Yeah, except you don't know the neighborhood I lived in (same neighborhood the school was in), so don't make such assumptions. I lived there long enough to know that there were drug dealers around CONSTANTLY.
While I agree that the authority of teachers have been stripped away, I'm not sure that such supervision as you suggest will work, especially with the sort of teachers I've had (I was picked on in class with the teachers blessing at one school).
No, in this case (and in the scenario you presented which I take to be true on your word alone) I think better parenting is in order here. In the end, bullies either learn it from their parents, are not disciplined by their parents, or (aside from learning it from them) are encouraged to be such by their parents.
Better kids begin at home.
Should teachers be allowed (or forced) to better supervise the children? Perhaps, but that's like putting band-aids on the wounds of a leper. It works for a short time only. Sure, you can keep reapplying it, but eventually you're going to have to cure the disease or cut out the source of infection.
For someone who has a child with autism, you sure are acting ignorant. Some autistic children do not learn as well as others. This is something you should know.
Of course your comment about free range hens and eggs says it all.
I don't know how big of a city (or how rough of a neighborhood) you grew up in, but the cities I grew up in? All of them have fenced in "playgrounds" (asphalt and concrete). Should it be normal? No, but what else are you going to do to keep the kids from running into the road or from drug dealers coming in unnoticed?
The only school I went to that had a non-fenced in, dirt and grass playground, was a Catholic private school in an upscale town a few miles away.
Oh yeah, thanks for comparing my country with the Soviet Block. We're bad, but not that bad (yet).
Yes, but you cannot copy the video in your head onto a computer and sell it online. Pure and simple these cameras are an invasion of privacy
In the grade school(s) I went to (no one could or wanted to deal with me and ADHD or the fact I was picked on mercilessly), the most anyone had to worry about in the bathroom was someone stinking it up (and I went to some extremely rough schools).
I am, or I would. I need to wait for FreeBSD to update the java available in ports, though. It's too much of a pain to get it from Sun.
Why? Well I'd like to see telco's held to their promised speeds as much as possible. If you are going to advertise one speed but only deliver a lower one, that's false advertising (or something).
Alright, while not directly supporting the above statement, Ian is moving toward a "standard" that is determined by the whims of the browser vendors instead of an independent third-party (W3C, WHATWG, what-have-you).
While not providing direct validation of my complete original statement, which I retract and amend to what I'm stating in this post, it does show an effort on Ian's part to not implement a true standard but a mish-mash of what browser vendors will "allow". Instead of web developers and consumers (no, I don't mean customers) leading the demand for features, the browser vendors (who are supposed to be catering to web developers and consumers) will be. In the end it has the same effect of killing any sort of real standards based development.
The above link provides a plethora of related links which I see no need to reproduce.
Also, I don't even know who the man is and never heard of him before I met (virtually) my source on the HTML5 WG list. I have nothing against him personally, though I do have a bone to pick with him if he's purposefully trying to kill standards based design, and specifically HTML5 (though I'm sticking with XHTML anyway).
If I could find the link, I actually have a quote of him saying exactly that, though (that he believes standards based design is on the way out) and his actions are helping that along.
I won't touch it until Ian Hickson either gets his head out from his orifice or he steps down as the lead dev. I know some of what's going on (from list archives and discussions with at least one of the main devs on the HTML5 WG list) and he's doing his best to kill HTML 5 and standards based design completely.
Again, someone who hasn't read anything of what is going on at Cryptome from Cryptome (or anything that I've said).
The reports are secret (even from those being investigated).
This is the last time I'm saying it, so please pay close attention.
1) PayPal can choose not to do business with anyone they wish. Plain and simple. Just like any other business. They don't even need an AUP or ToS to justify it. 2) The accounts were frozen in accordance with a federal money laundering law. John discovered this and worked to explain exactly what was going on. PayPal's poor customer service made this hard to do. 3) Eventually PayPal came clean and just told John to take his business elsewhere. John refunded the donations that he hadn't yet collected to his bank account, possibly so as not to have to wait 6 months to get them. 4) PayPal stinks, and this just increases that.
Is this a case of guilty until proven innocent? Yes, it is. Unfortunately it is also a federal law. Should we blame PayPal for the account freeze? No, that piece of blame goes to the US Gov't. Should we blame PayPal for having poor customer service? Yes. Any company that has the problems PayPal has should really be given a wide berth (see GoDaddy as another example of horrid customer service).
I don't care how much these comments ruin my karma. I'm even going to post this with my bonus just to make it more visible.
Agree with me or not, PayPal is a business and if it deems a client (e.g. customer) too visible or too much of a liability (or they just don't plain like them), they can choose to not do business with them (or stop doing business with them).
