The theory for patents is that the first person has earned a reward for creating a superior design, and that granting a license over that design gets the design into common usage much sooner, to the benefit of all mankind. The theory for copyrights is somewhat different. The short copyright befits there were for publishers and authors, to reward and encourage them to publish new works as well. Otherwise the authors received nothing, no matter how broadly their books might be published.
However, copyright was also about _preventing_ publication. In particular, it controlled publication of the Bible. Controlling the Bible's publication meant keeping it in the hands of only the authorized staff of the church that owned the copyrights, so only they could provide and interpret teachings from it. It also meant that modified Bibles that might include other holy writings, or modified writings, were forbidden. We see similar control today for textbooks: copyright prevents modifying them to modify the lessons and present the re-interpretations as being from the author. Copyright is actually an important factor in controlling misquoting, as well as in protecting income for authors and publishers.
He's not one of your New Zealand cousins. He's from Germany, and he also has a Finnish passport. He's very much abusing the hospitality of New Zealand, as a guest who brought a great deal of legal and political trouble with him.
There was an infamous crackdown of "hackers" in the USA decades ago, coordinated by the US Secret Service. It was called "Operation Sundevil", and it was classic in its abuses of power, its attempts to harass "dangerous crackers" by doing unprovoked or justified raids on them, and it wound up raiding the game cmpany called "Peter Jackson Games" because they had a card game about computer hacking which was described by the agents as a how-to guide for hacking. I played the game later, after the Electronic Frontier Foundation was created and helped explain to the US Secret Service that people have civil rights and there needs to be evidence and something like actual prosecution, and grounds for suspicion, to simply take all of people's equipment and their personal and business email.
The case was an excellent example of a federal agency attempting to enter new turf, wildly overreaching its authority and abusing many innocent people in the process. I'm sure there were a few teen "hackers" raided, but the raids were done so badly and so broadly aimed that they seemed to be an intimidation tactic, one designed to establish authority for the agency, not to yield real prosecutions. From this new article, I suspect the German police raids are similar: they're striking at public, irritating parts of the social groups of hackers to establish dominance and turf.
They need to be rated for both. A Voltage difference between two wires of 220 Volts, common in European AC power outlets, can arc across a greater insulating cover than a US 120 Volt connectoin, thought the US wires will normally be handling twice as much current. And every foot of power cable or new connector in the mix also adds more points to fail, and more resistive power loss.
Cords that can handle both are quite common place. _Plugs_ are a bit more difficult to design, I think. Carrying multiple power cords or adapters for the multiple wall connections is quite common for European travelers: many of us who've visited strongly prefer to have a good power supply and carry a few different modest power cords, rther than a box of power adapters unlikely to fit well.
> By the way, a company could do worse than just fire the lot in charge of centralized vetting of job applicants. I once advised a colleague who was recruiting people for his team, to ask HR for the resumes they rejected.
This is very true for open source work. The related projects on which the best candidates worked do not match the checklist of tools familiar to many HR personnel. If it's possible, it's invaluable to work with HR and help them understand the _related software_. I once had an applicant list work related to our critical project, but rejected by HR because they did not list the software buzzword. Since they _wrote_ the buzzworded software decades ago and had moved on, they were the best possible candidate to support out out-of-date version and help us migrate to the newer tools. And that was what we wished to hire someone for.
Thee are many reasons. The most malicious is to steal your identity: many people are less careful of their personal details with a recruiter who is "running a background check". Or they may "bait and switch", offer you a less lucrative or less skilled role when you've already invested time and effort in making a good impression with them. There is also an infamous practice of advertising roles in the market and accepting only the intended, much cheaper, H1B candidate with spurious requirements. There is also an infamous bureaucratic practice of getting approved to hire various personnel, expanding the department headcount, but never actually hiring the personnel. That last is used to justify overtime and more office space or benefits for the staff onsite "until we can fill those slots".
There are many other reasons to present an opening that does not really exist. The penalty for withdrawing an advertised role is usually quite low, and the benefits can be quite high. So I'm afraid that some fraud there is inevitable.
