But the tactile feedback of buckling springs is absolutely perfect. Also the nigh-invulnerability, the beverage-spill-drainage holes on later models, the resistance to stickage even after spills, the removable/cleanable keycaps, the correctly shaped enter key, lack of extraneous doo-dads, pretty much everything about them./hugs my Model M. Seriously, I really just did, because I love it so much. I also have one at home that I love. And they don't even mind, because Model Ms are secure in themselves and not prone to jealousy.
This is slashdot, not the kleenex factory. Take your whining and sniveling down the road, and please stop leaking bodily fluids on our floor. Shit happens, get over it.
Just a heads up from the guys at the kleenex factory, but they don't appreciate it either.
"Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us fall in love with the boootiful lady at the end of the bar."
So now if some TV show is filming a dangerous experiment near my house, I shouldn't be notified that my windows may explode unexpectedly? This public official needs to be fired. I'm all for the TV show, but public safety comes first... or at least it used to back in the day... now get off my grass!
They didn't expect it either. They did not think there was a safety issue, thus they did not warn about the safety issue they did not think existed. If they had thought there was a safety issue warranting warnings, they would have issued safety issue warnings. They had firemen on hand for the safety issues they did expect. They did not have firemen on hand for the issues they did not expect.
Let's see you bring Utah into the *20th* century, and hopefully the 21st by inertia of it all.
Well wait a minute, that's quite a bit of inertia you're talking about there, passing 2 centuries in less than one? What if that continues and then Utah is in the 22nd century before we've even left the 21st, and next thing you know Mormon colony ships are heading for Alpha Centauri while the rest of us are still trying to get a decent electric car.
I was curious how they migrate active network connections though. Does the old host act as a proxy/router? Can anyone shed some light?
Its been around 9 years since I did the project in college, but it is possible to transfer active network connection state from one computer to another. It was a "connection-aware seamless backup server", where our hacked linux kernels would exchange state about an active TCP/IP connection at regular intervals, and when the primary dropped (in our demo we yanked the ethernet cable out of the hub in the middle of streaming an mp3), the other would take over, pretending to be the same IP and picking up where the other left off. The best part was that TCP/IP already deals with redundant, missing, or out of order packets so anything sent or received since the last update to the backup would be handled automagically.
That was just as stupid semester project on a 3-computer ethernet LAN, but I imagine the big boys have figured out how to make it work. Besides, they're literally transfering the memory image of the guest OS over to the other machine so all the state update is already done. The hard part is probably making the IP migrate along with, but I'm sure they've figured that out too.
If you think you could force a 13 year old girl to expose her genitals to you, and not be run up on charges of sexual assault, you're fucking retarded. Because that's what it was, idiot.
All that means is that guerrilla warfare sucks for the guerrillas (and Vietnam certainly did... entire villages living in systems of tiny underground tunnels in the wet bug-infested ground of the jungle, shitting in bags, and dying at a rate 10-100x as much as the enemy force. That's pretty typical in asymmetric warfare, regardless of who the victor is.
Which is why I really think of revolution as a means of last resort. But history has shown that it can work.
The entire thing is ludicrous. There is nothing wrong with bringing prescription meds to school. If there is no reason to suspect that she is distributing the drugs, then they have no reason to search her. From the articles, it does not appear that they believed that to be the case.
Hell, they had no reason to think she had any "drugs"* on her at all except an ex-friend that had been found with "drugs" accused her of it. As I alluded to in my post, I've known some re-tarded school officials before but even they tended to be suspicious of students just spouting off trying to pass blame.
And even if they believed she was carrying and selling/distributing they could have ascertained if she had any on her with a simple pat down. There is zero reason to ever have to strip down naked to prove it. Going to that level is completely unreasonable.
Exactly. There is no official school business anti-drug-crusade justification for the search they did and I have a very hard time believing anyone, no matter how stupid, who was sincerely trying to work for the benefit of the school wouldn't realize this.
* Oh noes, ibuprofen! Can "Zero Tolerance" be limited to drugs with a potential for abuse? No? Didn't think so. If we exercise any Intelligence we might accidentally end up with some non-zero amount of Tolerance.
