As far as I know, there are no public schools that teach ID in the USA (the states and/or school districts that have passed it all are either currently stayed from teaching during litigation, or have repealled). Private schools, of course, are another story.
"Adversarial games are not worth playing. If you need to be adversarial, you're doing something seriously wrong with your life."
Life is an adversarial game. It's a zero-sum competition, which means we are all adversaries. The fact that we form alliances in order to better compete with other alliances doesn't change the fact that we are still engaged in an adversarial game.
Schools have a responsibility to serve as parent to children in their care, during the time of their control over the child. In the same way that the legal parents' duty to the children involves some monitoring of their behavior while in school, the schools' duty to the children involves some monitoring of their behavior while not in school.
If the schools are precluded from responding to out-of-school behavior that nonetheless violates the rules of the school, it is going to run contrary to the existing legal precedent confirming the school's duty to the children.
"If any employer demanded this they would be sued, or any reasonable employee would leave."
You're kidding, right? At the very least, the easiest example is lawyers. Associates (lawyers who are pre-partner, lasting between 7 and 10 years typically) routinely have more than 2-4 hours of work a day outside of the "business day". Moreover, everyone knows it going into the industry, etc. People complain, sure, but that's more idle whining than actual complaint: no one would suggest that the firms aren't allowed to impose this work; instead they just complain that they wish that the firms didn't. Frankly, I don't have any problem with it, as associates are a vital part of the legal 'food chain', enabling more senior associates and partners to engage in higher-level work. You earn your position, and the related rights to do better work within the industry.
Older teenagers are more immature today than I think they ever have: at the very least, they're less emotionally mature if they're middle-class or upper-class, seeing as most of them haven't had to work for money, etc. We've extended childhood up to 18 or so (really around 22, 'cause of college).
As for work hours: you're vastly mistaken about the law and the ability to sue. Companies are perfectly free to contract you for 'extra' hours outside the 'business day', so long as they're open about it. Union companies - and don't even get me started on unions - are different only in that they essentially have prior contracts that preclude outside work. In work-for-hire states - i.e. states where you can be fired at-will, provided the reason isn't a violation of Civil Liberties (e.g. discrimination) - it's even simpler. I can just say "Look, this job requires you to do X hours of work, after the close of the business day. Everyone in this position, in my company, does it. If you don't want to do it, you're fired."
This isn't a school talking about simple disrespect: they're talking about already prohibited behavior. If you engage in prohibited behavior, you're subject to appropriate punishment. Frankly, so long as they dont violate the law in looking for evidence of such behavior, what basis is there to preclude the schools from doing it? As has been noted already, this is the internet...perhaps the most public forum ever created in the world. If you're dumb enough to think that what is posted here is private, you're just a fool.
I don't use my real name here, nor do I think I've likely put enough info (over the years I've had this ID) to allow anyone who wasn't intimately familiar with me in the real world to identify me. Nonetheless, I accept that if someone were to connect me with my/. ID, I'd have to take responsibility for what I said. Everything I've posted here is public, and so is everything posted on MySpace, Friendster, etc.
So if airport security sees some guy carrying knifes, automatic weapons and a large canister marked with the text "DANGER ! EXPLOSIVES !" towards an airplane, the proper response is to do nothing, since no actual harm has yet been done ?
I said regulatory response. The situation you're talking about is radically different: in my example, the question is whether or not to allow legally-acting individuals to engage in free-market exchange in order to determine the optimal solution, while in your example the question is whether to allow someone to bring the tools of crime to a plane. The difference is clear.
The problem is that the proper regulatory stance is responding to actual harm, not conjecturing about possible harm.
It is at least as likely that the market will correct this: if AOL users cant access Google because Google refuses to pay AOL a higher rate, AOL's customers will leave. That's the whole value to a competitive market.
It's simple: originally, we would "partake" of that activity (partake in defecating, partake in napping, etc.). The word "partake" diminished into a homonym with the existing word "take" (i.e. the existing, seperate, verb), and then after that became common the original distinction was lost and existing grammatical rules for the verb "to take" were applied.
