I think it's also worth noting that copyright isn't like trademark. You don't have to enforce it to maintain it. So... if there's little commercial value in yanking Hitler parodies off You Tube, there's no reason to continue to do so.
This nominee has never, never, served as a judge before.
It's certainly a point worth of discussion. If the GOP or anyone else want's to say that supreme court justices have to have had judicial experience, they're free to make that case. Historically, judicial experience has not been a requirement. Some of the most effective justices have come from politics, not the court room, including John Marshall, Thurgood Marshall, and Hugo Black, and William Rehnquist. Qualifications, like the confirmation process itself may have changed after the Bork nomination, so it's a point worthy of debate.
However, you better believe that if the GOP had ideological gripes they'd trot those out well before raising issues about qualifications.
Intolerance is fine. As in we are intolerant of drug abuse, so we suspended the student with the dime bag.
Zero-tolerance is like double-plus-untolerance. As in: We sent the student to room 101 because someone said she might have an ibuprofen in her underwear.
Kagen has spent a career making her position as ambiguous as possible. The Republicans are attacking the former Dean of Harvard law school on experience, not on substance, which should tell you something.
When this goes to the senate the confirmation is going to hinge on democrats deciding whether they trust Obama or whether they ought to make sure that Steven's replacement doesn't shift the balance of power.
Pardon me, but where did I fail to recognize that difference? I think you ought to re-read this thread. The original poster specifically stated, "the constitution applies to emancipated adults." That's BS. You seem to have taken my statement that the the speaker is irrelevant [as far as constitutional applicability] to mean that public school students have no restrictions on their speech and built your own elaborate strawman around it. You would have me argue the absurd position that since the constitution applies to prisoners (otherwise it would be useless to include the cruel and unusual clause) that they have unbridled freedom of association.
The only position I've staked out, and the only thing I'll continue to maintain is that the constitution protects a minor's right to free speech. To say that the constitution is "limited in it's application to" minors is useless. The constitution is limited in it's application of everyone. (aside: it's imprecise to talk about the constitution, especially the first amendment, as applying to people. The first amendment is a restriction on the government - which was fully half of my original point.)
But you should feel free to continue to condescend to me, as your position is clearly superior to the one you've imagined that I have. It's a shame that that debating guide didn't make any reference of decorum or etiquette.
The first, and the one I was quite clearly responding to is, "Does the constitution apply to minors." The answer is unequivocally yes.
The second question, the one nobody asked, and the one you seem to be hell bent on incongruously attaching my response to, is whether age, or more accurately attendance of a public school can diminish your rights. The answer is also obviously yes.
If the constitution didn't apply to students there would be one decision, not, as you say, mountains of case law feeling out the bounds of in loco parentis. That one decision would be to minors what Dred Scott was to blacks.
The statement I replied to said, "The constitution applies to emancipated adults."
That is false. You have first amendment rights no matter how old you are, but that doesn't mean your parents can't spank you if you swear.
What SCOTUS has said, is that a school's responsibility allows it, in some circumstances, to act in loco parentis and can enforce restrictions on it's charges that the government would ordinarily be barred from. That is substantially different from saying that the constitution doesn't apply to minors.
For example New Jersey v. TLO clearly states that minors do have a constitutional expectation of privacy.
The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials and is not limited to searches carried out by law enforcement officers. Nor are school officials exempt from the Amendment's dictates by virtue of the special nature of their authority over schoolchildren.
A minor could, for example, hold up a poster that says "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," on a street corner in downtown, on his own time, and be protected from government or school intervention. He just can't do it at a "school sponsored event" - broadly interpreted.
The concept is that the school isn't acting as the government when it tells a student to sit down and shut up, it's acting as a parent. A parent doesn't have to respect your constitutional rights. The only problem is a line drawing one, i.e. when is the school your daddy, and when is it big brother? Going back to New Jersey v. T.L.O., students have rights, but so do schools. So while a school can search your personal backpack without probable cause it still requires a reasonable suspicion.
I might not be a lawyer, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about - so don't be a dick.
Did you read the first paragraph of the article you linked?
First, although animals can be found at all depths in the seas, there is a clear decrease in the amount of life with increasing depth, with a particularly marked fall between about 100 and 1,000 metres.
According to wikipedia the area between 1000 and 4000 m (i.e. the gulf of mexico) is actually less densely populated than the deeper portions of the central ocean.
