Some people just want to get their work done. Sometimes the ethical hairsplitting and free vs. not-free debate gets in the way of that. Some people want software, not a cause.
You don't think there should be any limitations on free speech at all, or you think specifically that it should be legal to harass, threaten, or intimidate employees on the basis of sex, race, etc?
I don't think the convenience and comfort of employees is as important as free speech. Free speech is more important than that. If there's a conflict between the two, free speech should win and the employees' happiness should lose.
It's not more important than anything, but it's more important than that.
Here is a clue for you: Harrassment is real. If you keep saying things in a derrogatory vein to someone, and the comments aren't addressed to the individual's character but some other trait, then it may be needlessly discriminatory
And folks like you want to take away the free speech rights of anyone you think is "needlessly discriminatory" (and other people whose speech you don't like). I understand. I disagree. I think we should have free speech instead. That was the point.
Can you tell the difference between criticisizing an individual, and generalizing about a minority? No?? I could tell...
Sure. Is there some doubt about this being a generalization? Even an over-generalization? I don't think there is.
You still have to watch what you say when there are lesbians around. If they happen to take offense to what you say, then you may be headed for court (or worse). That's not free speech.
I believe the first ammendment prevents the government from abridging free speech, not lesbians nor campuses.
And what about when she sues you for sexual harrassment (a government law) in the government courts? Or when the government schools take action against you for violating the speech code?
This wouldn't happen in the USA because we have free speech. Except if a lesbian is offended, then it's sexual harrassment. Or on campuses with a speech code. Or it you want to advertise cigarettes. Or alcohol. Or if you want to run political ads, then it might violate campaign finance reform, even if it's exactly like this John Howard web site.
So this wouldn't happen in the USA in the early 80s. We sort-of had free speech back then.
if it means the difference between an unreliable service and one the quality of Xbox Live, are you willing to pay?
IF? Why don't you wait to see what happens and then decide?
If paying works out better overall, people will be willing to pay. If it works out worse, they won't. WTF is the big mystery? We'll know the future when it happens.
By your logic, that the "evil union leaders" should support anything that would bring in more money.
Also, to clarify, no one ever said the union or it's leaders were evil. They're the group that decides most of what happens at schools. They decide based on what's in their interest. There's no reason to expect they would do anything else.
Therefore, if any change is going to happen, it has to come in one of 2 ways:
1. Remove the teachers union from the process or 2. Fix it so the desired change is in the interest of the teachers union.
The inevitable consequence of teachers' union funding depending on there being no school violence is that teachers will spend more time covering their asses by monitoring for bullying, and less time and effort on actually teaching. Is this what you really want?
I guess it depends on whether they want to reduce the occurrance of bullying or not. Also, I don't think you can really make the case that bullying helps the education process or that more learning takes place where bullying is present than where it's absent.
So you're saying that teachers should go against the doctrines of the society in which they teach in order to help reduce the occurrance of bullying?
I guess it depends on whether they want to reduce the occurrance of bullying or not.
And it's a logical fallacy to claim that teachers' unions are all about the money and then say that they'd reject your innovations that would lead to making huge sums of cash.
Some sort of mass media solution would actually be cheaper. The individual teacher would get a lot more, but the overall expense would be less. Less spending on fewer teachers is contrary to the union's interests.
However, which is more important to society as a whole, NBA/NHL/MLB players or teachers?
Total annual US spending on primary and secondary public education: $373 billion Total annual US spending on sports: $213 billion
The education number doesn't include any private education at all, and doesn't include post-secondary education and other expenses.
Casting violent people out of schools will only make the problem worse. In schools they can be directed.
If you want to accept a certain level of violence at school in order to "direct" violent people, then you'll have a certain level of violence at school.
Also, there are lots of good games. Even if you don't agree that Ultima 4 was a classic, there WILL be classics.
Video games have been around for 40 years or so. Saying there won't be any profoundly classic games at this point is like saying there would never be classic literature 40 years after writing was first invented.
Also "making ourselves more cultured, civilized, and empathetic" is self-righteous and pretentious. Way to congradulate yourself, Ebert. Your entertainment doesn't just entertain, it makes you better than the rest of us. Bravo.
Basically, if you want teachers to work toward eliminating school violence other than in the most passive, "tut tut, you shouldn't do that" ways, you have to reinstate some of the authority that is necessary for their position.
If teachers union funding depended on there being no school violence, that (and a lot more) would happen.
Right now, it depends on keeping everyone (no matter how disruptive or violent) at school and then complaining about how hard your job is and how low the pay is and blaming the parents or "the system" for anything that goes wrong. So that's what happens.
