America can't be a socialist state - you don't help the needy at all! Otherwise you'd have a universal/socialised health care system - something every other civilised nation in the world has.
What you're talking about is banning phones in class so that they don't text or phone each other, or so they can listen to music - which they shouldn't be doing anyway. They're in class and should be there to learn not socialise.
What the article is about is kids taking humiliating photos and distributing them around the school - and teachers having the power to search the phones and remove content that could be used to bully people.
So while you're talking about apologists in their various forms, you're turning a blind eye and are allowing (and in my eyes, therefore condoning) bullying in school. You make an excuse by say "Well, they'll have to get used to being bullied in the real world". I can say without a shadow of a doubt, that bullying in school is *nothing* like bullying in the real world. I've been subjected to both, and I can assure you that it's far far worse in school. Or worse you'll argue that bullying is "character forming" - what a crock!
Sure, taking content off phones isn't going to stop bullying from happening. After all, if it's on one phone, it's probably on many. But at least the teacher could give the parents a heads up as to what is happening in their child's life.
As far as I'm concerned - you are the apologist. You are condoning bullying in school. And you then have the audacity to suggest that the teachers are the bullies?
What you fail to explain is how the fact that the poster as seen CT images of his head or his dad's heart makes him dangerous. I don't recall him saying that he plans to perform home surgery based on these pictures.
Perhaps you should re-read his post - it reads: "A perfect example of why any suggestion of saving money by involving the 'consumers' more in the decision making process is laughable at best."
I'm from the UK, but now living in Canada - so I've been brought up on the BBC News. I don't have time to watch much news, but I do get CTV here with my cable package and tend to watch it in the morning over breakfast. I have chosen to watch half an episode of Glen Beck (I got bored quarter of the way through and couldn't stomach the rest), but I do watch the Daily Show regularly.
I can say that hyperbole is an American form of reporting.
You're right - and annoyingly no one has enough time to watch both biased sources of information in order to make an informed decision. I don't bother with the American news any more - I just don't have time. The BBC news is pretty good, although usually a little biased towards the government of the day. At least they aren't trying to buy off the British politicians - just pandering to them.
But I don't live in a country with a backwards medical system like the USA. So guess what - yes I'd encourage my kids to use a science set. You could make the same argument for sports. How many high school kids have blown out their knee? The medical bills make schools less willing to push kids to go out and exercise. And what happens next? You have a serious growing obesity problem. Please stop making excuses like this. It makes the USA look pathetic. It's not about health, *OR* education. It's about BOTH.
I too wouldn't mind paying for what I use. But only if I didn't have to pay a monthly charge as well. It's disgusting that I have to pay $40 per month of internet access AND pay for the usage. One or the other - it's that simple.
How many times do I need to say it: Competition, Competition, Competition.
Imagine these situations: 1) Unlimited usage but speed only good at 2am. 2) Capped usage but speed is good all day. 3) Unlimited usage and speed is good all day.
If there was competition then I would choose #3 from the providers who are competing for my service.
... but there isn't competition. The would only be competition *if* Bell et al didn't try and kill off smaller independent ISPs.
But the previous Labour government made so many other things a criminal offence, why not that? It seemed to me that they were trying to make existing illegal, unless of course you were an MP or had an enormous pile of cash - and were therefore a friend of the Labour party.
This is nothing new. Any industry is exactly the same. Blame it on whatever you like.
I used to work in IT - management would screw over the staff at a moments notice for no readily apparent reason. I now work in Healthcare - where managed screw over the staff at a moments notice for no readily apparent reason.
This is why I like role playing games - table top particularly. Granted you don't have the graphics unless your DM is also a good artist, but you can have infinite game play. You can still have linear aspects to games too (thinking dungeon crawl), but for the most part a good DM will allow the players to do anything and go anywhere. And then punish the characters for splitting the party, or running out of money.
Aside from being struck off you mean? He was a practising medical doctor and surgeon - which he will never be allowed to do again. After all the controversy I doubt he'd even be able to consult in any form of medical field. Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
Being the land of law the UK is, it wouldn't surprise me if he got jail time.
I suspect the reason they are using MD5's is: 1) MD5s are small, and if you are going to do a file compare, the MD5s are much quicker to compare than the original file.
2) If a song has been ripped, and then shared out - all the *copies* will have the same MD5's (correct me if I'm wrong someone). So the RIAA can now track how many times that song you ripped has been copied. How many of us who have downloaded a song, have made any changes to the ID tags? I would argue a very very large proportion have not, especially the less technically minded people using the 'net.
The damages that the RIAA are seeking are based on the number of times that file has been downloaded. So now they can seize machines, get MD5's of all the songs on that machine, compare it to their list of MD5's they've got already to see where you got those files from.
1) We don't get bombarded by them quite as often as you do in the states. Ever wonder why imported US TV shows appear to have odd times to cut to ad breaks? And why in the middle of a scene there is an obvious cut, but no ad break?
2) Most of the ads are imported over to us by the 'merican advertising corporations and then dubbed REALLY REALLY badly ('Just for Men' anyone?) We do we dub them? Because we don't trust 'mericans. Personally - I trust badly dubbed adverts less than I trust other adverts. There again - I don't trust adverts.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod up! Seriously, if we didn't have ethics in everything we do, we'd be in the middle of the worst recession ever. Oh, wait ...
America can't be a socialist state - you don't help the needy at all! Otherwise you'd have a universal/socialised health care system - something every other civilised nation in the world has.
Actually it would be under the RIP Act.
Except this post was about the UK, not the USA. USA != the rest of the world.
What you're talking about is banning phones in class so that they don't text or phone each other, or so they can listen to music - which they shouldn't be doing anyway. They're in class and should be there to learn not socialise.
