Suspending someone for non-school related behavior is extremely illegal.
Generally speaking, I'd be inclined to agree. I was just correcting teambpsi's error (based on not even reading the summary, which is accurate on that point) in claiming there was a threat of a lawsuit.
It's illegal, but it's illegal under entirely different laws than threatening a bullshit lawsuit. And when you want to start a fight over something like this on the internet, it helps to make that distinction.
If you were fired from your job because became a registered Republican, the Republican party would go to war for the right to represent you in court.
Which is an entirely different issue. People have rather more expansive rights regarding their jobs than students (or minors in general) do, and political activities (on one's own time) get special protection that few other activities do.
Plus, of course, good luck getting the party to actually spend that kind of money, unless you have some real connections to begin with, but it's certainly possible.
While that is arguable, in theory, in practice, you're not going to find an attorney who would take that case on a contingency. Which means writing a five figure check as a retainer just to get it started. And collecting legal fees is virtually impossible, no matter what some cop show you saw on TV tells you.
they couldn't possibly hope to recover the $100k+ in legal fees.
$100,000? That's just a tiny bit inflated.
In all likelihood, the second the kid shows up with an attorney in tow, the school board will consult with their own attorney, apologies will be offered, and the idiot principal will be reeducated (preferably in a camp in Siberia). If not, odds are, the whole thing will be settled quickly after the suit is filed, at minimal cost to both sides. But counting on either of those is foolish, at best.
If the school board is as stupid as their principal, and it goes to trial, then, in fact, $100k is about the average to get to a jury decision in most states. Depending on the state, it would also take six months to several years to get to that point.
If you bothered to read the article, or the summary above, you might notice that there's no threat of a lawsuit, only of a suspension. The burden (and expense) of filing a lawsuit would be on the kid (and his parents). And while they might win, odds are, they couldn't possibly hope to recover the $100k+ in legal fees.
"We realized even Appleheads won't buy a TV that only lets them watch programs through the iTunes store, and we can't figure out how to insert ads in to your cable feed."
If you find advertising that does not involve a realistic threat of physical violence against your person to be coercive, then advertising isn't the problem, your broken mind is.
Don't say I didn't warn you. I won a bet on that, on Usenet, with a guy who claimed that it wasn't possible for Bruce Campbell to make a movie so bad it was just bad, since he's the all-time master of so bad it's good. I sent him a copy of the DVD from Amazon[1], on the condition that he watch every frame, and write us a review. His review started, "Wow. I was wrong. Bruce Campbell made a movie so bad it was just bad."
[1]My personal Scale of Suckage for DVDs is a fraction, the bottom of which is the retail price on Amazon for a brand new copy, and the top of which is the cost of shipping. When that number exceeds one - the shipping is more than the price of the DVD - you know you have a real turkey. It's also a bad, bad sign when used copies are selling for more than new copies.
Also, I'm told Man with the Screaming Brain, made with the same people at the same time, is actually worse, but Alien Apocalypse aired first, and my momma didn't raise that big a fool.
Alien Apocalypse, with Bruce Campbell and Renée O'Connor, made for the Syphilis Channel's movie of the week. So bad even Bruce Campbell couldn't make it so bad it was good.
IMO, you won't miss much. I was bored before it actually started, by the director's monotone, talking about how wonderful a film it was, and how Lucas copied him in one of the SW movies. Yawn. Then, the opening credits took about five minutes (which is to say, five minutes of Scottish scenery, with bland music, followed by a few seconds of the title), then about five minutes of the protagonist riding his horse though Scottish scenery, with bland music. So you're nearly halfway through before anything happens at all, including dialog.
And whoever choreographed the fight scene has never been in the same room with an actual sword - they couldn't even cut the scene well enough to hide the fact that the protagonist is staring constantly as the stunt man's hands to avoid breaking his fingers.
So, as I said, you won't miss much. Unless you like Scottish scenery and bland music.
If you give up on the idea of online elections, and focus instead on online town meeting voting on particular bylaws or local spending, which doesn't need to be anonymous,
Based on my own experiences living in small towns, I can only conclude that either you never have, or you're smoking some mighty fine dope. There's no place where anonymous voting is more necessary. Boss Hogg knows where you live, and where your kids play. And will make certainly know he knows.
You have that backwards. What they pump in the ground is more pure than what's already there. It's reverse osmosis water, and far, far cleaner than what comes out of the tap. (And the plant is a technological marvel.)
When do we have an expectation of privacy anymore?
When we are not actively broadcasting our location to third parties as an inherent part of the service? Privacy isn't possible when your phone is broadcasting constantly where it is. Any more than privacy on the internet is possible, since everything you do, by the nature of the internet, passes through multiple parties' anonymous hands.
So not only are they out $50 on you, they're potentially out an additional $150 on the unsold seat.
Only if you don't count the $250 they already got for the ticket you bought. Their complaint (on that issue) is that you're buying a cheaper ticket than they wanted to sell you. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, which amount to "we want to sell the same seat twice, and we can't when you do this, and we don't like it even though we couldn't if you bought the ticket we wanted to sell you."
