Bullying is not such a simple issue. Young males often push each other to "buck up". That is to meet the mark, make the grade, ford the stream, beat the hazard or whatever.
And that's fine because it is consensual. If it ceases to be consensual it isn't fine. Its very easy make it mandatory that consent be in place and remain in place. So for example asking someone to stop removes consent, that may carry consequences, like being kicked off the team, but it remains a right that students have.
Yes there are bullies who are sort of mini terrorists who are a pain to all in schools. But many a milder child has made his mark in maturing by fighting back against a bully. This is just normal human behavior.
Theft is also normal human behavior. But the victims of theft are given legal recourse. Rape is also normal human behavior, but the victims of rape are given legal recourse.
As someone with an 11 year old, kids that age don't use Facebook. They have already moved on. They would just move on to one of dozens of other sites. My daughter has no interest in hanging out at a site where her grandparents feel comfortable.
And when Josh considers this a deadly threat and swings his bookbag full force at an oncoming attacker, doing actual brain damage? And when Josh does get beat up and brings a gun to school the next day? And when Josh does get beat up, suffers permanent psychological harm and murders 3 children.
Because of free speech codes the laws about incitement are hard to qualify under. The fact is that children are able to effectively incite and effectively due grave psychological damage without qualifying under "terroristic threat". Things like spreading gossip or attacking reputations, if they happened among adults, do qualify under "hostile work environment", "harassment", "sexual harassment", "defamation" but since children can't own property those laws dont' effectively apply to them. But to continue with the adult analogy employers are required to address those and they can be sued if they fail to. This is an attempt to apply to children the protections adults already have.
By analyzing what he is saying and either accepting or dismissing it based on its truth value (and recognizing mere opinions). Do not be so easily influenced by words.
There is well over $1T industry called the advertising industry that exists because humans are highly influenced by other's opinions, much moreso than they realize and admit to. That strategy does not work against prolonged attack.
Let me just point out the "original article" here is pointing to a news editorial site run by Tucker Carlson. The actual website run by the government dealing with bullying is http://www.stopbullying.gov/
There is legislation pending in congress to make bullying more serious
Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act of 2010 - Amends title IV (Student Assistance) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require each institution of higher education (IHE) participating in a title IV program (except foreign schools) to include in its annual security report a statement of policy regarding harassment that includes: (1) a prohibition of harassment of students by other students, faculty, and staff; (2) a description of its programs to prevent harassment; (3) a description of the procedures that students should follow if harassment occurs; and (4) a description of the procedures it will follow once an incident of harassment has been reported. Defines "harassment" to include certain conduct undertaken through technological means that limits a student's ability to benefit from the IHE's programs, or creates a hostile or abusive educational environment at the school. Authorizes the Secretary of Education to award competitive grants to IHEs to initiate, expand, or improve programs to: (1) prevent the harassment of students; (2) provide counseling or redress services to students who have been harassed or accused of subjecting other students to harassment; and (3) train students, faculty, or staff to prevent harassment or address harassment if it occurs. Directs the Secretary to publish a report of best practices for combating harassment at IHEs.
First off thank you for intelligent dialogue with factual responses! This is a pleasant debate.
As far as the broad public, that is Mac users. They liked it.
No they didn't. Early versions of OS X were shunned due its atrocious performance and (to many) inferior - albeit pretty - UI. Heck, Apple themselves didn't even use OS X as the default option on their systems until the beginning of 2002, and the first version of OS X that wasn't borderline-unusably slow was 10.2 (it was still slow, but at least not frustrating to use).
I was using Windows2000, Linux and OS 10.1 regularly. I certainly did not find OS 10.1 unusably slow or even problematic. It might have been on bad hardware, I was using a dual core 500mhz G4 system which was better than average (though not by a ton). I multitasked heavily, several large apps cutting and pasting between them. You can read John Siracusa's review of 10.0. He finds the performance, relative to OS 9 a mixed bag. http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/macos-x-5.html. Which is pretty shocking considering we were talking a brand new OS and he was running apps in classic, being compared to a highly optimized mature OS. As an aside in reading his 10.1 review, the upgrade was free from 10.0 to 10.1 if you went to a retailer to get a CD. I will say though that looking at the reviews most people were not excited about 10.0.
