Remember Republicans screaming about nuking Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea(!), etc. in 2001-2002, despite the fact that no one in Bush administration was considering such an action?
I don't remember anyone in office, of any party, advocating the use of nuclear weapons against any target, except in response to a NCB attack against the US or its allies. Please avoid hyperbole when criticizing hyperbolic statements.
How dare I say that pouring sympathy and attention on someone after they kill themselves is likely to make killing themselves more attractive to those who desperately yearn for sympathy and attention!
Minors have the responsibility not to kill themselves. Minors have the responsibility to use the formal means available to report things they cannot handle. Tragic as it is, it appears that the young girl did not succeed at either. There are no formal records of this harrasment at the school, as would be the case if it had been raised by the girl or her mother. Certainly no such records exist with the police. I suppose we could make these things the responsibility of the supervisors (a horrid idea), but this seems to be an impossilbe responsibility. "Don't kill yourself" and "report things you can't handle to the authorities" are basic tasks of a functional human. The tragedy here is that this girl was not equipped to be a functional human.
I certainly agree that we have laws enough to deal with this sort of behavior, in so far as it is necessary to criminalize the cruelty of highschoolers. However, while they are not being charged legeally with her death, "9 MA Cyberbullies Indicted for Causing Suicide" seems to indicate that they are certainly being blamed for her actions. Indeed, I believe the only reason this litany of charges is being handed down for these actions is due to the suicide. If this were handled rationally, by the girl or her parrents making a formal complaint to the school, it is doubtful any criminal charges would be filed. I believe the only reason the accused, while certainly unsavory children, are "twisted sadists" and not "cruel highschoolers" is that the girl chose to hang herself. I am not defending the actions of these bullies. I think they're shameful and cruel. However, the bullies are charged with nothing more physically brutal than throwing a can of soda at the girl. They are not responsible for her death.
This is just going to make suicide look like a more attractive option to targets of bullying
Yes. All the sympathy, compasion and righteous anger is, not without reason, for the girl. It is likely that those who yearn for sympathy, compasion and someone to defend them will now see killing themselves as a possible avenue to gain these rewards. It is a shame that none of the blame for the girls death seems to be directed at the person who put a noose around her neck and hung her.
See, now you're being mean to him. Anything he does to himself might be your fault because you were cruel to him online. Also, this isn't Troll. This is insightful.
The AoC in MA is 16. Given the ages of those charged (17 & 18), and her age (15), 16 is probably a bright line which shall not be crossed. However, not a lawyer.
While certainly it is a tragedy that this girl has killed herself, and certainly any criminal activity related should be punished, is it really appropriate to hold others responsible for her choice to kill herself? She was called names constantly. People posted insults online relentlessly. Her books were knocked from her hands. High school seniors took advantage of her and had consenting sex with her while she was the age of consent for her state. Most, directly, violent of all, she had a can of Red Bull thrown at her, though it might not have hit her. Certainly, if these were observed or reported, the staff of the school had an obligation to mete out punishments and restraints. However, is there a reasonable expectation that these, even if a regular pattern over the course of four months, lead to someone killing themselves? Is it equally likely that, for whatever reason, this young lady simply did not have the emotional tools to manage the sort of abuse that is frequently dealt in high school? Perhaps my experience as a fat, bowlegged, dork in high school has inured me to the torments of others. Personally, I just skipped school when I didn't want to go. Worked just fine, until I got sent to in school detention, which was conveniently isolated...so I can't really complain there either. To me, the logical consequence of school being a place of torment is that the person just not go when it gets to be too much. If going someplace makes you feel like killing yourself, don't go there. Facebook make you feel like dying? Don't click the Facebook link. Do we now hold people responsible for another person's actions? Do you want a world where your negative online comments, no matter how vile, can land you in prison because someone else does not have the emotional tools to deal with, or avoid, your vitriol...or what they PERCIEVE as vitriol? Imagine the consequences, manipulations, and abuses that flow from this. Is the suicide a tragedy? Yes, but even as we are certain to punish highschoolers for their cruel behavior, let us keep in mind who chose to kill this girl.
