Except that Nuclear power would not exist at all but for its ability to externalize costs. Nobody will fund those things without a tax payer back loan guarantee. Because no investor wants to run the risk of getting wiped out if something goes wrong and the plant has to be shutter prematurely. Which could happen if cracks develop in the reactor casing etc. Then there is the possibility of a disaster that could easily get as big as the BP oil blowout in scale, during the plants life time, and even well after it no longer produces revenue if things go badly with its storage of spent fuel and decommissioning.
Nuclear power is not the magic source of cheap abundant energy we promised, sixty years ago. Its just not and if you increase the number of power stations you will increase the number of incidents and the likelihood of a serious one. I am not say we should not build more Nuclear power infrastructure, but the comparison to other options is not simple, and it isn't always clear as to favorability.
How much technological progress did we lose because we had to waste time overcoming the limitations of this super shitty beginning?
Hard to say. Because: Its also true the XT they shipped was built of mostly COTS parts. There is no reason to think a much bigger project the 801 based machine with some operating system that would have to either be written or ported from 390 or elsewhere would have ever made it out the door before getting canceled.
I don't even know your more powerful machine would have been successful; honestly IBMs experience with Operating Systems and interfaces at the time would not have translated well to home users and SMBs. MS-DOS was something motivated people could figure out on their own with manual.
IBM would have had to build something that did not use JCL would would have been radical for them at the time. Because there aint no way people would have picked that up.
So its very likely we would have never had a more or less 'open' PC platform at all, it would have all been the very proprietary 8-bit and early 16-bit stuff in the space from Ti, C=, and others.
Was thinking the same thing. Why should I believe this is anything but some sort of Trojan?
If not in the classical computer sense of a program that appears to do one thing and also does another, but in the more general sense as some way to help get me to let them in the door. If nothing else I am sure they won't be sharing the vulnerabilities they are actively using.
Sorry NSA but you have lost trust; its going to take years proving you can be a good actor before I'd advocate my security team collaborate with them. And so far I have not seen them even really start something like a real reform.
Right! This is the big problem. We need to be able to look at the laws that are allowing these guys to escape liability both on the accuracy side and the privacy side.
Slapping "information may not be 100% accurate" in light type face on the bottom of a credit report should not protect them from being held responsible for libel. When they leak your PI and you have to change account numbers, etc, they should be held responsible for interference with your other contracts.
If the courts really worked we could bankrupt them in a week; which is what they deserve.
I don't know if you are being sarchasitic or not but there are good reasons to use credit instead of cash even for the typical individual not running a business.
The first big one is you can dispute charges. Pay someone with a CC to do a job and they don't do it or don't do it in the fashion you'd agreed to have it done you can reverse the changes. You pay them in cash and they don't want to make good on it you are looking at either taking the loss or potentially lengthy court process.
The next one is ofter those rewards programs are a pretty good deal if you use them smart: Which folks reading "here" have the computer skills to do. Lots of them have a "free" introductory period and then shift to an annual fee if you don't cancel; they know most people will forget and they can probably get the fee from them at least once. Some scheduled reminders on your computer can "fix" that easily. The rest come from swipe fees; which we know really come from higher prices, effectively transferring the margin from the cash customers to the credit customers. Either way you are paying; so you might as well put yourself on the collecting side of it if you can. Sure there is the privacy issue and sometimes I do use cash for that reason but by and large I run everything across whatever card I have is giving me the best rewards at the time; EVERYTHING even if its a $2 cup of coffee. Obviously you have to have a credit limit high enough to support doing most of your purchases that way every month.
Lastly track at the purchases, hold on the receipts at least until you punch'em into your fiance package. If you know what is really outstanding (not what's posted) at all times, its trivial to know what your in for at the end of the month and not get surprised. If you make sure to never carry a balance CCs are a good deal for most consumers.
I suspect its mostly the petrodollar issue. Because lets face it; the US Economy is largely farcical.
