It's not caving in, it's protecting their collective asses. Unfortunately, even as schools are taking on more and more responsibilities for raising children (at least in the US, cannot speak for Canada), their exposure to lawsuits keep increasing.
In this day and age of everyone wanting money for nothing, people suing for spilling coffee on themselves and lawyers being expensive no matter who wins, it's in the school's best interest to avoid an instance of a lawsuit. This is not the fault of the school system, but rather of society.
I have a B&N Color Nook. I have set up to boot from CM7 on a micro-SD chip.
In some respects, it is an okay tablet. But the performance, especially for web-browser, is not very good. I suspect the the kindle fire is much better for web browsing.
Also, the B&N Nook Color lacks many features that are common in tablets, such as GPS, or cameras.
Check the specs, and features, of those cheaper tablets, and compare then to the Nook. You will find the Nook is clearly overpriced.
The new Nooks at $300 - $350 are a total joke. Spend a little more and get an iPad.
1) Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you, but it's my impression you're running CM7 from the micro-sd card. If that's the case, of course the performance will suffer. Flash CM7 to your internal memory, and even if you don't overclock the Nook Color, you'll see a definite performance (and stability) upgrade running from internal memory as opposed to micro-sd card.
2) The Kindle Fire also lacks GPS, camera and mic as well. Not that you were comparing Nooks and Fires, but just pointing it out.
3) I'm not sure where you're seeing Nook Colors for $300-350, but the price for a current Nook Color is $250, and from what I've read, that is expected to be the price for the next Nook Color as well. Furthermore, you can purchase a refurbished Nook Color for $170 or so. Comparing a $250 Nook Color to a $500 iPad, and I'm not so certain one would say the Nook Color is overpriced, especially when flashing CM7 to the Nook Color.
4) As far as those other tablets, I cannot say I've used any of them, but I do know the Nook Color is solid, dependable, with good performance and lightweight. I've not regretted my purchase once.
People that buy Apple stuff "because it just works" are just like people who voted for Hitler because "at least he'll make the trains run on time". Worse in fact.
People who buy Apple products are worse than those who put in power a man who systematically murdered 6 million people of the Jewish faith, and caused many more millions of deaths in a costly war felt across the world?
You missed my point entirely. If people care about an issue, but not as much as other issues, then that issue will get neglected because only a handful of issues will be prioritized in politics at any given time. The result is that people who get elected don't get elected based on their stance toward minor issues, only major ones. This is a systemic problem which leads to minor issues (no matter what they are) getting neglected.
I understood your point just fine. My response was appropriate for your comment.
Then the problem you seem to be having is the fact voters don't feel the same importance on certain issues that you do. You seem to dislike the fact people have different values, and thus, wish for different things.
Obviously, not everyone feels the same as you about copyright infringement. Obviously, many people are against those who break the law and infringe against copyright. Your problem seems to be that not enough people agree with you, the law that is on the books shouldn't be enforced.
This a "you" problem, not a "society" problem.
Does that mean if someone steals my phone and my wallet, all they have to do is hold the drivers license up to the cam to unlock? Sounds like a very bad idea.
Then, perhaps, you might not want to use the facial recognition feature, and instead go with one of the other lockscreens. It's not a bad idea, just one you won't use.
If they make laws independent of the wishes of "the people", then "the people" vote them out, and elect someone else to make the laws. Of course, that also conveniently ignores the fact the lawmakers weren't the ones sitting in on this meeting, so you're talking about two completely different parts of the government.
This is circular logic. If you are the one responsible for creating the laws, are you then allowed to justify arresting people for breaking them "because it's illegal"? You are assuming a fairness which does not exist.
Sorry for the late response but...yes. That is the entire point of creating laws. That's the idea behind us choosing a government to create laws for us. I'm not exactly sure what it is you're trying to say. Using that theory, no laws should exist, and chaos should reign.
Like, who the hell is Soghoian? That'd be something to establish in your blurb.
"According to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request....Soghoian said when asked why he sought the documents."
Just a shot in the dark, but I'm going to guess he's the one who sought the documents. Could be wrong though...
No sarcasm intended, but why is it a big deal when the US government is working with the two entities most closely related to the issue of US laws being violated?
