I'm sorry, but no matter how 'liberal' your beliefs are, if you adhere to any religion, you're part of the problem and not the solution.
Actually, you just pretty clearly indicated that YOU are part of the problem. The problem comes in when one Person A's beliefs (whether religious or not) cause him or her to try to change the way of life of Person B against Person B's will -- even when that way of life has no real impact on Person A. Your statement puts you in the Person A category. If instead you had said "if your adherence to a religion is causing you to tread on the freedoms of others...", then your statement would have been more accurate. But you are inferring that anybody who adheres to a religion needs to be gotten rid of. I'm hoping I don't have to explain to you where that path will take you.
That's even worse! Has it really come to pass that being a video game enthusiast is justifiable cause for having one's residence searched?
I know it's late coming back to you on this (busy week at work), but I just wanted to say that I agree with you. I don't think it's right for the police to use something like this as an excuse to search his room. What I don't know is whether the police did it because they were required to do so, or just because they were in overreaction mode. If there was some regulation that made them do it, then it really needs to be changed -- although I suspect that if it exists, the regulation has some real purpose, but is just creating a rather devastating side effect (like most laws) in this case. If they searched his room "just because", then it's the police department that ought to find itself on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
Now, whether the savings in idle-vs.-driving is better than the amount you lose by transferring your kinetic energy into heat via friction instead of electricity via the braking generators is beyond me.
With his Prius, the engine isn't even in idle while slowing down -- it's turned off. And as mentioned earlier, it's easy to exceed the charge rate of the battery in the hybrid cars, so although you bleed off the same amount of kinetic energy whether you brake slowly or try to stand the car on its front bumper, braking slowly will allow more of the energy to be transferred into the battery while braking hard will transfer more of the energy into heat.
In SL, people can make your avatar execute an animation if you give consent.
There are ways around that if the perpetrator has access to certain resources that they shouldn't. But there is a simple way around it that everyone can use. Any attachment can animate the avatar, and it's easy enough to hide code inside the attachments that will respond to external commands. A perpetrator could use one account to create such attachments and wait for a pool of unlucky victims to start using them. Afterwards, another account could be used to "activate" the hidden code in the attachments, leaving the victim in helpless obedience. Now, the easy way to solve the problem is to drop all attachments on your avatar, but I don't think your average user in a panic will figure that out. Remember that these are probably the same victims in an area that allows physical action that can't remember to sit down to avoid getting shoved into the next region.
Now for my opinion... should this be considered rape and prosecuted as such? No way! I want real world law enforcement to stay out of virtual worlds. At most, the service provider (Linden) should be responsible for handling complaints about this kind of behavior, and could be sued if they do not properly handle the complaint by any victim who is paying for the service. For those with freebie accounts -- too bad.
And on the other, other hand, WIPO is as toothless as the UN, and I don't think anyone is in any position to hurt China, or even attempt to.
Yes, but keep in mind that the US had already brought charges of this nature against China, and this now is like throwing a huge log on the fire. While WIPO may be toothless, if enough of the nations that China exports to (which their economy currently depends on) decide this is a real problem and smack them with serious sanctions that will take a large bit out of their economy. What's important here is not so much that the place was built. That alone makes it no worse than the illegitimate copies of DVDs. What's really important is that this is state owned, which basically lends truth to the US argument that disrespect of copyright and trademark is not just tolerated by the Chinese government, but encouraged and actively sponsored by it. There's a huge difference between a government that doesn't do enough to protect copyright and trademark and a government that actively participates in the violations. Also, don't forget that Disney is a huge company and will lobby heavily. Those of us in the US, at least, can expect some major price hikes on goods that we can no longer import from China.
First off, thanks for the continued discussion on this....
No. It is not the school's duty to investigate students' private lives. At most, they should have called the student's parents.
