That's what school boards are for. Every town has one, and there are higher level ones for overruling if you're stuck in some crazy backwater.
But few parents even bother to ever even attend a school board meeting, let alone join one. Most parents never even bother to meet their kids teachers, certainly not more than once on the first day, or when they get hauled in after their kid has stinkbombed the class or something. Instead they prefer to whine.
In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. Nowhere is this more true than in public schools.
There's a difference between the government ensuring kids know some things, and specifying that parents teach them those things. We're talking about consequences, which parents should be free to expect and encounter any way they want. If they think it's worth going to jail for their 15 year old mugging someone, because they didn't teach them not to, that's their business. The main benefit would be giving the kid a chance to finally learn the lesson, including seeing their delinquent parent going to jail, even if that lesson is just sticking to your principles (even of delinquency) despite the consequences. The lesson that there aren't free exceptions to consequences when someone is harmed by your actions.
Schools are going to teach all kinds of BS that parents won't approve, that kids shouldn't bother learning. Everyone agrees with the lines "When I think of all the crap I learned in high school / It's a wonder I than think of all" from Paul Simon's "Kodachrome". As I said, an extremely important lesson is learning how to learn something that you won't use, whether because it's useless, or because it's wrong, or whatever.
So yes, if a county votes in teaching Pastfarianism, unless it teaches something actually dangerous without any upside, or something clearly manufactured by a determined minority conning the majority of the people in the county that's wrong, then the school should teach it. And parents should exercise their far greater influence over their kids to teach them how to ignore Pastfarianism, or just what the "truth" is about Pastfarianism, even if the parents are wrong. If the kid has learned how to learn, and how to think for themself, they'll benefit from the duality, and pick what's right later.
No, I don't want to see the state require what parents must teach their kids. Basic liberty and even biological diversity depend on parents exercising the maximum freedom possible in teaching their kids.
There is a good case for holding parents responsible when their kids break laws their parents should be responsible for teaching them not to break.
But schools should teach kinds the minimum that makes them safe. Kids whose parents already taught them will have it easy, and thereby get a reward, as well has see reinforced the stuff their parents teach them that most kids think is just their own parents' weird hangup, so they're more secure in following it.
And kids whose parents disagree with what the school teaches them can also teach their kids to ignore what the school teaches them, which is probably the most important lesson.
But people go bankrupt all the time, just not so many, though for these reasons (bad mortgage/debt planning). There are a lot more people who would be asked to bail out those extra going bankrupt. Including some already going bankrupt who'd either be asked to bail out the "special" ones as extra new debt from extra taxes, or be asked to go the usual harsh bankruptcy route while those special people didn't get punished as hard, or both. The tiny minority of people getting bailed out from this bankruptcy would also include people not just bad decision makers, not just down on their luck, but lots of speculators who banked more profits through the bubble years than they stand to lose on their last mortgage when it hit the wall. And lots of fraudulent borrowers, among both flippers and actual primary homeowners alike.
So there's a lot of political hay to be made from doing it right. From making the fraudsters and speculators pay. From assigning personal responsibility, and from saving taxes which would be spent on people just because they tied themselves to the railroad tracks. Since there's so many more people who'd have to pay to bail them out, but receive nothing (and have all missed the free money while it lasted), but so relatively few who'd get the free ride, among whom are plenty of people for the rest to resent out of either simple integrity against crooks or just jealousy of aggressive speculators, I think the politics strongly favors letting people fail as closely to the way we have all along, except in the bailout bubble that the real estate market offered to our fake economy after the realer (but still pumped up) 1990s boom. If part of the solution unlocked everyone's IRAs/etc for homebuying to create liquidity, and left a housing glut at plummeting prices for the majority of proper planners to pick from, I think such a reform regime would be politically very popular.
The problem is that the politicians are holding the defaulting borrowers hostage as ransom to be given to the banks. They're trumping up sympathy, and playing down the unfairness (yet again) of the costs and indemnifications which reward the bad at the expense of the good, because they will shunt the bailout through the banks, which are the least deserving of it in every way. If there were some politicians with courage to disregard the banks bribes and threats of backlash, it would be an easy sell to the public, whose best interests could be easily illustrated.