That's the crux of it. Put yourself in that position. Even with the same sex, asking a 13 year old to do that should make a normal adult terribly awkward at the very least and is why this incident should be prosecuted as a sex offense.
That bad judgement occurred with whatever superlatives you want to use is not in question.
There is more going on here than simple poor judgement. There was a reason they were emotionally committed to making that bad judgement call, and the most likely possibilities are all much worse than basic stupidity.
Keep in mind that the search was done by two female employees, a secretary and the school nurse, at the behest of the assistant principle, who was male. I believe what we are looking at here is a clear, real life example of a Milgram experiment.
You're a couple decades too late to sway me with the gender of the potential abusers. By now we all know women abuse too. They have women search girls because despite the fact of female abusers, anything else is blatantly inappropriate, and they have two there because having no official witnesses to an official stripping a student is blatantly inappropriate. Without this most basic CYA, they never would have had a chance to get away with this.
You are being too harsh. The two women who conducted the search are responsible for their actions, but the fact is they are probably also victims here. If you read the description of the search, they did not ask here to fully remove all her clothing, instead adopting half measures, which goes back to the probable lack of training. This leads me to believe that these women did feel guilty about what they were doing and this emerged through half measures in which their orders were fully followed, but the victim was not subjected to a "complete" strip search.
It's a flimsy excuse, but it does I think show reluctance on the part of the searchers. Whatever about the nurse, what was the secretary doing there? She probably came in that day to type letters and answer phone calls. What was she doing in that room?
"If you read" -- I described it in my post, dude! If they felt guilty about doing the search, they would have stopped when she was in her underwear and the girl obviously had no drugs on her and could sincerely say they had conducted the search and found nothing. No, what that means is that regardless of what was going on inside their heads, they were aware that there are boundaries they could not cross without getting in immediate and severe deep shit. If they had ordered the girl to strip naked entirely, or done a body cavity search, or anything like that, we wouldn't be having this conversation and the two of them would be on a registry. They did everything up to the completely unacceptable, and used "half measures" to try to achieve the same result. Their behavior is perfectly consistent with a predator trying to get away with as much as possible using the substantial but finite cover of official school business.
But hey maybe you're right, maybe it's the Principle who is the perv and the two bitches are just tools. I see no indication that the principle specifically ordered the pull-out-the-panties-and-check-her-bush part of the search, but hey maybe he did. Can you imagine him asking the nurse to assure him that she did in fact expose and check the girl's breasts and genitals? Fucking sick. Or maybe it was S.O.P. in this place, which again speaks to a much more significant problem than just poor judgement -- i.e. systematic abuse. I find myself wondering what exactly they did in other strip search cases, and what happens when it is a boy.
This incident shows incredibly poor judgment, and suggests that the morons involved got way too caught up in their "no drugs in school" policy, but it does not, in any way, indicate a likelihood of the perpetrators seeking to abuse children for sexual pleasure.
Oh I don't know about that. I'm not saying rush to prosecute them for sexual abuse... But at the point at which they have the girl alone, stripped to her skivvies, and then demand that she spread her legs and pull her underwear away from her body so that they could look down her panties, I begin to suspect that one or both of those bitches were getting off on it.
I have a hard time believing even the stupidest of school officials -- and not for lack of good examples -- would really think that after failing to find pills anywhere else that they'd find them stashed down the front of her panties. I find it 100% impossible that even the stupidest of school official in the 2000s wouldn't have blazing red warning alarms going off in their head at the thought of forcing a minor to expose her genitals. That they were doing what in any other context outside a doctor's office would have resulted in them being arrested for sex crimes. They can't possibly have been unaware of that. Nor could they have been unaware that they were humiliating the poor girl, even though the nurse says she never appeared embarrassed. Yeah fucking right! I don't buy it for a second. Even if they aren't kiddie-pervs, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, and these bitches sure lorded their power over the girl. Maybe making her expose herself was just their way of punishing her for thwarting them by not having drugs on her. I don't know, I just know that no normal person would think making the girl expose herself was a reasonable and entirely non-sexual execution of their duties.
Nor do I believe this was a unique case, because it was not an exceptional case. Someone accused someone else of having drugs, and the person didn't have an drugs in their locker, bags, or pockets, and there was no other reason to believe they had drugs but the accusation. Yeah bet that's never happened before.
