Since ever more burdensome taxes from the gov't have forced both parents to have to work to survive, any well-to-do family that can afford to have the mom stay at home and raise their kids properly, as opposed to abandoning them to day care or gangs, is therefore ridiculed by the have nots so they can feel better about their poorer lifestyle.
Is it really the taxes that neccessitate both parents working? It's seems that if corporations paid living wages, that both parents wouldn't have to work. Instead, by paying employees meager wages, they increase profit, and therefore, executive get those nice big salaries, executive perks, and stock options. Even after downsizing and leaving the remaining employees to do the work of more people for the same amount of money so that the executive could afford to give themselves a raise.
Come on, Saturday Night Live has been doing this type of thing for years.
NBC makes a profit off SNL and has the money (and lawyers) to fend off such BS. SNL is owned by NBC, which is owned by General Electric, which is only one of the largest corporations in the world. Think of them as a giant that could blow you away by simply farting.
On the other hand, NBC/General Electric would be just as fast to stomp on anybody parodies their trademarks or IT if they thought they wouldn't be able to put up much of a fight, or if they thought they had any chance of winning, period. In General Electric vs. just about anyone, they'd have a damn good chance too. It all depends on how many lawyers and how much money they wanna throw at it.
However, speaking of Barney, this reminds me when POGS were popular, there was a T-shirt of a certain pog chip with a T-Rex on it. It said "I Loved Barney." The T-Rex was grinning broadly and picking the end of a purple tail out of it's teeth.
Ironically enough, that pretty much sums up what it's like doing any kind of parody as "the little guy."
Anyone who would parody or threaten Barney must be against children. You're not against children, are you? Do you want children seeing depictions of Barney and Baby-Bop doing the nasty?
BTW, the above is sarcasm. However, I could quite easily forsee that at least part of the argument made by the lawyers on behalf of the trademark owners would be that kids looking for Barney stuff on the web could possibly come across disictions of violence against Barney, Barney and Friend in adult situations, etc.
Unfortunatly, if you get a jury pool full of soccer moms, this may easily work. There are many who do want to sanitize every corner of the world so they don't have to do any actual parenting, because otherwise they wouldn't have time for Amway and Starbucks Coffee between running their kids to soccer practice and holding Tupperware parties. After all, it takes a village, and we're all part of that village whether we want to be or not.:-(
Paranoid? What have you done to make you this paranoid? I don't do anything wrong (that can be detected by locaton;)), so I don't care who knows where I am at any one time. I don't care if the government knows where I am, or the police, or the army, or your mother.;)
So if I desire privacy, or don't like the idea that I can be tracked, I must be doing something wrong? If I advocate the right to privacy, I must be a criminal, or have something to hide?
This sounds like too many of the arguments used to shove "protect the children" legislation down our throats. Measures such as the law requiring libraries to use censorware (or as they word it, internet filtering) on their internet connected computers have been passed by giving the law itself a seemly positive connotation of protecting children, while it's opponents were given the negative connotation of being against children or wanting to harm children.
Sorry, but I'm not a damn animal. I don't need to be tagged and tracked so that the government and corporations can study my migration, mating, and feeding habits. The assertion that I desire privacy because I've got something to hide at best assumes a presumption of guilt, at best presumes that government and corporations have nothing but positive, benevolent motivations. At worst, it presums that privacy alway has a negative impact upon society.
Unless they (government and/or corporations) have a valid reason to find me, they don't need to know where I am at all times. If, for some reason, they have a need to find me or talk to me, there are very simple means of contacting me that do not require tracking me as if I were a dangerous preditory animal. To say that the advocation of privacy is born of paranoia simply serves as a means to marginalize those who advocate a right to at least some privacy. It sounds too much like Thoughcrime to me.
Of course, Thoughtcrime, though some would say it already exists, will never be refered to as Thoughtcrime, as it has too negative a connotation for it to be accepted. Instead, it will be crafted to sound more positive, so that those who oppose such measures will be cast in a negative light.