The one real issue I see (as mentioned in TFA) is that when you skip the second leg, they will wait at the gate until they're sure you're not coming. That can, and I expect, does, make flights leave later. Not necessarily late, per se, but later than they might have otherwise. They can't really delay the flights very long over this, so in the long run, it means that they'll end up making less effort to wait until people who are running a little late (because their first leg was late landing) are at the gate.
In short, the airlines lose nothing, and overall, probably make a little bit more, and other passengers are inconvenienced, but probably not much. So this must be a day that ends in "y."
The problem is people - government goons and ordinary internet users - who can't tell the difference between blowing off steam and real incitement.
The standard in meatspace is that you can advocate violence, but you can't advocate specific violent right now. You so can say "we should overthrow the government," you can't say "Let's go burn the FBI building down right now."
Making that distinction online is impossible for most people, because most of the internet is text only, without context or body language, and because most people are hysterical idiots. So the teenage boy who says in some online game "go rape yourself" to some teenage girl, because that's how teenage boys always talk to each other is suddenly under investigation for making terrorist threats. And then the outrage starts from both sides, and the police have no clue what any of it means, or how to respond. They only know that voters are harassing their political bosses to do something, anything, even if it's wrong.
Add in a few Joker types, "who just want to watch the world burn," who are deliberately inciting violence, mixed with the usual retarded morons who gobble down whatever propaganda they're spoon fed, so long as it agrees with what they want to be true, and, well, welcome to 2015.
Note that either Researcher A or Researcher B, or even both, could be shoveling manure. If the research is allowed to be kept secret, and the EPA allowed to use it while keeping it secret, either can be either:
1) Suppressing valuable new inventions to protect dying industries, or
2) Promoting stock scams for political allies of the administration.
Slashdot Mirror
That's OK, it will probably only be used for browser hijacking ads anyway.
That assumes that the business can raise prices without consequence, which is an invalid assumption.
Potentially, but not inherently so. You assume - invalidly - that the consequences do not and cannot change regardless of the conditions.
Suspending someone for non-school related behavior is extremely illegal.
Generally speaking, I'd be inclined to agree. I was just correcting teambpsi's error (based on not even reading the summary, which is accurate on that point) in claiming there was a threat of a lawsuit.
It's illegal, but it's illegal under entirely different laws than threatening a bullshit lawsuit. And when you want to start a fight over something like this on the internet, it helps to make that distinction.
If you were fired from your job because became a registered Republican, the Republican party would go to war for the right to represent you in court.
Which is an entirely different issue. People have rather more expansive rights regarding their jobs than students (or minors in general) do, and political activities (on one's own time) get special protection that few other activities do.
Plus, of course, good luck getting the party to actually spend that kind of money, unless you have some real connections to begin with, but it's certainly possible.
While that is arguable, in theory, in practice, you're not going to find an attorney who would take that case on a contingency. Which means writing a five figure check as a retainer just to get it started. And collecting legal fees is virtually impossible, no matter what some cop show you saw on TV tells you.
they couldn't possibly hope to recover the $100k+ in legal fees.
$100,000? That's just a tiny bit inflated.
In all likelihood, the second the kid shows up with an attorney in tow, the school board will consult with their own attorney, apologies will be offered, and the idiot principal will be reeducated (preferably in a camp in Siberia). If not, odds are, the whole thing will be settled quickly after the suit is filed, at minimal cost to both sides. But counting on either of those is foolish, at best.
If the school board is as stupid as their principal, and it goes to trial, then, in fact, $100k is about the average to get to a jury decision in most states. Depending on the state, it would also take six months to several years to get to that point.
Particularly if they do not post - and enforce - a general prohibition against photography by everyone else, including the press.
If you bothered to read the article, or the summary above, you might notice that there's no threat of a lawsuit, only of a suspension. The burden (and expense) of filing a lawsuit would be on the kid (and his parents). And while they might win, odds are, they couldn't possibly hope to recover the $100k+ in legal fees.
"We realized even Appleheads won't buy a TV that only lets them watch programs through the iTunes store, and we can't figure out how to insert ads in to your cable feed."
If web sites can't find a way to pay for the content and hosting then they eventually will go away.
Since the overwhelming majority of the web is useless trash, that would be called "improving the signal to noise ratio."
If the service is free - and ad supported web sites generally are - you're not the customer, you're the product.
No, he understands exactly what he advocates. He's not ignorant at all. His viewpoint isn't ignorant, it's . . . sociopathic.
Active advertising is literally coercion,
If you find advertising that does not involve a realistic threat of physical violence against your person to be coercive, then advertising isn't the problem, your broken mind is.
Toxic bean waste. Smells good, though.
