(Sung to the tune of "Oh, he's a jolly good fellow")
It's not a constitutional iss-ue,
It's not a constitutional iss-ue,
It's not a constitutional iss-ue,
Which nobody should deny!
You make a good point in that it is a financial impossibility; but it's also not remotely unconstitutional for public property to have restrictions on its use. It's not at all unconstitutional for behavior to be restricted in a setting by the rules of a public (or even private) institution, including behavior that could be (loosely) considered "speech." I mean, no one is up in arms that, in a courtroom, you can't scream and dance around while the judge is talking, right?
The reason that First Amendment rights are not applied to K-12 schools are pretty simple. There aren't any real civil rights issues at stake here, and certainly no First Amendment issues.
The first amendment protects specific types of speech from direct government censorship, as well as freedom of the press. It is a law, not a magic do-anything-you-want card, and has nothing to do with an institution's ability to enforce a code of conduct.
The students are (either by proxy through their guardian pre-18, or their own attendance and enrollment post-18) agreeing to abide by the rules established by the school.
Thus, these aren't 1st amendment issues. And the first amendment doesn't say "You can do anything you want on the internet with someone else's computer, anyway. And before you say "Well, they are the public, they own the computers," well, no. Their parents are a very small part of the public that funded the purchase of those computers. And yes, that does make a difference.
Fantastic point on the "Make the parents sign the release" angle.
I still can't quite fathom the concept of a school-provided laptop that goes home with students, but they don't own. It just seems like asking for trouble.
I mean, if this is some magnet school nonsense, fine, but then just roll the laptop into the goddamn tuition and be done with it. Any situation where you maintain ownership and liability of a machine that is handed over to a teenager overnight every day, you've just officially lost.
Actually, in most places, you just have to keep the computers school property, not on it.
To unpack that a little, if you own something, you can do what you want with it; if the school doesn't relinquish ownership, the students have (legally speaking) whatever privileges the school grants them.
From a practical standpoint, of course, the school is kind of pissing up a rope, here. There's not really any control of the computers once they're out of the school.
Honestly, this seems like kind of a bad idea, on multiple levels.
Your procedural argument seems like a reasonable one to me, but your language choices seem a little off.
PHP seems like a bad choice to me, not on account of the language, but on account of it being primarily embedded in the web server environment, and the problems inherent there.
C seems like a sub-optimal (although not really bad, per se) choice on account of the verbosity and awkward syntax of basic string operations, and the overhead of the preprocessor language (Not a big deal, but the first time you say "Erase everything" and they erase #include , it'll be unpleasant).
Yes, bad CSS exists, and yes, there are layout options that are much easier to do with tables. That still doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to do them with tables.
The "CSS for presentation, never tables" thing isn't entirely about "What is simplest to do the page layout in." Part of it is that CSS is meant to control display, and tables are meant to impose a semantic meaning on the content inside them.
Also, on a practical level, unless you're shifting the table's creation out to PHP/Perl/Other Scripting Language, doing layout with tables means that, if you want to alter that layout, you have to do it for each separate page. And the only place I've really seen table-generation coming from scripting languages is in producing actual tabular data, although your mileage may vary.
Feel free to use tables; it's not like it will destroy the intarwubs or anything. But I feel that dismissing tables entirely for non-tabular data isn't foolish; it's a reasonable decision, especially now that most browsers support CSS reasonably well.
Accidentally moderated redundant, posting to kill my mods in this post.
Why, why, why is redundant so close to insightful?
Although I'm not sure there's too much evidence either way for the programming book thing. It would be interesting to look at things like Practical Common Lisp et cetera, and see how they'd worked out.
Except that "Procedural" is about how the language is composed, and "Functional" is about how the language is composed, and "Prototype" is about how the language is intended to be used.
Regardless of whether you are correct or not about the direction Python is taking and/or its effect on the language (no opinion, myself), the "Prototype language" thing doesn't work. You're not saying something about the language, you're talking about something the language is used for' and there's ample evidence (ask Google, for instance) that people are using the language for other things.
Oh noes! Inaccuracy in terminology and assignation that is exactly that often used when talking about male accomplishers-of-things!
Is it on account of penis-using that we credit Columbus with discovering America? Or is it because we're reducing the thing he did to a sound-bite? I'm guessing the latter.
