Sounds like that sort of policy is just the type of thing to push a crazy student over the edge...
I'm Canadian, I remember that around here in the early post-Columbine days that people (both staff and students) were really nice to me. I didn't even know about what had happened in Columbine until somebody explains why most of the jerks who normally picked on me were suddenly acting so oddly..
Actually, I hardly watch TV at all. I haven't subscribed to any programming for about the last five years, and just recently bought some rabbit-ears:-)
But it is the RIAA we're talking about, and I wouldn't put it past them to use verbal trickery in order to confuse a witness into incriminating himself/herself or somebody else.
I seem to remember there being some rules that basically prohibited spouses from being required to testify against one another (although they could so voluntarily). That might be a local one (Canadian) though, but I though the US had something similar.
If such rules exist, then I would imagine that a similar protection might exist for young children in that the should not be compelled to bear witness against their parents/guardians. This would be especially important and it would be rather emotionally traumatizing for a child, and as it stands lawyers are good enough at manipulating words to dance legal circles around confused adult witnesses, let along children.
A better way might be to track the ability of incoming students during their first semester. For example, if students from high school X had an average of C- in IT courses during their first college semester, but students from school Y had an average of a B+/A, then school Y gets a rank of 9/10, while school X gets a rank of 6/10.
Then, you take the students' grades, say a B- in IT-related courses, and give that a score, say 7.5/10.
Combine the two, so that you get 16.5/20 for a student of Y, but only 13.5 for a student of X.
Then, you might set the admittance standard so that entries with a higher score take precedence. Entries can be re-evaluated each intake, and then "school scores" recalculated.
Good students in schools with a lower-standard of education will still get in, while medium-students of a better school might also get in. That puts both school's students on hopefully about the same level, while knocking out the midline students of schools that have a "just pass 'em through" policy.
It also depends on the cost of portability. While the 360 and PS3 are similar in capabilities, the Wii might lack a bit in power for some games. Alternately, WiiMote games wouldn't port well to Xbox/PS3
In theory, a game heavily optimized for either the 360 or PS3 might also be a little time (and time==$$$) consuming to port.
I'd say it's more like calling black or white colors. In many cases, it may be more convenient to do so, but in actuality atheism is to religion as black is to color (that is to say, both tend towards being the lack of a particular value, or null-value).
I would wonder how this test would work on creatures (or humans) reared from birth in a high-grav environment. I'd imagine that there may be some extra complications to being pregnant if one was initially low-grav native (although perhaps less if they started in high from a young age), but if a child were born and existed from day-1 under high-grav, he/she might very well have normal motor abilities and activities levels. It would also likely follow with the concept that many sci-fi books put forth (Niven/Weber/etc) wherein those natively frow hi-grav planets would end up with compensatory muscular/skeletal structures and possibly even other evolutionary differences over time. This would mean that on Earth, they would be damn strong - or at least rather solid - in comparison to the locals.
promising in return a cut of any winnings stemming from the lawsuit
I really have to wonder how this is legal. Yes, I'm sure it is (lots of stupid things are), but a business based entirely on the principal of suing others seems to be a flagrant abuse of the court system. In fact, I wonder if that would be strong grounds for having cases dismissed, as defendants could argue that the plaintiff and it's patents exist not for any purpose of enriching society, but strictly for the purpose of restricting the growth that patents were supposed to promote. Didn't the judge in some recent RIAA cases basically state that the intent of the system was, in fact, being circumvented?
And to clarify, having a business based on suing people is a bit different from being a lawyer, etc. The lawyers exist as intermediaries to provide legal support, but do not actually make claims themselves (unless defamed/libelled/etc), so while their business is based around lawsuits, they are based around others' lawsuits which may, in fact, have solid foundation.
My own background is in mixed-environment linux/windows (except Vista) based systems. Generally linux servers and either windows 9x/XP clients, or linux thin-client (LTSP). All the usual server stuff applies here, firewalls (iptables/etc), proxies, DNS servers, as well as a a fair bit of back-end scripting and automation where possible.
I tend to be one of those guys that's fast on my feet (if I don't know the solution, I'll damned well find it out rather than BS'ing), and I'm always messing around with some new project or other on my own as well. My current job tends to be fairly independent of supervision (I think our last meeting was about 3 months ago) but I deal with a lot of people and travel our different sites (school district).
