It's not so much that as the fact that they claimed to rely on a third party to do their vetting for them and then screwed up on the process of acting on the adverse evaluations said third party was providing.
Ignorance can well be a defense when it comes to proving a lack of mens rea.
It's one thing to hold views on religion, or lack thereof.
It's quite another to use your position as a government agent to provide yourself with a soapbox, period.
Let alone to an audience of the very young, impressionable minds we are trusting the government to educate in the absence of their parents. In loco parentis.
This teacher was out of line for criticizing religion, and would have been just as out of line promoting it.
Bottom line is that when she is on duty as a teacher and the meter is running for the taxpayers, she is acting on behalf of the government and as such is obliged to restrain herself accordingly.
Often times they like pushing a fait accompli down by "assuming" that consumers will keep the old contract, and also making it inconvenient and troublesome for them to actually exercise their rights.
Sometimes their "customer service" department is mysteriously down at the worst possible time, so that when you try to be assertive enough to tell them to stuff it, you just can't get through.
By the time you get a chance to tell them no your contract has already rolled over and the pressure to just swallow it and keep using the service is overwhelming.
Plus since you "didn't" cancel, their accounting records conveniently state that you're still on the contract and the burden of proof is on you to prove that they were the ones pulling shenanigans.
Setting up a scoreboard to attract hackers with big egos would be rather convenient if it was a trap. Maybe humor wasn't actually part of the question.
True enough, but since it takes place in the confines of the home, and from biological material that is of the parents in the first place, parents ARE entitled to be presumed to know what they are doing and to have every right to raise their children as they damn please so long as they are not harming them.
The burden of proof is on the child and on society to prove incompetence, not on the parent to prove correctness.
Hell, even the authority of schools is subordinate to parents, as "in loco parentis" means that the school is only exercising authority on behalf of the parents to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
They are also not responsible if someone comes in with a counterfeit ID and bypasses their due diligence.
Google cannot (in theory), and should not be held accountable for failing to act on information they did not have or reasonably have a duty to have.
It's not so much that as the fact that they claimed to rely on a third party to do their vetting for them and then screwed up on the process of acting on the adverse evaluations said third party was providing.
Ignorance can well be a defense when it comes to proving a lack of mens rea.
No I wouldn't.
Then again, running a red light is appropriately an unsafe action that society has chosen to forbid.
With laws that peg higher on the bull-o-meter, it's not quite so cut and dried.
Summaries can be edited.
A recentish article that caused confusion about NSA vs NNSA proves this.
Call me when special interests don't hold the media hostage and force politicians to dance to their tune to get any air time during election season.
Don't forget TDS v. Monticello.
In theory when a cop breaks the law badly enough they cease to be cops.
Something about the stripping doctrine where state actors lose their authority if they commit an act that is ultra vires.
The teacher is acting on the behalf of a government that is prohibited from endorsing or forbidding religion of any kind.
It's one thing to hold views on religion, or lack thereof.
It's quite another to use your position as a government agent to provide yourself with a soapbox, period.
Let alone to an audience of the very young, impressionable minds we are trusting the government to educate in the absence of their parents. In loco parentis.
This teacher was out of line for criticizing religion, and would have been just as out of line promoting it.
Bottom line is that when she is on duty as a teacher and the meter is running for the taxpayers, she is acting on behalf of the government and as such is obliged to restrain herself accordingly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-commissioner-meredith-baker-to-join-comcast-nbc/2011/05/11/AFYfl1rG_blog.html
After a stunt like this I really have no faith in government regulation anymore.
Don't hold your breath.
Often times they like pushing a fait accompli down by "assuming" that consumers will keep the old contract, and also making it inconvenient and troublesome for them to actually exercise their rights.
Sometimes their "customer service" department is mysteriously down at the worst possible time, so that when you try to be assertive enough to tell them to stuff it, you just can't get through.
By the time you get a chance to tell them no your contract has already rolled over and the pressure to just swallow it and keep using the service is overwhelming.
Plus since you "didn't" cancel, their accounting records conveniently state that you're still on the contract and the burden of proof is on you to prove that they were the ones pulling shenanigans.
I always assume corporations are greedy bastards out for all they can get.
Since that's usually the case, I ask myself one simple question of any industry:
Is there enough competition to make sure consumers aren't forced into monopolistic take-it-or-leave-it deals?
If the answer is yes, and going without service isn't the only alternative, then consumers are at fault.
If the answer is no, and the only choices are to pay up and get assraped, or go without, then the industry is at fault.
Honesty is overrated in washington these days.
Wasn't there recentishly a blatant conflict of itnerest with an FTC member taking a job with one of the firms she allowed to merge?
My bet is that many spammers are part of anonymous.
What would help is not letting lawyers give wiseass patent experts the boot during voir dire.
It seems like lawyers know damn well enough about their own bullshit that they WANT juries to be dumb and impressionable.
Which may just mean someone close to him wanted to play a sick joke.
Getting V& attracts fake feds at least as much as it does real ones.
The fact that we are discussing it on slashdot probably means his case has generated some publicity.
And the fact that people prefer to roll over rather than fight means that the aggressors have every incentive to keep making threats.
A bully extorting candy from a playground full of frightened babies can get quite a sweet tooth.
If he really did that then why was he not prosecuted for that?
That's another wrinkle.
Often times there's a Statute of Frauds that requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable.
Commonly among those are interests in real estate, surety for a debt, and shares in a business.
My point is that honest politicians don't last long.
Maybe, maybe not.
Setting up a scoreboard to attract hackers with big egos would be rather convenient if it was a trap. Maybe humor wasn't actually part of the question.
shentino@localhost 1 ~ $ dig rankmyhack.com ns
; > DiG 9.7.3 > rankmyhack.com ns ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 43444 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;rankmyhack.com. IN NS ;; ANSWER SECTION: ;; Query time: 1 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Wed Aug 17 09:43:28 2011 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 80
rankmyhack.com. 83829 IN NS ns24.underhost.com.
rankmyhack.com. 83829 IN NS ns23.underhost.com.
And I run BIND on my computer.
Either we have access to different name servers or you're a fakeposting bullshitter.
True enough, but since it takes place in the confines of the home, and from biological material that is of the parents in the first place, parents ARE entitled to be presumed to know what they are doing and to have every right to raise their children as they damn please so long as they are not harming them.
The burden of proof is on the child and on society to prove incompetence, not on the parent to prove correctness.
Hell, even the authority of schools is subordinate to parents, as "in loco parentis" means that the school is only exercising authority on behalf of the parents to begin with.
ITSATRAP
Actually I wonder why they're allowed to get away with it.