It is likely the statutory rape charges are related to her dating a high school senior of age 17 or older. I do not have the details, but it appears the ages of the charged persons are 17 and 18. It may be outside the law for them to have sex with a freshman, but I seriously doubt it is far outside of normal behavior.
I tried to explain this to you time and time again, but I never loved you unconditionally. I expected things of you. You were supposed to take care of your self. I always wanted you to do more than just survive, but you couldn't even do that on your own.
It appears that the majority of/. endorses a solution that has not been subjected to a thorough code review, which they will have little personal ability to modify for their own use, be required to use in specific ways, will appropriate their system resources even if it is not running, has not been subjected to testing, without any readily available ability to rollback.
I have a genetic disorder that requires metabolic and orthopedic treatment, AKA a pre-existing condition. I've never been denied insurance. I've never been denied care. My costs are reasonable, about $600/year for my portion of the plan my employer provides. My out of pocket for my first hip replacement will be about $4000. I have no fear that the current system will provide me with access to additional replacements as these wear out. I'm optimistic that new technology will come about under the current system that will continue to improve on the quality of my care. I have access to specialist care as I desire. I use the current system. It works for me. It works for me with my pre-existing condition. It worked for me when I was in a car accident. It works for my friend with high blood pressure. It worked for my nephew who had a complicated birth, and for his mother. It works for my wife's grandfather who is alive due to heart surgery. My grandfather fell off a roof and broke his back at 70, then lived another spry 15 years in good health because the current system worked. Heart surgery, childbirth complications, broken backs, hip replacements...none of these have bankrupted us. We are not weighed down by the burden of the cost of our insurance. So, adjust things incrementally if you like. Let a state or two try it out and see what happens. However, you will pardon me if a sweeping comprehensive rewrite of the current health care system is something I do not embrace. The government has undertaken to radically change the system that has provided good care and life saving medicine to myself and my family. I remain unconvinced. I do not need this. I do not want this.
Apparently, after doctors told him that having a ragged partially corroded bit of plastic, semi-conductor, and metal taking a tour of his digestive track would be a "Bad Thing", the man agreed to have it removed.
Seems that going to jail for destroying evidence in a Federal investigation and having loose chips clinging and tearing their way down your intestines was worse than having to stand trial for the other crimes.
I think we should examine the real threat here. Tritium poisoning, while a vital and serious problem affecting everyone, is actually so uncommon that I can't find any death per year figures. Toyota seems to be much more dangerous, with a few hundred of break failures when it sells about 2,000,000 cars a year in the US (and the break failures are in a range of years, so several million cars).
It is time we look at the real threat...showers. Far more lethal than Toyota brakes and tritium combined - many times over, the shills for Corporate America have been manufacturing these death chambers for years while keeping the sheeple ignorant of the danger. Just ask any of their CEO's and they'll lie, telling you that its safe to take a shower, when they KNOW thousands of people die each year in these menaces. It's high time we spoke out aganist the threat and shut down the companies that make these lethal contraptions.
Unfortunately, you're almost right. Government insured funding doesn't change the underlying reasons people don't make these investments. Most people have come to the conclusion that in the US, nuclear plants are vaporware, and are unwilling to risk their own money. The administration's hope is, if we are generous with intent, that people will be willing to risk federal dollars instead. This does nothing to fix the key problem, namely the plant will still probably never overcome the existing hurdles to being built and coming online.
This is an excellent political move on behalf of the administration. They can take this step to appear in favor of clean, safe, nuclear power, with very little risk of being responsible for the creation of a new nuclear power plant. It removes none of the real obstacles to actually building and bringing a plant on-line. It almost doesn't matter what the funding sources are or how secure they are, attempts to build a plant will still take place in an environment that is very highly regulated, with regulations that frequently shift, and numerous avenues of legal delay available to people who wish to block the effort.
Certainly, encouraging the building of new, practical, energy production is a good thing. However, the reasons many previous plans have defaulted, and the plants they were to fund never brought on-line, are not resolved. Addressing the obstacles created by our legal and regulatory environment would have done far more to actually create a new, producing, plant.
In other words, there are reasons people aren't willing to risk their own money to build these plants. While loan guarantees do encourage people to loan money, it's easy to convince people to risk someone else's money and does nothing to correct the reasons they weren't willing to risk their own funds.