Oil in estuaries has the most severe ecological impact for a number of reasons. First, it's relatively small sensitive area, as opposed to the seabed, which is gigantic and sensitive, or the deep water region, which is almost incomprehensibly large and relatively insensitive. Second, coast lands and estuaries are prime stops for migratory species, meaning a damage to a key estuary can damage the global population of an animal, whereas creatures who live on the seabed are generally broadly distributed. And third, like coral reefs coastal wetlands and estuaries are focal points for bio-diversity.
From a purely commercial standpoint, crab is the only bottom dweller worth catching. I'm not from the gulf region, but when I think of crab I think of colder oceans. Shrimp and fish of commercial value are almost exclusively in the first couple hundred feet of water. Oysters and mussels are in shallow water and close to shore.
At no point am I saying that the use of dispersant is a good thing. Just that, based on my understanding, it's better than the alternative. It really boils down to a surface area/volume problem. Is it better to foul the entire surface and all the estuaries and inlets in a region, or is it better to foul a fraction of the total water column.
Surface chemistry is a little more complicated than anything you learn in high school.
Honestly, I don't think anyone really knows what happens to the oil that's dispersed - the stuff at the surface probably emulsifies or dissolves depending on the relative concentrations of surfactant, oil, and water, but what happens at 5000'? And this is crude oil we're talking about, not canola oil, there are components of various densities. Suffice to say, it's complicated.
In our economy more educated people is better than fewer educated people. When freshman drop out we wind up with fewer educated people.
I'm not suggesting we lower standards to get higher retention. I'm suggesting that tools that enable people to meet standards they would otherwise been unable to reach are a good thing.
Yeah, that's either sour grapes from students who don't do well, or sour grapes from students who don't know how to prioritize. Not all "suggested reading" is important.
It doesn't happen. Sometimes college is hard and not everyone is smart enough to complete competitive programs in top universities. Regardless, for a bright student, there isn't an undergrad course in the country where there isn't enough time to do the required work and carry a full course load. If, 3 weeks into a semester you realize you're taking the two hardest courses in your college, perhaps you should drop on and take it at a later date.
My experience with netflix is that there are two types of defects, ones that damage the disk and the packaging, and one's that just damage the disk.
You're clearly more knowledgeable than me, so this is an honest question: Is it possible that pinch feeds are producing the second defect, but you didn't notice it because there's no superficial damage?
The gulf coast is going to have oil contamination for years regardless of whether the oil is dispersed or not. Many years of lower concentration contamination is likely favorable to saturating the swamps and estuaries with oil now.
Further, my understanding is that agitated dispersed oil is likely to spread out in the full 3 dimensions of the gulf of Mexico, which isn't good, but it's less bad than having it bob to the surface or concentrate on the bottom where it bio-accumulates in the few deep sea bottom feeders.
Remember when your high school chemistry teacher told you that dilution isn't the solution to pollution? Well when containment isn't an option - like with an oil spill, dilution is preferable to concentration.
I'm more than willing to concede that I'm not an expert on the interactions between sea life and oil and dispersants. However, if the environmental groups had a good reason to believe that dispersing oil was a bad idea, it's not that hard of a sell.
We can, after all eventually sweep up a good portion of surface oil, but once it's dispersed it's irrevocably in the environment. The only reports I've read discouraging the use of dispersants don't really analyze the impact of not using them. In any crisis, some number of experts will be paralyzed by difficult decisions and in the absence of good ideas urge inaction. The problem is that there might be a less-bad option than inaction. I truly believe that's what is happening to the few people urging against dispersant use.
you know... they're probably going to attach a tube to the dome. And buoyant forces will force the liquid through it (though they'll probably pump too).
Those who think letting the oil sink is a bad idea are a distinct minority.
Sure, if there wasn't oil in the water we wouldn't want to dump dispersants in, but there is, so this is the lesser of two evils.
The sea floor is a veritable desert compared to the ocean surface. The food chain starts in the first 10' of water, where plankton have access to sunlight.
There are creatures that will be effected by oil on the sea floor like crabs and such, but it's still better than letting it run ashore.
Briefly, oil on the ocean floor or dispersed in the water column is bad. Oil on the ocean surface is worse. And oil on the ocean surface at the shoreline and in the estuaries is an ecological catastrophe.