And if we don't have at least some of those, at least tempering the bailout, then this crisis will just be used, according to the shock doctrine, to make all the problems even worse, to make even more money for even less accountable banks. At the expense of an American public even less able to afford it. Possibly for the last time.
Most people's "drug problem" is when they can't get drugs, not when they have or are on them.
This study would mean that "gamers are less violent" overall if it tested their stress levels all the time, including when (if) they're not gaming, but agains their will/preference. And then it would still need to establish a direct correlation between stress levels and violence. What if being physically (not virtually) violent lowers their stress levels? Good for the gamer, bad for their victims.
What this study has probably shown is that gamers have incorporated their gaming "fix" into managing their stress. But it doesn't show whether gamers have become dependent on the games, whether their stress levels would go up without the games, whether they'd go up more than if they'd never played them, whether they've increased their "stressability" by gaming.
Instead, these results are the videogame version of scientific conclusions. Play again? Another score!
If the necessary exception to the foolishly issued and accepted mortgage contract is to serve to keep people from becoming homeless (and thereby costing the public a lot more money, including extra services for the lifetimes of any children whose needs will be increased and whose earning/consuming/taxpaying power will be reduced, and also intolerably bumming us out), there are better ways.
The main way is for the family to go bankrupt, and let the bankruptcy court arbitrate their shelter from creditors, including (but not limited to) Bear Stearns. Spread the default pressure across the whole economy. According to a prioritization plan that looks at the whole economy, including all defaulters. Which penalizes in cash those creditors who misjudged their debtors' risks, and penalizes in cash and credit rating (and asset sales, etc) those debtors who misjudged their own risks. The standard way we manage defaults, but coordinated more to the entire economy, because there are so many. If either debtor or creditor suffers intolerable losses to liquidity (eg. life threatening, or just bums us out too much), the government could loan either or both of them extra money, from a fund that comes with an extra credit stigma, and/or longer terms of higher (but payable) interest. "Extreme bankruptcy", but still within our understood system, without creating much, if any, extra moral hazard.
Another way is for the government to not simply pay the debtor's mortgage off to the bank, but simply to sit in the auction market when the home forecloses. Helping to bid up the prices, and buying a percentage of the homes by representing a percentage of the capital. When the government owns a home, it can let the family continue to live in it, but restructure the payments on more affordable terms, or just give the family longer to move out into another home (though the glut during the crisis is their best time to buy). Homes of families moving out rather than take the improved repayment structure would provide homes for other families moving out to try to buy (in the general market). The prices of homes would still deflate, but the government would take the edge off the transition of many homes, though some people would still just get foreclosed and bought out by private, perhaps ruthless, landlords (who could offer their own deals for staying at restructured terms, in the market glut that could leave that home without a buyer, or just at a very reduced cost less attractive than a restructured continuing owner, but more than either the purchase price or the expected risk:return in a down economy).
There are other ways, many even more subtle. This is the financial industry of derivatives designed by PhD's; I'm sure they can be even more clever remodeling cost:benefit*risk in the new economy without just eliminating risk to foolish borrowers and forcing hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans into homelessness, and so glutting the housing market that it totally crashes, taking the mortgage, credit, derivatives, construction and the rest of the subeconomies down with it. If they just reduce the pressure substantially below the crisis threshold, they don't even have to solve everyone's problems. Just enough to keep the losses from either creating more public costs (homelessness, credit crunch from failed banks) over the longer term that either cripple the economy, or just bum us out too much. Just as banks which get bailouts from defaults they earned with bad vetting or planning would have longterm payback requiring greater returns to the public, like the way they can buy back their creditor rating by making more riskier loans successful, bailed out borrowers could pay more interest at lower rates over a longer term back to the government, like most people do with their student loans, but directly to the government, and regain their credit with more successfully managed loan repayments, under a reeducation and close management program sponsored by the government.
But the option we're taking is the dumbest, the costlie
No, you're just wrong. I was explaining in detail the case where the kid was underage, because their privacy expectations (and thereby their privacy rights) are not the constraint. If they can't waive their privacy, then there is no other issue. Their ability to waive their privacy is the governing criterion. There are rare cases, like medical necessity, or some situations when a guardian can consent to waive their privacy, or the kid takes their own picture and does not show anyone, when their picture can legitimately be taken while they're naked. And there are debatable cases, like if the kid takes their own picture, and then shows it to other people only once they've reached the age of consent, and there are some cases of "art", which is some kind of arbitrary value judgement (because all photography is art, the question is always whether some authority likes it enough to permit it). So excepting some kind of case that you didn't describe, an underage kid cannot be photographed, though your housemate seeing them doesn't make your housemate liable, if all they did was walk in a place they had a right to walk.
