You're right, school is not a democracy. What your teachers failed to tell you is that it's not a tyranny either: it's a government institution with a very specific goal. The employees are government employees, paid with your taxes.
This means that teachers and principals can't just do whatever they feel like when they come across something they don't like. This, to me, certainly crossed the line.
Define consequence. The entire point of free speech is that there are very few things that government entities can do to people who say stuff that that entity doesn't agree with.
Question 1: What law did the student break? Just pissing off a principal is not cause enough. Question 2: What authority did the principal have to meet out that punishment? Public schools are not lawless zones subject to only the whim of the principal.
I find it disturbing that every time someone talks about responsibly using free speech, it is in the context of establishing NEW restrictions on what people can say. The UN Human Rights Commission has weaseled some very disturbing restrictions into free speech protection with exactly that argument. In your place, I'd be very careful with that line of argument, as it can easily be extended until there is absolutely no free speech.
I'd really love to see that. Add the same modding strategy that/. has for comments to stories. Have Karma accumulate for editors. People can read at -1 or +5. Everybody wins!
I don't think you read the list very closely then. Here are some of the emails: "Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans" "Re: DPS Personnel and Budget Issues" "Court of Appeals / Executive Director Parole Board / Boards and Commissions" All these came from or were sent to government email addresses (as specified in her contact list).
I have no idea how these could qualify as personal emails. Especially in light of the fact that they came from or went to government email addresses. Either someone else misused government email resources, or she conducted state business via personal email. And the latter seems pretty damn likely.
I fully expect that anything that still moves after being in extended contact with nuclear waste would actually use it as fuel. It'd be win-win-win! Not only do you have a safe place to store it without opposition, but it gets reprocessed by nuclear-fuel eating zombies! The only thing you might have to worry about then is nuclear farts. Though I'm sure they could be reused as props on some of MTVs reality shows.
This is always something that puzzled me. People complain that the federal government is an overriding force in our lives. But if the federal government would be weak, wouldn't it mean that the state governments would be massive overriding forces in our lives?
As for your sig.... who gets to decide that only the sheep has a gun? What if the two wolves and the sheep all have a gun?
As opposed to what - what every other politician does when they speak? Politicians are all either vaguely positive (we're gonna fix this!), or so specific that they can weasel out of it because the circumstances didn't all come together.
Finally, I'll also just say that you're not listening to his speeches. There are quite a few specifics in them.
I'm always surprised by how little people listen to what the candidates actually say. Whenever someone talks about anybody's speech, I can only marvel at how much they read into them what they want to hear.
You do realize that voting "present" in the Illinois legislature is tantamount to a "no", right? That's because for a bill to pass, people have to vote yes, and it has to be a majority of the people who were present at the time of voting.
As a result, voting "present" means something very specific. Furthermore, I'd like to see where you get your numbers from that he rarely shows up for his job. Got some sources?
I'll leave your comment regarding children alone, as that's just flamebait on a level that's normally reserved to O'Reilly.
... I'll say it again. Palin is Cheney with lipstick. The loyalty fixation, the end justify the means attitude, the secrecy... Can you imagine Cheney as president? That's what we'll get if McCain gets elected and croaks in office.
Availability. My suspicion is that there aren't many places that - have a long, perfectly straight and flat road - little traffic - residents that don't mind having their roads closed for 30 minutes at a time
The point is the trend of their development. They're going through all the steps of regurgitating what has been done before, so that they can beat the crap out of the rest of the world later.
I can already see the gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing and apoplectic tv-appearances of US politicians when the Chinese establish their permanent moon base, and are working on launching people to Mars. My guess: 20 years for permanent moon base, with Mars launch to follow soon after from said moon base.
... and I say you're full of shit. What sits at -1 sits there for a reason. Occasionally, I see a mod war where people go between 5 and -1, but this is very, very rare. Not to mention that the post generally stabilizes at a positive number.
I've been around since pretty much beginning. I've seen the rise and fall of Portman and grits, GNAA and Katz. As more people joined, signal to noise ratio has indeed dropped. But quite frankly, people like you are part of the noise, and always have been. People have been bitching about the dropping quality of Slashdot since your UID still put you in the noob category.
The final kicker - you're currently sitting at +1. The irony should make your head implode.
Yes. Because adults are so much better at decision making. (sarcasm should be dripping off your screen by now)
Quite frankly, my experience is that people who were idiots in middle-school still were idiots in middle-age. They even had the same attitudes. This means that age has little to do with whether you're worth listening to. And any attempt to deride someone's interest based on their age is merely an attempt by someone older to keep the competition out.
Not to mention that it is only beneficial to develop and study interests early rather than late.
