Oh good. I'll only walk out without paying where there are no other customers waiting. That way the barber didn't lose anything in giving me a free haircut....
Clever, but not clever enough. He doesn't have to use his time for giving haircuts - if you hadn't come in and wasted his time, he might have gone out to lunch early, sat in the back and read a magazine, swept the floor, or done something else. What he wants to do with his time is for him to decide, not you. His time is a valuable resource and you're wasting it if you walk out without paying.
When you copy a song, however, all the resources and effort that went into it have already long since been spent. Your unauthorized copying doesn't incur any costs for anyone other than yourself (and whoever voluntarily sends you the file).
Biologically, we're born competitive. What copyright does is ensures the best, most creative minds actually get rewarded.
Er, no. What copyright does is shift the market from one where people get paid based on their talent and effort ("if you give me X dollars, I'll write or perform a song for you") to one where they get paid based on making copies ("if you want this information, you have to pay me for a disc containing it"). It infringes on the majority's freedom of speech ("sorry, you can't transmit that information without permission") just so a minority can treat their artistic talent as something that can be wrapped up in chunks and sold in jewel cases, rather than a skill that they actually apply in practice.
In US the theft of services is indeed considered theft and charged as larceny. If something as non-tangible as services can be stolen, surely the definition can extend to intellectual property such as music.
Ah, but theft of services is more analogous to theft of goods than copyright infringement is. If you walk out of the barber shop without paying for your haircut, you've taken the barber's time, which he could've been using to cut hair for a paying customer. He has lost that time. When you copy a song, however, you don't place any additional demands on the folks who wrote and recorded it; nothing is lost.
Backwards compatibility in the PS2 is actually achieved by including the PS1 CPU. Normally it acts as sound and I/O controller, but when you run a PS1 game it becomes the main CPU.
This is similar to the Sega Genesis's emulation of Master System games, which could be done because the Genesis's sound processor was the same as the SMS's main processor.
I appreciate what you're saying, though, since I also have a PowerBook that I use for a lot of media center type tasks and don't like to have the lid open, so I just use Insomnia with the Insomnia Clinic AppleScripts to turn off sleep-on-close when I don't want it. You should check it out - I think it'd work well for you.
I tried one of those no-sleep utilities (not sure if it was Insomnia) and it seemed to work at first, but every time, the computer would crash a couple minutes after I closed the lid. I'll check out that one, though.
I can leave my powerbook asleep for 6 days before it runs out of battery. I can leave it off for.... 6 days before it runs out of battery. That tells me that the amount of electricity I'd be saving by shutting down instead of sleeping is too small to measure casually.
Er.. actually, I think it tells you that something's gone horribly wrong with your "shut down" feature. If your laptop is turned off, the battery shouldn't be dead in 6 days. What could it possibly be using that electricity for? Refreshing the clock? My wrist watch can do that for years with a battery the size of a nickel!
Unlike other things, gambling tends to leave one without anything in return. You can buy a CD, comic book, etc., and have something to show for it. Gambling is more of a form of entertainment, and I'd really like to see the studies it has on the teenage mind.
Well, first, obviously gambling leaves you with more than you started with some of the time - that's the appeal of it. The house edge means that casinos make a profit on average from thousands of visitors, but individuals can still win (or lose) independently. Poker is a bit different because there's a huge element of skill: if you're one of the better players at the table, you won't always win, but you can still expect to win more than you lose.
But you're right, it is mainly a form of entertainment. So what? If you take your girl to the movies and pay $25 for tickets and concessions, what do you have to show for it? If you spend $50 at the amusement park or the go-kart track or the comedy club, what are you left with the next day? Nothing but the memories of the good time you just had.
Now let me ask you: are you going to argue that minors shouldn't be able to go to movies, arcades, concerts, amusement parks, or comedy clubs because they don't get anything but a few hours of fun for their money? If not, why the hard-on for gambling, which we both agree is another form of entertainment?