Look, I don't know, I'm just saying this thing reeks to hell of something a lot worse than just poor judgement.
That's right. So stop spouting hollow truisms about costs of liberty that you personally don't have to pay. It's sanctimonious and hypocritical. It's like a general rallying his troops with "Give me liberty, or give me death!" only it's not revolutionary times, it's the modern era so the general is nowhere near the battle and not at risk at all.
The vast majority of homeless in my area are mentally ill. People in need of meds, and lots of CBT. Some are not. You can do very well in life and not be a thief. Really. Try it. You can have uncompromised morals, and lead a comparatively decent life, and still make money, still care for those around you.
Try it? Dude, I'm like you, well-heeled and thus able to maintain my integrity with minimal consequence. It's easy and trite to say that I'd rather go hungry than compromise my morals when that is not actually the choice I'm making, and it's insulting to those who do have to make that choice. Go and tell one of those mentally ill homeless people how they can do well in life without compromising their morals -- all they need is a healthy savings account and a multi-disciplinary skill set. Starting to see how out of touch that sounds, like "Let them eat cake"?
If you let corporate policy dictate your life to you, you're fucked and don't even know it. If they rule you, you're become enslaved by them, Abraham Lincoln aside. Think about that. Liberty is a very real thing.
Starvation is a very real thing for many people. So is having to do unsavory things to avoid it. Either keep this "personal" as in to yourself, or get off your high horse.
So the aphorism applies. Just because there is FOSS, doesn't mean that you can steal commercial software. Just because there are free MP3s, doesn't mean you can steal ones that are licensed. LIberation is a very personal act. Exercise it.
The wimpy and obvious version of the aphorism applies to you. The original version does not apply to you, as you've explained in great detail rebutting every argument suggesting that it might apply to you. You're right, liberation is a personal act. So instead of spouting empty aphorisms about the in your case purely rhetorical costs of liberty as though it should apply to everyone, why not just say that you personally will not abide an employer who breaks the law, and have the personal good fortune and foresight to be able to make that choice.
I'd rather eat from a food kitchen, thank you. I've donated to them, and perhaps I'll need them one day. So it goes.
Maybe ask some homeless people in your area if your donations have ensured that the soup kitchens always have soup, and then wonder what'll happen when a lot more people up to and including you are in line.
Though honestly, accepting your premise that you'll never have to go hungry really makes the problem with your original aphorism more obvious.
Let me put it a different way. The aphorism in question is: "Better to be free and hungry than fat and fucked up." But then you go on in further posts to say that you would not anticipate going hungry. So how does the aphorism stand when it doesn't even apply? "Better to be free and fed than fucked up and fed" is an obvious choice.
My aphorism still stands, and perhaps for many others.
Others... who can afford it. That's kinda the gist of what people are saying here. Yeah it's nice if it works for you, but go a week without food because you can't afford any and see if the aphorisms still seem relevant.
"It's ok, kids, we planned for events like this, and daddy's competency will get him employed by real people, rather than thieves, quickly".
There. Fixed. You capitulate so easily. No job is safe, no employer is safe. If you want to keep your family safe, save like dogs and don't spend like it's going out of style.
Things sound great when you assume your competency and frugality mean everything will work out your way and everything is in your control. Did you plan for the recession? How about a medical issue that would devour your savings like an hours devours when corporate-paid insurance runs out? I've got what I think is a great skill set, but I sure wouldn't look forward to job hunting in today's climate, and looking at the climbing unemployment numbers it doesn't look like it's getting better soon. I'm also quite frugal and have a nice pile of savings, but I'm not foolish enough to think this is proof against adversity. And like you I'm one of the damn lucky ones. Believe it or not, it is possible for a person to not be able "save like a dog" for reasons other than irresponsible lifestyles.
Slashdot Mirror
But the tactile feedback of buckling springs is absolutely perfect. Also the nigh-invulnerability, the beverage-spill-drainage holes on later models, the resistance to stickage even after spills, the removable/cleanable keycaps, the correctly shaped enter key, lack of extraneous doo-dads, pretty much everything about them. /hugs my Model M. Seriously, I really just did, because I love it so much. I also have one at home that I love. And they don't even mind, because Model Ms are secure in themselves and not prone to jealousy.
