Did they engage in defamation? Yes. Is defamation legitimate grounds for suspension? No. If the principal believes he is slandered, he can as a private individual sue the students for slandering (although in this context, a reasonable argument could be made that he's a public figure, which makes this much harder). What he can't do is take official action against the students.
For comparison's sake, let's say that a newspaper ran a front-page article (completely falsely) saying that a prominent politician's wife was a drunk and stating that the politician in question is bigoted against a minority group. While said politician could give a speech denouncing the paper, and could sue them for defamation, what he can't do is have the publisher of said paper arrested. (And for those old enough to remember the 1972 presidential campaign, you'll notice this isn't a hypothetical.)
I didn't lie. I exaggerated. Or I misspoke. My audience thought I said "does" when I said "doesn't". I'm not a news anchor or commentator, I'm an entertainer, so even if I'm claiming that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster that's just a joke for entertainment purposes that got taken out of context. Or the ticker clearly stated "Sarah Palin a crack whore?", not "Sarah Palin is a crack whore."
I can keep going. Point is, the excuses on this would enable this tax to be extremely easy to dodge.
So now you have a bunch of angry rootless loveless men in your society without any hopes for their future and nothing to lose. Use your boundless imagination as to the effects of that.
We don't need to use our imaginations, because this exact situation happens in countries (such as China) where parents select for more boys. End result - you have pissed off guys going on murderous rampages, including in schools. Now, in older societies where this collection of surplus guys was common, there were generally 2 solutions: (1) prostitution, (2) send all the men off to war, reducing the number of extra men and possibly kidnapping and/or raping the women from whoever they attacked.
Honestly, what else would you expect from Senator Palpatine?
Joe Lieberman has yet to see a policy to expand government power that he didn't like, usually in the name of fighting terrorism. He's more-or-less the civil liberties antithesis of Russ "No on PATRIOT Act" Feingold. If the Democrats had any cajones, they would have booted him from his committee posts a long time ago.
Now, what makes him different from Republicans is that he tends to support expanding government regulations on business as well as on individuals.
Except that they won't, for two reasons: 1. Investors are (collectively at least) really stupid. This has been proven time and again. 2. They think "this time, it's different. We know how to prevent this from becoming a bubble."
For instance, there were smart economists saying back in 2006 or so "watch out, there's a housing bubble". And what most of Wall St did was say "shut up, I'm busy counting my winnings".
The middle class is where most of America is. You can also further divide that middle class in terms of how stable someone is in it, how many assets they have and so on. It is not a bourgeoisie / proletariat divide.
I take it you haven't been seeing what's going on with the middle class in the US in the last 30 years or so. They're becoming just like the lower classes, because real wages have dropped and fixed expenses have increased to the point where the average American has a negative savings rate. What's happening is that the middle class is slowly but surely being erased.
It's a smoke show, just Creationism stripped of any direct references to God, designed to fool idiotic Fundy-populated school boards, but in its only test in a Federal court, it got laughed out the door.
No, it wasn't designed to fool Fundy-populated school boards. It was designed to give Fundy federal judges the cover to say "no, this isn't establishing religion" with a nod and a wink, while knowing full well that what they're actually doing is establishing religion.
Also, the fastest way to speed up a network is reduce the number of lusers. Completely demoralize them, electrocute them, slip a laxative into their drink, so many options, so little time.
I doubt anyone who's stood in a British railway station watching a diesel locomotive idling at the platform spewing out black clouds of particulates could really consider them 'green'
Your evidence seems to about on the level of "I know some guy who says...".
Yes, diesel trains burn diesel fuel, with all the pollution associated with that. The key is that they burn a lot less oil than moving the equivalent amount of stuff via cars and other road vehicles. For the Underground, you're looking at the energy usage of the train versus the energy usage (and other costs) of each person on that train driving their own car.
The health issues are one of the major reasons most major cities make their light rail systems electric rather than diesel.
I think if they were smart enough to be able to be pro-gamers, they'd probably have been smart enough to avoid this sort of bullshit situation in which they're basically held captive to write stupid games all day like some sort of digital bondage slave.
The Pirate Party will NEVER have enough clout to spread it's message. All they will succeed in doing is splitting the vote even more.
Given the success of the Swedish Pirate Party, with 2 seats in European Parliament and currently the third-largest political party in Sweden, I'd say your pessimism is unjustified. It's taking time, but the Pirates are slowly winning.
Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.
You mean like theseeconomicarguments? At least, that's the way things are done in the United States.
While a theorem may be abused and misunderstood, that doesn't affect whether it is a correct result. And obviously note the conclusions I'm drawing are "rational inquiry cannot explain the universe", not "God exists". If you want that kind of argument, read Descartes.
Rationalism is not an ideology. It cannot be. To be idealistic means forgoing being rational when a particular subject related to that ideology becomes the topic of discussion.
Sure it can. It's greatest flaw is that many rationalists believe that rational inquiry can eventually produce the complete truth about the nature of the universe, despite rigorous proof to the contrary (cf Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc etc).
