Apple's market cap is upwards of 300 billion; They had revenues of ~65 billion in 2010. Hungary's GDP was around 187 billion in 2009.
This might be a good buyout deal for Apple, take over a struggling country, and turn it around. Built in workforce, friendly political climate, lots of natural resources...
Right, because somebody submitting draft changes for a constitutional proposal has NO interest in how the final product comes out, and will never read the drafts that have their accepted changes supplied.
I can't wait to see the final result of all this, I predict it will look like this:
"Hungarians are in it for the hookers, beer, and free cocaine. DOIN' IT FOR THE LULZ," followed by a big swoopy John Hancock-like signature, reading "ANONYMOUS"
The Constitution adopted in 1949 was their first constitution. It was passed during the communist era, and heavily reflective of the heavy Soviet influence on Hungary at the time it was adopted. Hungary is the only Eastern Bloc nation to NOT adopt a new constitution after the end of one-party Communist rule. In 1989, they simply heavily amended the Communist-era constitution, and continued on from there. This marks the first Constitution for Hungary that's been fully implemented without Communist control of the government.
How is that different from 4 guys being taxed on their higher earnings as they currently stand, and benefits being given to the 5th guy who doesn't work at all because their aren't any jobs ?
It's different because the assumption is that by "giving everybody a job," you'll somehow eliminate the need for these social programs, and so we'll actually save money. But guess what: the programs will still need to exist, with all of their administrative and financing requirements - there are people who are mentally ill (HUGE portions of the homeless population fits that description), physically disabled, or simply incapable of doing the types of work required in an industry where they COULD find a job.
Your argument about "responsibility to society" is also rather misdirected. What sense of "responsibility" would you feel, if everybody had the equivalent of a lifetime government job? "I don't NEED to work hard here, because if I lose this job, they'll just issue me a new one, and I'll go work somewhere else. Or they can just keep writing me a check for no work." The unemployed people who will feel a sense of personal responsibility are going to find work on their own regardless of whether or not the government helps them do so - the government can perhaps make it faster/easier for them to find a new employer, but "issuing" them a job isn't necessary; The people who don't feel that responsibility will simply abuse the entitlement - they're not going to suddenly discover responsibility because they've been handed a blank check.
Unless you are arguing that the 5th shouldn't recieve any benefits because he's not working in which case the 4 guys are still going to support the 5th guy by being a victim of crime (if only indirectly).
Several things: 1) I don't recognize any man's right to demand benefits from me, "or else." If the argument is, "You better give me $1000 a month, or I'll break into your house and rob you," that is commonly known as extortion, and is generally considered a criminal act. We don't give criminals bribe money to not hurt us, we put them in jail.
2) I'm against *handouts* - I don't believe they work, and all it does is create a permanent underclass who are reliable votes for the party that puts those handouts in place. They're sophisticated vote buys, and do very little to substantially improve the lot of the working poor. Please not when I say "handouts" I mean, specifically, "Free money with no strings attached, do what you want with it." I think setting up a job system like this would be a combination of a handout - (you're given a job, but don't actually have to work, because you'll just get issued a new job, where you won't actually have to work...) - and a large tax increase on everybody else who already has a job. There's a lot of people who are working multiple jobs just to pay the bills, and we're proposing to cut their hours (and income) by 20% - you don't think that's going to force a significant number of people INTO the social programs you're claiming this plan will eliminate?
3) High corporate tax rates have a strongly negative correlation with economic growth. Be very careful and very specific in what you wish for when it comes to taxes - many rich people have relatively low income compared to their net worth, so taxing their income at ridiculously high rates may not net you as much money as you think it might. Remember that income tax is on *income*. And remember that capital gains taxes, while lower than income taxes, are taken on investments - investments which keep the money circulating in the economy, being loaned to businesses for expansion, hiring, and product development; And also remember that consumption / sales taxes disproportionately affect the poor: a $10 pack of cigarettes is very little if you make 10 million a year; a $10 pack of cigarettes is a LOT of money if you make a $7/hr wage.
4) In terms of social programs, I'd much rather see ed
So then... ebooks don't solve the problem, but they don't create a new problem either (simply drop DRM, or unlock the book if you're going out of business, these things could easily be required by law), and it's possible that the shift would be cost-neutral, but add convenience and searchability to the textbooks. Sounds like students might just win then.
I remember frequently trying to find a particular phrase or topic in textbooks, and can't even begin to communicate how much easier it would have been if I could have searched the contents of my book to find likely pages related to what I want.