Actually GNU tools for Win32 development are becoming increasingly popular, what with VC++ being $300. The Win32 version of MAME is now built with MinGW32, and when a project that big makes the jump a lot of others probably won't be far behind.
Of course, when anything made for M$ operating systems become "too" competitive and alluring to the masses, the next version of M$'s operating system breaks^H^H^H^H^H^Hexposes fatal flaws in their competitor's software. It's simple as (Lotus) 1 2 3.
My question to you is this: We can change the draft laws. We can get rid of the entire government. But the guys with all the money still have all the money. What do we do when *they* hold a gun to us and tell us to defend their property?
Herein lies the rub: If it were in the best interests of corporations for the US to continue it's draft law so that corporate interests overseas could be defended, do you really think politicians are going to get rid of the draft? Hell no. That'd piss off the source of their massive campaign contributions, which would equate to political suicide.
As soon as a politician is elected to office, they already have to worry about getting re-elected. Their party has to worry about getting re-elected, and getting more of their member elected into offices held by their opponents.
That is how our government is bought and paid for by big business.
Look at the bankruptcy reform bill that was passed this year. One of it's biggest backers was MBNA, one of the largest (if not THE largest)credit card firms in the world. They wanted to make it harder for people to get out of their credit card debt by declaring bankruptcy. That's all well and good, as I think people should actually pay their debts. However, the act did nothing to address the issue that some of these credit card companies create their own problem by soliciting (and giving new cards to) people who are already drowning in debt. It's like pumping water onto the Titanic, and then saying you didn't contribute to the sinking.
You can certainly *TRY* to flush our government clean. It's just going to take a very massive effort on the part of the people to do so.
I still want to see a "Slashdot" of Politics. I think the internet will be instrumental in bringing about any change in our government, as it is really the most powerful (and relitively the cheapest) means we have avaiable to us.
It not about what more you can get out of a game like Civilization, it's about what more you can put in.
Anyone know if Sid Meyer added Corporatism as a form of government? Believe me, it exists, we (as in society as a whole) just haven't gotten the sleep out of our eyes to see it yet.
Such as God's Final Message to His Creation: "We apologize for the inconvenience." I literally was ROTFLMAO when I read it, and was chuckling over it on and off for a number of days.:)
--
Corporate Banning of "Racially Charged" material
on
Hi-Tech Repo Man
·
· Score: 1
Meanwhile, in other news... Bugs Bunny episodes are going to be banned for being "racially charged." Now that's news for nerds, stuff that's interesting, I'd think. I may be wrong.
Lots of celluloid is rotting away in film vaults because the material, although representing historic representations of period attitudes, are considered to be too "racially charged." It's another form of revisionism. It would be like banning any kind of footage of Nazi-era Germany, because it's too "Racially Charged". In fact, I recall reading here on/. (I can't seem to find the article at the moment) that Bill Cosby has the rights to either movies, TV Series, maybe both, that are "racially charged," that he doesn't allow to be shown, because he doesn't want anyone to see it.
I know comparing censoring Bugs Bunny cartoons to the censoring Third Reich footage seems like apples and oranges, but my point is that they are both materials that demonstrate the "human condition" in their respective periods of time.
It's as bad as "revisionist history", and I'm sure Big Brother of 1984 fame would approve of it.
And most inner cities aren't war zones now. Crime is decreasing. DECREASING.
But at what cost? The Constitution has been used as toilet paper, pissed on, run through the shredder, and burned. Our civil liberties are dissappearing faster then ever. We have more people in prison per capita then China. You know, the people who brought you Tiannamin Square (yea, my spelling sucks). Most of those are non-violent drug offenders. Drug offenders get stiffer sentences that people who commit crimes against flesh and blood victims, such as murder, rape, etc. People who rape and murder get lighter sentences and are elgiable for parole earlier then some non-violent drug offenses.