If you're writing an app for a phone that has a restricted "app store", you are completely at the mercy of whoever is running the app store. They can pull your game (and with it your revenue stream) at any time for any reason, legitimately or not. That's the market you put yourself in, and that means that regardless of moral justifications this sort of story is hardly surprising, and barely news.
You might have gotten into that game by thinking "I keep hearing about the people who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars on stupid phone games". But what you're probably not hearing about are the tons of people who are putting hundreds of hours into building a phone game and hardly making anything.
Except that recovering oil from the spill is probably a lot more expensive than just drilling for it, at which point the magic of the market doesn't work. You could compensate by paying people a premium price for oil recovered from the ocean, but then you'll be overrun by people who actually drilled for it but said they got it from the ocean, or have to institute a rigorous regulation regime to prevent exactly that kind of cheating.
Here's what I actually suspect will happen to the oil: absolutely nothing. It will float around the ocean, and nobody will do a darn thing about it, because it's in nobody's interest to do so.
Still semi-traceable. Pretend I'm a cop/FBI agent/whatever trying to figure out who made a particular call from said prepaid.
Step 1: Locate the teenager who bought the phone. Step 2: Tell the teenager that he doesn't cooperate then I'll assume that he's the one who made the call, and is thus involved in whatever crime was committed or conspired for with the phone (and, if necessary, point out that his youth doesn't prevent trial as an adult due to the nature of the crime). The teenager, not wanting to do serious time for that $20 transaction, tells the story of whoever is implementing this business plan, where and when they bought the phone, how they got contacted by this guy, etc. Step 3: Locate the middleman. Step 4: Tell the middleman that he's guilty of aiding and abetting whatever the crime was, but that if he cooperates I'll instruct the DAs to take that into account. The middleman, also trying to avoid jail time, gives up the information on the terrorist he sold the phone to.
Without the ID of the teenager, you're stuck with (at best) an image of the teenager caught on security tape when he bought the phone, and will have a hard time getting past step 1.
Obviously this process is more complicated and more prone to failure, but it is reasonable to argue that this will help track down terrorists, gangsters, etc. Now, that doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do, but this (unlike trolling through the entirety of Internet traffic and the like) actually would have some legitimate upsides to investigators doing legitimate investigations.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they engage in defamation? Yes. Is defamation legitimate grounds for suspension? No. If the principal believes he is slandered, he can as a private individual sue the students for slandering (although in this context, a reasonable argument could be made that he's a public figure, which makes this much harder). What he can't do is take official action against the students.
For comparison's sake, let's say that a newspaper ran a front-page article (completely falsely) saying that a prominent politician's wife was a drunk and stating that the politician in question is bigoted against a minority group. While said politician could give a speech denouncing the paper, and could sue them for defamation, what he can't do is have the publisher of said paper arrested. (And for those old enough to remember the 1972 presidential campaign, you'll notice this isn't a hypothetical.)
I didn't lie. I exaggerated. Or I misspoke. My audience thought I said "does" when I said "doesn't". I'm not a news anchor or commentator, I'm an entertainer, so even if I'm claiming that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster that's just a joke for entertainment purposes that got taken out of context. Or the ticker clearly stated "Sarah Palin a crack whore?", not "Sarah Palin is a crack whore."
I can keep going. Point is, the excuses on this would enable this tax to be extremely easy to dodge.
So now you have a bunch of angry rootless loveless men in your society without any hopes for their future and nothing to lose. Use your boundless imagination as to the effects of that.
We don't need to use our imaginations, because this exact situation happens in countries (such as China) where parents select for more boys. End result - you have pissed off guys going on murderous rampages, including in schools. Now, in older societies where this collection of surplus guys was common, there were generally 2 solutions: (1) prostitution, (2) send all the men off to war, reducing the number of extra men and possibly kidnapping and/or raping the women from whoever they attacked.
Honestly, what else would you expect from Senator Palpatine?
Joe Lieberman has yet to see a policy to expand government power that he didn't like, usually in the name of fighting terrorism. He's more-or-less the civil liberties antithesis of Russ "No on PATRIOT Act" Feingold. If the Democrats had any cajones, they would have booted him from his committee posts a long time ago.
Now, what makes him different from Republicans is that he tends to support expanding government regulations on business as well as on individuals.
You confound the stock market and Slashdot.
Wait til I get going! Where was I? Oh, and you must have known that, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Except that they won't, for two reasons:
1. Investors are (collectively at least) really stupid. This has been proven time and again.
2. They think "this time, it's different. We know how to prevent this from becoming a bubble."
For instance, there were smart economists saying back in 2006 or so "watch out, there's a housing bubble". And what most of Wall St did was say "shut up, I'm busy counting my winnings".
I never touch coffee - it's a vile habit, especially when abused. Now that that's out of the way, barkeep, another pilsner please.
Hey, there's even a modern web framework for Cobol!
"We don't care. We don't have to care. We're the phone company."
They didn't want to call attention to their virgin timber, obviously.