It's astonishing how many people are just automatically assuming that network neutrality is good. Considering no such neutrality is imposed on wireless telephony, cable or DBS, why is it necessary here?
Christopher Yoo, a Vanderbilt Law professor (whom I met in his capacity visiting here at Penn Law this semester) has written repeatedly on the fact that what we actually want is network diversity.
Why would it be bad to have competition in the type of service provided? Why would it be bad to be able to prioritize types of network traffic? Why would it be bad to have competitive internets where different networks interconnected out of market pressure instead of FCC or Congressional regulation?
It seems that most people just respond automatically without considering the actual costs and benefits to so-called network neutrality.
That's what a democracy means. If you have any issues decided by anything other than a democratic vote, then your government is some pseudo-democratic state that has incorporated other characteristics.
I, and all the guys here, have had semi-erections. During that state, my penis is undoubtedly turgid but simultaneously not erect. If I were allowed to display visibly through pants while turgid but not erect, there'd be a rather obvious non-sensical distinction between 99% erect and 100% erect.
Lawyers find loopholes for two reasons: one, if they didn't then they'd be committing malpractice towards their client[s], and two, to not find and exploit those loopholes would violate their moral (not just legal) duty to do everything within the law for their clients.
If you're not happy with the loopholes in a given law, you're free to try and work to correct it. Just remember, there hasn't been a legal code in the history of man that didn't have loopholes. It's just a question of what loopholes exist in a given code.
Not to be a dick, but (a) you're being obstinate about some of these terms, and (b) their language reflects the nature of legal terms-of-art.
They say "turgid" instead of "erect" for several reasons, not the least of which being that you can have quite a turgid dick without having being erect. In fact, the larger your penis, the more likely that your maximum 'erection' isn't that hard (John Holmes, for example). Thus, they're trying to cover a portrayal of a turgid (and thus obviously sexualized) penis through clothing.
If you think "sexual excitement" is a self-explanatory term, you ought to do a few Lexis or Westlaw searches. The term is by no means self-contained. To make it concrete, suppose I'm physically aroused but seem very calm; am I "sexually excited"? What does excited mean? Does it require that someone/thing else is exciting me, or can it be self-induced?
As for including homosexuality in their definition of sexual conduct, that's a very heteronormative stance - i.e. that heterosexual relationships are 'normal' but homosexual ones are something within the auspices of actual sexual contact - but I understand it since, in fact, hetersexuality is the norm (that doesn't mean normal, just the statistical average by far).
As is said elsewhere, this is bad law and will almost indisputably be overturned at some judicial level as soon as it is enforced. The fact that you don't understand the language choice, however, doesn't make you right that the language choice is bad.
You know, I love the Kill Bill reference, but I feel like by leaving the reference to the exploding-heart technique out you might have kept it more subtle, thus enhancing the humor.
Of course, this comment obliterates all subtlety that remains. Hmm.
Asking someone to remove your shortcomings - be it a god or whatever - is not taking personal responsibility. It's asking for someone, by definition, to fix you.
If you're not competant to understand a contract like this, and yet you're an adult, then you need to be in an institution.
It's fair because they're offering a luxury with an explicit code of conduct at a very clear price, and you the customer opts to buy in. This isn't even an interpretation issue, since the TOS is quite clear.
Just because you've heard it before doesn't mean it isn't precisely true.
That sort of ridiculous dismissal just makes you and your side look foolish: it's not unjust, because you freely entered a contract. It's a game, it's not like you entered the contract under duress.
From an economic view, your ideas about markets makes sense, however, since both humans and organizations are not fully rational, we can't expect a perfectly responsive market.
Not to belabor a point, but ignorance is part of a rationally-responsive market. The value you place on your rights includes a measure of how much investigation you're willing to put into pursuing their protection.
If they were that concerned with property rights regarding their avatars, they would investigate how far those rights actually extended. The fact that they dont do so is an indication of the low value they place on them.
They -are- addressed, you just don't like the result.