I still think permitting online gambling is a bad idea, but I guess letting out elected state officials decide is good enough. They can really debate out the pros and cons.
I wish they would have, but IIRC, no one voted against the bill in either house.
I'm sure once Windows users finally have a sleep mode that actually fucking works like it's supposed to, they will also discover that simply closing the laptop lid [...] is a far, far nicer way to live as well.
God, I hope not. I have a Powerbook G4, and this is the single most annoying feature about it: it goes to sleep the moment I close the lid. I often bring my laptop over to a friend's house to watch video files on his TV, and I have to leave the lid cracked open half an inch just so it'll stay running. (Actually, it uses a magnetic sensor, so I could fool it by putting a steel plate over the touchpad, but I don't have one of those. And apparently it'll wake up even when closed if you plug in a USB keyboard and mouse.. as if I'm going to carry those around in my laptop bag.)
Meanwhile, his Windows laptop--and every other laptop I've ever used--stays running with the lid closed, and only goes to sleep when he actually wants it to. BTW, sleep mode works just fine in Windows (as other posters have said); they just call it "standby".
Don't get me wrong - sometimes this "feature" is convenient, but it should be optional.
You said that minors should be allowed to gamble if they have their own bank account and enough money. - One, what defines enough money?
The casino does. Typically you need to deposit $50 to $100 up front to play online. If a kid has saved up that much money and wants to spend it playing poker, I don't see how that's any worse than letting him spend it on video games or comic books.
Two, they are minors, usually living rent free in their parents house, I'd think saving for college and whatnot would be better use of the money. Plus allowing a minor to spend his or her money in such a frivolous manner may not prepare him or her for adulthood.
That's for him and his parents to decide, not you. Not everyone wants to go to college, and $50 isn't going to make much difference anyway. Again, if you want to stop kids from spending their money on "frivolous" things, gambling should be near the bottom of your list - unless you're also prepared to argue that it should be illegal for minors to buy CDs, video games, name brand clothes, fast food, etc., this argument falls flat.
Once someone is an adult, it is assumed they are to be off on their own supporting themselves. Once then, they should be permitted to spend their money as they please.
What does supporting themselves have to do with being able to spend their own money? Either the money belongs to them, in which case they have the right to spend it as they please, or it doesn't.
By the way, about my comment about my state wanting to raise the gambling age from 18 to 21, I heard the reasons are as follows. To comply with other states which currently have it as 21.
Weak - the whole point of our federal system is that different states are allowed, even encouraged, to have different laws! We don't need to have a state income tax just because Oregon has one, so why should we have to change our gambling age just because it's 21 in Nevada? Even TFA illustrates this point: we're outlawing online poker, but other states aren't.
To rid the problem of 18-20 year old gambling addicts, which I think can cost the state government money somehow.
No more than 21-99 year old gambling addicts.
Alcohol laws. If there's no 18-20 year olds allowed in the casino, it becomes less of an issue I guess.
The solution that at least one casino around here has found is to stop serving alcoholic drinks (except in designated areas).
Who cares if you can't check for someone's age? Age restrictions, in general, are a bad idea. Certainly for gambling, where in order to do it online, you need to jump through several financial hoops. This is not a case of fifth graders spending their lunch money on poker. Any minor who has a bank account and enough money to gamble with should be allowed to do it, IMO.
I would use an accurate, neutral phrase like "copyright infringement", "patent infringement", etc. The term stealing implies that someone is being deprived of something (which is why stealing is wrong in the first place, after all), not to mention the obvious emotional connotations, and the term intellectual property treats three or more very different forms of legal monopoly as if they were the same.
Or maybe because it uses the phrase "intellectual property theft", which has no legal meaning and serves no purpose other than to inflame people. If you want to talk about copyright infringement, but accurate phrases like "copyright infringement" or "illegal copying" don't get the emotional response you're looking for, so you switch to loaded and inaccurate phrases instead, you should expect to get modded down.