Should they be allowed to confiscate funds when they terminate the business relationship? No. That/is/ theft. What happened here was government mandated (and that has it's own special kind of stink) freezing of funds.
Not at all, but they froze his account under a federal money laundering law that requires the funds be frozen for six months. Does no one on/. read the fine article anymore?
Have you not been reading what I've posted in this discussion at all?
Paypal froze his account originally under the pretense of a federal money laundering law. He couldn't withdraw for up to 6 months (or is it 18?). He can, otoh, refund the payments. It's a crappy law, and it was enacted against his account probably unfairly. The aftermath sucks even worse. They are closing his account and disbursing the funds (according to the fine article). If they hadn't decided to close his account he could have chosen to wait the 6 months out and be done with it.
What they did was probably unethical (and probably under pressure from another company, but that's conspiracy talking) but legal (doesn't make it right).
I legitimately owe them money. Granted they haven't sent collections agency after me for it, but they would be well within their rights to do so. I just want to pay them so I have nothing to do with them ever again.
As for the handle, it actually has nothing to do with Batman. I was in my emo period when I took up this handle.;)
As for my views on laissez faire, it's possible my views will change but I've been in debates like this for over a decade, if not longer. While I don't know what the next few decades will bring, the past decade has brought me here. (:
It's all good though. This is a good discussion (for the most part, I've been reading some other threads on this article) and I might wind up sourcing it for a future blog post (or possibly not, my audience also tends to include kids who don't need to see the objectionable language used by some).
The law that PayPal used to stop doing business with Cryptome is junk. The reasons that PayPal used to stop doing business with Cryptome is junk. The freeze on Cryptome's assets (aside from the refund of those donations) is junk.
My one and only point has ever been that PayPal (and any other business) is free to do (or not do) business with whomever they wish.
I will not be doing business with PayPal after I pay them what I owe.
I will not be doing business with Google Checkout (for unrelated reasons). I will, however, be accepting submissions for other online payment processors (mainly looking for a tip jar right now).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, except you don't know the neighborhood I lived in (same neighborhood the school was in), so don't make such assumptions. I lived there long enough to know that there were drug dealers around CONSTANTLY.
Nice insult. I hope you didn't have to dust off your notebooks for that one.
not once.
While I agree that the authority of teachers have been stripped away, I'm not sure that such supervision as you suggest will work, especially with the sort of teachers I've had (I was picked on in class with the teachers blessing at one school).
No, in this case (and in the scenario you presented which I take to be true on your word alone) I think better parenting is in order here. In the end, bullies either learn it from their parents, are not disciplined by their parents, or (aside from learning it from them) are encouraged to be such by their parents.
Better kids begin at home.
Should teachers be allowed (or forced) to better supervise the children? Perhaps, but that's like putting band-aids on the wounds of a leper. It works for a short time only. Sure, you can keep reapplying it, but eventually you're going to have to cure the disease or cut out the source of infection.
I've actually had taxi drivers either undercharge me in the end or give me the ride completely gratis, no cajoling or begging on my part.
It's not an issue of keeping them separated from the others as much as it is keeping them from RUNNING INTO A BUSY ROAD.
For someone who has a child with autism, you sure are acting ignorant. Some autistic children do not learn as well as others. This is something you should know.
Of course your comment about free range hens and eggs says it all.
I don't know how big of a city (or how rough of a neighborhood) you grew up in, but the cities I grew up in? All of them have fenced in "playgrounds" (asphalt and concrete). Should it be normal? No, but what else are you going to do to keep the kids from running into the road or from drug dealers coming in unnoticed?
The only school I went to that had a non-fenced in, dirt and grass playground, was a Catholic private school in an upscale town a few miles away.
Oh yeah, thanks for comparing my country with the Soviet Block. We're bad, but not that bad (yet).
Yes, but you cannot copy the video in your head onto a computer and sell it online. Pure and simple these cameras are an invasion of privacy
In the grade school(s) I went to (no one could or wanted to deal with me and ADHD or the fact I was picked on mercilessly), the most anyone had to worry about in the bathroom was someone stinking it up (and I went to some extremely rough schools).
That would be nice.
I am, or I would. I need to wait for FreeBSD to update the java available in ports, though. It's too much of a pain to get it from Sun.
Why? Well I'd like to see telco's held to their promised speeds as much as possible. If you are going to advertise one speed but only deliver a lower one, that's false advertising (or something).
Sir, if there was some way I could mod you +1 funny, I would. (:
There is always the WHATWG.
Alright, while not directly supporting the above statement, Ian is moving toward a "standard" that is determined by the whims of the browser vendors instead of an independent third-party (W3C, WHATWG, what-have-you).