(That BS about a "sports hero" is just stupid, BTW. People buy tickets and watch sports on TV. If a teacher could sell that many tickets and attract that many viewers, he'd get paid just as much. If innovation were allowed, that model might be able to be tried. But it would be bad for the union, so nevermind.)
All things considered, I think they're paid adequately.
I also think the more this question is brought up, the more clearly it illustrates that schools are primarily about payroll.
you will invariably alienate people from the system
That's OK. If you want to solve the violence problem, why worry about the "alienation with the system" problem instead?
Would you rather cast our some rich kid who will just soak money from daddy or expel some low income kid that will be reduced to selling drugs on the streets.
How about whichever one is the violent one? Or both. Or however many it takes to solve the violence problem.
The real issues are that schools care about funding and payroll and pretend to care about violence. They're not setup to do anything efficiently. They're not setup for the best interests of the students. They're built on a 19th century factory model, not a 21st century productivity model or a more traditional family/village model. The factory model is the labor-centric model and produces the most payroll.
School violence doesn't lack easy answers. The answers are very easy, they're just not good for the powers at the school.
If funds for the teachers union were tied to eliminating school violence, there would be no school violence. Those funds are what schools are about, and it's the only thing about them that matters.
If education were about the students rather than payroll, it would be very different than what happens at schools these days.
Publish a violent video game, people play the game, people hurt each other, harm.
Can I clarify it any further for you?
Can you explain the methodology of a study that could conclusively prove or disprove that violent acts were indirectly caused by playing a game?
If not, can we conclude that the only purpose of such a study is to misinform people and cause them to come to wrong conclusions?
And since those conclusions will result in laws that harm people or their interests, perhaps we can agree that the harm should be avoided by not running this study.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you need to look up the definition of "hairsplitting".
Some people just want to get their work done. Sometimes the ethical hairsplitting and free vs. not-free debate gets in the way of that. Some people want software, not a cause.
Traditionally, when someone demands a feature in an open source project, they're told they can download the source code and add it themself.
You don't think there should be any limitations on free speech at all, or you think specifically that it should be legal to harass, threaten, or intimidate employees on the basis of sex, race, etc?
I don't think the convenience and comfort of employees is as important as free speech. Free speech is more important than that. If there's a conflict between the two, free speech should win and the employees' happiness should lose.
It's not more important than anything, but it's more important than that.
AFAIK those only apply to employment, housing and the like.
They shouldn't apply at all. Free speech should apply.
You people with your facts and scientific methods.
You must be a DRM supporter. We don't cotton ta that 'round these parts. Are you on the payroll of a record company?
I also suspect you may weigh the same as a duck.
Or is there some other law
Sexual harrassment law.
Here is a clue for you: Harrassment is real. If you keep saying things in a derrogatory vein to someone, and the comments aren't addressed to the individual's character but some other trait, then it may be needlessly discriminatory
And folks like you want to take away the free speech rights of anyone you think is "needlessly discriminatory" (and other people whose speech you don't like). I understand. I disagree. I think we should have free speech instead. That was the point.
What exactly are you saying to women that keeps landing you in jail? I think this may be nothing more than a personal problem.
If we could get our free speech back, there wouldn't be anything. That's the point.
And, for the record, it's her problem, not mine. The offended party has to take offense. The speaker has no power over that.
Good idea. Now all I need is an attorney. Is there a severe lawyer shortage in the US?
Can you tell the difference between criticisizing an individual, and generalizing about a minority? No?? I could tell...
Sure. Is there some doubt about this being a generalization? Even an over-generalization? I don't think there is.
You still have to watch what you say when there are lesbians around. If they happen to take offense to what you say, then you may be headed for court (or worse). That's not free speech.
I believe the first ammendment prevents the government from abridging free speech, not lesbians nor campuses.
And what about when she sues you for sexual harrassment (a government law) in the government courts? Or when the government schools take action against you for violating the speech code?
Don't they have free speech in Austrailia?
This wouldn't happen in the USA because we have free speech. Except if a lesbian is offended, then it's sexual harrassment. Or on campuses with a speech code. Or it you want to advertise cigarettes. Or alcohol. Or if you want to run political ads, then it might violate campaign finance reform, even if it's exactly like this John Howard web site.
So this wouldn't happen in the USA in the early 80s. We sort-of had free speech back then.
So what? Was Slashdot trying to win a consistency contest?
...(SOE) is the same team that brought you ... The Matrix: ... Online.
Incorrect.
if it means the difference between an unreliable service and one the quality of Xbox Live, are you willing to pay?
IF? Why don't you wait to see what happens and then decide?