One of the reasons employers "ghost" employees is to wait until the first candidate is actually on-site and started on their first day with all the paperwork signed. There are so many candidates who decline at the last moment for a better fiscal offer or better work location, and for senior employees a health issue is sometimes a risk. By failing to reject other candidates until then, they try to keep the pool of acceptable but not first choice candidates available. And there may be other good candidates in that pool. I've experienced making a good person an offer, having them decline, and gone to the next on the list. I once had an opportunity to explain this to the candidate that we did hire, that the first candidate *wrote* the tool in collaboration with the second candidate. The first candidate took an offer that was good for them, the second candidate was in touch with them and knew we were interviewing both.
In "the big city", we use LinkedIn and Google and professional contacts from your last workplace. We see what you've posted, publicly, in technical mailing lists and sometimes even politically. If you applied to my workplace in a senior role, and I were unable to reach any of your former colleagues, I'd be concerned. I'd ask your permission before checking them for references. But the world can be surprisingly small at the senior level.
I'm old enough to remember that kiss. It caused quite a furor for many families, and was still widely discussed in re-runs years later. However, it wasn't the first interracial kiss on television, just the first on American television. See https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20... for notes on a British television interacial kiss, six years earlier.
Does any existing unmanned aerial vehicle have the mission flexibility of a human pilot? Especially in difficult circumstances, such as near fire or with much of the potential landing areas flooded? While unmanned drones or tethered vehicles have become effective. And putting good hands on a drone, or the ability to assess terrain or set priorities for other personnel, seem quite difficult. Is it cheaper to provide a flying platform, or to design new technologies to support the flexibility of a human crew?
I admit that the prospect is interesting. There was a jet-wing project published in the 1970's, to put first small jet engines and later ducted fans on a pair of strap-on wings to provide personal flight with vertical take-off and landing capability. I'm not sure of the project has ever been completed. But there was this demonstration of a similar project, flown by Yves Rossy in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There are many obvious possibilities. Besides the simple excitement of personal flight, even quite expensive devices would be invaluable for remote survey work, for emergency work above the reach of ladders among taller modern buildings, and floodplain emergency work when roads or entire towns are unapproachable due to flooding.
Cost. There many millions of old machines and virtual machines around the world, with pirated XP serial numbers running Windows application at a fraction of the cost of more modern operating systems. Such piracy is a wholesale problem around the world, not merely for individuals but for entire companies and universities.
These were apparently Nigerian spammers. The spammers and scammers are left alone to bring _any_ outside currency into a desperate local economy. A reasonable survey of bribery, reported at https://arstechnica.com/tech-p..., shows bribery as nearly 40% of the national and state budgets, and the police as being the most often bribed. I'm afraid to say that the people prosecuted most likely failed to pay the needed bribes, perhaps due to bankruptcy, and thus were some of the very few scammers ever prosecuted in Nigeria.
Recently? What Steam games work on it, especially group games with millions of users worldwide? How well does it work with GMail, and with Outlook, and for financial applications like TurboTax ?
I've been on the leading edge of exciting technologies many times in my career. I, and engineers like me, get _paid_ for making what the client wants work well, even if we disagree with that tool's design philosophy.
Note that this isn't _my_ agile setupl. This is what I've encountered, repeatedly, for agile users inside various companies. The "agile" approach often has not scaled well, it's applied to individual teams without clearing away middle management. When the necessary size or tasks of a single team grow beyond those of a handful of active developers, the teams split or have to be split, and middle management can form quite quickly even for startup companies where there was none.
> Why is it that people don't grasp the most simplest things about agile methods?
They understand quite well that agile methods are often like the "true Scotsman". or "true Marxism". or "true Capitalism". There are limiting factors in the real world that have to be worked with.
Fine grained control is useful. I'm afraid that the grasping intrusion into other systems, reliant on deep integration with the Linux kernel, is non-portable and intrusive to many other stable parts of the system. So was the non-necessary binary system logging, which could have been left as plain ASCII, the intrusion into network configuration with the DHCP components, the intrusions into auto-mounting, the unnecessary and undesirable intrusion into user process monitoring and hardcoded killing of background user processes without notification. So was the intrusion also includes an extremely confusing and destructive rewraping of SysV init scripts into systemd which silently and unnecessarily _discards_ the ordered startup formerly inherent in systemd init scripts. It's been confusing, unnecessary, and optimized based on what can be _added_ to systemd to expand its approach, rather than what can safely be left out.
I'm afraid the result has cost Linux market share and hindered major Linux OS releases.
> And all of those external groups are set up to work waterfall.
