Oh, I've no doubt that it is- but pumpkins (AFAIK) aren't grown in the UK and even in my childhood wouldn't have been anywhere near as readily available as they are today.
IMHO it's the increasing supply of pumpkins carrying the US Halloween virus that brought the contagion to England.
FWIW, I don't want to overstate the case that the English didn't do the guising/trick-or-treating and lanterns thing *at all*- it did apparently gain some limited popularity there during the 20th century, and I recall seeing an episode of "Bottom" in the mid-90s where the (adults) dressed up and went out "trick or treating" (I think they referred to it as).
But from what I understand it's only in very recent years that it's become a big thing there (*), and I'm pretty sure that *is* down to the influence of US culture (even if the origins of guising and lanterns are Scottish and Irish)- along with increasing commercialisation (i.e. excuse to fill in the sales gap before Christmas (**)). Unlike Christmas- which was already pretty commercialised when I was a kid (and is just obnoxiously more so now), Hallowe'en (in Scotland and the UK) has gone from very little commercialisation to its present state in a generation.
The lack of commercialisation until very recently might also explain why- unlike Christmas- the more traditional aspects survived homogeneity longer.
(*) The English more traditionally celebrated Guy Fawke's Night- in early November (complete with the bonfire and fireworks) and some apparently consider Hallowe'en to be a US usurper having displaced their traditional festival. When I was a kid (i.e. in Scotland) we celebrated *both* growing up- seemed fine to me; both had different things, and the bonfire and fireworks were just as much fine but different enough to keep the two separate. Of course, that was the 80s- I don't know if it was as big a deal in previous generations. I do know that- e.g.- Christmas, which was already established as the main winter event in Scotland long before the 80s- wasn't traditionally as important as New Year here, and even in my Mum's childhood that was still the case to some extent. I'd say *that* was more Anglicisation of Scottish culture than US influence, though.
(**) Shops *love* their big event festivals as an excuse to sell rubbish. I was in Tesco last Hogmanay (i.e. New Year's Eve, a week after Christmas) and I noticed they had bloody *Easter* stuff on the shelves already!!!
Guising...... but not "trick or treat" (Hey, you gotta earn your treats!)
Are you Scottish or Irish? I'm Scottish, and that's what we called it when I was growing up and celebrating Hallowe'en (*) in the early 1980s.
While that's undeniably a long time ago now in some ways (i.e. 30 years, a generation or so)- it actually seems bizarrely recent when one considers that in the era of the A-Team and Knight Rider, of Reagan and Thatcher, we still called it guising (and felt obliged to perform some sort of routine), dressed up in home-made costumes and went around with lanterns made out of turnips, not pumpkins.
This wasn't done with the intent of being "traditional" and I was never aware of it seeming forced- that's still how it was then. I'd probably heard of "trick or treat", but would definitely have been aware of that as being an American (i.e. foreign) thing. Ditto pumpkin lanterns- I knew of the association, but while I wouldn't swear that I never saw a real one growing up, the things me and my friends trawled around the streets *were* mainly turnip based. (**) And there definitely wasn't the associated hype or paraphenalia in the shops.
I say "bizarrely recent" because while one could have imagined the traditional Scottish Hallowe'en remaining relatively pure into the era of my Mum's childhood (i.e. early 1950s, most people didn't have TV, US culture was less influential), for it to have survived into the heyday of VHS, home computers et al is sweet, but also quite strangely anachronistic. I'd say I was probably lucky to have experienced that- 15 or so years later, I think the US influence on Hallowe'en *did* start becoming very influential to the point that the idea of a child today having a turnip lantern would seem unusual (and probably get strange looks from his/her friends).
Strangely, despite the fact that Scottish culture became increasingly Anglicised (as part of the UK) during the 20th century, one thing I didn't realise when I was growing up was that guising wasn't a UK-wide thing, and the English really didn't celebrate Hallowe'en at all then. In fact, I only found this out recently, and ironically that was because they *do* now celebrate it... but they view the increasing prominence of Hallowe'en and its customs as an example of the influence of *American* culture!
Which, of course, it is- but the "American" Hallowe'en was brought there by Scottish and Irish immigrants, and still retains some (if not all) of its original celtic form. I honestly can't see them going around with turnips though.
And that *might* be why guising and turnips lasted as long as they did- in the UK, and especially in the 20th century, mass culture came to the "provinces" (*cough*) through the London-centric, Anglo-centric media, and they didn't care about Hallowe'en. So in a sense we were insulated from both the US influence and commercialism and kept our individuality a bit longer. Now we've lost it for a related reason- we're getting the American model via the same Anglo-centric media and retailers who don't have their own traditional Hallowe'en anyway so don't moderate it in the same way they would if they had their own tradition to defend.
I think I said a lot more than I was originally planning to there...
(*) I'm so used to the apostrophe-less form nowadays- probably another example of increasing American influence- I'd almost forgotten that this was a quite common spelling when I was a kid. Anyway, any Slashdotter that gets so annoyed by that spelling *deserves* to be annoyed, so "Hallowe'en" it is:-)
(**) I mentioned this to my Dad recently, in a nostalgic way, and he complained about the amount of work it took to hollow out a turnip(!)
Expensive? You can get a CD-R/DVD-R drive for <$20, at retail, shipping included. When you look at the electronics, mechanics, and optics involved, that's amazing.
That's what I thought- DVD writers are ludicrously cheap for the amount of technology they involve, and they've been at that price point for several years now.
Am I the only person who really doesn't feel that they've been ripped off, at least when it comes to DVD writers? How much cheaper would they *really* have been without this alleged price-fixing?!
OTOH, it could be a reference to the stagnation of BD writer prices, and even that's only strange because they didn't follow the path of DVD burners which proved you can do an optical writer at such a low price!
Not only that, but it has taken an awfully long time for the price of Blu-Ray drives to really drop... maybe there was some fixing going on. I wouldn't be shocked.
The 405nm blue lasers in Blu-ray drives were covered by Nichia patents until the expired recently, and Nichia does sue to protect it's patents. Single source, patent-protected lasers were part of the reason it took so long for the prices to drop.
If this is true, it might explain a lot.
If it's not true (or not the main reason), then- as the GP suggested- it's the main story that would explain it. I'd been ready to say *exactly*.
Matter of fact, I'd say that the prices- of burners at least- haven't even dropped noticeably in recent years. Some time ago they gradually fell from around UK £150 to circa £70 (maybe £60-something on a good day) for the cheapest- and have been stuck there for several years now.