But the "teenager" (an arbitrary distinction, if they're of the age to consent) can waive their privacy rights, they have done so by appearing naked in front of a window visible to the public. There is no extra right not to be photographed when in public view, where the public can rightfully view a person (or view anything). And there is no extra right to prohibit publication of a legitimate photograph, except copyright, which does not apply to a person's appearance (just to made objects).
So now will you admit that you are wrong, or at least start to back up your implication that there are some people you're allowed to see, but not photograph, or maybe photograph, but not publish? Because it's getting tiresome both to be precise, and to point out how I know it, but to debate someone who will do neither.
I presume you mean teenaged as in "under the age of consent". In which case he doesn't have the right to photograph her, or publish the photographs, no matter how public her exhibition was. She doesn't have the right to waive her privacy rights until she is old enough to consent. He's not responsible for seeing her, if he walked past on public property (or had permission on private property), because he didn't act in any way he didn't have a right to. But if he took out a camera, or kept a camera going that was already recording, once he knew (or could reasonably have guessed) that an underage person was being recorded, he was responsible. And of course he'd be responsible for publishing any images he might have even inadvertently taken, if he should have known that he was doing so.
This isn't complicated at all. There are privacy rights, and there are other restrictions. When you do something, you're responsible, unless you didn't know you were doing it, but only if you need not have known, as a sensible person. Your mother presumably taught you all this. It's no different in the "real world". Listen to your mama, and you won't go far wrong.
Well, I don't think art and science are at all mutually exclusive, nor that science is at all "soulless" (unless the scientists are soulless, which they can be beaten into, like in any field).
I always thought it was true when I heard that "computer science is about computers the way that astronomy is about telescopes". Once you get that, and maybe know some soulful astronomers, you can see how people with soul can jam on computers as hard as others jam on the saxophone.
Programming is speaking in a computer language, which depends on properly thinking in that language, or an abstraction of it that you can translate into that language. If all you learn in CS is what people have written before, but not how they thought it up and wrote it, you're just going to be able to quote the old stuff. Which only goes so far: solving the old problems. A lot of CS is jus that, because the old problems are still problems, but usually the newer languages themselves incorporate those common solutions. So just speaking the language means having the old solutions.
If all you're going to do is be the adapter between some people and a machine, the rote kind of CS training will suffice, at least for something like 80% of problems (the other 20% will be really hard, typically at least 80% of the work, according to the inevitable 80:20 rule of all programming ratios). But if you learn only the language, and how to think in it, not necessarily a book of historical solutions, the new 20% won't be that much harder than the repeatable 80% (well, probably 80% of the new 20%, anyway;). And if you learned not just the language, but not quite the "literature", but the language well enough to describe the problem in terms of the language, then search tools like Google and SW repositories will let you find any of the literature on demand, rather than "preloading" it all before you've ever got a problem.
I was lucky to always have qualified teachers (except my JHS band teacher, and some elementary school wacko failed moms), and some really inspiring ones.
Where did you go to school, that they routinely hired such losers? And how did that chem teacher's sports teams fare in their seasons?
In this life, you can be paranoid, or in denial, or always know exactly what is happening. Exact knowledge is hard to come by even under the best circumstances, let alone on the subway. So 40% paranoia probably means close to 60% denial. Which is exactly what you need to keep it together on the subway, surrounded by the public, strangers you'll never see again.
If the road is private, Google (or anyone) cannot stand or drive on that private property. But they can still stand on nearby public property, like a public road. They can still look over at the outside of the private property adjoining the road. They can still photograph what they can see (but not what they can't, like with X-rays or infrared, or long periscopes extended inside the private property). They can still publish their photographs.
The fact is that we have walls and drapes to protect our privacy. The outsides of our property are public, if the public can view it without being located on excluded private property.