Far less than 20%. Modern societies already spend a great deal of money dealing with people who don't have jobs.
And many of those people cannot hold jobs due to mental illness, physical disability, or simply not having the required education to do the job. Despite good intentions, a person who has not graduated high school and who knows nothing about computers just isn't qualified to work as a software engineer. And there's only so many manual-labor jobs to be done.
Furthermore, do you really think 100% of people will have jobs and the need for programs for the sick & disabled will magically disappear? No, instead you'll be maintaining those programs, AND reducing the income of the employed people by 20% to pay for the newly employed.
Again: This is not a design for a happy and collegial workplace. This is a recipe for workplace violence, stress, and hatred towards your fellow man, with all of their attendant productivity-killing side effects.
If you use the book, it's not worthless, regardless of the format. Having an easily-portable and easily-searchable library of reference materials isn't necessarily a bad value.
Many paper textbooks can't be sold back at the end of the semester - either you'll want to keep it for reference, if it's truly valuable, or you'll end up facing the "Sorry, there's a new edition of that one for next year, we're not buying it back" issue. And if that happens (and it happened with a fair degree of regularity to me), you're stuck with an 8 pound paperweight that you have to lug around from apartment to apartment after you graduate, or throw away.
Guaranteeing perpetual access, with free updates to "latest edition" might be a model publishers move towards, and might go a long way towards preserving some value to those books after you graduate. Publishers won't start offering the features unless people are using the books, and asking for them. Right now, the DRMed ebooks are aimed at propping up a failing print industry. Colleges getting involved and using some of their bargaining power is probably what's needed to get them to start reforming some of these practices.
And that also introduces a lot of friction and inefficiency into the system - for every 4 jobs, you've created a fifth - with the required coordination, communication, and hand-off burden between the those 4 people and the new guy whose job has suddenly been created, when it didn't exist previously; You've also reduced the income of the people with jobs by 20% (one less workday per week = 20% less hours), and for a lot of people, that's the difference between "we can afford heat this week," and "break out the blankets."
And let's not forget that the "new guy" has a job based on the privations of the other 4. "You guys make less money now because this guy needs a job." Boy, what a happy and collegial workplace THAT would be!
The rich [. . . ] are *not* going to use it to create jobs.
They are more than likely going to put it into savings/investments
... does not compute...
The rich [. . . ] are *not* going to use it to create jobs.
They are more than likely going to put it into savings/investments
Pray tell, how are jobs created in your world? Are they grown by special Job Farmers? Are they mined from the deep Job Mines of Kenya? Or is there a fixed number of jobs in the world, and they're passed down like heirlooms?
Because as far as I can see, investing money in the stock market - which gives other businesses capital to grow - is *exactly* how jobs are created in the real world.
You know, in the rest of society they would hold a vote for that. But fuck students anyway, right?
And they did. From TFA, they ran a six month pilot program with faculty and students, and at the end of it, 70+% of faculty and 80% of students said that iPads would be useful for students. You might say that the representatives of the staff & students both agreed, and agreed overwhelmingly, and so, everybody gets an iPad.
I know I spent several thousand dollars over the course of college on textbooks, reference materials. Figure about $4000 over the course of 4 years - I've read several things that suggest the average is about $900-1k a year for textbooks. Now, if all of them were available as ebooks, priced ~10-20% lower, the iPad pays for itself in saved book costs, even if you buy it at individual retail prices (it's likely that the college gets a bulk and/or educational discount). Besides that, there's also the not-inconsiderable reduced medical spending from the spinal deformity you'll give yourself lugging 30 pounds of books around. It could be entirely possible to recoup the expense of an iPad with savings in textbook costs alone - whether or not that happens is anybody's guess, but I can certainly see a case where they'd be helpful, and provide net value.
I can't log onto the Amazon MP3 music store, purchase music, and have it show up on my iPhone because Apple restricts me from doing so in order to protect their position
I'm sorry, but it sounds like you're suggesting that MP3's bought from Amazon can't be loaded onto an iPod... and that's just blatantly false. The Amazon download utility automatically puts the software into your iTunes library if you tell it to.
