does NOT equal "doing it legally".
If you commit the perfect crime, you've still committed a crime.
I will allow that you can be unethical without breaking the law. This only means that the law is an ass, and the person acting in this way would use criminal means if their unethical ones were made illegal.
Agreed, I was truly disappointed with it. When we were told that "the Diablo people from Blizzard were making what could be considered Diablo III" I was really excited and ready for something above and beyond - instead we seem to have been delivered a badly modelled and textured (I truly found the environment unbelievable) combination of Diablo style mobs, equipment management and levelling with the worst aspects of Elder Scrolls combat.
The NPCs were irritating too. I played a female character and one kept making inappropriate remarks. Far from adding flavour it just plain creeped me out. Realistic maybe, but I don't play games to immersively engage in the thrill that is sexual harrassment.
Why is the bible true? Because God said so. How do we know God said so? It's in the bible.
As to specialness - the Buddhists have the most interesting approach, I think. They suggest that every*thing* in the universe is special (ie filled with Buddha-nature)... the corollary to that being that nothing in the universe is more special than anything else. Enlightenment under this view is coming to the realisation that you're no better, nor any worse than a rock.
Slashdot Mirror
This is your 3rd comment on /. - and your second one entitled "obligatory", containing an obvious joke.
It's nice to see you've found a role within the community.
The school gives no comment to the article - so we can't possibly know the original instigator of the investigation/disciplinary actions.
It is rather more likely that a parent looked over their teen's shoulder and had a fit to see that other kids at the school was leading their innocent babe (read: depraved little drunkard IIRC my schooldays correctly) astray and made a complaint to the principal/board.
The school must at that point act - their reputation is dependent not only upon results of exams etc. but also on the community's perception of the kinds of citizens they are producing. If the community feels that the school is producing students who binge drink, the school gets less support. The board gets voted out, the management gets fired etc.
And yet a lot of the discussion is about "why did the admins spend their time crawling facebook?", which is neither factually established (except as a throwaway line by the OP) nor relevant to what I see as the real issue - which is the process by which young people are learning to protect their privacy in the online social networking context. To me they didn't, and they are facing the consequences. I'd like to propose a school curriculum that has as part of its programme positive sessions on online discretion, and I would expect such sessions to go far beyond the now hackneyed don't-give-your-name-out-to-pedophiles line.
Thanks for pointing that out, but in actuality no I don't believe movie characters are the same as the real people who play them. My opinion of the man is based on observing his inability to form a stable relationship with any of the reputed 9000 women he has been intimate with.
I was aware the GP sort of attributed Nicholson's characters' statement to the actor himself, however I responded in kind so as to enter into the spirit of the discussion rather than nitpick about terms.
It's a combination of grim, gruesome, and the lead character in the original CSI.
Have you read Birds of Prey?
It's an astounding mix of the superhero procedure with female ethics and interpersonal relationships.
When characters in are in conflict in male-written comics... they resolve it through a nice big punch up.
Gail Simone's characters resolve conflict in a way that is always surprising but also subtly reflects both who each character are, and (more importantly) reflects the nature of their relationship at that point in time - and the resolution of the conflict will change that relationship in the future, so future conflicts are resolved in an intelligently different way.
Jack Nicholson is cool, but he's also vastly immature, which is part of his appeal I guess. Reasonable and accountable are the last things I think of when I think of the man.
And you fail to address the majority of my point - that you cannot control remotely stored information, and thus your assertion of ownership rights, while brave and indeed admirable, is not matched by your ability to defend that right in any meaningful sense.
Responding to one line is great troll tactics, but try entering into an intelligent discussion just this once.
Genius.
What can of worms?
If I speak, do I own the soundwaves? The thought patterns created in the ears of people near me?
Obviously no.
These are media (in the most literal sense of the word) that I have no direct control over once I have created a pattern of meaning within them, short of murdering the person who heard my words.
Similarly, if you choose to view information you store on a server physically remote from yourself, over which you have no absolute administration rights as owned by you... then you are mistaken.
Short of physically destroying said server you have a necessarily limited ownership of that information, and even then a copy could easily have been made between the time you created the information and the time you acted to destroy it.
You do have a valid legal claim to having rights over it, and a basis for recourse within the legal system which is balanced by any agreements you assented to in the process of gaining access to said server.