Or, in my experience, they are often set to work only through a manager. Tasks must be explained to one manager, who has the status to talk to another manager, who has the status to speak to their team, and _each_ layer must be completely convinced of the priority and feasibility before a question can even be asked about the available tools. Attempting to do "agile" in this kind of structure is disastrous, because even if a team accomplishes its designated tasks, nothing else is ready. And by the time the other teams are ready, the original work is no longer relevant.
I've no overall solution for this. I and my colleagues have, on occassion, been able to coordinate multi-department work under the guise of "external consultants", and been applauded for helping.
As long as the losses are small enough, spammers will persist. They don't have to make a profit, and in the long term usually do not. Their clients have to _believe_ they can help make a profit, enough for the spammer to invest in the work of spamming. This caller-id cost recovery is, I'm afraid, merely a reduction in operating costs for the spammer: it's not a profit center. As such, reducing its abuse seems unlikely to make any significant change in spam.
Where is the cutoff? Lawn placards, and handbills, cost money. So do web pages, newspaper ad space, or television time. And the tracking of contributions can have a very quelling effect on free speech, since those lists can be be sent or sold to very dangerous political enemies.
Under most open source licenses, Tesla could keep its modifications secret from everyone, even the people it shipped the binary software to. For GPL licenses, which are free softwae licenses, they _must_ make the modificatons available. The Linux kernel is published with a GPL license. Enormous amounts of other software, such as Xen and Nagios, are _not_ and keep their modifications secret.
> It never hurts to re-explore and think different.
I's a waste of time and resources to think differently for an extended period when the "thinking differently" produces no insights. I've examined the TED Talk you referred to. I'm afraid that it's horrible. I'm afraid that there was not even a single 6 minute period, anywhere in his talk, in which he did not commit the "straw man" logical fallacy.
I agree that re-examining assumptions, and revisiting underlying assumptions, can be invaluable. There are too many situations where the opacity of a layer of abstraction have concealed a critical factor in my career and in my own fields of expertise. But just because an idea violates a long-held belief is not a reason to _support_ it, unless it provides testable or verifiable predictions, predictions that are superior to those of the existing approach.
It depends strongly on the state. In Kentucky, the minimum age was effectively raised to 16. Marriage below that age is not explicitly forbidden, but requires a judge's consent.
Are my quoting practices really so bothersome? I admit that they're a very old style.
> Trying to listen to the most extreme alternate views will not refresh your mind; it will destroy your faith in humanity.
The point David Brin made was that it was necessary to at least hear other opinions. There was no requirement that one agree with them, or even discuss them. The requirement was merely to _see_ other opinions, opinions outside of the politically isolated echo chambers that many social media groups become. Seeing such opnions need not make one a better person. But it does help provide a reality check that there are, indeed, people in the world who do not share your particular views.
> Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country and this will possibly lead to even greater election defeats.
Not in their bubble of self-reinforcing, self-approval. Silencing criticism, making it seem as if it is entirely from outside detractors, is commonplace among the most self-righteous groups of both the left and the right wing. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War protests and the original hippies, They had many excellent points and reasons for social protest, much as modern social justice warriors do. The very best of them welcome speech from their political opponents, speech to expose reality and real policies and the real issues that underlie people's concerns. But there are those in their political movements who seek to silence their opponents, who treat dissent as a sin.
I was recently pointed to this example of where it went extremely wrong, where "liberal" professor M.A. Click called for violence against a reporter for covering a political event in a public space.
She was eventually fired, I think justly, for her behavior. This is what I would hope for when a student or faculty calls for violence to stop free speech and, in this case, the freedom of the press to cover news events in a public space.
Thinking further: David Brin described an idea in his book "Earth", a policy that required people on the Internet to see opinions other than their own to re retain their right to vote. A brilliant heroine in the book tuned the necessary filter to receive the most _outrageious_ of the disagreeing postings, to keep her mind and her atttitudes fresh. I admit that I found the policy to be very tempting. Exposure to opposing opinions or opposing data is vital to science and to engineering. It is very easy for a subtle skew in the data being gathered or presented to reinforce an unjustified belief. It's why I appreciate acquaintances of distinct religions, nationalities, or political beliefs. They provide perspective that people just like myself could not provide.
