Work in a school, albeit in the UK. I have a duty of care which means I may only physically intervene in the actions of a child when there is serious risk to themselves or others, and then only in certain ways. I may restrain a child if they are performing an action which is particularly dangerous (running towards a busy road, running with scissors, attacking another pupil with a weapon etc) but otherwise I'm to do nothing. There are others who are trained in proper methods of restraint who can deal with situations of lesser peril (fights, obstructive behaviour etc. Did I mention it was a school for autistic kids?) but I'm not, so I can only act when there's a risk of serious injury or death, and there's no other way for that situation to be mitigated.
IANAL, but laying out a kid because he's hit another child is not appropriate. What your football coach did would be classed as assault / affray with intent here, and he'd be in jail, or at least out of a job. Standing between the fighting kids, preventing them from getting next to each other, maybe a physical restraint (wrap, elbow hold, nothing employing joint pressure or imparting physical pain). As I said, all bets are off if there's risk of serious injury or life involved, but that doesn't sound like the case.
IANAL, but I assume that the arrest is a technicality (You technically assaulted your son). Good Samaritan laws would seem to apply. Plus, as a parent you're in a caretaker position of responsibility. You acted in the best interests of your child.
This is the kind of case which (I would sincerely hope) takes roughly 30 minutes for the state prosecution to say "His rights were infringed!" and then your defense lambasts the guy with the reasons for your intervention.
I was just pointing out the poor choice of analogy. The issue with your suggestion of games being artwork is that art is either commissioned (and therefore exactly what I want) or I get to see it in its entirety before I purcahse it. I go to an exhibition, view pieces, and buy what I want.
Would you buy a piece of art based upon a 1" square portion of it displayed on a label, with the actual piece wrapped in black plastic out of sight?
What's horrible about it? It's slim and plain, making it easy on the eye. You only see it when selecting the media anyway (which is achieved by pressing the play button).
The only thing which is less than intuitive is the menu structure. Getting to the "root" menu (something the average user won't understand) is hidden three child menus deep. Why? It's the fastest way past all of those irritating "You wouldn't kill a policeman and steal his helmet! And then go to the toilet in his helmet! And then give it to his wife as a present! And then steal it again!" messages.
It is widely understood that when converting version numbers between closed-source and open-source revision schemes, you should always shift the decimal point one space to the left.
As hilarious as your comment is, it's hardly fitting for the subject of the story. You're here representing the Pirate Party; It says so in your signature.
Way to trivialise an important political statement, Deputy Campaigns Officer for the Pirate Party UK.
Do you pay for a lunch if it's crap? Do you pay up-front before you've even had a single bite? If the lunch is rubbish, I don't pay. I won't eat it and complain, I'll get a waiter's attention and say "Hey, this steak is overcooked, the potato is cold, and that had best not be hair in my peppercorn sauce." Depending on how rubbish it is, I won't be particularly polite either. It's not the waiter's fault that it's not done right, but he took a front-of-house job knowing the hassles it involves, and I've done that job too. If he apologises, gets things sorted quickly, maybe organises a drink while I wait, he gets a decent tip (I'm English, so tipping isn't mandatory. I tip when it's deserved, and tip well).
The trouble is that food isn't software. It's not "make once, duplicate and sell for a fraction of dev cost" it's "make repeatedly, make sure it's right every time." That takes more effort.
In short, poor analogy. Movies was better, they're from the same ilk as far as the sentiment of the OP is concerned: Milk the consumer for every penny, give nothing in return.
It's not lack of money, it's lack of effort. 30 minutes preparing meat and veg for a stir-fry, or 3 seconds picking up a bag in the store and watching America's Somethingest Something while it oven-cooks?
It's more like a bastardisation of extorsion (requiring a payment to prevent an unpleasant action, in this instance the payment being a reduction in functionality (and therefore value) of your goods) and of Morton's fork - Two decisions, both undesireable.
I do know that there are certain districts who look very unfavourably at this kind of "no positive outcome" choice when applied by big businesses.
By not settling the case for a $10 Sony voucher and getting a judgement against Sony instead?
I know, I know, standing up for your rights is expensive in time and money. Sucks to not want to take crap from big business for the rest of your natural life.
You don't get to return stuff because you don't like it. That's a courtesy offered by retailers, not a right. The do it because they want you to come back.
No, there's also the added bonus of implementing DRM-circumvention technology, which is illegal in the UK. Just like installing libdvdcss2 to watch encrypted DVDs.
Thank you DMCA and media lobbyists!
(Before you rant at me regarding the UK not having the DMCA, consider: Where do you think they got the idea?)
I call shenanigans. Top Gear on iPlayer is an hour long. The only place I know of where it's 45 minutes is America, where they put 15 minutes of advertisements into the show. You can't even buy the full hour episodes on DVD in the US. The BBC doesn't have advertisements, so the stream from them is almost always exactly one hour.
Slashdot Mirror
Work in a school, albeit in the UK. I have a duty of care which means I may only physically intervene in the actions of a child when there is serious risk to themselves or others, and then only in certain ways. I may restrain a child if they are performing an action which is particularly dangerous (running towards a busy road, running with scissors, attacking another pupil with a weapon etc) but otherwise I'm to do nothing. There are others who are trained in proper methods of restraint who can deal with situations of lesser peril (fights, obstructive behaviour etc. Did I mention it was a school for autistic kids?) but I'm not, so I can only act when there's a risk of serious injury or death, and there's no other way for that situation to be mitigated.