Looking at EBuyer, they appear to have a couple of slimlines in the £50-something range (why are those cheaper?!) but their cheapest desktop model is still £65 (inc VAT/tax).
Obviously that's burners- readers are cheaper and Blu-Ray video players appear to have become quite affordable a while back (like DVD players did in the early noughties).
But as for burners... while £65 is easily cheap enough for most computer geeks remotely bothered to be able to afford one, it's still nowhere near cheap enough to be a "no brainer" alternative to a DVD writer in a commodity PC for Joe Public (in the way that DVD writers replaced CD drives and DVD readers because the price difference was so minor). And that's what is needed- or *would* have been needed- for it to repeat the success of DVD-R.
To be honest, I already came to the conclusion some time back that BD-R had missed the boat. If it hasn't happened by now, it's not going to. While the DVD-R market is clearly declining, it's not being replaced by BD-R drives and discs, which never seemed to have achieved the same momentum. Solid state, HDD and online storage appear to be taking DVDs' place, not BD-R.
The question is, did the industry ever want it to?
in one series there was a bridge with bbc micro pc and 1960s teletype.
I'm not sure that it was actually *meant* to be a BBC Micro so much as they'd used it as a prop rather obviously to anyone who knows its graphical style.:-)
(Disclaimer; I started off thinking this guy was half-informed, then later realised he didn't have a clue. I replied to the earlier stuff *before* reading the later bits).
Much of it was recorded straight to betamax.
Not this old chestnut again... the broadcast industry *didn't* commonly use Betamax per se, it was Betacam. The early versions of Betacam used the same tape as Betamax, but the recorded format was different and incompatible.
Also, the early versions of Betacam were analogue, not digital (though later on with digital audio). It was only in the 90s that Digital Betacam came out.
Sitcoms and many 'dramas' such as STNG were beta only with some being a mix (like STNG). [..] For stuff where they had many outdoor shots it was usually 35mm as the lighting was better for real film.
The main footage for ST:TNG was shot entirely on film, though like most late-80s/90s shows it was transferred to video for editing (which is why the quality still sucks). It's only some of the effects work that was "native" video (see my comment here for more details).
Natively-shot analogue video has a very different look to film-sourced material. The "piebald" mixture you describe, i.e. studio footage done on video and location footage on film, was quite common on the BBC well into the 80s, but not common on decent-budget American dramas. (*)
The whole industry started going digital only in the late 60s.
Okay, now I know for sure you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Even digital audio only existed in labs in the late 60s. (It wasn't until the late 70s that expensive-as-hell digital audio recording equipment started being sold to professionals).
Digital *video* (a much more difficult proposition) sure as hell didn't exist in any meaningful form then. To suggest that it was even in professional use back then is nonsense... to state that the industry "started going digital only" at the time demonstrates your complete and utter ignorance.
(why we are missing 90 early 1960s era episodes of dr who)
Er, given that digital video didn't exist then, it's quite clear you're talking out of your arse. Those are missing because the (then-very-expensive) *analogue* video tapes were reused and the BBC didn't think they had enough reuse or archival value to be worth keeping. (Those that survive only remain via film copies of the original video footage; film back then was much cheaper).
(*) Not so sure about soaps and sitcoms; many of those were shot entirely on video, but earlier ones may have used film for location footage(?)
Which was ironically shot on 35mm film and would just need to be re-edited to be released in 4K. Just look at Star Trek or Seinfeld in HD.
Just because something was shot on film (which *happens to be* capable of holding far more detail than was visible on the original SD transmissions) doesn't mean it was made with HD- let alone 4K- in mind.
This matters because HD is more than just the recording medium. Sets, makeup, et al have to be of a much higher standard than for SD. For example, when the BBC switched one of their most popular programmes, EastEnders, into HD, they had to redesign the "Queen Vic" set because the flaws in the original showed up more obviously.
Now, I'm pretty sure that the original Star Trek was never made with HD in mind. Even a (relatively) big TV production like Star Trek would have had relatively tight constraints on the budget (compared to cinema movies), and I'm pretty sure they weren't going to waste money on (e.g.) set detailing and makeup that was never going to be visible on the SD transmissions of the day.
There were likely good reasons for shooting on film- primarily, I assume for the aesthetic value, since even transmitted as an SD television picture it looks very different to natively-shot video footage. But I'm sure that the fact it happened to be capable of resolving far higher levels of detail was almost certainly a side-effect.
This matters because any *anything* that wasn't done to HD standard runs the risk of showing up flaws. And it raises the question as to whether viewing Star Trek in more detail than was ever planned for by the original makers is actually doing it a disservice or is actually "faithful" to the original.
On the other hand, shows from the 90's and 2K's are shot on digital at a much lower resolution.
I don't know for sure, but AFAIK most late 80s and 90s shows were film-sourced then edited on video (analogue or otherwise). I assume that "true" digital only started becoming commonplace for source footage after the millennium or so?
It should also be noted that while some shot-on-film-but-edited-and-mastered-on-video shows (which became standard from the late 80s onwards) could be re-edited from the source footage if it's still available, some shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation created the effects at the video stage. Some- AFAIK- were built from film sources, but would still have to be re-composited, etc. and others AFAIK were done natively on video and thus never existed as anything other than craptastic SD NTSC video. The latter would look dire in HD, no matter how good the rescaling, so will have to be redone- which AFAIK is what they're doing for the HD ST:TNG.
Me, I will continue to use the cloud, because really, what other choice do I have? Carry a thumb drive with me 24/7? Been there, done that.
And what *was* the problem with that exactly?
I have a Crucial Gizmo Jr. 8GB pen drive that I bought almost 5 years ago. It's about the size of a slightly short stick of chewing gum, and less than twice the thickness (around 2mm). It stays in my wallet all the time.
If I was paranoid about the data on it, I'm sure I could use some form of encryption. Minor inconvenience, sure, but when you're saying "what other choice do I have?" it's not that big a deal.
But that doesn't mean one should let his kind of bogus and stupid comment just pass.
If you have something equally sharp or cutting... or if you have something clever or insightful to say, then by all means, respond.
OTOH, if your response makes you look worse than it would have done if you'd said nothing... then yes, you probably should have let it pass.
People need to understand that libertarians are here, we are a sizable force, and you better deal with us by making smart comments
You really do come across as an angry and humourless adolescent, both arrogant and insecure in your ludicrous demands that "[we] better deal with [you] by making smart comments".
