Free speech is an ideal because it is about political speech and the right of dissent and freedom from government censorship. Free speech is not a right for minors to be lewd.
But the school (assuming it is public), is an agent of the government. So the school punishing the minor for being lewd is government censorship. So if free speech is about freedom from government censorship, then it is/should be a right for minors to be lewd. As far as the government is concerned, at any rate. Kid's mom ought to smack him around for that filth, but that's entirely different.
Well, it all depends on which "society" you are in, doesn't it? Try your experiment 'round my neck of the woods, and the Communist atheist will receive a MUCH warmer reception...
Re:You could at least explain what you mean
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
i think the point of blocking you tube is that people being paid to do work shouldn't be watching video clips....sadly there are quite a few people who make their living by BSing their boss into thinking they do something horribly important, when they're really doing nothing.
I'm not arguing that people should be accepting of these behaviors, but one of us has a biased population we are pulling our data from. I know LOTS of people that don't drink or do illegal drugs specifically based on religious beliefs. Of course, these are mostly people of my parents' generation (early to mid 60s - age, not decade), but some are kids in their 20s or 30s. In my experience, there is actually an upswing in young people choosing not to do drugs, drink (at least underage), have sex before marriage, etc.
One more reason my generation was the last generation worth a damn:-)
Though, I won't deny the munchies, I think that symptom is pretty much universal.
Pot actually kills my appetite; something to do with the physical act of smoking, more so than the THC, I think. But yeah, everyone I've ever mentioned this to has the same WTF? reaction, so I believe I am a rare exception to the rule.
It's Friday, I ain't got shit to do, I'll defend Firehed. He is correct; you, Mr. AC, are an idiot. Firehed objected to the statement "By definition, a large percentage of the population is stupid". That is not at all the definition of stupid; it is possible (admittedly unlikely) that there could be a point in time where every single member of the population is what we consider "smart". Firehed then goes on to discuss what Detritus perhaps meant, i.e., by definition a large percentage of the population is below average intelligence. To be pedantic, even that is not quite true; given a population where everyone was exactly equal in intelligence, no one would be above or below average. But for all practical purposes, it is true enough.
There is a vital public interest in seeing that justice is done. Otherwise you wouldn't know about a poor guy in Florida who was convicted for possession of a number of oxycodone pills. The fact that he had a valid prescription from a licensed doctor and it was filled by a licensed pharmacist was irrelevant under Florida law (and the court followed the law). Without journalists, bloggers and other busybodies talking about it, the law won't get changed.
While this is true, and certainly of benefit to the public, I think maybe this guy should have the right to decide for himself whether or not he is interested in being a martyr for this cause. I'm always suspicious of people willing to sacrifice others for the "greater good".
I don't remember who, but another slashdotter posted this link a while back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
To summarize: a law professor and a veteran law enforcement officer giving a lecture on why even the innocent should never voluntarily give law enforcement any information they are not legally required to.
Very nice; you managed to get modded up for completely missing the bitter tone of his post. You really think ShieldW0lf is defending the ideology he is outlining?
Completely off-topic, but that is exactly how it works. I mean, the doctor hopefully wouldn't mention it to the patient, but OF COURSE all surgeons have a first time they perform any surgery. And for a lot of things, the only way to "practice" is on humans. So if we want there to be experienced surgeons in the future, we have to let inexperienced surgeons "practice" on someone today...
"Land of the Free, Home of the Brave", but it took a move to centralized government to eliminate slavery,
Nope, not a bit. It took ratification of the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution by the states to eliminate slavery (in the US). Which part of that process "took a move to centralized government"?
GP:Part of this is that athletes get better with each generation. P:
What do you attribute this to? Is it the crappy food, the sedentary lifestyle they're raised in, or the growth hormones?
The same reason almost every other human endeavor gets better over time? We learn to avoid our predecessor's mistakes, we take their successes and build on them, advances in other areas impact this area (eg., advances in understanding of the human body lead to greater efficiencies in athletic training), etc.
people typically only use 10% of their brain's potential, or something like that
You're probably thinking of the often quoted out of context fact that people typically only use about 10% of their brain at any given time. People love to trot this out to mean that there is an entire 90% of our brain we aren't using. Bullshit. The brain is highly specialized. There aren't untapped portions of the brain just sitting there - we simply don't usually engage in enough different activities at once to engage the various centers simultaneously.