Oh, and as goes with a school-district type job, one tends to become somewhat of a master in "making shit work" in situations where expensive hardware isn't always an option and budgets are a definitive limit.
If you want to contact me back, my email username and.com domain are both "phormix", I'll leave it at that to avoid the evil spambots harvesting my address as they seem to quite like snarfing addresses from/.
Well, my home-city isn't particularly large. There's no Fry's or well-known name, but there are a few locally run computer shops that do well enough. Heck, even when I lived in a crappy little town (yes town, not big enough to qualify as a city) there was at least one computer place that could put shit together, and the next city was only a 45min trip away.
Finding a shop that's semi-local and knows how to put shit together isn't incredible hard in most places.
Neither of those brands are known for being good at gaming. You want a good PC built by somebody else, for $50-100 the local shop will give you some advice on what you want, and put it together. It'll also net you a better warranty than the one you build yourself (3 years regardless of manufacturer warranty), so it's not a bad deal in my book. As somebody who used to build systems, I'm inclined to have it built for me just for the warranty-extension.
My microwave costs less than my television, but requires more power to work (better breaker, at least). My stove may or may not cost more, but it requires a 210V input. Just because one costs more doesn't mean it requires more power
Besides, there are plenty of expensive things that cost more than your accounting package and require more power than either it, or games. High-end rendering software, graphics software, etc. Stuff in the realm of CAD or the stuff used to build/compile those nifty console games is generally run on higher-end PC's. Rendering high-CG movies takes multiple machines.
It has nothing to do with cost, it's all about the amount of complexity of the software. And yes, that $50 game might be more complex than your $500 accounting package. It might also be less-well tested, but it's probably also selling to a lot more people. Chances are also that more people will be buying the game - which means the cost can be less - or at least the game developer would hope so.
I believe this is the same bill that has been tabled many times by various MPs of various parties. Chris Axworthy (NDP) tabled Bill C-396 in 1997 and Peter Stoffer (NDP) introduced Bill C-234 in 2002.
This is something I've noticed as well. The same bullshit gets brought up repeatedly, and shot down. This is particularly true of internet censorship/monitoring laws, and those in regards to copyright issues.
Sometimes bad laws even sneak through, but are shot down in the courts. But regardless of how they die, like a hydro they always seem to get re-introduced.
Is there anything that could be done, or rules/laws in place that state when a particular bill/law/whatever is killed, it will stay dead for good (or at least for a defined period of time)? Having to kill them off constantly is a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
From what I read in some of the linked articles, in many cases it wasn't so much a case that stolen card numbers were used, but rather that the portal/payment access site processed payments for merchants both legal and illegal (but if you were found with a payment, it was assumed to be illegal). At least according to the PC Pro Mag link from the wiki entry
For example, let's say that they found that a paypal account was used to sell illegal pornography. The smart thing to do would be to determine which goods sold were illegal, and if possible follow up on the buyers. What seems to have been done, instead, was to go after EVERYONE who bought from the seller, whether the purchase turned out to be for fuzzy bunny slippers or underage smut.
Unfortunately, these type of charges, and the revulsion the instill, tend to inspire an automatic assumption of guilt coupled with overzealous prosecution and an lack of desire to delve too far into the evidence (after all, if there are illegal images, who would want to be the one that has to sort through them all). What I really can't understand is that while the actions against the assumed purchasers of said material were rapid and heavy, the providers of the material were left fairly untouched.
Maybe it's just my point of view, but I'd imagine that the sellers of this variety material - especially those with enough resources to start a full payment network - would be much less than the seekers. However, it's easier for the police to leave those that actual peddle in and commit atrocious acts active, as it allows them to dragnet all the possible users. Bust the drug addicts and leave the dealers?
Well, one of the reasons that a "serious" alternative is not so much necessary is that a linux version of flash exists... although one could definitely comment on the lack of cross-architecture (AMD64) support.
I'm assuming that you or somebody close to you falls into one of those groups. Why should bullying of gays be any worse than bullying of nerds, hicks, or whatever else? Do you think that being non-gay it's any less damaging?