Frankly, while I'm not a Libertarian personally, I'm sure that most of those who say they *are* on Slashdot would be embarassed to be associated with that.
You have remarkable sense of entitlement to "smart" discussion for someone whose attacks consist of intentionally misunderstanding jokes.
instead of the bullshit that people like Nimey and you post.
Firstly, I said nothing about libertarianism itself in this thread (go back and check).
(You'll note that I didn't even endorse the joke or the underlying argument per se; the only relevance was that it was clearly *meant* to be a joke).
I did, however, criticise the disingenuousness of your comeback to an obvious joke.
This reflects something I've encountered quite a number of times on Slashdot (the last being just five days ago). It's where some people assume that if you criticise or disagree with a *specific* aspect of their argument (or worse- as in your case- when what they're being called out on has nothing to do with the argument subject per se) then it's fair to ascribe to that person *all* views that they disagree with.
In short, they interpret a criticism of something they said or did personally (e.g. your use of feigned obtuseness to respond to a joke) into a general attack on what they believe in (e.g. a general attack on Libertarianism). And then start to get self-righteous and "knight in shining armour" in their "defence" of that belief.
I'm not a psychologist, but I'm guessing there's probably some defensive mechanism in interpreting something that's clearly a criticism of something they said personally in this way; it avoids addressing the criticism, avoids addressing the fact it was personal (something people don't like) and turns them from the target of legitimate criticism into the feelgood defender of whatever the belief is (even if that belief wasn't actually being attacked).
Anyway, this is getting a bit longwinded. So I'll end by saying how upset I was to notice that you'd added me to your list of foes. *cough*
And they understand that a "joke" needs to be humorous, which that lame and repetitive dig at libertarianism wasn't.
Yes, but you understood that it was clearly *meant* as a joke (as we all did), whether or not you thought it was funny. Which makes the "pretend the joke was meant seriously and attack the OP on that basis" lame, childish and downright pointless.
And Nimey in particular is nothing more than an uneducated lout.
There was nothing in his comment to suggest he was "uneducated". On the contrary, it sounds like you just don't like the fact he disagreed wtih you regarding libertarianism and he hit a nerve with that comment.
I'm sorry you're so uneducated that you think libertarianism is a religion.
Most of us understand that the was making fun of libertarianism (whether or not we agreed with the underlying point being made). This is generally known as a "joke".
Either you genuinely didn't understand it was a joke and thought he actually believed that thought libertarianism was a religion... or you were being wilfully obtuse in taking it literally, purely for the sake of making a smartass comeback.
Unfortunately, like most comebacks to jokes that try to make the other person look "uneducated" by using intentionally obtuse or literal interpretations, this only makes the other person look bad if the majority of the readership really *are* as dim as the respondent is *pretending* to be... which is rarely the case.
It means that the Tories are trying to achieve privatisation of the NHS in England- something they couldn't get away with doing directly, but are desparate to do- by the back door, drip by drip. Of course, like the Royal Mail selloff of the family silver (at a transparently undervalued price) that the majority of people in the UK opposed- the reason is Tory dogma and enriching their chums in the city.
Given free reign, I suspect they'd end up with a health system somewhat akin to the American one- pseudo free market, many times more expensive than comparable services in other countries that aren't in hock to "free" market dogma and corporate interests, ruinous for anyone that gets seriously ill who isn't lucky enough to have decent health insurance with their job, etc.
Not saying that the NHS is perfect, but I'll take it over that any day. And while the Tories sometimes make arguments that might sound reasonable and sensible on paper to an unenlightened observer, anyone with experience of them knows the underlying "dog whistle" pandering to the base and how they show their true colours when push comes to shove.
Up to 1,200 needless deaths, patients abused, staff bullied to meet targets... yet a secret inquiry into failing hospital says no one's to blame [dailymail.co.uk]
Yeah, I'm not saying that there's no some truth in there, but I'd want to get the story from a more trustworthy source than the blatantly partisan, fact-skewing, lying-by-omission, wouldn't-trust-them-as-far-as-I-could-throw-them Daily Mail.
treacle, blood pudding, and clotted cream biscuits are much better than anything over here. We eat pure shit compared to the delicacies to be had in your dusty corner for the world.
Seriously, if you mean black treacle- it has a stronger taste than the golden variety, and I wasn't a big fan as a kid, but it's quite nice as an ingredient. Black pudding? Haven't eaten it for years, but I'd put it in my mouth. Clotted cream? Method of thickening cream by slightly cooking it- never tried it, but can't be that bad.
So what have the Americans got? Skip this if you're eating lunch... One of the most genuinely unpleasant sounding- and looking- "delicacies" I've ever heard of, but fortunately never tasted. Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you... canned pork brains in milk gravy.
Yeah... I think it's going to take a lot to "improve" upon that.:'-(
I was trying to show you that the "harsh justice" approach taken with young teenage and preteen girls sounds crazy
Ah, I see- clearly you didn't make your point very well, then.
Obviously it didn't work since you followed up with "Perhaps the dead girl really *did* do something that warranted that behaviour..."
That was a reflection of what *you'd* apparently said- I didn't think that was very likely myself, on the contrary I thought it was pretty implausible, hence "I really doubt it".
No. You cannot simply dismiss the role of the primary caregiver like that.
I should have been clearer there; I'm saying that the parents might or might not share responsibility for what their children became, but it doesn't excuse their offspring. A significant number of sociopathic individuals who went on to commit terrible crimes had horrendous upbringings. Does that absolve them from responsibility for their own actions? No.
I'm sorry, but advocating a sociopathic solution to sociopathy earns you zero points in my book.
That's okay; I certainly wasn't competing for them(!)
As for that old "just as bad as them" chestnut that you imply by calling it a "sociopathic solution"- well, I have to disagree. There are lots of punishments that would be terrible if applied to someone who had done nothing to deserve them (e.g. prison- being held against one's will for an extended period of time is A Very Bad Thing, surely?)
Was I suggesting that courts should actually be able to award a punishment like that? No. Do I think that's what she *deserves*? Yes.
This is evidence of a deep-seated need for vengance on your part, which in turn comes from personal insecurities about yourself. Likely, the source of this is bullying in your own past and a projection of those negative feelings onto these children.
You made some interesting points- even if I didn't agree with them all- but you lost it here when you start delivering pat psychological diagnoses on the basis of an Internet post.
There is only one appropriate outcome here
What one deems "appropriate" is a matter of opinion.
Doing the best we can to rehabilitate the survivors
"Survivors" is an... *interesting* choice of word. It implies a level of equality between those involved that seems somewhat strange and inappropriate here- rather like referring to the mugger of someone who dies in the process as a "survivor" of that mugging(!)
