Saying Microsoft is a convicted monopolist does not mean they were convicted of being a monopoly any more than saying someone is a convicted Irishman means they were convicted of being an Irishman.
That might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The word "convicted" has a specific meaning. "Convicted" means 'found guilty of a crime', it doesn't mean 'is'.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist -- they've been found guilty of criminal activities, and they've been found to be a monopoly.
And John White is a convicted Irishman - he's been found guilty of murder, and found to be Irish. Yeah, that makes a lot of fuckin' sense.
Re:But what if Microsoft offered it all together?
on
Windows vs Mac Security
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That's because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist while Apple is not
Arrgghhh! I hate it when people say that. That exact line: "Microsoft is a convicted monopoly". You can't be "convicted" of being a monopoly, being a monopoly isn't a crime. Using that monopoly to unfairly gain more market share and profits is a crime.
And it's not as simple as a monopoly being held to "higher standards", they're held to "completely different standards". This is a prime example, bundled security applications. Apple can bundle whatever they want with their OS - Microsoft can't. Microsoft can't even improve the damned search function without an investigation.
Apple holds more power over their products than Microsoft has over theirs. Apple sells their software with their hardware. Microsoft just sells software. No one says anything bad about Apple forcing its customers to have their proprietary security software bundled withe the OS. Microsoft, on the other hand, is forced by the EU to provide versions of Windows without IE and Media Player. Apple puts in Spotlight, and people laud it. Microsoft tries to put the same function into Vista, and they get investigated.
The bottom line is this: If you laud Apple for including more and more useful apps in System Software, then you can't turn around and troll Microsoft for doing the same thing. You can't complain about Windows being worse than OSX and then complain when they try to make it better than OSX.
Re:But what if Microsoft offered it all together?
on
Windows vs Mac Security
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yeah... that's exactly the same thing [/sarcasm]
Apple isn't including third-party software with their Macs, they're putting their own programs into System Software.
Microsoft can't put good security into Windows. They aren't allowed. They would be "investigated" and sued... again. Every time Microsoft puts some new, useful app into Windows someone cries "monopoly".
Indeed. I had my doubts about how "revolutionary" this controler would be. I always thought I'd never really like it - and everyone else, while thinking the idea novel, would quickly show disdain for the device and be critically panned and fall behind Sony and Microsoft in sales.
Of course, that's what I said about the 'Gameboy DS' - and I was completely wrong about that.
There's a large difference between "not yet fully developed" and unusable".
Oh, heh heh. When I said "children don't have that part of the brain yet" I didn't mean "large sections of grey matter have not grown in yet" I meant "the ability to abstractly rationalize and discern between right and wrong, and the ability to understand the connection between one's actions and consequences, are controlled by specific parts of the brain - these parts of the brain have not finished developing yet."
Even that seems confusing, think of it like this: a child "doesn't have" the ability to discern right from wrong is like saying he "doesn't have" a dollar. He might have 70 cents, but he still "doesn't have" a dollar.
Brains are developing, yeah, that's fact. But you need to be pretty experience to be able to tell me the "moral compass" of the brain is completely unusable for children, as it defies many examples in reality.
Most 'right and wrong' thoughts a child has (indeed, many adults rely on this as well) are not 'thoughts' but 'learn behavior'. The child has not 'decided' that "this is right and that is wrong", he has simply been told enough to have remembered it. While it's possible for an individual case to show a child actually deciding what is and isn't immoral it would be an extremely rare case of increased development. Saying children understand 'right and wrong' because they act properly is like saying dogs understand English because they do what you tell them.
You said, in your original email to the original poster, that he should just "suck it up." What's that even supposed to mean?
I assumed that the phrase "grow a spine" was fairly well known. It's a good example of metonymy, where the 'spine' is symbolic of 'courage' or 'self esteem'. I wanted the child to stick up for himself. He had, apparently for years, been simply accepting the harassment dealt to him - feeling more and more depressed. I'm not saying he shouldn't have reported such activities to his teacher or principal, but he should at least learn to defend himself. Even if 'defending himself' means simply ignoring them, it's a step in, well, any direction - previously he'd been doing nothing.