I fell into the former category (nerd). I can tell you that it's a hard one to escape from. People treat you like shit, so you avoid people. This in turn leads to underdeveloped social skills, which in turns means that... well, you don't handle people well, and the cycle repeats. Luckily for me, I ended up with a girlfriend out-of-town, and learned to get along with women and afterwards people in general, but it was to the point that I wouldn't meet any friends locally, because I was unpopular not only in my own school but even in others (friends of friends). And yes, some people called me gay (I'm not, and I doubt anyone really believe that), so I get the crap-end of that treatment as well.
So tell me, just because I was non-gay, did the bruises heal faster? Do the scars on the back of my head not matter, because I was beaten for being a nerd rather than a homosexual?
Perhaps the issue at hand is not homophobia but that people of a particular group automatically assign themselves an extra persecution-complex as members of that group. There were guys who were pretty obviously gay in school, they didn't really get treated that badly other than a few offhand remarks (no beatings). I work in a school system now, and from what I've seen it looks like issues dealing with either sexual-orientation or racial roots tend to get extra attention... nowhere wants to look anti-gay or anti-[insert race here].
In the end, part of the problem is that there's only so much that can be done, and there's a definitely lack of training in the things that can be done. A school can kick a kid out, but that doesn't stop outside harassment, and the kid doesn't really learn anything because frankly half the time anyhow he (or she) doesn't want to be in school anyways. If it ends up with the parents... well more than half the time there the parents are part of the problem: they're anti-gay, racist, arrogant, or just have this ingrained belief that their children cannot be in the wrong.
I'm not saying that gays do not get discriminated at, but I'm sick and bloody tired of hearing how they're a special case. There's a line between being recognized and being obnoxious, and many people cross it nowadays.
And before you flame me: my cousin is gay, one of my best friends was gay (I've moved so we're not so much in touch anymore), and I've no problem with anyone with any orientation (or even extraordinary combinations of genitalia) so long as they aren't shoving it in my face. Personally, I don't need to know if a particular person is gay or straight. If that person is getting picked on, then the aggressors should be dealt with regardless of that particular criterium. Maybe one of the reasons administrators tread so carefully is because as an issue arises, there are people like you jumping up and down yelling "gay persecution" "anti-homosexualism" "discrimination"... and nobody wants that particular label either.
You're right there... the parents wouldn't be able to claim that due to the short duration of time and/or no actual loss of income.
However, with the potential of a criminal record looming due to police mishandling, I wonder if he could sue for lost potential income? I know that if you're injured that you can do so at times, and both a potential criminal record and a police record (*EVERYTHING* goes on a police record, even if you aren't found guilty of anything, so that one might stick around) are detriments when it comes to finding a job etc.
Was this incident worse than others. If so, what contributed to that, and can we do anything to reduce both the possibility and impact of a future incident?
I was in school when Columbine happened. I remember people being really nice to me, and I couldn't figure out why until Iheard about the event later. Apparently - as most people generally made strong efforts to make my life unpleasant - they believed that I might be capable of a similar episode.
I've never understood this. Yes, in my younger days I was unhappy, unpopular, and played a fair bit of games such as doom/quake/etc. Now that I'm older I still enjoy such things in addition to paintball, airsoft, etc.
However, rather than seeking revenge at the end of a firearm, I've always been of the mind that I would rather work hard, better myself, and prove myself to not be the type of loser other always made me out to be.
At this point I've got a house (well, with a mortgage), rather new car (paid off), and a decent job. Still working on the wife & kids angle but I'll attribute that more to not wanting to get hitched/settled-down simply because I'm tired of searching (as opposed to finding the right person).
I've got my 10-year-grad coming up in a few years... and indications are that I'm already doing a fair bit better than most of those who used to look down upon me. I know for sure that when I run into various girls from school they seem to be a lot friendlier towards me nowadays, although again part of this I must attribute to having also improved my own social tendencies.
To those that may be reading. Going berserk only in some ways proves what others may have said to put you down. It doesn't make you a hero, and everyone will remember you not only as a loser but as a psycho. It might be hard, but do your damndest to make something of your life, and if you must hold something in the face of your enemies, show up with a success story to compare to others' McDonalds jobs. I will guarantee you that at least a good portion of those who spend their younger lives looking down on others weren't doing much productive with their own lives.
The hard, awkward times do pass. Sure, there will still be hard times in the future, but you can find them mixed with a sense of accomplishment and success as well.
Hmm, well since he's a minor, would it be possible for one of his parents (or better, both) to be able to sue for their son? Assuming an income of 30-50k, an individual parent could sue for 60-100k or both for 120-200k
That might make the cops take notice a little bit more.