The police can now get search warrents based on heat signatures coming from your house, with the argument that you might have a marijuana growing operation. Your car, money, and other property can be seized as "suspected drug assets", without ever being charged for a crime. Your property is guilty until proven innocent, that is, you must prove that your property wasn't "guilty" (used for or obtained through drug activities.) of drug crimes. Often, it becomes more expensive to get your property back then to replace it. What's worse, all these efforts AGAINST you are funded by your tax dollars.
We actually need to spend more money on the
Military while at the same time cutting taxes.
I guess that means pumping less money down the
Social Spending sinkhole.
Better idea: Stop flushing money down the toilet via the sacred porcelin cow known as the War on Drugs. It's amazing what decriminalization of something that people do to themselves in the privacy of their own homes can do to cut costs. We can cut the cost of investigating, pursuing, prosecuting, and incarcerating drug criminals, as well as putting our nation's armed forces to the task they should be focused on: defending our country.
We have various branches of the military engaged in efforts to monitor and intercept drug traffic (Coast Guard, Air Force), as well as trying to stop cartels by supplying and training foreign militaries at no small cost to us. (US Army, CIA, ONDCP)
By cutting the cost of the war on drugs, we could increase spending on updating our military without cutting needed social programs. Perhaps by legalizing and regulating the drug trade, we could create jobs that would REDUCE the need for social spending. We would also get additional tax revenues by taxing a legalized, regulated drug trade.
You want to talk about misplaced priorities? We have more people in jail in *CHINA*, one of the nations our military is supposed to defend us against.
As a Scottish girl used to the pleasures of my native Glasgow, I was very dissappointed in the variety of cuisine, nightlife and people here in Bangor, Maine when I first arrived. It seems that the melting pot is producing a terrible monoculture here in America!
As holes have been shot in many of the "facts" presented in this comment's parent, (i.e., Franklin owning slaves, and others), I think it's probably a troll.
But then there's the Maine reference, which begs the question: When did Stephen King become a Slashdot troll?:)
I don't think we need to do anything about the RIAA directly. They have as much right to exist as anybody/anything else. The RIAA sure does seem greedy, but that is their perogative. The Artists themselves are mostly adults, who should be able to take care of themselves. Nobody is forcing them to go through the RIAA, the Artists Chose to go with them.
Does nobody remember reading about Standard Oil in their History classes? Nobody *FORCED* you to go to a Standard Oil station to get gas for your car back in the haydays of huge monopolies. You could choose to support an independant gas station, if you could find one, and then only until Standard Oil either rode them into the ground or bought them out.
So what you're implying is that the crime rates in restaurants, etc. Were higher before cell phones were in common use? Thank God for the cells!
No. I'm saying establishments that employ cell phone jammers are a more tempting target then, say, those establishments that don't.
It's simple: The place will have limited means to call for help, since cell phones don't work. Sure, there's landline, but you've got a better chance of keeping people from calling 911. There's only going to be so many phone, and I'm faily sure none of them are under tables or in bathroom stalls.
People have been rude and thoughtless throughout the ages. Really, just because we *CAN* do something and would *LOVE* to do something doesn't mean we *SHOULD* do something.
You want a *REAL* solution? Adpot standards of cell phone ettiqute. Teach them to children, as they are DEVELOPING their habits.
I've also seen comments with such statements such as "If you absolutly cannot be out of communication, then stay at home!" Some of us have family that we want to be able to reach us in an emergency. My great-great aunt for example. My late grandmother. Hell, my grandmother. Just the other day, she found a pothole she couldn't avoid and blew a tire. Rather then have her wait an hour for AAA (she wasn't the only one needing a tire change, seems like cars everywhere in central Iowa have become pothole devining rods), she called me to see where I was. I happened to be in town, 5 minutes away from her.
So I carry my cell phone like I'm someone important. I may not be important to you but I'm damn well important to someone. Several people, actually.
"Cell Phone Free." Can anyone here imagine putting out a sign that begs "Please Rob The Shit Out Of Us?" That's that you'd be doing by declaring that your place of business jams cell phones. You're simply mandating that people in your place of business be easy victims by making sure nobody can make a clandestine 911 call. I know the violent crime rate in Canada is nowhere near the US, but still, still, the criminal element is certainly present. I expect that if such measures are legalized, that we *WILL* see an increase of crime directed against such establishements.