Yeah, philosopher poet is what I should have said.
This is slashdot, not the kleenex factory. Take your whining and sniveling down the road, and please stop leaking bodily fluids on our floor. Shit happens, get over it.
Just a heads up from the guys at the kleenex factory, but they don't appreciate it either.
Of all people, I didn't expect YOU to channel Donald Rumsfeld.
HA! Say what you will about the man's ability to run a military (as I have often and at length), but dude was a freaking philosopher. :)
Windows: Busted
I've been saying that for years, but finally Mythbusters gets around to proving it! Good for them!
"Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us fall in love with the boootiful lady at the end of the bar."
Ah, the vicious, wonderful cycle. =D
So now if some TV show is filming a dangerous experiment near my house, I shouldn't be notified that my windows may explode unexpectedly? This public official needs to be fired. I'm all for the TV show, but public safety comes first... or at least it used to back in the day... now get off my grass!
They didn't expect it either. They did not think there was a safety issue, thus they did not warn about the safety issue they did not think existed. If they had thought there was a safety issue warranting warnings, they would have issued safety issue warnings. They had firemen on hand for the safety issues they did expect. They did not have firemen on hand for the issues they did not expect.
What I'm saying is that it was unexpected.
Let's see you bring Utah into the *20th* century, and hopefully the 21st by inertia of it all.
Well wait a minute, that's quite a bit of inertia you're talking about there, passing 2 centuries in less than one? What if that continues and then Utah is in the 22nd century before we've even left the 21st, and next thing you know Mormon colony ships are heading for Alpha Centauri while the rest of us are still trying to get a decent electric car.
I was curious how they migrate active network connections though. Does the old host act as a proxy/router? Can anyone shed some light?
Its been around 9 years since I did the project in college, but it is possible to transfer active network connection state from one computer to another. It was a "connection-aware seamless backup server", where our hacked linux kernels would exchange state about an active TCP/IP connection at regular intervals, and when the primary dropped (in our demo we yanked the ethernet cable out of the hub in the middle of streaming an mp3), the other would take over, pretending to be the same IP and picking up where the other left off. The best part was that TCP/IP already deals with redundant, missing, or out of order packets so anything sent or received since the last update to the backup would be handled automagically.
That was just as stupid semester project on a 3-computer ethernet LAN, but I imagine the big boys have figured out how to make it work. Besides, they're literally transfering the memory image of the guest OS over to the other machine so all the state update is already done. The hard part is probably making the IP migrate along with, but I'm sure they've figured that out too.
This isn't about law and order, this is about school discipline.
And now school discipline involves sexual humiliation? WTF?
Good lord, it was better when we let them beat the kids.
If you think you could force a 13 year old girl to expose her genitals to you, and not be run up on charges of sexual assault, you're fucking retarded. Because that's what it was, idiot.
All that means is that guerrilla warfare sucks for the guerrillas (and Vietnam certainly did... entire villages living in systems of tiny underground tunnels in the wet bug-infested ground of the jungle, shitting in bags, and dying at a rate 10-100x as much as the enemy force. That's pretty typical in asymmetric warfare, regardless of who the victor is.
Which is why I really think of revolution as a means of last resort. But history has shown that it can work.
The entire thing is ludicrous. There is nothing wrong with bringing prescription meds to school. If there is no reason to suspect that she is distributing the drugs, then they have no reason to search her. From the articles, it does not appear that they believed that to be the case.
Hell, they had no reason to think she had any "drugs"* on her at all except an ex-friend that had been found with "drugs" accused her of it. As I alluded to in my post, I've known some re-tarded school officials before but even they tended to be suspicious of students just spouting off trying to pass blame.
And even if they believed she was carrying and selling/distributing they could have ascertained if she had any on her with a simple pat down. There is zero reason to ever have to strip down naked to prove it. Going to that level is completely unreasonable.
Exactly. There is no official school business anti-drug-crusade justification for the search they did and I have a very hard time believing anyone, no matter how stupid, who was sincerely trying to work for the benefit of the school wouldn't realize this.
* Oh noes, ibuprofen! Can "Zero Tolerance" be limited to drugs with a potential for abuse? No? Didn't think so. If we exercise any Intelligence we might accidentally end up with some non-zero amount of Tolerance.
