No, there is a PI-redact document (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/PI-Redact.pdf) , but I think you're right in terms of which one the article refers to.
Can someone--from Canada, perhaps--give us some information about relevant Canadian case and common law regarding free speech? It seems that perhaps their rules are more strict than the American ones that many of us are more familiar with.
I'd like to see if this is completely unprecedented, or if we could have seen it coming...
I don't understand it myself. It seems like most students who sit in class with laptops play games more than anything else.
The investigative newspaper I work for will be printing an article soon after break about it. It seems like IT just wants to limit their support tickets to Thinkpads. It's actually a pretty shitty program in that respect too--you essentially have to have a Thinkpad.
A notebook computer requirement is in effect for students entering the College of William and Mary in the fall of 2006. Through the myNotebook program, incoming students may purchase a ThinkPad notebook computer ensuring access to the computer technology which is essential for academic success. ThinkPads purchased through this program will connect seamlessly to the W&M network, include four-year warranty and accidental damage coverage, and be eligible for on-campus service and repair.
Exactly. This survey doesn't account, for instance, for my server, which is some crappy, school-donated x86 box with Free BSD installed that we upgraded and now use for our robotics team website.
I refuse to believe that Windows surpasses *nix in more important things like stability, utility, and general excellence, either.
Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?"
No, because it isn't too much for those people to whom the music appeals!
Is it just me, or is this guy suggesting that since Joe Schmoe doesn't want to buy the new DragonForce album, I should pay less for my own power metal experience?
While it's true that MySpace does offer some amazing features to its consumers--especially bands, and on "hive knowledge" like the Sony rootkit effect--many of the effects it has are undesirious. There are several specific points that you make with which I wish to disagree.
To wit:
1) Today it is called hooking up and generally not frowned upon. Incorrect. Even at my extraordinarily liberal school system (where, last year, fifty percent of the incoming freshman class had been banned from their eighth grade trip to D.C. because of marijuanna and heroin use) cheating was no more accepted socially than it has ever been. I've comforted too many girls who cried about their scumbag boyfriends to think otherwise.
More importantly, you are incorrect in your assessment of the teenage conception of MySpace. As has been posited before in other threads about teenagers on the web (notably this one), teenagers do not view their posts as being public. The teenage conception of the Internet is a strange one. I myself realized at an early age (9th grade) the public nature of the Internet, because I was disciplined at my school for making a website that ridiculed a fellow student. But I knew peers who, throughout their years, shared the same initial perception that I had: that while I knew intellectually the public nature of the Internet, its vast size made for effective anonymity. The only people who ever knew about my blog were people who I told! A girl in my senior class, who was kicked out of NHS for making derogatory posts about teachers on her public LiveJournal, was furious--she had thought of her posts as being effectively private, just because they were posted on a blog she hadn't explicitly told her teachers about. In this way, you can't expect that all posts made on MySpace are made with the perception that the teenagers are comfortable with the old internet rule of "would you show your grandma this." I guarantee that if you had shown any of the parents of the students who worked for you their promiscuous MySpace posts, you would have been vilified by your employees, because they would have been heartily embarassed to have their parents find out what they post "publicly."
2) If I had known that others existed with similar emotions or thoughts or habits, I think I would have matured at a faster past [sic]. You make a similar point to this one several times throughout your post, and I must gravely disagree that this tendency is beneficial. While I myself am totally in favor of the effect of the Internet on one's intellect--by vastly increasing the possibilities of exposure to new ideas, a quality never to be remanded--I am not in facvor of the Internet's influence socially. I am a member of the "Lowtax" school of thought. Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka, founder of Something Awful, holds that the problem with the Internet is that it takes an isolated extreme minority (e.g. furries) and allows them to meet others of their ilk. This is not a bad thing. However, the problem arises when meeting even five to ten other furries makes the one--who, remember, has been strikingly alone in their thoughts for all their lives--feel globally justified as the status quo (or at least as a significant minority). While I am no stickler for traditionalism, I firmly believe that the social effect of the Internet, in regards to the way it can seem to justify by numbers certain vile practices (esp. furries and pedophiles), can be very negative. MySpace is a key contributor to this problem--and while the concept is great, the actual effect is not so much.
Again, don't get me wrong, exposure to intellectual information is never bad. But asking someone to draw complex intellectual conclusions from MySpace is like asking a/. reader to derive a keen understanding of modern technology from reading onl
I don't have an answer, but, luckily, neither does this article!