Just as a side note... I re-read some of my posts, and I think I may come off as more combative than I intend to here. I really don't disagree with you on the fundamentals here; I just think that a few of the assumptions in your argument are flawed, in ways that make it less persuasive.
Basically, I'm just saying that Catholics specifically aren't making the biological argument you're stating; many in the fringe elements of the religious Right are, and they are rightly to be excoriated for it. I think that some are likely hypocrites; these are arguing from non-biological reasoning, but using biology to try and get their way in the courts of law and opinion. Some, doubtlessly, are simply not grasping the correct logic.
Anyway, I am really sorry if I've offended or irritated. I'm really not trying to:-)
But the blog and the wine in the article aren't called "Godzilla," they're respectively called "Davezilla" and "Cabzilla."
Basically, the problem here is a studio using trademark to, essentially, hold on to a copyrighted property for longer than copyright would normally allow. Characters and fiction should be covered under copyright, not trademark.
More seriously, Linux itself uses the blank-x format for its name, but it would be stupid and specious to claim that it infringes on the Unix trademark. And that's what Davezilla and co. are actually doing.
Slashdot Mirror
(Sung to the tune of "Oh, he's a jolly good fellow")
It's not a constitutional iss-ue,
It's not a constitutional iss-ue,
It's not a constitutional iss-ue,
Which nobody should deny!
You make a good point in that it is a financial impossibility; but it's also not remotely unconstitutional for public property to have restrictions on its use. It's not at all unconstitutional for behavior to be restricted in a setting by the rules of a public (or even private) institution, including behavior that could be (loosely) considered "speech." I mean, no one is up in arms that, in a courtroom, you can't scream and dance around while the judge is talking, right?
The reason that First Amendment rights are not applied to K-12 schools are pretty simple. There aren't any real civil rights issues at stake here, and certainly no First Amendment issues.
The first amendment protects specific types of speech from direct government censorship, as well as freedom of the press. It is a law, not a magic do-anything-you-want card, and has nothing to do with an institution's ability to enforce a code of conduct.
The students are (either by proxy through their guardian pre-18, or their own attendance and enrollment post-18) agreeing to abide by the rules established by the school.
Thus, these aren't 1st amendment issues. And the first amendment doesn't say "You can do anything you want on the internet with someone else's computer, anyway. And before you say "Well, they are the public, they own the computers," well, no. Their parents are a very small part of the public that funded the purchase of those computers. And yes, that does make a difference.
Fantastic point on the "Make the parents sign the release" angle.
I still can't quite fathom the concept of a school-provided laptop that goes home with students, but they don't own. It just seems like asking for trouble.
I mean, if this is some magnet school nonsense, fine, but then just roll the laptop into the goddamn tuition and be done with it. Any situation where you maintain ownership and liability of a machine that is handed over to a teenager overnight every day, you've just officially lost.
Actually, in most places, you just have to keep the computers school property, not on it.
To unpack that a little, if you own something, you can do what you want with it; if the school doesn't relinquish ownership, the students have (legally speaking) whatever privileges the school grants them.
From a practical standpoint, of course, the school is kind of pissing up a rope, here. There's not really any control of the computers once they're out of the school.
Honestly, this seems like kind of a bad idea, on multiple levels.
Your procedural argument seems like a reasonable one to me, but your language choices seem a little off.
PHP seems like a bad choice to me, not on account of the language, but on account of it being primarily embedded in the web server environment, and the problems inherent there.
C seems like a sub-optimal (although not really bad, per se) choice on account of the verbosity and awkward syntax of basic string operations, and the overhead of the preprocessor language (Not a big deal, but the first time you say "Erase everything" and they erase #include , it'll be unpleasant).
Yes, bad CSS exists, and yes, there are layout options that are much easier to do with tables. That still doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to do them with tables.
The "CSS for presentation, never tables" thing isn't entirely about "What is simplest to do the page layout in." Part of it is that CSS is meant to control display, and tables are meant to impose a semantic meaning on the content inside them.
Also, on a practical level, unless you're shifting the table's creation out to PHP/Perl/Other Scripting Language, doing layout with tables means that, if you want to alter that layout, you have to do it for each separate page. And the only place I've really seen table-generation coming from scripting languages is in producing actual tabular data, although your mileage may vary.