Then again, this may reflect your empathy with the perpetrators when you comment that...
it's just as likely, if not moreso, that they are also victims
You'll forgive me if my utter lack of sympathy for the 14-year-old "survivor" kicked in long ago.
Or how about we take her out to the desert and stone her? You know, like they do in some of those countries.
I don't think that would be a good idea. My suggestion- which wasn't intended as a judicial punishment, and didn't claim to be- was nevertheless what I felt would be the most appropriate thing to happen to the sociopathic bullying excuse for a human being.
Your idea, on the other hand, sounds like the barbaric treatment given to adulterers in backward religious countries... oh *wait*! I see... tee hee, you're clever. You weren't really advocating that, you were just trying to insinuate in a weaselish manner that you thought my views were equally barbaric, without actually making your case.
What is appalling about people like you, 'Dogtanian', is that you are cowardly enough to beat up on children for behaviour you PRAISE in adults.
Hmm. I really don't recall saying of those things I allegedly endorse. I must have been very, *very* drunk at the time.
Or maybe you just felt free to shovel great masses of alleged opinions into my mouth because I'm a proxy for America.
America almost universally praises its genocidal butchers in UNIFORM as heroes [..] When this happens, people like 'Dogtanian' applauds the system
Sorry, I thought I was applauding the Rolling Stones tribute band that was playing that night, but I inadvertantly faced the wrong way and applauded the Republican convention.
that not only allows so many men and women to get away with the worst forms of Crimes against Humanity unpunished, but encourages them to rejoice in their crimes forever afterwards. [..] cowards like Dogtanian attack them and label them with the moral deficiencies they themselves have. [..] The USA is almost unique on the planet in having a "blame the child" mentality. The USA is one of the tiny number of countries on the planet that executes children and disabled people. The USA is almost unique in REFUSING to sign UN conventions giving children RIGHTS. The USA is unique amongst nations of the West in allowing children to be subject to BDSM rape at school disguised as corporal punishment. The USA is almost unique in allowing parents to kidnap their 17-year-old daughters, and force them into extremely abusive facilities where they can be stripped and examined against their will, forced into nappies, monitored as they use the toilet, with no justification other than this is what the parents desire (you think I exaggerate- go Google 'Hephzibah House', a facility still running today where ALL these things happened).
Sorry; when I signed that petition, I was assured it was just something about providing mittens for kittens. I knew it looked a bit long. Also, I'm afraid that I was very, very drunk.
But seriously... glad to have been a nice little whipping boy / strawman to let you get that rant out of your system.
If you actually want my opinion, I'm just as disgusted by much of that stuff as you are. (Much as it pains me to "agree" with you). I just happen to have a low tolerance for sociopathic bullies that push people into killing themselves- picky, I know- and something of a desire to see them get back exactly what they dished out.
You're the purest example of someone who- faced with another person who says something they don't entirely agree with- feels free to ascribe any and all opinions held by *all* his/her enemies to that person, regardless of the evidence, and do so in the most sanctimonious, self-righteous manner. I've come across several on Slashdot, but you're certainly the worst.
People like 'Dogtanian' show why America is so sick.
Know what's actually funny? After that anti-American rant, I have to tell you... I'm not actually American. Never even been there.
I think at this point, I'm entitled to say... you utter fuckwit.:-P
Well you are suggesting that people harass a 12 year old girl and a 14 year old girl until they kill themselves.
The 14-year-old one at least, if the evidence as reported is correct.
When do we put the dead girl on trial so that we can determine whether these girls did a service to the world in getting her to kill herself, like you're suggesting?
Not sure what point this borderline smartassery is trying to make. Is there any evidence that the dead girl behaved in a way that would have justified their behaviour towards her?
Though I do agree we should wait for the trial to see if the 14-year-old has her own explanation and/or justification for events that- as presented here- make her come across as utterly worthless, sociopathic vermin that deserves everything she was happy to dole out to others. Perhaps the dead girl really *did* do something that warranted that behaviour- I really doubt it, but we'll see.
You go on about other people being sociopaths, then you say she should be harassed and then kill herself. Idiot.
Yep, bang on cue comes the predictable (*) smug, sanctimonious "you're just as much of a sociopath as she is" response. Which is bullshit, because...
You're exactly like this girl.
...so let me guess, because kidnapping and detaining someone is bad, locking someone convicted of a crime in prison is just as bad, right?
Being "exactly like this girl" would involve picking on some arbitrary innocent person and bullying them into killing themselves. As opposed to a unrepentantly sociopathic bitch who'd bullied someone into killing themselves being given the same merciless treatment they were happy to mete out. That's justice.
Frankly, the dead girl did nothing to deserve her treatment- this one deserves worse.
(*) I'd half expected this and considered posting a pre-emption, but I'm already longwinded enough and it would have been a distraction.
In Internet shorthand it began “Yes, ik” — I know — “I bullied Rebecca nd she killed herself.” The writer concluded that she didn’t care, using an obscenity to make the point and a heart as a perverse flourish.
...suggesting a blatantly sociopathic personality and the likelihood that it was far more than just "teasing" in the first place.
The "coping skills" you advocate would- in this case- consist of figuring out a way of ruining the evil bitch's life.
Children are sociopaths until they learn better / their frontal lobes finish developing. It's the parents who are at fault here.
Two year olds are sociopaths. Fourteen year olds shouldn't be- they can sometimes be stereotypically *insensitive* due to their brains still developing, but that's absolutely nothing like this.
The fact that she made comments like that even *after* the girl died (due to their bullying) indicates pure sociopathy. 14 (or even 12) is easily old enough to know right from wrong, whether or not they feel guilty about it. Regardless of whether the parents are to blame for not bringing them up with any sense of morality or empathy, they're easily old enough to accept (or made to accept) responsibility for what was done.
The most appropriate outcome in this case would be for that girl's actions to be widely publicised and for her to be subjected to endless harassment, abuse and ostracism for the rest of her life, until she does the decent thing (*) and kills herself.
(*) Albeit for purely selfish reasons- but you can't teach empathy.
Slashdot Mirror
Much easier to hollow out a pumpkin.
Oh, I've no doubt that it is- but pumpkins (AFAIK) aren't grown in the UK and even in my childhood wouldn't have been anywhere near as readily available as they are today.
IMHO it's the increasing supply of pumpkins carrying the US Halloween virus that brought the contagion to England.