Slightly OT, but what is the point of these lists? Sirius's Left of Center goes through lists of their labels once in a while too... does anyone other than industry insiders really know or care which labels are offered where? I honestly have no idea which label any of my favorite bands are signed up with, except I have the vague idea that TMBG were with Elektra at some point.
That's quite impressive, considering that the area on consumer-grade DVD media where the CSS keys are to be stored is unwritable, and consumer-grade burners are unable to write to it anyway. How much did you spend for your professional DVD burning equipment, and where on earth did you find that media?
Congratulations, you've discovered Duverger's law. In a country with first-past-the-post voting, you have only a few choices: join one of the major parties and get it to work for what you want, join a third party and try to overtake one of the major parties, or work for voting reform so there can be meaningful alternatives to the major parties.
Referring to the two major parties as equivalent, however, is facile and lazy. For the vast majority of voters, the differences between the Republicans and Democrats are significant. The things that the parties agree on, for the most part, are things that only a tiny fraction of voters find controversial. If you want to change those, your only hope is voting reform, because you'll never get one of the two major parties to take such an unpopular position.
I find it pretty likely that the Democrats will pick up several seats in this year's election, possibly even get a majority in the House.
Griping about the choices in the primaries, though... weak. Kerry was kinda boring but he was a fine candidate. I doubt any of the other candidates would have fared better than he did.
And in light of this, Bush would STILL get re-elected if he could run.
No way.. have you seen the latest approval polls? Bush has been hovering around 30% for weeks - the latest poll has him at 29%. Those are not the kind of numbers that lead to reelection. If the election were held today, he'd be out on his ass by over a 2:1 margin.
The government has decided that anybody is basically allowed to do anything they like to students. You have no protection against search&seizure, [...] and no first [...] ammendment rights.
Not true. Students unfortunately don't share all the constitutional protections that the rest of us have, but (1) students can't be searched without reasonable grounds to believe they're violating the law or school codes, (2) students can't be prohibited from distributing their own newsletters. Here are some examples of the student rights my state's ACLU has defended, and this page has some information about students' first amendment rights in particular.
Yeah, because the FDA is all about your health. They would never approve anything that might be bad for you. Spend a few minutes searching for "FDA sucralose." Or "Monsanto BGH."
Way to dodge the question.
BTW, are there any people making FDA sucralose cancer conspiracy claims who aren't trying to sell "whole foods" or "holistic supplements"?
Not only are they bad for you, many artificial sweeteners react with carbohydrates in such a way that seratonin production is hindered, preventing you from feeling full... so you eat and drink more diet soda and get even fatter.
Which sweeteners specifically, and how significant is the effect? Where's the evidence for this claim?
Also, stay away from diet soda! Not only does it not taste as good as the real thing, but any drink containing aspertame or equivalent should be avoided like the plague.
Er, why is that? If you have any solid medical evidence that common artificial sweeteners are dangerous--especially evidence that all of them are dangerous--I'm sure the FDA would like to see it.
First, keep in mind that a CD is sold to a distributor, who adds five points, before selling it to a reseller (retail store). Retailers like Amazon might add 10 or 15 points; brick and mortar retailers might add more. So, if your manufacturing cost is $3.00, you can pretty much rule out setting a retail price of $5.
Er, want to check that math? You've left out the manufacturer's markup, but let's say it's 15% just like the retailer's.
$3.00 * 1.15 = $3.45 (price charged by the manufacturer) $3.45 * 1.05 = $3.62 (price charged by the distributor) $3.62 * 1.15 = $4.16 (price charged by the retailer)
$5 doesn't seem unrealistic there. Am I missing something?
Granted, it's a broad generalization, but when was the last time you where in a public school?