What the article is about is kids taking humiliating photos and distributing them around the school - and teachers having the power to search the phones and remove content that could be used to bully people.
So while you're talking about apologists in their various forms, you're turning a blind eye and are allowing (and in my eyes, therefore condoning) bullying in school. You make an excuse by say "Well, they'll have to get used to being bullied in the real world". I can say without a shadow of a doubt, that bullying in school is *nothing* like bullying in the real world. I've been subjected to both, and I can assure you that it's far far worse in school. Or worse you'll argue that bullying is "character forming" - what a crock!
Sure, taking content off phones isn't going to stop bullying from happening. After all, if it's on one phone, it's probably on many. But at least the teacher could give the parents a heads up as to what is happening in their child's life.
As far as I'm concerned - you are the apologist. You are condoning bullying in school. And you then have the audacity to suggest that the teachers are the bullies?
What you fail to explain is how the fact that the poster as seen CT images of his head or his dad's heart makes him dangerous. I don't recall him saying that he plans to perform home surgery based on these pictures.
Perhaps you should re-read his post - it reads: "A perfect example of why any suggestion of saving money by involving the 'consumers' more in the decision making process is laughable at best."
I'm from the UK, but now living in Canada - so I've been brought up on the BBC News. I don't have time to watch much news, but I do get CTV here with my cable package and tend to watch it in the morning over breakfast. I have chosen to watch half an episode of Glen Beck (I got bored quarter of the way through and couldn't stomach the rest), but I do watch the Daily Show regularly.
I can say that hyperbole is an American form of reporting.
And you can keep it as far as I'm concerned!
You're right - and annoyingly no one has enough time to watch both biased sources of information in order to make an informed decision. I don't bother with the American news any more - I just don't have time. The BBC news is pretty good, although usually a little biased towards the government of the day. At least they aren't trying to buy off the British politicians - just pandering to them.
But I don't live in a country with a backwards medical system like the USA. So guess what - yes I'd encourage my kids to use a science set. You could make the same argument for sports. How many high school kids have blown out their knee? The medical bills make schools less willing to push kids to go out and exercise. And what happens next? You have a serious growing obesity problem. Please stop making excuses like this. It makes the USA look pathetic. It's not about health, *OR* education. It's about BOTH.
But then this is America .....
Or, the city could take the approach that anything they do is a matter of public record.....
Then they can pay me 24/7 instead of 8/5.
No - it's not perfectly reasonable. What planet do you live on?
the France High Court declaring french to be the only language allowed to be spoken.
You do know the french right? If you suggest something like that, they will go for it
I too wouldn't mind paying for what I use. But only if I didn't have to pay a monthly charge as well. It's disgusting that I have to pay $40 per month of internet access AND pay for the usage. One or the other - it's that simple.
How many times do I need to say it: Competition, Competition, Competition.
Imagine these situations:
1) Unlimited usage but speed only good at 2am.
2) Capped usage but speed is good all day.
3) Unlimited usage and speed is good all day.
If there was competition then I would choose #3 from the providers who are competing for my service.
... but there isn't competition. The would only be competition *if* Bell et al didn't try and kill off smaller independent ISPs.
You're quite right. As someone so rightly pointed out already Canada != the US
Lawful evil was always one of my favourite alignments
But the previous Labour government made so many other things a criminal offence, why not that? It seemed to me that they were trying to make existing illegal, unless of course you were an MP or had an enormous pile of cash - and were therefore a friend of the Labour party.
Having said that, can't say the previous Tory government were much better.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
This is nothing new. Any industry is exactly the same. Blame it on whatever you like.
I used to work in IT - management would screw over the staff at a moments notice for no readily apparent reason.
I now work in Healthcare - where managed screw over the staff at a moments notice for no readily apparent reason.
It's called Capitalism.
This is why I like role playing games - table top particularly. Granted you don't have the graphics unless your DM is also a good artist, but you can have infinite game play. You can still have linear aspects to games too (thinking dungeon crawl), but for the most part a good DM will allow the players to do anything and go anywhere. And then punish the characters for splitting the party, or running out of money.
And he will probably suffer no repercussions.
Aside from being struck off you mean? He was a practising medical doctor and surgeon - which he will never be allowed to do again. After all the controversy I doubt he'd even be able to consult in any form of medical field. Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
Being the land of law the UK is, it wouldn't surprise me if he got jail time.
... is that in the UK we've been using the metric system for at least 20 years!
I suspect the reason they are using MD5's is:
1) MD5s are small, and if you are going to do a file compare, the MD5s are much quicker to compare than the original file.
2) If a song has been ripped, and then shared out - all the *copies* will have the same MD5's (correct me if I'm wrong someone). So the RIAA can now track how many times that song you ripped has been copied. How many of us who have downloaded a song, have made any changes to the ID tags? I would argue a very very large proportion have not, especially the less technically minded people using the 'net.
The damages that the RIAA are seeking are based on the number of times that file has been downloaded. So now they can seize machines, get MD5's of all the songs on that machine, compare it to their list of MD5's they've got already to see where you got those files from.
It's all about evidence gathering.
Couple of things about the ads in the UK:
1) We don't get bombarded by them quite as often as you do in the states. Ever wonder why imported US TV shows appear to have odd times to cut to ad breaks? And why in the middle of a scene there is an obvious cut, but no ad break?
2) Most of the ads are imported over to us by the 'merican advertising corporations and then dubbed REALLY REALLY badly ('Just for Men' anyone?) We do we dub them? Because we don't trust 'mericans. Personally - I trust badly dubbed adverts less than I trust other adverts. There again - I don't trust adverts.
Sorry 2 AAA batteries.... DOH ;)
(That'll teach me not to preview!