Feel free to use tables; it's not like it will destroy the intarwubs or anything. But I feel that dismissing tables entirely for non-tabular data isn't foolish; it's a reasonable decision, especially now that most browsers support CSS reasonably well.
It's just "allergic reaction."
Research is good... alarmist media reactions that don't get properly retracted when proven incorrect serve no one, though.
While I have nothing but twisted, elemental hatred for Mac OSs prior to X, I would gleefully kill for the source to BeOS to be released.
Haiku is slowly, slowly getting there, but man... we could have been there. For years.
Accidentally moderated redundant, posting to kill my mods in this post.
Why, why, why is redundant so close to insightful?
Although I'm not sure there's too much evidence either way for the programming book thing. It would be interesting to look at things like Practical Common Lisp et cetera, and see how they'd worked out.
Except that "Procedural" is about how the language is composed, and "Functional" is about how the language is composed, and "Prototype" is about how the language is intended to be used.
Regardless of whether you are correct or not about the direction Python is taking and/or its effect on the language (no opinion, myself), the "Prototype language" thing doesn't work. You're not saying something about the language, you're talking about something the language is used for' and there's ample evidence (ask Google, for instance) that people are using the language for other things.
Currently, which I think can be assumed from context, there is no difference legally.
Practically meaning in terms of fitness for office and ability to serve.
I'm unsure as to how these statistics bear on the second.
Commenting on Chmcginn (201645), actually.
Sorry for the confusion.
Although they are planning to introduce some new ones to keep things real.
You're glad you're gay because... then you can ignore half of the population and the problems thereof? Did you stop being human, or something?
I'm really not getting what you're trying to say there.
I think the above poster's argument is that sexism is still an important issue today, and that historical examples of it are thus still relevant.
Unfortunately for your point, legally and practically there is no way that gender (or race, for that matter) matters in a leader.
Oh noes! Inaccuracy in terminology and assignation that is exactly that often used when talking about male accomplishers-of-things!
Is it on account of penis-using that we credit Columbus with discovering America? Or is it because we're reducing the thing he did to a sound-bite? I'm guessing the latter.
Grace Hopper was one of the (collective, admittedly) first programmers of an electronic computer, as well as being the inventor of the first compiler.
Also, feminism is about equality, not about some weird, man-hating agenda. Put away the tinfoil hat, please.
Is it racist to be happy that color is less of an insurmountable barrier than it once was? I'm not seeing how.
Also, "derogatory racism" is hardly dead, just because we have a black head of state.
Also, emphasis on the "Was."
I held on to the last 2-series release as long as I could, but man, everything after that was bad.
Wow. Nice to know I'm not the only one who had a 100mhz 486 chip. My parents bought the AMD, right when Pentiums were first coming out.
I've been behind the curve ever since ;-)
-------
This comment posted from a 1.4ghz Athlon XP, the fastest computer I've ever owned.
The answer to question (A) is just "No," sadly.
Cloning produces a completely new living creature with identical DNA, not a copy of a creature at a point in its life.
Just as a side note... I re-read some of my posts, and I think I may come off as more combative than I intend to here. I really don't disagree with you on the fundamentals here; I just think that a few of the assumptions in your argument are flawed, in ways that make it less persuasive.
Basically, I'm just saying that Catholics specifically aren't making the biological argument you're stating; many in the fringe elements of the religious Right are, and they are rightly to be excoriated for it. I think that some are likely hypocrites; these are arguing from non-biological reasoning, but using biology to try and get their way in the courts of law and opinion. Some, doubtlessly, are simply not grasping the correct logic.
Anyway, I am really sorry if I've offended or irritated. I'm really not trying to :-)
But the blog and the wine in the article aren't called "Godzilla," they're respectively called "Davezilla" and "Cabzilla."
Basically, the problem here is a studio using trademark to, essentially, hold on to a copyrighted property for longer than copyright would normally allow. Characters and fiction should be covered under copyright, not trademark.
I guess I'd feel drunk?
More seriously, Linux itself uses the blank-x format for its name, but it would be stupid and specious to claim that it infringes on the Unix trademark. And that's what Davezilla and co. are actually doing.