Well, that's not quite fair; I worked at CompUSA for a month on the "Customer Service" desk, and I started at $9.50/hour (pretty good for such a BS job). One of the retail guys (former used car salesman) managed to scam enough people into taking the rip-off service plans that he could live comfortably working 20 hours/week. You just need to have no morals to make decent money...
Makes me wonder... Maybe M$ could take this and make an "Alternative OS bomb"... anyone that uses a Linux, Unix, etc... would melt... or better yet, get the undeniable drive to buy overpriced M$ software...
Well, I'm pretty mixed on my view of the incident, but I see some truth to what you say. After reading the article, I am left to wonder what makes the school responsible.
If the child hacked into the schools computers, that could probably be considered a crime. If he was an adult, it would be more than likely that he would be handled by the police. Being a child, they suspended him instead. What's wrong with that?
Why shouldn't the school warn him of the concequences of his actions before he hits the real world? Isn't that, at least in part, the responsibility of the school?
When I was in high school, I got into a few fights. Every time I got suspended. Was I happy about it? Of course not. Would I have rathered the police get involved (I WAS old enough that they could have)? Hell no!
If the child committed suicide because of a suspension, it is a great loss for society. But he could not have been "fine" beforehand. Whether the parents or the school could pick up on it, the kid must have had problems.
People without problems don't commit suicide; they definately don't do it over a suspension.
This issue makes me chuckle... I've had this discussion with people before, and we just went over it in Physics... guess I'll go over it again.
Cell phones use Microwave Radiation. Microwaves (kinda like the ones in your MW oven at home) have an effect on water molecules. They are also larger waves than light waves (therefore lower frequency). They also fall in the catagory of "Electromagnetic Radiation". I will point out that, no matter what studies have been done, there is no causal link between disorders in humans and EMR.
The radiation you think of when people say "Radiation" is Ionizing Radiation. This is everything from UVB radiation and smaller on the wavelength chart (therefore higher frequency). "Ionizing" Radiaition, by its name, can ionize molecules; this is how it causes damage to DNA.
There are two reasons why the radiation emittied from cell phones does us no harm: Firstly, it is of low frequency. Low frequency = low energy. In fact, it is lower energy than visible light; You can draw from this that the Incadecent lighbulb (or the monitor in front of you) is doing you more harm than your cell phone ever will. Secondly, the radiation is not able to penetrate the skin to any signifigant degree. This means that the only chromosomal damage it can cause is to your epidermal (and maybe dermal) layers of your skin; If it's very persistent, it may make it down to the fatty layers. Cell Phones will NOT give you brain tumors.
Now, being the paranoid person that I am, I will now mention that this assumes that the phones just use microwaves, as we have been told... if they use higher frequency waves, well... I would hope that companies and the government aren't lying to us THAT much...
The problem with internal radiation is a bigger threat than external radiation. I red mention of radioactive phosphorus: if this was incorperated into DNA, it could cause serious damage.
Another problem, Strontium (93 I think, but I can never remember) is a decay product of Uranium and Plutonium. The issue is that your body can mistake Strontium for Calcium, and deposit it in your bones; The element has a pretty long decay period, as Uranium does, and can cause serious damage from the inside.
What you miss here is the fact that although financially sound, it's wrong. It is discrimination, and we as a society have decided that you shouldn't preform such practices.
Certinally, slavery was a good thing from a financial standpoint...
Another important difference between your vison example and CTS screening:
I already have bad eyesight. Make me read for 5 minutes and you'd be able to tell that. But you can't tell that I might be suseptible to CTS without forcing me into a genetic test. That is why it's discrimination: I can preform the job if I might develop CTS; I can't fly a fighter jet if I can't see well.
At least to me, discrimination is judging a person by a trait they have no control over. I'm gonna have to make a parallel to explain this one:
My friend is black. I'm white. Now, neither of us had any choice about this; it's in our genes. Is one of us a better person? Am I going to be able to do the job better than him because of this genetic happenstance? I'm guessing just about everyone would say no.
Another Example: Me and my friend now apply for a job. We're not being judged on color, because that would be discrimination. But he has a genetic predisposition to CTS. I don't. Now, I'm going to make a worse employee than him; I'm lazy, I'm not as good at the job we're applying for. Now, there is the risk that my friend turns out to be an expensive hire, because he could get CTS. But should the company really hire me, just because they're less likely to have to pay more money to thier insurance carrier some time down the road?
That isn't discrimination??