Agreed, but it wasn't the school that investigated the student's private life. It was the police. I've already told you that I agreed that the school officials overreacted, but we don't know what the policy is. It could be that policy dictates that when they have a complaint they have to contact the police. It could be that policy dictates that when the police hear of such a complaint, they have to investigate. We don't know. But you and I already agree on the fact that the actions taken by the school were way above and beyond what should have happened. To address your responses to my three points:
1. It is not illegal to create custom maps of one's school -- and he was not arrested or charged with a crime.
2. It is not the school's nor the police's duty to enforce "normality" -- agreed, but the police did not charge him with a crime or enforce anything, and the school does have the responsibility to keep the students safe. A teenager found in possession of swords might or might not be a problem. It's kind of like the scary kid in school with the knife collection (I had one of those). In and of itself, it's not a problem, but it does bring up additional questions. As I said before, the things we'll never know are: were they sharpened? Did he have them hidden? Did his parents know about them? If the answers are yes, yes and no, then I think there's a real potential for a problem. But if he had them hanging on his wall, then nobody should care -- I have a Spanish sword hanging on my living room wall.
3. Irrelevant -- I only brought up the point about the board because your previous point four indicated that the board had nothing to react to in the first place, and I wanted to point out that they didn't react in the first place -- other school officials did the reacting. It's up to the board to deal with the fallout of that reaction.
I suspect that you and I only disagree on two things. 1. It seems to me that you feel that the school should have at most contacted the kid's parents, and possibly not even that. I would normally agree with you, but I'm only pointing out that regulations may require the principal to take a different course of action, and the current VT atmosphere may have caused the overreaction. I personally thing that the principal should have contacted the boys parents and asked for psychological evaluation. That would have cleared everything up. If what started this was a complaint from another student or parent, then a very temporary suspension would have also been in order. 2. I suspect that we also disagree on whether it was OK for the boy to be in possession of the five swords. My personal opinion is that if they had practice edges AND his parents knew about them that it was ok. However, I do not feel that it would be OK for him to possess sharpened swords or even practice swords without the knowledge of his parents. You should also be aware that it is illegal in many states for a minor to possess a weapon with a blade beyond a certain length (varies by state).
You missed the point of my post. I wasn't saying that what the school did was right. I was first off correcting the summary that says they found only a hammer. I don't know where they came up with that. You also cited a bunch of "it's not illegals". That's exactly why he was not arrested. So I think we can say the police responded correctly. Also, the school wasn't concerned at him playing first-person shooters with custom maps. They were concerned that he was playing with a 3D map of the school. Regarding the "honor student" status, I'm not sure if you're saying that an honor student should be more trusted, or if you're saying that you shouldn't send one to a school for delinquents. If the latter, then I agree with you -- he should have been allowed to study at home with teachers sending work to him. If the former, then I have to disagree. If anything, in my experience, the better performing students are the ones more likely to snap and do something unexpected. Regarding the board, they aren't the ones who made the decision. Half of them wanted to review it (which is unusual), and the other half are playing political games.
Now, regarding how the school should have handled it. I strongly disagree with you that there was nothing to handle. The question is this: How did the school officials find out that he was playing a first-person shooter with self-made maps of the school? Somebody must have complained -- teacher, student or parent. They are required to investigate and possibly take action. With the VT shootings having just taken place, and with concerns about what would happen if they failed to take any action and there was a similar incident, they chose to bring in the police and keep the kid away from the school.
Do I think they overreacted? Absolutely. It would have been better to keep him out of school for a few days and have a psychologist immediately talk with him before taking such strong actions. Do I think the board is behaving correctly? No! Shame on those playing politics and refusing to review the situation when this kid's future is hanging by a thread. This is clearly an exceptional situation that bears exceptional handling. However, you and others at Slashdot seem to see this is a black or white issue. Your own list of five points greatly mischaracterizes the situation by leaving off key pieces of information. 1. The custom maps were of his school. 2. We don't know whether the swords had practice or sharp edges -- while sharp edges are not illegal, I wouldn't say it's normal for a teenager to own swords with sharp edges. We also don't know whether his parents even knew about them. 3. The board was not where the initial reaction came from.