Enforced advertisements are shit. I recently rented the "Man of the Year" DVD only to be forced to watch a long narrative about how wonderful HD-DVD is going to be, followed by forced-previews. To add insult to injury, I only watched half the first night and had to sit through the f*cking ads a second time before I could watch the rest.
I don't hate ads though, just being forced to watch them (especially ads that suck). Hell, I have several hundred megs of downloaded advertisements... the ones that are actually quite funny/amusing. Every now and then I shared them with my friends.
I also had somebody recently show me a clip of some type of "ad awards." It's about 1h30 long, and it's *all* ads. I only had time to catch about 30 minutes of it, but I just about wet myself laughing at some of the better ones
The solution here is not to make ads the consumer can't skip... that just pisses the consumer of. The solution is to make ads that the consumer *WANTS* to watch... the type that has somebody yelling across the room "hey Bob, get back here quick, that new Bud Light commercial I was telling you about is coming on"
(JHawk111420) Hey whats up, a/s/l?
(Lady Renegade) more than you want, I'm sure:)
(JHawk111420) ill take that as a challenge;-)
(Lady Renegade) take it any way you want sweetie
(JHawk111420) k, how old are ya?
(Lady Renegade) probably too old for you, but let's pretend I'm 20;)
(JHawk111420) k, what do ya look like?
(Lady Renegade) before or after I'm dressed up?
(JHawk111420) both:-D
(Lady Renegade) well......after I'm dressed up, I have long sexy red hair, nails painted red to match the slinky dress I have on, stiletto heels, pouty lips, green eyes, boobs out to here, and a smile that stops traffic
(JHawk111420) and before your dressed up?
(Lady Renegade) before I'm dressed up, I'm bald and wearing boxers...sometimes my weenie is peeking out
(Lady Renegade) hello?
(Lady Renegade) hello?
(Lady Renegade) hello....
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like that sort of policy is just the type of thing to push a crazy student over the edge...
I'm Canadian, I remember that around here in the early post-Columbine days that people (both staff and students) were really nice to me. I didn't even know about what had happened in Columbine until somebody explains why most of the jerks who normally picked on me were suddenly acting so oddly..
Back in those days... people were willing to band together and fight against such things...
Actually, I hardly watch TV at all. I haven't subscribed to any programming for about the last five years, and just recently bought some rabbit-ears :-)
But it is the RIAA we're talking about, and I wouldn't put it past them to use verbal trickery in order to confuse a witness into incriminating himself/herself or somebody else.
I seem to remember there being some rules that basically prohibited spouses from being required to testify against one another (although they could so voluntarily). That might be a local one (Canadian) though, but I though the US had something similar.
If such rules exist, then I would imagine that a similar protection might exist for young children in that the should not be compelled to bear witness against their parents/guardians. This would be especially important and it would be rather emotionally traumatizing for a child, and as it stands lawyers are good enough at manipulating words to dance legal circles around confused adult witnesses, let along children.
A better way might be to track the ability of incoming students during their first semester. For example, if students from high school X had an average of C- in IT courses during their first college semester, but students from school Y had an average of a B+/A, then school Y gets a rank of 9/10, while school X gets a rank of 6/10.
Then, you take the students' grades, say a B- in IT-related courses, and give that a score, say 7.5/10.
Combine the two, so that you get 16.5/20 for a student of Y, but only 13.5 for a student of X.
Then, you might set the admittance standard so that entries with a higher score take precedence. Entries can be re-evaluated each intake, and then "school scores" recalculated.
Good students in schools with a lower-standard of education will still get in, while medium-students of a better school might also get in. That puts both school's students on hopefully about the same level, while knocking out the midline students of schools that have a "just pass 'em through" policy.
It also depends on the cost of portability. While the 360 and PS3 are similar in capabilities, the Wii might lack a bit in power for some games. Alternately, WiiMote games wouldn't port well to Xbox/PS3
In theory, a game heavily optimized for either the 360 or PS3 might also be a little time (and time==$$$) consuming to port.
I'd say it's more like calling black or white colors. In many cases, it may be more convenient to do so, but in actuality atheism is to religion as black is to color (that is to say, both tend towards being the lack of a particular value, or null-value).