If a major non-dollar international trade circuit developed, the following drop in dollar demand would probably be so steep there is nothing the FED could do to control inflation.
They did that because they were rightly afraid of US reprisal for doing so. Its only thing to complain about the Big Bully, its quite another to stand up and risk getting your teeth knocked out sticking up for some little guy.
We all know the moral, if you don't stand up for others there will be nobody to stand up for you; but its still easier said than done.
Depends. Buying one lottery ticket in a large state lottery may not be such a bad investment; you infinitely increase your chances of wining. Buying the 2-nth tickets is almost always a terrible choice as you get almost no measurable incremental increase in your odds wining for each ticket.
But it was 2007 and it looked a DOS boot from the 1980s, I'm not going to pretend that was a big thing but it was representative of the attitude.
The problem is not all people opinions are equal. The opinion of the people who don't know what any of that 'scrolling text' means is far less useful in the area of computing than that of those who do know what it means and consider it useful diagnostic information.
Pandering to nitwits who think its important to have a shiny boot time display with a spinning logo does not a better platform make.
Probably why they mostly flew over water eh? Sure you might still be in a boat or something but the gulf is big; so if it happended to hit you'd be having a really really bad day statistically speaking.
That strategy worked because the first gen XBOX was popular and people liked it.
You can sell something at a loss for the sake of taking market share if that something is desirable. It works because you get people to invest in your brand.
If the product sucks and is something people see as a dead end they won't invest in the brand, so you don't get the growth in market you were after.
People will buy just about anything if you offer it cheaply enough. Just giving it away though is not enough.
Hopefully parents will have the courage to let even their youngest children in on the fact that not everything Teacher says is true. She may even lie.
Most Americans have WAY to much respect for authority and to strong a faith in government. This might be a good instructive moment.
Tell the child look your teacher is telling you mommy is a criminal who should be in jail; do thing that's true? Well keep that in mind when the man on TV behind the podium says things about someone like 'snowden' it may or may not be true; so always draw your own conclusions.
There is allot of bad science out there; reaching different conclusions about how dangerous texting and driving is or isn't.
Frankly I don't know that is whole lot more dangerous than the things people did before and still do; tinkering with tiny buttons and knows on radios, eating, looking at maps spread over the steering wheel, swatting at the screaming baby in the back seat, etc. Driving is fundamentally dangerous and distracted driving more so; but distracted driving is also a reality. As long as people are willing to take the economic consequences for the havoc they cause my vote is against laws regulating texting, cell phones etc.
That said I am glad this guy is enforcing the law. We have way way to many laws. The best way to get people to do something about it is make'em feel it.
A road worthy class might be interesting eventually but we are not there. I don't think the technology exists yet to built something that do three thousand miles in a reasonable time span on solar alone exits yet.
Think of this more like you would look at an F1 event. Its designed to try out some new technologies and experiment with new ideas about how to build an efficient solar vehicle; and its a race to make it interesting, bring people and money in.
What comes out of the efforts to compete in get adapted to your grocery getter later.
No, a ground bust is not the worst case scenario. A near ground burst is. My understanding is most nukes are designed to go off a few hundred meters above ground. Still plenty close enough to toss a plume of horrendously radioactive dust and debris all around but also position to expose a large area to the heat and shock of the blast.
A buffer overrun does not by nature imply one can escalate privileges beyond the context of the user the process is running as.
Most modern operating systems protect the memory region a process has been assigned to run in by the kernel. This is partially implemented with hardware support from the MMU so if the kernel has setup the hardware properly there are few ways for things to go wrong. In general a process cannot read or write to a memory region it does not own. When it tries it will be blocked and an interrupt will transfer execution back to the kernel which will do something about it.