FWIW, I don't want to overstate the case that the English didn't do the guising/trick-or-treating and lanterns thing *at all*- it did apparently gain some limited popularity there during the 20th century, and I recall seeing an episode of "Bottom" in the mid-90s where the (adults) dressed up and went out "trick or treating" (I think they referred to it as).
But from what I understand it's only in very recent years that it's become a big thing there (*), and I'm pretty sure that *is* down to the influence of US culture (even if the origins of guising and lanterns are Scottish and Irish)- along with increasing commercialisation (i.e. excuse to fill in the sales gap before Christmas (**)). Unlike Christmas- which was already pretty commercialised when I was a kid (and is just obnoxiously more so now), Hallowe'en (in Scotland and the UK) has gone from very little commercialisation to its present state in a generation.
The lack of commercialisation until very recently might also explain why- unlike Christmas- the more traditional aspects survived homogeneity longer.
(*) The English more traditionally celebrated Guy Fawke's Night- in early November (complete with the bonfire and fireworks) and some apparently consider Hallowe'en to be a US usurper having displaced their traditional festival. When I was a kid (i.e. in Scotland) we celebrated *both* growing up- seemed fine to me; both had different things, and the bonfire and fireworks were just as much fine but different enough to keep the two separate. Of course, that was the 80s- I don't know if it was as big a deal in previous generations. I do know that- e.g.- Christmas, which was already established as the main winter event in Scotland long before the 80s- wasn't traditionally as important as New Year here, and even in my Mum's childhood that was still the case to some extent. I'd say *that* was more Anglicisation of Scottish culture than US influence, though.
(**) Shops *love* their big event festivals as an excuse to sell rubbish. I was in Tesco last Hogmanay (i.e. New Year's Eve, a week after Christmas) and I noticed they had bloody *Easter* stuff on the shelves already!!!
Guising...... but not "trick or treat" (Hey, you gotta earn your treats!)
Are you Scottish or Irish? I'm Scottish, and that's what we called it when I was growing up and celebrating Hallowe'en (*) in the early 1980s.
:-)
While that's undeniably a long time ago now in some ways (i.e. 30 years, a generation or so)- it actually seems bizarrely recent when one considers that in the era of the A-Team and Knight Rider, of Reagan and Thatcher, we still called it guising (and felt obliged to perform some sort of routine), dressed up in home-made costumes and went around with lanterns made out of turnips, not pumpkins.
This wasn't done with the intent of being "traditional" and I was never aware of it seeming forced- that's still how it was then. I'd probably heard of "trick or treat", but would definitely have been aware of that as being an American (i.e. foreign) thing. Ditto pumpkin lanterns- I knew of the association, but while I wouldn't swear that I never saw a real one growing up, the things me and my friends trawled around the streets *were* mainly turnip based. (**) And there definitely wasn't the associated hype or paraphenalia in the shops.
I say "bizarrely recent" because while one could have imagined the traditional Scottish Hallowe'en remaining relatively pure into the era of my Mum's childhood (i.e. early 1950s, most people didn't have TV, US culture was less influential), for it to have survived into the heyday of VHS, home computers et al is sweet, but also quite strangely anachronistic. I'd say I was probably lucky to have experienced that- 15 or so years later, I think the US influence on Hallowe'en *did* start becoming very influential to the point that the idea of a child today having a turnip lantern would seem unusual (and probably get strange looks from his/her friends).
Strangely, despite the fact that Scottish culture became increasingly Anglicised (as part of the UK) during the 20th century, one thing I didn't realise when I was growing up was that guising wasn't a UK-wide thing, and the English really didn't celebrate Hallowe'en at all then. In fact, I only found this out recently, and ironically that was because they *do* now celebrate it... but they view the increasing prominence of Hallowe'en and its customs as an example of the influence of *American* culture!
Which, of course, it is- but the "American" Hallowe'en was brought there by Scottish and Irish immigrants, and still retains some (if not all) of its original celtic form. I honestly can't see them going around with turnips though.
And that *might* be why guising and turnips lasted as long as they did- in the UK, and especially in the 20th century, mass culture came to the "provinces" (*cough*) through the London-centric, Anglo-centric media, and they didn't care about Hallowe'en. So in a sense we were insulated from both the US influence and commercialism and kept our individuality a bit longer. Now we've lost it for a related reason- we're getting the American model via the same Anglo-centric media and retailers who don't have their own traditional Hallowe'en anyway so don't moderate it in the same way they would if they had their own tradition to defend.
I think I said a lot more than I was originally planning to there...
(*) I'm so used to the apostrophe-less form nowadays- probably another example of increasing American influence- I'd almost forgotten that this was a quite common spelling when I was a kid. Anyway, any Slashdotter that gets so annoyed by that spelling *deserves* to be annoyed, so "Hallowe'en" it is
(**) I mentioned this to my Dad recently, in a nostalgic way, and he complained about the amount of work it took to hollow out a turnip(!)
Expensive? You can get a CD-R/DVD-R drive for <$20, at retail, shipping included. When you look at the electronics, mechanics, and optics involved, that's amazing.
That's what I thought- DVD writers are ludicrously cheap for the amount of technology they involve, and they've been at that price point for several years now.
Am I the only person who really doesn't feel that they've been ripped off, at least when it comes to DVD writers? How much cheaper would they *really* have been without this alleged price-fixing?!
OTOH, it could be a reference to the stagnation of BD writer prices, and even that's only strange because they didn't follow the path of DVD burners which proved you can do an optical writer at such a low price!
... the main story that would explain it. I'd been ready to say *exactly*.
Should read; "I'd been ready to say *exactly* the same thing!"
Not only that, but it has taken an awfully long time for the price of Blu-Ray drives to really drop... maybe there was some fixing going on. I wouldn't be shocked.
The 405nm blue lasers in Blu-ray drives were covered by Nichia patents until the expired recently, and Nichia does sue to protect it's patents. Single source, patent-protected lasers were part of the reason it took so long for the prices to drop.
If this is true, it might explain a lot.
If it's not true (or not the main reason), then- as the GP suggested- it's the main story that would explain it. I'd been ready to say *exactly*.
Matter of fact, I'd say that the prices- of burners at least- haven't even dropped noticeably in recent years. Some time ago they gradually fell from around UK £150 to circa £70 (maybe £60-something on a good day) for the cheapest- and have been stuck there for several years now.
Looking at EBuyer, they appear to have a couple of slimlines in the £50-something range (why are those cheaper?!) but their cheapest desktop model is still £65 (inc VAT/tax).