Six years ago. However, my brother is still in (public) school, and a couple days ago, I met a 17 year old who had been expelled. Even back when I was in school, believe me, there were lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, and students still got sent to detention, suspended, and expelled.
Yeah, until Mommy and Daddy come complaining to the school board and the decision is overturned. I've seen it happen time and again, to people I went to school with.
Maybe you shouldn't generalize your experiences to everyone then, hmm? I mean, if I flip a coin five times and it comes out heads each time, I don't go telling the world that coins are rigged these days.
I'm still wondering what recourse you think there is when beatings don't work. Harder, longer beatings? Torture? Amputation, or maybe castration?
You missed my point. Teacher have lost their ability to discipline in any form what-so-ever. [...] Teachers aren't allowed to dole out punishment of any kind, because nothing is ever the child's fault.
This claim is simply untrue, and the best thing about it is, all I have to do to prove it wrong is cite one example of a kid being disciplined in school without a lawsuit. Would you like to narrow it down to something a little less obviously wrong?
When the measures you mentioned have no effect, what recourse do you have? Corporal punishmen is not the first and certainly not the best choice for discipline, but at times it might be neccesary. I'm not advocating beatings, or flogging 40 lashes with Teacher's trusty cat-of-nine-tails, but for some kids a couple of shots to the ass with a 2x6 (or the threat thereof) might prove an effective atitude adjuster.
"Might". Hell, praying for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to soften these little troublemakers' hearts with His Noodly Appendage might work too. Where is the evidence that violence against students actually works as discipline, and where is the evidence that it works well enough to justify treating students less humanely than we treat prisoners?
Oh, one more question. What happens when "a couple of shots to the ass with a 2x6" doesn't achieve the desired results? What recourse do you have then... tasering, or maybe pulling out their fingernails?
I'd say if the kid is such a problem that you're actually taking the idea of hitting him seriously, just expel him. Believe it or not, expulsion still happens.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh good. I'll only walk out without paying where there are no other customers waiting. That way the barber didn't lose anything in giving me a free haircut....
Clever, but not clever enough. He doesn't have to use his time for giving haircuts - if you hadn't come in and wasted his time, he might have gone out to lunch early, sat in the back and read a magazine, swept the floor, or done something else. What he wants to do with his time is for him to decide, not you. His time is a valuable resource and you're wasting it if you walk out without paying.
When you copy a song, however, all the resources and effort that went into it have already long since been spent. Your unauthorized copying doesn't incur any costs for anyone other than yourself (and whoever voluntarily sends you the file).
Biologically, we're born competitive. What copyright does is ensures the best, most creative minds actually get rewarded.
Er, no. What copyright does is shift the market from one where people get paid based on their talent and effort ("if you give me X dollars, I'll write or perform a song for you") to one where they get paid based on making copies ("if you want this information, you have to pay me for a disc containing it"). It infringes on the majority's freedom of speech ("sorry, you can't transmit that information without permission") just so a minority can treat their artistic talent as something that can be wrapped up in chunks and sold in jewel cases, rather than a skill that they actually apply in practice.
In US the theft of services is indeed considered theft and charged as larceny. If something as non-tangible as services can be stolen, surely the definition can extend to intellectual property such as music.
Ah, but theft of services is more analogous to theft of goods than copyright infringement is. If you walk out of the barber shop without paying for your haircut, you've taken the barber's time, which he could've been using to cut hair for a paying customer. He has lost that time. When you copy a song, however, you don't place any additional demands on the folks who wrote and recorded it; nothing is lost.
Backwards compatibility in the PS2 is actually achieved by including the PS1 CPU. Normally it acts as sound and I/O controller, but when you run a PS1 game it becomes the main CPU.
This is similar to the Sega Genesis's emulation of Master System games, which could be done because the Genesis's sound processor was the same as the SMS's main processor.
My mistake.. no one voted against it in the state Senate, but 4 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it in the House.
Like I said, I would like to see studies of how gambling affects the teenage mind. The addiction element.