There's a strong vein of "system administrator" in the/. community. The same sorts of attitudes you get in threads on managing network permissions are applied as life lessons. Systems administered by experts are prefered to individuals determining their own course of action. The sysadmin is more trusting of logs than of user feedback, with reason. It isn't that far to assume that if I'm a responsible and skilled administrator with sensable values/priorities, others will be responsible, skilled and share my values/priorities. There's a near total failure to recognise that many systems are simply collections of those same unreliable people. There's a reflexive desire to defend the systems, and it only seems to vanish when the presumption of common cause is removed.
What I find particularly funny is that/.'ers tend to rail when a software manufacturer installs something they don't want, claiming all manner of property and rights violations, but at the same time have zero understanding of the concerns of parrents when it comes to public education. They assume shared values and similarity of expertise with the administrators and teachers of schooling systems, and that makes it okay. After all, if we changed the word "Germany" to "Utah" in the article, suddenly the presumption of shared values evaporates, as do many of the arguments presented.
I appreciate your faith in the American people and their ability to, not only be informed and concerned, but actually distract the political class from their current objectives, which have nothing to do with NN or the FCC. You could be right that this will happen, and I aplaud your optimism. However, when it comes to government exercise and abuse of power, I prefer pesimism as a default. My concern is in the quasi-law making powers of the regulatory organs of the state combined with the historical propensity for growth.
Elections are a valid mechanism for acting against politicians. Unfortunately, most of the Net Neutrality action is taking place within the administrative areas of government. There is no law being written. The law allowing the FCC to regulate was passed long ago. No new votes in Congress are needed for the FCC to create rules that people must follow and punishments that can be used against them if they fail to comply. At this point, you would need to pass a law to restrict the agency. Like all such things, it will grow until it is limitted.
Slashdot Mirror
Aural sounds right to me.
Remember Republicans screaming about nuking Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea(!), etc. in 2001-2002, despite the fact that no one in Bush administration was considering such an action?
I don't remember anyone in office, of any party, advocating the use of nuclear weapons against any target, except in response to a NCB attack against the US or its allies. Please avoid hyperbole when criticizing hyperbolic statements.
How dare I say that pouring sympathy and attention on someone after they kill themselves is likely to make killing themselves more attractive to those who desperately yearn for sympathy and attention!
Well, of course. I was actually refering to Zill's comment as being insightful. But, naturally, that has been degraded to -1 Flamebait at this point.
Minors have the responsibility not to kill themselves. Minors have the responsibility to use the formal means available to report things they cannot handle. Tragic as it is, it appears that the young girl did not succeed at either. There are no formal records of this harrasment at the school, as would be the case if it had been raised by the girl or her mother. Certainly no such records exist with the police. I suppose we could make these things the responsibility of the supervisors (a horrid idea), but this seems to be an impossilbe responsibility. "Don't kill yourself" and "report things you can't handle to the authorities" are basic tasks of a functional human. The tragedy here is that this girl was not equipped to be a functional human.
I certainly agree that we have laws enough to deal with this sort of behavior, in so far as it is necessary to criminalize the cruelty of highschoolers. However, while they are not being charged legeally with her death, "9 MA Cyberbullies Indicted for Causing Suicide" seems to indicate that they are certainly being blamed for her actions. Indeed, I believe the only reason this litany of charges is being handed down for these actions is due to the suicide. If this were handled rationally, by the girl or her parrents making a formal complaint to the school, it is doubtful any criminal charges would be filed. I believe the only reason the accused, while certainly unsavory children, are "twisted sadists" and not "cruel highschoolers" is that the girl chose to hang herself.
I am not defending the actions of these bullies. I think they're shameful and cruel. However, the bullies are charged with nothing more physically brutal than throwing a can of soda at the girl. They are not responsible for her death.
This is just going to make suicide look like a more attractive option to targets of bullying
Yes. All the sympathy, compasion and righteous anger is, not without reason, for the girl. It is likely that those who yearn for sympathy, compasion and someone to defend them will now see killing themselves as a possible avenue to gain these rewards. It is a shame that none of the blame for the girls death seems to be directed at the person who put a noose around her neck and hung her.
