Well I am a lawyer, and you should be skeptical of them too. But read the article. My point was that the main argument for school suppression (like that loaded word?) of speech is:
I am one, too, which is why one of the reasons I'm usually skeptical.
Not sure if punishing a kid for calling the principal a pedophile is arbitrary, but you have obviously never dealt with modern parents as a K-12 teacher. Even as a college professor, I've encountered this helicopter parent syndrome, where the kid is always right. "Not my sweet little darling!"
Well one of the issues is whether the injured party should have a right to adjudicate a dispute. There's a very good reason we have neutral arbiters in the form of judges. And while it is entirely possible that telling the parents would be pointless, having the child served with a complaint is not. The simple fact of the matter is school administrators should not have the authority to regulate how a child acts outside of school.
Please. My dad was a salesman and my parents sacrificed driving new cars and vacations so I could go to a good private school. Entitlement? My parents reminded me daily that if I didn't keep my grades up I'd be down at the local loser public school. And the kids I went to school with thought I was rich because my dad had a Harley (which he won in a contest). I had to wake up at 5:40 AM to catch the public bus at 6:30 and get to school 25 miles away by 8:00 AM. Not exactly a limo. Rich kids my ass. Talk back to a priest in my day, and your smart ass would get knocked flat on your back.
If you went to a Catholic school that's a little bit different, as they charge a lot less and are geared towards more lower income families. And if you're talking about a few decades ago that's a big difference than what goes on now. The simple fact is there are large segments of modern American society where the parents have a lot of money but raise their kids horribly. A lot of them end up in private schools.
And you know, your parents may have been wrong about that "loser" public school; did they actually go to it? I was educated by New York public schools, up to and including college, and I got an excellent education. My high school had like a 98% graduation rate, and I think maybe one person in my graduating class didn't go to college.
And as for drugs, I assure you that carried the death penalty at my school. Of course, some parents do, in fact, send their children to expensive babysitting private schools for rich kids. But isn't your whole point that parents know best how to raise their kids?
My whole point was actually that school administrators should not be allowed to overstep their authority. As a side point I simply brought up that I would prefer to send my children to public school, as I think they will be in a better environment.
Contrary to submitter's logic, this case wasn't decided the way it was to protect someone's feelings.
While usually I am very skeptical of non-lawyers analyzing cases for me, I think this guy's logic is pretty strong here.
That students should be able to embarrass, harass, or defame school officials merely because taxpayers fund their school seems curious.
No, the question is whether a government official has the right to arbitratily punish a child for saying something the official didn't like. They shouldn't have that power. There are plenty of avenues for the injured principal to take. A libel/slander suit, or calling up the parent to tell them what happened.
Just another reason my kids will go to private school.
Hope they enjoy the alcohol and drugs. I wouldn't want my kids to spend too much time around a bunch of bored rich kids with massive senses of entitlement.
You mean like how Bush's cabinet violated the constitution when they secretly tapped US citizen's phones?
Similarly, but even worse; Badnarik was actually going to compel members of Congress to sit through his "seminar" on what he thinks the Constitution means. That's even a little worse than Bush's already pretty bad transgressions, because it would have essentially killed even a semblance of democracy and turned this country into another third world country limping from coup to coup.
Or like how Theodore Roosevelt violated the constitution when he secretly goaded Panama into revolution against Columbia, so that the US could build the Panama Canal.
Unprincipled, perhaps, but how is this unconstitutional? In fact the Constitution grants the President clear power to do this sort of thing.
I won't bother looking up McCain's top donors because it'll be close to the same. Remember that McCain was also one of the Keating 5 (same type of scandal we see unfolding now except with a lot more money).
Campaign contributions don't automatically mean control, especially where campaign finance limits severely limit how much companies can give. I am an Obama supporter and I think McCain would continue the disastrous laissez faire, unregulated approach to the markets that inevitably cause these crashes, but while I hold a lot of things against McCain, the Keating scandal isn't one of them. I think there is substantial evidence to support the idea that he really didn't realize what he was doing, and he spent the next two decades trying to rectify his mistake (until he sold out to the right wingnuts in the early 2000s). I accept that our elected politicians will occasionally make mistakes, I just want them to realize it and adjust their behavior accordingly.
I'm sick of people telling me I'm wasting my votes (it won't be the first time I voted for a third party), and yet the same people whine about how bad the government is.
Funny, I'm sick of third-party supporters telling me that the democrats are the republicans are "the same," which is an utter lie, and I'm also sick of being urged to vote for someone whose policies I detest (like Ron Paul) simply to make a statement.
I remember back in 2004 every political discussion devolved into people urging all of us to vote for the libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik. It was ridiculous how much support he got here, and the idea was because he was a self-identified libertarian we should all jump on his bandwagon. Now if you did a little background checking you'd find out he was a paranoid conspiracy theorist who explicitly promised to violate the Constitution his first day of office, but that's the sort of background checking that people didn't want to do. Voting strictly along party lines is stupid, whether the candidate is democrat, republican, or part of a third party.