There are enough questions in the air that had I been in charge, I too would have taken action, although different ones. Because somebody must have complained to start this sequence of events, I would be forced to do something about it. Therefore, I would have given the kid a "friendly" suspension, consulted with the parents and asked for a psychological exam. I would have also hired a security guard for a few days to make sure that the kid didn't try to enter the school during the suspension period. Depending on what laws were in place, I might be forced to notify the police. If I did, I would make it clear that we don't think it's a problem, but were are investigating it. Depending on the law, the police might be required to search his house -- those things are unavoidable. I definitely would not send him to a delinquency school, and I definitely would not pronounce until after psychological examination that he could not graduate with the class. That's a gross overreaction that I think the kid's family should take to court. But as a school official, I would not be in a position to sit back and do nothing -- and even the slightest action on my part might trigger other actions (depending on the law) that I couldn't control. It's just not as simple as most of the folks here on Slashdot would like to believe.
This kid doesn't deserve to be arrested. He doesn't deserve to be thrust into "Alternative Education". He deserves to have someone ask him why he built the school in a video game. Let a psychologist evaluate him, and then either medicate the kid or let him go back to class.
Before you jump into action, here's a little more information:
He was created a game maps for a first-person shooter game.
He was dumb enough to show his work to somebody else, most likely at school.
When the police searched his room, they found five swords. There's no indication of whether his parents knew about them, or whether they were part of some hobby (like fencing) where it would be appropriate to have them, or whether they had practice or sharp edges.
Even the board is questioning whether they overreacted.
The police chose not to arrest him.
So he basically got sent to an "alternate" education path to get him out of the school and he's not allowed to attend graduation. The question is, in light of the information above, do you see these two moves as unreasonable pending the outcome of an investigation and psychological evaluation? It's entirely possible that after meeting with a psychologist he would be allowed to return to school and participate in graduation. How should the school have handled it? When answering, keep in mind that school officials would be responsible for balancing the concerns of other parents against what's best for the student in question.
Not only do I think Vonage will prevail in this case, I also think they should pursue a case against Verizon for anti-trust.
I'm not sure I agree. It depends on what you think Vonage would use as the grounds for an anti-trust suit. If you propose that they claim Verizon is using their position to punish through patent lawsuits, that probably wouldn't work. Vonage depends on the recent Supreme Court ruling to vacate and re-try the case, which means that prior to this ruling, Verizon had a "legitimate" case. On the other hand, if you want them to show how Verizon has used their multi-state monopoly to interfere in every way with Vonage entering the marketing, they might actually have a reasonable argument. However, a successful suit may result in the breakup of the Verizon monopoly, which would net a bunch of smaller businesses that are lithe enough to actually compete with Vonage. At the moment, Verizon is busy enough carefully examining their own rectum (as evidenced by all attempts to preserve the current business model) that by the time they actually try to truly compete in the VoIP market, it will be too late, and all Verizon will have left is the path of being a network and services provider.
Give me a break... some guy wants to charge him 49 K plus to get his name back... i wouldn't pay that either!
That's peanuts to pay in return for taking control of a project that has already done what tens of millions of dollars couldn't do in terms of gathering publicity. The volunteer who created the site was perfectly happy to run it as a "non-official" site with no connection to the campaign. If you read his blog, you'll see that he was not happy with part of the direction that the campaign wanted to move in with respect to the site, and he was willing to either let them pay him a small token for all the work he's put into it over the last three years, or create their own site and let him maintain his as the "official" site. You need to look at the situation very clearly. While it's understandable that Obama's campaign would not want a "fan" site out there that they didn't have control over, it's also clear that the volunteer who created this site was the true owner. It was his money and effort invested in it. Regardless of what they wanted, the campaign had absolutely no right whatsoever to take over the site. What they did was convince Myspace to lock the volunteer out of the profile, and then create a redirect to a new profile that they had control over. This is horrible in too many ways to imagine. I hear everybody complain about the tactics of the current administration that is in office. If you think what's happening now is bad, just imagine what happens if Obama gets into office!! If he's pulling stuff like this BEFORE he's elected, imagine how it will be once he's "safely" in office. I think the net proceeds of this act are clear:
Give Myspace the hardest time possible for complying with this. Never trust them again.
