You have at least 3 and maybe 4 very strong talking points which you can prove 100% would be better if we got off oil. Instead you choose to argue "The planet might be hurt, and all the cute furry animals might die". Actually, I don't give a crap about the animals, and I'm not concerned about harming "the planet" either.. I trust that the rocks and water which we stand on will survive just about anything the univers throws at them - we however will not. My concern is EXCLUSIVELY focused on perperation. We need to start NOW.
You could read Diamond's pair of books on the rise and fall of societies, (Guns Germs and Steal, and Collapse) if you'd like a sampling of what 6C in tempature change can do to the double handful of plants and animals humans survive on. Wheat, for example, cannot be grown very far north or south of the equater - it's light cycle requirements cannot be met at those latitudes. Wisconsin for instance is not a good place to grow grain.
You suggestion about growing food in siberia is also harmed by the nature of the siberian plains - they are frozen PEAT BOGS. Not only do they threaten to dump tons of carbon dioxide into the air as the defrost, further changing the atmospheric mix which animals (including humans) depend on for resperation, but providing little to no furtile ground for growing crops. The russians may have a future in scotch however (bog water being a great ingredient for whiskey).
I don't care what's causing global warming - I want to know what's going to happen when the rio grande evaporates before it reaches the southern states.. what's florida, louisiana, california, texas, alabama, etc going to do for power when they need to cool their gomes 365 days a year 24 hours a day? How are we going to retrofit thousands of appartments in seattle, New York, and Boston for AC for the 5 months out of the year when it's too hot for too many days in the row, and people start to suffer heart attacks and stress related mental breakdowns (as happened in Europe durring their really bad summer a few years ago. The Italians had the highest rate of suicide they have ever recorded in those months... the effects of heat on humanity are more than just the obvious)
The environment as we know it is ending, it is changing to a different biosphere. We can distinguish that from a collapse if you want, stating that some plants will come in to replace the species we are familiar with.. but that will not happen as quickly as the die offs. And the die offs (cherry trees in D.C., Bees in the west, all kinds of sea animals) have already begun.
I see a fire coming. Now is not the time to stop and figure out who the arsonist is.. now is the time to start building shelters to ride out the burn.
Again, as stated above, we are not outside of "normal" climate patterns in any way in any metric that we have, temperature, temp change, sea level, sea level change. These things fluctuate, species have been able to adapt and survive through ice ages, through temperate times (including times with higher temps by at least 5-6C than we have now). Why is this time going to be so much worse? Species adapt and survive. If warmer sea temps are going to kill all the coral, well then how did coral survive the last temperate period when almost all the polar ice caps melted? Your assumption that most species who lived before those fluctuations survived. Seen a wooly mamoth lately?
We are almost entierly dependent on 3 animals, and 3 plants. Cows, Pigs, Chickens, Corn, Rice, and wheat. Cows are already having trouble in Europe and the U.S. during the heat, hundreds more died last year than the year before, and so on. Pigs likewise don't deal well with heat. Chicknes seem to be doing okay. Corn bakes and grows smaller, less nutritious products under heat - production levels have been falling. Wheat has a nice wide range of growth - but it too suffers in heat. The growth cycle of rice is linked tightly to the seasons, which are being altered by these changes.
Humanity is too numerous to survive easily if we loose our staples. Stop pretnending we don't need to start looking for solutions to problems that WILL happen. It is not enough to simply assert that we've survived in the past.. we have to prepare for the future, not blindly assume we can catch up. (that's called "intelligence")
Don't you find it odd that you've never taken any courses in Latin, given the two stated fields of study? No.
Philosophy at many schools no longer involves an intensive study of latin. You read plato in english translation, and do the best you can to avoid looking to deeply into what 'a priori' really means when you reach Kant. As for the law, law students don't have to learn to analyze latin, they memorize a half dozen turns of phrase that they use alot. "inter alia", "infra", "supra", "stare decisis", etc.
Intelectualism is dead.
-GiH Yeah, first I was a programer, then I was a philosopher. Now I'm in law school.
I have a B.A. in Philosophy and I'm almost done with my first year of law school. I do not believe I have seen or heard the terms "inculpated" or "exculpate" ever before. I'm sorry.. but are you F-ing kidding me? How do you get through Crim and NOT see exculpate, you never saw the term exculpatory evidence in writing before today??
