This sounds like a confession by at least on school official that such photos existed and he/she had seen them. How else could they have known about the kid's "improper behavior"?
None of the articles that I've seen discuss the specifics of the "improper behavior". It could be that they saw the kid smoking pot in his room. This would not constitute a lewd image.
No one said they had direct evidence, only that they made an allegation, which they did. The lawsuit clearly states this, and further up this thread you'll find discussion of the exact text of the lawsuit.
Actually, those little stickers are pretty effective. Having known a few burglars, they were pretty unanimous in the behavior of moving to an easier target every time they saw any sign of an alarm system.
I've heard that 90% of an alarm's effectiveness is in the stickers, as burglars are usually looking for an easy target. It is even possible to buy fake alarm company stickers online, and security companies have been known to come down hard on counterfeit sticker makers.
So if all you're saying is that "these guys say they're probably guilty", I guess my question would be how is your response in the least bit relevant to his statement?
I already answered that in the previous post when I said "looking back at the thread, I see that 'seeing' was the point of the original post, so my comment didn't really fit in the thread".
I misspoke (er, mis-typed?) when I used the word "see". My point was simply that there were, in fact, allegations being made that compromising images had been captured. Of course, looking back at the thread, I see that "seeing" was the point of the original post, so my comment didn't really fit in the thread. Whatever. The point is that such allegations have been made, and further to that point, whether or not anyone saw those images is immaterial to the actual case.
The lawsuit alleges the cameras captured images of Harriton High School students and their families as they undressed and in other compromising situations.
Emphasis added. I know there's a lot of strong emotions going around on this subject, but lets try to keep it reasonable shall we?
The emphasis was unnecessary. I even used the word "allegedly" in my introduction to that quote. What exactly was unreasonable about my post?
What you quoted from the lawsuit isn't really much different than what I quoted from the AP article. The lawsuit does, as the AP stated, allege that the webcams captured these compromising images. As you quoted, it is "averred", meaning "it is asserted as a fact of the case". Of course they haven't proven it. That's for the trial. But they are certainly alleging that it happened.
As to whether or not anyone saw those images, that is immaterial. It is likely those images were created, and that is all that is necessary for a crime to have been committed. You'll notice that, in cases where child pornography is found on someone's computer, no one ever asks whether it was proven that the individual looked at the material. Simply having it, or creating it, is enough.
School officials might avoid child porn charges if they prove they didn't see any lewd images, but I definitely see a lot of people getting fired.
The AP is reporting that they allegedly did see lewd images.
The lawsuit alleges the cameras captured images of Harriton High School students and their families as they undressed and in other compromising situations.
Of course, the detail that has been left out is that a Twitter search won't tell you if the alarm has been armed or if the three nasty rottweilers have been fed recently.
Neither will a pile of newspapers on the front porch.
Actually, the pile of newspapers does at least suggest that there are no rottweilers. If there were, somebody would be in charge of feeding them and letting them outside to "do their business", and most likely that person would pick up the newspapers while they're at it.
The newspapers don't, of course, tell you whether the alarm is armed, but of course there's always those stickers and signs that alarm companies put up all around your house when they install the alarm. The presence of signs/stickers suggests the alarm is probably armed (why wouldn't it be?), while a lack of signs/stickers suggests the alarm isn't armed (or even installed).
This is exactly the point. Computers didn't enter the workplace so that people could suddenly do things that they couldn't do before. Computers simply made those work activities more efficient and effective. The same is true for other uses of computers. Using computers in crime doesn't mean crimes occur where they couldn't before, just that the criminals are more efficient and effective.
Besides, someone using old-fashioned casing techniques would assume that my house is empty right now because I normally leave for work at 6:45. However, someone using modern casing techniques (if I were a Twitter/Facebook/Foursquare user) would know that I'm working from home today.
This kind of technology takes much of the risk out of burglarizing homes.
Or just forgetting to cancel the milk or the pile of post just inside the front door, or news papers you forgot to cancel etc etc etc.
There is a bit of a difference between leaving signs that you're away visible to anyone who happens to be passing your home, and actually broadcasting that information on the internet. More to the point, people who might otherwise take precautions, like getting a friend to pick up their mail while they're away on vacation, end up broadcasting the fact that they're away to the whole net-connected world and think nothing of it.
Of course, the detail that has been left out is that a Twitter search won't tell you if the alarm has been armed or if the three nasty rottweilers have been fed recently.
You do realize that 9 movies were planned from day 1? Even the first Star Wars starts with "Episode IV" right there in the opening titles (no, I dont mean in the RE-MADE version, but even in the ORIGINAL first release!)
Actually, no. When Star Wars hit the big screen in 1977, the title sequence just said "Star Wars". There was no "Episode IV". There was no "A New Hope". All of that was added when it was re-released in 1981 (after Empire Strikes Back).
