Granted, I can't tell if the company in question here approached MS and friends (and enemies) to see if they wanted to license their patent, but if they had and were refused, I have to stand on their side.
Why? If their patent was trivial and obvious (as it seems to be) I'd turn them away too. The USPTO is supposed to reject trivial and obvious patents, but as we know, it's not doing its job particularly well at the moment. If, for example, I managed to patent "cooling your computer system by passing air from the front to the rear of the system over hot components", and I asked you to license it, would you? I wouldn't.
There's a really good book (Wyrm, by Mark Fabi) that deals a little with this - the rules for a designed system are different from the rules for an evolved system. The book posits that it's impossible to create a true, conscious AI, but that it would be possible for one to "evolve".
My brother was one of the first in Australia diagnosed with Aspergus; the doctor he went to read the original notes in German, before they were translated into English and widely disseminated into the medical community. That said, I myself am not much of an expert on the disease. He does have a better memory than average, but I think that is partially in compensation for lack of literary skills; he cannot read or write to any great extent, and has trouble with symbols and abstracts; anything he remembers, he remembers by analogy to concrete things, not as an abstract system. He's not an eidetic by any stretch.
When I talked about McCaffrey's stuff being all the same, I was talking mostly about her characers - especially her female characters. For a writer who took a stand against over-stereotyped women in science fiction (which was what Restoree was supposed to do), her own characters are very similar to each other. Look at Killashandra from the Crystal Singer trilogy, Lessa and Moreta from Pern and Rowan from the Tower and Hive - they're all strong-willed, all looking for a strong man, all mercurial, quick to anger, quick to take action. Then there's Brekke, and Menolly from Pern, Goswina from Tower and Hive, Ruth Horvath from the Talents; they're all submissive, loving, gentle, kind, etc. As I read her books, I can't help but think that Killishandra is really Lessa with a name change. Her concepts are usually pretty good, although I found the "Freedom" books fairly ho-hum. I love the Crystal Singer trilogy though.
But, to then bypass DRM and download it is criminal activity. DRM is a lock to the content. It's illegal to pick locks on people's houses.
It's a lock on something I've bought to which I don't have the key. Specfically, when I buy music, I am buying the right to copy that music, in accordance to fair use rights. I don't have a right to distribute it to others, but I do have a right to copy it. If DRM prevented distribution I wouldn't mind. But it prevents copying, which is something I am entitled to after buying the original disk.
Most MMORPGs charge twice because they have two types of expense:
Development. Just as in a traditional game, developing the client takes money. The cost of the box goes towards the development, just like it does for any other game.
Maintenance: Unlike other games,a MMORPG requires continual expense on the part of the company in the form of bandwidth, server upgrades, maintenance, etc. That's what the monthly fee goes towards - the ongoing costs.
It's not a case of developers double-dipping, it's a case of needing to cover their costs - and retain their profits. If they decide to remove one cost, they'll certainly compensate for increasing the other. Which means instead of paying $50 once off and $15/month, you'll pay $20/month. Which means if you play for more than 10 months, you're losing money, despite having not bought a box.
That would encourage casual gamers and people who aren't sure they will like the game enough to get really into it and spend hours on it every month.
In my experience, very few of these games encourage "casual" gamers. You need to invest time to increase your character's capability. At the start of a game, the gameplay is usually boring - your character has only a few skills, thus only a few options to use in combat (which is most of the game). It only really gets interesting when your character develops to a point where you have choices that make a strategic difference, and can combine a few such characters into a party. That's when the tactics and strategy of the game starts to come out.
Unfortunately, that's usually only after a significant amount of time invested. It's not like Tetris, where you can pick it up, have a few games, then put it down. It's not designed for the casual gamer.
That would be Moreta, Dragonlady of Pern. I don't think he was necessarily an idiot savant; he just had perfect recall. McCaffrey seems to have a little bit of an obsession with perfect recall - half of her characters seem to have it. All the crystal singers and all the prime talents were supposed to have perfect recall. I like some of McCaffrey's stuff, but after a while, it all ends up being the same. I think she only has two or three distinct characters in all her works; most of the time you could transplant people from one series to another and not notice any difference.
So...how exactly would you protect from people extracting plain text passwords from network traffic? About the only answer is user education, and even at a university, educating a computer user - particularly when it involves reconfiguring their SMTP client, or avoiding MSN-like messaging clients that send messages in plain text - is not an easy task.