Similarly, with the removal of DRM on the iTunes store, you can buy music from iTunes and load it on any other device that supports the AAC format that iTunes downloads come in (most music players today do support MP3 and AAC). Apple is under no obligation to make that easy or streamlined for other device owners - sure, it would be "nice" if they let WebOS, Android or WP7 devices, also work with iTunes through some sort of sync api. But I fail to see how there'd be any sort of antitrust exposure there. I can buy MP3's from other sources and load them on my iPod/iPhone; Similarly, you can buy MP3's from iTunes and load them on your Pre. I'm not forced to buy from iTunes as an iPod owner, and you're not prevented from buying from iTunes as a Pre owner. I've bought from Amazon, eMusic, and iTunes before, all those tracks work fine on my iPod.
Tell me, how does one exhibit signs of something, if not through their actions? The claim is that the teacher "is a pedophile." How would one know that someone is a pedophile, unless they had witnessed the person behaving as a pedophile, or had admitted to someone that they were? We are not talking about the teacher's desires - we are talking about a student's claim to knowledge of what those desires are. There is no way for me to know your secret desires, unless I see you behaving in such a way to achieve them, or you tell me that they are your most secret desires. If you do neither, then I am doing what is colloquially know as "making shit up," or "lying."
Irrelevant to whether the claim of pedophilia is a claim that the person in question performed an inappropriate act with a student. No accusation of an act was made. Even if there was an accusation of an act was made, there was no student identified or implied.
Not irrelevant at all. Either one is, or one is not, a pedophile, by your own definition. If the claim is true, then the student is claiming to have witnessed, or been told of, acts which would identify a person as a pedophile: i.e., exhibiting signs of sexual attraction to prepubescent children. If the claim is false, then the student is lying, and "falsely reporting" inappropriate behavior. Either way, the school needs to take these comment seriously, because the school has a legal and moral obligation to protect the students in its care. A child naming someone a pedophile, when that person has a role as a primary caretaker of children cannot be dismissed as lightly as you seem to think.
Yes, I am. If they are going to apply the rules with "zero tolerance" then they have to actually apply the rules as written. If they pretend they have no option but to suspend/expel because the rules were technically broken, then one must examine the technicality of the rules they cite.
And in true slashdot armchair lawyer form, you're focusing on the semantics, and saying that calling someone a pedophile isn't specific "behavior," while ignoring the fact that in order to determine whether or not that claim is true, one needs to have witnessed *actions* that would suggest pedophilia to be an appropriate term for the person. You cannot truthfully be said to "be something," without exhibiting behavior that would match the description of something. If someone makes the claim that you are, they are also making the claim that they know something about your behavior that would suggest that their description is a reasonable conclusion. In other words, if I call you a vegetarian, one would reasonably conclude that you avoid meat, and perhaps all animal products, in your diet - that you take, or have taken, specific actions that would lead others to conclude that you are, in fact, a vegetarian. If I call you a vegetarian and somebody observes you tucking into a nice rare steak, then it's pretty obvious that I'm not correct, and perhaps even LYING, about your behavior.
No, if you want to question the application of this rule, the word you should be zeroing in on is "reporting" - does a Facebook post count as "reporting" something? Unfortunately, many courts seem to be ruling that it does. The purpose of Facebook is, after all, *sharing* information. It's not a private online journal, and there are no guarantees of privacy or control of your information.
So now, let's flip the script and look at the opposite situation: Let's assume that children ARE being abused by a teacher. Should the school refuse to take action because "it's just a Facebook post, and that's private! And besides, he's doing it outside school hours at his own home... so why should we take any action on this?" I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single reasonable person who would suggest that it's fine to leave the teacher in the classroom, having daily contact with dozens or hundreds of students, even if they "only abuse kids on their own time." So if the merest hint of impropriety is enough to endanger someone's entire livelihood, reputation, and standing, isn't it entirely appropriate that people who make *false* claims should be punished as well?
You are aware that words have specific meanings, yes?
You are aware of the definition of pedophilia, yes?
You are aware that making the claim that someone exhibits "primary or exclusive sexual interest towards prepubescent children", especially for somebody whose job is to work with children all day, is an allegation of inappropriate behavior, yes?
I'd like for you to explain exactly how one can make the claim that someone "is a pedophile" without having witnessed behavior that suggests that the person is, in fact, a pedophile, and exhibits sexual interest in prepubescent children? Either it's true, in which case the school MUST take it seriously, suspend the teacher, and inform the police, or it's false, and the kid is making a false allegation. Either way, it's a valuable lesson for children to learn that words have specific meanings, and that they should learn to choose their words carefully. If they MEANT to say, "Mr. Smith is a big mean awful person and he makes me so angry," perhaps they'll say that next time, rather than claiming that he's a pedophile, or a rapist.