I wonder if Lucas is going to do what's been happening to most other movie series (James Bond, Batman, Spider Man, Star Trek, etc) and do a ground up restart on the series. Take it back to a darker, rougher and more realistic level...
I think there is about a 0% chance of that ever happening. Which is too bad. Personally, I'd like to see it, although I'd like to see it done by someone who isn't George Lucas.
Anakin comes off as too much of a kid, which kinda ruins the buildup to turn him into vader. He comes of more as a whining brat that a jedi corrupted by fear and anger.
Anakin as we saw him in the prequels turning into Vader as we saw him in the original trilogy was so beyond implausible that it hurts. Vader was pure evil. Like you said, he was "a cold and heartless tyrant who will kill even those closest to him merely because they disappoint him". Anakin was a whiny brat with some questionable politics that he didn't really seem to hold too closely to anyway who became bitter and jaded because his wife died. It's like we need a whole other trilogy to find out how the bitter kid from Episode III turned into the evil tyrant of Episode IV-VI, because as it stands, there just is no connection.
Of course, Vader's turn-around at the end of ROTJ was just as contrived.
As I understand it (and most of this is, of course, rumour and speculation), the original trilogy was supposed to go on much longer than it did, with ROTJ not being the last episode. Darth Vader (intended to be a somewhat minor villain) was to be killed, while the hunt for the real villain, the Emperor, would continue in the subsequent episodes. Han Solo was supposed to be killed off, paving the way for the love affair between Luke and Leia (the brother/sister idea was only thrown in at the last minute).
Unfortunately, with Lucas' failed marriage weighing on him, he got sick of making these movies and decided to just wrap everything up quickly and not-so-cleanly in ROTJ.
If he had plans later on to attempt to create a sequel trilogy (of this I have no doubt), it was more of a "milk the cash cow" idea than even the prequels were, because there really is no story left to tell after the destruction of the second Death Star and the death of the Emperor. At least, not a particularly relevant story. I really hope he doesn't ever head down that road.
There is no such thing as the Star Wars Holiday Special. There is no such thing as the Star Wars Holiday Special. There is no such thing as the Star Wars Holiday Special.
Hopefully, this show will get it right, and have a little bit of depth to it.
Well, for starters, it is set in the best possible time frame. Rather than the time of the wooden Jedi Council and the useless Senate holding endless meetings, it's set in the time of the rise of the Rebel Alliance. There's so much potential for a good show in that era.
Also, George plans to hand the reins over to someone else after writing and producing the first season. So, it might have a slow start, but the possibility of a decent series growing out of it is actually fairly high — depending, of course, on who takes over in season two.
the average person can not be bothered to concern himself enough so that in the aggregate with other people that person can effect change.
This is because the average person probably isn't thinking much farther ahead than what he'll have for lunch tomorrow. By the time he realizes he won't have anything for lunch tomorrow he's no longer in a position to do anything about it.
And those who are thinking beyond tomorrow's lunch are often deluded into believing that through sheer hard work and determination they can one day be at the top of this pile.
So you remember everything about your life, especially after having brain trauma? That's pretty fucking impressive.
I'm not saying that it definitely is one way or the other. I'm just looking at probabilities.
They would have had to choose very simple, easy to answer questions, partly because they were questioning a brain-damaged individual, but also partly because they had to choose questions that they also knew the answers to. So, the questions would likely be things like "Is your name Bob?", and "Are you male?" and "Were you born in London?". While it is entirely possible that brain trauma could cause a person to forget what city they were born in, it is also possible for a coin toss to result in 5 out of 6 correctly answered true/false questions. Therefore, the evidence, at least as it's presented in the article, is not exactly convincing.
The patient responded accurately to five out of six autobiographical questions posed by the scientists.
That's not very convincing. I find it easier to believe that random chance could get 5 out of 6 true/false question right, than that someone could get 1 out of 6 questions about their own life wrong.
You're arguing that the 18th and 21st amendments both apply simultaneously?
The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st. That means that the 18th effectively doesn't exist.
Looking at the 18th and the 21st is a perfect example of what I was arguing. If you were to treat the Constitution as a set of sequential instructions, then you would have to first enforce prohibition, per the 18th amendment, then turn around and stop enforcing it once you got to the 21st. However, that's not what happens. The 21st says that the 18th no longer exists, so the 18th is never enforced.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like a confession by at least on school official that such photos existed and he/she had seen them. How else could they have known about the kid's "improper behavior"?
None of the articles that I've seen discuss the specifics of the "improper behavior". It could be that they saw the kid smoking pot in his room. This would not constitute a lewd image.