6-8 letter passwords alternating between letters and numbers twice? That doesn't strengthen passwords, it weakens it. Set a minimum password size, yes. A maximum size might be necessary for technical reasons, but it should be bigger than 8. A 6-character minimum password that must contain both alpha and numeric characters and no dictionary words is much stronger than the one outlined above. Sysadmins who think "more restrictions == more security" irritate the hell out of me.
It's a matter of degree. Yes, if you broke into my house, checked it out, and told me about it, I'd be pissed. But if you waved one of those universal garage openers at my garage door, found that it opened, and told me about it, I would be thankful. In both cases you exploited security weaknesses; however, in one case, you did nothing but verify the weakness, and it was a weakness that was a) trivial to exploit and b) likely that I did not know about.
Of course, they could just ignite a firestorm and introduce a Gua'ould named Jesus. Or another namd 'Moshe' (Moses). Or another named, 'Siddhartha'. Or 'Mohammed'. I would recommend they stay out of that territory, though, there'd be LOTS of pushback from their fanbase and zealots alike.
I think they already covered this. Wasn't there some episode where they found a little snakey-critter (can't spell it anymore, haven't watched in ages) that ruled some really hot planet as Satan? That is, they used the Biblical milieu but chose the bad guy for the go'auld instead of Jesus? Besides, I don't think the judeo-christian god would make a good go'auld - he was only incarnate for twenty-odd years, all the rest he was spirit.
I watched every episode in season 1, and tapered off in season 2. I'm in Australia, and I'm not sure how our schedule compares to yours, but that was a few years ago. I found the overall story great, but all too many episodes just seemed to be "find civilization that is not as good as ours"->"be told not to interfere by boss"->"interfere anyway, and win the boss over, because he's an old softy deep inside." For most of the series, they were a bunch of galaxy-hopping philanthropists. Even that one episode where they contacted a human society more advanced than earths (because they hadn't been through the dark ages) was re-visited later so the SG-1 team could save the day and show the superiority of earth (American) culture again.
Not that I have a problem with American culture, but it just got boring.
How exactly do you "shut down" Kazza? The only way is to dissuade people from using it. Kazaa is about as decentralized as you can get; in that respect, it's better than BitTorrent. Of course, BitTorrent has many other features that are distinct improvement on Kazaa.
How about if the journalism club owns the equipment, the faculty sponsor volunteers after school to support the club, and the students work on the paper in their free time? There is not a single penny of school money used to fund the writing or printing of the paper. But, the paper is produced on school grounds and uses the school name. Would you support censorship in that case?
Probably yes, if it bore the school name. There are plenty of things that would be legal to publish (not libelous, or hate writings, etc) that the school might not want their name attached to. If it didn't bear the school name, however, then the school should keep their nose out. Also, if the journalism club paid for the school resources they used (in the form of club fees, say) then the school also shouldn't intervene.
What about effects? Does it matter if the student is holding the backpack, or if the backpack is in a locker?
If a student is holding the bag, it's not being stored in the school facilities. If it's in a locker, it is. If you want to keep the contents of your bag private, don't let the school mind it for you.
A landlord may *not* search a renter's appartment. So why should the school landlords be allowed to search the private areas issued to the students?
Someone renting a place has expectation of privacy their, because it is their home, and they are paying for it. If I lend you something, then I have the right to ask for it back at any time. If I rent you something, then I can't ask for it back if the terms of the rent have not been satisfied. A renter has more rights than someone who has been offered a free borrow.
But freedom of speech, by definition, isn't dictated by the majority. Why would I be afraid of saying what the majority thought? I assert that the true gauge of a society's Freedoms is not measured by how it affects those who follow but those who dissent. The price we pay for this is in untold numbers of Larry Flynts and Howard Sterns, but that's a price I'm willing to pay if it means we don't squelch a Martin Luther King.
I'm not talking about freedom of speech. Students already have freedom of speech. They can speak about whatever they want. I'm talking about wether the school should allow the students access to resources in order to disseminate their speech. Their is not automatic right for "free publication". The running of a school is more of a representational democracy - the students are represented by their parents, who decide the policy of the school, which is then implemented by the school administration.
Freedom of speech is not curtailed by not allowing someone to publish their speech, any more that cleaning grafiti of my fence is curtailing the freedom of speech of the vandal.