Clinton is the candidate of choice for the democrats.
Yeah, I knew you were. It didn't totally part my hair.;) I was just afraid somebody might take you seriously, and if they did I at least wanted their energy pointed in a more constructive direction.;)
Let me first point out that I don't want to defend the idiot in the article, but...
EPA recommendations say that a small amount of mercury (5mg qualifies as small) can easily be cleaned up by a normal person without much trouble.
Let's take a look at a key area of the EPA recommendations...
If a spill occurs on carpet, curtains, upholstery or other like surfaces, these contaminated items should be thrown away in accordance with the disposal means outlined below. Only cut and remove the affected portion of the contaminated carpet for disposal.
Hmmm. so you have to cut a chunk out of your carpet and have that replaced. And if the carpet isn't nearly brand new, then you need to replace the whole carpet to have it look right again. I think that's a tad beyond inconvenient. I personally say: follow the EPA recommendations as though the spill weren't on carpet, and then have the guy with the measuring device come back to make sure it's "safe" again.
The challenge is finding the cheapest one that you can't tell from a "normal" bulb.
How about reducing the challenge for everyone and making comments on the brands (and models) that you have found to be most like "normal" bulbs? I have yet to find one that has no warmup period. Some of the brands I have bought have a very short warmup period that gradually gets longer and longer until it reaches the 30 - 45 second mark. This "feature" is making it really difficult to convince my wife that we should use the things.
Would the RIAA really steal music from religious sources? It's an interesting implication of what they're doing. Someone should write the Pope.
I'm not sure how much good writing the Pope would do. You might want to try writing certain studios in Nashville, some of the Christian Universities that are heavy on media and music (Liberty University comes to mind), and some of the larger religious coalitions (like the Southern Baptist Convention). In all seriousness, a well-written letter to those folks would have a pretty good chance of getting a large slice of the public energized about the issue.
It's fine for teachers to be vigilant and all following the VT massacre, but the principal and his/her underlings could have at least spoken to the kid about the essay (if you can call it that) to get the straight story.
Agreed. If you look at his own response to the situation, he says that he was just following the instructions for the assignment. Am I the only one with a long enough memory to remember what my emotions were like in High School? I remember the emotional roller coast that accompanies the hormonal changes and increase pressure of responsibility for adolescents. I remember being depressed enough to wonder whether committing suicide was the answer on some days, and angry enough to wonder whether killing someone else was the answer on other days. I also remember having a strong conscience that clearly told me those acts were not the right answer. I can't imagine that any but the dullest of students completely escapes similar conflicting thoughts during that time of their lives. The difference here is that this student really followed the assignment and let those particular thoughts that were racing through his head make it to paper. I suspect most of the teachers would be very VERY frightened to find out what really goes through the heads of their students. No amount of effort will purge adolescents of such dark thoughts. Only helping them establish a clear sense of right and wrong during their earlier years will help them resist the urge to act on those thoughts. The difference between a sociopath and normal healthy people is not so much in the thoughts that go through their heads as it is in the ability to understand (and care about) how their actions will impact others.
Other than the fact that it would require the people in power to expend effort to implement a process that would result in them losing power, I can't think of a thing!
I think I already made that statement -- about the federal government. But implementing this at the state level for selecting a president wouldn't require any approval from the federal government. And the outcome wouldn't have any direct impact on those in power at the state level. So while there would be party-affiliated resistance to this kind of voting mechanism, I would have to guess that the atmosphere when discussing it would be a lot less hostile in the state legislature than in the federal one.
If they are the ones that license the DRM-full ripping software, then using that software to rip into those devices would be ok.
More interestingly, some of his comments lead me to believe they want to provide "legal" ripping as a service because he starts talking about establishing prices, etc. I would have to say that the MPAA still doesn't get it, but they are just now beginning to realize that they will start losing their market if they don't clean up their act. This response is akin to Microsoft's response to the EU. "Let's see how little we can get away with, and delay as long as we possibly can."
