This is a horrible idea. Especially since its just a money grab by a government.
Maybe the government should cut its spending if it wants to reduce its debt. I'd love to be able just to take someone else's money to pay my own debt off.
It wouldn't be just one cent either; it would cost more than a $1 to collect the tax.
Hmm, I guess its just NY and DE then. I know alot of people near DE cross the board to buy alcohol there.
In NH, they actually have a rest area with the typical McDs, gas stations etc off an interstate. They also had a liquor store.
Anyway, why is selling beer at a gas station a bad idea? Unless you are buying your booze from a bar, you are always taking alcohol back to your car. Drinking it while you're driving is a bad idea.
I know your last statement is a joke, but in all seriousness, alcohol abuse and whether or not you have state stores don't seem to be related.
Really? What part of PA were you in? I never had a problem getting a job, as a kid or in my professional career. But I was always at most 1 and a half hours outside Philly.
Please don't underestimate the entrenched problems in Philadelphia.
Never said there weren't any problems in Philly. I know, I live there. But there's a reason everything outside of Philly and its suburbs is called 'Pennsyltucky.'
But yes, the case law for beer, state stores, etc. needs to go. Although they do get good discounts on wine due to volume purchases.
Which are destroyed from the taxes. I doubt the discounts are very much either; wine here costs pretty much the same or less than it did in PA.
I never said that state governments were not corrupt or have any of the problems you mention.
The big problem is that the federal goverment constantly steps all over states rights, because the state governments no longer have anyone representing thier interests.
If states had more influence, the people would have more influence. You can change your state much easier than the federal government. If the state representive elects corrupt officals, the people can vote THOSE representives out for others that will. I feel my vote counts much more in city and state elections than it does for Federal level elections.
Nor should the feds have such power over the entire country; whats good for Vermont may not be good for Florida.
The best goverment is one thats pretty ineffective actually; checks and balances relies on the fact that people with power don't want to lose it, thus fight among the other groups. If they're busying fighting to keep the power they currently have, it should be harder for them to gain more power they were never meant to have.
PA has bigger problems relating to alcohol than taxing.
Foremost, the state controls all alcohol sales. Last I heard though, they were doign to do a 'trial' and allow some grocery stores to sell beer and wine. What a forward thinking state! Nevermind that I think every state surrounding it has already allowed those alcohol products (and more) to be sold just about everywhere.
Unfortunatly PA is ruled by a bunch of 80 year olds that don't want anything to change from the 1930s. Philadelphia offsets this somewhat, but when you have the second highest number of elderly in the country, don't bet on anything changing soon.
Personally I think ALL laws should have an expiration date. And each law must be voted on seperately.
We have some pretty antiquated laws that should just die. You get the added benefit that Congress is too busy keeping murder laws on the books to introduce stupider laws!
I think the best way to get rid of pork is to go back to the state governments electing the members of Senate, instead of having the people elect them.
You could argue T&J is worse because it has the same violence but doesn't show the realistic consequences. In Doom 3, you see graphically what a a person ripped apart looks like, and they don't get up (well, unless they become a zombie themselves).
So do you think that movie rating suck as well? What about music? Either the CD has an 'Explicit lyrics' label or it doesn't. But you find those useful? I'm assuming yes since you're only bashing game rating systems.
Here's a tip. Don't worry about the ratings. Just google for a review of the game. There are always screen shots of reviewed games. Reviews of violent games will ALWAYS show some violent pictures.
The game rating system is fine as it is; it actually tells you why the game received the rating it does. Claiming that its not helpful is just being lazy.
I agree. Kids can handle a lot more than we give them credit for.
Don't forget, we evolved over many years; most of our history has included pretty tramatic things, like losing one or both parents, maybe getting lost.
Its nice to have some science in this debate finally; maybe that will quell parents fears. Of course science doesn't seem to stop creationists from presenting their 'theory'.. maybe I'm hoping for too much.
No, I think the act itself should be illegal. The whole point of being able to restrict some types of speech is to avoid the type of panic that would be caused by yelling "fire" in a theater.