But apparently you're happy to make judgements even though you haven't seen any such studies.
I appreciate what you're saying, though, since I also have a PowerBook that I use for a lot of media center type tasks and don't like to have the lid open, so I just use Insomnia with the Insomnia Clinic AppleScripts to turn off sleep-on-close when I don't want it. You should check it out - I think it'd work well for you.
I tried one of those no-sleep utilities (not sure if it was Insomnia) and it seemed to work at first, but every time, the computer would crash a couple minutes after I closed the lid. I'll check out that one, though.
I can leave my powerbook asleep for 6 days before it runs out of battery. I can leave it off for.... 6 days before it runs out of battery. That tells me that the amount of electricity I'd be saving by shutting down instead of sleeping is too small to measure casually.
Er.. actually, I think it tells you that something's gone horribly wrong with your "shut down" feature. If your laptop is turned off, the battery shouldn't be dead in 6 days. What could it possibly be using that electricity for? Refreshing the clock? My wrist watch can do that for years with a battery the size of a nickel!
Unlike other things, gambling tends to leave one without anything in return. You can buy a CD, comic book, etc., and have something to show for it. Gambling is more of a form of entertainment, and I'd really like to see the studies it has on the teenage mind.
Well, first, obviously gambling leaves you with more than you started with some of the time - that's the appeal of it. The house edge means that casinos make a profit on average from thousands of visitors, but individuals can still win (or lose) independently. Poker is a bit different because there's a huge element of skill: if you're one of the better players at the table, you won't always win, but you can still expect to win more than you lose.
But you're right, it is mainly a form of entertainment. So what? If you take your girl to the movies and pay $25 for tickets and concessions, what do you have to show for it? If you spend $50 at the amusement park or the go-kart track or the comedy club, what are you left with the next day? Nothing but the memories of the good time you just had.
Now let me ask you: are you going to argue that minors shouldn't be able to go to movies, arcades, concerts, amusement parks, or comedy clubs because they don't get anything but a few hours of fun for their money? If not, why the hard-on for gambling, which we both agree is another form of entertainment?
I still think permitting online gambling is a bad idea, but I guess letting out elected state officials decide is good enough. They can really debate out the pros and cons.
I wish they would have, but IIRC, no one voted against the bill in either house.
I'm sure once Windows users finally have a sleep mode that actually fucking works like it's supposed to, they will also discover that simply closing the laptop lid [...] is a far, far nicer way to live as well.
God, I hope not. I have a Powerbook G4, and this is the single most annoying feature about it: it goes to sleep the moment I close the lid. I often bring my laptop over to a friend's house to watch video files on his TV, and I have to leave the lid cracked open half an inch just so it'll stay running. (Actually, it uses a magnetic sensor, so I could fool it by putting a steel plate over the touchpad, but I don't have one of those. And apparently it'll wake up even when closed if you plug in a USB keyboard and mouse.. as if I'm going to carry those around in my laptop bag.)
Meanwhile, his Windows laptop--and every other laptop I've ever used--stays running with the lid closed, and only goes to sleep when he actually wants it to. BTW, sleep mode works just fine in Windows (as other posters have said); they just call it "standby".
Don't get me wrong - sometimes this "feature" is convenient, but it should be optional.
You said that minors should be allowed to gamble if they have their own bank account and enough money.
-
One, what defines enough money?
The casino does. Typically you need to deposit $50 to $100 up front to play online. If a kid has saved up that much money and wants to spend it playing poker, I don't see how that's any worse than letting him spend it on video games or comic books.
Two, they are minors, usually living rent free in their parents house, I'd think saving for college and whatnot would be better use of the money. Plus allowing a minor to spend his or her money in such a frivolous manner may not prepare him or her for adulthood.
