Apparently, Conestoga Valley School District were threatening to not recruit any more teachers from her university, unless she was punished in some way.
You say that with such a sense of certainty, even though the very article you link has them denying it.
Regardless of the picture, the School District or college have no right to amend her graduation qualifications, based on a single party photograph.
And how do we know that that's what happened? So far we only have the lady's allegations that this was the case. The school district is saying it's not true, and the university (like anybody who's being sued) is keeping quiet.
And of course, since they say that's why they did it, that must be why they did it. Yeah, right
Our own Declaration of Independence proclaimed that "All men are created equal" and have an "unalienable" right to liberty. But it still took America another 90 years to ban slavery.
Documents like the DoI and the ToP contain a lot of high-minded statements that are there mainly to make people feel good about supporting them. Which is not to say that they're total BS: concepts of liberty and peace are ideals, all the more important because people have a hard time living up to them. But in the real world, neither the EU ror the US were founded by idealists. Both had very pragmatic economic goals.
Which is actually a good thing. Pure idealists do not have a good track record. They tend to reject any inconvenient reality (or morality) that conflicts with their ideals.
The EU started out as the European Coal and Steel Community, steel being the stuff you use to make bombs, trucks, tanks and other weaponry. One of the express purposes of regulation the steel and coal industries was to be able to prevent any country from suddenly starting a mass buildup of weaponry, like Germany's effort immediately preceding WWII.
Probably not a prime purpose, though. Ignoring the France/Germany border for the purpose of making steel was always an economic no-brainer. (The border's there because it a mountainous region. Mountains have lots of coal and iron. Hauling coal and iron to steel mills long distances away just to avoid crossing a national border is expensive.) Only politics kept it from happening before Germany occupied France in 1940. Then Germany forced Vichy France to sign a trade deal to combine coal mines, iron mines, and steel mills on both sides of the border into a single economic unit. Germany's intention was to support its own war effort, but it was such a good idea, they kept it going even after Germany lost the war. Which is the real origin of the coal and steel community, and thus of the EU.
I'm sure that like US states for the past 142 years, we'll see fit to take it out on nations outside the federation.
Hey, would you feel better about us if we had another civil war? We're working on it...
The business of "robot rights" never came up in TFA; that's just the usual geeky overinterpretation. TFA was just about guys in dangerous, stressful situations bonding with the machines they work with. Nothing new. Len Deighton wrote a great short story about a WW II tank crew who were convinced their machine was alive and was actively protecting them. At the end of the war, they "put it down" by adding sand to the gas, like a hunter putting down a beloved but hopelessly sick old dog.
Did you ever have a stuffed animal when you were a kid? Did you really think it was alive? That it had rights? Of course not. But it was an important part of your world.
This girl is going to win her lawsuit, hands down.
And your legal theory for this is...
Don't assume that something is illegal just because it's unfair. A lot of stuff has been made illegal because it's unfair, but there's no general legal principle about it.
I'm not saying that there's no law that protects costumed education students from kneejerk moralized. But I can't think of one. And, I suspect, neither can you.
Unless you want to argue that this is religious discrimination. I mean, the woman certainly dresses like a Pastafarian...
Har har. Communication and supply is not the issue in Iraq. The U.S. military is actually quite good at that sort of thing. The problem with Iraq is that the Iraq's didn't spontaneously create a modern democracy as soon as we got rid of their dictator for them. Guess they didn't know that was a crucial element of The Plan.
Spain giving Louisiana to France was just one of those colony swaps that occurred regularly in those days. Spain got Louisiana from France that way in the first place. Neither country was serious about colonizing the territory properly, which was the only way they could have held onto it. And of course, even that doesn't really work, as the American Revolution demonstrates. You just can't control territory that's so hard to communicate with and to supply.
France gets accused of "stealing" Louisiana because they were occupying Spain at the time. But neither France nor Spain had the slightest hope of holding onto Louisiana — and both countries knew it.
Actually, Napoleon sold the LT because he realized it would have taken a huge military force to hold onto it. He actually tried, sending out a military expedition that was supposed to first pacify Haiti (the slaves were in revolt) and then move on and fortify Louisiana. The force in question got totally chewed up in the slave revolt, making Napoleon realize he had to prioritize his plans for World Conquest. Since American settlers were bound to drift in and become the majority in this "French" territory any (the way they later did in Texas), Napoleon thought it best to cut his loses.