If paying works out better overall, people will be willing to pay. If it works out worse, they won't. WTF is the big mystery? We'll know the future when it happens.
By your logic, that the "evil union leaders" should support anything that would bring in more money.
Also, to clarify, no one ever said the union or it's leaders were evil. They're the group that decides most of what happens at schools. They decide based on what's in their interest. There's no reason to expect they would do anything else.
Therefore, if any change is going to happen, it has to come in one of 2 ways:
1. Remove the teachers union from the process or
2. Fix it so the desired change is in the interest of the teachers union.
This is not complicated.
The inevitable consequence of teachers' union funding depending on there being no school violence is that teachers will spend more time covering their asses by monitoring for bullying, and less time and effort on actually teaching. Is this what you really want?
I guess it depends on whether they want to reduce the occurrance of bullying or not. Also, I don't think you can really make the case that bullying helps the education process or that more learning takes place where bullying is present than where it's absent.
So you're saying that teachers should go against the doctrines of the society in which they teach in order to help reduce the occurrance of bullying?
I guess it depends on whether they want to reduce the occurrance of bullying or not.
And it's a logical fallacy to claim that teachers' unions are all about the money and then say that they'd reject your innovations that would lead to making huge sums of cash.
Some sort of mass media solution would actually be cheaper. The individual teacher would get a lot more, but the overall expense would be less. Less spending on fewer teachers is contrary to the union's interests.
However, which is more important to society as a whole, NBA/NHL/MLB players or teachers?
Total annual US spending on primary and secondary public education: $373 billion
Total annual US spending on sports: $213 billion
The education number doesn't include any private education at all, and doesn't include post-secondary education and other expenses.
Casting violent people out of schools will only make the problem worse. In schools they can be directed.
If you want to accept a certain level of violence at school in order to "direct" violent people, then you'll have a certain level of violence at school.
Ultima 4
Also, there are lots of good games. Even if you don't agree that Ultima 4 was a classic, there WILL be classics.
Video games have been around for 40 years or so. Saying there won't be any profoundly classic games at this point is like saying there would never be classic literature 40 years after writing was first invented.
Also "making ourselves more cultured, civilized, and empathetic" is self-righteous and pretentious. Way to congradulate yourself, Ebert. Your entertainment doesn't just entertain, it makes you better than the rest of us. Bravo.
Basically, if you want teachers to work toward eliminating school violence other than in the most passive, "tut tut, you shouldn't do that" ways, you have to reinstate some of the authority that is necessary for their position.
If teachers union funding depended on there being no school violence, that (and a lot more) would happen.
Right now, it depends on keeping everyone (no matter how disruptive or violent) at school and then complaining about how hard your job is and how low the pay is and blaming the parents or "the system" for anything that goes wrong. So that's what happens.
(That BS about a "sports hero" is just stupid, BTW. People buy tickets and watch sports on TV. If a teacher could sell that many tickets and attract that many viewers, he'd get paid just as much. If innovation were allowed, that model might be able to be tried. But it would be bad for the union, so nevermind.)
humorous, do you think teachers are paid well?
All things considered, I think they're paid adequately.
I also think the more this question is brought up, the more clearly it illustrates that schools are primarily about payroll.
you will invariably alienate people from the system
That's OK. If you want to solve the violence problem, why worry about the "alienation with the system" problem instead?
Would you rather cast our some rich kid who will just soak money from daddy or expel some low income kid that will be reduced to selling drugs on the streets.
How about whichever one is the violent one? Or both. Or however many it takes to solve the violence problem.
The real issues are that schools care about funding and payroll and pretend to care about violence. They're not setup to do anything efficiently. They're not setup for the best interests of the students. They're built on a 19th century factory model, not a 21st century productivity model or a more traditional family/village model. The factory model is the labor-centric model and produces the most payroll.
School violence doesn't lack easy answers. The answers are very easy, they're just not good for the powers at the school.
If funds for the teachers union were tied to eliminating school violence, there would be no school violence. Those funds are what schools are about, and it's the only thing about them that matters.
If education were about the students rather than payroll, it would be very different than what happens at schools these days.
This is a great example of useless criticism.
Why would anyone take you seriously if you only played it for 10 minutes? Does the hype for the game change the fun of the gameplay?
Publish a violent video game, people play the game, people hurt each other, harm.
Can I clarify it any further for you?
Can you explain the methodology of a study that could conclusively prove or disprove that violent acts were indirectly caused by playing a game?
If not, can we conclude that the only purpose of such a study is to misinform people and cause them to come to wrong conclusions?
And since those conclusions will result in laws that harm people or their interests, perhaps we can agree that the harm should be avoided by not running this study.