If Google's published photos demonstrate that they drove on private property, the owners have evidence to press trespassing charges against Google. Their state might have laws which further prohibit photography by unauthorized trespassers, and assign damages for the photography, and further possibly for the publishing, which would be entirely reasonable. Even if there's no financial loss, there could be a case for the loss of fences, signage etc paid to keep Google out that was ignored. And the most serious breach is the trespassing, which is one of the most important rights in private property that we keep governments around to protect. Since I doubt they were singled out for trespass, Google's probably published lots of incriminating evidence of their likely many trespasses. Which could be a serious problem for Google. And, tragically, for their entire public photography project, which, if conducted lawfully, would have so much public value.
As one teacher put it: 'this is like telling the football coach next year is the last year you have a varsity team.'
No, it's like telling the football coach that next year is the last year there will be trophies awarded at the championship game. They can still have a team, there just won't be an official ranking.
Of course the AP test credit is a lot of the value of the programme, so cancelling the test is a travesty, and might be a reason to cancel the course, especially if students spend their time taking other courses that award the credit they can use.
But if the teachers are making that kind of analogy, they shouldn't be teaching. Not even CS classes, because thinking with analogies is more important to programming than is instruction in language syntax. It's like a football team with a coach who's really just the second-string halfback.
You're paying over 50% of your income for housing, but you think the economy is working properly? Why didn't you mention that in the first place, so I could just ignore an idiot like you. Who cares whether you agree with me, if it's for the wrong reasons. Like when I give you the good reasons you ask for, and that somehow convinces you to start calling me names.
Of course the bank shouldn't be responsible for losses incurred that are because the customer's own access device had a problem the customer should have known to fix. If the customer's device was vulnerable, but not actually compromised, of course the bank is liable if the bank's system caused the loss. Even if the customer's device was vulnerable and compromised, if that compromise didn't cause or contribute to the loss, of course the customer is not liable, if the loss was entirely the bank's fault.
If the loss was incurred by a bad guy exploiting an open vulnerability in the customer's access device, then the liability should be exactly the same as if the bad guy had entered the customer's home and stolen the key to their vault at the bank. If the door was locked, the customer is not liable at all, and the burglar is fully liable.
If the "door" was not locked, then the local laws, wherever the burglar did whatever they did to subvert the customer's device, will determine whether the burglar has any less liability for picking an easy target. The laws local to the customer's "unlocked door" will determine whether the customer has any more liability.
This is all a matter of obvious principles of liability for one's actions, and long-settled law governing that liability. Of course the bank is liable for losses it caused, even if just through negligently failing to protect its own systems. Now, of course the bank is going to try to weasel out of that liability, if it can: banks don't care about principles or laws, just the money they can make or lose. But if I leave my credit card at a restaurant, and then some burglar breaks into my safe deposit box while the bank security guard sleeps, of course the bank is liable, and not me, and not the waitress who was trying to charge a new TV to my account at the time - even if she's responsible for the TV charge, completely independently.
No, you're the liar and the thief. After I backed up my statements with some citations you asked for, all you've got in return is baseless assertions that they're wrong. You can't even bother to give a reason why people paying over 50% of their incomes on housing, suddenly losing an extra 10%+ of their incomes, wouldn't face homelessness.
But why should you? You're desperate for any rationalization for the government propping up the Bear Stearns buyout by JP Morgan, and the years of laissez faire deregulation that fueled it off the rails, because you made a few bucks off that rigged market.
At least you're so arrogant that you'll admit that in public, even if you don't realize it.
Well, from a Venusian's perspective, the Earth evolved far too much. Leaving all those tepid sticky areas out beyond the Sun's cleansing rays has left the Earth to rot, infested with all kinds of vermin. Some of which just dirty the place up even more, and then get nosy, ogling the neighbors and insulting their tidy nearby neighborhoods.
That review of Venus was clearly written by an Earthling real estate agent.
Slashdot Mirror
They should aim to minimize the BS.
That's what school boards are for. Every town has one, and there are higher level ones for overruling if you're stuck in some crazy backwater.
But few parents even bother to ever even attend a school board meeting, let alone join one. Most parents never even bother to meet their kids teachers, certainly not more than once on the first day, or when they get hauled in after their kid has stinkbombed the class or something. Instead they prefer to whine.
In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. Nowhere is this more true than in public schools.
