"Certainly when I was at school there was a lot of bullying going on and the school simply didn't care (even when people inevitably ended up injured)."
"Whilst I'll agree that the first port of call should be for it to be handled internally in the school, if that doesn't work shouldn't the police be involved if only for the protection of the kids on the receiving end?"
Yes. And since the school isn't even trying to handle it internally, the correct police response is to caution the school it is neglecting minors under its care.
It's the Stanford and Milgram experiments, in real life. The boy's a "guard". The girl's a "prisoner". The state attorney is ordering the justice system to push the button on the girl, and the people in the system are pushing the button because that's what the person "in authority" told them to do.
And the United States is probably fscked eight ways from Sunday if it doesn't realise this is becoming pandemic. Humanity's history of civil wars have amply demonstrated that brother will kill brother because "following orders".
(1) If your training in a weapon chosen for self-defence is such that you have to make a conscious attempt to remember how to operate it in an emergency, your training is insufficient.
(2) If your training is insufficient, you do not compensate for this by taking deliberate actions that reduce the safety of those around you without their consent.
Since you've been getting some armchair flak, just saying thankyou for your informative posts (this and others). It's great to get insights from folks who actually work in the field being discussed.
Dear Anonymous Troll. It's not about being blind or handicapped. It's about trust. We are indeed responsible for our actions - and that includes the act of speech.
Another possibility is what has been labelled, on the Diablo 3 forums, as "RNG is RNG". Statistically, there's going to be people who are "lucky" and people who are "unlucky".
In other words, probability doesn't care that someone's emotional state happens to have a 87% correlation over a 36 month period with nearby lightbulbs going out; in the big picture he's just another dot in the universe's extremely large distribution table.:)
True. However, if a worried old farmer says to me, "Better get indoors, last time I smelt air like this it hailed bigger than baseballs", and I have no reason to consider it a prank or lie, I am not going to ignore his statement just because it's based on anecdotal evidence that I can't detect rather than on a weather station report and postgraduate degrees in meteorology and climatology. I'm also not going to assume it will definitely hail, but I will take precautions in case he's right. Hmm, that analogy is a little off track.
What "azav" and "CanHasDIY" posted was anecdotal evidence, but it's not their fault we would prefer scientific evidence, and - especially from their own reference frame - there is no onus on them to provide it. Since they experienced something directly, they assign that something a higher confidence value; since we have only the word of two pseudonymous posters on the internet, we assign it a lower confidence value (potentially even zero or negative).
Er, what? You do know what bakers and doctors do, right? Master chefs and heart surgeons do not just wave magic wands to produce their work.
Part of science is collecting empirical evidence. Yes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", but that's not the same as "extraordinary claims should be automatically discarded if they don't fit the trend line."
Collect/test evidence. Form/discard hypotheses. Never the other way around. You find evidence that "must" be wrong? At the least it's helping with your error bars, and if down the track your theory of Newtonian mechanics turns out to be lacking then you've still got the data all there to test your new theory of Einsteinian relativity.
Religion is about being right, always. Science is about being wrong, repeatedly. When it comes to picking one or the other, humans have a lot more experience with the latter.
There's also the "everything is artificial" variant, where "God" turns out to be someone with system privileges to the universe simulator, and the noobs go their merry way believing that woah, God really does exist. Meanwhile:
superuser2: "So, does God really exist?" superuser1: "Not a clue. Last I checked, the agents we built were at 10^96 iterations and it's still simulations all the way up."
Distributed grid of orbital photovoltaic arrays with microwave power transmission to matching surface receiving stations.
Cost effective? If homo sapiens stopped wasting umpteen trillions fighting proxy wars over who's got the largest collection of shiniest things, it could've bloody well built a sustainable power grid - hell, a sustainable utopia - many times over.
Our primitive brains are still trapped in scarcity thinking patterns leftover from the days when the half the tribe died of starvation from a bad season.
Moral equivalence ! Also known as the idea that stoning women and mining oil is the same : they're "both bad", and there really isn't any more to say on the subject than that. This absurd pseudo-atheist Jacobian standard must die (The Jacobins were famous for their absolute standards of good and evil, and magnitude doesn't matter. Stealing a loaf of bread is evil and so is massacring a kindergarten, and they're really just the same thing. This is the same thing here).
Ironic, and not in the funny way, that you should mention stealing a loaf of bread. In 1997, an American citizen was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, and only released after serving 13 of those years due to an appeal by Stanford Law School's Three Strikes Project. His previous two convictions were in the previous decade before that, stealing a purse and trying to rob a man on the street, neither involving weapons or violence. The country that imprisoned him? The United States. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/gregory-taylor-homeless-m_n_684828.html
That by and large I like the Americans I've met and talked with, makes me all the sadder that their government has turned - and continues to turn - oppressive and violent. Yeah, you guys aren't Evil. But you've been "paving the road with good intentions", and America never seems to be one for doing anything by halves when it could shake the world instead. Well, consider us shaken.