This wittness is purported to be an expert wittness in technical matters RELATING TO TRIAL - he is a college proffessor, and supposedly a CTO of a company that purports to find and expunge criminal activity. This is not an unsophisticated wittness. What Mr. Beckerman does here fairly well is push the wittness right from the start into territory where it becomes clear to the reader that the plaintiff's lawyer has briefed him to avoid acknowledging links between RIAA and his own company - then pushes him over into one untennable position after another.
The theme of this deposition is that the wittness is a rubber stamp for the plaintiff's theory, and quite possibly a liar or incompetent to serve as an expert wittness. An expert whose role is to analyz evidence who has never heard the term exculpate, as in "to clear from guilt" is a rather odd image.
Exculpate is NOT a term of art. It is plain english. Read a damn dictionairy.
Looks to me we're running around the historical average since the end of the last ice age (which we're still pulling out of) and nowhere near the historical peak since the last ice age. Somehow ancient man was able to deal with the change in sea levels, I think modern man may fare a bit better... Yehp! Your right.. that DOES mean we don't have to do anything to adapt to the coming heat and rising seas.. I mean.. humanity can survive independent of a collapsing ecosystem.. right?
If you don't know why, you can't fix it. Duh..... yeah.. because if you don't know what's causing the flood, you can't POSSIBLY start filling sandbags.
We NEED to promote development of better ways to cool our homes, protect our elderly, and deal with the other effects of increased heat. We need to start looking at the 20-30- and -50 year flood plains; start moving people or building dams now.
...or we can be idiots and wait till shit blows up to notice there's a problem. Your call I guess?
Think of what stopping CO2 emissions will do to those poor defenseless plants! You plant-killer! We at PETP (People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants) will not stand idly by and allow you to suffocate all those dandelions! Dandelions have feelings, too! You DO know that plants resperate (consume oxygen) in a process that is distinct from their phtosynthetic (oxygen producing) process.. right? Or did you think they didn't need to break down sugars in order to sustain themselves?
As science promotes health among the infirm and physically unfitt, those who survive into their 80s will be more prone to degeneration than those who would otherwise have died earlier of heart attacks, anurisms, pancreitis, SIDS, etc.
If you want reasons to cut down on polution, look at incdences of childhood and early adult non-cancerous lung failure (fine particulate "white/black lung"), allergies, and asthma.
Take THAT hippie environmentalist tree huggers! I'm gonna go set a pile of styrofoam on fire in celebration. Remember to breathe deeply as you do so. Gotta remember that whole "poisonous exhaust" thing is BS too.. right?
Pick and choose your facts at your children's peril.
Now... excuse me for making the bold assumption that the High School text books are right about what stars do when they get older. Now, I have no doubt in my mind that these books are correct, even though they were printed on parchment. So, wouldn't it be possible, ney, probable, that our own sun is expanding?
Not at a rate that we could observe in our life times, unless we're suddenly shifting into a low-mass version of a Red Giant in which case.. if I remember my life-cycle of stars stuff from college physics - we all die a few days after it starts.
That said, the universe is a wonderful place filled with interesting and exciting ways to kill humans. I'm sure good ole Sol has a few left in store for us too.
Seeing as how sharp and abrasive lunar rocks/dust are supposed to be, putting up an inflatable habitat there that potentially might be punctured sounds like a really bad idea. Well, you have to remember the other properties of the enviroment; low gravity, low atmospheric preasure.
So, yes, things are sharp, but there isn't much force pulling them down onto those sharp objects. Moreover, since the atmosphereic preasure is so low, inflatable structures which are too heavy and strengthened to be practicably inflated on earth will go up easily there.
Plus matierals issues pointed out by other folks, and design options like multi-layered constructions or.. even just a single thick layer would solve the issue you raise.
Heh, beats the living hell out of the federal rules of civil procedure, lemme tell you.
Quote from a brief posted by my opposition: Re: Rule 12 (b)(6) motion to dismiss - it is the definitive position of the parties in the first and second case that the third and fifth claim are discountable, remaining elements of first second fourth and sixth claim fail to conclusively state in what way the parties in the third and fourth part can be said to have contributed to the negligence of the first and second parties which deny any negligence nor contribution to the negligence of unnamed or unknown or unknowable parties.
