Methinks he doth protest too much, actually... although the topic of child neglect or physical abuse (i.e. "beating") children doesn't come up too terribly often on Slashdot, whenever and wherever it does, I typically see attitudes of pity and sadness for the victim, rather than the righteous "torches and pitchforks" anger that comes up in these (to my mind) less severe cases. Perhaps somebody's wrestling with his own inner demons?
There are "stories" about kidnapping of children, but I still let my children play outside. There are "stories" of serial killers, but I still walk in the city. There are "stories" of school shootings, but I still let my kids go to public school.
What's your point?
I didn't even understand what the hell he was talking about, and I got the same impression. The tone of the summary doesn't make me care enough to dig any deeper. Glad it wasn't just me.
Um, so much so that I parsed this article the other way - "OMG the Democrats don't care about OUR truths! We give them facts and they still choose to make up their OWN minds! WTF?" I always figured Slashdot was a bastion of libertarian (e.g. the real truth) thinking... which is one of the reasons I come here.
Only if you have access to Office 2003 (last time I checked a few months ago, they didn't yet support Office 2007) and you have the actual physical install media. Where I work, if you want Windows on your laptop, the IT department does the install, installs office 2007, and sends you over the whole thing. You can set up a dual-boot if you want... but we're not allowed to get our grubby little hands on any of the install discs. I'd be surprised if most places were any different.
You seem to be implying that people who expect to work about 40 hours per week, on the average, are slackers undeserving of even basic sustenance. So, what do you think is an unreasonable number of hours per week to be required?
If your job requires you to work 80 hours a week, your "work ethic" demands that you just go ahead and work 80 hours a week? What about 120? What about 160? What if they require you to sleep on a cot in front of your desk so that they can call you up whenever they might need you, that's OK, too? Is that just the "consequences of a global economy"? What if they chained you there and didn't let you leave? "Oh, well, at least I'm employed. All you lazy whiners who expect to be able to go home at night deserve to starve to death in the street."
The funniest part is, his boss, who probably works < 40 hours a week, is the one who's keeping all the money his hard (?) work is earning and living off his teat, throwing him a few scraps here and there. And he's defending the guy.
what would happen to a school kid if he/she directed the same kind of provocative language at the principal or a school teacher
But it didn't happen in the school. It happened outside the school. If the school can punish her for whatever she says outside the school, why can't I also punish her for whatever she says outside my presence? Or you? Or anybody else for that matter?
Doesn't mean freedom from consequence - its called responsibility.
Actually, yes, freedom of speech DOES mean freedom from consequences.
After all, if it doesn't, then what's the opposite? What is
"restricted speech" if free speech can mean anything from "you're
free to say it, but you may get fired for saying it" right up to,
"you're free to say it, but you may be executed by firing squad"
(both of which are certainly consequences). Does "restricted speech"
mean going around and cutting out people's tongues and chopping off
their hands before they say something that might be banned?
It seems like the writer of the article assumes that "actions done outside should shouldn't have consequences/effects/jurisdiction inside school." This is bullshit.
Why?
Because he said so, of course. Didn't you know that's how idiots reason things in their heads? Their heads explode if they try to get any deeper than that.
Whew! Good thing you're here to tell us what's what. Can you clear up the issue of what is art and what is obscene, and what is literature and what isn't while you're at it? Thanks God none of this stuff has to be considered subjective any more!
You realize that free speech is not being taken away in this case, right?... The school merely enacted a punishment against the student for what he said.
So what, exactly, would the school have to have done for you to feel that her right to free speech was taken away? Had the site removed from MySpace? Nope, you'd say she still had the right to put it up somewhere else. Fined her? Nope, site's still up. Cut off both her hands so she couldn't make updates to the site? Nope, she can still type with her nose. Executed her? Nope, site's still up.
Wow. No wonder they drafted that first amendment. I can't think of any way to violate it.
Free speech (in the U.S.) doesn't mean one can say anything they want about someone with impunity.
Yes, in fact, it does. You can say whatever you want with impunity - from the government (or at least you would, if we had or ever had freedom of speech in the US). The government promised that it would make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Since laws are the only means the government has of inflicting consequences, the government promised consequence-less free speech.
Yeah, try it and see how long you spend in jail. It may not be an "on the books" crime, but the punishment is the same. Remember, we're thinking about the children here. Even one abuse it too many. We must stop at nothing to protect our children. They are our nations greatest precious resource.
"Free Speech" doesn't mean that you get to say whatever you want to say all the time without consequences.
Yes, actually, it does. After all, if it doesn't, then what's the opposite? What is
"restricted speech" if free speech can mean anything from "you're
free to say it, but you may get fired for saying it" right up to,
"you're free to say it, but you may be executed by firing squad"
(both of which are certainly consequences). Does "restricted speech"
mean going around and cutting out people's tongues and chopping off
their hands before they say something that might be banned?
The purpose of college is to serve what 99.9% of these customers desire - job skills.
Which they do, successfully, only by sticking to their principles and not eliminating the stuff that's hard and doesn't have immediate "applicability" to the job market.
"Schools" that do bend to the will of the corporations and only teach the stuff that the corporations say the workers "need to know" are called technical schools, and everybody knows (although some aren't willing to admit) that a graduate from a real college who went through the stuff that you don't "need" can do the job better than the guy who just did the "relevant" stuff.
I was listening to the radio yesterday, and they were playing a quote from the governor of New Orleans (Ray Naggin?) where he said something along the lines of, "if you're caught looting, you're going straight to (the name of some jail in Louisiana), no trial, no appeal." The idiots on the radio were cheering for him, saying he's finally done something right.