I'm not real savvy with everything being mentioned here, but what if I buy a machine with Windows 8, and in a couple of years the better version of Windows 8 (which will be named Windows 9, right?) comes out and I wish to purchase Windows and upgrade my existing machine?
Will this not prevent, not only the installation of a Linux OS, but also ANY OS other than what comes pre-installed? And if so, wouldn't that work against Microsoft, since people are stupid enough to buy the next $200 version of Windows when it comes out, regardless of the quality, thus taking away a lot of revenue from Microsoft?
It's not spin, it's a matter of reading the bill for yourself. While I won't be nearly as mean about it as the ACs, I would suggest a little legwork on your own would go a long way in answering the questions you seem to have. I'll provide the link for you:
http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-bill/tat/SB54.pdf
Wasn't this law unanimously passed in the first place? Now that the stupidity of it has been unanimously agreed upon, they unanimously repeal it?
This was actually just a clause in a much larger piece of legislation that got passed, much of which was good legislation to help protect children. It was just this specific clause that got repealed.
And yet, the US educational system was the best in the world during the 1950s, whereas now it is a joke.
I'm sorry, but you lost me at this. Ignoring for a moment all the students who never advanced past high school, if they even finished it, are you really going to say the situations are even close to being the same? I have had brothers and sisters in the same grade who have different mothers. Kids are constantly being reshuffled from one family to another. Divorce rates are as high as ever. Drug use and alcohol use is no longer scorned, in fact, many times it is celebrated. The living environment children grow up in these days is much different than it used to be, no matter whether you think it is better or worse.
Not only that, children today grow up so much differently than they did in the 1950s. Kindergarten students come to school these days already owning a Facebook account. They grow up with a television and a computer and their iPads. They have cell phones in the third grade. They grow up in a society which is all about instant gratification, and that's all these students know. These kids grow up with constant stimulation, and they have always received that stimulation from technology.
While I agree that technology itself is not comprised of magic artifacts which impart knowledge without any other work being necessary, to assume that pedagogy shouldn't change as the children change is a far more flawed premise than one which preaches that children should be taught in a manner they are comfortable and familiar with, as well as one which will be necessary for the rest of their lives.
And that bit about exclusive access is bullshit. So if a teacher talks to a student online, that communication must be made available to parents, administrators, et all? How is that any different than talking to a student after class? The only two people with access to that conversation would be the student and teacher unless those two decide to tell someone else, exactly the same as say, a private message on facebook. I would think the physical access component of talking after class (regardless of it being in school or not) bears more potential for a dangerous situation than simply sending a few words to a student's inbox. Or am I misunderstanding 'Exclusive Access' as it is being used here?
See, now you're using common sense and logic. You cannot expect the same of those who make the laws. You are exactly right, of course. But common sense and an understanding of technology are, unfortunately, not a requirement to make laws regarding technology.
So a school could legally write a policy that says "All non-sexual online interactions between teachers and students are acceptable" and not be going against the law? Sounds like a great way for a socially progressive school to tell the law makers to go fuck themselves. Not that I believe any such schools exist, but it sounds like a possibility.
It would not be possible because the law specifies the things which must be included in the district policy, such as prohibiting exclusive access with students. A school policy which does not include that would be in violation of the law. Which means the SCHOOL would be in violation of the law, but not the teacher.
If the school did put such a policy into place, prohibiting the access and the teacher violated the policy, then the teacher would be terminated, but wouldn't go to jail. Make sense?
I'm aware the law applies to the district themselves, in my much longer post I accidentally deleted, I did address that. I just didn't have the energy to write it all out again, plus the second time you write the same thing out, it is never as good as the first. However, since the law is so vague, schools (meaning administrators and BOEs) aren't sure what should be in and what shouldn't, who can be friends with who, etc., and so it causes confusion on down the ranks. We (the tech department...both of us) told our teachers to save all their questions until a policy was enacted, but I'm sure you can guess how well that went over. And I'm not sure I agree with you that government run institutions should be dictating their employees private lives on their own personal time away from work, but I suppose we can just disagree on that.
By the way, thanks for the help on new paragraphs.