Usually when exploiting a buffer vulnerability you have to be careful not cause read or write outside the process space because the application will then crash and you lose your vector. So even without a sandbox ( beyond the basic per process memory protection the OS provides to every app), you don't get out of the user context unless you are able to inject some shell code and call some other libraries/syscalls/etc to get yourself additional privileges. This is Windows though so there is a good chance the user is already a Local Administrator and has more then enough privileges to pwn the box. Especially on IE 6/7 which are likely on XP where you don't have UAC.
No that is what anchors are for...Unless your text is so long it would make the page load time unacceptable put some links at the top to anchors so people can navigate the document and put in all on one page please.
I submit your argument is moronic. The average American does not want to live like an average Kenyan and I suspect the average Kenyan does not live like the average Kenyan by choice. ( I am aware parts of Kenya are quite affluent and modern, but we are talking average which means the desperately poor areas pull the mean condition down a great deal).
In general the Environment is better served by affluence than poverty for a given population. Affluent people have resources to invest in things like waste water treatment, proper trash disposal, the replanting of forests, defense of nature preserves etc. Its politically fun to try and shame American's for polluting and energy consumption but it has mostly to do with how we generate electricity ( largely a function which natural resources happened to be abundant on our continent ) and all the driving we do ( largely a function of our nations physical size ). Measure something besides CO2 and we don't look to bad compared to anyone else.
No I think the problem is very much one of population. The CO2 envelope is a solvable problem or isn't at all if the number of people is small enough.
Its not always just FUD that runs prices up though. As others have pointed out idle fab capacity is very expensive; so there usually isn't much, and if there was margins on the product would need to be higher to cover it so prices would be nominally higher even if there were fewer shocks.
So if we assume there is little or no unsold bulk DRAM under normal conditions and there is little extra FAB capacity you might easily have a situation like the following.
Joe and Bob produce Whatsits, one of their inputs is widgets, 5 widgets go into each whatsit. Joe and Bob both have fixed costs there is rent on the shop where they assemble whatsits and they each have some sales staff to market them who get a salary. If production of whatsits stops they don't just not make money the lose it.
Now Ted tells Joe and Bob; look there was a fire and I can bring only 9 widgets to market, one of you is only getting 4. Sure 90% of the normal supply of widgets is still available; but depending on their cost structure and how much margin they make on a whatsit, Joe and Bob might each be willing to pay Ted quite a lot more than usual to make sure they get that 5th widget.
They maybe even more than the profit they make per whatsit if the situation is temporary and the selling a whatsit at a net loss will be a smaller loss than not selling one at all. That means over the short term the price of a widget might go up a great deal.
How much do you think prices should go up and based on what. A 5% decline in production does not correlate with a 5% price hike.
DRAM gets faster and denser all the time you don't produce in much excess over the expected demand. So when 5% of the production goes away 5% of the orders go unfilled, if those customers want to keep building their phones, pcs, etc; they have to compete on price to not be the ones that don't get their memory delivered on time. Margins on all those end products get squeezed and used to chase DRAM, and that is what you fight at the retail level.
So yes yea capitalism for directing the memory to its most profitable use; if you want to criticize capitalism for something you might want to look at why the supply chain is so remote, thin and vulnerable.
I call social-networks anti social because they distort the way people normally interact. They create what feels like a intimate experience when in fact its all very public.
because these people aren't using back doors. They depend on your post visibility,
Which hardly anybody who isn't interested in the subject of privacy knows how to manage properly; and the options and behavior of the networks changes every few months. Really really easy to get surprised if you don't pay attention.
Also school aged children don't have a whole lot of social experience to begin with; due to in experience they have hard enough time determining what is an is not appropriate and your expectation is that they are able to be thinking about it in abstract ways like interactions of various privacy controls on some website. Good luck there.
Finally kids repeat things. Bobby can read Jane's post, Jane has made sure Gina and School admins can't; but that does not thing to prevent Bobby from posting about Jane's post and stupidly including 99% of its content and a citation.