Free elections and a capitalistic economy do not guarantee a non-fascist democracy if the outcome is predetermined. Sort of analogous to an ocean with big undercurrents on a calm day. You wanted to swim that way? Swim all you like, you're going another way, and if there's not enough reference points you don't even realise it, let alone why.
And is the US fascist? I think... no. Not yet. But it's generally the mark of the insane to just close your eyes and recite 'la la la I can't hear you' when anyone dares point out any cracks in the brickwork.
Hmm. Are the hypothetical situations you named really all that different? Every one of them is about an immediate life threatening situation, whether it's entering a house (officer discovers you're about to shoot a hostage) or tapping a phone (officer discovers you're about to order where to plant a bomb), and the same rules can be applied (a short period after the fact to prove to a judge your decision was justified or kiss your badge goodbye).
Makes me wonder if you might live in one of those places where you're already on the slippery slope and looking for a brake.
In a universe sadly not our own, someone resembling Morgan Freeman appears behind those people and asks them to guess which commandment they're breaking.
Would it still be sexism if the poster calling the female a bitch was also female?
Would it be more or less sexist for a female/male to call a male/female a bitch/prick, respectively?
And if it's not sexism for a female to call a female a bitch (or a male to call a male a prick), why is it not sexism of an observer to claim it's sexism when it's not a female that's calling a female a bitch (or a male calling a male a prick)?
I sometimes wonder if the brains of those who do that sort of thing never quite successfully navigated that part of early childhood where you realise the other talking bipeds are People too, and left the other gender out of the People set or worse mis-categorised them as Property. Grabbing someone's breast at a public conference suggests a fundamental deficiency in respecting personal boundaries. Both pitiable and dangerous.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of stubby watches either. However, while the same price, the eBay UK listing I found is described as "new with tags", "in fully working condition". Title is "Casio W-50U rare Made in Japan NOS". Seller is "imissmyyouth1980". (heh, I miss mine too), located in Birmingham, West Midlands, UK.
Slashdot Mirror
Completely unrelated? Looks like you didn't read the article either. Hint: check the name of the state attorney in both cases.
Yes. And since the school isn't even trying to handle it internally, the correct police response is to caution the school it is neglecting minors under its care.
It's the Stanford and Milgram experiments, in real life. The boy's a "guard". The girl's a "prisoner". The state attorney is ordering the justice system to push the button on the girl, and the people in the system are pushing the button because that's what the person "in authority" told them to do.
And the United States is probably fscked eight ways from Sunday if it doesn't realise this is becoming pandemic. Humanity's history of civil wars have amply demonstrated that brother will kill brother because "following orders".
(1) If your training in a weapon chosen for self-defence is such that you have to make a conscious attempt to remember how to operate it in an emergency, your training is insufficient.
(2) If your training is insufficient, you do not compensate for this by taking deliberate actions that reduce the safety of those around you without their consent.
Since you've been getting some armchair flak, just saying thankyou for your informative posts (this and others). It's great to get insights from folks who actually work in the field being discussed.
Given real-time uploading is already a thing, I expect the inevitable "camera films its own illegal confiscation" lawsuits will have an impact.
Perhaps girlintraining meant to type "the arctic" rather than "antarctica": http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/04/13/1639218/noaa-arctic-likely-free-of-summer-ice-by-2050-possibly-much-sooner
Which I would suggest is not an alarmist claim (alarming, on the other hand...).
Though, since we've mentioned it, how and to what degree (heh) the antarctic would be affected by an ice-free arctic is also of concern.
Dear Anonymous Troll. It's not about being blind or handicapped. It's about trust. We are indeed responsible for our actions - and that includes the act of speech.
And multiple felony convictions. The impact of those lasts a lot longer than just the time you spend indoors.
"constitutionalized"
Why do I feel like that word is obscene?
Another possibility is what has been labelled, on the Diablo 3 forums, as "RNG is RNG". Statistically, there's going to be people who are "lucky" and people who are "unlucky".
In other words, probability doesn't care that someone's emotional state happens to have a 87% correlation over a 36 month period with nearby lightbulbs going out; in the big picture he's just another dot in the universe's extremely large distribution table. :)
True. However, if a worried old farmer says to me, "Better get indoors, last time I smelt air like this it hailed bigger than baseballs", and I have no reason to consider it a prank or lie, I am not going to ignore his statement just because it's based on anecdotal evidence that I can't detect rather than on a weather station report and postgraduate degrees in meteorology and climatology. I'm also not going to assume it will definitely hail, but I will take precautions in case he's right. Hmm, that analogy is a little off track.
What "azav" and "CanHasDIY" posted was anecdotal evidence, but it's not their fault we would prefer scientific evidence, and - especially from their own reference frame - there is no onus on them to provide it. Since they experienced something directly, they assign that something a higher confidence value; since we have only the word of two pseudonymous posters on the internet, we assign it a lower confidence value (potentially even zero or negative).
Er, what? You do know what bakers and doctors do, right? Master chefs and heart surgeons do not just wave magic wands to produce their work.