Have to love news media today. Excuse my rant, but it doesn't really tell us a lot when a "leading analyst" assures us of something.
Call me crazy, but it seems like comparing sales at ITMS and Tower would be comparing apples and oranges. How are they comparing them? Songs to singles? Songs to albums? Albums to albums? Volume moved?
I mean, I don't find the conclusion to be completely unbelievable. But can anyone think of a valid comparison between the two?
Actually, I had an excellent experience at a public high school, with very little micromanaging and busywork, with the "paid benefit" of a social experience impossible via homeschooling.
I used to work at an ISP, and we had Akamai boxes.
Actually, the three Akamai's we had are still running right on top of the server I administrate there.
I too was never quite clear on what they did, but my understanding is that they provide local cached copies of oft-visisted webpages. Even Google--last I knew, that is.
So it's more like, instead of having to access Apple servers every time I type "Apple.com", I'll actually be accessing the local version hosted at my ISP on their Akamai box.
In a way, Google already provides this with Google cache. So it really wouldn't be a big step for them to do it real time.
Come on. No one can seriously say that there is any position that involves being overworked, underappreciated, and underpaid more than pre-college education.
While your points are certainly valid, I think the main point that is established by this article is something that may not be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer: that speech on the Internet can and will be used against you.
You'd be surprised how many students who might not be as familiar with law or technology as you believe that blogs and such, while publicly accessible, enjoy some modicum of privacy. The thought is that, in the vastness of the Internet, nobody is going to actually read your post and care about it.
I used to think that way, until I was disciplined for a violation by my school. A girl I knew was expelled from NHS for making fun of teachers on her livejournal.
It's legally intuitive, but still not something most people would think of in terms of common sense. Strange, I know, but true.
One of my best buds from high school goes to Cornell for engineering. Have fun! It's very different from WM in all areas except for rigor of education. In both cases...well, "wicked hard" doesn't even begin to cover it.
But as ReformedExCon noted, this is not an issue of free speech--or rather, just an issue of free speech.
If a college has a defined code of conduct--or, in my school's case, an honor code--and there is photo evidence of the infraction online, than why can't that evidence be admissable? I mean, if you were a school admin and someone showed you a picture they snapped themselves of someone shooting up, you'd consider that to be good evidence, right? Why should that change just because it was posted on Facebook?
Certainly, some of the issue pertain to speech--but what if a student does something against the honor code, and defames the image of the school? Are the school's hands tied?
Unfortunately, it's not so simple as just free speech.
MU officials are considering creating a task force to educate students about use of the Web site Facebook and to discipline students for profiles containing evidence of misconduct or illegal activity.
Not totally accurate. One of the links I posted above details that one of the colleges considering disciplinary action for students is the University of Missouri--a public school.
However, that's only for illegal activity. What are the parameters for prosecution for underage drinking. I mean, Facebook could be a goldmine for authorities.
I know teachers at my college have spoken out against this practice. I wonder how far they'd go if it was their ass on the line, though...
Preface: IANAL, but I played one for years in Mock Trial.
It's really quite interesting to see how much disciplinary latitude schools have. The trend that I discovered--after we actually tried a case in Mock Trial regarding an infraction of the student handbook--is that, generally speaking, a student handbook is the rule of law for a school (barring any outright infringements on students rights.)
Therefore, schools have quite a bit of latitude in terms of punishment if they have a "detrimental conduct" clause. I myself was disciplined essentially for posting critical comments of a fellow student on my own webpage, as I posted earlier.
What I find really interesting, though, is the role the Internet is going to play in our public lives from now on. I wrote an extensive post in the other thread, but to sum it up...well, if today's journalists are willing to scour through a high school yearbook of Samuel Alito in order to find hints about his political beliefs, is it so hard to believe that my generation (speaking as a college student) will find themselves hamstrung by acts of folly conducted on the Internet? It's quite easy to connect to my pyromaniac website to porn and warez websites. Never mind my blog, livejournal, slashdot and assorted forum accounts.
It's an electronic goldmine for the next generation of muck raking journalists to sort through--with ever more powerful search technology.
We'll become a generation where we have to admit--because we've seen the electronic evidence--that, for example, our next President was, as a teenager, a Green Day listening, Microsoft hating, MySpace blogging, whiny, self absorbed git.
Wait 'til that shock hits...maybe then people will really self-censor. Today, you've got expelled college students. Tomorrow...e-scandals?