Even if I chose to carry a weapon (illegally) for my own protection there is a high likelyhood I would not get a chance to use it. I have only been mugged once in Moss Side and I did not see it coming at all. The first I knew was when I got punched to the back of the head and was jumped by 3 people. In this situation a firearm would have been useless since all 3 were at close range.
The people who lurk on internet forums boasting about their guns and constructing elaborate fantasies about how they'll use them if someone tries to mug them tend to be sheltered suburbanites who would freeze up at the first sign of trouble.
Before it is all over you English won't be allowed possession of anything harder than mushy peas. I've no idea how you'll manage to cook them or mash them
Don't worry, Brits are quite used to eating inedible, poorly-prepared food.
Makes sense. Look at the more emotional members of both ideologies; get a left-wing nutjob mad enough and he'll riot and fight with the police. Get a right-wing nutjob mad enough and he'll make an anonymous death threat. Ever seen a Young Republican meeting? Most of them look like they'd run away if you raise your voice at them. They make your local Linux Users Group look like the Raiders' offensive line.
I'm building a media display machine and I want 1080p and 3d support. Is there a card that just works?
I've gotten results with a Radeon HD3450 running an HDMI to a 1080p TV. It took a little tweaking, especially of accursed X configuration files, but the standard ATI driver works.
Oh look, someone who reads Andrew Orlowski articles.
Oh look, someone who jumps to conclusions. You seem to be disagreeing with my simple factual statement that the EFF has lost a lot of cases. Any evidence to back this up?
There's a nice long list of cases they won
First of all, that nice long list of cases does not disprove my assertion, that they lost plenty of cases. That list doesn't have their losses I notice.
Secondly, in several of those cases the EFF's role was to file an amicus curiae briefs. As an attorney I would never be so grasping as to consider a case I filed such a brief in as a "win." Who knows whether the judge even read them.
Thirdly I am unfamiliar with this Andrew Orlowsky person you mention. All I'm sure of on the subject is that I am not him.
It seems we have the usual thicket of suits and countersuits, so technically, he is being sued for suing in response to his clients being sued. Got that?
"Got" what? You're wrong, a motion for sanctions is not a lawsuit. It's simply an administrative remedy that a judge can grant during the course of a lawsuit.
Cant they dismiss this lawsuit on grounds of anti-SLAPP?
It's not really a lawsuit, it's just a motion in a case he's on. Motions for sanctions are actually fairly common.
IIRC, isnt there a ground that a judge can take away "lawsuit powers" when used as a weapon, rather than as to pursue 'truth and justice'?
Yes, but it's very rarely done. If someone is just completely crazy about filing multiple frivolous lawsuits, the court will occasionally order that the frivolous party cannot file lawsuits except through independent counsel; I think they did this to Jack Thompson. The theory is an attorney will filter out the crazy stuff, or face professional sanctions themselves.
He's not really being sued, as best I can tell from the article; instead, the RIAA filed a motion for sanctions against him personally (as opposed to just his client) in one of his cases.
Seriously though - why are they talking about storytelling? The most they could muster is "scientists break through into a lair... FROM HELL!... and one of the scientists becomes a demon." Shouldn't they be talking about the evolution of the shotgun as a diplomatic medium in their games?
Hey, a story written by a junior high school heavy metal fan is still a story.
As if reading the audience's minds, Willits began, "So id Software is actually giving a talk on storytelling -- that doesn't make much sense!" But Willits feels id's public perception is "sometimes a bit skewed."
No one can be an expert about everything, but it is possible to know at least a little about a lot. Aerospace engineering is not unlike hacking -- engineers often have the right mindset to do software development (though the reverse isn't always true).
If you're working outside your field, you should approach it with some humility. The way he phrases things in the article indicate he has some agenda where the assertion--that maybe airplanes haven't increased in efficiency that much--provokes an emotional reaction from him. Which is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I am a lawyer, and you should be skeptical of them too. But read the article. My point was that the main argument for school suppression (like that loaded word?) of speech is:
I am one, too, which is why one of the reasons I'm usually skeptical.
Not sure if punishing a kid for calling the principal a pedophile is arbitrary, but you have obviously never dealt with modern parents as a K-12 teacher. Even as a college professor, I've encountered this helicopter parent syndrome, where the kid is always right. "Not my sweet little darling!"
Well one of the issues is whether the injured party should have a right to adjudicate a dispute. There's a very good reason we have neutral arbiters in the form of judges. And while it is entirely possible that telling the parents would be pointless, having the child served with a complaint is not. The simple fact of the matter is school administrators should not have the authority to regulate how a child acts outside of school.