Even the notion of "I created it so it's mine" is easily broken. I work as a creative, and I am very aware that any creative effort I produce while on salaried time belongs to those who are paying me. Should I wish this to change my recourse is to resign my position and find a way to market my talents.
At the end of the day, rights only exist as legally defined, maintained and enforced. Absolute rights (or natural rights)in the terms you describe here are a wonderful ideal, but a poor actuality.
In the words of Jeremy Bentham:
Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense -- nonsense upon stilts.
Recently I was reading the public notices in my local newspaper. In NZ development is moderated through a resource consent court, and I was amused to see the Westfield group (which is in the business of building malls) putting in a submission against further development of the Albany Megacentre (another samey shopping complex, but not done under the aegis of a definable international conglomerate).
The essence of the submission? Naughty old Albany Megacentre was far too retail oriented. Just not appropriate for a shopping centre at all.
It's a very similar thing here. Microsoft learnt from being hit by the US DOJ (and EU equivalent) naughty stick. The lesson? That it's much better to be holding the business end and swinging.
I remember getting Apple IIe floppies to play tunes. This wasn't hardware hacking, and it wasn't even well played.
I think pretention. To call out the GP for posting from Python, but not have an idea of what is possibly their most famous skit... that's the definition of pretention to me.
He pretended to know what he was talking about.
Meta-humour would have been meta-funny, surely?
We should totally do that, but make the arrow point at Alpha Centauri.
That would be a prank worth pulling off!
Or...
"That's right your honour, we clicked on the client's My Documents folder as it's usually the easiest source of a handful of files worth burning. We were shocked when we saw what appeared to be child pornography."
While I agree with comments up the page stating that they should do a test burn using files on a known-safe memory stick, given that the weren't surely we're applying Occams razor better if we suppose they found them in the most easiest place to look for files. It's one click into a document folder, and a series of clicks or a timewasting search to find jpegs and avis otherwise hidden.
I don't know of a good geek who wouldn't go for the one click option. It's probably the geek efficiency drive that lead them to not bother with the USB dongle.
If not, in the absence of further evidence that is the simplest scenario to describe the situation.
We've established the accused is foolish enough to take a machine full of kiddyporn in for work. Why would he suddenly have the smarts to be subtle about it?
NB I wonder why the parent was modded informative? Any ideas?
Very true, and I also think it's due to the HR cycle.
HR controls training. HR also controls remuneration. CEO (ultimately) controls budgeting. HR recommends huge bonus for CEO. CEO likes HR. Recommends expanded HR budgets on all fronts, including HR staffing and training budget. Extra HR staff required to do something with their time occasionally. Search out courses on subjects they have no idea about and recommend them to managers. Managers lap up the opportunity to be seen as generous (or other resaons such as you described) and send staff on aforementioned training. Staff go to training, feel annoyed.
It's kind of like the mystery of life. And yes, all very irrational.
Suffice to say it would *not* be a mass audience series of movies.
"Mommy, where do I know that guy from?"
"Oh, he was in the first movie but disappeared."
But wasn't the first movie thousands of years ago?
"Yes. He's immortal. As is everyone else."
"Mommy... what does immortal mean???"
I have to say any movie adaptation of the Silmarillion would automatically be a disappointment for me. That work in particular is so much about the epic sprawl of history from creation through the first age through to the start of the third. Any tiniest part of it would make for a series of wonderful visual metaphors... but the whole would make for a very long, or a very bad movie.
I'm sorry, I don't expect you to necessarily understand this but you crossed the line between robust debate and abuse there. I'm sorry if I have caused any offence but if you feel a need to resort to calling people crude names you are lowering the tone of this open forum.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire.
Firstly, I'm not dictating I'm requesting, and I was doing so to the moderators not to you. I'm sorry if you feel offended by my expressing an opinion about your opinion, but that is the risk you take.
Secondly your argument is not only specious as I described above, it begs the question as to whether the US being a superpower is beneficial to either to US citizens or to the world.
Thirdly I question whether it has the "best" economy - could you please define your terms (what's best - most rich people? highest GDP?) and provide sources not just bombast.
Fourthly I'm not from the USA myself, so I'm not in a position to take your "advice".
