They just want to sell it to you on dead tree, then sell you the bits, then sell you the cassette, (excuse me, DRM-laden WMA files) all of the same work, and charge you each time for it, that's all. What's so wrong with that?
It wasn't really a breaker for software, because Apple shipped a special version of OS 9 with their OS X PowerPC Macs that could be used to run older software
In the windows world, it "breaks existing software" if more then 35% of their apps stop working. On the mac, it "breaks existing software" if more than 5% of their apps stop working. So not only is it a real physical difference between the two, but also a difference in perception. ("they define the problem differently") Maybe it's a case that mac users just plain wouldn't put up with that sort of treatment?
I have no knowledge of that particular wedge of history. I assume that was a case of where "black market" was defined basically as "doing business without the government getting a cut"?
I was referring to progress from the user's point of view. UAC changes worked for the other camp, breaking backward compatibility across the board without adding something most users will notice as something they want from the new release.
If you don't like what someone does, but strictly speaking it's not really illegal, then find something else they did, (something that maybe a lot of people do and get left alone for) that has some silly, overly-broad definitions you can twist, and soak him for that instead. (ether as substitute punishment for the former that you can't make stick, or just plain in retaliation for doing something you didn't like)
As usual, the legal system that makes me sick to my stomach some days.
My take on that is a properly designed and planned out OS shouldn't have to break half the planet on each upgrade cycle to make progress.
Considering how hard it is to predict the future, I expect OSs to occasionally have to make a major change. DOS to windows 3, 3 to 95, somewhat 95 to xp, but I don't see a distinct major change since then, so why do things have to break in vista and then again in 7? At least give us some sincere major improvements for the headache, and space them out a bit will ya?
Ideally, OS upgrades should be a major pain once a deckade, and smooth in between, without sacrificing added functionality and progress.
Linux and Mac OS both seem to have a much better track record here. Heck, Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X happened in what, 2001? OK that was a major breaker for software and hardware alike, but we haven't had to suffer it in 8 years and there's no threat looming in the future. Why can't MS work this way?
And wouldn't it be illegal to operate this thing in US waters?
The FCC has rules set up to prevent interference, and yes, that boat had no business with its mobile cell point operating while within a few miles of port, let alone IN port.
YES, anyone walking by the boat could have been socked with international roaming charges. (and probably a number DID, but didn't jack up a thousand dollar phonebill, I bet AT&T got a few angry calls from people that got charged a few bucks for a call they made) Anyone within a few blocks even. Depends on the range of the boat's antenna and how close the nearest cell tower is to the port.
I rather doubt it was a scam though, the person that neglected to turn off the cell point when they approached port probably had nothing to gain. Just some underpaid peon's mistake not following procedures most likely. But in the end, all those phonebills (not just this guy) are the (financial) responsibility of whoever is running that boat. The FCC could easily fine them, or take more drastic action such as pulling their license to HAVE the cell point on their boat for a few months. If AT&T had refused to budge, getting that fine to happen would probably have been a necessary first step toward getting the boat owner to pay the bill. They may yet get a notice of fine from the FCC.
TFA says he was still in port, waiting for the departure, and that the charges were the result of:
1) The boat, against established rules, had its local portable cellular network active (supposed to be OFF while in port or near land/cell towers 2) his wifi card elected to use the ship's tower instead of the one nearest the port (probably stronger signal) 3) the video app for showing the game was not allowing his wifi to pop up a visible message warning him he was roaming
I'd argue that by (1), it's the boat's fault (and probably can be fined by the fcc for possible interference with land networks?) and that they should be ultimately responsible for that $26k/250 bill difference. That boat's local tower should NOT have been accepting calls.
A "vista capable" sticker on a pc is often a cheap way to con someone into upgrading to a machine that's not vista tolerable.
You'll remember back to when 480mbps usb came out, all those PCs being sold with the slower (12mbps) usb couldn't GIVE those motherboards away, so they just bribed the specs committee to rename the standards so "USB 1.1" aka "USB full speed" vs "USB 2.0" aka "USB high speed" were "simplified" to "USB 2.0" and "USB 2.0 high speed", so that anyone shopping for USB 2.0 would probably be dished off a 12mbps since its name went from "USB 1.1" to "USB 2.0" to unload that worthless hardware.
Much the same goes on with the "Vista Capable" crap. Computers that 50% of the computer using public, (and 95% of the tech savvy computer users) would not tolerate the poor performance and lack of hardware support in older machines that got rubber stamped with that "certification".