I am not trying to say "TEH SOCIAL NETWREKS IS EVILS" here but I am saying we should put very little focus and take very little stock in what kids post online.
The problem is social networks are fundamentally anti-social. Healthy people have normative behavior, that is they adapt to the requirements of the situation; that covers the gambit for sitting posture to what opinions you express and how loudly.
You can say that makes them hypocritical or whatever but its pretty normal and everyone does it. You don't change the opinions you hold at school/the office, but you probably do express them less loudly if at all compared to at the political rally. Trouble is you have one FaceSpace profile that follows you everywhere.
So a student might say in their parents basement to their dearest friend, "god I hate that asshole Ted; he needs a serious ass kicking". This is okay your friend knows if you are serious or not about doing something violent, or just expressing frustration. Some contractor reading your FaceSpace post though is likely to think it bullying or whatever.
Kids and adults for that matter, need a place to blow off steam, so they don't take that rage back to school with them, and so they can conform while there. If the school is going to effectively follow kids home, it's going to creat new problems.
The problem is there is to much enforcement. It used to be that if someone was bullying you at some point you go fed up with it and just took a swing at them. You did not even have to win the fight, after that the other guy would at least get their may be unwanted negative consequences to picking on you all the time.
Schools used to let this stuff happen a little bit in elementary and middle school grades; where students were unlikely to do serious or permanent injury to each other. This way by the time they'd reached high school most students had learned either first hand or observation of others that violence is rarely an optimal choice; but also how to interact with each other in ways that avoid so many conflicts. Its part of socialization.
A few minor physical dust ups; I think are part of the socialization of little boys.
That does not happen now. Some adult always steps in to thwart these grade school altercations, and the result is really maladjusted adolescents and adults that don't have a good cooping strategies and when they do get the point of "I don't know what the fuck I'm supposed to do to get out of this situation anymore" a selection of something life altering and out scale often gets selected.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that Nuclear power would not exist at all but for its ability to externalize costs. Nobody will fund those things without a tax payer back loan guarantee. Because no investor wants to run the risk of getting wiped out if something goes wrong and the plant has to be shutter prematurely. Which could happen if cracks develop in the reactor casing etc. Then there is the possibility of a disaster that could easily get as big as the BP oil blowout in scale, during the plants life time, and even well after it no longer produces revenue if things go badly with its storage of spent fuel and decommissioning.
Nuclear power is not the magic source of cheap abundant energy we promised, sixty years ago. Its just not and if you increase the number of power stations you will increase the number of incidents and the likelihood of a serious one. I am not say we should not build more Nuclear power infrastructure, but the comparison to other options is not simple, and it isn't always clear as to favorability.
How much technological progress did we lose because we had to waste time overcoming the limitations of this super shitty beginning?
Hard to say. Because: Its also true the XT they shipped was built of mostly COTS parts. There is no reason to think a much bigger project the 801 based machine with some operating system that would have to either be written or ported from 390 or elsewhere would have ever made it out the door before getting canceled.
I don't even know your more powerful machine would have been successful; honestly IBMs experience with Operating Systems and interfaces at the time would not have translated well to home users and SMBs. MS-DOS was something motivated people could figure out on their own with manual.
IBM would have had to build something that did not use JCL would would have been radical for them at the time. Because there aint no way people would have picked that up.
So its very likely we would have never had a more or less 'open' PC platform at all, it would have all been the very proprietary 8-bit and early 16-bit stuff in the space from Ti, C=, and others.
We might still be well behind where we are today.
Was thinking the same thing. Why should I believe this is anything but some sort of Trojan?
If not in the classical computer sense of a program that appears to do one thing and also does another, but in the more general sense as some way to help get me to let them in the door. If nothing else I am sure they won't be sharing the vulnerabilities they are actively using.
Sorry NSA but you have lost trust; its going to take years proving you can be a good actor before I'd advocate my security team collaborate with them. And so far I have not seen them even really start something like a real reform.