No, two points of failure per file. The tracker and the site distributing the metadata are not necessarily the same thing. It's hard to shut the whole of BitTorrent down, but it's much easier to shut down the distribution of a single file than it is in, say, Kazaa. The RIAA/MPAA don't give a stuff about shutting down the BitTorrent protocol as a whole - why do they care about people downloading porn clips or linux ISOs? They just want to shut down the distribution of movies and music.
The only thing that needs to be improved with bit torrent is a merger of all the small tracker sites into one big site where you can hook on to any torrent out there. Suprnova.org is getting there but still, more momentum needs to be developed.
No, that doesn't fit with BitTorrents' (or rather, its creator's) stated aims. BitTorrent was not designed to replace P2P networks, but rather to allow the efficient downloading of a single file. BitTorrent is not designed to be hooked together into a massive network, it's designed to have an isolated little network for each file being downloaded.
IMO, the most important thing that needs to be done with BitTorrent, is moving the tracker out of the centre of a swarm. At the moment, each client downloads a metadata file from a trusted source, connects to a tracker to find peers, and then downloads data from the peers. If it wants to know about more peers, it re-queries the tracker. This gives any torrent 2 central points of failure: 1) the site distributing the metadata, 2) the tracker. Since metadata files are so small (and will become smaller with some modifications being worked on now - basically using a tree structure instead of a list to store hashes) finding multiple ways of hosting a metadata file isn't hard. A metadata file is basically a URL, with the addition of hashes to ensure data integrity.
Simple modifications have already been suggested that would allow a client to query peers for other peers, which would take some of the burden off the trackers. The advantage is more de-centralization of the tracker. The disadvantage is it's easier to poison a swarm with false peer information. Other modifications have been suggested which would allow a torrent to specificy multiple trackers, so if one went down, clients could query the second. The advantage here is redundancy, the disadvantage is that it could split the swarm, which benefits from being one large swarm more than many small ones. But nobody's yet come up with a way to fully decentralize the tracker, without losing its benefits.
The cat is out of the bag and theres no way it will be pushed back in.
This is even easier with BT than with Kazaa. BitTorrent, as mentioned above, has two central points of failure. Either could be taken down by legal means, just like napster. Moreover, BitTorrent was mostly designed for the distribution of large, legal files. Bram has already said he considers downloading illegal files over BitTorrent stupid, as it is trivial to see who is downloading what. It wasn't designed with anonymity in mind.
Hard drives will get cheaper - which will make RAIDs even more viable. I run a cheap little RAID-1, with nightly mirroring of important stuff (ie: my work files and projects, not my media) to other machines on my network, and I burn my media to DVD when I accumulate enough.
A single HD failure won't destroy any data. A whole machines destruction won't destroy my data. The only thing that could destroy my data would be something like a housefire - and that would wipe out any traditional media as well.
Admmittedly, my system isn't something that the average user would setup, but if storage reliability became a big thing, I don't think it too unlikely that prebuilt systems would come shipped with a modest RAID-5 in a ten years time.
All we need are devices to make VOD as easy to sue as the present day tv remotes
Easy to sue or easy to use? Was that a typo or not? I think you meant use, but making VOD devices easy to sue probably is more of a priority than making them easy to use.
In other words the kid's parents paid for those resources and they, and their kids, have some right to say how they are used.
I agree that the parents have the right to say how they are used. I fail to see how the students do. The parents fund the school; if a majority of parents don't like what the school is doing, they should stop. But the students don't fund the school - if they want any say in the way the school handles its affairs, they should lobby their parents.
Yes, I agree, allowing kids to publish a school newspaper without limitations is a good thing. But it is a privelage provided by the school; the students can't complain about having a "right" to free speech in the school's newspaper. Free speech lets people say whatever they want - it doesn't guarantee that somebody will publish it.
Even if they do successfully keep the kids from speaking their minds they're going to hear from the parents of those kids who they can't shut up with draconinian rules.
They're not (necessarily) trying to keep kids from speaking their mind - they're trying to stop publication of things the do not agree with in a newspaper they are assosciated with. The kids should be free to run off a few copies of their own newsletter, or tell everyone in the school what's on their minds (as long as people are willing to listen). They're just not free to publish things the school doesn't agree with in the school publication.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, I can't tell if the company in question here approached MS and friends (and enemies) to see if they wanted to license their patent, but if they had and were refused, I have to stand on their side.