There's a difference between the government ensuring kids know some things, and specifying that parents teach them those things. We're talking about consequences, which parents should be free to expect and encounter any way they want. If they think it's worth going to jail for their 15 year old mugging someone, because they didn't teach them not to, that's their business. The main benefit would be giving the kid a chance to finally learn the lesson, including seeing their delinquent parent going to jail, even if that lesson is just sticking to your principles (even of delinquency) despite the consequences. The lesson that there aren't free exceptions to consequences when someone is harmed by your actions.
Schools are going to teach all kinds of BS that parents won't approve, that kids shouldn't bother learning. Everyone agrees with the lines "When I think of all the crap I learned in high school / It's a wonder I than think of all" from Paul Simon's "Kodachrome". As I said, an extremely important lesson is learning how to learn something that you won't use, whether because it's useless, or because it's wrong, or whatever.
So yes, if a county votes in teaching Pastfarianism, unless it teaches something actually dangerous without any upside, or something clearly manufactured by a determined minority conning the majority of the people in the county that's wrong, then the school should teach it. And parents should exercise their far greater influence over their kids to teach them how to ignore Pastfarianism, or just what the "truth" is about Pastfarianism, even if the parents are wrong. If the kid has learned how to learn, and how to think for themself, they'll benefit from the duality, and pick what's right later.
No, I don't want to see the state require what parents must teach their kids. Basic liberty and even biological diversity depend on parents exercising the maximum freedom possible in teaching their kids.
There is a good case for holding parents responsible when their kids break laws their parents should be responsible for teaching them not to break.
But schools should teach kinds the minimum that makes them safe. Kids whose parents already taught them will have it easy, and thereby get a reward, as well has see reinforced the stuff their parents teach them that most kids think is just their own parents' weird hangup, so they're more secure in following it.
And kids whose parents disagree with what the school teaches them can also teach their kids to ignore what the school teaches them, which is probably the most important lesson.
I can't wait for music to feature the quality, innovation and depth of soul that Microsoft is known for.
Oh, wait - that's what's wrong with all the music already being made with the last generation of music technology.
But people go bankrupt all the time, just not so many, though for these reasons (bad mortgage/debt planning). There are a lot more people who would be asked to bail out those extra going bankrupt. Including some already going bankrupt who'd either be asked to bail out the "special" ones as extra new debt from extra taxes, or be asked to go the usual harsh bankruptcy route while those special people didn't get punished as hard, or both. The tiny minority of people getting bailed out from this bankruptcy would also include people not just bad decision makers, not just down on their luck, but lots of speculators who banked more profits through the bubble years than they stand to lose on their last mortgage when it hit the wall. And lots of fraudulent borrowers, among both flippers and actual primary homeowners alike.
So there's a lot of political hay to be made from doing it right. From making the fraudsters and speculators pay. From assigning personal responsibility, and from saving taxes which would be spent on people just because they tied themselves to the railroad tracks. Since there's so many more people who'd have to pay to bail them out, but receive nothing (and have all missed the free money while it lasted), but so relatively few who'd get the free ride, among whom are plenty of people for the rest to resent out of either simple integrity against crooks or just jealousy of aggressive speculators, I think the politics strongly favors letting people fail as closely to the way we have all along, except in the bailout bubble that the real estate market offered to our fake economy after the realer (but still pumped up) 1990s boom. If part of the solution unlocked everyone's IRAs/etc for homebuying to create liquidity, and left a housing glut at plummeting prices for the majority of proper planners to pick from, I think such a reform regime would be politically very popular.
The problem is that the politicians are holding the defaulting borrowers hostage as ransom to be given to the banks. They're trumping up sympathy, and playing down the unfairness (yet again) of the costs and indemnifications which reward the bad at the expense of the good, because they will shunt the bailout through the banks, which are the least deserving of it in every way. If there were some politicians with courage to disregard the banks bribes and threats of backlash, it would be an easy sell to the public, whose best interests could be easily illustrated.
And if we don't have at least some of those, at least tempering the bailout, then this crisis will just be used, according to the shock doctrine, to make all the problems even worse, to make even more money for even less accountable banks. At the expense of an American public even less able to afford it. Possibly for the last time.
Most people's "drug problem" is when they can't get drugs, not when they have or are on them.