I would wonder how this test would work on creatures (or humans) reared from birth in a high-grav environment. I'd imagine that there may be some extra complications to being pregnant if one was initially low-grav native (although perhaps less if they started in high from a young age), but if a child were born and existed from day-1 under high-grav, he/she might very well have normal motor abilities and activities levels. It would also likely follow with the concept that many sci-fi books put forth (Niven/Weber/etc) wherein those natively frow hi-grav planets would end up with compensatory muscular/skeletal structures and possibly even other evolutionary differences over time. This would mean that on Earth, they would be damn strong - or at least rather solid - in comparison to the locals.
promising in return a cut of any winnings stemming from the lawsuit
I really have to wonder how this is legal. Yes, I'm sure it is (lots of stupid things are), but a business based entirely on the principal of suing others seems to be a flagrant abuse of the court system. In fact, I wonder if that would be strong grounds for having cases dismissed, as defendants could argue that the plaintiff and it's patents exist not for any purpose of enriching society, but strictly for the purpose of restricting the growth that patents were supposed to promote. Didn't the judge in some recent RIAA cases basically state that the intent of the system was, in fact, being circumvented?
And to clarify, having a business based on suing people is a bit different from being a lawyer, etc. The lawyers exist as intermediaries to provide legal support, but do not actually make claims themselves (unless defamed/libelled/etc), so while their business is based around lawsuits, they are based around others' lawsuits which may, in fact, have solid foundation.
I think that of them all, my favorite quote was this
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
My own background is in mixed-environment linux/windows (except Vista) based systems. Generally linux servers and either windows 9x/XP clients, or linux thin-client (LTSP). All the usual server stuff applies here, firewalls (iptables/etc), proxies, DNS servers, as well as a a fair bit of back-end scripting and automation where possible.
.com domain are both "phormix", I'll leave it at that to avoid the evil spambots harvesting my address as they seem to quite like snarfing addresses from /.
I tend to be one of those guys that's fast on my feet (if I don't know the solution, I'll damned well find it out rather than BS'ing), and I'm always messing around with some new project or other on my own as well. My current job tends to be fairly independent of supervision (I think our last meeting was about 3 months ago) but I deal with a lot of people and travel our different sites (school district).
Oh, and as goes with a school-district type job, one tends to become somewhat of a master in "making shit work" in situations where expensive hardware isn't always an option and budgets are a definitive limit.
If you want to contact me back, my email username and
Well, my home-city isn't particularly large. There's no Fry's or well-known name, but there are a few locally run computer shops that do well enough. Heck, even when I lived in a crappy little town (yes town, not big enough to qualify as a city) there was at least one computer place that could put shit together, and the next city was only a 45min trip away.
Finding a shop that's semi-local and knows how to put shit together isn't incredible hard in most places.
One of my questions would be. Who out there is still hiring, what are the wages like, and who here on slashdot would be willing to sign up?
We take a lot of our technology for-granted. Bringing modern technology to a war-torn, outdated country could be both a dream and a nightmare.
Neither of those brands are known for being good at gaming. You want a good PC built by somebody else, for $50-100 the local shop will give you some advice on what you want, and put it together. It'll also net you a better warranty than the one you build yourself (3 years regardless of manufacturer warranty), so it's not a bad deal in my book. As somebody who used to build systems, I'm inclined to have it built for me just for the warranty-extension.
Why should dollars correspond to system power?
My microwave costs less than my television, but requires more power to work (better breaker, at least). My stove may or may not cost more, but it requires a 210V input. Just because one costs more doesn't mean it requires more power
Besides, there are plenty of expensive things that cost more than your accounting package and require more power than either it, or games. High-end rendering software, graphics software, etc. Stuff in the realm of CAD or the stuff used to build/compile those nifty console games is generally run on higher-end PC's. Rendering high-CG movies takes multiple machines.
It has nothing to do with cost, it's all about the amount of complexity of the software. And yes, that $50 game might be more complex than your $500 accounting package. It might also be less-well tested, but it's probably also selling to a lot more people. Chances are also that more people will be buying the game - which means the cost can be less - or at least the game developer would hope so.
As per a comment under the actual article:
I believe this is the same bill that has been tabled many times by various MPs of various parties. Chris Axworthy (NDP) tabled Bill C-396 in 1997 and Peter Stoffer (NDP) introduced Bill C-234 in 2002.