All macs are specced well above acceptable performance, but there is still some hardware support issues. (sound, camera, video acceleration, depends on the model) So I don't think I could in good faith slap a Vista Ready logo on ALL current macs. Most maybe, but the newest ones are likely to have some driver issues. (that will probably be quickly addressed, based on prior history)
Require a license number in really small print in the lower right corner on published pornographic pictures, with the actors' license number(s). And require them to be licensed. If anyone has any questions right there's the number and look it up. If the actor looks like the pic on file well then ok. If it doesn't have a number or if they're obviously not the same person, go after the publisher for consent. Problem solved.
Is there a name for software that installs on the sly, or in an "automatic" way that is unexpected? I don't mean to say virus or trojan, but something that could more properly be associated with something that's not publicly accepted as "malware".
SlyWare? SneakWare?
I think the part of these I despise the most are the ones that keep trying to sneak in, that you can't tick a "don't EVER try to pull that again". Like when IE has a checkbox for "always make sure IE is your browser", instead of the "never ask me again" in FF etc. They're taking advantage of the system and hoping you screw up just once like a pushy salesman trying to get in the door.
I don't think this is going to be a significant problem when compared to normal seek time problems.
Lets say we have 100 k of data to read. 512 byte blocks would require 200 reads. 4k blocks would require 25 reads.
For rotating discs: If the data is contiguous, we have to hope that all the blocks are on the same track. If they are, then there is 1 (potentially very costly) seek to get to the track with all the blocks on it. The cost of the seek is dependent on the track it's going to, the track it's on, and whether or not the drive is sleeping or spun down. Otherwise we also get to do another very short seek, which is going to add a bit of time to get to the next adjacent track. Worst case scenario all 200 blocks are on different tracks, scattered randomly on the platter, requiring 200 seeks. Ouch ouch ouch.
For SSDs: What is important is the number of cells we have to read. Cells will be 4k in size. All seek times are essentially zero. Best case scenario, all data is contiguous, and the start block is at the start of a cell. Read time boils down to how fast the flash can read 20 cells. Worst case scenario is where the data is 100% fragmented, such that all 200 512 byte blocks reside in a different cell, requiring 200 cell reads. (10fold increase in time required) There will also be overhead in copying out the 512 byte data from each buffer and assembling things, but this time is negligible for this comparison.
While the 20x time increase (order N) looks significant, it's important to compare the probabilities involved, and just how bad things get. The most important difference between how these two drives react is the space between fragments. In the "worse case' for SSD, 100% fragmentation, is highly unlikely. I don't even want to think about what a spinning disc would do if asked to perform a head seek for 100% of the blocks in say, a 1mb file. The read head would probably sing like a tuning fork at the very least. 2000 cell reads compared to 2000 seeks, the SSD will win handily every single time, even if the tracks on the disc are close.
If the spacing between fragments is anything near normal, say 30-100k, then there will be some seeking going on with the disc, and there will be some wasted cell reads with the SDD, but having to do an extra one cell read compared with having to do an extra head seek, again the SSD wins hands down. The advantage of the SSD actually goes down as fragmentation goes down, because most fragments are going to cause a head seek, each of will significantly widen the time gap. Also a spinning disc will read in the blocks much faster than the cells on a SSD.
I realize the OP was more describing the possibility of "not so much bang for the buck as you are expecting" due to fragmentation, and I know the above hits more on comparing the two than what happens to the SSD, but if you consider the effects of fragmentation on a spinning disc, and then weigh how the impact compares with a SSD, it's easy to see that fragmentation that sent you running for the defrag tool yesterday may not even be noticeable with a SSD. So I'd call this a "non-issue".
What I'm waiting for is them to invest the same dev time in read speeds as write speeds. SSDs don't appear to be doing any interleaved reads - they're doing it for the writes because they're so slow. Though at this point I wonder if read speeds are just plain running into a bus speed limit with the SSDs?
was gonna say... isn't devtools and the iphone SDK 100% free? (though the iphone sdk has some onerous agreement to sign off on - what ahout dev tools? I don't recall anything heavy in their license agreement?)
I think you'll get different interpretations depending on who you ask. Thus my opinion follows:
AFK to me means I have to pause this for a bit while I work on something else. with no definite timeframe in my returning. You can go AFK to go to the bathroom, or to go shopping, or to go to bed. It implies you might return. (but would not be entirely unexpected to see you logout later without returning) It's a warning that you're not going to be around for awhile, and to continue without you with no commitment to your return.