I can't help but see this sentence as as indicator that the Slashdot crowd is a bit disconnected from reality. In what sense is this an "actual" room?? Don't make me go all Humian on you!! I will!
(David Hume was a philosopher and renowned skeptic of reality).
This isn't hardcore jounalism like you eluded to with the plame story. This is rumors at a website that serves as a secondary marketing and promotional effort. Of course it is offered to people already looking for this information so it isn't surprising or anything. They blew it on this one and now have to suffer. I'm thinking this is only a story on slashdot to gain sympathy from visitors who will start wondering why all the current rumors on the site are someone else's product anouncment at a different site. (it is damage control) You seem to have many opinions but all your suppositions are DIRECTLY contrary to TFA. If a person wanted to construct this situation in the way most favorable to Sony, they would write it as you have. Normally you might be able to argue that the article itself is just a kotaku story and therefore the world as best benefits them.. But, the bulk of the second article is an e-mail authored by the Sony rep which confirms the story as written by Kotaku.
You may feel that gaming journalism is mere advetising, but I disgree. There is NO reason not to expect as much from these folks as you do from other journalists. The import of the rumor being discussed may be far lower - but there is nothing in TFAs that to suggest your theory hold water. Frankly, it's FUD.
If they were actually corresponding with Sony about the story then I'd say this looks much more like "proprietary information that, if you guys will just sit tight on it for a few days, we'll show off to you at that conference we invited you to next week." I think that's a mischaricterization of the story. The article says they got the rumor, and tried to confirm with Sony. That sounds like journalism to me. "So, Mr Chenny, we hear you leaked Ms. Plame's identity" "nyah.. if you print that.. we will cut you out of future information.. nyah". Sure, it's not an important story, but this is Kotaku's beat.. they report on video games. They did their job.
If I feel bad for anyone here, it's sony. They flubbed this one.. Kotaku has played their cards tight here, they get the scoop, and they scoop Sony trying to bully the industry journalism back into line. And what do they lose? Sony won't be covered as much on Kotaku.. oh well.. Hey, I'm seeing lots of good stuff about Wii and 360 on there!! I guess I know where to spend my money!
Sony's error here is in presuming that access to its developers is SO key, that the denial of that access will harm this site. Sony, you are not a government.. and information about your games is still good, whether it's issued on the day of, or a week after you want everyone talking abou it. Kotaku on the other hand, is making a play for legitimacy.. which tends to help journalists.
Seriously, knowing what you should know about anonymous communications, why would you ever take anyone's self professed knowledge and experience at face value? If anything, when I hear someone spout off their credentials in this forum it carnks up the sensitivity on my BS detector. In anonymous communications, never, ever consider the source. Consider the merits of the dialogue. Okay.. but people DO rely on a poster's claim to authority. It's one of the ways you hash out the frivalous argument from the meat of the issue. Here on/. especially, there is a low threshold of argument viability - facts and statistics are rare, hyperbole and noise are high. That's not even considering the technical issues.
For example, if I say that it is reasonably safe to assume the RIAA's case agains Tenise Baker will survive her Rule 12 (b)6 motion to dismiss because judges tend to err on the side of allowing a trial to go forward when factual questions reasonably might exist rather than risk being overturned on appeal - the authority of that statement is difficult to track. I can cite the law (which does not state that), I can point to a few cases where the issues were similar with a likewise result.. but many things in the legal world are simply not recorded. Like the rule that a police officer probably won't pull you over unless you exceed 10 miles over the speed limit - it's true, but authority is lacking except for experience and a few folks involved in the writing of tickets who can explaint that most speed tracking machines are calibrated to a 10mph +/- accuracy, and therefore tickets for less than 10 over the limit aren't strong. Except for the departments that use other than radar decices with much higher degrees of precision... but I digress.
If two/.ers started flinging numbers back and forth aruging about more technical issues in physics (or even history) the degree of work involved in checking their numbers to see who is "more right" (assuming either one is) is prohibitive - the easier, and essentially sole, solution is to look at the speakers, and make a judgement call on trustworthiness.. which is more likely to be speaking out of his ass, fudging numbers, or inventing anecdotes.. that's the one I put in the ignore column.