In summary -- Screw you Feds.
Right! This is the big problem. We need to be able to look at the laws that are allowing these guys to escape liability both on the accuracy side and the privacy side.
Slapping "information may not be 100% accurate" in light type face on the bottom of a credit report should not protect them from being held responsible for libel. When they leak your PI and you have to change account numbers, etc, they should be held responsible for interference with your other contracts.
If the courts really worked we could bankrupt them in a week; which is what they deserve.
I don't know if you are being sarchasitic or not but there are good reasons to use credit instead of cash even for the typical individual not running a business.
The first big one is you can dispute charges. Pay someone with a CC to do a job and they don't do it or don't do it in the fashion you'd agreed to have it done you can reverse the changes. You pay them in cash and they don't want to make good on it you are looking at either taking the loss or potentially lengthy court process.
The next one is ofter those rewards programs are a pretty good deal if you use them smart:
Which folks reading "here" have the computer skills to do. Lots of them have a "free" introductory period and then shift to an annual fee if you don't cancel; they know most people will forget and they can probably get the fee from them at least once. Some scheduled reminders on your computer can "fix" that easily. The rest come from swipe fees; which we know really come from higher prices, effectively transferring the margin from the cash customers to the credit customers. Either way you are paying; so you might as well put yourself on the collecting side of it if you can. Sure there is the privacy issue and sometimes I do use cash for that reason but by and large I run everything across whatever card I have is giving me the best rewards at the time; EVERYTHING even if its a $2 cup of coffee. Obviously you have to have a credit limit high enough to support doing most of your purchases that way every month.
Lastly track at the purchases, hold on the receipts at least until you punch'em into your fiance package. If you know what is really outstanding (not what's posted) at all times, its trivial to know what your in for at the end of the month and not get surprised. If you make sure to never carry a balance CCs are a good deal for most consumers.
I suspect its mostly the petrodollar issue. Because lets face it; the US Economy is largely farcical.
If a major non-dollar international trade circuit developed, the following drop in dollar demand would probably be so steep there is nothing the FED could do to control inflation.
Stands to bring down the entire house of cards.
They did that because they were rightly afraid of US reprisal for doing so. Its only thing to complain about the Big Bully, its quite another to stand up and risk getting your teeth knocked out sticking up for some little guy.
We all know the moral, if you don't stand up for others there will be nobody to stand up for you; but its still easier said than done.
Depends. Buying one lottery ticket in a large state lottery may not be such a bad investment; you infinitely increase your chances of wining. Buying the 2-nth tickets is almost always a terrible choice as you get almost no measurable incremental increase in your odds wining for each ticket.
But it was 2007 and it looked a DOS boot from the 1980s, I'm not going to pretend that was a big thing but it was representative of the attitude.
The problem is not all people opinions are equal. The opinion of the people who don't know what any of that 'scrolling text' means is far less useful in the area of computing than that of those who do know what it means and consider it useful diagnostic information.
Pandering to nitwits who think its important to have a shiny boot time display with a spinning logo does not a better platform make.
Probably why they mostly flew over water eh? Sure you might still be in a boat or something but the gulf is big; so if it happended to hit you'd be having a really really bad day statistically speaking.
That strategy worked because the first gen XBOX was popular and people liked it.
You can sell something at a loss for the sake of taking market share if that something is desirable. It works because you get people to invest in your brand.
If the product sucks and is something people see as a dead end they won't invest in the brand, so you don't get the growth in market you were after.
People will buy just about anything if you offer it cheaply enough. Just giving it away though is not enough.
Hopefully parents will have the courage to let even their youngest children in on the fact that not everything Teacher says is true. She may even lie.
Most Americans have WAY to much respect for authority and to strong a faith in government. This might be a good instructive moment.
Tell the child look your teacher is telling you mommy is a criminal who should be in jail; do thing that's true? Well keep that in mind when the man on TV behind the podium says things about someone like 'snowden' it may or may not be true; so always draw your own conclusions.