It's not an issue of religion. It's an issue of validity.
Here's a short editorial I wrote for my school paper about the problem of choosing ID as a science. It sums up my point.
The
controversy in Kansas over the educational value of Intelligent Design has
polarized a nation, raised the hackles of scientists, and produced one of the
greatest satirical works since Swift's Modest Proposal.
The
Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by
an Oregon State alumnus with a physics degree and a keen wit. Bobby Henderson (www.venganza.org) created his "parody
religion" in protest of the decision by the Kansas Board of Education to allow
the theory of Intelligent Design to be taught in science class.
The
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster--whose followers are known as
Pastafarians--asserts, among other things, that an invisible and
undetectable being made of pasta and meatballs created the world. Their god
bestows grace upon his followers by touching them with "His Noodly Appendage."
A graph is provided that charts--and ostensibly proves--the causal
relationship between a decreasing number of pirates in the world and increasing
global temperatures.
As
absurd as these claims may seem, they are actually new interpretations of old
ideas: Creationism, salvation by the grace of God alone, and the logical
fallacy of correlation implying causation. These ideas, when applied in the
context of an anthropomorphic and established deity, are accepted by an
incredible amount of the world's population. It is in the context of
worshipping an airborne Italian dinner that such beliefs seem so outrageous.
But
the ridiculous nature of the claims made by the Pastafarians is exactly the
point. Henderson recently sent a letter to the Kansas Board of Education saying
that he was pleased with their decision, since it would open the door to
alternate theories of creation (i.e. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism) being
discussed seriously in the science classroom. And as someone who, during high
school, transformed from a zealous Christian to an uneasy agnostic, I can
appreciate Henderson's point.
The doctrine of Intelligent Design
is based on one principle: that the "irreducible complexity" of organs and
organisms implies the guiding hand of a creator, as the complexity of a watch
implies the existence of a watchmaker. Therefore, proponents conclude,
Intelligent Design is just as scientifically valid as the theory of evolution,
and deserves equal time in the classroom.
The problem with this argument is
that Intelligent Design is not scientifically valid. My education in
science--both at the college and high school levels--noted that, to be considered
scientific, a theory must be falsifiable. It must be possible to prove it
wrong.
Evolution passes this test.
Intelligent Design, however, fails miserably. By asserting the guiding hand of
an unseen but omnipotent being, it reveals itself to be both scientifically
invalid and based on religious faith. Certainly, it is impossible to prove that
there is not a guiding hand in the
process, but that is no reason to presuppose one. Evolution functions quite
well without a guiding hand--it violates the principle of parsimony to
assume the existence of one.
Intelligent Design is perhaps best
described as an empty argument provoked by incredulity. It is fundamentally
unscientific. Science suggests that, if we do not understand how something
works, we have an incomplete understanding of it. The doctrine of Intelligent
Design suggests that if we do not understand how something works it is the product
of supernatural intervention. It is, as one member of the SciTech website
Slashdot.org put it, the "Oz" explanation: since we can't perceive the science
behind the curtain, the supernatural is the only explanation. It is doubly
ironic when one considers that the mechanisms of evolution are well documented.
Those who accept Intelligent Design are a scientific theory
Interesting. I'm not old enough to have been a Usenet junkie.
I certainly learned my lesson--mostly--after that event my freshman year. When I was a senior, a peer was kicked out of NHS for posting comments that were derogatory to certain teachers--a teacher had gone through her history and printed out every one of her comments, searching for things to get her on.
I'm not denying responsibility for speech. My argument is this:
The average person, who does not yet have any political aspirations, will be less likely to regulate his or her speech on the Internet than a person who does have such aspirations. We are going to have a generation of people who will find themselves bitten in the ass by their Internet personas, because muckraking journalists will look for anything--even a drunken "FUCK BUSH" post--in the future to label a political candidate.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there is a PI-redact document (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/PI-Redact.pdf) , but I think you're right in terms of which one the article refers to.
Double oops--that's the same URL twice. here is the other mirror.
I contributed to the slashdotting of a comrades' website :(
Oh well.
Mirror 1
Mirror 2
Don't have a copy of the original page, sorry--but it was pretty much just a link to this file anyway.
Can someone--from Canada, perhaps--give us some information about relevant Canadian case and common law regarding free speech? It seems that perhaps their rules are more strict than the American ones that many of us are more familiar with.
I'd like to see if this is completely unprecedented, or if we could have seen it coming...