See, now you're being mean to him. Anything he does to himself might be your fault because you were cruel to him online. Also, this isn't Troll. This is insightful.
The AoC in MA is 16. Given the ages of those charged (17 & 18), and her age (15), 16 is probably a bright line which shall not be crossed. However, not a lawyer.
While certainly it is a tragedy that this girl has killed herself, and certainly any criminal activity related should be punished, is it really appropriate to hold others responsible for her choice to kill herself? She was called names constantly. People posted insults online relentlessly. Her books were knocked from her hands. High school seniors took advantage of her and had consenting sex with her while she was the age of consent for her state. Most, directly, violent of all, she had a can of Red Bull thrown at her, though it might not have hit her. Certainly, if these were observed or reported, the staff of the school had an obligation to mete out punishments and restraints. However, is there a reasonable expectation that these, even if a regular pattern over the course of four months, lead to someone killing themselves? Is it equally likely that, for whatever reason, this young lady simply did not have the emotional tools to manage the sort of abuse that is frequently dealt in high school?
Perhaps my experience as a fat, bowlegged, dork in high school has inured me to the torments of others. Personally, I just skipped school when I didn't want to go. Worked just fine, until I got sent to in school detention, which was conveniently isolated...so I can't really complain there either. To me, the logical consequence of school being a place of torment is that the person just not go when it gets to be too much. If going someplace makes you feel like killing yourself, don't go there. Facebook make you feel like dying? Don't click the Facebook link.
Do we now hold people responsible for another person's actions? Do you want a world where your negative online comments, no matter how vile, can land you in prison because someone else does not have the emotional tools to deal with, or avoid, your vitriol...or what they PERCIEVE as vitriol? Imagine the consequences, manipulations, and abuses that flow from this. Is the suicide a tragedy? Yes, but even as we are certain to punish highschoolers for their cruel behavior, let us keep in mind who chose to kill this girl.
You are mis-informed. She apparently had consentual sex with a 17 and/or 18 year old while she was 15. The charge is statutory rape.
It is likely the statutory rape charges are related to her dating a high school senior of age 17 or older. I do not have the details, but it appears the ages of the charged persons are 17 and 18. It may be outside the law for them to have sex with a freshman, but I seriously doubt it is far outside of normal behavior.
I thought that might be it. Just wanted to toss in my view.
Your point seems to be that if I don't have a job I won't have the money to pay my bills.
Dear The People,
I tried to explain this to you time and time again, but I never loved you unconditionally. I expected things of you. You were supposed to take care of your self. I always wanted you to do more than just survive, but you couldn't even do that on your own.
Liberty
It appears that the majority of /. endorses a solution that has not been subjected to a thorough code review, which they will have little personal ability to modify for their own use, be required to use in specific ways, will appropriate their system resources even if it is not running, has not been subjected to testing, without any readily available ability to rollback.
I have a genetic disorder that requires metabolic and orthopedic treatment, AKA a pre-existing condition. I've never been denied insurance. I've never been denied care. My costs are reasonable, about $600/year for my portion of the plan my employer provides. My out of pocket for my first hip replacement will be about $4000. I have no fear that the current system will provide me with access to additional replacements as these wear out. I'm optimistic that new technology will come about under the current system that will continue to improve on the quality of my care. I have access to specialist care as I desire. I use the current system. It works for me. It works for me with my pre-existing condition. It worked for me when I was in a car accident. It works for my friend with high blood pressure. It worked for my nephew who had a complicated birth, and for his mother. It works for my wife's grandfather who is alive due to heart surgery. My grandfather fell off a roof and broke his back at 70, then lived another spry 15 years in good health because the current system worked.
Heart surgery, childbirth complications, broken backs, hip replacements...none of these have bankrupted us. We are not weighed down by the burden of the cost of our insurance. So, adjust things incrementally if you like. Let a state or two try it out and see what happens. However, you will pardon me if a sweeping comprehensive rewrite of the current health care system is something I do not embrace. The government has undertaken to radically change the system that has provided good care and life saving medicine to myself and my family. I remain unconvinced. I do not need this. I do not want this.