I haven't checked my settings in a while, but I do believe privacy controls can be set for groups. I know that every once in a while, I go in and make sure my student groups are set to a much more limited view of my profile than my adult friends. I'm not certain about pictures or not, but I want to say it can be limited.
A lot of you are failing to see beyond the immediate idea of a current teacher/student this year implications... The law includes all FORMER students too (nothing to say the law stops applying when they become legal adults). If you have been a teacher for thirty or forty years that can include a LOT of people (several thousand people easily). My high school chemistry teacher created a Facebook group for school alumni - as someone who has had their 10 year reunion come and go, shouldn't I be old enough to decide whether or not it acceptable for me to associate online with a past teacher?
Actually, the bill specifies former students as those who were once in your school district, and are still 18 years or younger and have not graduated high school. Once the student is 18 and graduated, you can add them as friends.
+1, insightful. This law protects teachers more than it does students, teachers don't have to worry about students finding something they shouldn't and being fired for it or being accused of something they didn't do. Not sure why teachers are fighting something that protects them, it's like (car analogy time!) suing to have airbags removed from all vehicles.
Except that, and this may be surprising to some, not all teachers have drunken pictures and "inappropriate for a child's eyes" content on their Facebook account. This law is not protecting us, it's making us look like sexual predators so politicians can get re-elected. Oh, and that whole pesky gross 1st Amendment violation thing. If you want your Slashdot car analogy, it would be like the government telling you you're not allowed to drive a car, because you might use it kidnap and rape a child. That's your car analogy.
As my first post on Slashdot after reading for a while, I can say that I lost an entire post already due to the back button on my browser. I suck.
So, since I don't have the energy to post again why I hate this bill so much (to sum it up quickly, 1st Amendment and the fact this bill is so vague no one knows exactly what it says), I'll post the link to the actual lawsuit which was filed. You can find the.pdf underneath the summary. http://www.msta.org/news/?ID=1996
On a side note, I'm going to have to figure out how to put spaces in between my paragraphs. I'll figure this out at a later time.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not caving in, it's protecting their collective asses. Unfortunately, even as schools are taking on more and more responsibilities for raising children (at least in the US, cannot speak for Canada), their exposure to lawsuits keep increasing. In this day and age of everyone wanting money for nothing, people suing for spilling coffee on themselves and lawyers being expensive no matter who wins, it's in the school's best interest to avoid an instance of a lawsuit. This is not the fault of the school system, but rather of society.
I somehow doubt the school has much control or influence over either the lawyers or the politicians.
I have a B&N Color Nook. I have set up to boot from CM7 on a micro-SD chip.
In some respects, it is an okay tablet. But the performance, especially for web-browser, is not very good. I suspect the the kindle fire is much better for web browsing.
Also, the B&N Nook Color lacks many features that are common in tablets, such as GPS, or cameras.
Check the specs, and features, of those cheaper tablets, and compare then to the Nook. You will find the Nook is clearly overpriced.
The new Nooks at $300 - $350 are a total joke. Spend a little more and get an iPad.
1) Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you, but it's my impression you're running CM7 from the micro-sd card. If that's the case, of course the performance will suffer. Flash CM7 to your internal memory, and even if you don't overclock the Nook Color, you'll see a definite performance (and stability) upgrade running from internal memory as opposed to micro-sd card.
2) The Kindle Fire also lacks GPS, camera and mic as well. Not that you were comparing Nooks and Fires, but just pointing it out.
3) I'm not sure where you're seeing Nook Colors for $300-350, but the price for a current Nook Color is $250, and from what I've read, that is expected to be the price for the next Nook Color as well. Furthermore, you can purchase a refurbished Nook Color for $170 or so. Comparing a $250 Nook Color to a $500 iPad, and I'm not so certain one would say the Nook Color is overpriced, especially when flashing CM7 to the Nook Color.
4) As far as those other tablets, I cannot say I've used any of them, but I do know the Nook Color is solid, dependable, with good performance and lightweight. I've not regretted my purchase once.
No, but the US put a man in power who killed 8 million of his own people, and help repatriate them to boot.
I don't think people who bought Apple products did that. Not really sure what your point here is.
People that buy Apple stuff "because it just works" are just like people who voted for Hitler because "at least he'll make the trains run on time". Worse in fact.