You're trying to split semantic hairs in a ludicrously fine fashion: "I said he was a murderer, that isn't an allegation of wrongdoing, it's just a description of his condition!"
Is it too much to ask that people at least read the summary before they chime in with their opinion on it?
From TFS, the code of conduct prohibits "'Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting' allegations of inappropriate behavior by a school employee toward a student."
"My teacher is such a pedophile." - Falsifying allegations? Absolutely. Erroneously reporting allegations? Absolutely. "My teacher is such a rapist." - Falsifying allegations? Absolutely. Erroneously reporting allegations? Absolutely. "My teacher is bipolar." Falsifying allegations? Absolutely. Erroneously reporting allegations? Absolutely.
Unless the teacher *is* a pedophile, a rapist, or bipolar, the publication of statements that he is one of those things are false. Therefore, the students who made the allegations are in violation of the code of conduct, which specifically prohibits these actions.
The only reason people are even remotely defending these kids here are because somebody threw the "FACEBOOK" word into the article. If these kids got up during a school assembly and said, "Mr. Smith is a rapist" "LOL NO, he's a PEDOPHILE!" "LOL NOWAI He's just BIPOLAR!" They would be disciplined in the same way.
The statements - and the students have retracted the statements, saying they were "just angry" - are false. If they haven't learned that there are repercussions for lying and using words carelessly, then it's about time they started learning that.
Does this mean you can't be let go from your job for doing drugs, as long as you're not doing drugs on the job site? Does this mean you can't be let go from your job for murdering someone, as long as you have the decency to murder them outside of work hours?
Engaging in offenses outside of work hours, outside of work property, certainly can (and often does) have ramifications to your current (and future) employability. The kids are learning a valuable lesson about how the world works.
If she is consistently getting into fights or disrupting her classes and previous, less severe punishments have had no effect, an expulsion could be considered.
And what makes you think this is the first such punishment the expelled child has had to endure? Do you really think that the school district's lawyers were not involved in reviewing these actions, and wouldn't have questioned the disproportionate response you picked up on in about 5 seconds of reading a summary on slashdot?
The child who was suspended very likely has a history of getting into fights, disrupting classes, and previous less severe punishments that have had no effect.
There is a significant difference between, "ZOMG Mr. Smith is such a dummy! SO MUCH HOMEWORK LOL!" and "Mr. Smith is such a pedophile! NO A RAPIST! LOL!"
If your school code of conduct included "falsely reporting that George W. Bush is a child rapist" on its list of Level 1 offenses, then yes, you should be punished, and probably expelled or suspended, just like these kids are.
What purpose does it serve to create rules, if they are not enforced? What purpose does it serve to tell kids to follow the rules, and then allow them to ignore the rules with no penalties for doing so?
The DSM defines pedophilia as, "a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty." Prepubescent is generally considered to be age 13 or lower.
Go scan through this list of women, and consider whether or not the definition applies.
In some cases, the definition does not, because the victims are older than 13. In some cases, it absolutely does - and I suspect that you'd find a fair majority of the male lawyers and judges who would be fine with calling these women pedophiles.
I bet the school board had lawyers review the actions. It's possible that they may just know more about the situation than we do.
My guess - kids who made the "pedophile" and "rapist" are identified as Honor Roll students, and probably have no history of disciplinary issues; Thus, they were given suspensions, because this was probably the first-or-worst thing they've ever done.
The kid who made the bipolar comment *probably* has a history of infractions and disciplinary problems, and this was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
If it looks like "some major discrimination" to a random reader, imagine how glaringly obvious it would be to the school district's legal counsel. I think it's safe to assume that there are more details to the situation that haven't been reported.
I guess they're learning that it's not just another name you can call someone to piss him off, aren't they?
I'm not sure why people seem so forgiving of this. The kids shot their mouths off, and made comments that could be very damaging. They are now bearing the consequences of their actions.
Seems like this is pretty much how we expect the world to work, isn't it? You mess up, you're punished, you learn & grow?
I'm incredibly curious to hear why you feel that adding more opaqueness to the system will lead to less price volatility and more efficiency.
Here's what it boils down to: You need a billion dollar bankroll to make money doing this, because you're squeezing money out of the market through arbitrage in pennies or fractions of a penny per share traded. This means that only the "big guys" will be able to do it, because it's simply not worth the time and effort of doing it unless you can do it at scale. Individual investors with 10 grand to put in the market don't have that scale.