There is allot of bad science out there; reaching different conclusions about how dangerous texting and driving is or isn't.
Frankly I don't know that is whole lot more dangerous than the things people did before and still do; tinkering with tiny buttons and knows on radios, eating, looking at maps spread over the steering wheel, swatting at the screaming baby in the back seat, etc. Driving is fundamentally dangerous and distracted driving more so; but distracted driving is also a reality. As long as people are willing to take the economic consequences for the havoc they cause my vote is against laws regulating texting, cell phones etc.
That said I am glad this guy is enforcing the law. We have way way to many laws. The best way to get people to do something about it is make'em feel it.
A road worthy class might be interesting eventually but we are not there. I don't think the technology exists yet to built something that do three thousand miles in a reasonable time span on solar alone exits yet.
Think of this more like you would look at an F1 event. Its designed to try out some new technologies and experiment with new ideas about how to build an efficient solar vehicle; and its a race to make it interesting, bring people and money in.
What comes out of the efforts to compete in get adapted to your grocery getter later.
No, a ground bust is not the worst case scenario. A near ground burst is. My understanding is most nukes are designed to go off a few hundred meters above ground. Still plenty close enough to toss a plume of horrendously radioactive dust and debris all around but also position to expose a large area to the heat and shock of the blast.
A buffer overrun does not by nature imply one can escalate privileges beyond the context of the user the process is running as.
Most modern operating systems protect the memory region a process has been assigned to run in by the kernel. This is partially implemented with hardware support from the MMU so if the kernel has setup the hardware properly there are few ways for things to go wrong. In general a process cannot read or write to a memory region it does not own. When it tries it will be blocked and an interrupt will transfer execution back to the kernel which will do something about it.
Usually when exploiting a buffer vulnerability you have to be careful not cause read or write outside the process space because the application will then crash and you lose your vector. So even without a sandbox ( beyond the basic per process memory protection the OS provides to every app), you don't get out of the user context unless you are able to inject some shell code and call some other libraries/syscalls/etc to get yourself additional privileges. This is Windows though so there is a good chance the user is already a Local Administrator and has more then enough privileges to pwn the box. Especially on IE 6/7 which are likely on XP where you don't have UAC.
No that is what anchors are for...Unless your text is so long it would make the page load time unacceptable put some links at the top to anchors so people can navigate the document and put in all on one page please.
Really disappointing choice of version numbers.
I submit your argument is moronic. The average American does not want to live like an average Kenyan and I suspect the average Kenyan does not live like the average Kenyan by choice. ( I am aware parts of Kenya are quite affluent and modern, but we are talking average which means the desperately poor areas pull the mean condition down a great deal).
In general the Environment is better served by affluence than poverty for a given population. Affluent people have resources to invest in things like waste water treatment, proper trash disposal, the replanting of forests, defense of nature preserves etc. Its politically fun to try and shame American's for polluting and energy consumption but it has mostly to do with how we generate electricity ( largely a function which natural resources happened to be abundant on our continent ) and all the driving we do ( largely a function of our nations physical size ). Measure something besides CO2 and we don't look to bad compared to anyone else.
No I think the problem is very much one of population. The CO2 envelope is a solvable problem or isn't at all if the number of people is small enough.
Its not always just FUD that runs prices up though. As others have pointed out idle fab capacity is very expensive; so there usually isn't much, and if there was margins on the product would need to be higher to cover it so prices would be nominally higher even if there were fewer shocks.
So if we assume there is little or no unsold bulk DRAM under normal conditions and there is little extra FAB capacity you might easily have a situation like the following.
Joe and Bob produce Whatsits, one of their inputs is widgets, 5 widgets go into each whatsit. Joe and Bob both have fixed costs there is rent on the shop where they assemble whatsits and they each have some sales staff to market them who get a salary. If production of whatsits stops they don't just not make money the lose it.