And then, another good thing to point out is that things like this are really just risks... It is entirely possible for someone with "bad" genes to never experience the issues that threaten them.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's not quite fair; I worked at CompUSA for a month on the "Customer Service" desk, and I started at $9.50/hour (pretty good for such a BS job). One of the retail guys (former used car salesman) managed to scam enough people into taking the rip-off service plans that he could live comfortably working 20 hours/week. You just need to have no morals to make decent money...
Makes me wonder... Maybe M$ could take this and make an "Alternative OS bomb"... anyone that uses a Linux, Unix, etc... would melt... or better yet, get the undeniable drive to buy overpriced M$ software...
Ok, maybe not... but it could happen. Maybe.
Well, I'm pretty mixed on my view of the incident, but I see some truth to what you say. After reading the article, I am left to wonder what makes the school responsible.
If the child hacked into the schools computers, that could probably be considered a crime. If he was an adult, it would be more than likely that he would be handled by the police. Being a child, they suspended him instead. What's wrong with that?
Why shouldn't the school warn him of the concequences of his actions before he hits the real world? Isn't that, at least in part, the responsibility of the school?
When I was in high school, I got into a few fights. Every time I got suspended. Was I happy about it? Of course not. Would I have rathered the police get involved (I WAS old enough that they could have)? Hell no!
If the child committed suicide because of a suspension, it is a great loss for society. But he could not have been "fine" beforehand. Whether the parents or the school could pick up on it, the kid must have had problems.
People without problems don't commit suicide; they definately don't do it over a suspension.
This issue makes me chuckle... I've had this discussion with people before, and we just went over it in Physics... guess I'll go over it again.
Cell phones use Microwave Radiation. Microwaves (kinda like the ones in your MW oven at home) have an effect on water molecules. They are also larger waves than light waves (therefore lower frequency). They also fall in the catagory of "Electromagnetic Radiation". I will point out that, no matter what studies have been done, there is no causal link between disorders in humans and EMR.
The radiation you think of when people say "Radiation" is Ionizing Radiation. This is everything from UVB radiation and smaller on the wavelength chart (therefore higher frequency). "Ionizing" Radiaition, by its name, can ionize molecules; this is how it causes damage to DNA.
There are two reasons why the radiation emittied from cell phones does us no harm: Firstly, it is of low frequency. Low frequency = low energy. In fact, it is lower energy than visible light; You can draw from this that the Incadecent lighbulb (or the monitor in front of you) is doing you more harm than your cell phone ever will. Secondly, the radiation is not able to penetrate the skin to any signifigant degree. This means that the only chromosomal damage it can cause is to your epidermal (and maybe dermal) layers of your skin; If it's very persistent, it may make it down to the fatty layers. Cell Phones will NOT give you brain tumors.
Now, being the paranoid person that I am, I will now mention that this assumes that the phones just use microwaves, as we have been told... if they use higher frequency waves, well... I would hope that companies and the government aren't lying to us THAT much...
The problem with internal radiation is a bigger threat than external radiation. I red mention of radioactive phosphorus: if this was incorperated into DNA, it could cause serious damage.
Another problem, Strontium (93 I think, but I can never remember) is a decay product of Uranium and Plutonium. The issue is that your body can mistake Strontium for Calcium, and deposit it in your bones; The element has a pretty long decay period, as Uranium does, and can cause serious damage from the inside.
What you miss here is the fact that although financially sound, it's wrong. It is discrimination, and we as a society have decided that you shouldn't preform such practices.
Certinally, slavery was a good thing from a financial standpoint...
Another important difference between your vison example and CTS screening:
I already have bad eyesight. Make me read for 5 minutes and you'd be able to tell that. But you can't tell that I might be suseptible to CTS without forcing me into a genetic test. That is why it's discrimination: I can preform the job if I might develop CTS; I can't fly a fighter jet if I can't see well.
At least to me, discrimination is judging a person by a trait they have no control over. I'm gonna have to make a parallel to explain this one:
My friend is black. I'm white. Now, neither of us had any choice about this; it's in our genes. Is one of us a better person? Am I going to be able to do the job better than him because of this genetic happenstance? I'm guessing just about everyone would say no.
Another Example: Me and my friend now apply for a job. We're not being judged on color, because that would be discrimination. But he has a genetic predisposition to CTS. I don't. Now, I'm going to make a worse employee than him; I'm lazy, I'm not as good at the job we're applying for. Now, there is the risk that my friend turns out to be an expensive hire, because he could get CTS. But should the company really hire me, just because they're less likely to have to pay more money to thier insurance carrier some time down the road?
That isn't discrimination??
And then, another good thing to point out is that things like this are really just risks... It is entirely possible for someone with "bad" genes to never experience the issues that threaten them.