Having said that, I agree that most people (me included, I hope) have not realized their full potential.
They also had staff that were so utterly petty as to destroy keyboards and office furniture when they left office.
Wow, someone else that remembers this! Although, to be fair, you seem to only remember the bullshit that the Bush team spread when they first entered office. The first time I formed an opinion about the Bush administration was this issue. They claimed that outgoing Clinton staff trashed their offices, stole furniture, marked up walls w/ graffiti, etc. Turns out, some of the staff removed the W key from their keyboards. That's it, a stupid little joke. When all this came out, I remember thinking "What a stupid lie. Pointless bashing of the outgoing staff for no political or practical purpose. Plus, a lie they couldn't possibly expect to get away with." Man, talk about foreshadowing (except for the whole get away with part, I was dead wrong on that).
that the educational system have to be able to comprehend that children, like people, are different.
First, I would like to point out how amused I am at your phrasing here. Now that you mention it, children do sort of resemble real people...
Joking aside, your point about differences in learning style is quite true, and actually at the root of the problem. There are not enough resources put into the educational system to provide the individualized treatment that would maximize each student's potential. It would basically require a personal tutor for every kid. As long as two or more kids are taught at the same time, at least one of them is not learning in his/her ideal style, ideal pace, etc.
this really doesn't happen in the US. If you don't intend to go to college, you won't take college prep classes.
Oh, this happens in the US. My ex-wife teaches high school English - the lowest level, the kids that can barely read? It's called the College Prep class, even though none of the kids in it even want to go to college. But we have to pretend, b/c acknowledging that they aren't going to college is somehow insulting, and we can't risk somehow implying that their academic accomplishments are less than everyone else's.
Slashdot Mirror
Free speech is an ideal because it is about political speech and the right of dissent and freedom from government censorship. Free speech is not a right for minors to be lewd.
But the school (assuming it is public), is an agent of the government. So the school punishing the minor for being lewd is government censorship. So if free speech is about freedom from government censorship, then it is/should be a right for minors to be lewd. As far as the government is concerned, at any rate. Kid's mom ought to smack him around for that filth, but that's entirely different.
Well, it all depends on which "society" you are in, doesn't it? Try your experiment 'round my neck of the woods, and the Communist atheist will receive a MUCH warmer reception...
i think the point of blocking you tube is that people being paid to do work shouldn't be watching video clips....sadly there are quite a few people who make their living by BSing their boss into thinking they do something horribly important, when they're really doing nothing.
He posts to slashdot....
Wow, that has the sound of an old joke, but it's new to me. That is damned funny!
Even the most pious do drugs and drink.
:-)
I'm not arguing that people should be accepting of these behaviors, but one of us has a biased population we are pulling our data from. I know LOTS of people that don't drink or do illegal drugs specifically based on religious beliefs. Of course, these are mostly people of my parents' generation (early to mid 60s - age, not decade), but some are kids in their 20s or 30s. In my experience, there is actually an upswing in young people choosing not to do drugs, drink (at least underage), have sex before marriage, etc.
One more reason my generation was the last generation worth a damn
ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
Though, I won't deny the munchies, I think that symptom is pretty much universal.
Pot actually kills my appetite; something to do with the physical act of smoking, more so than the THC, I think. But yeah, everyone I've ever mentioned this to has the same WTF? reaction, so I believe I am a rare exception to the rule.
One other sad fact about the WTC and 9/11: It was only at about 10% of its normal occupancy when the planes struck the building.
Man, I really hope you simply failed to think about what you were saying there...
It's Friday, I ain't got shit to do, I'll defend Firehed. He is correct; you, Mr. AC, are an idiot. Firehed objected to the statement "By definition, a large percentage of the population is stupid". That is not at all the definition of stupid; it is possible (admittedly unlikely) that there could be a point in time where every single member of the population is what we consider "smart". Firehed then goes on to discuss what Detritus perhaps meant, i.e., by definition a large percentage of the population is below average intelligence. To be pedantic, even that is not quite true; given a population where everyone was exactly equal in intelligence, no one would be above or below average. But for all practical purposes, it is true enough.
Oh, very well played, Sir.
There is a vital public interest in seeing that justice is done. Otherwise you wouldn't know about a poor guy in Florida who was convicted for possession of a number of oxycodone pills. The fact that he had a valid prescription from a licensed doctor and it was filled by a licensed pharmacist was irrelevant under Florida law (and the court followed the law). Without journalists, bloggers and other busybodies talking about it, the law won't get changed.