I expect, naturally, that any place of business that chooses to use such jamming systems, will have to have prominent sign stating so. I can just imagine the lawsuits the first time a surgeon doesn't get a call on his cell phone and he finds out.
Also, how do you make sure this is contained to *YOUR* property. If I'm walking down the street, and happen to walk by a store that is employing cell phone jamming, I *BETTER* not lose my call. What will do this effectively short of lead sheilding? Besides, what's are you going to do for windows, install leaded glass?
The first time somebody dies, and may not have if it hadn't been for cell phone jamming, head are going to roll politically and legally (in the form of lawsuits).
As the original poster said, very poor digital coverage in Iowa. Further, I'd bet there's darn near zero GSM coverage in Iowa.
Actually, GSM is expanding in Iowa. It's in the more populated areas right now. Now much, however, in western Iowa. However, I understand that's going to be changing as Voicestream and Iowa Wireless Services do some major building out this year.
Also, anyone know the timeframe of AT&T adding that GSM overlay to their TDMA systems?
Funny how when the "many" are, say, artists who actually create music, and the "few" are, say, major record labels, the good of the few prevails.
When the previos poster mentioned "the many," and the few," I'm not sure he meant people. I think he meant greenbacks. In that case, his statemet make sense, which is probably the most frightening aspect of anyone who attempts to effect a change that benefits the cumsumer at large.
--
Re:We're talking about "Zero Tolerance" zealots!!
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
Ok, that post had lots or errors, and wasn't well formatted, but I'm seriously distracted by some serious back pain here.
--
We're talking about "Zero Tolerance" zealots!!
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
In my opinion, it would be easier to do the following: First make all students who want to use the internet sign an agreement. Then make sure every student has a network login. If they dont sign the agreement, then their account doesnt get internet access. Then, there are plenty of products that will cache, and scan the incoming content. They can flag potential violations of the agreement, and then a human can look at them to make sure they really are bad. The software should also cache whose account the content went to, and then the student can be held accountable for his own actions.
Unfortunatly, that would require cognitive thinking by a teacher or school administrator. "That kind of thing" is seriously poo-pooed in this age of zero tolerance. I prefer to refer to "zero tolerance" as "zero intelligence," as that seems to be what administrators are shooting for. "Zero intelligence" also seems to apply to some of the actions taken in the name of "zero tolerance," as highlighted by suspension of kindergartners for squirt guns, and girl wearing Tweety (ala Loony Tunes) flashlights on a small chain.
Now, I'm not exactly a fan of Dr. Laura, and certainly I don't agree with many of her views. However, I saw her show today and she raised a quite valid issue: It seems that we are no longer punishing kids for what they actually do, but for what they *MIGHT* do. Kindergartners being suspended for squrit guns, and calling a Tweety Bird (ala Loony Tunes) mini-flashlight on a 3 inch chain a weapon. But I'm going off on a tangent, here.
The points I'm trying to make are as follows:
It doesn't matter to administratiors whether an action makes sense or not. In fact, it seems that they are desperatly working towards not having to think or make judgement calls. After all, aren't we just trying to teach kids to live in a cookie cutter world where individual judgement and think for oneself is poo-pooed?
I just don't see administrators who are working towards avoiding anything that resembles a judgement call being very receptive to such a policy as outlined above.
Before being taken over by AT&T, TCI Cable rebuilt the cable system in the Des Moines, Iowa area. They put in a fiber backbone, but there seems to be no battery backups for their equipment, nor does there seem to be any real redudancy. Power outages in certain areas have left entire cities without their cable or cable internet service, simply because the single fiber route had a power interruption.
Also, despite the fiber backbone, some areas still have crappy reception of analog channels. A friend of mine lives less then a mile from the head end, and has this problem.
I know what that says. You know what that says. But our understanding of thjat text is moot just as soon as AOL/TW get challenged. Then it means whatever a gaggle of corporate lawyers can make a jury of techoserfs believe it says.