It is the nature of life that groups of people with deep pockets can afford to do things at a scale that individuals cannot. You probably don't have the money to launch the space shuttle, or operate a drilling rig. Should we ban those activities because it's "unfair" to the little guy? Answer: No, we shouldn't, because it's NOT unfair. The little guy loses *nothing* to the big guys who are doing this. The assumption seems to be that if the arbitrageurs weren't there, that all the individual traders would somehow magically be pocketing the millions of dollars the arbitrageurs are making - and that's just a foolish pipe dream. That money would be lost to the friction of the market - lower trading volumes means higher trading fees, increased volatility, and ultimately, less efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's market cap is upwards of 300 billion; They had revenues of ~65 billion in 2010. Hungary's GDP was around 187 billion in 2009.
This might be a good buyout deal for Apple, take over a struggling country, and turn it around. Built in workforce, friendly political climate, lots of natural resources...
Man, when the revolution comes, I think you just guaranteed that you'll be the first one against the wall. :(
Right, because somebody submitting draft changes for a constitutional proposal has NO interest in how the final product comes out, and will never read the drafts that have their accepted changes supplied.
I can't wait to see the final result of all this, I predict it will look like this:
"Hungarians are in it for the hookers, beer, and free cocaine. DOIN' IT FOR THE LULZ," followed by a big swoopy John Hancock-like signature, reading "ANONYMOUS"
The Constitution adopted in 1949 was their first constitution. It was passed during the communist era, and heavily reflective of the heavy Soviet influence on Hungary at the time it was adopted. Hungary is the only Eastern Bloc nation to NOT adopt a new constitution after the end of one-party Communist rule. In 1989, they simply heavily amended the Communist-era constitution, and continued on from there. This marks the first Constitution for Hungary that's been fully implemented without Communist control of the government.
It's different because the assumption is that by "giving everybody a job," you'll somehow eliminate the need for these social programs, and so we'll actually save money. But guess what: the programs will still need to exist, with all of their administrative and financing requirements - there are people who are mentally ill (HUGE portions of the homeless population fits that description), physically disabled, or simply incapable of doing the types of work required in an industry where they COULD find a job.
Your argument about "responsibility to society" is also rather misdirected. What sense of "responsibility" would you feel, if everybody had the equivalent of a lifetime government job? "I don't NEED to work hard here, because if I lose this job, they'll just issue me a new one, and I'll go work somewhere else. Or they can just keep writing me a check for no work." The unemployed people who will feel a sense of personal responsibility are going to find work on their own regardless of whether or not the government helps them do so - the government can perhaps make it faster/easier for them to find a new employer, but "issuing" them a job isn't necessary; The people who don't feel that responsibility will simply abuse the entitlement - they're not going to suddenly discover responsibility because they've been handed a blank check.
Several things:
1) I don't recognize any man's right to demand benefits from me, "or else." If the argument is, "You better give me $1000 a month, or I'll break into your house and rob you," that is commonly known as extortion, and is generally considered a criminal act. We don't give criminals bribe money to not hurt us, we put them in jail.
2) I'm against *handouts* - I don't believe they work, and all it does is create a permanent underclass who are reliable votes for the party that puts those handouts in place. They're sophisticated vote buys, and do very little to substantially improve the lot of the working poor. Please not when I say "handouts" I mean, specifically, "Free money with no strings attached, do what you want with it." I think setting up a job system like this would be a combination of a handout - (you're given a job, but don't actually have to work, because you'll just get issued a new job, where you won't actually have to work...) - and a large tax increase on everybody else who already has a job. There's a lot of people who are working multiple jobs just to pay the bills, and we're proposing to cut their hours (and income) by 20% - you don't think that's going to force a significant number of people INTO the social programs you're claiming this plan will eliminate?
3) High corporate tax rates have a strongly negative correlation with economic growth. Be very careful and very specific in what you wish for when it comes to taxes - many rich people have relatively low income compared to their net worth, so taxing their income at ridiculously high rates may not net you as much money as you think it might. Remember that income tax is on *income*. And remember that capital gains taxes, while lower than income taxes, are taken on investments - investments which keep the money circulating in the economy, being loaned to businesses for expansion, hiring, and product development; And also remember that consumption / sales taxes disproportionately affect the poor: a $10 pack of cigarettes is very little if you make 10 million a year; a $10 pack of cigarettes is a LOT of money if you make a $7/hr wage.
4) In terms of social programs, I'd much rather see ed
So then... ebooks don't solve the problem, but they don't create a new problem either (simply drop DRM, or unlock the book if you're going out of business, these things could easily be required by law), and it's possible that the shift would be cost-neutral, but add convenience and searchability to the textbooks. Sounds like students might just win then.