Yes but in reality I'm a pretty good case study. I ended up buying 10.2 and 10.6.
Most Mac users I know have bought every OS X upgrade since release (even the ones that stuck with MacOS 9 until ca. 2002). Snow Leopard has been the only one they've hesistated with (though nearly all eventually cracked).
You may have misunderstood. The context here was that most get the OS with new systems. So the only ones I had to buy were 10.2 and 10.6. I've bought a bunch of computers in the last 15 years.
This was not helped by Apple's (typical) bad attitude to legacy support, with older versions of OS X quickly being completely deprecated and unsupported, not to mention incapable of running newer versions of apps and games.
I actually like the everybody has to upgrade. Legacy support is a PIA in the Windows world. But I will agree Apple does make it hard to stay on old versions. But... for example I use 10.4 on a secondary laptop quite comfortably.
10.0 free 10.1 $10 for media 10.2 ~ $100 I think 10.3 included / free (new machine) 10.4 included / free (wife's machine got free upgrade) otherwise would have had to pay 10. 5 included free (got a new machine) 10.6 ~$25 but I could have gotten it for free if I had known my daughter was going to want a mac 10.7 I will probably get a new machine again.
b) I had the equivalent of power shell with OS shells, and frankly better. With Applescript I had application level easy scripting.
Applescript is indeed nice, though I would argue that few use it.
I agree that most don't use it. But for example, my non programmer wife used it. She wrote her own semi custom extension creating foot pedal support for quicktime (which isn't standard). She used it to create a Safari / Excel app tying an internet grading system into her spreadsheets. That's two apps by someone who doesn't know what a for loop is. She's done a bunch of minor stuff.
Take a look at Machints you'll see a bunch of Applescript references. Also in things like MacRuby you'll see its application layer controls are basically a wrapper around Applescript interfaces.
Rhapsody and Kodiak came out in 1997 and 2000 respectively
And neither of them were remotely ready to public consumption. Heck, 10.0 barely was (as tacitly admitted by the free 10.1 upgrade).
I don't know what "ready for public consumption" was. But I was running a ton of Linux stuff via. Fink, and the darwin port of XFree. I was running a lot of Mac stuff from classic, there were some apps that had ported over via. carbon and there was some stuff (a lot of it originally from NeXT) that was using Cocoa. I had a wealth of business applications almost on par with a Windows machine, and at the same time a wealth of open source not quite as good as a Linux. It beat the hell out of dual booting and VMWare was still expensive back then.
As far as the broad public, that is Mac users. They liked it. OS-8 was an advanced OS but things hadn't improved for a long time and OS-9 wasn't much better.
10.1 was a free upgrade (I think you had to pay like $10 for media) for 10.0.
Yes. Just like I said.
10.7 will likely cost $129 I don't disagree. My point was that it ain't $100 a year. You could have ridden OSX for many years without paying for the OS. After 10.2 you are on a $129 / 2 year cycle.
Well, it's basically impossible to average it out across the last decade, because somewhere around 2009 you had to buy a whole new machine to get the updated OS.
Yes but in reality I'm a pretty good case study. I ended up buying 10.2 and 10.6. Most likely I'm going to upgrade my laptop and get 10.7 for nothing. The machine I'm on will stay as a 10.6 machine the same way I still have a 12" Powerbook that runs 10.4 and my in laws are finally getting rid of a machine I have them that still runs 10.3 (upgraded from 9.x). My wife wouldn't ever have bought any of the upgrades on her own. You pay for the OS by paying more for the machines. This whole idea of people paying out frequently just ain't true.
On the other hand these cheap upgrades are good if you just bought a machine.
However, from 2001-2007 (10.0 - 10.5), you would have averaged $107.50/yr (5*129/6).
no 4*129/6. You can't charge for 10.0 and 10.1.
Assuming 10.7 hits this year at $129, you would have paid about $40/yr since buying your new Mac.