--Petey
This is a trend. My state college has instituted a similar program, to be instituted fall of 2006.
I don't understand it myself. It seems like most students who sit in class with laptops play games more than anything else.
The investigative newspaper I work for will be printing an article soon after break about it. It seems like IT just wants to limit their support tickets to Thinkpads. It's actually a pretty shitty program in that respect too--you essentially have to have a Thinkpad.
A notebook computer requirement is in effect for students entering the College of William and Mary in the fall of 2006. Through the myNotebook program, incoming students may purchase a ThinkPad notebook computer ensuring access to the computer technology which is essential for academic success. ThinkPads purchased through this program will connect seamlessly to the W&M network, include four-year warranty and accidental damage coverage, and be eligible for on-campus service and repair.
Yikes.
Exactly. This survey doesn't account, for instance, for my server, which is some crappy, school-donated x86 box with Free BSD installed that we upgraded and now use for our robotics team website.
I refuse to believe that Windows surpasses *nix in more important things like stability, utility, and general excellence, either.
Or, in summary,
Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?"
No, because it isn't too much for those people to whom the music appeals!
Is it just me, or is this guy suggesting that since Joe Schmoe doesn't want to buy the new DragonForce album, I should pay less for my own power metal experience?
--Petey
You're incorrect on some very salient details.
/. reader to derive a keen understanding of modern technology from reading onl
While it's true that MySpace does offer some amazing features to its consumers--especially bands, and on "hive knowledge" like the Sony rootkit effect--many of the effects it has are undesirious. There are several specific points that you make with which I wish to disagree.
To wit:
1) Today it is called hooking up and generally not frowned upon. Incorrect. Even at my extraordinarily liberal school system (where, last year, fifty percent of the incoming freshman class had been banned from their eighth grade trip to D.C. because of marijuanna and heroin use) cheating was no more accepted socially than it has ever been. I've comforted too many girls who cried about their scumbag boyfriends to think otherwise.
More importantly, you are incorrect in your assessment of the teenage conception of MySpace. As has been posited before in other threads about teenagers on the web (notably this one), teenagers do not view their posts as being public. The teenage conception of the Internet is a strange one. I myself realized at an early age (9th grade) the public nature of the Internet, because I was disciplined at my school for making a website that ridiculed a fellow student. But I knew peers who, throughout their years, shared the same initial perception that I had: that while I knew intellectually the public nature of the Internet, its vast size made for effective anonymity. The only people who ever knew about my blog were people who I told! A girl in my senior class, who was kicked out of NHS for making derogatory posts about teachers on her public LiveJournal, was furious--she had thought of her posts as being effectively private, just because they were posted on a blog she hadn't explicitly told her teachers about. In this way, you can't expect that all posts made on MySpace are made with the perception that the teenagers are comfortable with the old internet rule of "would you show your grandma this." I guarantee that if you had shown any of the parents of the students who worked for you their promiscuous MySpace posts, you would have been vilified by your employees, because they would have been heartily embarassed to have their parents find out what they post "publicly."
2) If I had known that others existed with similar emotions or thoughts or habits, I think I would have matured at a faster past [sic]. You make a similar point to this one several times throughout your post, and I must gravely disagree that this tendency is beneficial. While I myself am totally in favor of the effect of the Internet on one's intellect--by vastly increasing the possibilities of exposure to new ideas, a quality never to be remanded--I am not in facvor of the Internet's influence socially. I am a member of the "Lowtax" school of thought. Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka, founder of Something Awful, holds that the problem with the Internet is that it takes an isolated extreme minority (e.g. furries) and allows them to meet others of their ilk. This is not a bad thing. However, the problem arises when meeting even five to ten other furries makes the one--who, remember, has been strikingly alone in their thoughts for all their lives--feel globally justified as the status quo (or at least as a significant minority). While I am no stickler for traditionalism, I firmly believe that the social effect of the Internet, in regards to the way it can seem to justify by numbers certain vile practices (esp. furries and pedophiles), can be very negative. MySpace is a key contributor to this problem--and while the concept is great, the actual effect is not so much.
Again, don't get me wrong, exposure to intellectual information is never bad. But asking someone to draw complex intellectual conclusions from MySpace is like asking a
I don't have an answer, but, luckily, neither does this article!
Have to love news media today. Excuse my rant, but it doesn't really tell us a lot when a "leading analyst" assures us of something.