No one said they had direct evidence, only that they made an allegation, which they did. The lawsuit clearly states this, and further up this thread you'll find discussion of the exact text of the lawsuit.
Actually, those little stickers are pretty effective. Having known a few burglars, they were pretty unanimous in the behavior of moving to an easier target every time they saw any sign of an alarm system.
I've heard that 90% of an alarm's effectiveness is in the stickers, as burglars are usually looking for an easy target. It is even possible to buy fake alarm company stickers online, and security companies have been known to come down hard on counterfeit sticker makers.
So if all you're saying is that "these guys say they're probably guilty", I guess my question would be how is your response in the least bit relevant to his statement?
I already answered that in the previous post when I said "looking back at the thread, I see that 'seeing' was the point of the original post, so my comment didn't really fit in the thread".
I misspoke (er, mis-typed?) when I used the word "see". My point was simply that there were, in fact, allegations being made that compromising images had been captured. Of course, looking back at the thread, I see that "seeing" was the point of the original post, so my comment didn't really fit in the thread. Whatever. The point is that such allegations have been made, and further to that point, whether or not anyone saw those images is immaterial to the actual case.
The lawsuit alleges the cameras captured images of Harriton High School students and their families as they undressed and in other compromising situations.
Emphasis added. I know there's a lot of strong emotions going around on this subject, but lets try to keep it reasonable shall we?
The emphasis was unnecessary. I even used the word "allegedly" in my introduction to that quote. What exactly was unreasonable about my post?
What you quoted from the lawsuit isn't really much different than what I quoted from the AP article. The lawsuit does, as the AP stated, allege that the webcams captured these compromising images. As you quoted, it is "averred", meaning "it is asserted as a fact of the case". Of course they haven't proven it. That's for the trial. But they are certainly alleging that it happened.
As to whether or not anyone saw those images, that is immaterial. It is likely those images were created, and that is all that is necessary for a crime to have been committed. You'll notice that, in cases where child pornography is found on someone's computer, no one ever asks whether it was proven that the individual looked at the material. Simply having it, or creating it, is enough.
School officials might avoid child porn charges if they prove they didn't see any lewd images, but I definitely see a lot of people getting fired.
The AP is reporting that they allegedly did see lewd images.
The lawsuit alleges the cameras captured images of Harriton High School students and their families as they undressed and in other compromising situations.
Of course, the detail that has been left out is that a Twitter search won't tell you if the alarm has been armed or if the three nasty rottweilers have been fed recently.
Neither will a pile of newspapers on the front porch.
Actually, the pile of newspapers does at least suggest that there are no rottweilers. If there were, somebody would be in charge of feeding them and letting them outside to "do their business", and most likely that person would pick up the newspapers while they're at it.
The newspapers don't, of course, tell you whether the alarm is armed, but of course there's always those stickers and signs that alarm companies put up all around your house when they install the alarm. The presence of signs/stickers suggests the alarm is probably armed (why wouldn't it be?), while a lack of signs/stickers suggests the alarm isn't armed (or even installed).
This is exactly the point. Computers didn't enter the workplace so that people could suddenly do things that they couldn't do before. Computers simply made those work activities more efficient and effective. The same is true for other uses of computers. Using computers in crime doesn't mean crimes occur where they couldn't before, just that the criminals are more efficient and effective.
Besides, someone using old-fashioned casing techniques would assume that my house is empty right now because I normally leave for work at 6:45. However, someone using modern casing techniques (if I were a Twitter/Facebook/Foursquare user) would know that I'm working from home today.
This kind of technology takes much of the risk out of burglarizing homes.
Or just forgetting to cancel the milk or the pile of post just inside the front door, or news papers you forgot to cancel etc etc etc.
There is a bit of a difference between leaving signs that you're away visible to anyone who happens to be passing your home, and actually broadcasting that information on the internet. More to the point, people who might otherwise take precautions, like getting a friend to pick up their mail while they're away on vacation, end up broadcasting the fact that they're away to the whole net-connected world and think nothing of it.
Of course, the detail that has been left out is that a Twitter search won't tell you if the alarm has been armed or if the three nasty rottweilers have been fed recently.
You do realize that 9 movies were planned from day 1? Even the first Star Wars starts with "Episode IV" right there in the opening titles (no, I dont mean in the RE-MADE version, but even in the ORIGINAL first release!)
Actually, no. When Star Wars hit the big screen in 1977, the title sequence just said "Star Wars". There was no "Episode IV". There was no "A New Hope". All of that was added when it was re-released in 1981 (after Empire Strikes Back).
Assuming it survives to season two.
Which is why I'll wait it out, patiently, and only if/when Season Two starts will I begin watching Season One.