I remember frequently trying to find a particular phrase or topic in textbooks, and can't even begin to communicate how much easier it would have been if I could have searched the contents of my book to find likely pages related to what I want.
And many of those people cannot hold jobs due to mental illness, physical disability, or simply not having the required education to do the job. Despite good intentions, a person who has not graduated high school and who knows nothing about computers just isn't qualified to work as a software engineer. And there's only so many manual-labor jobs to be done.
Furthermore, do you really think 100% of people will have jobs and the need for programs for the sick & disabled will magically disappear? No, instead you'll be maintaining those programs, AND reducing the income of the employed people by 20% to pay for the newly employed.
Again: This is not a design for a happy and collegial workplace. This is a recipe for workplace violence, stress, and hatred towards your fellow man, with all of their attendant productivity-killing side effects.
If you use the book, it's not worthless, regardless of the format. Having an easily-portable and easily-searchable library of reference materials isn't necessarily a bad value.
Many paper textbooks can't be sold back at the end of the semester - either you'll want to keep it for reference, if it's truly valuable, or you'll end up facing the "Sorry, there's a new edition of that one for next year, we're not buying it back" issue. And if that happens (and it happened with a fair degree of regularity to me), you're stuck with an 8 pound paperweight that you have to lug around from apartment to apartment after you graduate, or throw away.
Guaranteeing perpetual access, with free updates to "latest edition" might be a model publishers move towards, and might go a long way towards preserving some value to those books after you graduate. Publishers won't start offering the features unless people are using the books, and asking for them. Right now, the DRMed ebooks are aimed at propping up a failing print industry. Colleges getting involved and using some of their bargaining power is probably what's needed to get them to start reforming some of these practices.
And that also introduces a lot of friction and inefficiency into the system - for every 4 jobs, you've created a fifth - with the required coordination, communication, and hand-off burden between the those 4 people and the new guy whose job has suddenly been created, when it didn't exist previously; You've also reduced the income of the people with jobs by 20% (one less workday per week = 20% less hours), and for a lot of people, that's the difference between "we can afford heat this week," and "break out the blankets."
And let's not forget that the "new guy" has a job based on the privations of the other 4. "You guys make less money now because this guy needs a job." Boy, what a happy and collegial workplace THAT would be!
Pray tell, how are jobs created in your world? Are they grown by special Job Farmers? Are they mined from the deep Job Mines of Kenya? Or is there a fixed number of jobs in the world, and they're passed down like heirlooms?
Because as far as I can see, investing money in the stock market - which gives other businesses capital to grow - is *exactly* how jobs are created in the real world.
And they did. From TFA, they ran a six month pilot program with faculty and students, and at the end of it, 70+% of faculty and 80% of students said that iPads would be useful for students. You might say that the representatives of the staff & students both agreed, and agreed overwhelmingly, and so, everybody gets an iPad.
I know I spent several thousand dollars over the course of college on textbooks, reference materials. Figure about $4000 over the course of 4 years - I've read several things that suggest the average is about $900-1k a year for textbooks. Now, if all of them were available as ebooks, priced ~10-20% lower, the iPad pays for itself in saved book costs, even if you buy it at individual retail prices (it's likely that the college gets a bulk and/or educational discount). Besides that, there's also the not-inconsiderable reduced medical spending from the spinal deformity you'll give yourself lugging 30 pounds of books around. It could be entirely possible to recoup the expense of an iPad with savings in textbook costs alone - whether or not that happens is anybody's guess, but I can certainly see a case where they'd be helpful, and provide net value.
I'm sorry, but it sounds like you're suggesting that MP3's bought from Amazon can't be loaded onto an iPod... and that's just blatantly false. The Amazon download utility automatically puts the software into your iTunes library if you tell it to.
Similarly, with the removal of DRM on the iTunes store, you can buy music from iTunes and load it on any other device that supports the AAC format that iTunes downloads come in (most music players today do support MP3 and AAC). Apple is under no obligation to make that easy or streamlined for other device owners - sure, it would be "nice" if they let WebOS, Android or WP7 devices, also work with iTunes through some sort of sync api. But I fail to see how there'd be any sort of antitrust exposure there. I can buy MP3's from other sources and load them on my iPod/iPhone; Similarly, you can buy MP3's from iTunes and load them on your Pre. I'm not forced to buy from iTunes as an iPod owner, and you're not prevented from buying from iTunes as a Pre owner. I've bought from Amazon, eMusic, and iTunes before, all those tracks work fine on my iPod.