That's the crux of it. Put yourself in that position. Even with the same sex, asking a 13 year old to do that should make a normal adult terribly awkward at the very least and is why this incident should be prosecuted as a sex offense.
Exactly, thank you.
Something like ... exceptionally bad judgment?
That bad judgement occurred with whatever superlatives you want to use is not in question.
There is more going on here than simple poor judgement. There was a reason they were emotionally committed to making that bad judgement call, and the most likely possibilities are all much worse than basic stupidity.
Yeah, rape is about power, the ultimate aphrodisiac, a phrase you may remember from my post, genius.
Keep in mind that the search was done by two female employees, a secretary and the school nurse, at the behest of the assistant principle, who was male. I believe what we are looking at here is a clear, real life example of a Milgram experiment.
You're a couple decades too late to sway me with the gender of the potential abusers. By now we all know women abuse too. They have women search girls because despite the fact of female abusers, anything else is blatantly inappropriate, and they have two there because having no official witnesses to an official stripping a student is blatantly inappropriate. Without this most basic CYA, they never would have had a chance to get away with this.
You are being too harsh. The two women who conducted the search are responsible for their actions, but the fact is they are probably also victims here. If you read the description of the search, they did not ask here to fully remove all her clothing, instead adopting half measures, which goes back to the probable lack of training. This leads me to believe that these women did feel guilty about what they were doing and this emerged through half measures in which their orders were fully followed, but the victim was not subjected to a "complete" strip search.
It's a flimsy excuse, but it does I think show reluctance on the part of the searchers. Whatever about the nurse, what was the secretary doing there? She probably came in that day to type letters and answer phone calls. What was she doing in that room?
"If you read" -- I described it in my post, dude! If they felt guilty about doing the search, they would have stopped when she was in her underwear and the girl obviously had no drugs on her and could sincerely say they had conducted the search and found nothing. No, what that means is that regardless of what was going on inside their heads, they were aware that there are boundaries they could not cross without getting in immediate and severe deep shit. If they had ordered the girl to strip naked entirely, or done a body cavity search, or anything like that, we wouldn't be having this conversation and the two of them would be on a registry. They did everything up to the completely unacceptable, and used "half measures" to try to achieve the same result. Their behavior is perfectly consistent with a predator trying to get away with as much as possible using the substantial but finite cover of official school business.
But hey maybe you're right, maybe it's the Principle who is the perv and the two bitches are just tools. I see no indication that the principle specifically ordered the pull-out-the-panties-and-check-her-bush part of the search, but hey maybe he did. Can you imagine him asking the nurse to assure him that she did in fact expose and check the girl's breasts and genitals? Fucking sick. Or maybe it was S.O.P. in this place, which again speaks to a much more significant problem than just poor judgement -- i.e. systematic abuse. I find myself wondering what exactly they did in other strip search cases, and what happens when it is a boy.
This incident shows incredibly poor judgment, and suggests that the morons involved got way too caught up in their "no drugs in school" policy, but it does not, in any way, indicate a likelihood of the perpetrators seeking to abuse children for sexual pleasure.
Oh I don't know about that. I'm not saying rush to prosecute them for sexual abuse... But at the point at which they have the girl alone, stripped to her skivvies, and then demand that she spread her legs and pull her underwear away from her body so that they could look down her panties, I begin to suspect that one or both of those bitches were getting off on it.
I have a hard time believing even the stupidest of school officials -- and not for lack of good examples -- would really think that after failing to find pills anywhere else that they'd find them stashed down the front of her panties. I find it 100% impossible that even the stupidest of school official in the 2000s wouldn't have blazing red warning alarms going off in their head at the thought of forcing a minor to expose her genitals. That they were doing what in any other context outside a doctor's office would have resulted in them being arrested for sex crimes. They can't possibly have been unaware of that. Nor could they have been unaware that they were humiliating the poor girl, even though the nurse says she never appeared embarrassed. Yeah fucking right! I don't buy it for a second. Even if they aren't kiddie-pervs, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, and these bitches sure lorded their power over the girl. Maybe making her expose herself was just their way of punishing her for thwarting them by not having drugs on her. I don't know, I just know that no normal person would think making the girl expose herself was a reasonable and entirely non-sexual execution of their duties.