Also, it's pretty much a myth that America and France were ever long-term allies. Yes, the two countries signed an alliance that was crucial to America winning its independence. But when, just a few year later, the French revolutionary government invoked this treaty, the Washington administration decided that the U.S. couldn't afford to fight Britain again. And a few years after that, the U.S. and France were at war. Since the U.S. and France has had its ups (they gave us that nice statue, we helped kick out the odd invader) but also its downs (NATO, the Suez crisis). All in all, just the usual relationship with furreners that don't talk good English.
It is silly to still be pissed at France about Iraq, though. Especially since most Americans now seem to think we should have listened to them.
Correction: Lotus does IBM's application software. There's other kinds of software handled by other IBM divisions.
But you're right, IBM is turning into an IT services company. They've acknowledged this in the past by selling off many of their hardware operations. (Culminating in their PC business, with the ironic result that IBM no longer makes IBM-compatible computers!) This is actually a pretty standard pattern: a company gets big by selling computer technology, then finds that they're too big and bureaucratic to keep up with the rapid changes in the very same technology. Meanwhile, their services businesses, which starts out as a simple support operation for the hardware business, continues to grow even as the hardware business declines.
Famous examples: Control Data, which used to be IBM's biggest challenger in the mainframe market, but now (under the name Ceridian) is purely a services company. There's DEC, of fond memory to anybody who used Unix before it was a commercial product, since they made almost all the computers that ran Unix in those days; Compaq ended up buying them primarily for their service business, which was a major factor in Compaq being acquired by HP. Then there's Unisys/Burroughs, which has been in the IT hardware business almost as long as IBM; they still sell hardware. but if you go to their web site, you'll have to search for evidence of the fact.
RTFA dude. "Some reason" is legal threats from RIAA. Calling somebody a hypocrite for the way they respond when somebody puts a gun to their head is itself pretty hypocritical.
Yes, PSH (boy, that name sucks) copies things like pipelines from Unix shells. It also has some features that no Unix shell every thought of, like script signing and support for hierarchical data stores.
I don't want to turn this into a stereotypical OSS vs. proprietary rant... but this very recent experience with Mathematica has left a bad taste in my mouth--and I was previously very much a Mathematica evangelist! It isn't so much that Mathematica is proprietary. It's just that Wolfram still indulges in practices that the rest of the closed-source software industry has given up on: charging as much as they can get away with, and putting piracy prevention ahead of customer experience.
I developed an interest in Mathematica many years ago when I read an intriguing article by Stephan Wolfram on the innovative things he'd done with the Mathematica programming language. Even though I'm not the usual math or hard science geek that's associated with Mathematica, I've never given it a spin, because of the cost. I'll bet there are a lot of people out there like me. And of course there are a lot of people like you, who fell in love with it as a professional user or a student, but fell out of love when they had to deal with all the BS Wolfram imposes on its users.
Too bad really. This is a product that could have a lot of mind share and had a positive impact on software practice. But SW was just too shortsighted.
An underfunded third-party implementation of the CLR is not exactly the same thing as one that is backed both by the name and the resources of Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Bar codes! Hey, that's a good idea! Think of all the hassle would save!
And of course, since they say that's why they did it, that must be why they did it. Yeah, right
Our own Declaration of Independence proclaimed that "All men are created equal" and have an "unalienable" right to liberty. But it still took America another 90 years to ban slavery.
Documents like the DoI and the ToP contain a lot of high-minded statements that are there mainly to make people feel good about supporting them. Which is not to say that they're total BS: concepts of liberty and peace are ideals, all the more important because people have a hard time living up to them. But in the real world, neither the EU ror the US were founded by idealists. Both had very pragmatic economic goals.
Which is actually a good thing. Pure idealists do not have a good track record. They tend to reject any inconvenient reality (or morality) that conflicts with their ideals.
The business of "robot rights" never came up in TFA; that's just the usual geeky overinterpretation. TFA was just about guys in dangerous, stressful situations bonding with the machines they work with. Nothing new. Len Deighton wrote a great short story about a WW II tank crew who were convinced their machine was alive and was actively protecting them. At the end of the war, they "put it down" by adding sand to the gas, like a hunter putting down a beloved but hopelessly sick old dog.
Did you ever have a stuffed animal when you were a kid? Did you really think it was alive? That it had rights? Of course not. But it was an important part of your world.
Dude, when did your couch every stand by you in battle? Video games don't count.
Don't assume that something is illegal just because it's unfair. A lot of stuff has been made illegal because it's unfair, but there's no general legal principle about it.
I'm not saying that there's no law that protects costumed education students from kneejerk moralized. But I can't think of one. And, I suspect, neither can you.