I mean really, do you think they wouldn't screen out any potential juror who can set their VCR clock?
My uncles DVD player says that if you try to play a CD-R or CD-RW disc, it may *DAMAGE* the DVD player, void the warrentry, and require factory service.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really the taxes that neccessitate both parents working? It's seems that if corporations paid living wages, that both parents wouldn't have to work. Instead, by paying employees meager wages, they increase profit, and therefore, executive get those nice big salaries, executive perks, and stock options. Even after downsizing and leaving the remaining employees to do the work of more people for the same amount of money so that the executive could afford to give themselves a raise.
--
NBC makes a profit off SNL and has the money (and lawyers) to fend off such BS. SNL is owned by NBC, which is owned by General Electric, which is only one of the largest corporations in the world. Think of them as a giant that could blow you away by simply farting.
On the other hand, NBC/General Electric would be just as fast to stomp on anybody parodies their trademarks or IT if they thought they wouldn't be able to put up much of a fight, or if they thought they had any chance of winning, period. In General Electric vs. just about anyone, they'd have a damn good chance too. It all depends on how many lawyers and how much money they wanna throw at it.
However, speaking of Barney, this reminds me when POGS were popular, there was a T-shirt of a certain pog chip with a T-Rex on it. It said "I Loved Barney." The T-Rex was grinning broadly and picking the end of a purple tail out of it's teeth.
Ironically enough, that pretty much sums up what it's like doing any kind of parody as "the little guy."
--
BTW, the above is sarcasm. However, I could quite easily forsee that at least part of the argument made by the lawyers on behalf of the trademark owners would be that kids looking for Barney stuff on the web could possibly come across disictions of violence against Barney, Barney and Friend in adult situations, etc.
Unfortunatly, if you get a jury pool full of soccer moms, this may easily work. There are many who do want to sanitize every corner of the world so they don't have to do any actual parenting, because otherwise they wouldn't have time for Amway and Starbucks Coffee between running their kids to soccer practice and holding Tupperware parties. After all, it takes a village, and we're all part of that village whether we want to be or not. :-(
--
So if I desire privacy, or don't like the idea that I can be tracked, I must be doing something wrong? If I advocate the right to privacy, I must be a criminal, or have something to hide?
This sounds like too many of the arguments used to shove "protect the children" legislation down our throats. Measures such as the law requiring libraries to use censorware (or as they word it, internet filtering) on their internet connected computers have been passed by giving the law itself a seemly positive connotation of protecting children, while it's opponents were given the negative connotation of being against children or wanting to harm children.
Sorry, but I'm not a damn animal. I don't need to be tagged and tracked so that the government and corporations can study my migration, mating, and feeding habits. The assertion that I desire privacy because I've got something to hide at best assumes a presumption of guilt, at best presumes that government and corporations have nothing but positive, benevolent motivations. At worst, it presums that privacy alway has a negative impact upon society.
Unless they (government and/or corporations) have a valid reason to find me, they don't need to know where I am at all times. If, for some reason, they have a need to find me or talk to me, there are very simple means of contacting me that do not require tracking me as if I were a dangerous preditory animal. To say that the advocation of privacy is born of paranoia simply serves as a means to marginalize those who advocate a right to at least some privacy. It sounds too much like Thoughcrime to me.
Of course, Thoughtcrime, though some would say it already exists, will never be refered to as Thoughtcrime, as it has too negative a connotation for it to be accepted. Instead, it will be crafted to sound more positive, so that those who oppose such measures will be cast in a negative light.
--
Of course, when anything made for M$ operating systems become "too" competitive and alluring to the masses, the next version of M$'s operating system breaks^H^H^H^H^H^Hexposes fatal flaws in their competitor's software. It's simple as (Lotus) 1 2 3.
--
--
Herein lies the rub: If it were in the best interests of corporations for the US to continue it's draft law so that corporate interests overseas could be defended, do you really think politicians are going to get rid of the draft? Hell no. That'd piss off the source of their massive campaign contributions, which would equate to political suicide.