Even in/. the range of debate is far too wide for any of us to be expert or even proficient, in all the issues - wikipedia only exacerbates this - as a result, we must depend upon trust and authority. We're really left without alternatives.. IMHO. The community has picked up on this too.. honest and reasonable people often put an "I am not" statement to clarify that what they are about to say is the truth as they know it, but they are not experts. Then the experts do speak up - the proclaimed experts anyway.. I believe that most of those who claim to be, probably are expert. But then, I also make enemies out of those who do get exposed as liars.
You'll note that when you open up the Britannica, you don't find people's names attached to the articles there. Wikipedia, on the other hand, almost has ego built right in to the system. Look at Essjay's user page. There's an entire section dedicated to bragging about his edit count, his longevity with the project, his position in the top 1000, etc. Tell me, is Wikipedia about producing a great research product, or is it about who has the most marbles? Actually, that's not true. Britannica used to brag about the qualitiy of its authors (Einstein wrote the sections on relativity for instance). I actually used to work for Britannica (nobody imporant, I worked in the QA team for Britannica Online, the.com spin-off back in 2001), and that was always one of apocraphal tales of the day-gone-by, back when Sears Roebuck gave Britannica money to run the company as a public good. Britannica was ABSOLUTELY focused on getting the best authors to write thier articles, and that's why they (used to be?) the best.
It's a long way from a scottsman in the low-lands penning down the history of the world's knowledge as he knew it. I actually got to take a look at those old originals though (closed covers, in plastic, on a shelf) - Britannica has retained copies of almost every edition. They used to be kept in the old tape-vault right next to the mainframe room, back before they rolled all of that back out, gave up the whole printing of new editions thing, and went on-line only (then turned around and went back.. they've very confused.) I think they moved them up to the library a few years back.. and then the company moved, so who knows now.
But anyway, yes - Britannica articles do have by-lines if the writer is an impressive name.
but claiming to have a PhD when you don't ought to be a no-no in any community. Actually.. it represents a deep betrayal of one of the core concepts of both that forum, and this. When we discuss issues on Wikipedia or Slashdot, we often refer to our careers, our degrees, our experiences as cause for consideration of our claims which otherwise lack authority.
For example: I have a degree in philosophy, 5 years experience as a software engineer, and I'm working on my law degree. When I speak on these issues I know when to make authorative statements (BSD is not a flavor of windows) and when not to (is BSD a flavor of Linux? I never really looked at BSD.. so I have no idea.) If I claim to know about particle physics (and I may) my knowledge will be admittedly amatuer, I don't follow that field as closely as I do supreme court rulings... I have no authority in that field.
Our community rests on trust - trust that the people who say they are X are in fact X. This trust breaks down often here on/. it's a bad thing to exacerbate this by allowing a member of the wikipedia community to garner approval by employing false authority. We don't NEED authority to speak intelligently, but we should not claim that authority when we don't have it. Professors often learn from their students, and there is plenty of room in the on-line community for intelligent and committed amatuers to make major contributions to the knowledge base. We don't need to confuse the act of lieing with the act of participation... otherwise any claim to authority will need to be dismissed out of hand - and that would harm our communites more than help them.
We are the people. Individually we are weak. Together we rule the world.
Those who oppress us cannot do so unless we help them. Those who go against our-selves rampant, shall suffer the only possible consequence.
As humanity learns to speak with one another, breaking down barriers of distance, language, and culture, the existing governmental powers are going to have a very interesting dillema on their hands. One people, one world, one government.
-GiH The preceding has been your dose of political idealism for the day. Overdosiong on political idealism may lead to conspiracy theories, or dellusions of power. Use only as recomneded.
If the school is tech savvy, they will block you after a few days, and your server will be a nice hunk of software without anything to do. If they're not, I would worry about the school administration contacting the police - they will look for ways to jam you up.
I don't know of any basic theory of civil law which would allow a claim by the school - but local laws can add to that, and I'm not faimilar with the DMCA or the child protection laws.. but I would look to those as sources of trouble as well.
If the children's parents decide to press the issue, they might be able to bring a claim for interference with their rights as parents to regulate their children's media diet.. which they have a right to do (sorry, ideas should be free folks, I'm just addressing the current state of affairs).