Part of science is collecting empirical evidence. Yes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", but that's not the same as "extraordinary claims should be automatically discarded if they don't fit the trend line."
Collect/test evidence. Form/discard hypotheses. Never the other way around. You find evidence that "must" be wrong? At the least it's helping with your error bars, and if down the track your theory of Newtonian mechanics turns out to be lacking then you've still got the data all there to test your new theory of Einsteinian relativity.
Religion is about being right, always. Science is about being wrong, repeatedly. When it comes to picking one or the other, humans have a lot more experience with the latter.
There's also the "everything is artificial" variant, where "God" turns out to be someone with system privileges to the universe simulator, and the noobs go their merry way believing that woah, God really does exist. Meanwhile:
superuser2: "So, does God really exist?"
superuser1: "Not a clue. Last I checked, the agents we built were at 10^96 iterations and it's still simulations all the way up."
Distributed grid of orbital photovoltaic arrays with microwave power transmission to matching surface receiving stations.
Cost effective? If homo sapiens stopped wasting umpteen trillions fighting proxy wars over who's got the largest collection of shiniest things, it could've bloody well built a sustainable power grid - hell, a sustainable utopia - many times over.
Our primitive brains are still trapped in scarcity thinking patterns leftover from the days when the half the tribe died of starvation from a bad season.
Ironic, and not in the funny way, that you should mention stealing a loaf of bread. In 1997, an American citizen was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, and only released after serving 13 of those years due to an appeal by Stanford Law School's Three Strikes Project. His previous two convictions were in the previous decade before that, stealing a purse and trying to rob a man on the street, neither involving weapons or violence. The country that imprisoned him? The United States. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/gregory-taylor-homeless-m_n_684828.html
And if you might be hoping the above has to be some kind of "exception to the rule", I'm sorry, read this one: http://www.eurasiareview.com/29032013-you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-the-united-police-states-of-america-oped/
That by and large I like the Americans I've met and talked with, makes me all the sadder that their government has turned - and continues to turn - oppressive and violent. Yeah, you guys aren't Evil. But you've been "paving the road with good intentions", and America never seems to be one for doing anything by halves when it could shake the world instead. Well, consider us shaken.
Dear AC, if you think term limits for presidents "completely unravels" an argument that a country is fascist, you're out of your gourd.
As for checks and balances, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_(US_politics) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting - real life is not as simple as you'd like it to be.
Free elections and a capitalistic economy do not guarantee a non-fascist democracy if the outcome is predetermined. Sort of analogous to an ocean with big undercurrents on a calm day. You wanted to swim that way? Swim all you like, you're going another way, and if there's not enough reference points you don't even realise it, let alone why.
And is the US fascist? I think... no. Not yet. But it's generally the mark of the insane to just close your eyes and recite 'la la la I can't hear you' when anyone dares point out any cracks in the brickwork.
Hmm. Are the hypothetical situations you named really all that different? Every one of them is about an immediate life threatening situation, whether it's entering a house (officer discovers you're about to shoot a hostage) or tapping a phone (officer discovers you're about to order where to plant a bomb), and the same rules can be applied (a short period after the fact to prove to a judge your decision was justified or kiss your badge goodbye).
Makes me wonder if you might live in one of those places where you're already on the slippery slope and looking for a brake.
In a universe sadly not our own, someone resembling Morgan Freeman appears behind those people and asks them to guess which commandment they're breaking.
Posts like these are part of why I enjoy Slashdot. Thanks! :)
My questions are:
Would it still be sexism if the poster calling the female a bitch was also female?
Would it be more or less sexist for a female/male to call a male/female a bitch/prick, respectively?
And if it's not sexism for a female to call a female a bitch (or a male to call a male a prick), why is it not sexism of an observer to claim it's sexism when it's not a female that's calling a female a bitch (or a male calling a male a prick)?
And I can tell you that your post reeks of irrational fear.
Also, that as time goes by you're going to have a real problem with choosing to interact only with ladies older than you. :)
I sometimes wonder if the brains of those who do that sort of thing never quite successfully navigated that part of early childhood where you realise the other talking bipeds are People too, and left the other gender out of the People set or worse mis-categorised them as Property. Grabbing someone's breast at a public conference suggests a fundamental deficiency in respecting personal boundaries. Both pitiable and dangerous.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of stubby watches either. However, while the same price, the eBay UK listing I found is described as "new with tags", "in fully working condition". Title is "Casio W-50U rare Made in Japan NOS". Seller is "imissmyyouth1980". (heh, I miss mine too), located in Birmingham, West Midlands, UK.
Hmm. Your spec list... maybe http://youtu.be/RZZn-wN48pw comes close?
That blog's link to the source appears to be broken. Found the original: http://www.horologycrazy.com/2009/05/casio-w-50u-worldtimer.html
I also found one up for sale, in the UK even, though a hundred-plus quid does indeed seem like a "ridiculous inflated price" for a plastic watch. :)