But, sticking kids with such teachers is another matter. If parents find out their kid has a dud teacher, the school will be swamped with complaints.
*dingdingding* We have a winner.
Parents, want your kids to get a good education? Talk to your kid's teachers. And not just at meet the teacher night, where everyone is gussied up. Drop in randomly after class. Your kid tells you he's doing so well he's got no homework? Double check with the teacher.
This does three things - it shows the teacher and school that you care about your kid's education (and the good teachers will thank you for it), it shows your kid that school is important (and if they don't know you're talking to the school, you get to score Omniscient Parent Points). And most importantly, when you notice the teacher is a dick, you're in a position to do something about it. I've never been in a school where you couldn't transfer between classes if necessary. And "pissed off parent" definitely qualifies as necessary.
You might take a long, hard look at your hypothesis, as the school system is essentially a liberal enclave.
Only true if your teacher is a liberal.
Realistically, your kid will learn their teacher's values - if the teacher is die-hard conservative, your kid will learn to be one too if he wants to pass the year.
Last but not least, always make sure that both sides of the connection send equal amounts of data so that the cable doesn't get a transmission fatigue problem due to the electrons always going in the same direction.
I'll admit, you had me going until "transmission fatigue". Although maybe that explains why leechers get lower transfers on torrents...
So much RIAA shit makes no sense whatsoever. "Yuo may not publicly broadcast this material" so why the fuck did you send me a Demo CD for PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES?
Just once, I'd love to hear a radio station say on-air "We just got the new $TOPBAND single, but the record company says we're not allowed to broadcast it publicly. Sorry about that."
There is no common way to install and remove software.
Umm.. on 8.04 Ubuntu, I go to Applications->Add/Remove Programs, and I get a nice shopping list of various installable software. Intermediate users can go to System -> Administration -> Synaptic Package Manager and get more fine-grained control (and some more choices).
Finally, consider the he's not being sued for copyright infringement, but is either 1a. an at-will employee terminable at his employer's will 1b. a contract employee who may be terminable under any half-way decent "for cause" clause in the contract or 1c. an employee who is subject to discipline by his employer.
Worse, he works in the newspaper business, which means they can fire him for pretty much any reason they like - complaining in the publisher's world is the same as voluntarily retiring, because no-one will ever hire you again.
Besides, any song can have an infinite number of representations. If I write an audio decoder that takes a Win32 dll and plays it as audio, am I breaking the law if one of the system files in my licensed copy of Vista can be played as a copyrighted song? Is Microsoft?
Better yet - if you translate random.dll and "perform" it, is *Microsoft* now distributing your copywrited song?
You bought my book great. However, I reserve the right to control whether or not you can travel with it by automobile, boat, or plane. In that event, I want more money.
Better analogy - you can buy my book, but you can't make that little card that libraries used to use to organize the stacks. Because making a card with the name, author, etc would be a "derivative work"
So if you do care about free software on the desktop, it's reasonable that you should care about free software in your browser.
Except that all of those thing either don't apply to web apps at all, or apply to all web apps. There's nothing to install, upgrade, or fix locally, and you're dependent on some service provider regardless of the status of the code.
Which leaves the other good argument for open source software - you know exactly what the software is doing on (and to) your machine. Google Docs is probably the perfect example - sure, it *looks* like it lets me write my essay, but when I click save, is it also making a copy, changing the "by" to "Joe Google", and posting it for the world to see?
Sure, most people will never bother to dig through the source, but there's a certain security that comes from knowing that anyone could.
Let me put that another way - you know which intersections are watched. If you don't want a ticket, just slow down for those ones - you can still drive like a maniac everywhere else.
Running a red light is not like speeding. People concisouly decide to speed - because they are in a hurry. No one wants to run a red light. People are not stupid, they know it is dangerous.
Horse hockey.
People run reds because they're in a hurry, and don't want to stop and wait for the next green. They stack three-deep in the intersection to make a left for the same reason.
Ignoring the obvious "change the timer" issues, there's no good reason to run a red. I work with people who drive tractor-trailers, and if they can stop after the light turns yellow, so can you.
Since Lars and the band perform the song(s) and probably have some rights to the song(s), he can't pirate his own work.
That's like saying a photographer who downloads a picture of one of his works from a gallery is pirating his work or an author who makes a copy of one of his own books is pirating his book.
But please, let's not let common sense get in the way of people justifying not paying performers for their work.
Hang on - does that mean that if Lars steals your copy of his CD, it's not stealing?