As soon as a politician is elected to office, they already have to worry about getting re-elected. Their party has to worry about getting re-elected, and getting more of their member elected into offices held by their opponents.
That is how our government is bought and paid for by big business.
Look at the bankruptcy reform bill that was passed this year. One of it's biggest backers was MBNA, one of the largest (if not THE largest)credit card firms in the world. They wanted to make it harder for people to get out of their credit card debt by declaring bankruptcy. That's all well and good, as I think people should actually pay their debts. However, the act did nothing to address the issue that some of these credit card companies create their own problem by soliciting (and giving new cards to) people who are already drowning in debt. It's like pumping water onto the Titanic, and then saying you didn't contribute to the sinking.
You can certainly *TRY* to flush our government clean. It's just going to take a very massive effort on the part of the people to do so.
I still want to see a "Slashdot" of Politics. I think the internet will be instrumental in bringing about any change in our government, as it is really the most powerful (and relitively the cheapest) means we have avaiable to us.
--
Anyone know if Sid Meyer added Corporatism as a form of government? Believe me, it exists, we (as in society as a whole) just haven't gotten the sleep out of our eyes to see it yet.
--
--
Lots of celluloid is rotting away in film vaults because the material, although representing historic representations of period attitudes, are considered to be too "racially charged." It's another form of revisionism. It would be like banning any kind of footage of Nazi-era Germany, because it's too "Racially Charged". In fact, I recall reading here on /. (I can't seem to find the article at the moment) that Bill Cosby has the rights to either movies, TV Series, maybe both, that are "racially charged," that he doesn't allow to be shown, because he doesn't want anyone to see it.
I know comparing censoring Bugs Bunny cartoons to the censoring Third Reich footage seems like apples and oranges, but my point is that they are both materials that demonstrate the "human condition" in their respective periods of time.
It's as bad as "revisionist history", and I'm sure Big Brother of 1984 fame would approve of it.
--
But at what cost? The Constitution has been used as toilet paper, pissed on, run through the shredder, and burned. Our civil liberties are dissappearing faster then ever. We have more people in prison per capita then China. You know, the people who brought you Tiannamin Square (yea, my spelling sucks). Most of those are non-violent drug offenders. Drug offenders get stiffer sentences that people who commit crimes against flesh and blood victims, such as murder, rape, etc. People who rape and murder get lighter sentences and are elgiable for parole earlier then some non-violent drug offenses.
The police can now get search warrents based on heat signatures coming from your house, with the argument that you might have a marijuana growing operation. Your car, money, and other property can be seized as "suspected drug assets", without ever being charged for a crime. Your property is guilty until proven innocent, that is, you must prove that your property wasn't "guilty" (used for or obtained through drug activities.) of drug crimes. Often, it becomes more expensive to get your property back then to replace it. What's worse, all these efforts AGAINST you are funded by your tax dollars.
--
I guess that means pumping less money down the Social Spending sinkhole.
Better idea: Stop flushing money down the toilet via the sacred porcelin cow known as the War on Drugs. It's amazing what decriminalization of something that people do to themselves in the privacy of their own homes can do to cut costs. We can cut the cost of investigating, pursuing, prosecuting, and incarcerating drug criminals, as well as putting our nation's armed forces to the task they should be focused on: defending our country.
We have various branches of the military engaged in efforts to monitor and intercept drug traffic (Coast Guard, Air Force), as well as trying to stop cartels by supplying and training foreign militaries at no small cost to us. (US Army, CIA, ONDCP)
By cutting the cost of the war on drugs, we could increase spending on updating our military without cutting needed social programs. Perhaps by legalizing and regulating the drug trade, we could create jobs that would REDUCE the need for social spending. We would also get additional tax revenues by taxing a legalized, regulated drug trade.
You want to talk about misplaced priorities? We have more people in jail in *CHINA*, one of the nations our military is supposed to defend us against.
--
As holes have been shot in many of the "facts" presented in this comment's parent, (i.e., Franklin owning slaves, and others), I think it's probably a troll.