Apparently, after doctors told him that having a ragged partially corroded bit of plastic, semi-conductor, and metal taking a tour of his digestive track would be a "Bad Thing", the man agreed to have it removed.
Seems that going to jail for destroying evidence in a Federal investigation and having loose chips clinging and tearing their way down your intestines was worse than having to stand trial for the other crimes.
I think we should examine the real threat here. Tritium poisoning, while a vital and serious problem affecting everyone, is actually so uncommon that I can't find any death per year figures. Toyota seems to be much more dangerous, with a few hundred of break failures when it sells about 2,000,000 cars a year in the US (and the break failures are in a range of years, so several million cars).
It is time we look at the real threat...showers. Far more lethal than Toyota brakes and tritium combined - many times over, the shills for Corporate America have been manufacturing these death chambers for years while keeping the sheeple ignorant of the danger. Just ask any of their CEO's and they'll lie, telling you that its safe to take a shower, when they KNOW thousands of people die each year in these menaces. It's high time we spoke out aganist the threat and shut down the companies that make these lethal contraptions.
Unfortunately, you're almost right. Government insured funding doesn't change the underlying reasons people don't make these investments. Most people have come to the conclusion that in the US, nuclear plants are vaporware, and are unwilling to risk their own money. The administration's hope is, if we are generous with intent, that people will be willing to risk federal dollars instead. This does nothing to fix the key problem, namely the plant will still probably never overcome the existing hurdles to being built and coming online.
This is an excellent political move on behalf of the administration. They can take this step to appear in favor of clean, safe, nuclear power, with very little risk of being responsible for the creation of a new nuclear power plant. It removes none of the real obstacles to actually building and bringing a plant on-line. It almost doesn't matter what the funding sources are or how secure they are, attempts to build a plant will still take place in an environment that is very highly regulated, with regulations that frequently shift, and numerous avenues of legal delay available to people who wish to block the effort.
Certainly, encouraging the building of new, practical, energy production is a good thing. However, the reasons many previous plans have defaulted, and the plants they were to fund never brought on-line, are not resolved. Addressing the obstacles created by our legal and regulatory environment would have done far more to actually create a new, producing, plant.
In other words, there are reasons people aren't willing to risk their own money to build these plants. While loan guarantees do encourage people to loan money, it's easy to convince people to risk someone else's money and does nothing to correct the reasons they weren't willing to risk their own funds.
There's a strong vein of "system administrator" in the /. community. The same sorts of attitudes you get in threads on managing network permissions are applied as life lessons. Systems administered by experts are prefered to individuals determining their own course of action. The sysadmin is more trusting of logs than of user feedback, with reason. It isn't that far to assume that if I'm a responsible and skilled administrator with sensable values/priorities, others will be responsible, skilled and share my values/priorities. There's a near total failure to recognise that many systems are simply collections of those same unreliable people. There's a reflexive desire to defend the systems, and it only seems to vanish when the presumption of common cause is removed.
/.'ers tend to rail when a software manufacturer installs something they don't want, claiming all manner of property and rights violations, but at the same time have zero understanding of the concerns of parrents when it comes to public education. They assume shared values and similarity of expertise with the administrators and teachers of schooling systems, and that makes it okay. After all, if we changed the word "Germany" to "Utah" in the article, suddenly the presumption of shared values evaporates, as do many of the arguments presented.
What I find particularly funny is that
What on Earth made you think that /.'ers wouldn't have an irrational reaction to the idea of homeschooling?
I appreciate your faith in the American people and their ability to, not only be informed and concerned, but actually distract the political class from their current objectives, which have nothing to do with NN or the FCC. You could be right that this will happen, and I aplaud your optimism. However, when it comes to government exercise and abuse of power, I prefer pesimism as a default. My concern is in the quasi-law making powers of the regulatory organs of the state combined with the historical propensity for growth.
Elections are a valid mechanism for acting against politicians. Unfortunately, most of the Net Neutrality action is taking place within the administrative areas of government. There is no law being written. The law allowing the FCC to regulate was passed long ago. No new votes in Congress are needed for the FCC to create rules that people must follow and punishments that can be used against them if they fail to comply. At this point, you would need to pass a law to restrict the agency. Like all such things, it will grow until it is limitted.