Your math is off as I mentioned. But that isn't $100/yr, which is what I was responding too.
And frankly I loved when the OS was improving rapidly. It was great with 10.2 where I was a decade ahead of windows.
No you weren't. The only meaningful capability OS X had over Windows was its display system, and that discrepancy ended in 2006, with Vista.
Welll lets see. Comparing 10.2
a) You agree with the display system. Though honestly I'm not sure they really caught up with Quartz extreme in terms of offloading graphics. OTOH not many application developers haven't taken advantage of this so.... b) I had the equivalent of power shell with OS shells, and frankly better. With Applescript I had application level easy scripting. c) I had movie integration features, i.e. quicktime as a low level component. d) I had "virtual folders" i.e. aliases and softlinks. e) Dock used applications not windows, per windows 7 f) Bonjour which Windows still doesn't have g) CUPS, which is IMHO less good than the print manager in Windows server but way better then what the desktops have. h) Sherlock -- integrated web services and search. Something you off and on get. j) I had free development IDE which didn't happen on the Windows side for years.
Even during that time, Windows was superior in most ways, in particular it had much better and more mature low level kernel optimisations, especially on SMP s
Rhapsody and Kodiak came out in 1997 and 2000 respectively 10.1 was a free upgrade (I think you had to pay like $10 for media) for 10.0. 10.7 will likely cost $129 I don't disagree. My point was that it ain't $100 a year. You could have ridden OSX for many years without paying for the OS. After 10.2 you are on a $129 / 2 year cycle.
And frankly I loved when the OS was improving rapidly. It was great with 10.2 where I was a decade ahead of windows.
Gnome is pretty usable for most people. You ever seen how little functionality the typical end user actually uses?
I agree KDE is flopping around but mainly because they achieved their original goals. The next steps they don't have agreement on. And Trolltech is no longer leading. That's a pity but KDE lets power users screw around with their desktop and has some pretty cool features and has some good apps.
And don't forget XFCE, ROX and LXDE are bringing in a new generation for the netbook / tablet crowd.
I understand why there are pursuing DRM. Code signing with a one time opt out, which is pretty close to what we have, isn't bad. That being said though if you are ideologically opposed to closed hardware or DRM there is good reason to oppose Apple. You are taking as a given what offers people the best immediate experience is "the best". Heroin would beat Apple every time in terms of user experience but no one is going argue Heroin is a product we should encourage people to take.
So I think disliking Apple for creating a more locked down world is legitimate. The emotionalism that causes people to distort their arguments is not legitimate.
Oh absolutely. A smart bios is a real issue. But... EFI programs are generally only used in limited situations like installing a new OS. In theory though I agree Macs could bring the return of BIOS viruses.
My point to the grandparent was that there is a bid difference between a PC and an Apple OSX.
I think the real issue is that no one much cares if there are new vulnerabilities in XP desktop. Microsoft's feeling is that it an ancient operating system and its time for people to upgrade. They'll patch stuff they know about if it is easy but otherwise they won't. What would be the point of finding new XP holes?
One problem is that Apple DOESN'T push out OS changes fast. Core components are updated pretty frequently but Apple has been consistently slow in updating the open source components.
Can and do are different. Apple doesn't have any particular interest in updating the open source stuff frequently. Macports exists for the people who aren't OK with just about any version. I can understand not being thrilled with that, but it doesn't impact their ability to move fast if they needed or wanted to.
I truly believe we'd have a Linux desktop now if GNOME and KDE weren't both totally convinced they are doing the right thing in spite of the protestations of users.
Honestly I think we have a Linux desktop now. Its usable. Its got tons of useful software. What's missing now is good reasons for people to switch... that is areas where Linux is better enough that are of interest to general users. But communities that have found such an area find the desktops quite useful.
I think there are going to be some nasty awakenings and users will have to accept that no matter what you do, you need to have good security practices.
That's not quite true. The weaker the OS security the more your practices matter. A capability system can be very secure. NT could have been massively more secure. The SE features in OSX could take security much much further. You can make things easier or harder on end users.