But then there's the Maine reference, which begs the question: When did Stephen King become a Slashdot troll? :)
--
Does nobody remember reading about Standard Oil in their History classes? Nobody *FORCED* you to go to a Standard Oil station to get gas for your car back in the haydays of huge monopolies. You could choose to support an independant gas station, if you could find one, and then only until Standard Oil either rode them into the ground or bought them out.
--
It's simple: The place will have limited means to call for help, since cell phones don't work. Sure, there's landline, but you've got a better chance of keeping people from calling 911. There's only going to be so many phone, and I'm faily sure none of them are under tables or in bathroom stalls.
People have been rude and thoughtless throughout the ages. Really, just because we *CAN* do something and would *LOVE* to do something doesn't mean we *SHOULD* do something.
You want a *REAL* solution? Adpot standards of cell phone ettiqute. Teach them to children, as they are DEVELOPING their habits.
I've also seen comments with such statements such as "If you absolutly cannot be out of communication, then stay at home!" Some of us have family that we want to be able to reach us in an emergency. My great-great aunt for example. My late grandmother. Hell, my grandmother. Just the other day, she found a pothole she couldn't avoid and blew a tire. Rather then have her wait an hour for AAA (she wasn't the only one needing a tire change, seems like cars everywhere in central Iowa have become pothole devining rods), she called me to see where I was. I happened to be in town, 5 minutes away from her.
So I carry my cell phone like I'm someone important. I may not be important to you but I'm damn well important to someone. Several people, actually.
--
I expect, naturally, that any place of business that chooses to use such jamming systems, will have to have prominent sign stating so. I can just imagine the lawsuits the first time a surgeon doesn't get a call on his cell phone and he finds out.
Also, how do you make sure this is contained to *YOUR* property. If I'm walking down the street, and happen to walk by a store that is employing cell phone jamming, I *BETTER* not lose my call. What will do this effectively short of lead sheilding? Besides, what's are you going to do for windows, install leaded glass?
The first time somebody dies, and may not have if it hadn't been for cell phone jamming, head are going to roll politically and legally (in the form of lawsuits).
*DAMN* this is pretty ill-conceived.
--
--
Damn, my sig is more appropriate then ever. :(
--
That is, until the big red Bulk Erasing Truck pulls up to your house, and find illegal literature on your zip disks. Welcome to Gauss 7K.
--
When the previos poster mentioned "the many," and the few," I'm not sure he meant people. I think he meant greenbacks. In that case, his statemet make sense, which is probably the most frightening aspect of anyone who attempts to effect a change that benefits the cumsumer at large.
--
--
Unfortunatly, that would require cognitive thinking by a teacher or school administrator. "That kind of thing" is seriously poo-pooed in this age of zero tolerance. I prefer to refer to "zero tolerance" as "zero intelligence," as that seems to be what administrators are shooting for. "Zero intelligence" also seems to apply to some of the actions taken in the name of "zero tolerance," as highlighted by suspension of kindergartners for squirt guns, and girl wearing Tweety (ala Loony Tunes) flashlights on a small chain.
Now, I'm not exactly a fan of Dr. Laura, and certainly I don't agree with many of her views. However, I saw her show today and she raised a quite valid issue: It seems that we are no longer punishing kids for what they actually do, but for what they *MIGHT* do. Kindergartners being suspended for squrit guns, and calling a Tweety Bird (ala Loony Tunes) mini-flashlight on a 3 inch chain a weapon. But I'm going off on a tangent, here.
The points I'm trying to make are as follows:
It doesn't matter to administratiors whether an action makes sense or not. In fact, it seems that they are desperatly working towards not having to think or make judgement calls. After all, aren't we just trying to teach kids to live in a cookie cutter world where individual judgement and think for oneself is poo-pooed?
I just don't see administrators who are working towards avoiding anything that resembles a judgement call being very receptive to such a policy as outlined above.
--
--
I mean really, do you think they wouldn't screen out any potential juror who can set their VCR clock?
--
--