People who buy Apple products are worse than those who put in power a man who systematically murdered 6 million people of the Jewish faith, and caused many more millions of deaths in a costly war felt across the world?
Perhaps you're exaggerating just a wee bit.
You missed my point entirely. If people care about an issue, but not as much as other issues, then that issue will get neglected because only a handful of issues will be prioritized in politics at any given time. The result is that people who get elected don't get elected based on their stance toward minor issues, only major ones. This is a systemic problem which leads to minor issues (no matter what they are) getting neglected.
I understood your point just fine. My response was appropriate for your comment.
Then the problem you seem to be having is the fact voters don't feel the same importance on certain issues that you do. You seem to dislike the fact people have different values, and thus, wish for different things. Obviously, not everyone feels the same as you about copyright infringement. Obviously, many people are against those who break the law and infringe against copyright. Your problem seems to be that not enough people agree with you, the law that is on the books shouldn't be enforced. This a "you" problem, not a "society" problem.
face unlock
Does that mean if someone steals my phone and my wallet, all they have to do is hold the drivers license up to the cam to unlock? Sounds like a very bad idea.
Then, perhaps, you might not want to use the facial recognition feature, and instead go with one of the other lockscreens. It's not a bad idea, just one you won't use.
If they make laws independent of the wishes of "the people", then "the people" vote them out, and elect someone else to make the laws. Of course, that also conveniently ignores the fact the lawmakers weren't the ones sitting in on this meeting, so you're talking about two completely different parts of the government.
This is circular logic. If you are the one responsible for creating the laws, are you then allowed to justify arresting people for breaking them "because it's illegal"? You are assuming a fairness which does not exist.
Sorry for the late response but...yes. That is the entire point of creating laws. That's the idea behind us choosing a government to create laws for us. I'm not exactly sure what it is you're trying to say. Using that theory, no laws should exist, and chaos should reign.
Like, who the hell is Soghoian? That'd be something to establish in your blurb.
"According to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request....Soghoian said when asked why he sought the documents." Just a shot in the dark, but I'm going to guess he's the one who sought the documents. Could be wrong though...
No sarcasm intended, but why is it a big deal when the US government is working with the two entities most closely related to the issue of US laws being violated?
Congratulations, you no longer have a PC.
That's right, you have a Mac. *runs and hides*
I'm not real savvy with everything being mentioned here, but what if I buy a machine with Windows 8, and in a couple of years the better version of Windows 8 (which will be named Windows 9, right?) comes out and I wish to purchase Windows and upgrade my existing machine?
Will this not prevent, not only the installation of a Linux OS, but also ANY OS other than what comes pre-installed? And if so, wouldn't that work against Microsoft, since people are stupid enough to buy the next $200 version of Windows when it comes out, regardless of the quality, thus taking away a lot of revenue from Microsoft?
It's not spin, it's a matter of reading the bill for yourself. While I won't be nearly as mean about it as the ACs, I would suggest a little legwork on your own would go a long way in answering the questions you seem to have. I'll provide the link for you: http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-bill/tat/SB54.pdf
Wasn't this law unanimously passed in the first place? Now that the stupidity of it has been unanimously agreed upon, they unanimously repeal it?
This was actually just a clause in a much larger piece of legislation that got passed, much of which was good legislation to help protect children. It was just this specific clause that got repealed.
And yet, the US educational system was the best in the world during the 1950s, whereas now it is a joke.
I'm sorry, but you lost me at this. Ignoring for a moment all the students who never advanced past high school, if they even finished it, are you really going to say the situations are even close to being the same? I have had brothers and sisters in the same grade who have different mothers. Kids are constantly being reshuffled from one family to another. Divorce rates are as high as ever. Drug use and alcohol use is no longer scorned, in fact, many times it is celebrated. The living environment children grow up in these days is much different than it used to be, no matter whether you think it is better or worse.
Not only that, children today grow up so much differently than they did in the 1950s. Kindergarten students come to school these days already owning a Facebook account. They grow up with a television and a computer and their iPads. They have cell phones in the third grade. They grow up in a society which is all about instant gratification, and that's all these students know. These kids grow up with constant stimulation, and they have always received that stimulation from technology.