You enter a contract where you're paying ONLY for access to their world (with the related assurance that they'll protect you against TOS violators generally). The fact that your access allows you to alter some of their data - your avatar - does nothing to change the fact that your contract is explicitly not about 'owning' anything.
Want something different? Hit up SecondLife, where you own everything legitimately. The market provides us with what we ask for, if enough of us want it: if enough people wanted to own these properties enough, they'd refuse to play games that didn't allow that ownership. The fact that people keep playing WoW and other MMORPGs with this limitation indicates that most people don't agree with you.
(a) Crashes in 1/5 machines? News to me, I've never had a crash nor heard of this problem. Documentation?
(b) The patch that let you skip the tutorial came out around a month after release.
(c) Crawls on 6800 cards? I have an eVGA 6800 GT (with a 3.2 AMD and a gig of ram) and I get between 30-60fps almost 100% of the time. Again, care to document this claim?
OFFTOPIC: Again, we have evidence of how crappy this moderation system is. While my above post was only ranked 2 (having gotten one positive moderation) it was then moderated "overrated". We need a better system, this is crap.
A: Big Tobacco not only knowingly distributed a product that causes cancer without telling people, it supressed studies indicating that carcinogenic effect.
B: Prior to Apple's introduction of the iPod, the physics and biology of hearing loss due to loud sounds was well developed.
There are at least a few problems here (all of which have been discussed over the months since the first of these ridiculous complaints):
First, I've seen ZERO evidence that this has anything to with the iPod per se as opposed to just the nature of in-ear earphones.
Second, you only incur damage if you play the sound too loud. We've been quite saturated with information on that sort of effect for decades (Townshend?). If you cant figure out that it doesn't matter where the sound is coming from, just how loud it is, then screw you.
There's more, but this alone is enough to dismiss this crap...
See, now I might pick one of these up to complement my PSP. One of the things that kept me from getting a DS was how big and clunky it looked.
I'm starting to think that Nintendo intentionally de-sexys their first version of any portable, so they can release a hotter version a year later.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know, there are no public schools that teach ID in the USA (the states and/or school districts that have passed it all are either currently stayed from teaching during litigation, or have repealled). Private schools, of course, are another story.
"Adversarial games are not worth playing. If you need to be adversarial, you're doing something seriously wrong with your life."
Life is an adversarial game. It's a zero-sum competition, which means we are all adversaries. The fact that we form alliances in order to better compete with other alliances doesn't change the fact that we are still engaged in an adversarial game.
Schools have a responsibility to serve as parent to children in their care, during the time of their control over the child. In the same way that the legal parents' duty to the children involves some monitoring of their behavior while in school, the schools' duty to the children involves some monitoring of their behavior while not in school.
If the schools are precluded from responding to out-of-school behavior that nonetheless violates the rules of the school, it is going to run contrary to the existing legal precedent confirming the school's duty to the children.
"If any employer demanded this they would be sued, or any reasonable employee would leave."
/. ID, I'd have to take responsibility for what I said. Everything I've posted here is public, and so is everything posted on MySpace, Friendster, etc.
You're kidding, right? At the very least, the easiest example is lawyers. Associates (lawyers who are pre-partner, lasting between 7 and 10 years typically) routinely have more than 2-4 hours of work a day outside of the "business day". Moreover, everyone knows it going into the industry, etc. People complain, sure, but that's more idle whining than actual complaint: no one would suggest that the firms aren't allowed to impose this work; instead they just complain that they wish that the firms didn't. Frankly, I don't have any problem with it, as associates are a vital part of the legal 'food chain', enabling more senior associates and partners to engage in higher-level work. You earn your position, and the related rights to do better work within the industry.
Older teenagers are more immature today than I think they ever have: at the very least, they're less emotionally mature if they're middle-class or upper-class, seeing as most of them haven't had to work for money, etc. We've extended childhood up to 18 or so (really around 22, 'cause of college).