Unless you want to argue that this is religious discrimination. I mean, the woman certainly dresses like a Pastafarian...
Well, it's possible IBM's management is just acting retarded. And it's possible that Cringley is just full of shit. I know which theory I like...
Brings a whole new meaning to "dangling participle"...
Har har. Communication and supply is not the issue in Iraq. The U.S. military is actually quite good at that sort of thing. The problem with Iraq is that the Iraq's didn't spontaneously create a modern democracy as soon as we got rid of their dictator for them. Guess they didn't know that was a crucial element of The Plan.
Spain giving Louisiana to France was just one of those colony swaps that occurred regularly in those days. Spain got Louisiana from France that way in the first place. Neither country was serious about colonizing the territory properly, which was the only way they could have held onto it. And of course, even that doesn't really work, as the American Revolution demonstrates. You just can't control territory that's so hard to communicate with and to supply.
France gets accused of "stealing" Louisiana because they were occupying Spain at the time. But neither France nor Spain had the slightest hope of holding onto Louisiana — and both countries knew it.
Actually, Napoleon sold the LT because he realized it would have taken a huge military force to hold onto it. He actually tried, sending out a military expedition that was supposed to first pacify Haiti (the slaves were in revolt) and then move on and fortify Louisiana. The force in question got totally chewed up in the slave revolt, making Napoleon realize he had to prioritize his plans for World Conquest. Since American settlers were bound to drift in and become the majority in this "French" territory any (the way they later did in Texas), Napoleon thought it best to cut his loses.
Also, it's pretty much a myth that America and France were ever long-term allies. Yes, the two countries signed an alliance that was crucial to America winning its independence. But when, just a few year later, the French revolutionary government invoked this treaty, the Washington administration decided that the U.S. couldn't afford to fight Britain again. And a few years after that, the U.S. and France were at war. Since the U.S. and France has had its ups (they gave us that nice statue, we helped kick out the odd invader) but also its downs (NATO, the Suez crisis). All in all, just the usual relationship with furreners that don't talk good English.
It is silly to still be pissed at France about Iraq, though. Especially since most Americans now seem to think we should have listened to them.
People shoot paper targets!
Still, it's pretty hard to shoot a paper target without a gun...
Correction: Lotus does IBM's application software. There's other kinds of software handled by other IBM divisions.
But you're right, IBM is turning into an IT services company. They've acknowledged this in the past by selling off many of their hardware operations. (Culminating in their PC business, with the ironic result that IBM no longer makes IBM-compatible computers!) This is actually a pretty standard pattern: a company gets big by selling computer technology, then finds that they're too big and bureaucratic to keep up with the rapid changes in the very same technology. Meanwhile, their services businesses, which starts out as a simple support operation for the hardware business, continues to grow even as the hardware business declines.
Famous examples: Control Data, which used to be IBM's biggest challenger in the mainframe market, but now (under the name Ceridian) is purely a services company. There's DEC, of fond memory to anybody who used Unix before it was a commercial product, since they made almost all the computers that ran Unix in those days; Compaq ended up buying them primarily for their service business, which was a major factor in Compaq being acquired by HP. Then there's Unisys/Burroughs, which has been in the IT hardware business almost as long as IBM; they still sell hardware. but if you go to their web site, you'll have to search for evidence of the fact.
Yes, PSH (boy, that name sucks) copies things like pipelines from Unix shells. It also has some features that no Unix shell every thought of, like script signing and support for hierarchical data stores.
Yes, Microsoft is bad too. But Wolfram does all kinds of weird anti-piracy stuff that others, including Microsoft, have long since abandoned.
I developed an interest in Mathematica many years ago when I read an intriguing article by Stephan Wolfram on the innovative things he'd done with the Mathematica programming language. Even though I'm not the usual math or hard science geek that's associated with Mathematica, I've never given it a spin, because of the cost. I'll bet there are a lot of people out there like me. And of course there are a lot of people like you, who fell in love with it as a professional user or a student, but fell out of love when they had to deal with all the BS Wolfram imposes on its users.
Too bad really. This is a product that could have a lot of mind share and had a positive impact on software practice. But SW was just too shortsighted.
That's a very cryptic remark!
An underfunded third-party implementation of the CLR is not exactly the same thing as one that is backed both by the name and the resources of Microsoft.
... is out of the bag.
Damn it Locke! I don't care if the world ends! I'm not typing in those damn numbers every 108 minutes!
You know, you've just described a novelty board game with a guaranteed fan base....