Slashdot Mirror
The theory for patents is that the first person has earned a reward for creating a superior design, and that granting a license over that design gets the design into common usage much sooner, to the benefit of all mankind. The theory for copyrights is somewhat different. The short copyright befits there were for publishers and authors, to reward and encourage them to publish new works as well. Otherwise the authors received nothing, no matter how broadly their books might be published.
However, copyright was also about _preventing_ publication. In particular, it controlled publication of the Bible. Controlling the Bible's publication meant keeping it in the hands of only the authorized staff of the church that owned the copyrights, so only they could provide and interpret teachings from it. It also meant that modified Bibles that might include other holy writings, or modified writings, were forbidden. We see similar control today for textbooks: copyright prevents modifying them to modify the lessons and present the re-interpretations as being from the author. Copyright is actually an important factor in controlling misquoting, as well as in protecting income for authors and publishers.
I'm afraid they also don't get out much. They certainly did not get elected out of the last set of Republican presidential primary candidates.
He's not one of your New Zealand cousins. He's from Germany, and he also has a Finnish passport. He's very much abusing the hospitality of New Zealand, as a guest who brought a great deal of legal and political trouble with him.
It's a familar approach, I'm afraid.
There was an infamous crackdown of "hackers" in the USA decades ago, coordinated by the US Secret Service. It was called "Operation Sundevil", and it was classic in its abuses of power, its attempts to harass "dangerous crackers" by doing unprovoked or justified raids on them, and it wound up raiding the game cmpany called "Peter Jackson Games" because they had a card game about computer hacking which was described by the agents as a how-to guide for hacking. I played the game later, after the Electronic Frontier Foundation was created and helped explain to the US Secret Service that people have civil rights and there needs to be evidence and something like actual prosecution, and grounds for suspicion, to simply take all of people's equipment and their personal and business email.
The case was an excellent example of a federal agency attempting to enter new turf, wildly overreaching its authority and abusing many innocent people in the process. I'm sure there were a few teen "hackers" raided, but the raids were done so badly and so broadly aimed that they seemed to be an intimidation tactic, one designed to establish authority for the agency, not to yield real prosecutions. From this new article, I suspect the German police raids are similar: they're striking at public, irritating parts of the social groups of hackers to establish dominance and turf.
They need to be rated for both. A Voltage difference between two wires of 220 Volts, common in European AC power outlets, can arc across a greater insulating cover than a US 120 Volt connectoin, thought the US wires will normally be handling twice as much current. And every foot of power cable or new connector in the mix also adds more points to fail, and more resistive power loss.
Cords that can handle both are quite common place. _Plugs_ are a bit more difficult to design, I think. Carrying multiple power cords or adapters for the multiple wall connections is quite common for European travelers: many of us who've visited strongly prefer to have a good power supply and carry a few different modest power cords, rther than a box of power adapters unlikely to fit well.
> By the way, a company could do worse than just fire the lot in charge of centralized vetting of job applicants. I once advised a colleague who was recruiting people for his team, to ask HR for the resumes they rejected.
This is very true for open source work. The related projects on which the best candidates worked do not match the checklist of tools familiar to many HR personnel. If it's possible, it's invaluable to work with HR and help them understand the _related software_. I once had an applicant list work related to our critical project, but rejected by HR because they did not list the software buzzword. Since they _wrote_ the buzzworded software decades ago and had moved on, they were the best possible candidate to support out out-of-date version and help us migrate to the newer tools. And that was what we wished to hire someone for.
Thee are many reasons. The most malicious is to steal your identity: many people are less careful of their personal details with a recruiter who is "running a background check". Or they may "bait and switch", offer you a less lucrative or less skilled role when you've already invested time and effort in making a good impression with them. There is also an infamous practice of advertising roles in the market and accepting only the intended, much cheaper, H1B candidate with spurious requirements. There is also an infamous bureaucratic practice of getting approved to hire various personnel, expanding the department headcount, but never actually hiring the personnel. That last is used to justify overtime and more office space or benefits for the staff onsite "until we can fill those slots".
There are many other reasons to present an opening that does not really exist. The penalty for withdrawing an advertised role is usually quite low, and the benefits can be quite high. So I'm afraid that some fraud there is inevitable.