You're fifteen months too late. The pound is at 1993/1994/2001/2002 levels against the dollar and the only time the pound was substantially weaker was around 1985.
Perhaps the real problem is game designers trying to hard to be everything to everyone.
Some people want to have to work to complete a puzzle so that they feel rewarded at the end of a level, others want to pick up a game and just mindlessly plow through it. The truly masterful games manage to do both (Deus Ex and Half Life), but most just try too hard and end up disappointing everyone.
Anything that could force the player to make hard decisions or challenge them slightly has been removed. Like an inventory system where you had limited space, so you actually have to make difficult choices about what to carry (S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did this to some extent). Near unlimited ammo and and regenerating health have become the Deus Ex Machina of gaming, killing decent game design.
Agree, to a point. There's a fine line between forcing you to make difficult choices and allowing you to paint yourself into a corner.
If I don't beat an encounter the right way and use too much ammo, I don't want the next encounter to be impossible. But rather than fine tune the next level to make recovery difficult but possible game designers these days seem to pander and give you what you need on a silver platter. The failure to walk the line between making you work for poor gameplay decisions and screwing you for bad game play decisions seems to be the design flaw that leads to a cascade of further bad design decisions. Take your favorite game, bioshock. Early in the game big daddies were way too hard, so rather than giving you some clever trick to lure them into a trap you shot them 10 times with your pistol, died, and respawned next to an ammo container, went back, shot them 10 more times (their health didn't reset when you died), and repeated about 5 times. I liked bioshock, but the respawn mechanic was shit. Fortunately, by the end of the game you were better equipped to deal with most of the baddies.
It's been a while, so I figured I'd round up to give the parent the benefit of the doubt. I also figured I'd count the probably 8 hours/week I spent in various labs throughout my collegiate career.
If I took 4 courses at a time, I'd spend 3-4 hours/week/class in lecture and 8 hours/week in lab. I'm sure there were times I was in class or lab 30 or more hours a week, but that was the exception. I probably did average closer to 15-20.
This is of course scheduled class time and not attended class time. I would say I had good attendance, but certainly not perfect attendance. There were also times when I had fewer classes, or the time I took particularly rigorous courses like skydiving.
Slashdot Mirror
Contaminate the falafels closest to his studio.
I think it's also worth noting that copyright isn't like trademark. You don't have to enforce it to maintain it. So ... if there's little commercial value in yanking Hitler parodies off You Tube, there's no reason to continue to do so.
It's certainly a point worth of discussion. If the GOP or anyone else want's to say that supreme court justices have to have had judicial experience, they're free to make that case. Historically, judicial experience has not been a requirement. Some of the most effective justices have come from politics, not the court room, including John Marshall, Thurgood Marshall, and Hugo Black, and William Rehnquist. Qualifications, like the confirmation process itself may have changed after the Bork nomination, so it's a point worthy of debate.
However, you better believe that if the GOP had ideological gripes they'd trot those out well before raising issues about qualifications.
nah, it's worse than that.
Intolerance is fine. As in we are intolerant of drug abuse, so we suspended the student with the dime bag.
Zero-tolerance is like double-plus-untolerance. As in: We sent the student to room 101 because someone said she might have an ibuprofen in her underwear.
Not going to happen.
Kagen has spent a career making her position as ambiguous as possible. The Republicans are attacking the former Dean of Harvard law school on experience, not on substance, which should tell you something.
When this goes to the senate the confirmation is going to hinge on democrats deciding whether they trust Obama or whether they ought to make sure that Steven's replacement doesn't shift the balance of power.
Pardon me, but where did I fail to recognize that difference? I think you ought to re-read this thread. The original poster specifically stated, "the constitution applies to emancipated adults." That's BS. You seem to have taken my statement that the the speaker is irrelevant [as far as constitutional applicability] to mean that public school students have no restrictions on their speech and built your own elaborate strawman around it. You would have me argue the absurd position that since the constitution applies to prisoners (otherwise it would be useless to include the cruel and unusual clause) that they have unbridled freedom of association.
The only position I've staked out, and the only thing I'll continue to maintain is that the constitution protects a minor's right to free speech. To say that the constitution is "limited in it's application to" minors is useless. The constitution is limited in it's application of everyone. (aside: it's imprecise to talk about the constitution, especially the first amendment, as applying to people. The first amendment is a restriction on the government - which was fully half of my original point.)