Yay suspension of due process! What could possibly go wrong if we give people like police officers almost no money but God-like powers to be judge, jury and executioner? If there's a cop in the New Orleans area who doesn't like you, you better just get the hell out now.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking that before I read the summary. I think that every minute of every day. Some might say I think that obsessively.
... that he knew of ...
Don't feel bad, neither are the ISPs.
Methinks he doth protest too much, actually... although the topic of child neglect or physical abuse (i.e. "beating") children doesn't come up too terribly often on Slashdot, whenever and wherever it does, I typically see attitudes of pity and sadness for the victim, rather than the righteous "torches and pitchforks" anger that comes up in these (to my mind) less severe cases. Perhaps somebody's wrestling with his own inner demons?
Sorry, I'm trying to figure out the reference... why exactly is that considered shady? I've never heard of that.
Clearly that you're just asking for it...
I didn't even understand what the hell he was talking about, and I got the same impression. The tone of the summary doesn't make me care enough to dig any deeper. Glad it wasn't just me.
Um, so much so that I parsed this article the other way - "OMG the Democrats don't care about OUR truths! We give them facts and they still choose to make up their OWN minds! WTF?" I always figured Slashdot was a bastion of libertarian (e.g. the real truth) thinking... which is one of the reasons I come here.
It's only 'cause science doesn't tell you not to have impure thoughts.
I see you've been modded "-1, point that I don't like but can't refute logically". Especially ironic given the topic.
Only if you have access to Office 2003 (last time I checked a few months ago, they didn't yet support Office 2007) and you have the actual physical install media. Where I work, if you want Windows on your laptop, the IT department does the install, installs office 2007, and sends you over the whole thing. You can set up a dual-boot if you want... but we're not allowed to get our grubby little hands on any of the install discs. I'd be surprised if most places were any different.
You seem to be implying that people who expect to work about 40 hours per week, on the average, are slackers undeserving of even basic sustenance. So, what do you think is an unreasonable number of hours per week to be required?
If your job requires you to work 80 hours a week, your "work ethic" demands that you just go ahead and work 80 hours a week? What about 120? What about 160? What if they require you to sleep on a cot in front of your desk so that they can call you up whenever they might need you, that's OK, too? Is that just the "consequences of a global economy"? What if they chained you there and didn't let you leave? "Oh, well, at least I'm employed. All you lazy whiners who expect to be able to go home at night deserve to starve to death in the street."
The funniest part is, his boss, who probably works < 40 hours a week, is the one who's keeping all the money his hard (?) work is earning and living off his teat, throwing him a few scraps here and there. And he's defending the guy.
But it didn't happen in the school. It happened outside the school. If the school can punish her for whatever she says outside the school, why can't I also punish her for whatever she says outside my presence? Or you? Or anybody else for that matter?
Actually, yes, freedom of speech DOES mean freedom from consequences. After all, if it doesn't, then what's the opposite? What is "restricted speech" if free speech can mean anything from "you're free to say it, but you may get fired for saying it" right up to, "you're free to say it, but you may be executed by firing squad" (both of which are certainly consequences). Does "restricted speech" mean going around and cutting out people's tongues and chopping off their hands before they say something that might be banned?
Because he said so, of course. Didn't you know that's how idiots reason things in their heads? Their heads explode if they try to get any deeper than that.
Whew! Good thing you're here to tell us what's what. Can you clear up the issue of what is art and what is obscene, and what is literature and what isn't while you're at it? Thanks God none of this stuff has to be considered subjective any more!
The courts have ruled over and over again that yes, they can, if it's parody. (See SNL, Mad Magazine, The Onion, etc.)
So what, exactly, would the school have to have done for you to feel that her right to free speech was taken away? Had the site removed from MySpace? Nope, you'd say she still had the right to put it up somewhere else. Fined her? Nope, site's still up. Cut off both her hands so she couldn't make updates to the site? Nope, she can still type with her nose. Executed her? Nope, site's still up.
Wow. No wonder they drafted that first amendment. I can't think of any way to violate it.
Yes, in fact, it does. You can say whatever you want with impunity - from the government (or at least you would, if we had or ever had freedom of speech in the US). The government promised that it would make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Since laws are the only means the government has of inflicting consequences, the government promised consequence-less free speech.
Dipshit.
Yeah, try it and see how long you spend in jail. It may not be an "on the books" crime, but the punishment is the same. Remember, we're thinking about the children here. Even one abuse it too many. We must stop at nothing to protect our children. They are our nations greatest precious resource.
You're right. It's a right for everybody (including minors) to be lewd.
Yes, actually, it does. After all, if it doesn't, then what's the opposite? What is "restricted speech" if free speech can mean anything from "you're free to say it, but you may get fired for saying it" right up to, "you're free to say it, but you may be executed by firing squad" (both of which are certainly consequences). Does "restricted speech" mean going around and cutting out people's tongues and chopping off their hands before they say something that might be banned?
Which they do, successfully, only by sticking to their principles and not eliminating the stuff that's hard and doesn't have immediate "applicability" to the job market.
"Schools" that do bend to the will of the corporations and only teach the stuff that the corporations say the workers "need to know" are called technical schools, and everybody knows (although some aren't willing to admit) that a graduate from a real college who went through the stuff that you don't "need" can do the job better than the guy who just did the "relevant" stuff.
I was listening to the radio yesterday, and they were playing a quote from the governor of New Orleans (Ray Naggin?) where he said something along the lines of, "if you're caught looting, you're going straight to (the name of some jail in Louisiana), no trial, no appeal." The idiots on the radio were cheering for him, saying he's finally done something right.
Yay suspension of due process! What could possibly go wrong if we give people like police officers almost no money but God-like powers to be judge, jury and executioner? If there's a cop in the New Orleans area who doesn't like you, you better just get the hell out now.