Then you restrict speech urging people to rise up against an oppresive government, or even speech that tells some truth about the government which could case panic.
Once the panic has been started and people start to get hurt, it's too late.
Agreed, and if people ARE hurt because of a panic you started, well, you would be responsible (assuming of course there really is no fire).
At some point, the authorities have to be able to stop it before it happens.
You've now entered the realm of thought crime, which I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to argue the Framers didn't support.
So the act itself, and the probable panic it would cause, is made illegal, rightfully in my eyes.
You are likely to hit someone with a a car and kill them, even if you follow all the rules. Someone may step out in front of you, and you may see them, but not in time to stop. What you're suggesting is that we take away everyone's right to drive, because they might hurt someone. Put another way, your life is ruled of fear of bad things that might happen, so you try to make it so that no one can do anything.
No, punish only those that have actually harmed someone, not those that might harm someone. No harm, no fowl.
It's worth noting for completeness that Justice Holmes (I think) was only talking about speech that had no real value whatsoever, like, well, yelling "fire" when there's no fire.
The problem is of course determining the 'value' of speech or expression. You could say that porn has no value. If you think it has no value, does that mean it shouldn't be protected? If a majority agree? I'm not even sure he was talking about speech with no value, as I don't recall any text in which he stated that. After all, what if some speech has value and also creates a clear and present danger? What do you do then?
In the case in question here, it doesn't look like the kid even did that, he only said one thing which could be possibly construed as a vague threat. That's not enough to punish the kid, at least through school channels. In any event, this will be a really interesting case to watch unfold, to see what schools can do about outside-of-school but related-to-school conduct.
Here at least we agree. FWIW, I didn't construe even a vague threat from what I've read so far.
Actually, regarding things like defamation of character, liable, slander, etc, those are almost 100% civil, not criminal things and proof does not play in the civil court arena.
Actually, you are wrong. There is a burden of proof, its just that its lower, and not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Otherwise I can sue for something you never even said.
But the "steps" are usually plans, which are all in the realm of "speech".
Its the execute of the steps that are outside free speech. If you actually go to buy a rifle, for example, even if you do so legally and with permits, if shooting someone with a rifle was part of your plan (with others), you are guilty of consipiricy.
Conspiracy to commit murder and murder are two completely different animals. You can be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder without killing anybody.
I never said they were the same, nor did i say you have to carry out the entire plan. If you're planning (with others) to blow up a building, simply buying the materials to build a bomb is sufficent to be guilty of consipricy. You can talk about it all you want; its when you take some step to start executing the plan is when it crosses into conspricy.
Something like giving a few grand to an undercover cop under the premise that he will kill somebody for you will usually do the trick.
I don't see how that counteracts my point; I said youi need to execute some of your plan, I never said you had to fully carry it out.
I don't like the yelling fire issue. I think its completely silly, and its only there for pretty dumb people to think a little.
Well if you count the opinions of judges only 'thinking a little' and the judges themselves are 'pretty dumb', I guess thats your prerogative. But the concept is useful for framing a discussion on freedom of speech and when it is or is not ok to take that freedom away.
He correctly pointed out that, if you push (bully) people too far, they will snap and fight back, but there's nothing I've read that indicates he was feeling anywhere that frustrated.
Maybe a poor analogy on his part (was the school really on his case everyday, making his life hell everyday?), but doesn't seem to be a threat to me.
FWI, you can't be found guilty of any of these things unless the other party proves they were somehow harmed by the slander or liable speech. If they can't prove it, you can still say it, even though its not true.
conspiracy
I believe most conspircy laws state that you must go beyond talking; you actually have to take some step to executing your conspircy.
Same goes for the infamous desire to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire!
Search Wikipedia for this; there are some interesting facts. FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal. I know, I'm splitting hairs, but I think its important to make the distinction so we don't undermine the right to free speech.
If it really is a case of libel or slander, they should report it to the police. Police enforce the laws; not school districts.
The fact is that a student is trying to excersise his free speech, while not in school, and the school is trying to silence him. If they are trying to expell him now for voicing his opinion, it stands to reason they tried other things to silence him earlier. Why wouldn't you think they were?