This is something I've noticed as well. The same bullshit gets brought up repeatedly, and shot down. This is particularly true of internet censorship/monitoring laws, and those in regards to copyright issues.
Sometimes bad laws even sneak through, but are shot down in the courts. But regardless of how they die, like a hydro they always seem to get re-introduced.
Is there anything that could be done, or rules/laws in place that state when a particular bill/law/whatever is killed, it will stay dead for good (or at least for a defined period of time)? Having to kill them off constantly is a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
From what I read in some of the linked articles, in many cases it wasn't so much a case that stolen card numbers were used, but rather that the portal/payment access site processed payments for merchants both legal and illegal (but if you were found with a payment, it was assumed to be illegal). At least according to the PC Pro Mag link from the wiki entry
For example, let's say that they found that a paypal account was used to sell illegal pornography. The smart thing to do would be to determine which goods sold were illegal, and if possible follow up on the buyers. What seems to have been done, instead, was to go after EVERYONE who bought from the seller, whether the purchase turned out to be for fuzzy bunny slippers or underage smut.
Unfortunately, these type of charges, and the revulsion the instill, tend to inspire an automatic assumption of guilt coupled with overzealous prosecution and an lack of desire to delve too far into the evidence (after all, if there are illegal images, who would want to be the one that has to sort through them all). What I really can't understand is that while the actions against the assumed purchasers of said material were rapid and heavy, the providers of the material were left fairly untouched.
Maybe it's just my point of view, but I'd imagine that the sellers of this variety material - especially those with enough resources to start a full payment network - would be much less than the seekers. However, it's easier for the police to leave those that actual peddle in and commit atrocious acts active, as it allows them to dragnet all the possible users. Bust the drug addicts and leave the dealers?
Well, one of the reasons that a "serious" alternative is not so much necessary is that a linux version of flash exists... although one could definitely comment on the lack of cross-architecture (AMD64) support.
I'm assuming that you or somebody close to you falls into one of those groups. Why should bullying of gays be any worse than bullying of nerds, hicks, or whatever else? Do you think that being non-gay it's any less damaging?
... and nobody wants that particular label either.
I fell into the former category (nerd). I can tell you that it's a hard one to escape from. People treat you like shit, so you avoid people. This in turn leads to underdeveloped social skills, which in turns means that... well, you don't handle people well, and the cycle repeats. Luckily for me, I ended up with a girlfriend out-of-town, and learned to get along with women and afterwards people in general, but it was to the point that I wouldn't meet any friends locally, because I was unpopular not only in my own school but even in others (friends of friends). And yes, some people called me gay (I'm not, and I doubt anyone really believe that), so I get the crap-end of that treatment as well.
So tell me, just because I was non-gay, did the bruises heal faster? Do the scars on the back of my head not matter, because I was beaten for being a nerd rather than a homosexual?
Perhaps the issue at hand is not homophobia but that people of a particular group automatically assign themselves an extra persecution-complex as members of that group. There were guys who were pretty obviously gay in school, they didn't really get treated that badly other than a few offhand remarks (no beatings). I work in a school system now, and from what I've seen it looks like issues dealing with either sexual-orientation or racial roots tend to get extra attention... nowhere wants to look anti-gay or anti-[insert race here].
In the end, part of the problem is that there's only so much that can be done, and there's a definitely lack of training in the things that can be done. A school can kick a kid out, but that doesn't stop outside harassment, and the kid doesn't really learn anything because frankly half the time anyhow he (or she) doesn't want to be in school anyways. If it ends up with the parents... well more than half the time there the parents are part of the problem: they're anti-gay, racist, arrogant, or just have this ingrained belief that their children cannot be in the wrong.
I'm not saying that gays do not get discriminated at, but I'm sick and bloody tired of hearing how they're a special case. There's a line between being recognized and being obnoxious, and many people cross it nowadays.
And before you flame me: my cousin is gay, one of my best friends was gay (I've moved so we're not so much in touch anymore), and I've no problem with anyone with any orientation (or even extraordinary combinations of genitalia) so long as they aren't shoving it in my face. Personally, I don't need to know if a particular person is gay or straight. If that person is getting picked on, then the aggressors should be dealt with regardless of that particular criterium. Maybe one of the reasons administrators tread so carefully is because as an issue arises, there are people like you jumping up and down yelling "gay persecution" "anti-homosexualism" "discrimination"
You're right there... the parents wouldn't be able to claim that due to the short duration of time and/or no actual loss of income.