Nor do I believe this was a unique case, because it was not an exceptional case. Someone accused someone else of having drugs, and the person didn't have an drugs in their locker, bags, or pockets, and there was no other reason to believe they had drugs but the accusation. Yeah bet that's never happened before.
Look, I don't know, I'm just saying this thing reeks to hell of something a lot worse than just poor judgement.
I'm responsible for me. You are, for you.
That's right. So stop spouting hollow truisms about costs of liberty that you personally don't have to pay. It's sanctimonious and hypocritical. It's like a general rallying his troops with "Give me liberty, or give me death!" only it's not revolutionary times, it's the modern era so the general is nowhere near the battle and not at risk at all.
The vast majority of homeless in my area are mentally ill. People in need of meds, and lots of CBT. Some are not. You can do very well in life and not be a thief. Really. Try it. You can have uncompromised morals, and lead a comparatively decent life, and still make money, still care for those around you.
Try it? Dude, I'm like you, well-heeled and thus able to maintain my integrity with minimal consequence. It's easy and trite to say that I'd rather go hungry than compromise my morals when that is not actually the choice I'm making, and it's insulting to those who do have to make that choice. Go and tell one of those mentally ill homeless people how they can do well in life without compromising their morals -- all they need is a healthy savings account and a multi-disciplinary skill set. Starting to see how out of touch that sounds, like "Let them eat cake"?
If you let corporate policy dictate your life to you, you're fucked and don't even know it. If they rule you, you're become enslaved by them, Abraham Lincoln aside. Think about that. Liberty is a very real thing.
Starvation is a very real thing for many people. So is having to do unsavory things to avoid it. Either keep this "personal" as in to yourself, or get off your high horse.
So the aphorism applies. Just because there is FOSS, doesn't mean that you can steal commercial software. Just because there are free MP3s, doesn't mean you can steal ones that are licensed. LIberation is a very personal act. Exercise it.
The wimpy and obvious version of the aphorism applies to you. The original version does not apply to you, as you've explained in great detail rebutting every argument suggesting that it might apply to you. You're right, liberation is a personal act. So instead of spouting empty aphorisms about the in your case purely rhetorical costs of liberty as though it should apply to everyone, why not just say that you personally will not abide an employer who breaks the law, and have the personal good fortune and foresight to be able to make that choice.
I'd rather eat from a food kitchen, thank you. I've donated to them, and perhaps I'll need them one day. So it goes.
Maybe ask some homeless people in your area if your donations have ensured that the soup kitchens always have soup, and then wonder what'll happen when a lot more people up to and including you are in line.
Though honestly, accepting your premise that you'll never have to go hungry really makes the problem with your original aphorism more obvious.
My aphorism remains.
Remains inapplicable to the person using it, that is. Which makes it ring very hollow.
Let me put it a different way. The aphorism in question is: "Better to be free and hungry than fat and fucked up." But then you go on in further posts to say that you would not anticipate going hungry. So how does the aphorism stand when it doesn't even apply? "Better to be free and fed than fucked up and fed" is an obvious choice.
My aphorism still stands, and perhaps for many others.
Others... who can afford it. That's kinda the gist of what people are saying here. Yeah it's nice if it works for you, but go a week without food because you can't afford any and see if the aphorisms still seem relevant.
Here, let me correct that for you:
"It's ok, kids, we planned for events like this, and daddy's competency will get him employed by real people, rather than thieves, quickly".
There. Fixed. You capitulate so easily. No job is safe, no employer is safe. If you want to keep your family safe, save like dogs and don't spend like it's going out of style.
Things sound great when you assume your competency and frugality mean everything will work out your way and everything is in your control. Did you plan for the recession? How about a medical issue that would devour your savings like an hours devours when corporate-paid insurance runs out? I've got what I think is a great skill set, but I sure wouldn't look forward to job hunting in today's climate, and looking at the climbing unemployment numbers it doesn't look like it's getting better soon. I'm also quite frugal and have a nice pile of savings, but I'm not foolish enough to think this is proof against adversity. And like you I'm one of the damn lucky ones. Believe it or not, it is possible for a person to not be able "save like a dog" for reasons other than irresponsible lifestyles.