BRB I see as a shorter departure than AFK, and with a more solid commitment to return when the distraction is over. I'd call a BRB as a quick interruption where the discussion etc can continue with you gone because you intend to return quickly and pick back up where you left off with little impact to the flow. BRB would be the more appropriate choice for going to the fridge for a snack or to take a piss. It's more of a notice that you won't be immediately responsive for the next couple minutes, and to proceed with whatever in your absence and you will hop back in shortly with minimal disruption, with expectation that you can quickly catch yourself up and resume when you return.
I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I though the "discovery" phase of the trial, (an early one) was the only normal time to introduce evidence? The whole point being not to waste the court's time dragging out a lengthy trial when the prosecution or defense is holding back some key piece of evidence that could instantly cause charges to be dropped or a plea bargain to be accepted?
Shouldn't the judge have to make an exception for introduction of new evidence not included in discovery after discovery is over?
Tho I'd be willing to bet that shutting down their botnet would cost a lot more than the average spyware install or spam run. Since it would be their last sale.
But I bet you're right, they COULD be sold. I bet MS has enough money too. So if they REALLY wanted to get rid of it, I suppose they could pay them off? I don't see that happening though. it would set a nasty precedent that if you build a good enough botnet, MS will bury you in cash to go away. Though the botnet is already insanely profitable. Anyone have some hard (or at least relatively firm) numbers on how much a botnet such as conflicker can net for a herder? We've seen the posts here in the past where they had a full portal interface for people rending their services to send spam etc.
I know this is a very unpopular view with a lot of people, but I'd personally like to see a major worm like this pop a msg saying your computer has been taken over and is available to be used to harm others. you need to take your computer into the repair shop and get it cleaned up and protective software installed".
And then make windows unable to do anything but display that message when it boots.
Half the population would be picking up pitchforks, and the other half would be saying THANK you!
I for one am sick and tired of ignorant computer users getting their machines botnetted, blissfully unaware of the harm they are then contributing to. (and many of them are aware and just plain don't care)
Besides, there's probably some agreement the developers have to agree to that states no app will directly compete with iTunes.
I don't know if they sign anything that says they won't, but THAT is the #1 reason for apps to be rejected by Apple submitted for sale on the ITMS. Even apps that remotely sort of kind of might be seen to compete with iTunes or Mail tend to get slapped with the generic "competes with another apple product" veto and are not placed for sale on the ITMS.
I wonder if this app will be the first to fall to the ex-post-facto ITMS kill switch? I suppose it depends on whether or not Apple realized what the app really was doing?
Does Microsoft have a monopoly? yes. Does Microsoft abuse their monopoly staus? frequently
Does Google have a monopoly? yes. Does Google abuse their monopoly staus? not yet
There's the difference, and there's why they need to be handled differently. MS not only has abused their monopoly status, they actually have a well-established track-record of doing so whenever they think they can get away with it, and not being the least bit apologetic or repentive when they DO get caught.
That's why someone has to keep an eye on Google (and that's OK), and why MS needs to be held captive under the magnifying glass. Lets hope the new guy understands this.
So if I lie to my teacher, or otherwise violate school policy, I can be searched and arrested? (cite some legal basis here please, I can find none and would find it most disturbing) That's like getting arrested for walking into the grocery store and violating the "shirt and shoes required" sign on the door.
Did her parents sign something when enrolling their student that said that they (or their agent etc) were authorized to search their child? (I rather doubt, but this MAY give them a leg to stand on if true) You can assign some of your rights as a parent/guardian to another but it's NEVER assumed.
would seem be for Hulu to provide a link or three at the bottom of that notice saying "if you disagree with this, we suggest you have your voice heard by.... " with links, phone numbers, email addresses, mailboxes, etc. If the "content providers" aren't listening to Hulu (or boxee) then maybe they'll listen to mobs of their customers?
"We suspect this student has a weapon" - ok that will get you searched by an officer, but "We suspect this student has a cell phone in their pants"? uh... no. Or at least, I certainly HOPE not.
Either the police went overboard, or the teacher lied to the officers. Something's not right here. One or the other deserves some court action.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well the other day my girlfriend and I were walking through the park..." and no one bats and eye.
But see a guy say "Well the other day my boyfriend and I were walking through the park..." and suddenly the whole room is staring at you.