Don't say I didn't warn you. I won a bet on that, on Usenet, with a guy who claimed that it wasn't possible for Bruce Campbell to make a movie so bad it was just bad, since he's the all-time master of so bad it's good. I sent him a copy of the DVD from Amazon[1], on the condition that he watch every frame, and write us a review. His review started, "Wow. I was wrong. Bruce Campbell made a movie so bad it was just bad."
[1]My personal Scale of Suckage for DVDs is a fraction, the bottom of which is the retail price on Amazon for a brand new copy, and the top of which is the cost of shipping. When that number exceeds one - the shipping is more than the price of the DVD - you know you have a real turkey. It's also a bad, bad sign when used copies are selling for more than new copies.
Also, I'm told Man with the Screaming Brain, made with the same people at the same time, is actually worse, but Alien Apocalypse aired first, and my momma didn't raise that big a fool.
Alien Apocalypse, with Bruce Campbell and Renée O'Connor, made for the Syphilis Channel's movie of the week. So bad even Bruce Campbell couldn't make it so bad it was good.
IMO, you won't miss much. I was bored before it actually started, by the director's monotone, talking about how wonderful a film it was, and how Lucas copied him in one of the SW movies. Yawn. Then, the opening credits took about five minutes (which is to say, five minutes of Scottish scenery, with bland music, followed by a few seconds of the title), then about five minutes of the protagonist riding his horse though Scottish scenery, with bland music. So you're nearly halfway through before anything happens at all, including dialog.
And whoever choreographed the fight scene has never been in the same room with an actual sword - they couldn't even cut the scene well enough to hide the fact that the protagonist is staring constantly as the stunt man's hands to avoid breaking his fingers.
So, as I said, you won't miss much. Unless you like Scottish scenery and bland music.
What's to understand? He's likely a closet queer with such poor self esteem he can't admit it, even to himself. But the truth struggles to escape.
If you give up on the idea of online elections, and focus instead on online town meeting voting on particular bylaws or local spending, which doesn't need to be anonymous,
Based on my own experiences living in small towns, I can only conclude that either you never have, or you're smoking some mighty fine dope. There's no place where anonymous voting is more necessary. Boss Hogg knows where you live, and where your kids play. And will make certainly know he knows.
and to be diluted by the natural water supply
You have that backwards. What they pump in the ground is more pure than what's already there. It's reverse osmosis water, and far, far cleaner than what comes out of the tap. (And the plant is a technological marvel.)
You can't actually take the sample on the phone
I dunno. I'll bet you could convince a hell of a lot of people to spit on their phone, then mail it off to Apple.
When do we have an expectation of privacy anymore?
When we are not actively broadcasting our location to third parties as an inherent part of the service? Privacy isn't possible when your phone is broadcasting constantly where it is. Any more than privacy on the internet is possible, since everything you do, by the nature of the internet, passes through multiple parties' anonymous hands.
So not only are they out $50 on you, they're potentially out an additional $150 on the unsold seat.
Only if you don't count the $250 they already got for the ticket you bought. Their complaint (on that issue) is that you're buying a cheaper ticket than they wanted to sell you. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, which amount to "we want to sell the same seat twice, and we can't when you do this, and we don't like it even though we couldn't if you bought the ticket we wanted to sell you."
The one real issue I see (as mentioned in TFA) is that when you skip the second leg, they will wait at the gate until they're sure you're not coming. That can, and I expect, does, make flights leave later. Not necessarily late, per se, but later than they might have otherwise. They can't really delay the flights very long over this, so in the long run, it means that they'll end up making less effort to wait until people who are running a little late (because their first leg was late landing) are at the gate.
In short, the airlines lose nothing, and overall, probably make a little bit more, and other passengers are inconvenienced, but probably not much. So this must be a day that ends in "y."
I'd be happier if we substitute "nuke from orbit" for "ban."
The problem is people - government goons and ordinary internet users - who can't tell the difference between blowing off steam and real incitement.
The standard in meatspace is that you can advocate violence, but you can't advocate specific violent right now. You so can say "we should overthrow the government," you can't say "Let's go burn the FBI building down right now."
Making that distinction online is impossible for most people, because most of the internet is text only, without context or body language, and because most people are hysterical idiots. So the teenage boy who says in some online game "go rape yourself" to some teenage girl, because that's how teenage boys always talk to each other is suddenly under investigation for making terrorist threats. And then the outrage starts from both sides, and the police have no clue what any of it means, or how to respond. They only know that voters are harassing their political bosses to do something, anything, even if it's wrong.
Add in a few Joker types, "who just want to watch the world burn," who are deliberately inciting violence, mixed with the usual retarded morons who gobble down whatever propaganda they're spoon fed, so long as it agrees with what they want to be true, and, well, welcome to 2015.
Note that either Researcher A or Researcher B, or even both, could be shoveling manure. If the research is allowed to be kept secret, and the EPA allowed to use it while keeping it secret, either can be either:
1) Suppressing valuable new inventions to protect dying industries, or
2) Promoting stock scams for political allies of the administration.
Or, of course, both at the same time.