Nope, university. It used a 9-point system (which I translated to letter grades since it appears no-one else on the planet used them). But a 4 was a pass for the course, but a 5 was the minimum average to avoid "dean's vacation".
Where I went, you could pass the course with a C-, but not the year. (If your year average was C-, you got punted, but an individual class could be that low).
In any event, the math isn't as important as the principle.
Think of it as being a C- student - you're technically passing, but no-one would saying you're doing a "good" job. It's just slightly more effort to replace you than to fix your mistakes.
What people are missing here is that the question isn't "what will they do with it", but "what could they, or the people they sell it to, do with it at some future time?"
It really isn't a matter of Trust, as in "I trust Facebook to do the Right Thing". Because for these terms to make sense, you have to trust Facebook, everyone Facebook trusts, whoever Facebook buys (or whomever buys Facebook), and whoever Facebook decides to sell your stuff to, just because it'll make the quarterly numbers better.
This is a bit theoretical, but what if Facebook is attempting to claim rights that the User doesn't have the ability to give?
For example say the User signed a licensing agreement with a photographer that lets them use their wedding photos on "any social networking site on which they have an account." Now if that person leaves Facebook, but Facebook keeps the photos available, they're suddenly in violation of copyright because they're not legally able to use those photos.
Facebook would be (correctly) able to claim that you should not have uploaded that content, since when you agreed to the terms (which includes the 'we can change the terms' clause - I love that one), you agreed to give rights you weren't allowed to.
"But they usually get very defensive when you take your problems outside."
Outside? Outside what? Outside the lines of the students' legal rights? Schools, Colleges and Universities are not a magical place where their laws trump the law of the land. These organizations are still bound by the laws of the USA and when laws and rights are violated people with a *spine* need to stand up and defend themselves!
You're missing the point - if you take it "outside" (make it public), you force the school to defend itself. The board's lawyers get involved (because they don't want the principal setting precedents involving search policy, for instance). They will dig in, because that's what they are paid to do.
Not saying it's a bad idea (in fact, I think it's the only way if the school won't clean up their own backyard). But once you take it public, you can't fix it behind the scenes anymore - and be prepared for a long fight.
"Stop going to the class" doesn't hurt anyone but you (because the school is not going to be thrilled with you if you go past step 2 here). Also, it sounded like this occured at end of term.
Insist that the principal deal with the situation immediately (you're concerned that your notes will be destroyed). If the school doesn't jump to, then progress to the rest.
The reason you go public before to court is that the school (and thus, the school board), has the money and lawyers to drag this out in court for years, and years to come. (A family member had to deal with this ten years ago, and was told "yeah, we could fight this in court for ten years, and you'll get a sincere apology at the end of it".) So you get the paper/TV, the other parents, and you hang them in the court of public opinion.
Most importantly, keep your eye on the ball - you want your notes back. Let the school handle the teacher's career after that. You want to be the gracious winner. You're going to have to deal with these people for a few more years - it's important that you don't look like you're out to get them. (The particular teacher is gonna hate you anyway, but the rest of the faculty is the important bit).
I'll grant that potentially the Obama team is only going to use these until they get white house addresses and then move all the emails they sent or received into their new accounts, which is the right thing to do. However, there is no guarantee that they would have if this wasn't being reported, or that they will even now.
Let's take it back to a simpler question - how on earth have the new White House emails not been set up yet? Considering that the move-in date is set in law, you would wonder why IT never got around to adding a few accounts. (Also, that it was faster to register gmails than to get those accounts added.)
Adds some credence to the "White house is in the Atari age" articles going around...
There may be a few instances where violent attack is more effective than non-violent resistance. WWII is arguably one of them. In most other cases, and in virtually all the cases facing the modern world, non-violent resistance is clearly the superior approach.
It's a pity that hardly anyone has the guts to employ it.
So, just so we're all clear... if I came by your house every week or so and shot one of your family members, you wouldn't resist? Wouldn't get the police or military to try and stop me (because that is inherently violent as well)? You'd just.. I dunno... hold a vigil or something?
Don't get me wrong - I agree with the sentiment, but when your adversary is trying to *kill* you, non-violent resistance is equal to letting them.
(Personally, I think the problem in Gaza is that everyone wants a "polite war" - pauses for relief workers, random cease fires, etc - which is only prolonging the issue beyond all reason)
Slashdot Mirror
But, sticking kids with such teachers is another matter. If parents find out their kid has a dud teacher, the school will be swamped with complaints.
*dingdingding* We have a winner.
Parents, want your kids to get a good education? Talk to your kid's teachers. And not just at meet the teacher night, where everyone is gussied up. Drop in randomly after class. Your kid tells you he's doing so well he's got no homework? Double check with the teacher.