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0313.html
While not providing direct validation of my complete original statement, which I retract and amend to what I'm stating in this post, it does show an effort on Ian's part to not implement a true standard but a mish-mash of what browser vendors will "allow". Instead of web developers and consumers (no, I don't mean customers) leading the demand for features, the browser vendors (who are supposed to be catering to web developers and consumers) will be. In the end it has the same effect of killing any sort of real standards based development.
The above link provides a plethora of related links which I see no need to reproduce.
I'm digging for the links now.
Also, I don't even know who the man is and never heard of him before I met (virtually) my source on the HTML5 WG list. I have nothing against him personally, though I do have a bone to pick with him if he's purposefully trying to kill standards based design, and specifically HTML5 (though I'm sticking with XHTML anyway).
Yeah, I'll have to dig through my twitter stream for the links though.
If I could find the link, I actually have a quote of him saying exactly that, though (that he believes standards based design is on the way out) and his actions are helping that along.
I won't touch it until Ian Hickson either gets his head out from his orifice or he steps down as the lead dev. I know some of what's going on (from list archives and discussions with at least one of the main devs on the HTML5 WG list) and he's doing his best to kill HTML 5 and standards based design completely.
Again, someone who hasn't read anything of what is going on at Cryptome from Cryptome (or anything that I've said).
The reports are secret (even from those being investigated).
This is the last time I'm saying it, so please pay close attention.
1) PayPal can choose not to do business with anyone they wish. Plain and simple. Just like any other business. They don't even need an AUP or ToS to justify it.
2) The accounts were frozen in accordance with a federal money laundering law. John discovered this and worked to explain exactly what was going on. PayPal's poor customer service made this hard to do.
3) Eventually PayPal came clean and just told John to take his business elsewhere. John refunded the donations that he hadn't yet collected to his bank account, possibly so as not to have to wait 6 months to get them.
4) PayPal stinks, and this just increases that.
Is this a case of guilty until proven innocent? Yes, it is. Unfortunately it is also a federal law. Should we blame PayPal for the account freeze? No, that piece of blame goes to the US Gov't. Should we blame PayPal for having poor customer service? Yes. Any company that has the problems PayPal has should really be given a wide berth (see GoDaddy as another example of horrid customer service).
I don't care how much these comments ruin my karma. I'm even going to post this with my bonus just to make it more visible.
Agree with me or not, PayPal is a business and if it deems a client (e.g. customer) too visible or too much of a liability (or they just don't plain like them), they can choose to not do business with them (or stop doing business with them).
Should they be allowed to confiscate funds when they terminate the business relationship? No. That /is/ theft. What happened here was government mandated (and that has it's own special kind of stink) freezing of funds.
Not at all, but they froze his account under a federal money laundering law that requires the funds be frozen for six months. Does no one on /. read the fine article anymore?
Have you not been reading what I've posted in this discussion at all?
Paypal froze his account originally under the pretense of a federal money laundering law. He couldn't withdraw for up to 6 months (or is it 18?). He can, otoh, refund the payments. It's a crappy law, and it was enacted against his account probably unfairly. The aftermath sucks even worse. They are closing his account and disbursing the funds (according to the fine article). If they hadn't decided to close his account he could have chosen to wait the 6 months out and be done with it.
What they did was probably unethical (and probably under pressure from another company, but that's conspiracy talking) but legal (doesn't make it right).
I legitimately owe them money. Granted they haven't sent collections agency after me for it, but they would be well within their rights to do so. I just want to pay them so I have nothing to do with them ever again.
false comparison
Also, if you would read the fine article, you'd see that they did this under government law (which makes it worse, really).
Agreed.
It's all good.
As for the handle, it actually has nothing to do with Batman. I was in my emo period when I took up this handle. ;)
As for my views on laissez faire, it's possible my views will change but I've been in debates like this for over a decade, if not longer. While I don't know what the next few decades will bring, the past decade has brought me here. (:
No kidding. lol
It's all good though. This is a good discussion (for the most part, I've been reading some other threads on this article) and I might wind up sourcing it for a future blog post (or possibly not, my audience also tends to include kids who don't need to see the objectionable language used by some).
The law that PayPal used to stop doing business with Cryptome is junk.
The reasons that PayPal used to stop doing business with Cryptome is junk.
The freeze on Cryptome's assets (aside from the refund of those donations) is junk.
My one and only point has ever been that PayPal (and any other business) is free to do (or not do) business with whomever they wish.
I will not be doing business with PayPal after I pay them what I owe.
I will not be doing business with Google Checkout (for unrelated reasons). I will, however, be accepting submissions for other online payment processors (mainly looking for a tip jar right now).