That's for him and his parents to decide, not you. Not everyone wants to go to college, and $50 isn't going to make much difference anyway. Again, if you want to stop kids from spending their money on "frivolous" things, gambling should be near the bottom of your list - unless you're also prepared to argue that it should be illegal for minors to buy CDs, video games, name brand clothes, fast food, etc., this argument falls flat.
Once someone is an adult, it is assumed they are to be off on their own supporting themselves. Once then, they should be permitted to spend their money as they please.
What does supporting themselves have to do with being able to spend their own money? Either the money belongs to them, in which case they have the right to spend it as they please, or it doesn't.
By the way, about my comment about my state wanting to raise the gambling age from 18 to 21, I heard the reasons are as follows. To comply with other states which currently have it as 21.
Weak - the whole point of our federal system is that different states are allowed, even encouraged, to have different laws! We don't need to have a state income tax just because Oregon has one, so why should we have to change our gambling age just because it's 21 in Nevada? Even TFA illustrates this point: we're outlawing online poker, but other states aren't.
To rid the problem of 18-20 year old gambling addicts, which I think can cost the state government money somehow.
No more than 21-99 year old gambling addicts.
Alcohol laws. If there's no 18-20 year olds allowed in the casino, it becomes less of an issue I guess.
The solution that at least one casino around here has found is to stop serving alcoholic drinks (except in designated areas).
Who cares if you can't check for someone's age? Age restrictions, in general, are a bad idea. Certainly for gambling, where in order to do it online, you need to jump through several financial hoops. This is not a case of fifth graders spending their lunch money on poker. Any minor who has a bank account and enough money to gamble with should be allowed to do it, IMO.
I would use an accurate, neutral phrase like "copyright infringement", "patent infringement", etc. The term stealing implies that someone is being deprived of something (which is why stealing is wrong in the first place, after all), not to mention the obvious emotional connotations, and the term intellectual property treats three or more very different forms of legal monopoly as if they were the same.
Or maybe because it uses the phrase "intellectual property theft", which has no legal meaning and serves no purpose other than to inflame people. If you want to talk about copyright infringement, but accurate phrases like "copyright infringement" or "illegal copying" don't get the emotional response you're looking for, so you switch to loaded and inaccurate phrases instead, you should expect to get modded down.
Slightly OT, but what is the point of these lists? Sirius's Left of Center goes through lists of their labels once in a while too... does anyone other than industry insiders really know or care which labels are offered where? I honestly have no idea which label any of my favorite bands are signed up with, except I have the vague idea that TMBG were with Elektra at some point.
That's quite impressive, considering that the area on consumer-grade DVD media where the CSS keys are to be stored is unwritable, and consumer-grade burners are unable to write to it anyway. How much did you spend for your professional DVD burning equipment, and where on earth did you find that media?
Congratulations, you've discovered Duverger's law. In a country with first-past-the-post voting, you have only a few choices: join one of the major parties and get it to work for what you want, join a third party and try to overtake one of the major parties, or work for voting reform so there can be meaningful alternatives to the major parties.
Referring to the two major parties as equivalent, however, is facile and lazy. For the vast majority of voters, the differences between the Republicans and Democrats are significant. The things that the parties agree on, for the most part, are things that only a tiny fraction of voters find controversial. If you want to change those, your only hope is voting reform, because you'll never get one of the two major parties to take such an unpopular position.
I find it pretty likely that the Democrats will pick up several seats in this year's election, possibly even get a majority in the House.
Griping about the choices in the primaries, though... weak. Kerry was kinda boring but he was a fine candidate. I doubt any of the other candidates would have fared better than he did.
And in light of this, Bush would STILL get re-elected if he could run.
No way.. have you seen the latest approval polls? Bush has been hovering around 30% for weeks - the latest poll has him at 29%. Those are not the kind of numbers that lead to reelection. If the election were held today, he'd be out on his ass by over a 2:1 margin.
The government has decided that anybody is basically allowed to do anything they like to students. You have no protection against search&seizure, [...] and no first [...] ammendment rights.