That being said... end users don't like intrusive security.
I agree with you market share is likely to be the #1 issues.
There are several other cultural differences. For example Apple doesn't promise OS to OS applications won't break. Lots of stuff broke 10.5 -> 10.6, 10.4 -> 10.5.... Apple has their developers trained so they can shift things in response to classes of attacks.
Another thing is that Apple users like their machines more and have a greater sense of ownership.
You can. But there are a huge variety of distributions in use. Dell goes back and forth on distributions. Some weeks it likes Ubuntu others it pushes Suse.
Slashdot Mirror
The bubble is adult life. We dont' tolerate this kind of bullying among adults. In the workplace bullying is dealt with very harshly.
The basic framework doesn't provide for mandatory education. So you're fine it cuts both ways. The worst that will happen is you will be expelled.
And that's fine because it is consensual. If it ceases to be consensual it isn't fine. Its very easy make it mandatory that consent be in place and remain in place. So for example asking someone to stop removes consent, that may carry consequences, like being kicked off the team, but it remains a right that students have.
Theft is also normal human behavior. But the victims of theft are given legal recourse. Rape is also normal human behavior, but the victims of rape are given legal recourse.
Good you should have gotten in trouble. Why the hell do you have the right to comment publicly on her sex life in a cruel and defamatory manner?
-- Let's label every sentence a kid utters as "bullying."
Why not deal with the actual proposal which is to address bullying.
Why should it be? Its not that simple in the workplace among adults.
As someone with an 11 year old, kids that age don't use Facebook. They have already moved on. They would just move on to one of dozens of other sites. My daughter has no interest in hanging out at a site where her grandparents feel comfortable.
And when Josh considers this a deadly threat and swings his bookbag full force at an oncoming attacker, doing actual brain damage?
And when Josh does get beat up and brings a gun to school the next day?
And when Josh does get beat up, suffers permanent psychological harm and murders 3 children.
Boy that was worth it.
We already do. We have a school lunch program and mandatory vaccination.
Because of free speech codes the laws about incitement are hard to qualify under. The fact is that children are able to effectively incite and effectively due grave psychological damage without qualifying under "terroristic threat". Things like spreading gossip or attacking reputations, if they happened among adults, do qualify under "hostile work environment", "harassment", "sexual harassment", "defamation" but since children can't own property those laws dont' effectively apply to them. But to continue with the adult analogy employers are required to address those and they can be sued if they fail to. This is an attempt to apply to children the protections adults already have.
And adults are much less fragile.
There is well over $1T industry called the advertising industry that exists because humans are highly influenced by other's opinions, much moreso than they realize and admit to. That strategy does not work against prolonged attack.
Let me just point out the "original article" here is pointing to a news editorial site run by Tucker Carlson. The actual website run by the government dealing with bullying is http://www.stopbullying.gov/
There is legislation pending in congress to make bullying more serious
(Full Text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-540)
First off thank you for intelligent dialogue with factual responses! This is a pleasant debate.
No they didn't. Early versions of OS X were shunned due its atrocious performance and (to many) inferior - albeit pretty - UI. Heck, Apple themselves didn't even use OS X as the default option on their systems until the beginning of 2002, and the first version of OS X that wasn't borderline-unusably slow was 10.2 (it was still slow, but at least not frustrating to use).
I was using Windows2000, Linux and OS 10.1 regularly. I certainly did not find OS 10.1 unusably slow or even problematic. It might have been on bad hardware, I was using a dual core 500mhz G4 system which was better than average (though not by a ton). I multitasked heavily, several large apps cutting and pasting between them. You can read John Siracusa's review of 10.0. He finds the performance, relative to OS 9 a mixed bag. http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/macos-x-5.html. Which is pretty shocking considering we were talking a brand new OS and he was running apps in classic, being compared to a highly optimized mature OS. As an aside in reading his 10.1 review, the upgrade was free from 10.0 to 10.1 if you went to a retailer to get a CD. I will say though that looking at the reviews most people were not excited about 10.0.