Tell me, how does one exhibit signs of something, if not through their actions? The claim is that the teacher "is a pedophile." How would one know that someone is a pedophile, unless they had witnessed the person behaving as a pedophile, or had admitted to someone that they were? We are not talking about the teacher's desires - we are talking about a student's claim to knowledge of what those desires are. There is no way for me to know your secret desires, unless I see you behaving in such a way to achieve them, or you tell me that they are your most secret desires. If you do neither, then I am doing what is colloquially know as "making shit up," or "lying."
Not irrelevant at all. Either one is, or one is not, a pedophile, by your own definition. If the claim is true, then the student is claiming to have witnessed, or been told of, acts which would identify a person as a pedophile: i.e., exhibiting signs of sexual attraction to prepubescent children. If the claim is false, then the student is lying, and "falsely reporting" inappropriate behavior. Either way, the school needs to take these comment seriously, because the school has a legal and moral obligation to protect the students in its care. A child naming someone a pedophile, when that person has a role as a primary caretaker of children cannot be dismissed as lightly as you seem to think.
And in true slashdot armchair lawyer form, you're focusing on the semantics, and saying that calling someone a pedophile isn't specific "behavior," while ignoring the fact that in order to determine whether or not that claim is true, one needs to have witnessed *actions* that would suggest pedophilia to be an appropriate term for the person. You cannot truthfully be said to "be something," without exhibiting behavior that would match the description of something. If someone makes the claim that you are, they are also making the claim that they know something about your behavior that would suggest that their description is a reasonable conclusion. In other words, if I call you a vegetarian, one would reasonably conclude that you avoid meat, and perhaps all animal products, in your diet - that you take, or have taken, specific actions that would lead others to conclude that you are, in fact, a vegetarian. If I call you a vegetarian and somebody observes you tucking into a nice rare steak, then it's pretty obvious that I'm not correct, and perhaps even LYING, about your behavior.
No, if you want to question the application of this rule, the word you should be zeroing in on is "reporting" - does a Facebook post count as "reporting" something? Unfortunately, many courts seem to be ruling that it does. The purpose of Facebook is, after all, *sharing* information. It's not a private online journal, and there are no guarantees of privacy or control of your information.
So now, let's flip the script and look at the opposite situation: Let's assume that children ARE being abused by a teacher. Should the school refuse to take action because "it's just a Facebook post, and that's private! And besides, he's doing it outside school hours at his own home... so why should we take any action on this?" I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single reasonable person who would suggest that it's fine to leave the teacher in the classroom, having daily contact with dozens or hundreds of students, even if they "only abuse kids on their own time." So if the merest hint of impropriety is enough to endanger someone's entire livelihood, reputation, and standing, isn't it entirely appropriate that people who make *false* claims should be punished as well?
You are aware that words have specific meanings, yes?
You are aware of the definition of pedophilia, yes?
You are aware that making the claim that someone exhibits "primary or exclusive sexual interest towards prepubescent children", especially for somebody whose job is to work with children all day, is an allegation of inappropriate behavior, yes?
I'd like for you to explain exactly how one can make the claim that someone "is a pedophile" without having witnessed behavior that suggests that the person is, in fact, a pedophile, and exhibits sexual interest in prepubescent children? Either it's true, in which case the school MUST take it seriously, suspend the teacher, and inform the police, or it's false, and the kid is making a false allegation. Either way, it's a valuable lesson for children to learn that words have specific meanings, and that they should learn to choose their words carefully. If they MEANT to say, "Mr. Smith is a big mean awful person and he makes me so angry," perhaps they'll say that next time, rather than claiming that he's a pedophile, or a rapist.
You're trying to split semantic hairs in a ludicrously fine fashion: "I said he was a murderer, that isn't an allegation of wrongdoing, it's just a description of his condition!"
Is it too much to ask that people at least read the summary before they chime in with their opinion on it?
From TFS, the code of conduct prohibits "'Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting' allegations of inappropriate behavior by a school employee toward a student."
"My teacher is such a pedophile." - Falsifying allegations? Absolutely. Erroneously reporting allegations? Absolutely.
"My teacher is such a rapist." - Falsifying allegations? Absolutely. Erroneously reporting allegations? Absolutely.
"My teacher is bipolar." Falsifying allegations? Absolutely. Erroneously reporting allegations? Absolutely.