This study would mean that "gamers are less violent" overall if it tested their stress levels all the time, including when (if) they're not gaming, but agains their will/preference. And then it would still need to establish a direct correlation between stress levels and violence. What if being physically (not virtually) violent lowers their stress levels? Good for the gamer, bad for their victims.
What this study has probably shown is that gamers have incorporated their gaming "fix" into managing their stress. But it doesn't show whether gamers have become dependent on the games, whether their stress levels would go up without the games, whether they'd go up more than if they'd never played them, whether they've increased their "stressability" by gaming.
Instead, these results are the videogame version of scientific conclusions. Play again? Another score!
If the necessary exception to the foolishly issued and accepted mortgage contract is to serve to keep people from becoming homeless (and thereby costing the public a lot more money, including extra services for the lifetimes of any children whose needs will be increased and whose earning/consuming/taxpaying power will be reduced, and also intolerably bumming us out), there are better ways.
The main way is for the family to go bankrupt, and let the bankruptcy court arbitrate their shelter from creditors, including (but not limited to) Bear Stearns. Spread the default pressure across the whole economy. According to a prioritization plan that looks at the whole economy, including all defaulters. Which penalizes in cash those creditors who misjudged their debtors' risks, and penalizes in cash and credit rating (and asset sales, etc) those debtors who misjudged their own risks. The standard way we manage defaults, but coordinated more to the entire economy, because there are so many. If either debtor or creditor suffers intolerable losses to liquidity (eg. life threatening, or just bums us out too much), the government could loan either or both of them extra money, from a fund that comes with an extra credit stigma, and/or longer terms of higher (but payable) interest. "Extreme bankruptcy", but still within our understood system, without creating much, if any, extra moral hazard.
Another way is for the government to not simply pay the debtor's mortgage off to the bank, but simply to sit in the auction market when the home forecloses. Helping to bid up the prices, and buying a percentage of the homes by representing a percentage of the capital. When the government owns a home, it can let the family continue to live in it, but restructure the payments on more affordable terms, or just give the family longer to move out into another home (though the glut during the crisis is their best time to buy). Homes of families moving out rather than take the improved repayment structure would provide homes for other families moving out to try to buy (in the general market). The prices of homes would still deflate, but the government would take the edge off the transition of many homes, though some people would still just get foreclosed and bought out by private, perhaps ruthless, landlords (who could offer their own deals for staying at restructured terms, in the market glut that could leave that home without a buyer, or just at a very reduced cost less attractive than a restructured continuing owner, but more than either the purchase price or the expected risk:return in a down economy).
There are other ways, many even more subtle. This is the financial industry of derivatives designed by PhD's; I'm sure they can be even more clever remodeling cost:benefit*risk in the new economy without just eliminating risk to foolish borrowers and forcing hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans into homelessness, and so glutting the housing market that it totally crashes, taking the mortgage, credit, derivatives, construction and the rest of the subeconomies down with it. If they just reduce the pressure substantially below the crisis threshold, they don't even have to solve everyone's problems. Just enough to keep the losses from either creating more public costs (homelessness, credit crunch from failed banks) over the longer term that either cripple the economy, or just bum us out too much. Just as banks which get bailouts from defaults they earned with bad vetting or planning would have longterm payback requiring greater returns to the public, like the way they can buy back their creditor rating by making more riskier loans successful, bailed out borrowers could pay more interest at lower rates over a longer term back to the government, like most people do with their student loans, but directly to the government, and regain their credit with more successfully managed loan repayments, under a reeducation and close management program sponsored by the government.
But the option we're taking is the dumbest, the costlie
No, you're just wrong. I was explaining in detail the case where the kid was underage, because their privacy expectations (and thereby their privacy rights) are not the constraint. If they can't waive their privacy, then there is no other issue. Their ability to waive their privacy is the governing criterion. There are rare cases, like medical necessity, or some situations when a guardian can consent to waive their privacy, or the kid takes their own picture and does not show anyone, when their picture can legitimately be taken while they're naked. And there are debatable cases, like if the kid takes their own picture, and then shows it to other people only once they've reached the age of consent, and there are some cases of "art", which is some kind of arbitrary value judgement (because all photography is art, the question is always whether some authority likes it enough to permit it). So excepting some kind of case that you didn't describe, an underage kid cannot be photographed, though your housemate seeing them doesn't make your housemate liable, if all they did was walk in a place they had a right to walk.