Most Mac users I know have bought every OS X upgrade since release (even the ones that stuck with MacOS 9 until ca. 2002). Snow Leopard has been the only one they've hesistated with (though nearly all eventually cracked).
You may have misunderstood. The context here was that most get the OS with new systems. So the only ones I had to buy were 10.2 and 10.6. I've bought a bunch of computers in the last 15 years.
This was not helped by Apple's (typical) bad attitude to legacy support, with older versions of OS X quickly being completely deprecated and unsupported, not to mention incapable of running newer versions of apps and games.
I actually like the everybody has to upgrade. Legacy support is a PIA in the Windows world. But I will agree Apple does make it hard to stay on old versions. But... for example I use 10.4 on a secondary laptop quite comfortably.
10.0 or 10.1 - $129
10.2 - $129
10.3 - $129
10.4 - $129
10.5 - $129
OK gotcha. Now reality (my example):
10.0 free
10.1 $10 for media
10.2 ~ $100 I think
10.3 included / free (new machine)
10.4 included / free (wife's machine got free upgrade) otherwise would have had to pay
10. 5 included free (got a new machine)
10.6 ~$25 but I could have gotten it for free if I had known my daughter was going to want a mac
10.7 I will probably get a new machine again.
Applescript is indeed nice, though I would argue that few use it.
I agree that most don't use it. But for example, my non programmer wife used it. She wrote her own semi custom extension creating foot pedal support for quicktime (which isn't standard). She used it to create a Safari / Excel app tying an internet grading system into her spreadsheets. That's two apps by someone who doesn't know what a for loop is. She's done a bunch of minor stuff.
Take a look at Machints you'll see a bunch of Applescript references. Also in things like MacRuby you'll see its application layer controls are basically a wrapper around Applescript interfaces.
And neither of them were remotely ready to public consumption. Heck, 10.0 barely was (as tacitly admitted by the free 10.1 upgrade).
I don't know what "ready for public consumption" was. But I was running a ton of Linux stuff via. Fink, and the darwin port of XFree. I was running a lot of Mac stuff from classic, there were some apps that had ported over via. carbon and there was some stuff (a lot of it originally from NeXT) that was using Cocoa. I had a wealth of business applications almost on par with a Windows machine, and at the same time a wealth of open source not quite as good as a Linux. It beat the hell out of dual booting and VMWare was still expensive back then.
As far as the broad public, that is Mac users. They liked it. OS-8 was an advanced OS but things hadn't improved for a long time and OS-9 wasn't much better.
Yes. Just like I said.
Well, it's basically impossible to average it out across the last decade, because somewhere around 2009 you had to buy a whole new machine to get the updated OS.
Yes but in reality I'm a pretty good case study. I ended up buying 10.2 and 10.6. Most likely I'm going to upgrade my laptop and get 10.7 for nothing. The machine I'm on will stay as a 10.6 machine the same way I still have a 12" Powerbook that runs 10.4 and my in laws are finally getting rid of a machine I have them that still runs 10.3 (upgraded from 9.x). My wife wouldn't ever have bought any of the upgrades on her own. You pay for the OS by paying more for the machines. This whole idea of people paying out frequently just ain't true.
On the other hand these cheap upgrades are good if you just bought a machine.
However, from 2001-2007 (10.0 - 10.5), you would have averaged $107.50/yr (5*129/6).
no 4*129/6. You can't charge for 10.0 and 10.1.
Assuming 10.7 hits this year at $129, you would have paid about $40/yr since buying your new Mac.
Your math is off as I mentioned. But that isn't $100/yr, which is what I was responding too.
No you weren't. The only meaningful capability OS X had over Windows was its display system, and that discrepancy ended in 2006, with Vista.