I see that as a bizarre double standard of conversation.
so this could potentially be a battery that recharges itself? That's got a really high Geek Factor (TM)
They just want to sell it to you on dead tree, then sell you the bits, then sell you the cassette, (excuse me, DRM-laden WMA files) all of the same work, and charge you each time for it, that's all. What's so wrong with that?
It wasn't really a breaker for software, because Apple shipped a special version of OS 9 with their OS X PowerPC Macs that could be used to run older software
In the windows world, it "breaks existing software" if more then 35% of their apps stop working. On the mac, it "breaks existing software" if more than 5% of their apps stop working. So not only is it a real physical difference between the two, but also a difference in perception. ("they define the problem differently") Maybe it's a case that mac users just plain wouldn't put up with that sort of treatment?
Thing is, everybody was doing black market.
I have no knowledge of that particular wedge of history. I assume that was a case of where "black market" was defined basically as "doing business without the government getting a cut"?
UAC basically changed Windows...
I was referring to progress from the user's point of view. UAC changes worked for the other camp, breaking backward compatibility across the board without adding something most users will notice as something they want from the new release.
If you don't like what someone does, but strictly speaking it's not really illegal, then find something else they did, (something that maybe a lot of people do and get left alone for) that has some silly, overly-broad definitions you can twist, and soak him for that instead. (ether as substitute punishment for the former that you can't make stick, or just plain in retaliation for doing something you didn't like)
As usual, the legal system that makes me sick to my stomach some days.
My take on that is a properly designed and planned out OS shouldn't have to break half the planet on each upgrade cycle to make progress.
Considering how hard it is to predict the future, I expect OSs to occasionally have to make a major change. DOS to windows 3, 3 to 95, somewhat 95 to xp, but I don't see a distinct major change since then, so why do things have to break in vista and then again in 7? At least give us some sincere major improvements for the headache, and space them out a bit will ya?
Ideally, OS upgrades should be a major pain once a deckade, and smooth in between, without sacrificing added functionality and progress.
Linux and Mac OS both seem to have a much better track record here. Heck, Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X happened in what, 2001? OK that was a major breaker for software and hardware alike, but we haven't had to suffer it in 8 years and there's no threat looming in the future. Why can't MS work this way?
And wouldn't it be illegal to operate this thing in US waters?
The FCC has rules set up to prevent interference, and yes, that boat had no business with its mobile cell point operating while within a few miles of port, let alone IN port.
YES, anyone walking by the boat could have been socked with international roaming charges. (and probably a number DID, but didn't jack up a thousand dollar phonebill, I bet AT&T got a few angry calls from people that got charged a few bucks for a call they made) Anyone within a few blocks even. Depends on the range of the boat's antenna and how close the nearest cell tower is to the port.
I rather doubt it was a scam though, the person that neglected to turn off the cell point when they approached port probably had nothing to gain. Just some underpaid peon's mistake not following procedures most likely. But in the end, all those phonebills (not just this guy) are the (financial) responsibility of whoever is running that boat. The FCC could easily fine them, or take more drastic action such as pulling their license to HAVE the cell point on their boat for a few months. If AT&T had refused to budge, getting that fine to happen would probably have been a necessary first step toward getting the boat owner to pay the bill. They may yet get a notice of fine from the FCC.
TFA says he was still in port, waiting for the departure, and that the charges were the result of:
1) The boat, against established rules, had its local portable cellular network active (supposed to be OFF while in port or near land/cell towers
2) his wifi card elected to use the ship's tower instead of the one nearest the port (probably stronger signal)
3) the video app for showing the game was not allowing his wifi to pop up a visible message warning him he was roaming
I'd argue that by (1), it's the boat's fault (and probably can be fined by the fcc for possible interference with land networks?) and that they should be ultimately responsible for that $26k/250 bill difference. That boat's local tower should NOT have been accepting calls.
A "vista capable" sticker on a pc is often a cheap way to con someone into upgrading to a machine that's not vista tolerable.
You'll remember back to when 480mbps usb came out, all those PCs being sold with the slower (12mbps) usb couldn't GIVE those motherboards away, so they just bribed the specs committee to rename the standards so "USB 1.1" aka "USB full speed" vs "USB 2.0" aka "USB high speed" were "simplified" to "USB 2.0" and "USB 2.0 high speed", so that anyone shopping for USB 2.0 would probably be dished off a 12mbps since its name went from "USB 1.1" to "USB 2.0" to unload that worthless hardware.
Much the same goes on with the "Vista Capable" crap. Computers that 50% of the computer using public, (and 95% of the tech savvy computer users) would not tolerate the poor performance and lack of hardware support in older machines that got rubber stamped with that "certification".