I think a good alternative is to use approval voting, where each voter indicates whether or not she approves of each candidate.
Erm, did you read all of Swillden's comment?
IMO, the best of all possible options is also the very simplest: Approval voting. In approval voting, you have a list of candidates and you mark all you find acceptable.
It was pretty much summed up already, and that's the option that Swillden preferred. At least it seems that the two of you agree.;) For the record, you can count me in on that too. But I really won't hold my breath waiting for such a change to be made in our voting system. In the US, it would nearly guarantee instant success for a third party candidate the first time it was used, and the Republicrats wouldn't DARE push legislation through to change the election system in such a way. Come to think of it, though, maybe it could be implemented at the state level. Keep the Electoral College, and each state could employee this mechanism to give the appropriate marching orders to their Electors. Anybody know if that would present any problems?
Great! A service I would never pay for is now on two different platforms! Now people can be even more annoying during meetings!
OK. I have to play devil's advocate... Why wouldn't you pay for the service? Have you ever considered that maybe the meetings are engaging enough to keep people from turning to their BlackBerry devices out of sheer boredom?
There are TONS of open WAPs because people don't know better. It gives me the desire to go from home to home and do child porn searchs and FBI searches from all the homes to force this decision to get overturned. I mean come on.
The summary was a gross misinterpretation of that the article actually meant. From the summary...
In addition, it appears that an open WAP could be seen as probable cause by law enforcement.
I had a totally different interpretation. My interpretation was that probable cause could not be mitigated through running an open access point. This is a totally different thing. What the judge was saying is that if they already have evidence (via your IP address) that you are doing something illegal, you can't say "Oh, my access point is totally open" and expect to escape submitting to search and possible seizure. The fact that they have tracked the activity to your IP address means that they have probable cause and can indeed search your residence, your computer, your car and you. The take home message here is that you should NOT run an open access point. If you do, somebody may take advantage of it to do something illegal, and you'll be put through a headache well beyond mere inconvenience until "the law" realizes you aren't guilty (assuming it doesn't find something else to convict you on).
The day in question was one in which the student was required to show up to take the TAKS [wikipedia.org] test, a state-wide standardized test that's required for graduation.
Not quite true. In reality, he was required to take the TAKS test during the same week, and missing classes during that week would have been a bad thing. It isn't the same thing, but it's still a pretty big burden.
I'm not certain that it was really a vile trick. On one hand, it could just be another attempt to put a roadblock in front of casual copyright violation (although we all know that hill isn't worth the effort to climb). On the other hand, it could have been a well-timed attempt to sully the name of their competitors in the HD space. Toshiba (Sony's HD competition) was one of the players that couldn't handle the new format, but I'm not sure who the others were. At any rate, I'd like to know whether what Sony did violates written specs (if they even exist) for DVD.
I just find it way easier to pay an tax preparer to do it for me.
Not me. Most of my time is spent gathering information (about half a day), and you have to do this even if you have a paid preparer. Since my financial situation remains basically the same each year, entry into TaxCut takes me less than an hour, and in the end I have personal knowledge about everything that was done.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you just pretty clearly indicated that YOU are part of the problem. The problem comes in when one Person A's beliefs (whether religious or not) cause him or her to try to change the way of life of Person B against Person B's will -- even when that way of life has no real impact on Person A. Your statement puts you in the Person A category. If instead you had said "if your adherence to a religion is causing you to tread on the freedoms of others...", then your statement would have been more accurate. But you are inferring that anybody who adheres to a religion needs to be gotten rid of. I'm hoping I don't have to explain to you where that path will take you.
I know it's late coming back to you on this (busy week at work), but I just wanted to say that I agree with you. I don't think it's right for the police to use something like this as an excuse to search his room. What I don't know is whether the police did it because they were required to do so, or just because they were in overreaction mode. If there was some regulation that made them do it, then it really needs to be changed -- although I suspect that if it exists, the regulation has some real purpose, but is just creating a rather devastating side effect (like most laws) in this case. If they searched his room "just because", then it's the police department that ought to find itself on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
With his Prius, the engine isn't even in idle while slowing down -- it's turned off. And as mentioned earlier, it's easy to exceed the charge rate of the battery in the hybrid cars, so although you bleed off the same amount of kinetic energy whether you brake slowly or try to stand the car on its front bumper, braking slowly will allow more of the energy to be transferred into the battery while braking hard will transfer more of the energy into heat.