Welll lets see. Comparing 10.2
a) You agree with the display system. Though honestly I'm not sure they really caught up with Quartz extreme in terms of offloading graphics. OTOH not many application developers haven't taken advantage of this so....
b) I had the equivalent of power shell with OS shells, and frankly better. With Applescript I had application level easy scripting.
c) I had movie integration features, i.e. quicktime as a low level component.
d) I had "virtual folders" i.e. aliases and softlinks.
e) Dock used applications not windows, per windows 7
f) Bonjour which Windows still doesn't have
g) CUPS, which is IMHO less good than the print manager in Windows server but way better then what the desktops have.
h) Sherlock -- integrated web services and search. Something you off and on get.
j) I had free development IDE which didn't happen on the Windows side for years.
Even during that time, Windows was superior in most ways, in particular it had much better and more mature low level kernel optimisations, especially on SMP s
Rhapsody and Kodiak came out in 1997 and 2000 respectively 10.1 was a free upgrade (I think you had to pay like $10 for media) for 10.0. 10.7 will likely cost $129 I don't disagree. My point was that it ain't $100 a year. You could have ridden OSX for many years without paying for the OS. After 10.2 you are on a $129 / 2 year cycle.
And frankly I loved when the OS was improving rapidly. It was great with 10.2 where I was a decade ahead of windows.
Gnome is pretty usable for most people. You ever seen how little functionality the typical end user actually uses?
I agree KDE is flopping around but mainly because they achieved their original goals. The next steps they don't have agreement on. And Trolltech is no longer leading. That's a pity but KDE lets power users screw around with their desktop and has some pretty cool features and has some good apps.
And don't forget XFCE, ROX and LXDE are bringing in a new generation for the netbook / tablet crowd.
I agree. An error or my part. My apologies.
I understand why there are pursuing DRM. Code signing with a one time opt out, which is pretty close to what we have, isn't bad. That being said though if you are ideologically opposed to closed hardware or DRM there is good reason to oppose Apple. You are taking as a given what offers people the best immediate experience is "the best". Heroin would beat Apple every time in terms of user experience but no one is going argue Heroin is a product we should encourage people to take.
So I think disliking Apple for creating a more locked down world is legitimate. The emotionalism that causes people to distort their arguments is not legitimate.
Oh absolutely. A smart bios is a real issue. But... EFI programs are generally only used in limited situations like installing a new OS. In theory though I agree Macs could bring the return of BIOS viruses.
My point to the grandparent was that there is a bid difference between a PC and an Apple OSX.
I think the real issue is that no one much cares if there are new vulnerabilities in XP desktop. Microsoft's feeling is that it an ancient operating system and its time for people to upgrade. They'll patch stuff they know about if it is easy but otherwise they won't. What would be the point of finding new XP holes?
One problem is that Apple DOESN'T push out OS changes fast. Core components are updated pretty frequently but Apple has been consistently slow in updating the open source components.
Can and do are different. Apple doesn't have any particular interest in updating the open source stuff frequently. Macports exists for the people who aren't OK with just about any version. I can understand not being thrilled with that, but it doesn't impact their ability to move fast if they needed or wanted to.
I truly believe we'd have a Linux desktop now if GNOME and KDE weren't both totally convinced they are doing the right thing in spite of the protestations of users.
Honestly I think we have a Linux desktop now. Its usable. Its got tons of useful software. What's missing now is good reasons for people to switch... that is areas where Linux is better enough that are of interest to general users. But communities that have found such an area find the desktops quite useful.
It could. Its still young. There were these sorts of problems in the mid 1990s with the Java sandbox.
I think there are going to be some nasty awakenings and users will have to accept that no matter what you do, you need to have good security practices.
That's not quite true. The weaker the OS security the more your practices matter. A capability system can be very secure. NT could have been massively more secure. The SE features in OSX could take security much much further. You can make things easier or harder on end users.
That being said... end users don't like intrusive security.
I agree with you market share is likely to be the #1 issues.
There are several other cultural differences. For example Apple doesn't promise OS to OS applications won't break. Lots of stuff broke 10.5 -> 10.6, 10.4 -> 10.5.... Apple has their developers trained so they can shift things in response to classes of attacks.
Another thing is that Apple users like their machines more and have a greater sense of ownership.
You can. But there are a huge variety of distributions in use. Dell goes back and forth on distributions. Some weeks it likes Ubuntu others it pushes Suse.