My real fear for you would be a criminal charge.. something like intentional circumvention of a security system, or contributing to the "corruption of a minor". That would have to depend on the statutes in your state.. here is one of the NY statutes that might apply (just as an example of the stretch:
N.Y. Penal Law 260.10(1) provides that a person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child, a class A misdemeanor, when he "knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old or directs or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation involving a substantial risk of danger to the child's life or health." Persons charged with endangering the welfare of a child under N.Y. Penal Law 260.10(1) need not be a parent, guardian or otherwise in loco parentis. Bold added for emphasis: source NYPRAC-CRIM 32:10 (West)
Acts creating a risk of harm to the child within the meaning of the endangerment statute include the infliction of excessive corporal punishment, supplying children with alcohol or drugs, having a child join with an adult in criminal activities, involving a child in sexual activity,[FN15] failing to provide a child with required medical treatment or other medical necessities, or other miscellaneous conduct creating a risk of harm to a child. ibid
So, if these students are engaging in sexual or drug oriented collusion through myspace, and you are knowingly enabling that access, the prosecutor might ask the court to stretch the existing law to cover those facts. It's within the light of reasonableness to my ear (not saying it would happen, but it could happen).
On the other hand, maybe nobody cares.. who can say, get a lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
You could read Diamond's pair of books on the rise and fall of societies, (Guns Germs and Steal, and Collapse) if you'd like a sampling of what 6C in tempature change can do to the double handful of plants and animals humans survive on. Wheat, for example, cannot be grown very far north or south of the equater - it's light cycle requirements cannot be met at those latitudes. Wisconsin for instance is not a good place to grow grain.
You suggestion about growing food in siberia is also harmed by the nature of the siberian plains - they are frozen PEAT BOGS. Not only do they threaten to dump tons of carbon dioxide into the air as the defrost, further changing the atmospheric mix which animals (including humans) depend on for resperation, but providing little to no furtile ground for growing crops. The russians may have a future in scotch however (bog water being a great ingredient for whiskey).
I don't care what's causing global warming - I want to know what's going to happen when the rio grande evaporates before it reaches the southern states.. what's florida, louisiana, california, texas, alabama, etc going to do for power when they need to cool their gomes 365 days a year 24 hours a day? How are we going to retrofit thousands of appartments in seattle, New York, and Boston for AC for the 5 months out of the year when it's too hot for too many days in the row, and people start to suffer heart attacks and stress related mental breakdowns (as happened in Europe durring their really bad summer a few years ago. The Italians had the highest rate of suicide they have ever recorded in those months... the effects of heat on humanity are more than just the obvious)
The environment as we know it is ending, it is changing to a different biosphere. We can distinguish that from a collapse if you want, stating that some plants will come in to replace the species we are familiar with.. but that will not happen as quickly as the die offs. And the die offs (cherry trees in D.C., Bees in the west, all kinds of sea animals) have already begun.
I see a fire coming. Now is not the time to stop and figure out who the arsonist is.. now is the time to start building shelters to ride out the burn.
-GiH
We are almost entierly dependent on 3 animals, and 3 plants. Cows, Pigs, Chickens, Corn, Rice, and wheat. Cows are already having trouble in Europe and the U.S. during the heat, hundreds more died last year than the year before, and so on. Pigs likewise don't deal well with heat. Chicknes seem to be doing okay. Corn bakes and grows smaller, less nutritious products under heat - production levels have been falling. Wheat has a nice wide range of growth - but it too suffers in heat. The growth cycle of rice is linked tightly to the seasons, which are being altered by these changes.
Humanity is too numerous to survive easily if we loose our staples. Stop pretnending we don't need to start looking for solutions to problems that WILL happen. It is not enough to simply assert that we've survived in the past.. we have to prepare for the future, not blindly assume we can catch up. (that's called "intelligence")
-GiH
Philosophy at many schools no longer involves an intensive study of latin. You read plato in english translation, and do the best you can to avoid looking to deeply into what 'a priori' really means when you reach Kant. As for the law, law students don't have to learn to analyze latin, they memorize a half dozen turns of phrase that they use alot. "inter alia", "infra", "supra", "stare decisis", etc.