Unless the teacher *is* a pedophile, a rapist, or bipolar, the publication of statements that he is one of those things are false. Therefore, the students who made the allegations are in violation of the code of conduct, which specifically prohibits these actions.
The only reason people are even remotely defending these kids here are because somebody threw the "FACEBOOK" word into the article. If these kids got up during a school assembly and said, "Mr. Smith is a rapist" "LOL NO, he's a PEDOPHILE!" "LOL NOWAI He's just BIPOLAR!" They would be disciplined in the same way.
The statements - and the students have retracted the statements, saying they were "just angry" - are false. If they haven't learned that there are repercussions for lying and using words carelessly, then it's about time they started learning that.
Does this mean you can't be let go from your job for doing drugs, as long as you're not doing drugs on the job site? Does this mean you can't be let go from your job for murdering someone, as long as you have the decency to murder them outside of work hours?
Engaging in offenses outside of work hours, outside of work property, certainly can (and often does) have ramifications to your current (and future) employability. The kids are learning a valuable lesson about how the world works.
And what makes you think this is the first such punishment the expelled child has had to endure? Do you really think that the school district's lawyers were not involved in reviewing these actions, and wouldn't have questioned the disproportionate response you picked up on in about 5 seconds of reading a summary on slashdot?
The child who was suspended very likely has a history of getting into fights, disrupting classes, and previous less severe punishments that have had no effect.
There is a significant difference between, "ZOMG Mr. Smith is such a dummy! SO MUCH HOMEWORK LOL!" and "Mr. Smith is such a pedophile! NO A RAPIST! LOL!"
If your school code of conduct included "falsely reporting that George W. Bush is a child rapist" on its list of Level 1 offenses, then yes, you should be punished, and probably expelled or suspended, just like these kids are.
What purpose does it serve to create rules, if they are not enforced? What purpose does it serve to tell kids to follow the rules, and then allow them to ignore the rules with no penalties for doing so?
The DSM defines pedophilia as, "a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty." Prepubescent is generally considered to be age 13 or lower.
Go scan through this list of women, and consider whether or not the definition applies.
In some cases, the definition does not, because the victims are older than 13. In some cases, it absolutely does - and I suspect that you'd find a fair majority of the male lawyers and judges who would be fine with calling these women pedophiles.
I bet the school board had lawyers review the actions. It's possible that they may just know more about the situation than we do.
My guess - kids who made the "pedophile" and "rapist" are identified as Honor Roll students, and probably have no history of disciplinary issues; Thus, they were given suspensions, because this was probably the first-or-worst thing they've ever done.
The kid who made the bipolar comment *probably* has a history of infractions and disciplinary problems, and this was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
If it looks like "some major discrimination" to a random reader, imagine how glaringly obvious it would be to the school district's legal counsel. I think it's safe to assume that there are more details to the situation that haven't been reported.
I guess they're learning that it's not just another name you can call someone to piss him off, aren't they?
I'm not sure why people seem so forgiving of this. The kids shot their mouths off, and made comments that could be very damaging. They are now bearing the consequences of their actions.
Seems like this is pretty much how we expect the world to work, isn't it? You mess up, you're punished, you learn & grow?
Well, first Apple would have to achieve Monopoly status. And then they would have to abuse that status to artificially limit competition.
How much of the phone and computer market does Apple have, again?
I'm incredibly curious to hear why you feel that adding more opaqueness to the system will lead to less price volatility and more efficiency.
Here's what it boils down to: You need a billion dollar bankroll to make money doing this, because you're squeezing money out of the market through arbitrage in pennies or fractions of a penny per share traded. This means that only the "big guys" will be able to do it, because it's simply not worth the time and effort of doing it unless you can do it at scale. Individual investors with 10 grand to put in the market don't have that scale.
It is the nature of life that groups of people with deep pockets can afford to do things at a scale that individuals cannot. You probably don't have the money to launch the space shuttle, or operate a drilling rig. Should we ban those activities because it's "unfair" to the little guy? Answer: No, we shouldn't, because it's NOT unfair. The little guy loses *nothing* to the big guys who are doing this. The assumption seems to be that if the arbitrageurs weren't there, that all the individual traders would somehow magically be pocketing the millions of dollars the arbitrageurs are making - and that's just a foolish pipe dream. That money would be lost to the friction of the market - lower trading volumes means higher trading fees, increased volatility, and ultimately, less efficiency.
Stones & glass houses don't mix well, friend.