All macs are specced well above acceptable performance, but there is still some hardware support issues. (sound, camera, video acceleration, depends on the model) So I don't think I could in good faith slap a Vista Ready logo on ALL current macs. Most maybe, but the newest ones are likely to have some driver issues. (that will probably be quickly addressed, based on prior history)
I just mentioned that to our sales manager, that we should put Vista Capable stickers on all our macs on display. He likes the idea. heh...
Require a license number in really small print in the lower right corner on published pornographic pictures, with the actors' license number(s). And require them to be licensed. If anyone has any questions right there's the number and look it up. If the actor looks like the pic on file well then ok. If it doesn't have a number or if they're obviously not the same person, go after the publisher for consent. Problem solved.
Is there a name for software that installs on the sly, or in an "automatic" way that is unexpected? I don't mean to say virus or trojan, but something that could more properly be associated with something that's not publicly accepted as "malware".
SlyWare? SneakWare?
I think the part of these I despise the most are the ones that keep trying to sneak in, that you can't tick a "don't EVER try to pull that again". Like when IE has a checkbox for "always make sure IE is your browser", instead of the "never ask me again" in FF etc. They're taking advantage of the system and hoping you screw up just once like a pushy salesman trying to get in the door.
I don't think this is going to be a significant problem when compared to normal seek time problems.
Lets say we have 100 k of data to read. 512 byte blocks would require 200 reads. 4k blocks would require 25 reads.
For rotating discs: If the data is contiguous, we have to hope that all the blocks are on the same track. If they are, then there is 1 (potentially very costly) seek to get to the track with all the blocks on it. The cost of the seek is dependent on the track it's going to, the track it's on, and whether or not the drive is sleeping or spun down. Otherwise we also get to do another very short seek, which is going to add a bit of time to get to the next adjacent track. Worst case scenario all 200 blocks are on different tracks, scattered randomly on the platter, requiring 200 seeks. Ouch ouch ouch.
For SSDs: What is important is the number of cells we have to read. Cells will be 4k in size. All seek times are essentially zero. Best case scenario, all data is contiguous, and the start block is at the start of a cell. Read time boils down to how fast the flash can read 20 cells. Worst case scenario is where the data is 100% fragmented, such that all 200 512 byte blocks reside in a different cell, requiring 200 cell reads. (10fold increase in time required) There will also be overhead in copying out the 512 byte data from each buffer and assembling things, but this time is negligible for this comparison.
While the 20x time increase (order N) looks significant, it's important to compare the probabilities involved, and just how bad things get. The most important difference between how these two drives react is the space between fragments. In the "worse case' for SSD, 100% fragmentation, is highly unlikely. I don't even want to think about what a spinning disc would do if asked to perform a head seek for 100% of the blocks in say, a 1mb file. The read head would probably sing like a tuning fork at the very least. 2000 cell reads compared to 2000 seeks, the SSD will win handily every single time, even if the tracks on the disc are close.
If the spacing between fragments is anything near normal, say 30-100k, then there will be some seeking going on with the disc, and there will be some wasted cell reads with the SDD, but having to do an extra one cell read compared with having to do an extra head seek, again the SSD wins hands down. The advantage of the SSD actually goes down as fragmentation goes down, because most fragments are going to cause a head seek, each of will significantly widen the time gap. Also a spinning disc will read in the blocks much faster than the cells on a SSD.
I realize the OP was more describing the possibility of "not so much bang for the buck as you are expecting" due to fragmentation, and I know the above hits more on comparing the two than what happens to the SSD, but if you consider the effects of fragmentation on a spinning disc, and then weigh how the impact compares with a SSD, it's easy to see that fragmentation that sent you running for the defrag tool yesterday may not even be noticeable with a SSD. So I'd call this a "non-issue".
What I'm waiting for is them to invest the same dev time in read speeds as write speeds. SSDs don't appear to be doing any interleaved reads - they're doing it for the writes because they're so slow. Though at this point I wonder if read speeds are just plain running into a bus speed limit with the SSDs?
was gonna say... isn't devtools and the iphone SDK 100% free? (though the iphone sdk has some onerous agreement to sign off on - what ahout dev tools? I don't recall anything heavy in their license agreement?)
