This student was rather silly to be playing simulated lethal combat games within school grounds.
The student was even sillier to post records of the simulated lethal combat to online forums that could be viewed by the students of said school and by those responsible for the safety of the students of said school.
The students could quite appropriately experience concern for their safety. The cultural context of the game is not going to be universally shared and so cannot be a guarantee that the other students will be able to recognise that this information does not present a threat to them.
The guardians of the school, those responsible for the safety, physical, mental and emotional, of the students, need to take all of these factors into consideration when determining what action to take to enact appropriate protections.
Given the difficulties of a rather out of control gun culture, a history of extremely lethal events occurring on a disturbingly regular basis in schools within the USA and the vast level of legislatively enforced uncertainty in the appropriate and effective management of students that may be engaging in activities that may cause others to feel threatened, charging this student with a misdemeanor seems to be the best option available. It might not work, It is probably an over reaction, but it still appears to be the best option to start with.
The only way the USA will ever get any control over their uncontrolled gun culture and the corresponding over reactions to these types of silliness is for a referendum to modify the constitution to ameliorate the right to bare arms to a point where appropriate and effective control over the availability and lethality of generally available weapons can be imposed by elected representatives.
And this is why we have patents.
To protect innovators ability to exploit their innovation so that they can be free to innovate some more.
Unfortunately this mechanism has experienced an enormous amount of abuse, and so we come to the counter mechanism of open source.
Thus the best solution maybe to use both..
How you use both is then the question to answer.
This will depend on the technology involved, what component you can choose to control, what components you can make open source, and also on other aspects of your potential business models.
You can support the design of your open source hardware project. Actively doing this keeps the community cohesive and on point.
When it comes to supporting the implementation, If you built it, and you sell it, then you support it.
If someone else builds it and sells it then they can support it.
If the potential customer buys from someone else and asks for your support because the low cost outfit they bought it from cannot help them, then, charge like wounded bulls, be very suspicious of what your are working with, point out all the problems you so conscientiously find and help out as much as you can.
This will offset your costs, make you look good, encourage the customer to buy from you in future and make your low cost competitor look incompetent.
Well I found a pdf as well. I read the end of the book. What do you think would happen to me if I said who lives, who dies, who is now good, who is bad and who is indeterminate?
I'll just look for one of those holes that I can pull in after myself shall I?
With SCO calling the IT environment the wild west because of OSS then the only way to look at proprietry software vendors is as feudalistic overlords. They have their walls of copyright and patents and treaties with other feudalistic overlords to keep the peasents in their place.
And we all know what good that was.
Playboy Bunnys will be wandering around Australia looking for holes to get through and show off their suitability for breeding.
And all the other people that are showing themselves f**king like bunnies will be trying to get through as well and I think that they will probably be successful.
With Big Governments and Big Companies all fighting over how they control a very big part of our lives I would like to see research on making the internet more resistant to control. The internet was originally designed to be resistant to nuclear attack by being decentralised and able to adapt to interference upon the network. I think we need to develop new protocols to actively protect the internet from being vulnerable to control. I think what we need it a pure peer to peer protocol to replace the heirarchial TCP/IP protocol so that we no longer need anyone to assign numbers and names to us all. Of course this brings up the question as to how we then find each other. One solution is to do something similar to what NIC's do on a network segment and only allow each host to receive information intended for them. Of course we don't trust host to only read their own packets and not try to spoof other hosts. What we use is umbiquitous encryption. Everything is encrypted and signed and we use various algorythms to make sure that wandering packets do not wander for ever in the network. With the improvements to the various wireless and other networking technologies the advent of robust, long range, high bandwidth, secure, point to point networking technologies is no longer a pipe dream. With such technologies a network that spreads from a user to trusted friends, partners to their trusted frends and partners to their... would create a uniquely difficult to manage network. Let Big Businesses and Big Governments keep their heirarchial network protocols. We can use friend to friend protocols.(a bit sappy I know:-)
Slashdot Mirror
This student was rather silly to be playing simulated lethal combat games within school grounds. The student was even sillier to post records of the simulated lethal combat to online forums that could be viewed by the students of said school and by those responsible for the safety of the students of said school. The students could quite appropriately experience concern for their safety. The cultural context of the game is not going to be universally shared and so cannot be a guarantee that the other students will be able to recognise that this information does not present a threat to them. The guardians of the school, those responsible for the safety, physical, mental and emotional, of the students, need to take all of these factors into consideration when determining what action to take to enact appropriate protections. Given the difficulties of a rather out of control gun culture, a history of extremely lethal events occurring on a disturbingly regular basis in schools within the USA and the vast level of legislatively enforced uncertainty in the appropriate and effective management of students that may be engaging in activities that may cause others to feel threatened, charging this student with a misdemeanor seems to be the best option available. It might not work, It is probably an over reaction, but it still appears to be the best option to start with. The only way the USA will ever get any control over their uncontrolled gun culture and the corresponding over reactions to these types of silliness is for a referendum to modify the constitution to ameliorate the right to bare arms to a point where appropriate and effective control over the availability and lethality of generally available weapons can be imposed by elected representatives.