Please. My dad was a salesman and my parents sacrificed driving new cars and vacations so I could go to a good private school. Entitlement? My parents reminded me daily that if I didn't keep my grades up I'd be down at the local loser public school. And the kids I went to school with thought I was rich because my dad had a Harley (which he won in a contest). I had to wake up at 5:40 AM to catch the public bus at 6:30 and get to school 25 miles away by 8:00 AM. Not exactly a limo. Rich kids my ass. Talk back to a priest in my day, and your smart ass would get knocked flat on your back.
If you went to a Catholic school that's a little bit different, as they charge a lot less and are geared towards more lower income families. And if you're talking about a few decades ago that's a big difference than what goes on now. The simple fact is there are large segments of modern American society where the parents have a lot of money but raise their kids horribly. A lot of them end up in private schools.
And you know, your parents may have been wrong about that "loser" public school; did they actually go to it? I was educated by New York public schools, up to and including college, and I got an excellent education. My high school had like a 98% graduation rate, and I think maybe one person in my graduating class didn't go to college.
And as for drugs, I assure you that carried the death penalty at my school. Of course, some parents do, in fact, send their children to expensive babysitting private schools for rich kids. But isn't your whole point that parents know best how to raise their kids?
My whole point was actually that school administrators should not be allowed to overstep their authority. As a side point I simply brought up that I would prefer to send my children to public school, as I think they will be in a better environment.
Actually, civil libel can only be prosecuted if a damages arguement can be concoted.
There is an exception for libel per se, which this would be. When someone accuses you falsely of a crime there's no need to prove special damages.
Contrary to submitter's logic, this case wasn't decided the way it was to protect someone's feelings.
While usually I am very skeptical of non-lawyers analyzing cases for me, I think this guy's logic is pretty strong here.
That students should be able to embarrass, harass, or defame school officials merely because taxpayers fund their school seems curious.
No, the question is whether a government official has the right to arbitratily punish a child for saying something the official didn't like. They shouldn't have that power. There are plenty of avenues for the injured principal to take. A libel/slander suit, or calling up the parent to tell them what happened.
Just another reason my kids will go to private school.
Hope they enjoy the alcohol and drugs. I wouldn't want my kids to spend too much time around a bunch of bored rich kids with massive senses of entitlement.
You mean like how Bush's cabinet violated the constitution when they secretly tapped US citizen's phones?
Similarly, but even worse; Badnarik was actually going to compel members of Congress to sit through his "seminar" on what he thinks the Constitution means. That's even a little worse than Bush's already pretty bad transgressions, because it would have essentially killed even a semblance of democracy and turned this country into another third world country limping from coup to coup.
Or like how Theodore Roosevelt violated the constitution when he secretly goaded Panama into revolution against Columbia, so that the US could build the Panama Canal.
Unprincipled, perhaps, but how is this unconstitutional? In fact the Constitution grants the President clear power to do this sort of thing.
How much more "for it" can you be than a YEA vote for a bill which contains it?
Well being the one who drafted it, or vocally supported it, would be more "for it."
The immunity is unconstitutional (see ex post facto) even without the 4th amendment violations.
It's not unconstitutional; ex post facto laws apply first of all to criminal liability, and only where the potential defendant is negatively impacted.
I won't bother looking up McCain's top donors because it'll be close to the same. Remember that McCain was also one of the Keating 5 (same type of scandal we see unfolding now except with a lot more money).
Campaign contributions don't automatically mean control, especially where campaign finance limits severely limit how much companies can give. I am an Obama supporter and I think McCain would continue the disastrous laissez faire, unregulated approach to the markets that inevitably cause these crashes, but while I hold a lot of things against McCain, the Keating scandal isn't one of them. I think there is substantial evidence to support the idea that he really didn't realize what he was doing, and he spent the next two decades trying to rectify his mistake (until he sold out to the right wingnuts in the early 2000s). I accept that our elected politicians will occasionally make mistakes, I just want them to realize it and adjust their behavior accordingly.
I have to assume the sole purpose was to troll.
A troll's goal is to cause an emotional reaction. This guy wants to siphon votes.
I'm sick of people telling me I'm wasting my votes (it won't be the first time I voted for a third party), and yet the same people whine about how bad the government is.
Funny, I'm sick of third-party supporters telling me that the democrats are the republicans are "the same," which is an utter lie, and I'm also sick of being urged to vote for someone whose policies I detest (like Ron Paul) simply to make a statement.
I remember back in 2004 every political discussion devolved into people urging all of us to vote for the libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik. It was ridiculous how much support he got here, and the idea was because he was a self-identified libertarian we should all jump on his bandwagon. Now if you did a little background checking you'd find out he was a paranoid conspiracy theorist who explicitly promised to violate the Constitution his first day of office, but that's the sort of background checking that people didn't want to do. Voting strictly along party lines is stupid, whether the candidate is democrat, republican, or part of a third party.