Now Ted tells Joe and Bob; look there was a fire and I can bring only 9 widgets to market, one of you is only getting 4. Sure 90% of the normal supply of widgets is still available; but depending on their cost structure and how much margin they make on a whatsit, Joe and Bob might each be willing to pay Ted quite a lot more than usual to make sure they get that 5th widget.
They maybe even more than the profit they make per whatsit if the situation is temporary and the selling a whatsit at a net loss will be a smaller loss than not selling one at all. That means over the short term the price of a widget might go up a great deal.
How much do you think prices should go up and based on what. A 5% decline in production does not correlate with a 5% price hike.
DRAM gets faster and denser all the time you don't produce in much excess over the expected demand. So when 5% of the production goes away 5% of the orders go unfilled, if those customers want to keep building their phones, pcs, etc; they have to compete on price to not be the ones that don't get their memory delivered on time. Margins on all those end products get squeezed and used to chase DRAM, and that is what you fight at the retail level.
So yes yea capitalism for directing the memory to its most profitable use; if you want to criticize capitalism for something you might want to look at why the supply chain is so remote, thin and vulnerable.
I call social-networks anti social because they distort the way people normally interact. They create what feels like a intimate experience when in fact its all very public.
because these people aren't using back doors. They depend on your post visibility,
Which hardly anybody who isn't interested in the subject of privacy knows how to manage properly; and the options and behavior of the networks changes every few months. Really really easy to get surprised if you don't pay attention.
Also school aged children don't have a whole lot of social experience to begin with; due to in experience they have hard enough time determining what is an is not appropriate and your expectation is that they are able to be thinking about it in abstract ways like interactions of various privacy controls on some website. Good luck there.
Finally kids repeat things. Bobby can read Jane's post, Jane has made sure Gina and School admins can't; but that does not thing to prevent Bobby from posting about Jane's post and stupidly including 99% of its content and a citation.
I am not trying to say "TEH SOCIAL NETWREKS IS EVILS" here but I am saying we should put very little focus and take very little stock in what kids post online.
The problem is social networks are fundamentally anti-social. Healthy people have normative behavior, that is they adapt to the requirements of the situation; that covers the gambit for sitting posture to what opinions you express and how loudly.
You can say that makes them hypocritical or whatever but its pretty normal and everyone does it. You don't change the opinions you hold at school/the office, but you probably do express them less loudly if at all compared to at the political rally. Trouble is you have one FaceSpace profile that follows you everywhere.
So a student might say in their parents basement to their dearest friend, "god I hate that asshole Ted; he needs a serious ass kicking". This is okay your friend knows if you are serious or not about doing something violent, or just expressing frustration. Some contractor reading your FaceSpace post though is likely to think it bullying or whatever.
Kids and adults for that matter, need a place to blow off steam, so they don't take that rage back to school with them, and so they can conform while there. If the school is going to effectively follow kids home, it's going to creat new problems.
Hopeful some of the older students will conspire to troll the fuck out of the watchers.
The problem is there is to much enforcement. It used to be that if someone was bullying you at some point you go fed up with it and just took a swing at them. You did not even have to win the fight, after that the other guy would at least get their may be unwanted negative consequences to picking on you all the time.
Schools used to let this stuff happen a little bit in elementary and middle school grades; where students were unlikely to do serious or permanent injury to each other. This way by the time they'd reached high school most students had learned either first hand or observation of others that violence is rarely an optimal choice; but also how to interact with each other in ways that avoid so many conflicts. Its part of socialization.
A few minor physical dust ups; I think are part of the socialization of little boys.
That does not happen now. Some adult always steps in to thwart these grade school altercations, and the result is really maladjusted adolescents and adults that don't have a good cooping strategies and when they do get the point of "I don't know what the fuck I'm supposed to do to get out of this situation anymore" a selection of something life altering and out scale often gets selected.