IANAL, but laying out a kid because he's hit another child is not appropriate. What your football coach did would be classed as assault / affray with intent here, and he'd be in jail, or at least out of a job. Standing between the fighting kids, preventing them from getting next to each other, maybe a physical restraint (wrap, elbow hold, nothing employing joint pressure or imparting physical pain). As I said, all bets are off if there's risk of serious injury or life involved, but that doesn't sound like the case.
Maybe it's different in the US.
IANAL, but I assume that the arrest is a technicality (You technically assaulted your son). Good Samaritan laws would seem to apply. Plus, as a parent you're in a caretaker position of responsibility. You acted in the best interests of your child.
This is the kind of case which (I would sincerely hope) takes roughly 30 minutes for the state prosecution to say "His rights were infringed!" and then your defense lambasts the guy with the reasons for your intervention.
Either way, I'm sure your son would understand!
I was just pointing out the poor choice of analogy. The issue with your suggestion of games being artwork is that art is either commissioned (and therefore exactly what I want) or I get to see it in its entirety before I purcahse it. I go to an exhibition, view pieces, and buy what I want.
Would you buy a piece of art based upon a 1" square portion of it displayed on a label, with the actual piece wrapped in black plastic out of sight?
Don't worry, the Leisure Suit Larry version is coming.
No, that's not an intentional pun.
What's horrible about it? It's slim and plain, making it easy on the eye. You only see it when selecting the media anyway (which is achieved by pressing the play button).
The only thing which is less than intuitive is the menu structure. Getting to the "root" menu (something the average user won't understand) is hidden three child menus deep. Why? It's the fastest way past all of those irritating "You wouldn't kill a policeman and steal his helmet! And then go to the toilet in his helmet! And then give it to his wife as a present! And then steal it again!" messages.
Spotify is linked up with 7Digital to offer DRM free downloads of a significant portion of the Spotify music catalogue.
Incidentaly, this is the same music store being linked to RhythmBox in Ubuntu Lucid. It's a good time to be a Linux user.
Mod parent up! If you have issues with sound stuttering, upgrade your version of WINE. It's fixed in 1.1.31
It is widely understood that when converting version numbers between closed-source and open-source revision schemes, you should always shift the decimal point one space to the left.
ClosedSource 1.0 = OpenSource 0.1
Pterodactyl.
As hilarious as your comment is, it's hardly fitting for the subject of the story. You're here representing the Pirate Party; It says so in your signature.
Way to trivialise an important political statement, Deputy Campaigns Officer for the Pirate Party UK.
Your sig is so appropriate.
Do you pay for a lunch if it's crap? Do you pay up-front before you've even had a single bite? If the lunch is rubbish, I don't pay. I won't eat it and complain, I'll get a waiter's attention and say "Hey, this steak is overcooked, the potato is cold, and that had best not be hair in my peppercorn sauce." Depending on how rubbish it is, I won't be particularly polite either. It's not the waiter's fault that it's not done right, but he took a front-of-house job knowing the hassles it involves, and I've done that job too. If he apologises, gets things sorted quickly, maybe organises a drink while I wait, he gets a decent tip (I'm English, so tipping isn't mandatory. I tip when it's deserved, and tip well).
The trouble is that food isn't software. It's not "make once, duplicate and sell for a fraction of dev cost" it's "make repeatedly, make sure it's right every time." That takes more effort.
In short, poor analogy. Movies was better, they're from the same ilk as far as the sentiment of the OP is concerned: Milk the consumer for every penny, give nothing in return.
Apologies, I meant only when bought in person. I should have clarified. DIstance Selling Regulations has been my friend more than once!
It's not lack of money, it's lack of effort. 30 minutes preparing meat and veg for a stir-fry, or 3 seconds picking up a bag in the store and watching America's Somethingest Something while it oven-cooks?
This is /.
/b/.
The only place with less "socially acceptable" people is
Oh my dear god no...
Obviously you remember the days of HotBot web search.
It's more like a bastardisation of extorsion (requiring a payment to prevent an unpleasant action, in this instance the payment being a reduction in functionality (and therefore value) of your goods) and of Morton's fork - Two decisions, both undesireable.
I do know that there are certain districts who look very unfavourably at this kind of "no positive outcome" choice when applied by big businesses.
If it is an April 1st joke, they should have posted it on Thursday morning, not three days before.
Would it be hilarious if a court summons appeared on Sony US's corporate offices on March 31st?
By not settling the case for a $10 Sony voucher and getting a judgement against Sony instead?
I know, I know, standing up for your rights is expensive in time and money. Sucks to not want to take crap from big business for the rest of your natural life.
You don't get to return stuff because you don't like it. That's a courtesy offered by retailers, not a right. The do it because they want you to come back.
Take screen captures, and note the URL. Also, try and get it listed in the various internet caches. You'll need them during disclosure.
No, there's also the added bonus of implementing DRM-circumvention technology, which is illegal in the UK. Just like installing libdvdcss2 to watch encrypted DVDs.
Thank you DMCA and media lobbyists!
(Before you rant at me regarding the UK not having the DMCA, consider: Where do you think they got the idea?)
I call shenanigans. Top Gear on iPlayer is an hour long. The only place I know of where it's 45 minutes is America, where they put 15 minutes of advertisements into the show. You can't even buy the full hour episodes on DVD in the US. The BBC doesn't have advertisements, so the stream from them is almost always exactly one hour.
You simply cannot be downloading from iPlayer.
Vote for the party, not the person.