Why? If their patent was trivial and obvious (as it seems to be) I'd turn them away too. The USPTO is supposed to reject trivial and obvious patents, but as we know, it's not doing its job particularly well at the moment. If, for example, I managed to patent "cooling your computer system by passing air from the front to the rear of the system over hot components", and I asked you to license it, would you? I wouldn't.
Because they have been linked to by slashdot.
Just curious...what exactly is the difference between an ethic and a scruple?
Just as long as it doesn't play chess in Yugoslavia.
There's a really good book (Wyrm, by Mark Fabi) that deals a little with this - the rules for a designed system are different from the rules for an evolved system. The book posits that it's impossible to create a true, conscious AI, but that it would be possible for one to "evolve".
My brother was one of the first in Australia diagnosed with Aspergus; the doctor he went to read the original notes in German, before they were translated into English and widely disseminated into the medical community. That said, I myself am not much of an expert on the disease. He does have a better memory than average, but I think that is partially in compensation for lack of literary skills; he cannot read or write to any great extent, and has trouble with symbols and abstracts; anything he remembers, he remembers by analogy to concrete things, not as an abstract system. He's not an eidetic by any stretch.
When I talked about McCaffrey's stuff being all the same, I was talking mostly about her characers - especially her female characters. For a writer who took a stand against over-stereotyped women in science fiction (which was what Restoree was supposed to do), her own characters are very similar to each other. Look at Killashandra from the Crystal Singer trilogy, Lessa and Moreta from Pern and Rowan from the Tower and Hive - they're all strong-willed, all looking for a strong man, all mercurial, quick to anger, quick to take action. Then there's Brekke, and Menolly from Pern, Goswina from Tower and Hive, Ruth Horvath from the Talents; they're all submissive, loving, gentle, kind, etc. As I read her books, I can't help but think that Killishandra is really Lessa with a name change. Her concepts are usually pretty good, although I found the "Freedom" books fairly ho-hum. I love the Crystal Singer trilogy though.
But, to then bypass DRM and download it is criminal activity. DRM is a lock to the content. It's illegal to pick locks on people's houses.
It's a lock on something I've bought to which I don't have the key. Specfically, when I buy music, I am buying the right to copy that music, in accordance to fair use rights. I don't have a right to distribute it to others, but I do have a right to copy it. If DRM prevented distribution I wouldn't mind. But it prevents copying, which is something I am entitled to after buying the original disk.
- Development. Just as in a traditional game, developing the client takes money. The cost of the box goes towards the development, just like it does for any other game.
- Maintenance: Unlike other games,a MMORPG requires continual expense on the part of the company in the form of bandwidth, server upgrades, maintenance, etc. That's what the monthly fee goes towards - the ongoing costs.
It's not a case of developers double-dipping, it's a case of needing to cover their costs - and retain their profits. If they decide to remove one cost, they'll certainly compensate for increasing the other. Which means instead of paying $50 once off and $15/month, you'll pay $20/month. Which means if you play for more than 10 months, you're losing money, despite having not bought a box.I do agree with you on point number 2, however.
That would encourage casual gamers and people who aren't sure they will like the game enough to get really into it and spend hours on it every month.
In my experience, very few of these games encourage "casual" gamers. You need to invest time to increase your character's capability. At the start of a game, the gameplay is usually boring - your character has only a few skills, thus only a few options to use in combat (which is most of the game). It only really gets interesting when your character develops to a point where you have choices that make a strategic difference, and can combine a few such characters into a party. That's when the tactics and strategy of the game starts to come out.
Unfortunately, that's usually only after a significant amount of time invested. It's not like Tetris, where you can pick it up, have a few games, then put it down. It's not designed for the casual gamer.
Yeah...what limit does the statute of limitations give to a chess game?
That would be Moreta, Dragonlady of Pern. I don't think he was necessarily an idiot savant; he just had perfect recall. McCaffrey seems to have a little bit of an obsession with perfect recall - half of her characters seem to have it. All the crystal singers and all the prime talents were supposed to have perfect recall. I like some of McCaffrey's stuff, but after a while, it all ends up being the same. I think she only has two or three distinct characters in all her works; most of the time you could transplant people from one series to another and not notice any difference.
Yes - but you still need to get your users to turn it on. You can do bugger all security-wise as an admin if your users aren't behaving securely.