Obviously that's burners- readers are cheaper and Blu-Ray video players appear to have become quite affordable a while back (like DVD players did in the early noughties).
But as for burners... while £65 is easily cheap enough for most computer geeks remotely bothered to be able to afford one, it's still nowhere near cheap enough to be a "no brainer" alternative to a DVD writer in a commodity PC for Joe Public (in the way that DVD writers replaced CD drives and DVD readers because the price difference was so minor). And that's what is needed- or *would* have been needed- for it to repeat the success of DVD-R.
To be honest, I already came to the conclusion some time back that BD-R had missed the boat. If it hasn't happened by now, it's not going to. While the DVD-R market is clearly declining, it's not being replaced by BD-R drives and discs, which never seemed to have achieved the same momentum. Solid state, HDD and online storage appear to be taking DVDs' place, not BD-R.
The question is, did the industry ever want it to?
in one series there was a bridge with bbc micro pc and 1960s teletype.
I'm not sure that it was actually *meant* to be a BBC Micro so much as they'd used it as a prop rather obviously to anyone who knows its graphical style. :-)
Much of it was recorded straight to betamax.
Not this old chestnut again... the broadcast industry *didn't* commonly use Betamax per se, it was Betacam. The early versions of Betacam used the same tape as Betamax, but the recorded format was different and incompatible.
Also, the early versions of Betacam were analogue, not digital (though later on with digital audio). It was only in the 90s that Digital Betacam came out.
Sitcoms and many 'dramas' such as STNG were beta only with some being a mix (like STNG). [..] For stuff where they had many outdoor shots it was usually 35mm as the lighting was better for real film.
The main footage for ST:TNG was shot entirely on film, though like most late-80s/90s shows it was transferred to video for editing (which is why the quality still sucks). It's only some of the effects work that was "native" video (see my comment here for more details).
Natively-shot analogue video has a very different look to film-sourced material. The "piebald" mixture you describe, i.e. studio footage done on video and location footage on film, was quite common on the BBC well into the 80s, but not common on decent-budget American dramas. (*)
The whole industry started going digital only in the late 60s .
Okay, now I know for sure you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Even digital audio only existed in labs in the late 60s. (It wasn't until the late 70s that expensive-as-hell digital audio recording equipment started being sold to professionals).
Digital *video* (a much more difficult proposition) sure as hell didn't exist in any meaningful form then. To suggest that it was even in professional use back then is nonsense... to state that the industry "started going digital only" at the time demonstrates your complete and utter ignorance.
(why we are missing 90 early 1960s era episodes of dr who)
Er, given that digital video didn't exist then, it's quite clear you're talking out of your arse. Those are missing because the (then-very-expensive) *analogue* video tapes were reused and the BBC didn't think they had enough reuse or archival value to be worth keeping. (Those that survive only remain via film copies of the original video footage; film back then was much cheaper).
(*) Not so sure about soaps and sitcoms; many of those were shot entirely on video, but earlier ones may have used film for location footage(?)
Which was ironically shot on 35mm film and would just need to be re-edited to be released in 4K. Just look at Star Trek or Seinfeld in HD.
Just because something was shot on film (which *happens to be* capable of holding far more detail than was visible on the original SD transmissions) doesn't mean it was made with HD- let alone 4K- in mind.
This matters because HD is more than just the recording medium. Sets, makeup, et al have to be of a much higher standard than for SD. For example, when the BBC switched one of their most popular programmes, EastEnders, into HD, they had to redesign the "Queen Vic" set because the flaws in the original showed up more obviously.
Now, I'm pretty sure that the original Star Trek was never made with HD in mind. Even a (relatively) big TV production like Star Trek would have had relatively tight constraints on the budget (compared to cinema movies), and I'm pretty sure they weren't going to waste money on (e.g.) set detailing and makeup that was never going to be visible on the SD transmissions of the day.
There were likely good reasons for shooting on film- primarily, I assume for the aesthetic value, since even transmitted as an SD television picture it looks very different to natively-shot video footage. But I'm sure that the fact it happened to be capable of resolving far higher levels of detail was almost certainly a side-effect.
This matters because any *anything* that wasn't done to HD standard runs the risk of showing up flaws. And it raises the question as to whether viewing Star Trek in more detail than was ever planned for by the original makers is actually doing it a disservice or is actually "faithful" to the original.
On the other hand, shows from the 90's and 2K's are shot on digital at a much lower resolution.
I don't know for sure, but AFAIK most late 80s and 90s shows were film-sourced then edited on video (analogue or otherwise). I assume that "true" digital only started becoming commonplace for source footage after the millennium or so?
It should also be noted that while some shot-on-film-but-edited-and-mastered-on-video shows (which became standard from the late 80s onwards) could be re-edited from the source footage if it's still available, some shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation created the effects at the video stage. Some- AFAIK- were built from film sources, but would still have to be re-composited, etc. and others AFAIK were done natively on video and thus never existed as anything other than craptastic SD NTSC video. The latter would look dire in HD, no matter how good the rescaling, so will have to be redone- which AFAIK is what they're doing for the HD ST:TNG.
[stuff ending with] What an idiot.
Well, yeah. Also he said
Me, I will continue to use the cloud, because really, what other choice do I have? Carry a thumb drive with me 24/7? Been there, done that.
And what *was* the problem with that exactly?
I have a Crucial Gizmo Jr. 8GB pen drive that I bought almost 5 years ago. It's about the size of a slightly short stick of chewing gum, and less than twice the thickness (around 2mm). It stays in my wallet all the time.
If I was paranoid about the data on it, I'm sure I could use some form of encryption. Minor inconvenience, sure, but when you're saying "what other choice do I have?" it's not that big a deal.
Your mother is a whore.
Beavis: "She's not a whore, she's a slut, she doesn't charge for it"
He didn't "hit a nerve".
Certainly came across that way to me!
But that doesn't mean one should let his kind of bogus and stupid comment just pass.
If you have something equally sharp or cutting... or if you have something clever or insightful to say, then by all means, respond.
OTOH, if your response makes you look worse than it would have done if you'd said nothing... then yes, you probably should have let it pass.
People need to understand that libertarians are here, we are a sizable force, and you better deal with us by making smart comments
You really do come across as an angry and humourless adolescent, both arrogant and insecure in your ludicrous demands that "[we] better deal with [you] by making smart comments".
Frankly, while I'm not a Libertarian personally, I'm sure that most of those who say they *are* on Slashdot would be embarassed to be associated with that.