I think you'll get different interpretations depending on who you ask. Thus my opinion follows:
AFK to me means I have to pause this for a bit while I work on something else. with no definite timeframe in my returning. You can go AFK to go to the bathroom, or to go shopping, or to go to bed. It implies you might return. (but would not be entirely unexpected to see you logout later without returning) It's a warning that you're not going to be around for awhile, and to continue without you with no commitment to your return.
BRB I see as a shorter departure than AFK, and with a more solid commitment to return when the distraction is over. I'd call a BRB as a quick interruption where the discussion etc can continue with you gone because you intend to return quickly and pick back up where you left off with little impact to the flow. BRB would be the more appropriate choice for going to the fridge for a snack or to take a piss. It's more of a notice that you won't be immediately responsive for the next couple minutes, and to proceed with whatever in your absence and you will hop back in shortly with minimal disruption, with expectation that you can quickly catch yourself up and resume when you return.
So they're similar, but distinct.
I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I though the "discovery" phase of the trial, (an early one) was the only normal time to introduce evidence? The whole point being not to waste the court's time dragging out a lengthy trial when the prosecution or defense is holding back some key piece of evidence that could instantly cause charges to be dropped or a plea bargain to be accepted?
Shouldn't the judge have to make an exception for introduction of new evidence not included in discovery after discovery is over?
Tho I'd be willing to bet that shutting down their botnet would cost a lot more than the average spyware install or spam run. Since it would be their last sale.
But I bet you're right, they COULD be sold. I bet MS has enough money too. So if they REALLY wanted to get rid of it, I suppose they could pay them off? I don't see that happening though. it would set a nasty precedent that if you build a good enough botnet, MS will bury you in cash to go away. Though the botnet is already insanely profitable. Anyone have some hard (or at least relatively firm) numbers on how much a botnet such as conflicker can net for a herder? We've seen the posts here in the past where they had a full portal interface for people rending their services to send spam etc.
I know this is a very unpopular view with a lot of people, but I'd personally like to see a major worm like this pop a msg saying your computer has been taken over and is available to be used to harm others. you need to take your computer into the repair shop and get it cleaned up and protective software installed".
And then make windows unable to do anything but display that message when it boots.
Half the population would be picking up pitchforks, and the other half would be saying THANK you!
I for one am sick and tired of ignorant computer users getting their machines botnetted, blissfully unaware of the harm they are then contributing to. (and many of them are aware and just plain don't care)
Do the world a favor. MAKE them care.
Besides, there's probably some agreement the developers have to agree to that states no app will directly compete with iTunes.
I don't know if they sign anything that says they won't, but THAT is the #1 reason for apps to be rejected by Apple submitted for sale on the ITMS. Even apps that remotely sort of kind of might be seen to compete with iTunes or Mail tend to get slapped with the generic "competes with another apple product" veto and are not placed for sale on the ITMS.
I wonder if this app will be the first to fall to the ex-post-facto ITMS kill switch? I suppose it depends on whether or not Apple realized what the app really was doing?
Does Microsoft have a monopoly? yes.
Does Microsoft abuse their monopoly staus? frequently
Does Google have a monopoly? yes.
Does Google abuse their monopoly staus? not yet
There's the difference, and there's why they need to be handled differently. MS not only has abused their monopoly status, they actually have a well-established track-record of doing so whenever they think they can get away with it, and not being the least bit apologetic or repentive when they DO get caught.
That's why someone has to keep an eye on Google (and that's OK), and why MS needs to be held captive under the magnifying glass. Lets hope the new guy understands this.
So if I lie to my teacher, or otherwise violate school policy, I can be searched and arrested? (cite some legal basis here please, I can find none and would find it most disturbing) That's like getting arrested for walking into the grocery store and violating the "shirt and shoes required" sign on the door.
Did her parents sign something when enrolling their student that said that they (or their agent etc) were authorized to search their child? (I rather doubt, but this MAY give them a leg to stand on if true) You can assign some of your rights as a parent/guardian to another but it's NEVER assumed.
would seem be for Hulu to provide a link or three at the bottom of that notice saying "if you disagree with this, we suggest you have your voice heard by .... " with links, phone numbers, email addresses, mailboxes, etc. If the "content providers" aren't listening to Hulu (or boxee) then maybe they'll listen to mobs of their customers?
I'm very surprised they didn't do this.
"We suspect this student has a weapon" - ok that will get you searched by an officer, but "We suspect this student has a cell phone in their pants"? uh... no. Or at least, I certainly HOPE not.
Either the police went overboard, or the teacher lied to the officers. Something's not right here. One or the other deserves some court action.