There are ways around that if the perpetrator has access to certain resources that they shouldn't. But there is a simple way around it that everyone can use. Any attachment can animate the avatar, and it's easy enough to hide code inside the attachments that will respond to external commands. A perpetrator could use one account to create such attachments and wait for a pool of unlucky victims to start using them. Afterwards, another account could be used to "activate" the hidden code in the attachments, leaving the victim in helpless obedience. Now, the easy way to solve the problem is to drop all attachments on your avatar, but I don't think your average user in a panic will figure that out. Remember that these are probably the same victims in an area that allows physical action that can't remember to sit down to avoid getting shoved into the next region.
Now for my opinion... should this be considered rape and prosecuted as such? No way! I want real world law enforcement to stay out of virtual worlds. At most, the service provider (Linden) should be responsible for handling complaints about this kind of behavior, and could be sued if they do not properly handle the complaint by any victim who is paying for the service. For those with freebie accounts -- too bad.
Yes, but keep in mind that the US had already brought charges of this nature against China, and this now is like throwing a huge log on the fire. While WIPO may be toothless, if enough of the nations that China exports to (which their economy currently depends on) decide this is a real problem and smack them with serious sanctions that will take a large bit out of their economy. What's important here is not so much that the place was built. That alone makes it no worse than the illegitimate copies of DVDs. What's really important is that this is state owned, which basically lends truth to the US argument that disrespect of copyright and trademark is not just tolerated by the Chinese government, but encouraged and actively sponsored by it. There's a huge difference between a government that doesn't do enough to protect copyright and trademark and a government that actively participates in the violations. Also, don't forget that Disney is a huge company and will lobby heavily. Those of us in the US, at least, can expect some major price hikes on goods that we can no longer import from China.
Agreed, but it wasn't the school that investigated the student's private life. It was the police. I've already told you that I agreed that the school officials overreacted, but we don't know what the policy is. It could be that policy dictates that when they have a complaint they have to contact the police. It could be that policy dictates that when the police hear of such a complaint, they have to investigate. We don't know. But you and I already agree on the fact that the actions taken by the school were way above and beyond what should have happened. To address your responses to my three points:
I suspect that you and I only disagree on two things. 1. It seems to me that you feel that the school should have at most contacted the kid's parents, and possibly not even that. I would normally agree with you, but I'm only pointing out that regulations may require the principal to take a different course of action, and the current VT atmosphere may have caused the overreaction. I personally thing that the principal should have contacted the boys parents and asked for psychological evaluation. That would have cleared everything up. If what started this was a complaint from another student or parent, then a very temporary suspension would have also been in order. 2. I suspect that we also disagree on whether it was OK for the boy to be in possession of the five swords. My personal opinion is that if they had practice edges AND his parents knew about them that it was ok. However, I do not feel that it would be OK for him to possess sharpened swords or even practice swords without the knowledge of his parents. You should also be aware that it is illegal in many states for a minor to possess a weapon with a blade beyond a certain length (varies by state).
Now, regarding how the school should have handled it. I strongly disagree with you that there was nothing to handle. The question is this: How did the school officials find out that he was playing a first-person shooter with self-made maps of the school? Somebody must have complained -- teacher, student or parent. They are required to investigate and possibly take action. With the VT shootings having just taken place, and with concerns about what would happen if they failed to take any action and there was a similar incident, they chose to bring in the police and keep the kid away from the school.