But the "teenager" (an arbitrary distinction, if they're of the age to consent) can waive their privacy rights, they have done so by appearing naked in front of a window visible to the public. There is no extra right not to be photographed when in public view, where the public can rightfully view a person (or view anything). And there is no extra right to prohibit publication of a legitimate photograph, except copyright, which does not apply to a person's appearance (just to made objects).
So now will you admit that you are wrong, or at least start to back up your implication that there are some people you're allowed to see, but not photograph, or maybe photograph, but not publish? Because it's getting tiresome both to be precise, and to point out how I know it, but to debate someone who will do neither.
I presume you mean teenaged as in "under the age of consent". In which case he doesn't have the right to photograph her, or publish the photographs, no matter how public her exhibition was. She doesn't have the right to waive her privacy rights until she is old enough to consent. He's not responsible for seeing her, if he walked past on public property (or had permission on private property), because he didn't act in any way he didn't have a right to. But if he took out a camera, or kept a camera going that was already recording, once he knew (or could reasonably have guessed) that an underage person was being recorded, he was responsible. And of course he'd be responsible for publishing any images he might have even inadvertently taken, if he should have known that he was doing so.
This isn't complicated at all. There are privacy rights, and there are other restrictions. When you do something, you're responsible, unless you didn't know you were doing it, but only if you need not have known, as a sensible person. Your mother presumably taught you all this. It's no different in the "real world". Listen to your mama, and you won't go far wrong.
Well, I don't think art and science are at all mutually exclusive, nor that science is at all "soulless" (unless the scientists are soulless, which they can be beaten into, like in any field).
I always thought it was true when I heard that "computer science is about computers the way that astronomy is about telescopes". Once you get that, and maybe know some soulful astronomers, you can see how people with soul can jam on computers as hard as others jam on the saxophone.
Well, I didn't mean "depose" the lawyers ;).
Programming is speaking in a computer language, which depends on properly thinking in that language, or an abstraction of it that you can translate into that language. If all you learn in CS is what people have written before, but not how they thought it up and wrote it, you're just going to be able to quote the old stuff. Which only goes so far: solving the old problems. A lot of CS is jus that, because the old problems are still problems, but usually the newer languages themselves incorporate those common solutions. So just speaking the language means having the old solutions.
;). And if you learned not just the language, but not quite the "literature", but the language well enough to describe the problem in terms of the language, then search tools like Google and SW repositories will let you find any of the literature on demand, rather than "preloading" it all before you've ever got a problem.
If all you're going to do is be the adapter between some people and a machine, the rote kind of CS training will suffice, at least for something like 80% of problems (the other 20% will be really hard, typically at least 80% of the work, according to the inevitable 80:20 rule of all programming ratios). But if you learn only the language, and how to think in it, not necessarily a book of historical solutions, the new 20% won't be that much harder than the repeatable 80% (well, probably 80% of the new 20%, anyway
Nah, I just read the obviously self-reflexive comments, and repeat them back for their authors who obviously can't even read their own posts right.
You can't even decompose a simple self reflexive reflection back into a properly sensed abstraction.
I expect you to make neither heads nor tails of this post, either, so go ahead and consider it a rorschach for your dancing pleasure.
I was lucky to always have qualified teachers (except my JHS band teacher, and some elementary school wacko failed moms), and some really inspiring ones.
Where did you go to school, that they routinely hired such losers? And how did that chem teacher's sports teams fare in their seasons?
Moderation -2
100% Overrated
TrollMods worship St Heston like some kind of SF hoodoo.
In this life, you can be paranoid, or in denial, or always know exactly what is happening. Exact knowledge is hard to come by even under the best circumstances, let alone on the subway. So 40% paranoia probably means close to 60% denial. Which is exactly what you need to keep it together on the subway, surrounded by the public, strangers you'll never see again.
It's just too bad Heston followed those great low-budget End of the World movies by believing he was living in End Times for his last few decades.
I dunno, it seems that the CS teacher didn't understand the sports metaphor they were using, and they weren't misusing it on Slashdot.