I wonder if Lucas is going to do what's been happening to most other movie series (James Bond, Batman, Spider Man, Star Trek, etc) and do a ground up restart on the series. Take it back to a darker, rougher and more realistic level...
I think there is about a 0% chance of that ever happening. Which is too bad. Personally, I'd like to see it, although I'd like to see it done by someone who isn't George Lucas.
Anakin comes off as too much of a kid, which kinda ruins the buildup to turn him into vader. He comes of more as a whining brat that a jedi corrupted by fear and anger.
Anakin as we saw him in the prequels turning into Vader as we saw him in the original trilogy was so beyond implausible that it hurts. Vader was pure evil. Like you said, he was "a cold and heartless tyrant who will kill even those closest to him merely because they disappoint him". Anakin was a whiny brat with some questionable politics that he didn't really seem to hold too closely to anyway who became bitter and jaded because his wife died. It's like we need a whole other trilogy to find out how the bitter kid from Episode III turned into the evil tyrant of Episode IV-VI, because as it stands, there just is no connection.
Of course, Vader's turn-around at the end of ROTJ was just as contrived.
As I understand it (and most of this is, of course, rumour and speculation), the original trilogy was supposed to go on much longer than it did, with ROTJ not being the last episode. Darth Vader (intended to be a somewhat minor villain) was to be killed, while the hunt for the real villain, the Emperor, would continue in the subsequent episodes. Han Solo was supposed to be killed off, paving the way for the love affair between Luke and Leia (the brother/sister idea was only thrown in at the last minute).
Unfortunately, with Lucas' failed marriage weighing on him, he got sick of making these movies and decided to just wrap everything up quickly and not-so-cleanly in ROTJ.
If he had plans later on to attempt to create a sequel trilogy (of this I have no doubt), it was more of a "milk the cash cow" idea than even the prequels were, because there really is no story left to tell after the destruction of the second Death Star and the death of the Emperor. At least, not a particularly relevant story. I really hope he doesn't ever head down that road.
There is no such thing as the Star Wars Holiday Special. There is no such thing as the Star Wars Holiday Special. There is no such thing as the Star Wars Holiday Special.
My god, the memory burns in my mind.
Hopefully, this show will get it right, and have a little bit of depth to it.
Well, for starters, it is set in the best possible time frame. Rather than the time of the wooden Jedi Council and the useless Senate holding endless meetings, it's set in the time of the rise of the Rebel Alliance. There's so much potential for a good show in that era.
Also, George plans to hand the reins over to someone else after writing and producing the first season. So, it might have a slow start, but the possibility of a decent series growing out of it is actually fairly high — depending, of course, on who takes over in season two.
the average person can not be bothered to concern himself enough so that in the aggregate with other people that person can effect change.
This is because the average person probably isn't thinking much farther ahead than what he'll have for lunch tomorrow. By the time he realizes he won't have anything for lunch tomorrow he's no longer in a position to do anything about it.
And those who are thinking beyond tomorrow's lunch are often deluded into believing that through sheer hard work and determination they can one day be at the top of this pile.
where people argue about quantum thermodynamics but fail at basic math ;-P
More accurately, welcome to Slashdot where people argue about quantum thermodynamics but have no idea how babby is formed — or how long it takes. ;-)
So you remember everything about your life, especially after having brain trauma? That's pretty fucking impressive.
I'm not saying that it definitely is one way or the other. I'm just looking at probabilities.
They would have had to choose very simple, easy to answer questions, partly because they were questioning a brain-damaged individual, but also partly because they had to choose questions that they also knew the answers to. So, the questions would likely be things like "Is your name Bob?", and "Are you male?" and "Were you born in London?". While it is entirely possible that brain trauma could cause a person to forget what city they were born in, it is also possible for a coin toss to result in 5 out of 6 correctly answered true/false questions. Therefore, the evidence, at least as it's presented in the article, is not exactly convincing.
The patient responded accurately to five out of six autobiographical questions posed by the scientists.
That's not very convincing. I find it easier to believe that random chance could get 5 out of 6 true/false question right, than that someone could get 1 out of 6 questions about their own life wrong.
Maybe this is some sort of reference I just don't get, but I am having trouble trying to understand why it was modded "funny".
Yes, it's some sort of reference.
I took a look at your friend's site, but didn't get too far with it. I'm afraid it's all Greek to me.
Rules apply simultaneously.
You're arguing that the 18th and 21st amendments both apply simultaneously?
The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st. That means that the 18th effectively doesn't exist.
Looking at the 18th and the 21st is a perfect example of what I was arguing. If you were to treat the Constitution as a set of sequential instructions, then you would have to first enforce prohibition, per the 18th amendment, then turn around and stop enforcing it once you got to the 21st. However, that's not what happens. The 21st says that the 18th no longer exists, so the 18th is never enforced.