One of the reasons employers "ghost" employees is to wait until the first candidate is actually on-site and started on their first day with all the paperwork signed. There are so many candidates who decline at the last moment for a better fiscal offer or better work location, and for senior employees a health issue is sometimes a risk. By failing to reject other candidates until then, they try to keep the pool of acceptable but not first choice candidates available. And there may be other good candidates in that pool. I've experienced making a good person an offer, having them decline, and gone to the next on the list. I once had an opportunity to explain this to the candidate that we did hire, that the first candidate *wrote* the tool in collaboration with the second candidate. The first candidate took an offer that was good for them, the second candidate was in touch with them and knew we were interviewing both.
In "the big city", we use LinkedIn and Google and professional contacts from your last workplace. We see what you've posted, publicly, in technical mailing lists and sometimes even politically. If you applied to my workplace in a senior role, and I were unable to reach any of your former colleagues, I'd be concerned. I'd ask your permission before checking them for references. But the world can be surprisingly small at the senior level.
I'm old enough to remember that kiss. It caused quite a furor for many families, and was still widely discussed in re-runs years later. However, it wasn't the first interracial kiss on television, just the first on American television. See https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20... for notes on a British television interacial kiss, six years earlier.
Does any existing unmanned aerial vehicle have the mission flexibility of a human pilot? Especially in difficult circumstances, such as near fire or with much of the potential landing areas flooded? While unmanned drones or tethered vehicles have become effective. And putting good hands on a drone, or the ability to assess terrain or set priorities for other personnel, seem quite difficult. Is it cheaper to provide a flying platform, or to design new technologies to support the flexibility of a human crew?
I admit that the prospect is interesting. There was a jet-wing project published in the 1970's, to put first small jet engines and later ducted fans on a pair of strap-on wings to provide personal flight with vertical take-off and landing capability. I'm not sure of the project has ever been completed. But there was this demonstration of a similar project, flown by Yves Rossy in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There are many obvious possibilities. Besides the simple excitement of personal flight, even quite expensive devices would be invaluable for remote survey work, for emergency work above the reach of ladders among taller modern buildings, and floodplain emergency work when roads or entire towns are unapproachable due to flooding.
Cost. There many millions of old machines and virtual machines around the world, with pirated XP serial numbers running Windows application at a fraction of the cost of more modern operating systems. Such piracy is a wholesale problem around the world, not merely for individuals but for entire companies and universities.
These were apparently Nigerian spammers. The spammers and scammers are left alone to bring _any_ outside currency into a desperate local economy. A reasonable survey of bribery, reported at https://arstechnica.com/tech-p..., shows bribery as nearly 40% of the national and state budgets, and the police as being the most often bribed. I'm afraid to say that the people prosecuted most likely failed to pay the needed bribes, perhaps due to bankruptcy, and thus were some of the very few scammers ever prosecuted in Nigeria.
> And your Windows 10 machine sucks for usability
Recently? What Steam games work on it, especially group games with millions of users worldwide? How well does it work with GMail, and with Outlook, and for financial applications like TurboTax ?
I've been on the leading edge of exciting technologies many times in my career. I, and engineers like me, get _paid_ for making what the client wants work well, even if we disagree with that tool's design philosophy.
Note that this isn't _my_ agile setupl. This is what I've encountered, repeatedly, for agile users inside various companies. The "agile" approach often has not scaled well, it's applied to individual teams without clearing away middle management. When the necessary size or tasks of a single team grow beyond those of a handful of active developers, the teams split or have to be split, and middle management can form quite quickly even for startup companies where there was none.
> Why is it that people don't grasp the most simplest things about agile methods?
They understand quite well that agile methods are often like the "true Scotsman". or "true Marxism". or "true Capitalism". There are limiting factors in the real world that have to be worked with.
Fine grained control is useful. I'm afraid that the grasping intrusion into other systems, reliant on deep integration with the Linux kernel, is non-portable and intrusive to many other stable parts of the system. So was the non-necessary binary system logging, which could have been left as plain ASCII, the intrusion into network configuration with the DHCP components, the intrusions into auto-mounting, the unnecessary and undesirable intrusion into user process monitoring and hardcoded killing of background user processes without notification. So was the intrusion also includes an extremely confusing and destructive rewraping of SysV init scripts into systemd which silently and unnecessarily _discards_ the ordered startup formerly inherent in systemd init scripts. It's been confusing, unnecessary, and optimized based on what can be _added_ to systemd to expand its approach, rather than what can safely be left out.
I'm afraid the result has cost Linux market share and hindered major Linux OS releases.