Call me crazy, but it seems like comparing sales at ITMS and Tower would be comparing apples and oranges. How are they comparing them? Songs to singles? Songs to albums? Albums to albums? Volume moved?
I mean, I don't find the conclusion to be completely unbelievable. But can anyone think of a valid comparison between the two?
--Petey
Actually, I had an excellent experience at a public high school, with very little micromanaging and busywork, with the "paid benefit" of a social experience impossible via homeschooling.
--Petey
I used to work at an ISP, and we had Akamai boxes.
Actually, the three Akamai's we had are still running right on top of the server I administrate there.
I too was never quite clear on what they did, but my understanding is that they provide local cached copies of oft-visisted webpages. Even Google--last I knew, that is.
So it's more like, instead of having to access Apple servers every time I type "Apple.com", I'll actually be accessing the local version hosted at my ISP on their Akamai box.
In a way, Google already provides this with Google cache. So it really wouldn't be a big step for them to do it real time.
--Petey
Come on. No one can seriously say that there is any position that involves being overworked, underappreciated, and underpaid more than pre-college education.
--Petey
As I posted before, that's incorrect. The University of Missouri is in one of those articles, if you RTFA.
While your points are certainly valid, I think the main point that is established by this article is something that may not be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer: that speech on the Internet can and will be used against you.
You'd be surprised how many students who might not be as familiar with law or technology as you believe that blogs and such, while publicly accessible, enjoy some modicum of privacy. The thought is that, in the vastness of the Internet, nobody is going to actually read your post and care about it.
I used to think that way, until I was disciplined for a violation by my school. A girl I knew was expelled from NHS for making fun of teachers on her livejournal.
It's legally intuitive, but still not something most people would think of in terms of common sense. Strange, I know, but true.
Interesting how we all gravitate together.
See ya around campus.
--Petey
Right, but imagine if we had written and pictoral evidence of Bush doing all of those things, evidence even the most diehard Bush fan couldn't ignore.
One of my best buds from high school goes to Cornell for engineering. Have fun! It's very different from WM in all areas except for rigor of education. In both cases...well, "wicked hard" doesn't even begin to cover it.
But as ReformedExCon noted, this is not an issue of free speech--or rather, just an issue of free speech.
If a college has a defined code of conduct--or, in my school's case, an honor code--and there is photo evidence of the infraction online, than why can't that evidence be admissable? I mean, if you were a school admin and someone showed you a picture they snapped themselves of someone shooting up, you'd consider that to be good evidence, right? Why should that change just because it was posted on Facebook?
Certainly, some of the issue pertain to speech--but what if a student does something against the honor code, and defames the image of the school? Are the school's hands tied?
Unfortunately, it's not so simple as just free speech.
--Petey
I actually noted that it was a social networking service, if you read the summary.
I *am* an public school bitch through and through.
Naked pictures may be banned, but what about drug or alcohol related groups--or photos that show you indulging?
There isn't much in joining a group with a controversial name? Did you not RTFA? A Fisher College sophomore was expelled for essentially that!
As for what you say on Slashdot...
--Petey
So do students as the University of Missouri.
MU officials are considering creating a task force to educate students about use of the Web site Facebook and to discipline students for profiles containing evidence of misconduct or illegal activity.
--Petey
Not totally accurate. One of the links I posted above details that one of the colleges considering disciplinary action for students is the University of Missouri--a public school.
However, that's only for illegal activity. What are the parameters for prosecution for underage drinking. I mean, Facebook could be a goldmine for authorities.
I know teachers at my college have spoken out against this practice. I wonder how far they'd go if it was their ass on the line, though...
--Petey
Preface: IANAL, but I played one for years in Mock Trial.
It's really quite interesting to see how much disciplinary latitude schools have. The trend that I discovered--after we actually tried a case in Mock Trial regarding an infraction of the student handbook--is that, generally speaking, a student handbook is the rule of law for a school (barring any outright infringements on students rights.)
Therefore, schools have quite a bit of latitude in terms of punishment if they have a "detrimental conduct" clause. I myself was disciplined essentially for posting critical comments of a fellow student on my own webpage, as I posted earlier.
What I find really interesting, though, is the role the Internet is going to play in our public lives from now on. I wrote an extensive post in the other thread, but to sum it up...well, if today's journalists are willing to scour through a high school yearbook of Samuel Alito in order to find hints about his political beliefs, is it so hard to believe that my generation (speaking as a college student) will find themselves hamstrung by acts of folly conducted on the Internet? It's quite easy to connect to my pyromaniac website to porn and warez websites. Never mind my blog, livejournal, slashdot and assorted forum accounts.