You have remarkable sense of entitlement to "smart" discussion for someone whose attacks consist of intentionally misunderstanding jokes.
instead of the bullshit that people like Nimey and you post.
Firstly, I said nothing about libertarianism itself in this thread (go back and check).
(You'll note that I didn't even endorse the joke or the underlying argument per se; the only relevance was that it was clearly *meant* to be a joke).
I did, however, criticise the disingenuousness of your comeback to an obvious joke.
This reflects something I've encountered quite a number of times on Slashdot (the last being just five days ago). It's where some people assume that if you criticise or disagree with a *specific* aspect of their argument (or worse- as in your case- when what they're being called out on has nothing to do with the argument subject per se) then it's fair to ascribe to that person *all* views that they disagree with.
In short, they interpret a criticism of something they said or did personally (e.g. your use of feigned obtuseness to respond to a joke) into a general attack on what they believe in (e.g. a general attack on Libertarianism). And then start to get self-righteous and "knight in shining armour" in their "defence" of that belief.
I'm not a psychologist, but I'm guessing there's probably some defensive mechanism in interpreting something that's clearly a criticism of something they said personally in this way; it avoids addressing the criticism, avoids addressing the fact it was personal (something people don't like) and turns them from the target of legitimate criticism into the feelgood defender of whatever the belief is (even if that belief wasn't actually being attacked).
Anyway, this is getting a bit longwinded. So I'll end by saying how upset I was to notice that you'd added me to your list of foes. *cough*
And they understand that a "joke" needs to be humorous, which that lame and repetitive dig at libertarianism wasn't.
Yes, but you understood that it was clearly *meant* as a joke (as we all did), whether or not you thought it was funny. Which makes the "pretend the joke was meant seriously and attack the OP on that basis" lame, childish and downright pointless.
And Nimey in particular is nothing more than an uneducated lout.
There was nothing in his comment to suggest he was "uneducated". On the contrary, it sounds like you just don't like the fact he disagreed wtih you regarding libertarianism and he hit a nerve with that comment.
I'm sorry you're so uneducated that you think libertarianism is a religion.
Most of us understand that the was making fun of libertarianism (whether or not we agreed with the underlying point being made). This is generally known as a "joke".
Either you genuinely didn't understand it was a joke and thought he actually believed that thought libertarianism was a religion... or you were being wilfully obtuse in taking it literally, purely for the sake of making a smartass comeback.
Unfortunately, like most comebacks to jokes that try to make the other person look "uneducated" by using intentionally obtuse or literal interpretations, this only makes the other person look bad if the majority of the readership really *are* as dim as the respondent is *pretending* to be... which is rarely the case.
It depends on what you mean by "privatization".
It means that the Tories are trying to achieve privatisation of the NHS in England- something they couldn't get away with doing directly, but are desparate to do- by the back door, drip by drip. Of course, like the Royal Mail selloff of the family silver (at a transparently undervalued price) that the majority of people in the UK opposed- the reason is Tory dogma and enriching their chums in the city.
Given free reign, I suspect they'd end up with a health system somewhat akin to the American one- pseudo free market, many times more expensive than comparable services in other countries that aren't in hock to "free" market dogma and corporate interests, ruinous for anyone that gets seriously ill who isn't lucky enough to have decent health insurance with their job, etc.
Not saying that the NHS is perfect, but I'll take it over that any day. And while the Tories sometimes make arguments that might sound reasonable and sensible on paper to an unenlightened observer, anyone with experience of them knows the underlying "dog whistle" pandering to the base and how they show their true colours when push comes to shove.
Up to 1,200 needless deaths, patients abused, staff bullied to meet targets... yet a secret inquiry into failing hospital says no one's to blame [dailymail.co.uk]
Yeah, I'm not saying that there's no some truth in there, but I'd want to get the story from a more trustworthy source than the blatantly partisan, fact-skewing, lying-by-omission, wouldn't-trust-them-as-far-as-I-could-throw-them Daily Mail.
treacle, blood pudding, and clotted cream biscuits are much better than anything over here. We eat pure shit compared to the delicacies to be had in your dusty corner for the world.
Seriously, if you mean black treacle- it has a stronger taste than the golden variety, and I wasn't a big fan as a kid, but it's quite nice as an ingredient. Black pudding? Haven't eaten it for years, but I'd put it in my mouth. Clotted cream? Method of thickening cream by slightly cooking it- never tried it, but can't be that bad.
:'-(
So what have the Americans got? Skip this if you're eating lunch... One of the most genuinely unpleasant sounding- and looking- "delicacies" I've ever heard of, but fortunately never tasted. Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you... canned pork brains in milk gravy.
Yeah... I think it's going to take a lot to "improve" upon that.
Pretty sociopathic to suggest someone should be killed over words.
Where did I suggest she should be killed? I suggested she should kill herself.
That's not a denial that you have some mental health issues that need to be addressed.
I'd assumed that you were making that "diagnosis" in good (if misguided) faith, rather than using it as an excuse for a veiled attack. My mistake.
I was trying to show you that the "harsh justice" approach taken with young teenage and preteen girls sounds crazy
Ah, I see- clearly you didn't make your point very well, then.
Obviously it didn't work since you followed up with "Perhaps the dead girl really *did* do something that warranted that behaviour..."
That was a reflection of what *you'd* apparently said- I didn't think that was very likely myself, on the contrary I thought it was pretty implausible, hence "I really doubt it".
Regardless of whether the parents are to blame
No. You cannot simply dismiss the role of the primary caregiver like that.
I should have been clearer there; I'm saying that the parents might or might not share responsibility for what their children became, but it doesn't excuse their offspring. A significant number of sociopathic individuals who went on to commit terrible crimes had horrendous upbringings. Does that absolve them from responsibility for their own actions? No.
I'm sorry, but advocating a sociopathic solution to sociopathy earns you zero points in my book.
That's okay; I certainly wasn't competing for them(!)
As for that old "just as bad as them" chestnut that you imply by calling it a "sociopathic solution"- well, I have to disagree. There are lots of punishments that would be terrible if applied to someone who had done nothing to deserve them (e.g. prison- being held against one's will for an extended period of time is A Very Bad Thing, surely?)
Was I suggesting that courts should actually be able to award a punishment like that? No. Do I think that's what she *deserves*? Yes.
This is evidence of a deep-seated need for vengance on your part, which in turn comes from personal insecurities about yourself. Likely, the source of this is bullying in your own past and a projection of those negative feelings onto these children.