This does three things - it shows the teacher and school that you care about your kid's education (and the good teachers will thank you for it), it shows your kid that school is important (and if they don't know you're talking to the school, you get to score Omniscient Parent Points). And most importantly, when you notice the teacher is a dick, you're in a position to do something about it. I've never been in a school where you couldn't transfer between classes if necessary. And "pissed off parent" definitely qualifies as necessary.
You might take a long, hard look at your hypothesis, as the school system is essentially a liberal enclave.
Only true if your teacher is a liberal.
Realistically, your kid will learn their teacher's values - if the teacher is die-hard conservative, your kid will learn to be one too if he wants to pass the year.
The least expensive can-opener is actually Chuck Norris's fist.
I'd disagree - do you know how much it costs to rent Chuck Norris for an hour?
Last but not least, always make sure that both sides of the connection send equal amounts of data so that the cable doesn't get a transmission fatigue problem due to the electrons always going in the same direction.
I'll admit, you had me going until "transmission fatigue". Although maybe that explains why leechers get lower transfers on torrents...
So much RIAA shit makes no sense whatsoever. "Yuo may not publicly broadcast this material" so why the fuck did you send me a Demo CD for PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES?
Just once, I'd love to hear a radio station say on-air "We just got the new $TOPBAND single, but the record company says we're not allowed to broadcast it publicly. Sorry about that."
There is no common way to install and remove software.
Umm.. on 8.04 Ubuntu, I go to Applications->Add/Remove Programs, and I get a nice shopping list of various installable software. Intermediate users can go to System -> Administration -> Synaptic Package Manager and get more fine-grained control (and some more choices).
I find it *easier* than Windows, myself.
Finally, consider the he's not being sued for copyright infringement, but is either 1a. an at-will employee terminable at his employer's will 1b. a contract employee who may be terminable under any half-way decent "for cause" clause in the contract or 1c. an employee who is subject to discipline by his employer.
Worse, he works in the newspaper business, which means they can fire him for pretty much any reason they like - complaining in the publisher's world is the same as voluntarily retiring, because no-one will ever hire you again.
Besides, any song can have an infinite number of representations. If I write an audio decoder that takes a Win32 dll and plays it as audio, am I breaking the law if one of the system files in my licensed copy of Vista can be played as a copyrighted song? Is Microsoft?
Better yet - if you translate random.dll and "perform" it, is *Microsoft* now distributing your copywrited song?
How about this analogy:
You bought my book great. However, I reserve the right to control whether or not you can travel with it by automobile, boat, or plane. In that event, I want more money.
Better analogy - you can buy my book, but you can't make that little card that libraries used to use to organize the stacks. Because making a card with the name, author, etc would be a "derivative work"
So if you do care about free software on the desktop, it's reasonable that you should care about free software in your browser.
Except that all of those thing either don't apply to web apps at all, or apply to all web apps. There's nothing to install, upgrade, or fix locally, and you're dependent on some service provider regardless of the status of the code.
Which leaves the other good argument for open source software - you know exactly what the software is doing on (and to) your machine. Google Docs is probably the perfect example - sure, it *looks* like it lets me write my essay, but when I click save, is it also making a copy, changing the "by" to "Joe Google", and posting it for the world to see?
Sure, most people will never bother to dig through the source, but there's a certain security that comes from knowing that anyone could.
Edmonton has them too, and anyone who gets a ticket from them has *zero* excuse. Why, you ask?
Because the city publishes the locations of the cameras!
Let me put that another way - you know which intersections are watched. If you don't want a ticket, just slow down for those ones - you can still drive like a maniac everywhere else.
Running a red light is not like speeding. People concisouly decide to speed - because they are in a hurry. No one wants to run a red light. People are not stupid, they know it is dangerous.
Horse hockey.
People run reds because they're in a hurry, and don't want to stop and wait for the next green. They stack three-deep in the intersection to make a left for the same reason.
Ignoring the obvious "change the timer" issues, there's no good reason to run a red. I work with people who drive tractor-trailers, and if they can stop after the light turns yellow, so can you.
Since Lars and the band perform the song(s) and probably have some rights to the song(s), he can't pirate his own work.
That's like saying a photographer who downloads a picture of one of his works from a gallery is pirating his work or an author who makes a copy of one of his own books is pirating his book.
But please, let's not let common sense get in the way of people justifying not paying performers for their work.
Hang on - does that mean that if Lars steals your copy of his CD, it's not stealing?
http://www.phasegame.com/ Harmonix is already on it.