> And all of those external groups are set up to work waterfall.
Or, in my experience, they are often set to work only through a manager. Tasks must be explained to one manager, who has the status to talk to another manager, who has the status to speak to their team, and _each_ layer must be completely convinced of the priority and feasibility before a question can even be asked about the available tools. Attempting to do "agile" in this kind of structure is disastrous, because even if a team accomplishes its designated tasks, nothing else is ready. And by the time the other teams are ready, the original work is no longer relevant.
I've no overall solution for this. I and my colleagues have, on occassion, been able to coordinate multi-department work under the guise of "external consultants", and been applauded for helping.
As long as the losses are small enough, spammers will persist. They don't have to make a profit, and in the long term usually do not. Their clients have to _believe_ they can help make a profit, enough for the spammer to invest in the work of spamming. This caller-id cost recovery is, I'm afraid, merely a reduction in operating costs for the spammer: it's not a profit center. As such, reducing its abuse seems unlikely to make any significant change in spam.
Where is the cutoff? Lawn placards, and handbills, cost money. So do web pages, newspaper ad space, or television time. And the tracking of contributions can have a very quelling effect on free speech, since those lists can be be sent or sold to very dangerous political enemies.
Under most open source licenses, Tesla could keep its modifications secret from everyone, even the people it shipped the binary software to. For GPL licenses, which are free softwae licenses, they _must_ make the modificatons available. The Linux kernel is published with a GPL license. Enormous amounts of other software, such as Xen and Nagios, are _not_ and keep their modifications secret.
> It never hurts to re-explore and think different.
I's a waste of time and resources to think differently for an extended period when the "thinking differently" produces no insights. I've examined the TED Talk you referred to. I'm afraid that it's horrible. I'm afraid that there was not even a single 6 minute period, anywhere in his talk, in which he did not commit the "straw man" logical fallacy.
I agree that re-examining assumptions, and revisiting underlying assumptions, can be invaluable. There are too many situations where the opacity of a layer of abstraction have concealed a critical factor in my career and in my own fields of expertise. But just because an idea violates a long-held belief is not a reason to _support_ it, unless it provides testable or verifiable predictions, predictions that are superior to those of the existing approach.
It depends strongly on the state. In Kentucky, the minimum age was effectively raised to 16. Marriage below that age is not explicitly forbidden, but requires a judge's consent.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/3765...
Are my quoting practices really so bothersome? I admit that they're a very old style.
> Trying to listen to the most extreme alternate views will not refresh your mind; it will destroy your faith in humanity.
The point David Brin made was that it was necessary to at least hear other opinions. There was no requirement that one agree with them, or even discuss them. The requirement was merely to _see_ other opinions, opinions outside of the politically isolated echo chambers that many social media groups become. Seeing such opnions need not make one a better person. But it does help provide a reality check that there are, indeed, people in the world who do not share your particular views.
> Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country and this will possibly lead to even greater election defeats.
Not in their bubble of self-reinforcing, self-approval. Silencing criticism, making it seem as if it is entirely from outside detractors, is commonplace among the most self-righteous groups of both the left and the right wing. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War protests and the original hippies, They had many excellent points and reasons for social protest, much as modern social justice warriors do. The very best of them welcome speech from their political opponents, speech to expose reality and real policies and the real issues that underlie people's concerns. But there are those in their political movements who seek to silence their opponents, who treat dissent as a sin.
I was recently pointed to this example of where it went extremely wrong, where "liberal" professor M.A. Click called for violence against a reporter for covering a political event in a public space.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
She was eventually fired, I think justly, for her behavior. This is what I would hope for when a student or faculty calls for violence to stop free speech and, in this case, the freedom of the press to cover news events in a public space.
Thinking further: David Brin described an idea in his book "Earth", a policy that required people on the Internet to see opinions other than their own to re retain their right to vote. A brilliant heroine in the book tuned the necessary filter to receive the most _outrageious_ of the disagreeing postings, to keep her mind and her atttitudes fresh. I admit that I found the policy to be very tempting. Exposure to opposing opinions or opposing data is vital to science and to engineering. It is very easy for a subtle skew in the data being gathered or presented to reinforce an unjustified belief. It's why I appreciate acquaintances of distinct religions, nationalities, or political beliefs. They provide perspective that people just like myself could not provide.