While I agree that technology itself is not comprised of magic artifacts which impart knowledge without any other work being necessary, to assume that pedagogy shouldn't change as the children change is a far more flawed premise than one which preaches that children should be taught in a manner they are comfortable and familiar with, as well as one which will be necessary for the rest of their lives.
And that bit about exclusive access is bullshit. So if a teacher talks to a student online, that communication must be made available to parents, administrators, et all? How is that any different than talking to a student after class? The only two people with access to that conversation would be the student and teacher unless those two decide to tell someone else, exactly the same as say, a private message on facebook. I would think the physical access component of talking after class (regardless of it being in school or not) bears more potential for a dangerous situation than simply sending a few words to a student's inbox. Or am I misunderstanding 'Exclusive Access' as it is being used here?
See, now you're using common sense and logic. You cannot expect the same of those who make the laws. You are exactly right, of course. But common sense and an understanding of technology are, unfortunately, not a requirement to make laws regarding technology.
So a school could legally write a policy that says "All non-sexual online interactions between teachers and students are acceptable" and not be going against the law? Sounds like a great way for a socially progressive school to tell the law makers to go fuck themselves. Not that I believe any such schools exist, but it sounds like a possibility.
It would not be possible because the law specifies the things which must be included in the district policy, such as prohibiting exclusive access with students. A school policy which does not include that would be in violation of the law. Which means the SCHOOL would be in violation of the law, but not the teacher.
If the school did put such a policy into place, prohibiting the access and the teacher violated the policy, then the teacher would be terminated, but wouldn't go to jail. Make sense?
I'm aware the law applies to the district themselves, in my much longer post I accidentally deleted, I did address that. I just didn't have the energy to write it all out again, plus the second time you write the same thing out, it is never as good as the first. However, since the law is so vague, schools (meaning administrators and BOEs) aren't sure what should be in and what shouldn't, who can be friends with who, etc., and so it causes confusion on down the ranks. We (the tech department...both of us) told our teachers to save all their questions until a policy was enacted, but I'm sure you can guess how well that went over. And I'm not sure I agree with you that government run institutions should be dictating their employees private lives on their own personal time away from work, but I suppose we can just disagree on that.
By the way, thanks for the help on new paragraphs.
I haven't checked my settings in a while, but I do believe privacy controls can be set for groups. I know that every once in a while, I go in and make sure my student groups are set to a much more limited view of my profile than my adult friends. I'm not certain about pictures or not, but I want to say it can be limited.
A lot of you are failing to see beyond the immediate idea of a current teacher/student this year implications... The law includes all FORMER students too (nothing to say the law stops applying when they become legal adults). If you have been a teacher for thirty or forty years that can include a LOT of people (several thousand people easily). My high school chemistry teacher created a Facebook group for school alumni - as someone who has had their 10 year reunion come and go, shouldn't I be old enough to decide whether or not it acceptable for me to associate online with a past teacher?
Actually, the bill specifies former students as those who were once in your school district, and are still 18 years or younger and have not graduated high school. Once the student is 18 and graduated, you can add them as friends.
+1, insightful. This law protects teachers more than it does students, teachers don't have to worry about students finding something they shouldn't and being fired for it or being accused of something they didn't do. Not sure why teachers are fighting something that protects them, it's like (car analogy time!) suing to have airbags removed from all vehicles.
Except that, and this may be surprising to some, not all teachers have drunken pictures and "inappropriate for a child's eyes" content on their Facebook account. This law is not protecting us, it's making us look like sexual predators so politicians can get re-elected. Oh, and that whole pesky gross 1st Amendment violation thing. If you want your Slashdot car analogy, it would be like the government telling you you're not allowed to drive a car, because you might use it kidnap and rape a child. That's your car analogy.
As my first post on Slashdot after reading for a while, I can say that I lost an entire post already due to the back button on my browser. I suck. So, since I don't have the energy to post again why I hate this bill so much (to sum it up quickly, 1st Amendment and the fact this bill is so vague no one knows exactly what it says), I'll post the link to the actual lawsuit which was filed. You can find the .pdf underneath the summary. http://www.msta.org/news/?ID=1996
On a side note, I'm going to have to figure out how to put spaces in between my paragraphs. I'll figure this out at a later time.