Indeed. Sadly, vendors WILL release drivers for most of their stuff shortly after Vista is released, even though the hardware itself may be a few years older. Linux drivers still seem to be fairly rare from vendors.
I didn't say *programming* languages, craphead, I said "languages". CSS and HTML are languages that you have to know to do Ajax programming.
You seemed to imply that, since you said you "write a component" in 6 different languages. I've never written a component IN XML (nor do I know how you could do so); I have written components that USE XML. That is a bit of a difference, so I think you can see how I thought you were implying they were.
HTTP is a language as much as a protocol, in that as a protocol it is entirely human readable.
I don't think protocols turn into languages based on how human readable they are, not without stretching what a language is. Otherwise a protocol is a language which is machine code commands, and that kinda dilutes the meaning of each of those terms.
Is XML even a "language"? (actually, THAT is a question I ask candidates - the real answer is no, it isn't.)
That question is a bit vague; funny how the first thing you said in reply was that you didn't stipulate 'programming language,' you said that it was just a language. Now you're saying its not a language at all? The fact is that it is a language, since a language is nothing more than an agreed upon alphabet and grammer. Just not a programming langauge.
Writing low-level Ajax code does involve knowledge of the HTTP protocol, and most people who know it know the protocol in the form of the language the two computers use to talk to each other, even if they never specifically write HTTP-handling code (though I have, both client and server).
You have to know that its a method for a client and server to speak, but thats about it. I know a bit more than that, but any of that knowledge is rarely ever needed.
When you have to write server-code that involves sending additional headers back and forth, you are talking HTTP by writing code that generates strings in the HTTP langugage.
True, but you're usually doing so through some kind of API that builds the headers for you. I have yet to have a need to directly interact with the headers. Again though, you're not "writing a component...in HTTP." You have a component which uses HTTP.
a good developer should know WHY they can't write a new header after the server has already started to send text down the line (and why that one little newline in their JSP can break with a huge 500 internal service error deep inside tomcat). to really know why is to know HTTP to the point of being able to imagine the language, the header strings, as if you writing it yourself.
I'd call that a failure of JSP and / or Tomcat. The developer shouldn't HAVE to code so specifically that they are manually maninpulating headers; there should be an API that does so for them, and ideally this API wouldn't let them violate the HTTP protocol. Knowing that you can't change something you already sent down the wire is pretty basic knowledge.
yeah, you can be "productive" not having to give a rats ass about HTTP and just use prototype and scriptalicious and be done with it, but some of us have to actually architect things and build that sort of stuff and know the low-level details so you don't have to.
If you're building a web server or API that wraps HTTP functionality then yes you should know that. Of course those kinds of positions are in the minority. Also, just because you need to know more details of the protocol doesn't really have anything to do with learning with or without an IDE. Or are you suggesting that those students taught with an IDE will be incapable of learning any kind of lower level programming?
and as i wrote before (at least 4 times now, and i'm sure others have had to say it as well to you religious-war nutcases), this question isn't about professional software developers using or not using IDEs. (I use eclipse with a passion). this is about whether or not the IDE for a beginning programmer (particularly for a CS degree student) HINDERS the development o
Slashdot Mirror
This is a horrible idea. Especially since its just a money grab by a government.
Maybe the government should cut its spending if it wants to reduce its debt. I'd love to be able just to take someone else's money to pay my own debt off.
It wouldn't be just one cent either; it would cost more than a $1 to collect the tax.
Hmm, I guess its just NY and DE then. I know alot of people near DE cross the board to buy alcohol there.
In NH, they actually have a rest area with the typical McDs, gas stations etc off an interstate. They also had a liquor store.
Anyway, why is selling beer at a gas station a bad idea? Unless you are buying your booze from a bar, you are always taking alcohol back to your car. Drinking it while you're driving is a bad idea.
I know your last statement is a joke, but in all seriousness, alcohol abuse and whether or not you have state stores don't seem to be related.