However, with the potential of a criminal record looming due to police mishandling, I wonder if he could sue for lost potential income? I know that if you're injured that you can do so at times, and both a potential criminal record and a police record (*EVERYTHING* goes on a police record, even if you aren't found guilty of anything, so that one might stick around) are detriments when it comes to finding a job etc.
It's comparative statistics.
Was this incident worse than others. If so, what contributed to that, and can we do anything to reduce both the possibility and impact of a future incident?
I was in school when Columbine happened. I remember people being really nice to me, and I couldn't figure out why until Iheard about the event later. Apparently - as most people generally made strong efforts to make my life unpleasant - they believed that I might be capable of a similar episode.
I've never understood this. Yes, in my younger days I was unhappy, unpopular, and played a fair bit of games such as doom/quake/etc. Now that I'm older I still enjoy such things in addition to paintball, airsoft, etc.
However, rather than seeking revenge at the end of a firearm, I've always been of the mind that I would rather work hard, better myself, and prove myself to not be the type of loser other always made me out to be.
At this point I've got a house (well, with a mortgage), rather new car (paid off), and a decent job. Still working on the wife & kids angle but I'll attribute that more to not wanting to get hitched/settled-down simply because I'm tired of searching (as opposed to finding the right person).
I've got my 10-year-grad coming up in a few years... and indications are that I'm already doing a fair bit better than most of those who used to look down upon me. I know for sure that when I run into various girls from school they seem to be a lot friendlier towards me nowadays, although again part of this I must attribute to having also improved my own social tendencies.
To those that may be reading. Going berserk only in some ways proves what others may have said to put you down. It doesn't make you a hero, and everyone will remember you not only as a loser but as a psycho. It might be hard, but do your damndest to make something of your life, and if you must hold something in the face of your enemies, show up with a success story to compare to others' McDonalds jobs. I will guarantee you that at least a good portion of those who spend their younger lives looking down on others weren't doing much productive with their own lives.
The hard, awkward times do pass. Sure, there will still be hard times in the future, but you can find them mixed with a sense of accomplishment and success as well.
Hmm, well since he's a minor, would it be possible for one of his parents (or better, both) to be able to sue for their son? Assuming an income of 30-50k, an individual parent could sue for 60-100k or both for 120-200k
That might make the cops take notice a little bit more.
Enforced advertisements are shit. I recently rented the "Man of the Year" DVD only to be forced to watch a long narrative about how wonderful HD-DVD is going to be, followed by forced-previews. To add insult to injury, I only watched half the first night and had to sit through the f*cking ads a second time before I could watch the rest.
I don't hate ads though, just being forced to watch them (especially ads that suck). Hell, I have several hundred megs of downloaded advertisements... the ones that are actually quite funny/amusing. Every now and then I shared them with my friends.
I also had somebody recently show me a clip of some type of "ad awards." It's about 1h30 long, and it's *all* ads. I only had time to catch about 30 minutes of it, but I just about wet myself laughing at some of the better ones
The solution here is not to make ads the consumer can't skip... that just pisses the consumer of. The solution is to make ads that the consumer *WANTS* to watch... the type that has somebody yelling across the room "hey Bob, get back here quick, that new Bud Light commercial I was telling you about is coming on"
From bash.org
:) ;-) ;) :-D ....
(JHawk111420) Hey whats up, a/s/l?
(Lady Renegade) more than you want, I'm sure
(JHawk111420) ill take that as a challenge
(Lady Renegade) take it any way you want sweetie
(JHawk111420) k, how old are ya?
(Lady Renegade) probably too old for you, but let's pretend I'm 20
(JHawk111420) k, what do ya look like?
(Lady Renegade) before or after I'm dressed up?
(JHawk111420) both
(Lady Renegade) well......after I'm dressed up, I have long sexy red hair, nails painted red to match the slinky dress I have on, stiletto heels, pouty lips, green eyes, boobs out to here, and a smile that stops traffic
(JHawk111420) and before your dressed up?
(Lady Renegade) before I'm dressed up, I'm bald and wearing boxers...sometimes my weenie is peeking out
(Lady Renegade) hello?
(Lady Renegade) hello?
(Lady Renegade) hello