Do I think they overreacted? Absolutely. It would have been better to keep him out of school for a few days and have a psychologist immediately talk with him before taking such strong actions. Do I think the board is behaving correctly? No! Shame on those playing politics and refusing to review the situation when this kid's future is hanging by a thread. This is clearly an exceptional situation that bears exceptional handling. However, you and others at Slashdot seem to see this is a black or white issue. Your own list of five points greatly mischaracterizes the situation by leaving off key pieces of information. 1. The custom maps were of his school. 2. We don't know whether the swords had practice or sharp edges -- while sharp edges are not illegal, I wouldn't say it's normal for a teenager to own swords with sharp edges. We also don't know whether his parents even knew about them. 3. The board was not where the initial reaction came from.
There are enough questions in the air that had I been in charge, I too would have taken action, although different ones. Because somebody must have complained to start this sequence of events, I would be forced to do something about it. Therefore, I would have given the kid a "friendly" suspension, consulted with the parents and asked for a psychological exam. I would have also hired a security guard for a few days to make sure that the kid didn't try to enter the school during the suspension period. Depending on what laws were in place, I might be forced to notify the police. If I did, I would make it clear that we don't think it's a problem, but were are investigating it. Depending on the law, the police might be required to search his house -- those things are unavoidable. I definitely would not send him to a delinquency school, and I definitely would not pronounce until after psychological examination that he could not graduate with the class. That's a gross overreaction that I think the kid's family should take to court. But as a school official, I would not be in a position to sit back and do nothing -- and even the slightest action on my part might trigger other actions (depending on the law) that I couldn't control. It's just not as simple as most of the folks here on Slashdot would like to believe.
Before you jump into action, here's a little more information:
The summary is this
So he basically got sent to an "alternate" education path to get him out of the school and he's not allowed to attend graduation. The question is, in light of the information above, do you see these two moves as unreasonable pending the outcome of an investigation and psychological evaluation? It's entirely possible that after meeting with a psychologist he would be allowed to return to school and participate in graduation. How should the school have handled it? When answering, keep in mind that school officials would be responsible for balancing the concerns of other parents against what's best for the student in question.
I'm not sure I agree. It depends on what you think Vonage would use as the grounds for an anti-trust suit. If you propose that they claim Verizon is using their position to punish through patent lawsuits, that probably wouldn't work. Vonage depends on the recent Supreme Court ruling to vacate and re-try the case, which means that prior to this ruling, Verizon had a "legitimate" case. On the other hand, if you want them to show how Verizon has used their multi-state monopoly to interfere in every way with Vonage entering the marketing, they might actually have a reasonable argument. However, a successful suit may result in the breakup of the Verizon monopoly, which would net a bunch of smaller businesses that are lithe enough to actually compete with Vonage. At the moment, Verizon is busy enough carefully examining their own rectum (as evidenced by all attempts to preserve the current business model) that by the time they actually try to truly compete in the VoIP market, it will be too late, and all Verizon will have left is the path of being a network and services provider.
That's peanuts to pay in return for taking control of a project that has already done what tens of millions of dollars couldn't do in terms of gathering publicity. The volunteer who created the site was perfectly happy to run it as a "non-official" site with no connection to the campaign. If you read his blog, you'll see that he was not happy with part of the direction that the campaign wanted to move in with respect to the site, and he was willing to either let them pay him a small token for all the work he's put into it over the last three years, or create their own site and let him maintain his as the "official" site. You need to look at the situation very clearly. While it's understandable that Obama's campaign would not want a "fan" site out there that they didn't have control over, it's also clear that the volunteer who created this site was the true owner. It was his money and effort invested in it. Regardless of what they wanted, the campaign had absolutely no right whatsoever to take over the site. What they did was convince Myspace to lock the volunteer out of the profile, and then create a redirect to a new profile that they had control over. This is horrible in too many ways to imagine. I hear everybody complain about the tactics of the current administration that is in office. If you think what's happening now is bad, just imagine what happens if Obama gets into office!! If he's pulling stuff like this BEFORE he's elected, imagine how it will be once he's "safely" in office. I think the net proceeds of this act are clear:
Yeah, I knew you were. It didn't totally part my hair.
Let's take a look at a key area of the EPA recommendations...