Really? What part of PA were you in? I never had a problem getting a job, as a kid or in my professional career. But I was always at most 1 and a half hours outside Philly.
What kind of company do you work for?
Please don't underestimate the entrenched problems in Philadelphia.
Never said there weren't any problems in Philly. I know, I live there. But there's a reason everything outside of Philly and its suburbs is called 'Pennsyltucky.'
But yes, the case law for beer, state stores, etc. needs to go. Although they do get good discounts on wine due to volume purchases.
Which are destroyed from the taxes. I doubt the discounts are very much either; wine here costs pretty much the same or less than it did in PA.
Oh, and by the way the article you linked to basically said this:
The 17th didn't stop corruption in the Senate, but we should keep it anyway.
Hardly seems like an argument that we shouldn't repel it. After all, if it had no impact, what could be the harm in repeling it?
I never said that state governments were not corrupt or have any of the problems you mention.
The big problem is that the federal goverment constantly steps all over states rights, because the state governments no longer have anyone representing thier interests.
If states had more influence, the people would have more influence. You can change your state much easier than the federal government. If the state representive elects corrupt officals, the people can vote THOSE representives out for others that will. I feel my vote counts much more in city and state elections than it does for Federal level elections.
Nor should the feds have such power over the entire country; whats good for Vermont may not be good for Florida.
The best goverment is one thats pretty ineffective actually; checks and balances relies on the fact that people with power don't want to lose it, thus fight among the other groups. If they're busying fighting to keep the power they currently have, it should be harder for them to gain more power they were never meant to have.
They don't advertise that its done via a rebate though; its simply 'Sign up and your first month is free!'
Deceptive to say the least. No special text indicating that taxes have to be paid or claiming its a rebate. Unqualified 'free.'
PA has bigger problems relating to alcohol than taxing.
Foremost, the state controls all alcohol sales. Last I heard though, they were doign to do a 'trial' and allow some grocery stores to sell beer and wine. What a forward thinking state! Nevermind that I think every state surrounding it has already allowed those alcohol products (and more) to be sold just about everywhere.
Unfortunatly PA is ruled by a bunch of 80 year olds that don't want anything to change from the 1930s. Philadelphia offsets this somewhat, but when you have the second highest number of elderly in the country, don't bet on anything changing soon.
Personally I think ALL laws should have an expiration date. And each law must be voted on seperately.
We have some pretty antiquated laws that should just die. You get the added benefit that Congress is too busy keeping murder laws on the books to introduce stupider laws!
Um, gas, sales, and property taxes aren't income taxes..so your 50% number is misleading.
I think the best way to get rid of pork is to go back to the state governments electing the members of Senate, instead of having the people elect them.
Vonage chared that 3% fee even when my first month of service was free.
I tried to explain that $0 * 3% = 0. They didn't seem to understand.
You could argue T&J is worse because it has the same violence but doesn't show the realistic consequences. In Doom 3, you see graphically what a a person ripped apart looks like, and they don't get up (well, unless they become a zombie themselves).
So do you think that movie rating suck as well? What about music? Either the CD has an 'Explicit lyrics' label or it doesn't. But you find those useful? I'm assuming yes since you're only bashing game rating systems.
Here's a tip. Don't worry about the ratings. Just google for a review of the game. There are always screen shots of reviewed games. Reviews of violent games will ALWAYS show some violent pictures.
The game rating system is fine as it is; it actually tells you why the game received the rating it does. Claiming that its not helpful is just being lazy.
Don't worry. Soon the rich will get what they want, which is to take everyone else's money.
Once they've finished destroying the middle class, people will revolt.
Isn't that how the Soviet Union came to be? Remember, it was the creation of a middle class that kept the same thing from happening here.
I agree. Kids can handle a lot more than we give them credit for.
Don't forget, we evolved over many years; most of our history has included pretty tramatic things, like losing one or both parents, maybe getting lost.
Its nice to have some science in this debate finally; maybe that will quell parents fears. Of course science doesn't seem to stop creationists from presenting their 'theory'.. maybe I'm hoping for too much.