The middle class is where most of America is. You can also further divide that middle class in terms of how stable someone is in it, how many assets they have and so on. It is not a bourgeoisie / proletariat divide.
I take it you haven't been seeing what's going on with the middle class in the US in the last 30 years or so. They're becoming just like the lower classes, because real wages have dropped and fixed expenses have increased to the point where the average American has a negative savings rate. What's happening is that the middle class is slowly but surely being erased.
It's a smoke show, just Creationism stripped of any direct references to God, designed to fool idiotic Fundy-populated school boards, but in its only test in a Federal court, it got laughed out the door.
No, it wasn't designed to fool Fundy-populated school boards. It was designed to give Fundy federal judges the cover to say "no, this isn't establishing religion" with a nod and a wink, while knowing full well that what they're actually doing is establishing religion.
Also, the fastest way to speed up a network is reduce the number of lusers. Completely demoralize them, electrocute them, slip a laxative into their drink, so many options, so little time.
I doubt anyone who's stood in a British railway station watching a diesel locomotive idling at the platform spewing out black clouds of particulates could really consider them 'green'
Your evidence seems to about on the level of "I know some guy who says ...".
Yes, diesel trains burn diesel fuel, with all the pollution associated with that. The key is that they burn a lot less oil than moving the equivalent amount of stuff via cars and other road vehicles. For the Underground, you're looking at the energy usage of the train versus the energy usage (and other costs) of each person on that train driving their own car.
The health issues are one of the major reasons most major cities make their light rail systems electric rather than diesel.
I think you better do as he says, Mr. Kinney.
I think if they were smart enough to be able to be pro-gamers, they'd probably have been smart enough to avoid this sort of bullshit situation in which they're basically held captive to write stupid games all day like some sort of digital bondage slave.
The Pirate Party will NEVER have enough clout to spread it's message. All they will succeed in doing is splitting the vote even more.
Given the success of the Swedish Pirate Party, with 2 seats in European Parliament and currently the third-largest political party in Sweden, I'd say your pessimism is unjustified. It's taking time, but the Pirates are slowly winning.
Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.
You mean like these economic arguments? At least, that's the way things are done in the United States.
Bear in mind that there's nothing about getting laid in that description.
Well, there is a DDR version of In the Navy.
While a theorem may be abused and misunderstood, that doesn't affect whether it is a correct result. And obviously note the conclusions I'm drawing are "rational inquiry cannot explain the universe", not "God exists". If you want that kind of argument, read Descartes.
Rationalism is not an ideology. It cannot be. To be idealistic means forgoing being rational when a particular subject related to that ideology becomes the topic of discussion.
Sure it can. It's greatest flaw is that many rationalists believe that rational inquiry can eventually produce the complete truth about the nature of the universe, despite rigorous proof to the contrary (cf Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc etc).
If you're writing an app for a phone that has a restricted "app store", you are completely at the mercy of whoever is running the app store. They can pull your game (and with it your revenue stream) at any time for any reason, legitimately or not. That's the market you put yourself in, and that means that regardless of moral justifications this sort of story is hardly surprising, and barely news.
You might have gotten into that game by thinking "I keep hearing about the people who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars on stupid phone games". But what you're probably not hearing about are the tons of people who are putting hundreds of hours into building a phone game and hardly making anything.
Except that recovering oil from the spill is probably a lot more expensive than just drilling for it, at which point the magic of the market doesn't work. You could compensate by paying people a premium price for oil recovered from the ocean, but then you'll be overrun by people who actually drilled for it but said they got it from the ocean, or have to institute a rigorous regulation regime to prevent exactly that kind of cheating.
Here's what I actually suspect will happen to the oil: absolutely nothing. It will float around the ocean, and nobody will do a darn thing about it, because it's in nobody's interest to do so.
Still semi-traceable. Pretend I'm a cop/FBI agent/whatever trying to figure out who made a particular call from said prepaid.
Step 1: Locate the teenager who bought the phone.
Step 2: Tell the teenager that he doesn't cooperate then I'll assume that he's the one who made the call, and is thus involved in whatever crime was committed or conspired for with the phone (and, if necessary, point out that his youth doesn't prevent trial as an adult due to the nature of the crime). The teenager, not wanting to do serious time for that $20 transaction, tells the story of whoever is implementing this business plan, where and when they bought the phone, how they got contacted by this guy, etc.
Step 3: Locate the middleman.
Step 4: Tell the middleman that he's guilty of aiding and abetting whatever the crime was, but that if he cooperates I'll instruct the DAs to take that into account. The middleman, also trying to avoid jail time, gives up the information on the terrorist he sold the phone to.
Without the ID of the teenager, you're stuck with (at best) an image of the teenager caught on security tape when he bought the phone, and will have a hard time getting past step 1.
Obviously this process is more complicated and more prone to failure, but it is reasonable to argue that this will help track down terrorists, gangsters, etc. Now, that doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do, but this (unlike trolling through the entirety of Internet traffic and the like) actually would have some legitimate upsides to investigators doing legitimate investigations.