Fifthly only an egotist would think that posting to slashdot is the same thing as providing advice to the US government. You're someone sitting at a computer, not Henry Kissinger.
the American government should be more concerned in getting ahead of China than in suing their citizens a hundred time for a simple crime.
Please mod down, this is a style of political argument that is absolutely unproductive. It posits an urgent political issue which has no bearing on, or relation to the issue at hand. The wings of the US government administering foreign and trade relations have nothing to do with the DOJ administering internal civil cases.
One can prove any political point from this argument. Let's take the basic form:
"the American government should be more concerned in getting ahead of China than in X"
and see a few of examples
the American government should be more concerned in getting ahead of China than in preventing child molesters from preying on their victims.
the American government should be more concerned in getting ahead of China than in protecting endangered wildlife.
and so on.
This particular issue may be right or wrong (and while it's an obvious slashdot hotbutton it's a proposal that hasn't yet been passed or played out) but any argument that sees the task of government as putting one single issue ahead of all others rather than managing the complexities of a very complex world has no place in a discussion board for people who are presumably of a higher level of intelligence.
Once more, mod down.
I was talking to some slightly less techy people recently (I'm buying a house off them) who had had Vista replaced with XP on one of their new machines after witnessing 10 minute shutdowns etc. etc. etc.
They asked me why there wasn't a great outcry about this huge ripoff.
They got some comfort when I pointed out to them that there in fact was, and explained the role of developers in contributing to the success or otherwise of a platform.
All they wanted was a nice wifi home network on which they could play games and chat. Now they can, thanks to the removal of a certain monstrosity.
As a professional-level librarian I often Wikipedia as a starting source for research - far more than I would use Britannica, especially the print edition.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses - vandalism and the wars that rage over obscure topics being Wikipedia's (how many serious reference queries begin with the question "Did Jimmy Wales really market softcore porn"?). The big fault with Britannica is rather more serious - Britannica is appalling for currency. Why? Apart from the fact that Wikipedia relies on fanatics of various sorts who provide up-to-the-minute information (which is then edited by more moderate types interested in maintaining balance and so on) Britannica must operate from a fixed budget out of which it can pay a comparitively far more limited range of editors. That article you're looking at in Britannica could easily be 10 years out of date or more if it's at that end of its review cycle.
Clearly this means that for the researcher who is using a "starter" source, they can get a more accurate quick coverage of the salient details (and particularly keywords which are of fundamental use in starting a new path of research) out of Wikipedia which they can then use to embark on more detailed exploration.
In essence Britannica is an altar to worship at; Wikipedia is a hack, and a damn good one - when used intelligently, as all good hacks are.
One word, and a byline:
Enron.
"The smartest guys in the room".
Smart criminals are smart right up until they get caught. Having a lack of ethics has nothing to do with having a lack of intelligence. "Doing it illegally and unethically without being caught" does NOT equal "doing it legally".
If you commit the perfect crime, you've still committed a crime.
I will allow that you can be unethical without breaking the law. This only means that the law is an ass, and the person acting in this way would use criminal means if their unethical ones were made illegal.
Agreed, I was truly disappointed with it. When we were told that "the Diablo people from Blizzard were making what could be considered Diablo III" I was really excited and ready for something above and beyond - instead we seem to have been delivered a badly modelled and textured (I truly found the environment unbelievable) combination of Diablo style mobs, equipment management and levelling with the worst aspects of Elder Scrolls combat.
The NPCs were irritating too. I played a female character and one kept making inappropriate remarks. Far from adding flavour it just plain creeped me out. Realistic maybe, but I don't play games to immersively engage in the thrill that is sexual harrassment.
Which is why it takes practice - unlike sin-confession-redemption.
Yes they soon revert to circular argument:
Why is the bible true? Because God said so. How do we know God said so? It's in the bible.
As to specialness - the Buddhists have the most interesting approach, I think. They suggest that every*thing* in the universe is special (ie filled with Buddha-nature)... the corollary to that being that nothing in the universe is more special than anything else. Enlightenment under this view is coming to the realisation that you're no better, nor any worse than a rock.
Hypothetically, the difference between a smart human and a dumb one to god would be the difference between a smart cockroach and a dumb one to us.