You made some interesting points- even if I didn't agree with them all- but you lost it here when you start delivering pat psychological diagnoses on the basis of an Internet post.
There is only one appropriate outcome here
What one deems "appropriate" is a matter of opinion.
Doing the best we can to rehabilitate the survivors
"Survivors" is an... *interesting* choice of word. It implies a level of equality between those involved that seems somewhat strange and inappropriate here- rather like referring to the mugger of someone who dies in the process as a "survivor" of that mugging(!)
Then again, this may reflect your empathy with the perpetrators when you comment that...
it's just as likely, if not moreso, that they are also victims
You'll forgive me if my utter lack of sympathy for the 14-year-old "survivor" kicked in long ago.
Or how about we take her out to the desert and stone her? You know, like they do in some of those countries.
I don't think that would be a good idea. My suggestion- which wasn't intended as a judicial punishment, and didn't claim to be- was nevertheless what I felt would be the most appropriate thing to happen to the sociopathic bullying excuse for a human being.
Your idea, on the other hand, sounds like the barbaric treatment given to adulterers in backward religious countries... oh *wait*! I see... tee hee, you're clever. You weren't really advocating that, you were just trying to insinuate in a weaselish manner that you thought my views were equally barbaric, without actually making your case.
What is appalling about people like you, 'Dogtanian', is that you are cowardly enough to beat up on children for behaviour you PRAISE in adults.
Hmm. I really don't recall saying of those things I allegedly endorse. I must have been very, *very* drunk at the time.
Or maybe you just felt free to shovel great masses of alleged opinions into my mouth because I'm a proxy for America.
America almost universally praises its genocidal butchers in UNIFORM as heroes [..] When this happens, people like 'Dogtanian' applauds the system
Sorry, I thought I was applauding the Rolling Stones tribute band that was playing that night, but I inadvertantly faced the wrong way and applauded the Republican convention.
that not only allows so many men and women to get away with the worst forms of Crimes against Humanity unpunished, but encourages them to rejoice in their crimes forever afterwards. [..] cowards like Dogtanian attack them and label them with the moral deficiencies they themselves have. [..] The USA is almost unique on the planet in having a "blame the child" mentality. The USA is one of the tiny number of countries on the planet that executes children and disabled people. The USA is almost unique in REFUSING to sign UN conventions giving children RIGHTS. The USA is unique amongst nations of the West in allowing children to be subject to BDSM rape at school disguised as corporal punishment. The USA is almost unique in allowing parents to kidnap their 17-year-old daughters, and force them into extremely abusive facilities where they can be stripped and examined against their will, forced into nappies, monitored as they use the toilet, with no justification other than this is what the parents desire (you think I exaggerate- go Google 'Hephzibah House', a facility still running today where ALL these things happened).
Sorry; when I signed that petition, I was assured it was just something about providing mittens for kittens. I knew it looked a bit long. Also, I'm afraid that I was very, very drunk.
But seriously... glad to have been a nice little whipping boy / strawman to let you get that rant out of your system.
If you actually want my opinion, I'm just as disgusted by much of that stuff as you are. (Much as it pains me to "agree" with you). I just happen to have a low tolerance for sociopathic bullies that push people into killing themselves- picky, I know- and something of a desire to see them get back exactly what they dished out.
You're the purest example of someone who- faced with another person who says something they don't entirely agree with- feels free to ascribe any and all opinions held by *all* his/her enemies to that person, regardless of the evidence, and do so in the most sanctimonious, self-righteous manner. I've come across several on Slashdot, but you're certainly the worst.
People like 'Dogtanian' show why America is so sick.
Know what's actually funny? After that anti-American rant, I have to tell you... I'm not actually American. Never even been there.
:-P
I think at this point, I'm entitled to say... you utter fuckwit.
Well you are suggesting that people harass a 12 year old girl and a 14 year old girl until they kill themselves.
The 14-year-old one at least, if the evidence as reported is correct.
When do we put the dead girl on trial so that we can determine whether these girls did a service to the world in getting her to kill herself, like you're suggesting?
Not sure what point this borderline smartassery is trying to make. Is there any evidence that the dead girl behaved in a way that would have justified their behaviour towards her?
Though I do agree we should wait for the trial to see if the 14-year-old has her own explanation and/or justification for events that- as presented here- make her come across as utterly worthless, sociopathic vermin that deserves everything she was happy to dole out to others. Perhaps the dead girl really *did* do something that warranted that behaviour- I really doubt it, but we'll see.
You go on about other people being sociopaths, then you say she should be harassed and then kill herself. Idiot.
Yep, bang on cue comes the predictable (*) smug, sanctimonious "you're just as much of a sociopath as she is" response. Which is bullshit, because...
You're exactly like this girl.
...so let me guess, because kidnapping and detaining someone is bad, locking someone convicted of a crime in prison is just as bad, right?
Being "exactly like this girl" would involve picking on some arbitrary innocent person and bullying them into killing themselves. As opposed to a unrepentantly sociopathic bitch who'd bullied someone into killing themselves being given the same merciless treatment they were happy to mete out. That's justice.
Frankly, the dead girl did nothing to deserve her treatment- this one deserves worse.
(*) I'd half expected this and considered posting a pre-emption, but I'm already longwinded enough and it would have been a distraction.
In Internet shorthand it began “Yes, ik” — I know — “I bullied Rebecca nd she killed herself.” The writer concluded that she didn’t care, using an obscenity to make the point and a heart as a perverse flourish.
...suggesting a blatantly sociopathic personality and the likelihood that it was far more than just "teasing" in the first place.
The "coping skills" you advocate would- in this case- consist of figuring out a way of ruining the evil bitch's life.
Children are sociopaths until they learn better / their frontal lobes finish developing. It's the parents who are at fault here.
Two year olds are sociopaths. Fourteen year olds shouldn't be- they can sometimes be stereotypically *insensitive* due to their brains still developing, but that's absolutely nothing like this.
The fact that she made comments like that even *after* the girl died (due to their bullying) indicates pure sociopathy. 14 (or even 12) is easily old enough to know right from wrong, whether or not they feel guilty about it. Regardless of whether the parents are to blame for not bringing them up with any sense of morality or empathy, they're easily old enough to accept (or made to accept) responsibility for what was done.
The most appropriate outcome in this case would be for that girl's actions to be widely publicised and for her to be subjected to endless harassment, abuse and ostracism for the rest of her life, until she does the decent thing (*) and kills herself.
(*) Albeit for purely selfish reasons- but you can't teach empathy.