Even if I chose to carry a weapon (illegally) for my own protection there is a high likelyhood I would not get a chance to use it. I have only been mugged once in Moss Side and I did not see it coming at all. The first I knew was when I got punched to the back of the head and was jumped by 3 people. In this situation a firearm would have been useless since all 3 were at close range.
The people who lurk on internet forums boasting about their guns and constructing elaborate fantasies about how they'll use them if someone tries to mug them tend to be sheltered suburbanites who would freeze up at the first sign of trouble.
Before it is all over you English won't be allowed possession of anything harder than mushy peas. I've no idea how you'll manage to cook them or mash them
Don't worry, Brits are quite used to eating inedible, poorly-prepared food.
I agree. The day the black album came is the day I wept (figuratively), as the band I grew up with turned their back on me and so many other.
I like the black album; most of the criticisms I've heard about it deal with the fact that it doesn't sound like their earlier stuff. You'll live.
Makes sense. Look at the more emotional members of both ideologies; get a left-wing nutjob mad enough and he'll riot and fight with the police. Get a right-wing nutjob mad enough and he'll make an anonymous death threat. Ever seen a Young Republican meeting? Most of them look like they'd run away if you raise your voice at them. They make your local Linux Users Group look like the Raiders' offensive line.
Both the Soviet Union and the modern American Democratic Party are based on the same wicked ideas.
You don't get invited to parties, do you...
I don't think acting out of a perceived need of self preservation is how I would define cowardice.
Actually I think that's the definition of cowardice.
Now Microsoft is copying advertising concepts from Apple? At least there's consistency
Keep in mind they have the same advertising firm as Apple...
I'm building a media display machine and I want 1080p and 3d support. Is there a card that just works?
I've gotten results with a Radeon HD3450 running an HDMI to a 1080p TV. It took a little tweaking, especially of accursed X configuration files, but the standard ATI driver works.
If we did this, where could we banish Bush?
Why exile him to an unpleasant place when he already plans to move back to Texas anyway?
Oh look, someone who reads Andrew Orlowski articles.
Oh look, someone who jumps to conclusions. You seem to be disagreeing with my simple factual statement that the EFF has lost a lot of cases. Any evidence to back this up?
There's a nice long list of cases they won
First of all, that nice long list of cases does not disprove my assertion, that they lost plenty of cases. That list doesn't have their losses I notice.
Secondly, in several of those cases the EFF's role was to file an amicus curiae briefs. As an attorney I would never be so grasping as to consider a case I filed such a brief in as a "win." Who knows whether the judge even read them.
Thirdly I am unfamiliar with this Andrew Orlowsky person you mention. All I'm sure of on the subject is that I am not him.
It seems we have the usual thicket of suits and countersuits, so technically, he is being sued for suing in response to his clients being sued. Got that?
"Got" what? You're wrong, a motion for sanctions is not a lawsuit. It's simply an administrative remedy that a judge can grant during the course of a lawsuit.
How many trial did the EFF lose ?
Plenty.
Cant they dismiss this lawsuit on grounds of anti-SLAPP?
It's not really a lawsuit, it's just a motion in a case he's on. Motions for sanctions are actually fairly common.
IIRC, isnt there a ground that a judge can take away "lawsuit powers" when used as a weapon, rather than as to pursue 'truth and justice'?
Yes, but it's very rarely done. If someone is just completely crazy about filing multiple frivolous lawsuits, the court will occasionally order that the frivolous party cannot file lawsuits except through independent counsel; I think they did this to Jack Thompson. The theory is an attorney will filter out the crazy stuff, or face professional sanctions themselves.
He's not really being sued, as best I can tell from the article; instead, the RIAA filed a motion for sanctions against him personally (as opposed to just his client) in one of his cases.
Seriously though - why are they talking about storytelling? The most they could muster is "scientists break through into a lair... FROM HELL! ... and one of the scientists becomes a demon." Shouldn't they be talking about the evolution of the shotgun as a diplomatic medium in their games?
Hey, a story written by a junior high school heavy metal fan is still a story.
As if reading the audience's minds, Willits began, "So id Software is actually giving a talk on storytelling -- that doesn't make much sense!" But Willits feels id's public perception is "sometimes a bit skewed."
No, our perception is spot on I think.
No one can be an expert about everything, but it is possible to know at least a little about a lot. Aerospace engineering is not unlike hacking -- engineers often have the right mindset to do software development (though the reverse isn't always true).
If you're working outside your field, you should approach it with some humility. The way he phrases things in the article indicate he has some agenda where the assertion--that maybe airplanes haven't increased in efficiency that much--provokes an emotional reaction from him. Which is ridiculous.