Hmmm. so you have to cut a chunk out of your carpet and have that replaced. And if the carpet isn't nearly brand new, then you need to replace the whole carpet to have it look right again. I think that's a tad beyond inconvenient. I personally say: follow the EPA recommendations as though the spill weren't on carpet, and then have the guy with the measuring device come back to make sure it's "safe" again.
Does this surprise you??
I'm not sure how much good writing the Pope would do. You might want to try writing certain studios in Nashville, some of the Christian Universities that are heavy on media and music (Liberty University comes to mind), and some of the larger religious coalitions (like the Southern Baptist Convention). In all seriousness, a well-written letter to those folks would have a pretty good chance of getting a large slice of the public energized about the issue.
Agreed. If you look at his own response to the situation, he says that he was just following the instructions for the assignment. Am I the only one with a long enough memory to remember what my emotions were like in High School? I remember the emotional roller coast that accompanies the hormonal changes and increase pressure of responsibility for adolescents. I remember being depressed enough to wonder whether committing suicide was the answer on some days, and angry enough to wonder whether killing someone else was the answer on other days. I also remember having a strong conscience that clearly told me those acts were not the right answer. I can't imagine that any but the dullest of students completely escapes similar conflicting thoughts during that time of their lives. The difference here is that this student really followed the assignment and let those particular thoughts that were racing through his head make it to paper. I suspect most of the teachers would be very VERY frightened to find out what really goes through the heads of their students. No amount of effort will purge adolescents of such dark thoughts. Only helping them establish a clear sense of right and wrong during their earlier years will help them resist the urge to act on those thoughts. The difference between a sociopath and normal healthy people is not so much in the thoughts that go through their heads as it is in the ability to understand (and care about) how their actions will impact others.
I think I already made that statement -- about the federal government. But implementing this at the state level for selecting a president wouldn't require any approval from the federal government. And the outcome wouldn't have any direct impact on those in power at the state level. So while there would be party-affiliated resistance to this kind of voting mechanism, I would have to guess that the atmosphere when discussing it would be a lot less hostile in the state legislature than in the federal one.
More interestingly, some of his comments lead me to believe they want to provide "legal" ripping as a service because he starts talking about establishing prices, etc. I would have to say that the MPAA still doesn't get it, but they are just now beginning to realize that they will start losing their market if they don't clean up their act. This response is akin to Microsoft's response to the EU. "Let's see how little we can get away with, and delay as long as we possibly can."
Erm, did you read all of Swillden's comment?
It was pretty much summed up already, and that's the option that Swillden preferred. At least it seems that the two of you agree.
OK. I have to play devil's advocate... Why wouldn't you pay for the service? Have you ever considered that maybe the meetings are engaging enough to keep people from turning to their BlackBerry devices out of sheer boredom?
The summary was a gross misinterpretation of that the article actually meant. From the summary...
I had a totally different interpretation. My interpretation was that probable cause could not be mitigated through running an open access point. This is a totally different thing. What the judge was saying is that if they already have evidence (via your IP address) that you are doing something illegal, you can't say "Oh, my access point is totally open" and expect to escape submitting to search and possible seizure. The fact that they have tracked the activity to your IP address means that they have probable cause and can indeed search your residence, your computer, your car and you. The take home message here is that you should NOT run an open access point. If you do, somebody may take advantage of it to do something illegal, and you'll be put through a headache well beyond mere inconvenience until "the law" realizes you aren't guilty (assuming it doesn't find something else to convict you on).
Not quite true. In reality, he was required to take the TAKS test during the same week, and missing classes during that week would have been a bad thing. It isn't the same thing, but it's still a pretty big burden.
For some reason, flaccid seems like a better choice of words....
I'm not certain that it was really a vile trick. On one hand, it could just be another attempt to put a roadblock in front of casual copyright violation (although we all know that hill isn't worth the effort to climb). On the other hand, it could have been a well-timed attempt to sully the name of their competitors in the HD space. Toshiba (Sony's HD competition) was one of the players that couldn't handle the new format, but I'm not sure who the others were. At any rate, I'd like to know whether what Sony did violates written specs (if they even exist) for DVD.