So...how exactly would you protect from people extracting plain text passwords from network traffic? About the only answer is user education, and even at a university, educating a computer user - particularly when it involves reconfiguring their SMTP client, or avoiding MSN-like messaging clients that send messages in plain text - is not an easy task.
6-8 letter passwords alternating between letters and numbers twice? That doesn't strengthen passwords, it weakens it. Set a minimum password size, yes. A maximum size might be necessary for technical reasons, but it should be bigger than 8. A 6-character minimum password that must contain both alpha and numeric characters and no dictionary words is much stronger than the one outlined above. Sysadmins who think "more restrictions == more security" irritate the hell out of me.
It's a matter of degree. Yes, if you broke into my house, checked it out, and told me about it, I'd be pissed. But if you waved one of those universal garage openers at my garage door, found that it opened, and told me about it, I would be thankful. In both cases you exploited security weaknesses; however, in one case, you did nothing but verify the weakness, and it was a weakness that was a) trivial to exploit and b) likely that I did not know about.
Of course, they could just ignite a firestorm and introduce a Gua'ould named Jesus. Or another namd 'Moshe' (Moses). Or another named, 'Siddhartha'. Or 'Mohammed'. I would recommend they stay out of that territory, though, there'd be LOTS of pushback from their fanbase and zealots alike.
I think they already covered this. Wasn't there some episode where they found a little snakey-critter (can't spell it anymore, haven't watched in ages) that ruled some really hot planet as Satan? That is, they used the Biblical milieu but chose the bad guy for the go'auld instead of Jesus? Besides, I don't think the judeo-christian god would make a good go'auld - he was only incarnate for twenty-odd years, all the rest he was spirit.
I watched every episode in season 1, and tapered off in season 2. I'm in Australia, and I'm not sure how our schedule compares to yours, but that was a few years ago. I found the overall story great, but all too many episodes just seemed to be "find civilization that is not as good as ours"->"be told not to interfere by boss"->"interfere anyway, and win the boss over, because he's an old softy deep inside." For most of the series, they were a bunch of galaxy-hopping philanthropists. Even that one episode where they contacted a human society more advanced than earths (because they hadn't been through the dark ages) was re-visited later so the SG-1 team could save the day and show the superiority of earth (American) culture again.
Not that I have a problem with American culture, but it just got boring.
How exactly do you "shut down" Kazza? The only way is to dissuade people from using it. Kazaa is about as decentralized as you can get; in that respect, it's better than BitTorrent. Of course, BitTorrent has many other features that are distinct improvement on Kazaa.
How about if the journalism club owns the equipment, the faculty sponsor volunteers after school to support the club, and the students work on the paper in their free time? There is not a single penny of school money used to fund the writing or printing of the paper. But, the paper is produced on school grounds and uses the school name. Would you support censorship in that case?
Probably yes, if it bore the school name. There are plenty of things that would be legal to publish (not libelous, or hate writings, etc) that the school might not want their name attached to. If it didn't bear the school name, however, then the school should keep their nose out. Also, if the journalism club paid for the school resources they used (in the form of club fees, say) then the school also shouldn't intervene.
What about effects? Does it matter if the student is holding the backpack, or if the backpack is in a locker?
If a student is holding the bag, it's not being stored in the school facilities. If it's in a locker, it is. If you want to keep the contents of your bag private, don't let the school mind it for you.
A landlord may *not* search a renter's appartment. So why should the school landlords be allowed to search the private areas issued to the students?
Someone renting a place has expectation of privacy their, because it is their home, and they are paying for it. If I lend you something, then I have the right to ask for it back at any time. If I rent you something, then I can't ask for it back if the terms of the rent have not been satisfied. A renter has more rights than someone who has been offered a free borrow.
But freedom of speech, by definition, isn't dictated by the majority. Why would I be afraid of saying what the majority thought? I assert that the true gauge of a society's Freedoms is not measured by how it affects those who follow but those who dissent. The price we pay for this is in untold numbers of Larry Flynts and Howard Sterns, but that's a price I'm willing to pay if it means we don't squelch a Martin Luther King.
I'm not talking about freedom of speech. Students already have freedom of speech. They can speak about whatever they want. I'm talking about wether the school should allow the students access to resources in order to disseminate their speech. Their is not automatic right for "free publication". The running of a school is more of a representational democracy - the students are represented by their parents, who decide the policy of the school, which is then implemented by the school administration.