As for work hours: you're vastly mistaken about the law and the ability to sue. Companies are perfectly free to contract you for 'extra' hours outside the 'business day', so long as they're open about it. Union companies - and don't even get me started on unions - are different only in that they essentially have prior contracts that preclude outside work. In work-for-hire states - i.e. states where you can be fired at-will, provided the reason isn't a violation of Civil Liberties (e.g. discrimination) - it's even simpler. I can just say "Look, this job requires you to do X hours of work, after the close of the business day. Everyone in this position, in my company, does it. If you don't want to do it, you're fired."
This isn't a school talking about simple disrespect: they're talking about already prohibited behavior. If you engage in prohibited behavior, you're subject to appropriate punishment. Frankly, so long as they dont violate the law in looking for evidence of such behavior, what basis is there to preclude the schools from doing it? As has been noted already, this is the internet...perhaps the most public forum ever created in the world. If you're dumb enough to think that what is posted here is private, you're just a fool.
I don't use my real name here, nor do I think I've likely put enough info (over the years I've had this ID) to allow anyone who wasn't intimately familiar with me in the real world to identify me. Nonetheless, I accept that if someone were to connect me with my
So if airport security sees some guy carrying knifes, automatic weapons and a large canister marked with the text "DANGER ! EXPLOSIVES !" towards an airplane, the proper response is to do nothing, since no actual harm has yet been done ?
I said regulatory response. The situation you're talking about is radically different: in my example, the question is whether or not to allow legally-acting individuals to engage in free-market exchange in order to determine the optimal solution, while in your example the question is whether to allow someone to bring the tools of crime to a plane. The difference is clear.
Your analogy is false.
The problem is that the proper regulatory stance is responding to actual harm, not conjecturing about possible harm.
It is at least as likely that the market will correct this: if AOL users cant access Google because Google refuses to pay AOL a higher rate, AOL's customers will leave. That's the whole value to a competitive market.
It's simple: originally, we would "partake" of that activity (partake in defecating, partake in napping, etc.). The word "partake" diminished into a homonym with the existing word "take" (i.e. the existing, seperate, verb), and then after that became common the original distinction was lost and existing grammatical rules for the verb "to take" were applied.
It's astonishing how many people are just automatically assuming that network neutrality is good. Considering no such neutrality is imposed on wireless telephony, cable or DBS, why is it necessary here?
Christopher Yoo, a Vanderbilt Law professor (whom I met in his capacity visiting here at Penn Law this semester) has written repeatedly on the fact that what we actually want is network diversity.
Why would it be bad to have competition in the type of service provided? Why would it be bad to be able to prioritize types of network traffic? Why would it be bad to have competitive internets where different networks interconnected out of market pressure instead of FCC or Congressional regulation?
It seems that most people just respond automatically without considering the actual costs and benefits to so-called network neutrality.
That's what a democracy means. If you have any issues decided by anything other than a democratic vote, then your government is some pseudo-democratic state that has incorporated other characteristics.
Yup:
I, and all the guys here, have had semi-erections. During that state, my penis is undoubtedly turgid but simultaneously not erect. If I were allowed to display visibly through pants while turgid but not erect, there'd be a rather obvious non-sensical distinction between 99% erect and 100% erect.
Lawyers find loopholes for two reasons: one, if they didn't then they'd be committing malpractice towards their client[s], and two, to not find and exploit those loopholes would violate their moral (not just legal) duty to do everything within the law for their clients.
If you're not happy with the loopholes in a given law, you're free to try and work to correct it. Just remember, there hasn't been a legal code in the history of man that didn't have loopholes. It's just a question of what loopholes exist in a given code.
Not to be a dick, but (a) you're being obstinate about some of these terms, and (b) their language reflects the nature of legal terms-of-art.
They say "turgid" instead of "erect" for several reasons, not the least of which being that you can have quite a turgid dick without having being erect. In fact, the larger your penis, the more likely that your maximum 'erection' isn't that hard (John Holmes, for example). Thus, they're trying to cover a portrayal of a turgid (and thus obviously sexualized) penis through clothing.
If you think "sexual excitement" is a self-explanatory term, you ought to do a few Lexis or Westlaw searches. The term is by no means self-contained. To make it concrete, suppose I'm physically aroused but seem very calm; am I "sexually excited"? What does excited mean? Does it require that someone/thing else is exciting me, or can it be self-induced?