I'm not sure where you got this idea from, but I find it highly disturbing.
Except that the guy was saying exactly the right thing - that creationism is not science, and that science teachers need to be able to explain why creationism is not science.
Someone is guaranteed to bring up the question about creationism in science class. The proper answer is a discussion about what science is, why creationism is not science and why it is better discussed in the context of social sciences and philosophies. This is the position Reiss advocated. I have no idea how people managed to contort that into something else.... unless the world is a lot more like Slashdot than I care to think.
True. However, ownership also implies control. Even in mega-corporations, minority owners can effect change, bring up motions, etc. I have no such influence over NASA. There is only the most indirect of influences by voting for people who I think could have the same opinions as I do about how NASA should operate.
Of course. Except the analogy is wrong. In this case, I (NASA) was paid by someone. That someone is the US taxpayer. As it seems that the patents were work for hire (as evidenced by the fact that they belong to NASA, and not the inventor), they belong to whoever paid the money. I.e., me (the US taxpayer).
I could accept the alternative of lower taxes because NASA wouldn't require so much funding, but alas, I'm pretty sure DC will find some other uses for my taxes.
This assumes that I own part of NASA or that NASA pays me something out of its profits. All of which is false.
GP was right. I funded the research with my tax dollars, I own part of it. Either I get some of the cash that the auction netted, or this is nothing but corporate welfare. To anyone who's arguing that the corporation is still paying for it: there's a world of difference between paying for research and stumbling on something that makes money, and paying for a patent on something that makes money. In one, the money overlord bears the risk of the research failing. In the other, the research risk has already been born.
Correct. However, I believe it is Lessig who said that one of the fundamental problems with the current IP climate is this: people think that because some IP protection is good, more is better.
There is an argument to be made for *some* protection. The state we're in goes far beyond reasonable.
And, just like in many other places, it's a question of whether those rights are enforced. Technically, Afghani women are allowed to go to school. Doesn't mean that a lot of them won't be killed if they do.
What you're missing is that this is increases the disparity in anonymity. Citizens have their lives exposed to the government, but government agents are as hidden as always.
THAT's the key problem. The people in government are people like everyone else. If joe blow on the street doesn't deserve anonymity, then neither does Jane NSA when she tracks Joe Blow.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there is. The counterweight is designed to keep the cable taught via tension, so that the trams/baskets don't hit a snag.
If the cable breaks or is disconnected in any way, the entire thing just floats off into outer space.
You're right, school is not a democracy. What your teachers failed to tell you is that it's not a tyranny either: it's a government institution with a very specific goal. The employees are government employees, paid with your taxes.
This means that teachers and principals can't just do whatever they feel like when they come across something they don't like. This, to me, certainly crossed the line.
Define consequence. The entire point of free speech is that there are very few things that government entities can do to people who say stuff that that entity doesn't agree with.
Question 1: What law did the student break? Just pissing off a principal is not cause enough.
Question 2: What authority did the principal have to meet out that punishment? Public schools are not lawless zones subject to only the whim of the principal.
I find it disturbing that every time someone talks about responsibly using free speech, it is in the context of establishing NEW restrictions on what people can say. The UN Human Rights Commission has weaseled some very disturbing restrictions into free speech protection with exactly that argument. In your place, I'd be very careful with that line of argument, as it can easily be extended until there is absolutely no free speech.
I'd really love to see that. Add the same modding strategy that /. has for comments to stories. Have Karma accumulate for editors. People can read at -1 or +5. Everybody wins!
I don't think you read the list very closely then. Here are some of the emails:
"Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans"
"Re: DPS Personnel and Budget Issues"
"Court of Appeals / Executive Director Parole Board / Boards and Commissions"
All these came from or were sent to government email addresses (as specified in her contact list).
I have no idea how these could qualify as personal emails. Especially in light of the fact that they came from or went to government email addresses. Either someone else misused government email resources, or she conducted state business via personal email. And the latter seems pretty damn likely.
This is always something that puzzled me. People complain that the federal government is an overriding force in our lives. But if the federal government would be weak, wouldn't it mean that the state governments would be massive overriding forces in our lives?
As for your sig.... who gets to decide that only the sheep has a gun? What if the two wolves and the sheep all have a gun?
As opposed to what - what every other politician does when they speak? Politicians are all either vaguely positive (we're gonna fix this!), or so specific that they can weasel out of it because the circumstances didn't all come together.
Finally, I'll also just say that you're not listening to his speeches. There are quite a few specifics in them.
I'm always surprised by how little people listen to what the candidates actually say. Whenever someone talks about anybody's speech, I can only marvel at how much they read into them what they want to hear.