Moreover, a local radio station here has actually commented that songs become more requested when they're released for RB/GH.
Nope, university. It used a 9-point system (which I translated to letter grades since it appears no-one else on the planet used them). But a 4 was a pass for the course, but a 5 was the minimum average to avoid "dean's vacation".
In any event, the math isn't as important as the principle.
Think of it as being a C- student - you're technically passing, but no-one would saying you're doing a "good" job. It's just slightly more effort to replace you than to fix your mistakes.
Alternately, he's now shown the company that perhaps it needs to investigate a little deeper.
(This assumes the IT guy in question wasn't expecting a "please come back" offer.)
Oh yeah.. your pictures are so invaluable.
Heck, I thought it was a good idea.
What people are missing here is that the question isn't "what will they do with it", but "what could they, or the people they sell it to, do with it at some future time?"
It really isn't a matter of Trust, as in "I trust Facebook to do the Right Thing". Because for these terms to make sense, you have to trust Facebook, everyone Facebook trusts, whoever Facebook buys (or whomever buys Facebook), and whoever Facebook decides to sell your stuff to, just because it'll make the quarterly numbers better.
This is a bit theoretical, but what if Facebook is attempting to claim rights that the User doesn't have the ability to give?
For example say the User signed a licensing agreement with a photographer that lets them use their wedding photos on "any social networking site on which they have an account." Now if that person leaves Facebook, but Facebook keeps the photos available, they're suddenly in violation of copyright because they're not legally able to use those photos.
Facebook would be (correctly) able to claim that you should not have uploaded that content, since when you agreed to the terms (which includes the 'we can change the terms' clause - I love that one), you agreed to give rights you weren't allowed to.
Outside? Outside what? Outside the lines of the students' legal rights? Schools, Colleges and Universities are not a magical place where their laws trump the law of the land. These organizations are still bound by the laws of the USA and when laws and rights are violated people with a *spine* need to stand up and defend themselves!
You're missing the point - if you take it "outside" (make it public), you force the school to defend itself. The board's lawyers get involved (because they don't want the principal setting precedents involving search policy, for instance). They will dig in, because that's what they are paid to do.
Not saying it's a bad idea (in fact, I think it's the only way if the school won't clean up their own backyard). But once you take it public, you can't fix it behind the scenes anymore - and be prepared for a long fight.
Wrong order:
"Stop going to the class" doesn't hurt anyone but you (because the school is not going to be thrilled with you if you go past step 2 here). Also, it sounded like this occured at end of term.
Insist that the principal deal with the situation immediately (you're concerned that your notes will be destroyed). If the school doesn't jump to, then progress to the rest.
The reason you go public before to court is that the school (and thus, the school board), has the money and lawyers to drag this out in court for years, and years to come. (A family member had to deal with this ten years ago, and was told "yeah, we could fight this in court for ten years, and you'll get a sincere apology at the end of it".) So you get the paper/TV, the other parents, and you hang them in the court of public opinion.
Most importantly, keep your eye on the ball - you want your notes back. Let the school handle the teacher's career after that. You want to be the gracious winner. You're going to have to deal with these people for a few more years - it's important that you don't look like you're out to get them. (The particular teacher is gonna hate you anyway, but the rest of the faculty is the important bit).
I'll grant that potentially the Obama team is only going to use these until they get white house addresses and then move all the emails they sent or received into their new accounts, which is the right thing to do. However, there is no guarantee that they would have if this wasn't being reported, or that they will even now.
Let's take it back to a simpler question - how on earth have the new White House emails not been set up yet? Considering that the move-in date is set in law, you would wonder why IT never got around to adding a few accounts. (Also, that it was faster to register gmails than to get those accounts added.)
Adds some credence to the "White house is in the Atari age" articles going around...
There may be a few instances where violent attack is more effective than non-violent resistance. WWII is arguably one of them. In most other cases, and in virtually all the cases facing the modern world, non-violent resistance is clearly the superior approach.
It's a pity that hardly anyone has the guts to employ it.
So, just so we're all clear... if I came by your house every week or so and shot one of your family members, you wouldn't resist? Wouldn't get the police or military to try and stop me (because that is inherently violent as well)? You'd just.. I dunno... hold a vigil or something?
Don't get me wrong - I agree with the sentiment, but when your adversary is trying to *kill* you, non-violent resistance is equal to letting them.
(Personally, I think the problem in Gaza is that everyone wants a "polite war" - pauses for relief workers, random cease fires, etc - which is only prolonging the issue beyond all reason)