Intelectualism is dead.
-GiH
Yeah, first I was a programer, then I was a philosopher. Now I'm in law school.
This wittness is purported to be an expert wittness in technical matters RELATING TO TRIAL - he is a college proffessor, and supposedly a CTO of a company that purports to find and expunge criminal activity. This is not an unsophisticated wittness. What Mr. Beckerman does here fairly well is push the wittness right from the start into territory where it becomes clear to the reader that the plaintiff's lawyer has briefed him to avoid acknowledging links between RIAA and his own company - then pushes him over into one untennable position after another.
The theme of this deposition is that the wittness is a rubber stamp for the plaintiff's theory, and quite possibly a liar or incompetent to serve as an expert wittness. An expert whose role is to analyz evidence who has never heard the term exculpate, as in "to clear from guilt" is a rather odd image.
Exculpate is NOT a term of art. It is plain english. Read a damn dictionairy.
-GiH
-GiH
We NEED to promote development of better ways to cool our homes, protect our elderly, and deal with the other effects of increased heat. We need to start looking at the 20-30- and -50 year flood plains; start moving people or building dams now.
...or we can be idiots and wait till shit blows up to notice there's a problem. Your call I guess?
-GiH
-GiH
As science promotes health among the infirm and physically unfitt, those who survive into their 80s will be more prone to degeneration than those who would otherwise have died earlier of heart attacks, anurisms, pancreitis, SIDS, etc.
If you want reasons to cut down on polution, look at incdences of childhood and early adult non-cancerous lung failure (fine particulate "white/black lung"), allergies, and asthma.
-GiH
I am SO not a medical practictioner.
On the other hand, if we do nothing, humanity can finally achieve world peace (through self-extinction).
-GiH
Pick and choose your facts at your children's peril.
-GiH
That said, the universe is a wonderful place filled with interesting and exciting ways to kill humans. I'm sure good ole Sol has a few left in store for us too.
-GiH
Nope, not a physcist.
So, yes, things are sharp, but there isn't much force pulling them down onto those sharp objects. Moreover, since the atmosphereic preasure is so low, inflatable structures which are too heavy and strengthened to be practicably inflated on earth will go up easily there.
Plus matierals issues pointed out by other folks, and design options like multi-layered constructions or.. even just a single thick layer would solve the issue you raise.
-GiH
I am not an engineer.
In their defense, we're all just law students.. sooooo...
-GiH
Heh, beats the living hell out of the federal rules of civil procedure, lemme tell you.
Quote from a brief posted by my opposition: Re: Rule 12 (b)(6) motion to dismiss - it is the definitive position of the parties in the first and second case that the third and fifth claim are discountable, remaining elements of first second fourth and sixth claim fail to conclusively state in what way the parties in the third and fourth part can be said to have contributed to the negligence of the first and second parties which deny any negligence nor contribution to the negligence of unnamed or unknown or unknowable parties.
Fire that man.
-GiH
(David Hume was a philosopher and renowned skeptic of reality).
-GiH
You may feel that gaming journalism is mere advetising, but I disgree. There is NO reason not to expect as much from these folks as you do from other journalists. The import of the rumor being discussed may be far lower - but there is nothing in TFAs that to suggest your theory hold water. Frankly, it's FUD.
-GiH
If I feel bad for anyone here, it's sony. They flubbed this one.. Kotaku has played their cards tight here, they get the scoop, and they scoop Sony trying to bully the industry journalism back into line. And what do they lose? Sony won't be covered as much on Kotaku.. oh well.. Hey, I'm seeing lots of good stuff about Wii and 360 on there!! I guess I know where to spend my money!
Sony's error here is in presuming that access to its developers is SO key, that the denial of that access will harm this site. Sony, you are not a government.. and information about your games is still good, whether it's issued on the day of, or a week after you want everyone talking abou it. Kotaku on the other hand, is making a play for legitimacy.. which tends to help journalists.