As for including homosexuality in their definition of sexual conduct, that's a very heteronormative stance - i.e. that heterosexual relationships are 'normal' but homosexual ones are something within the auspices of actual sexual contact - but I understand it since, in fact, hetersexuality is the norm (that doesn't mean normal, just the statistical average by far).
As is said elsewhere, this is bad law and will almost indisputably be overturned at some judicial level as soon as it is enforced. The fact that you don't understand the language choice, however, doesn't make you right that the language choice is bad.
You know, I love the Kill Bill reference, but I feel like by leaving the reference to the exploding-heart technique out you might have kept it more subtle, thus enhancing the humor.
Of course, this comment obliterates all subtlety that remains. Hmm.
Asking someone to remove your shortcomings - be it a god or whatever - is not taking personal responsibility. It's asking for someone, by definition, to fix you.
If you're not competant to understand a contract like this, and yet you're an adult, then you need to be in an institution.
It's fair because they're offering a luxury with an explicit code of conduct at a very clear price, and you the customer opts to buy in. This isn't even an interpretation issue, since the TOS is quite clear.
Just because you've heard it before doesn't mean it isn't precisely true.
That sort of ridiculous dismissal just makes you and your side look foolish: it's not unjust, because you freely entered a contract. It's a game, it's not like you entered the contract under duress.
From an economic view, your ideas about markets makes sense, however, since both humans and organizations are not fully rational, we can't expect a perfectly responsive market.
Not to belabor a point, but ignorance is part of a rationally-responsive market. The value you place on your rights includes a measure of how much investigation you're willing to put into pursuing their protection.
If they were that concerned with property rights regarding their avatars, they would investigate how far those rights actually extended. The fact that they dont do so is an indication of the low value they place on them.
They -are- addressed, you just don't like the result.
You enter a contract where you're paying ONLY for access to their world (with the related assurance that they'll protect you against TOS violators generally). The fact that your access allows you to alter some of their data - your avatar - does nothing to change the fact that your contract is explicitly not about 'owning' anything.
Want something different? Hit up SecondLife, where you own everything legitimately. The market provides us with what we ask for, if enough of us want it: if enough people wanted to own these properties enough, they'd refuse to play games that didn't allow that ownership. The fact that people keep playing WoW and other MMORPGs with this limitation indicates that most people don't agree with you.
(a) Crashes in 1/5 machines? News to me, I've never had a crash nor heard of this problem. Documentation?
(b) The patch that let you skip the tutorial came out around a month after release.
(c) Crawls on 6800 cards? I have an eVGA 6800 GT (with a 3.2 AMD and a gig of ram) and I get between 30-60fps almost 100% of the time. Again, care to document this claim?
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."
This line of thought is part of the origins of Divine Right of Kings.
OFFTOPIC: Again, we have evidence of how crappy this moderation system is. While my above post was only ranked 2 (having gotten one positive moderation) it was then moderated "overrated". We need a better system, this is crap.
A: Big Tobacco not only knowingly distributed a product that causes cancer without telling people, it supressed studies indicating that carcinogenic effect.
B: Prior to Apple's introduction of the iPod, the physics and biology of hearing loss due to loud sounds was well developed.
There are at least a few problems here (all of which have been discussed over the months since the first of these ridiculous complaints):
First, I've seen ZERO evidence that this has anything to with the iPod per se as opposed to just the nature of in-ear earphones.
Second, you only incur damage if you play the sound too loud. We've been quite saturated with information on that sort of effect for decades (Townshend?). If you cant figure out that it doesn't matter where the sound is coming from, just how loud it is, then screw you.
There's more, but this alone is enough to dismiss this crap...
I got a "flamebait" moderation? Ridiculous...that's why I post so much less lately...retarded moderation system...
See, now I might pick one of these up to complement my PSP. One of the things that kept me from getting a DS was how big and clunky it looked. I'm starting to think that Nintendo intentionally de-sexys their first version of any portable, so they can release a hotter version a year later.