Not true. Students unfortunately don't share all the constitutional protections that the rest of us have, but (1) students can't be searched without reasonable grounds to believe they're violating the law or school codes, (2) students can't be prohibited from distributing their own newsletters. Here are some examples of the student rights my state's ACLU has defended, and this page has some information about students' first amendment rights in particular.
Yeah, because the FDA is all about your health. They would never approve anything that might be bad for you. Spend a few minutes searching for "FDA sucralose." Or "Monsanto BGH."
Way to dodge the question.
BTW, are there any people making FDA sucralose cancer conspiracy claims who aren't trying to sell "whole foods" or "holistic supplements"?
Not only are they bad for you, many artificial sweeteners react with carbohydrates in such a way that seratonin production is hindered, preventing you from feeling full... so you eat and drink more diet soda and get even fatter.
Which sweeteners specifically, and how significant is the effect? Where's the evidence for this claim?
Also, stay away from diet soda! Not only does it not taste as good as the real thing, but any drink containing aspertame or equivalent should be avoided like the plague.
Er, why is that? If you have any solid medical evidence that common artificial sweeteners are dangerous--especially evidence that all of them are dangerous--I'm sure the FDA would like to see it.
First, keep in mind that a CD is sold to a distributor, who adds five points, before selling it to a reseller (retail store). Retailers like Amazon might add 10 or 15 points; brick and mortar retailers might add more. So, if your manufacturing cost is $3.00, you can pretty much rule out setting a retail price of $5.
Er, want to check that math? You've left out the manufacturer's markup, but let's say it's 15% just like the retailer's.
$3.00 * 1.15 = $3.45 (price charged by the manufacturer)
$3.45 * 1.05 = $3.62 (price charged by the distributor)
$3.62 * 1.15 = $4.16 (price charged by the retailer)
$5 doesn't seem unrealistic there. Am I missing something?
Granted, it's a broad generalization, but when was the last time you where in a public school?
Six years ago. However, my brother is still in (public) school, and a couple days ago, I met a 17 year old who had been expelled. Even back when I was in school, believe me, there were lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, and students still got sent to detention, suspended, and expelled.
Yeah, until Mommy and Daddy come complaining to the school board and the decision is overturned. I've seen it happen time and again, to people I went to school with.
Maybe you shouldn't generalize your experiences to everyone then, hmm? I mean, if I flip a coin five times and it comes out heads each time, I don't go telling the world that coins are rigged these days.
I'm still wondering what recourse you think there is when beatings don't work. Harder, longer beatings? Torture? Amputation, or maybe castration?
You missed my point. Teacher have lost their ability to discipline in any form what-so-ever. [...] Teachers aren't allowed to dole out punishment of any kind, because nothing is ever the child's fault.
This claim is simply untrue, and the best thing about it is, all I have to do to prove it wrong is cite one example of a kid being disciplined in school without a lawsuit. Would you like to narrow it down to something a little less obviously wrong?
When the measures you mentioned have no effect, what recourse do you have? Corporal punishmen is not the first and certainly not the best choice for discipline, but at times it might be neccesary. I'm not advocating beatings, or flogging 40 lashes with Teacher's trusty cat-of-nine-tails, but for some kids a couple of shots to the ass with a 2x6 (or the threat thereof) might prove an effective atitude adjuster.
"Might". Hell, praying for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to soften these little troublemakers' hearts with His Noodly Appendage might work too. Where is the evidence that violence against students actually works as discipline, and where is the evidence that it works well enough to justify treating students less humanely than we treat prisoners?
Oh, one more question. What happens when "a couple of shots to the ass with a 2x6" doesn't achieve the desired results? What recourse do you have then... tasering, or maybe pulling out their fingernails?
I'd say if the kid is such a problem that you're actually taking the idea of hitting him seriously, just expel him. Believe it or not, expulsion still happens.