No, I think the act itself should be illegal. The whole point of being able to restrict some types of speech is to avoid the type of panic that would be caused by yelling "fire" in a theater.
Then you restrict speech urging people to rise up against an oppresive government, or even speech that tells some truth about the government which could case panic.
Once the panic has been started and people start to get hurt, it's too late.
Agreed, and if people ARE hurt because of a panic you started, well, you would be responsible (assuming of course there really is no fire).
At some point, the authorities have to be able to stop it before it happens.
You've now entered the realm of thought crime, which I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to argue the Framers didn't support.
So the act itself, and the probable panic it would cause, is made illegal, rightfully in my eyes.
You are likely to hit someone with a a car and kill them, even if you follow all the rules. Someone may step out in front of you, and you may see them, but not in time to stop. What you're suggesting is that we take away everyone's right to drive, because they might hurt someone. Put another way, your life is ruled of fear of bad things that might happen, so you try to make it so that no one can do anything.
No, punish only those that have actually harmed someone, not those that might harm someone. No harm, no fowl.
It's worth noting for completeness that Justice Holmes (I think) was only talking about speech that had no real value whatsoever, like, well, yelling "fire" when there's no fire.
The problem is of course determining the 'value' of speech or expression. You could say that porn has no value. If you think it has no value, does that mean it shouldn't be protected? If a majority agree? I'm not even sure he was talking about speech with no value, as I don't recall any text in which he stated that. After all, what if some speech has value and also creates a clear and present danger? What do you do then?
In the case in question here, it doesn't look like the kid even did that, he only said one thing which could be possibly construed as a vague threat. That's not enough to punish the kid, at least through school channels. In any event, this will be a really interesting case to watch unfold, to see what schools can do about outside-of-school but related-to-school conduct.
Here at least we agree. FWIW, I didn't construe even a vague threat from what I've read so far.
Actually, regarding things like defamation of character, liable, slander, etc, those are almost 100% civil, not criminal things and proof does not play in the civil court arena.
Actually, you are wrong. There is a burden of proof, its just that its lower, and not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Otherwise I can sue for something you never even said.
But the "steps" are usually plans, which are all in the realm of "speech".
Its the execute of the steps that are outside free speech. If you actually go to buy a rifle, for example, even if you do so legally and with permits, if shooting someone with a rifle was part of your plan (with others), you are guilty of consipiricy.
Conspiracy to commit murder and murder are two completely different animals. You can be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder without killing anybody.
I never said they were the same, nor did i say you have to carry out the entire plan. If you're planning (with others) to blow up a building, simply buying the materials to build a bomb is sufficent to be guilty of consipricy. You can talk about it all you want; its when you take some step to start executing the plan is when it crosses into conspricy.
Something like giving a few grand to an undercover cop under the premise that he will kill somebody for you will usually do the trick.
I don't see how that counteracts my point; I said youi need to execute some of your plan, I never said you had to fully carry it out.
I don't like the yelling fire issue. I think its completely silly, and its only there for pretty dumb people to think a little.
Well if you count the opinions of judges only 'thinking a little' and the judges themselves are 'pretty dumb', I guess thats your prerogative. But the concept is useful for framing a discussion on freedom of speech and when it is or is not ok to take that freedom away.
Who said life was fair?
I dunno, we all seem to have some embedded sense of what is fair and what is not.
Fact: People free load off others.
That doesn't make it right. Let me try one.
Fact: People kill other people.
Well, I guess that settles it. We shouldn't bother with murders anymore. I guess its just unfair.
Arguing the rightness of that serves no purpose. Talking about changing the state of things, that has purpose.
Um, arguing that something is wrong usually has to be the first step into changing things, don't you think?
All done here.
Good. What a useless post that was..
Where did he threaten a Columbine-like incident?
He correctly pointed out that, if you push (bully) people too far, they will snap and fight back, but there's nothing I've read that indicates he was feeling anywhere that frustrated.
Maybe a poor analogy on his part (was the school really on his case everyday, making his life hell everyday?), but doesn't seem to be a threat to me.