Freedom of speech is not curtailed by not allowing someone to publish their speech, any more that cleaning grafiti of my fence is curtailing the freedom of speech of the vandal.
No, two points of failure per file. The tracker and the site distributing the metadata are not necessarily the same thing. It's hard to shut the whole of BitTorrent down, but it's much easier to shut down the distribution of a single file than it is in, say, Kazaa. The RIAA/MPAA don't give a stuff about shutting down the BitTorrent protocol as a whole - why do they care about people downloading porn clips or linux ISOs? They just want to shut down the distribution of movies and music.
The only thing that needs to be improved with bit torrent is a merger of all the small tracker sites into one big site where you can hook on to any torrent out there. Suprnova.org is getting there but still, more momentum needs to be developed.
No, that doesn't fit with BitTorrents' (or rather, its creator's) stated aims. BitTorrent was not designed to replace P2P networks, but rather to allow the efficient downloading of a single file. BitTorrent is not designed to be hooked together into a massive network, it's designed to have an isolated little network for each file being downloaded.
IMO, the most important thing that needs to be done with BitTorrent, is moving the tracker out of the centre of a swarm. At the moment, each client downloads a metadata file from a trusted source, connects to a tracker to find peers, and then downloads data from the peers. If it wants to know about more peers, it re-queries the tracker. This gives any torrent 2 central points of failure: 1) the site distributing the metadata, 2) the tracker. Since metadata files are so small (and will become smaller with some modifications being worked on now - basically using a tree structure instead of a list to store hashes) finding multiple ways of hosting a metadata file isn't hard. A metadata file is basically a URL, with the addition of hashes to ensure data integrity.
Simple modifications have already been suggested that would allow a client to query peers for other peers, which would take some of the burden off the trackers. The advantage is more de-centralization of the tracker. The disadvantage is it's easier to poison a swarm with false peer information. Other modifications have been suggested which would allow a torrent to specificy multiple trackers, so if one went down, clients could query the second. The advantage here is redundancy, the disadvantage is that it could split the swarm, which benefits from being one large swarm more than many small ones. But nobody's yet come up with a way to fully decentralize the tracker, without losing its benefits.
The cat is out of the bag and theres no way it will be pushed back in.
This is even easier with BT than with Kazaa. BitTorrent, as mentioned above, has two central points of failure. Either could be taken down by legal means, just like napster. Moreover, BitTorrent was mostly designed for the distribution of large, legal files. Bram has already said he considers downloading illegal files over BitTorrent stupid, as it is trivial to see who is downloading what. It wasn't designed with anonymity in mind.
Hard drives will get cheaper - which will make RAIDs even more viable. I run a cheap little RAID-1, with nightly mirroring of important stuff (ie: my work files and projects, not my media) to other machines on my network, and I burn my media to DVD when I accumulate enough.
A single HD failure won't destroy any data. A whole machines destruction won't destroy my data. The only thing that could destroy my data would be something like a housefire - and that would wipe out any traditional media as well.
Admmittedly, my system isn't something that the average user would setup, but if storage reliability became a big thing, I don't think it too unlikely that prebuilt systems would come shipped with a modest RAID-5 in a ten years time.
All we need are devices to make VOD as easy to sue as the present day tv remotes
Easy to sue or easy to use? Was that a typo or not? I think you meant use, but making VOD devices easy to sue probably is more of a priority than making them easy to use.
In other words the kid's parents paid for those resources and they, and their kids, have some right to say how they are used.
I agree that the parents have the right to say how they are used. I fail to see how the students do. The parents fund the school; if a majority of parents don't like what the school is doing, they should stop. But the students don't fund the school - if they want any say in the way the school handles its affairs, they should lobby their parents.
Yes, I agree, allowing kids to publish a school newspaper without limitations is a good thing. But it is a privelage provided by the school; the students can't complain about having a "right" to free speech in the school's newspaper. Free speech lets people say whatever they want - it doesn't guarantee that somebody will publish it.
Even if they do successfully keep the kids from speaking their minds they're going to hear from the parents of those kids who they can't shut up with draconinian rules.
They're not (necessarily) trying to keep kids from speaking their mind - they're trying to stop publication of things the do not agree with in a newspaper they are assosciated with. The kids should be free to run off a few copies of their own newsletter, or tell everyone in the school what's on their minds (as long as people are willing to listen). They're just not free to publish things the school doesn't agree with in the school publication.