If the road is private, Google (or anyone) cannot stand or drive on that private property. But they can still stand on nearby public property, like a public road. They can still look over at the outside of the private property adjoining the road. They can still photograph what they can see (but not what they can't, like with X-rays or infrared, or long periscopes extended inside the private property). They can still publish their photographs.
The fact is that we have walls and drapes to protect our privacy. The outsides of our property are public, if the public can view it without being located on excluded private property.
If Google's published photos demonstrate that they drove on private property, the owners have evidence to press trespassing charges against Google. Their state might have laws which further prohibit photography by unauthorized trespassers, and assign damages for the photography, and further possibly for the publishing, which would be entirely reasonable. Even if there's no financial loss, there could be a case for the loss of fences, signage etc paid to keep Google out that was ignored. And the most serious breach is the trespassing, which is one of the most important rights in private property that we keep governments around to protect. Since I doubt they were singled out for trespass, Google's probably published lots of incriminating evidence of their likely many trespasses. Which could be a serious problem for Google. And, tragically, for their entire public photography project, which, if conducted lawfully, would have so much public value.
No, it's like telling the football coach that next year is the last year there will be trophies awarded at the championship game. They can still have a team, there just won't be an official ranking.
Of course the AP test credit is a lot of the value of the programme, so cancelling the test is a travesty, and might be a reason to cancel the course, especially if students spend their time taking other courses that award the credit they can use.
But if the teachers are making that kind of analogy, they shouldn't be teaching. Not even CS classes, because thinking with analogies is more important to programming than is instruction in language syntax. It's like a football team with a coach who's really just the second-string halfback.
You're paying over 50% of your income for housing, but you think the economy is working properly? Why didn't you mention that in the first place, so I could just ignore an idiot like you. Who cares whether you agree with me, if it's for the wrong reasons. Like when I give you the good reasons you ask for, and that somehow convinces you to start calling me names.
Of course the bank shouldn't be responsible for losses incurred that are because the customer's own access device had a problem the customer should have known to fix. If the customer's device was vulnerable, but not actually compromised, of course the bank is liable if the bank's system caused the loss. Even if the customer's device was vulnerable and compromised, if that compromise didn't cause or contribute to the loss, of course the customer is not liable, if the loss was entirely the bank's fault.
If the loss was incurred by a bad guy exploiting an open vulnerability in the customer's access device, then the liability should be exactly the same as if the bad guy had entered the customer's home and stolen the key to their vault at the bank. If the door was locked, the customer is not liable at all, and the burglar is fully liable.
If the "door" was not locked, then the local laws, wherever the burglar did whatever they did to subvert the customer's device, will determine whether the burglar has any less liability for picking an easy target. The laws local to the customer's "unlocked door" will determine whether the customer has any more liability.
This is all a matter of obvious principles of liability for one's actions, and long-settled law governing that liability. Of course the bank is liable for losses it caused, even if just through negligently failing to protect its own systems. Now, of course the bank is going to try to weasel out of that liability, if it can: banks don't care about principles or laws, just the money they can make or lose. But if I leave my credit card at a restaurant, and then some burglar breaks into my safe deposit box while the bank security guard sleeps, of course the bank is liable, and not me, and not the waitress who was trying to charge a new TV to my account at the time - even if she's responsible for the TV charge, completely independently.
No, you're the liar and the thief. After I backed up my statements with some citations you asked for, all you've got in return is baseless assertions that they're wrong. You can't even bother to give a reason why people paying over 50% of their incomes on housing, suddenly losing an extra 10%+ of their incomes, wouldn't face homelessness.
But why should you? You're desperate for any rationalization for the government propping up the Bear Stearns buyout by JP Morgan, and the years of laissez faire deregulation that fueled it off the rails, because you made a few bucks off that rigged market.
At least you're so arrogant that you'll admit that in public, even if you don't realize it.
You've about served your purpose. Goodbye.
Well, from a Venusian's perspective, the Earth evolved far too much. Leaving all those tepid sticky areas out beyond the Sun's cleansing rays has left the Earth to rot, infested with all kinds of vermin. Some of which just dirty the place up even more, and then get nosy, ogling the neighbors and insulting their tidy nearby neighborhoods.
That review of Venus was clearly written by an Earthling real estate agent.
Yeah, the right way to serve Indonesia's public is to offer free subsidies to people who go to church more.
What about linking up the schools instead?