-GiH
For example, if I say that it is reasonably safe to assume the RIAA's case agains Tenise Baker will survive her Rule 12 (b)6 motion to dismiss because judges tend to err on the side of allowing a trial to go forward when factual questions reasonably might exist rather than risk being overturned on appeal - the authority of that statement is difficult to track. I can cite the law (which does not state that), I can point to a few cases where the issues were similar with a likewise result.. but many things in the legal world are simply not recorded. Like the rule that a police officer probably won't pull you over unless you exceed 10 miles over the speed limit - it's true, but authority is lacking except for experience and a few folks involved in the writing of tickets who can explaint that most speed tracking machines are calibrated to a 10mph +/- accuracy, and therefore tickets for less than 10 over the limit aren't strong. Except for the departments that use other than radar decices with much higher degrees of precision... but I digress.
If two
Even in
-GiH
Agreed.
It's a long way from a scottsman in the low-lands penning down the history of the world's knowledge as he knew it. I actually got to take a look at those old originals though (closed covers, in plastic, on a shelf) - Britannica has retained copies of almost every edition. They used to be kept in the old tape-vault right next to the mainframe room, back before they rolled all of that back out, gave up the whole printing of new editions thing, and went on-line only (then turned around and went back.. they've very confused.) I think they moved them up to the library a few years back.. and then the company moved, so who knows now.
But anyway, yes - Britannica articles do have by-lines if the writer is an impressive name.
-GiH
is that they have a little trouble keeping that kind of ultra-violent, soul crushing story line interesting to players over the long term.
Everything I like about 40K involves big armies, lotts of drama, and massive casualties. Not the best fodder for a MMO.
Two cents inserted, I go!!
-GiH
For example: I have a degree in philosophy, 5 years experience as a software engineer, and I'm working on my law degree. When I speak on these issues I know when to make authorative statements (BSD is not a flavor of windows) and when not to (is BSD a flavor of Linux? I never really looked at BSD.. so I have no idea.) If I claim to know about particle physics (and I may) my knowledge will be admittedly amatuer, I don't follow that field as closely as I do supreme court rulings... I have no authority in that field.
Our community rests on trust - trust that the people who say they are X are in fact X. This trust breaks down often here on
Or at least that's my take on it.
-GiH
a) paying for a quirky game with short playing time.
b) having to deal with stupid exclusivity contracts.
-GiH
We are the people. Individually we are weak. Together we rule the world.
Those who oppress us cannot do so unless we help them. Those who go against our-selves rampant, shall suffer the only possible consequence.
As humanity learns to speak with one another, breaking down barriers of distance, language, and culture, the existing governmental powers are going to have a very interesting dillema on their hands. One people, one world, one government.
-GiH
The preceding has been your dose of political idealism for the day. Overdosiong on political idealism may lead to conspiracy theories, or dellusions of power. Use only as recomneded.
I don't know of any basic theory of civil law which would allow a claim by the school - but local laws can add to that, and I'm not faimilar with the DMCA or the child protection laws.. but I would look to those as sources of trouble as well.
If the children's parents decide to press the issue, they might be able to bring a claim for interference with their rights as parents to regulate their children's media diet.. which they have a right to do (sorry, ideas should be free folks, I'm just addressing the current state of affairs).
My real fear for you would be a criminal charge.. something like intentional circumvention of a security system, or contributing to the "corruption of a minor". That would have to depend on the statutes in your state.. here is one of the NY statutes that might apply (just as an example of the stretch: N.Y. Penal Law 260.10(1) provides that a person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child, a class A misdemeanor, when he "knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old or directs or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation involving a substantial risk of danger to the child's life or health." Persons charged with endangering the welfare of a child under N.Y. Penal Law 260.10(1) need not be a parent, guardian or otherwise in loco parentis. Bold added for emphasis: source NYPRAC-CRIM 32:10 (West) Acts creating a risk of harm to the child within the meaning of the endangerment statute include the infliction of excessive corporal punishment, supplying children with alcohol or drugs, having a child join with an adult in criminal activities, involving a child in sexual activity,[FN15] failing to provide a child with required medical treatment or other medical necessities, or other miscellaneous conduct creating a risk of harm to a child. ibid
So, if these students are engaging in sexual or drug oriented collusion through myspace, and you are knowingly enabling that access, the prosecutor might ask the court to stretch the existing law to cover those facts. It's within the light of reasonableness to my ear (not saying it would happen, but it could happen).
On the other hand, maybe nobody cares.. who can say, get a lawyer.
-GiH