But you should feel free to continue to condescend to me, as your position is clearly superior to the one you've imagined that I have. It's a shame that that debating guide didn't make any reference of decorum or etiquette.
There are two separate and distinct questions.
The first, and the one I was quite clearly responding to is, "Does the constitution apply to minors." The answer is unequivocally yes.
The second question, the one nobody asked, and the one you seem to be hell bent on incongruously attaching my response to, is whether age, or more accurately attendance of a public school can diminish your rights. The answer is also obviously yes.
If the constitution didn't apply to students there would be one decision, not, as you say, mountains of case law feeling out the bounds of in loco parentis. That one decision would be to minors what Dred Scott was to blacks.
The statement I replied to said, "The constitution applies to emancipated adults."
That is false. You have first amendment rights no matter how old you are, but that doesn't mean your parents can't spank you if you swear.
What SCOTUS has said, is that a school's responsibility allows it, in some circumstances, to act in loco parentis and can enforce restrictions on it's charges that the government would ordinarily be barred from. That is substantially different from saying that the constitution doesn't apply to minors.
For example New Jersey v. TLO clearly states that minors do have a constitutional expectation of privacy.
A minor could, for example, hold up a poster that says "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," on a street corner in downtown, on his own time, and be protected from government or school intervention. He just can't do it at a "school sponsored event" - broadly interpreted.
The concept is that the school isn't acting as the government when it tells a student to sit down and shut up, it's acting as a parent. A parent doesn't have to respect your constitutional rights. The only problem is a line drawing one, i.e. when is the school your daddy, and when is it big brother? Going back to New Jersey v. T.L.O., students have rights, but so do schools. So while a school can search your personal backpack without probable cause it still requires a reasonable suspicion.
I might not be a lawyer, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about - so don't be a dick.
"Zero tolerance" is code for "I don't want to have to think critically," or "my staff is too unprofessional to avoid favoritism."
Thus, the only people who think zero tolerance is a good idea are inept managers, administrators and politicians.
The first amendment starts, "Congress shall make no law..."
Who the speaker is is irrelevant.
Did you read the first paragraph of the article you linked?
According to wikipedia the area between 1000 and 4000 m (i.e. the gulf of mexico) is actually less densely populated than the deeper portions of the central ocean.
Oil in estuaries has the most severe ecological impact for a number of reasons. First, it's relatively small sensitive area, as opposed to the seabed, which is gigantic and sensitive, or the deep water region, which is almost incomprehensibly large and relatively insensitive. Second, coast lands and estuaries are prime stops for migratory species, meaning a damage to a key estuary can damage the global population of an animal, whereas creatures who live on the seabed are generally broadly distributed. And third, like coral reefs coastal wetlands and estuaries are focal points for bio-diversity.
From a purely commercial standpoint, crab is the only bottom dweller worth catching. I'm not from the gulf region, but when I think of crab I think of colder oceans. Shrimp and fish of commercial value are almost exclusively in the first couple hundred feet of water. Oysters and mussels are in shallow water and close to shore.
At no point am I saying that the use of dispersant is a good thing. Just that, based on my understanding, it's better than the alternative. It really boils down to a surface area/volume problem. Is it better to foul the entire surface and all the estuaries and inlets in a region, or is it better to foul a fraction of the total water column.
Surface chemistry is a little more complicated than anything you learn in high school.
Honestly, I don't think anyone really knows what happens to the oil that's dispersed - the stuff at the surface probably emulsifies or dissolves depending on the relative concentrations of surfactant, oil, and water, but what happens at 5000'? And this is crude oil we're talking about, not canola oil, there are components of various densities. Suffice to say, it's complicated.
In our economy more educated people is better than fewer educated people. When freshman drop out we wind up with fewer educated people.
I'm not suggesting we lower standards to get higher retention. I'm suggesting that tools that enable people to meet standards they would otherwise been unable to reach are a good thing.
Yeah, that's either sour grapes from students who don't do well, or sour grapes from students who don't know how to prioritize. Not all "suggested reading" is important.
It doesn't happen. Sometimes college is hard and not everyone is smart enough to complete competitive programs in top universities. Regardless, for a bright student, there isn't an undergrad course in the country where there isn't enough time to do the required work and carry a full course load. If, 3 weeks into a semester you realize you're taking the two hardest courses in your college, perhaps you should drop on and take it at a later date.