You do realize that voting "present" in the Illinois legislature is tantamount to a "no", right? That's because for a bill to pass, people have to vote yes, and it has to be a majority of the people who were present at the time of voting.
As a result, voting "present" means something very specific. Furthermore, I'd like to see where you get your numbers from that he rarely shows up for his job. Got some sources?
I'll leave your comment regarding children alone, as that's just flamebait on a level that's normally reserved to O'Reilly.
... I'll say it again. Palin is Cheney with lipstick. The loyalty fixation, the end justify the means attitude, the secrecy... Can you imagine Cheney as president? That's what we'll get if McCain gets elected and croaks in office.
Availability. My suspicion is that there aren't many places that
- have a long, perfectly straight and flat road
- little traffic
- residents that don't mind having their roads closed for 30 minutes at a time
The point is the trend of their development. They're going through all the steps of regurgitating what has been done before, so that they can beat the crap out of the rest of the world later.
I can already see the gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing and apoplectic tv-appearances of US politicians when the Chinese establish their permanent moon base, and are working on launching people to Mars. My guess: 20 years for permanent moon base, with Mars launch to follow soon after from said moon base.
Gah. I hate the new posting mechanism. Either I forget to hit Submit, and wonder where my post is, or I think I forgot to hit Submit, and double-post.
It's days like these where I'd like to have the ability to voluntarily mod my own posts down.
I normally hate empty replies of "ditto", but I have really nothing to contribute to your comment other than "Well said".
If there was a hall of fame for Slashdot posts, yours would be in it.
I wish there was a hall of fame for Slashdot posts. This would be in it.
I've been around since pretty much beginning. I've seen the rise and fall of Portman and grits, GNAA and Katz. As more people joined, signal to noise ratio has indeed dropped. But quite frankly, people like you are part of the noise, and always have been. People have been bitching about the dropping quality of Slashdot since your UID still put you in the noob category.
The final kicker - you're currently sitting at +1. The irony should make your head implode.
Yes. Because adults are so much better at decision making. (sarcasm should be dripping off your screen by now)
Quite frankly, my experience is that people who were idiots in middle-school still were idiots in middle-age. They even had the same attitudes. This means that age has little to do with whether you're worth listening to. And any attempt to deride someone's interest based on their age is merely an attempt by someone older to keep the competition out.
Not to mention that it is only beneficial to develop and study interests early rather than late.
I'm not sure where you got this idea from, but I find it highly disturbing.
Except that the guy was saying exactly the right thing - that creationism is not science, and that science teachers need to be able to explain why creationism is not science.
Someone is guaranteed to bring up the question about creationism in science class. The proper answer is a discussion about what science is, why creationism is not science and why it is better discussed in the context of social sciences and philosophies. This is the position Reiss advocated. I have no idea how people managed to contort that into something else.... unless the world is a lot more like Slashdot than I care to think.
True. However, ownership also implies control. Even in mega-corporations, minority owners can effect change, bring up motions, etc. I have no such influence over NASA. There is only the most indirect of influences by voting for people who I think could have the same opinions as I do about how NASA should operate.
Not the same thing.
Actually, I can. The supermarket will sell me a pork loin for less than I would have without the subsidy. That works for me.
However, when a patent is sold, a monopoly position is sold. And monopoly rents work completely different from regular supply and demand curves.
Of course. Except the analogy is wrong. In this case, I (NASA) was paid by someone. That someone is the US taxpayer. As it seems that the patents were work for hire (as evidenced by the fact that they belong to NASA, and not the inventor), they belong to whoever paid the money. I.e., me (the US taxpayer).
I could accept the alternative of lower taxes because NASA wouldn't require so much funding, but alas, I'm pretty sure DC will find some other uses for my taxes.
This assumes that I own part of NASA or that NASA pays me something out of its profits. All of which is false.
GP was right. I funded the research with my tax dollars, I own part of it. Either I get some of the cash that the auction netted, or this is nothing but corporate welfare. To anyone who's arguing that the corporation is still paying for it: there's a world of difference between paying for research and stumbling on something that makes money, and paying for a patent on something that makes money. In one, the money overlord bears the risk of the research failing. In the other, the research risk has already been born.
And, just like in many other places, it's a question of whether those rights are enforced. Technically, Afghani women are allowed to go to school. Doesn't mean that a lot of them won't be killed if they do.
What you're missing is that this is increases the disparity in anonymity. Citizens have their lives exposed to the government, but government agents are as hidden as always.
THAT's the key problem. The people in government are people like everyone else. If joe blow on the street doesn't deserve anonymity, then neither does Jane NSA when she tracks Joe Blow.