While this is true, and certainly of benefit to the public, I think maybe this guy should have the right to decide for himself whether or not he is interested in being a martyr for this cause. I'm always suspicious of people willing to sacrifice others for the "greater good".
I don't remember who, but another slashdotter posted this link a while back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
To summarize: a law professor and a veteran law enforcement officer giving a lecture on why even the innocent should never voluntarily give law enforcement any information they are not legally required to.
Very nice; you managed to get modded up for completely missing the bitter tone of his post. You really think ShieldW0lf is defending the ideology he is outlining?
Completely off-topic, but that is exactly how it works. I mean, the doctor hopefully wouldn't mention it to the patient, but OF COURSE all surgeons have a first time they perform any surgery. And for a lot of things, the only way to "practice" is on humans. So if we want there to be experienced surgeons in the future, we have to let inexperienced surgeons "practice" on someone today...
Ok. So what human endeavors don't get better over time?
Well, true enough. So how did a move to centralized government eliminate slavery, then?
3) Arguing about which is better, 1 or 2
I have to admit I spent an embarrassing amount of time trying figure our why nerds would argue over which integer is better. Then I reread the list...
p.s. I'm torn between pride and shame that I managed to generate theoretical arguments in support of either side of the imaginary 1 vs. 2 debate
"Land of the Free, Home of the Brave", but it took a move to centralized government to eliminate slavery,
Nope, not a bit. It took ratification of the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution by the states to eliminate slavery (in the US). Which part of that process "took a move to centralized government"?
GP:Part of this is that athletes get better with each generation.
P: What do you attribute this to? Is it the crappy food, the sedentary lifestyle they're raised in, or the growth hormones?
The same reason almost every other human endeavor gets better over time? We learn to avoid our predecessor's mistakes, we take their successes and build on them, advances in other areas impact this area (eg., advances in understanding of the human body lead to greater efficiencies in athletic training), etc.
people typically only use 10% of their brain's potential, or something like that
You're probably thinking of the often quoted out of context fact that people typically only use about 10% of their brain at any given time. People love to trot this out to mean that there is an entire 90% of our brain we aren't using. Bullshit. The brain is highly specialized. There aren't untapped portions of the brain just sitting there - we simply don't usually engage in enough different activities at once to engage the various centers simultaneously.
Having said that, I agree that most people (me included, I hope) have not realized their full potential.
Another myth [uihealthcare.com]. And while it can cause problems with erection, that's only if you go numb down there.
I'm pretty sure if you have trouble getting and maintaining an erection, it has a definite practical impact on your fertility.
They also had staff that were so utterly petty as to destroy keyboards and office furniture when they left office.
Wow, someone else that remembers this! Although, to be fair, you seem to only remember the bullshit that the Bush team spread when they first entered office. The first time I formed an opinion about the Bush administration was this issue. They claimed that outgoing Clinton staff trashed their offices, stole furniture, marked up walls w/ graffiti, etc. Turns out, some of the staff removed the W key from their keyboards. That's it, a stupid little joke. When all this came out, I remember thinking "What a stupid lie. Pointless bashing of the outgoing staff for no political or practical purpose. Plus, a lie they couldn't possibly expect to get away with." Man, talk about foreshadowing (except for the whole get away with part, I was dead wrong on that).
that the educational system have to be able to comprehend that children, like people, are different.
First, I would like to point out how amused I am at your phrasing here. Now that you mention it, children do sort of resemble real people...
Joking aside, your point about differences in learning style is quite true, and actually at the root of the problem. There are not enough resources put into the educational system to provide the individualized treatment that would maximize each student's potential. It would basically require a personal tutor for every kid. As long as two or more kids are taught at the same time, at least one of them is not learning in his/her ideal style, ideal pace, etc.
this really doesn't happen in the US. If you don't intend to go to college, you won't take college prep classes.
Oh, this happens in the US. My ex-wife teaches high school English - the lowest level, the kids that can barely read? It's called the College Prep class, even though none of the kids in it even want to go to college. But we have to pretend, b/c acknowledging that they aren't going to college is somehow insulting, and we can't risk somehow implying that their academic accomplishments are less than everyone else's.
No way, dude. My mom is totally hot, eminently doable.
Uh, wait a sec...