Slander, liable speech, defamation of character
FWI, you can't be found guilty of any of these things unless the other party proves they were somehow harmed by the slander or liable speech. If they can't prove it, you can still say it, even though its not true.
conspiracy
I believe most conspircy laws state that you must go beyond talking; you actually have to take some step to executing your conspircy.
Same goes for the infamous desire to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire!
Search Wikipedia for this; there are some interesting facts. FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal. I know, I'm splitting hairs, but I think its important to make the distinction so we don't undermine the right to free speech.
The non-thinking they are instilling seems to be working.
Wasn't there a poll a few years ago that said students believed the freedom of speech should be more restricted?
If it really is a case of libel or slander, they should report it to the police. Police enforce the laws; not school districts.
The fact is that a student is trying to excersise his free speech, while not in school, and the school is trying to silence him. If they are trying to expell him now for voicing his opinion, it stands to reason they tried other things to silence him earlier. Why wouldn't you think they were?
Indeed. Sadly, vendors WILL release drivers for most of their stuff shortly after Vista is released, even though the hardware itself may be a few years older. Linux drivers still seem to be fairly rare from vendors.
I didn't say *programming* languages, craphead, I said "languages". CSS and HTML are languages that you have to know to do Ajax programming.
You seemed to imply that, since you said you "write a component" in 6 different languages. I've never written a component IN XML (nor do I know how you could do so); I have written components that USE XML. That is a bit of a difference, so I think you can see how I thought you were implying they were.
HTTP is a language as much as a protocol, in that as a protocol it is entirely human readable.
I don't think protocols turn into languages based on how human readable they are, not without stretching what a language is. Otherwise a protocol is a language which is machine code commands, and that kinda dilutes the meaning of each of those terms.
Is XML even a "language"? (actually, THAT is a question I ask candidates - the real answer is no, it isn't.)
That question is a bit vague; funny how the first thing you said in reply was that you didn't stipulate 'programming language,' you said that it was just a language. Now you're saying its not a language at all? The fact is that it is a language, since a language is nothing more than an agreed upon alphabet and grammer. Just not a programming langauge.
Writing low-level Ajax code does involve knowledge of the HTTP protocol, and most people who know it know the protocol in the form of the language the two computers use to talk to each other, even if they never specifically write HTTP-handling code (though I have, both client and server).
You have to know that its a method for a client and server to speak, but thats about it. I know a bit more than that, but any of that knowledge is rarely ever needed.
When you have to write server-code that involves sending additional headers back and forth, you are talking HTTP by writing code that generates strings in the HTTP langugage.
True, but you're usually doing so through some kind of API that builds the headers for you. I have yet to have a need to directly interact with the headers. Again though, you're not "writing a component...in HTTP." You have a component which uses HTTP.
a good developer should know WHY they can't write a new header after the server has already started to send text down the line (and why that one little newline in their JSP can break with a huge 500 internal service error deep inside tomcat). to really know why is to know HTTP to the point of being able to imagine the language, the header strings, as if you writing it yourself.
I'd call that a failure of JSP and / or Tomcat. The developer shouldn't HAVE to code so specifically that they are manually maninpulating headers; there should be an API that does so for them, and ideally this API wouldn't let them violate the HTTP protocol. Knowing that you can't change something you already sent down the wire is pretty basic knowledge.
yeah, you can be "productive" not having to give a rats ass about HTTP and just use prototype and scriptalicious and be done with it, but some of us have to actually architect things and build that sort of stuff and know the low-level details so you don't have to.
If you're building a web server or API that wraps HTTP functionality then yes you should know that. Of course those kinds of positions are in the minority. Also, just because you need to know more details of the protocol doesn't really have anything to do with learning with or without an IDE. Or are you suggesting that those students taught with an IDE will be incapable of learning any kind of lower level programming?
and as i wrote before (at least 4 times now, and i'm sure others have had to say it as well to you religious-war nutcases), this question isn't about professional software developers using or not using IDEs. (I use eclipse with a passion). this is about whether or not the IDE for a beginning programmer (particularly for a CS degree student) HINDERS the development o