Now we just need to find a super glue that is dissolved by this hormone.
And this is why we have patents.
To protect innovators ability to exploit their innovation so that they can be free to innovate some more.
Unfortunately this mechanism has experienced an enormous amount of abuse, and so we come to the counter mechanism of open source.
Thus the best solution maybe to use both..
How you use both is then the question to answer.
This will depend on the technology involved, what component you can choose to control, what components you can make open source, and also on other aspects of your potential business models.
You can support the design of your open source hardware project. Actively doing this keeps the community cohesive and on point. When it comes to supporting the implementation, If you built it, and you sell it, then you support it. If someone else builds it and sells it then they can support it. If the potential customer buys from someone else and asks for your support because the low cost outfit they bought it from cannot help them, then, charge like wounded bulls, be very suspicious of what your are working with, point out all the problems you so conscientiously find and help out as much as you can. This will offset your costs, make you look good, encourage the customer to buy from you in future and make your low cost competitor look incompetent.
Go on, you know you were all thinking it.
Well I found a pdf as well. I read the end of the book. What do you think would happen to me if I said who lives, who dies, who is now good, who is bad and who is indeterminate? I'll just look for one of those holes that I can pull in after myself shall I?
With SCO calling the IT environment the wild west because of OSS then the only way to look at proprietry software vendors is as feudalistic overlords. They have their walls of copyright and patents and treaties with other feudalistic overlords to keep the peasents in their place.
And we all know what good that was. Playboy Bunnys will be wandering around Australia looking for holes to get through and show off their suitability for breeding. And all the other people that are showing themselves f**king like bunnies will be trying to get through as well and I think that they will probably be successful.
With Big Governments and Big Companies all fighting over how they control a very big part of our lives I would like to see research on making the internet more resistant to control. The internet was originally designed to be resistant to nuclear attack by being decentralised and able to adapt to interference upon the network. I think we need to develop new protocols to actively protect the internet from being vulnerable to control. ... :-)
I think what we need it a pure peer to peer protocol to replace the heirarchial TCP/IP protocol so that we no longer need anyone to assign numbers and names to us all.
Of course this brings up the question as to how we then find each other. One solution is to do something similar to what NIC's do on a network segment and only allow each host to receive information intended for them. Of course we don't trust host to only read their own packets and not try to spoof other hosts. What we use is umbiquitous encryption. Everything is encrypted and signed and we use various algorythms to make sure that wandering packets do not wander for ever in the network.
With the improvements to the various wireless and other networking technologies the advent of robust, long range, high bandwidth, secure, point to point networking technologies is no longer a pipe dream.
With such technologies a network that spreads from a user to trusted friends, partners to their trusted frends and partners to their
would create a uniquely difficult to manage network.
Let Big Businesses and Big Governments keep their heirarchial network protocols.
We can use friend to friend protocols.(a bit sappy I know