The Sonoran desert is a literal desert, but that doesn't mean that nothing lives there either.
Compared to the surface waters the sea floor is much more desolate than the most desolate land desert - that's not to say that it's devoid of life.
My experience with netflix is that there are two types of defects, ones that damage the disk and the packaging, and one's that just damage the disk.
You're clearly more knowledgeable than me, so this is an honest question:
Is it possible that pinch feeds are producing the second defect, but you didn't notice it because there's no superficial damage?
The gulf coast is going to have oil contamination for years regardless of whether the oil is dispersed or not. Many years of lower concentration contamination is likely favorable to saturating the swamps and estuaries with oil now.
Further, my understanding is that agitated dispersed oil is likely to spread out in the full 3 dimensions of the gulf of Mexico, which isn't good, but it's less bad than having it bob to the surface or concentrate on the bottom where it bio-accumulates in the few deep sea bottom feeders.
Remember when your high school chemistry teacher told you that dilution isn't the solution to pollution? Well when containment isn't an option - like with an oil spill, dilution is preferable to concentration.
I'm more than willing to concede that I'm not an expert on the interactions between sea life and oil and dispersants. However, if the environmental groups had a good reason to believe that dispersing oil was a bad idea, it's not that hard of a sell.
We can, after all eventually sweep up a good portion of surface oil, but once it's dispersed it's irrevocably in the environment. The only reports I've read discouraging the use of dispersants don't really analyze the impact of not using them. In any crisis, some number of experts will be paralyzed by difficult decisions and in the absence of good ideas urge inaction. The problem is that there might be a less-bad option than inaction. I truly believe that's what is happening to the few people urging against dispersant use.
you know ... they're probably going to attach a tube to the dome. And buoyant forces will force the liquid through it (though they'll probably pump too).
Those who think letting the oil sink is a bad idea are a distinct minority.
Sure, if there wasn't oil in the water we wouldn't want to dump dispersants in, but there is, so this is the lesser of two evils.
The sea floor is a veritable desert compared to the ocean surface. The food chain starts in the first 10' of water, where plankton have access to sunlight.
There are creatures that will be effected by oil on the sea floor like crabs and such, but it's still better than letting it run ashore.
Briefly, oil on the ocean floor or dispersed in the water column is bad. Oil on the ocean surface is worse. And oil on the ocean surface at the shoreline and in the estuaries is an ecological catastrophe.
You're fifteen months too late. The pound is at 1993/1994/2001/2002 levels against the dollar and the only time the pound was substantially weaker was around 1985.
Perhaps the real problem is game designers trying to hard to be everything to everyone.
Some people want to have to work to complete a puzzle so that they feel rewarded at the end of a level, others want to pick up a game and just mindlessly plow through it. The truly masterful games manage to do both (Deus Ex and Half Life), but most just try too hard and end up disappointing everyone.
Agree, to a point. There's a fine line between forcing you to make difficult choices and allowing you to paint yourself into a corner.
If I don't beat an encounter the right way and use too much ammo, I don't want the next encounter to be impossible. But rather than fine tune the next level to make recovery difficult but possible game designers these days seem to pander and give you what you need on a silver platter. The failure to walk the line between making you work for poor gameplay decisions and screwing you for bad game play decisions seems to be the design flaw that leads to a cascade of further bad design decisions. Take your favorite game, bioshock. Early in the game big daddies were way too hard, so rather than giving you some clever trick to lure them into a trap you shot them 10 times with your pistol, died, and respawned next to an ammo container, went back, shot them 10 more times (their health didn't reset when you died), and repeated about 5 times. I liked bioshock, but the respawn mechanic was shit. Fortunately, by the end of the game you were better equipped to deal with most of the baddies.
If fewer than 10% of the gaming public plays a game through the first time, what good is replayability?
It's been a while, so I figured I'd round up to give the parent the benefit of the doubt. I also figured I'd count the probably 8 hours/week I spent in various labs throughout my collegiate career.
If I took 4 courses at a time, I'd spend 3-4 hours/week/class in lecture and 8 hours/week in lab. I'm sure there were times I was in class or lab 30 or more hours a week, but that was the exception. I probably did average closer to 15-20.
This is of course scheduled class time and not attended class time. I would say I had good attendance, but certainly not perfect attendance. There were also times when I had fewer classes, or the time I took particularly rigorous courses like skydiving.