It's an electronic goldmine for the next generation of muck raking journalists to sort through--with ever more powerful search technology.
We'll become a generation where we have to admit--because we've seen the electronic evidence--that, for example, our next President was, as a teenager, a Green Day listening, Microsoft hating, MySpace blogging, whiny, self absorbed git.
Wait 'til that shock hits...maybe then people will really self-censor. Today, you've got expelled college students. Tomorrow...e-scandals?
--Petey
I would, but it would be illegal ;)
But I assume you heard about the recent Carolina Panthers incident?
Sort of like that, only it never went that far. Unfortunately for me.
--Petey
Here's a short editorial I wrote for my school paper about the problem of choosing ID as a science. It sums up my point.
The controversy in Kansas over the educational value of Intelligent Design has polarized a nation, raised the hackles of scientists, and produced one of the greatest satirical works since Swift's Modest Proposal.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by an Oregon State alumnus with a physics degree and a keen wit. Bobby Henderson (www.venganza.org) created his "parody religion" in protest of the decision by the Kansas Board of Education to allow the theory of Intelligent Design to be taught in science class.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster--whose followers are known as Pastafarians--asserts, among other things, that an invisible and undetectable being made of pasta and meatballs created the world. Their god bestows grace upon his followers by touching them with "His Noodly Appendage." A graph is provided that charts--and ostensibly proves--the causal relationship between a decreasing number of pirates in the world and increasing global temperatures.
As absurd as these claims may seem, they are actually new interpretations of old ideas: Creationism, salvation by the grace of God alone, and the logical fallacy of correlation implying causation. These ideas, when applied in the context of an anthropomorphic and established deity, are accepted by an incredible amount of the world's population. It is in the context of worshipping an airborne Italian dinner that such beliefs seem so outrageous.
But the ridiculous nature of the claims made by the Pastafarians is exactly the point. Henderson recently sent a letter to the Kansas Board of Education saying that he was pleased with their decision, since it would open the door to alternate theories of creation (i.e. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism) being discussed seriously in the science classroom. And as someone who, during high school, transformed from a zealous Christian to an uneasy agnostic, I can appreciate Henderson's point.
The doctrine of Intelligent Design is based on one principle: that the "irreducible complexity" of organs and organisms implies the guiding hand of a creator, as the complexity of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. Therefore, proponents conclude, Intelligent Design is just as scientifically valid as the theory of evolution, and deserves equal time in the classroom.
The problem with this argument is that Intelligent Design is not scientifically valid. My education in science--both at the college and high school levels--noted that, to be considered scientific, a theory must be falsifiable. It must be possible to prove it wrong.
Evolution passes this test. Intelligent Design, however, fails miserably. By asserting the guiding hand of an unseen but omnipotent being, it reveals itself to be both scientifically invalid and based on religious faith. Certainly, it is impossible to prove that there is not a guiding hand in the process, but that is no reason to presuppose one. Evolution functions quite well without a guiding hand--it violates the principle of parsimony to assume the existence of one.
Intelligent Design is perhaps best described as an empty argument provoked by incredulity. It is fundamentally unscientific. Science suggests that, if we do not understand how something works, we have an incomplete understanding of it. The doctrine of Intelligent Design suggests that if we do not understand how something works it is the product of supernatural intervention. It is, as one member of the SciTech website Slashdot.org put it, the "Oz" explanation: since we can't perceive the science behind the curtain, the supernatural is the only explanation. It is doubly ironic when one considers that the mechanisms of evolution are well documented. Those who accept Intelligent Design are a scientific theory
Interesting. I'm not old enough to have been a Usenet junkie.
I certainly learned my lesson--mostly--after that event my freshman year. When I was a senior, a peer was kicked out of NHS for posting comments that were derogatory to certain teachers--a teacher had gone through her history and printed out every one of her comments, searching for things to get her on.
I'm not denying responsibility for speech. My argument is this:
The average person, who does not yet have any political aspirations, will be less likely to regulate his or her speech on the Internet than a person who does have such aspirations. We are going to have a generation of people who will find themselves bitten in the ass by their Internet personas, because muckraking journalists will look for anything--even a drunken "FUCK BUSH" post--in the future to label a political candidate.
--Petey