A bit more on-topic, the children that murdered their schoolmates at Columbine High also did nothing for years. They did not stick up for themselves, they made no progress - they became more and more depressed - until one day they snapped and started killing people. You want to stop kids from shooting each other because of schoolyard pranks? Teach them social skills - like how to deal with other children. Trying to shelter kids from any kind of confrontation is bad. Letting 'no tolerance' policies raise children takes away a lot of opportunities to learn and grow as social animals. If kids get into a tiff, use this as a way to teach them about right and wrong, about how their actions effect other people, about how to defend themselves against insults and attacks. Don't simply punish them - you learn nothing from punishment.
My point is, raising children is not easy. What works for one child may not work for another. Every child has to be given personalized instruction and rearing. The worst thing to do is institute legislation to raise children. People should be raising children, not regulations.
If you have a masters in psycology, neurology, etc. I should be saying no more.
See, that's disengenuous. You really won't stop arguing with me if I had degrees in such feilds. You say that only to make yourself seem likeable - you're not. Secondly, you lose your argument immediately if you're saying that 'only those with degrees should speak on this matter'. Do you have degrees relivant to this topic? Didn't think so.
If not, you are making your opinions out to be facts. Saying a child can't know the difference between right and wrong
*Sigh* No, it's not my 'opinion' it's a very simple fact. A child's brain is not fully developed. The specific parts of the brain that are underdeveloped are those that deal with interpersonal skills, reasoning, and higher level abstraction.
But if during the entire time that's going on, you just let those kids bully victims (exactly what you implied), the entire point is moot
No, I implied (if by 'imply' you mean 'wrote it out very carefully') that children need to be repremanded on a case-by-case basis. Children need to be taught what's right and wrong - not simply be punished.
Well, it's true that it has nothing to do with mathematical abilities - distinguishing between right and wrong, long term/short term action consequences - a child's brain doesn't have that part yet. It's still being developed.
Why didn't you quote the part about being beaten up? Because, like, once that's all right in the schools, where do we draw the line?
Fuck. I thought I made that clear: the whole problem is "drawing a line". Each incident needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If you set some actions apart as being 'unacceptable' and all others as 'acceptable' then bullies will only use those 'endorsed' means to torment students.
Bullies shouldn't be coddled, but they shouldn't be demonized either. They're children too - they just need more guidance than most.
Again, someone misunderstands English words. I'm not mis-stating myself, people just don't seem to grasp these basic ideas:
Children do not have fully developed brains. They cannot fully understand their actions, the difference between right and wrong, or the consequences their actions entail.
If someone doesn't fully understand the difference between right and wrong, it's improper to punish them as if they did. This holds true for adults with undeveloped brains as well.
'Tolerating' something doesn't mean 'to endorse' it. You can tolerate something yet actively oppose it.
Remember, children need 'guidance' not 'punishment'.
So, by your standards, guidance should only be applied to the children who are victimized? Those who attack others without provocation should, as in the GP poster's case, be allowed to continue their actions regardless of the damage and torture they inflict? But those who are attacked need to be told to resort to violent action to defend themselves, without regard for the regularity of the attacks, and without any concern for those who are attacking them and their motivations?
Eh? What? No. I said...
"You should be teaching kids not to fight with each other at all"
I can't see how you could misinterpret that as 'punsih the victums and praise the attackers'...
Reading over your post I see that you simply misunderstand the word "tolerance". Heh, I just wrote this out a minute ago...
"Tolerance" is not "acceptance". There's a very important distinction there. To 'tolerate' something, you don't have to enjoy it, or endorse it - Hell, you can openly oppose it - but you must recognise it as a fact of living, and work around it for the betterment of everyone. We shouldn't "accept" children harassing and beating each other - but we must 'tolerate' it, at least a little bit, so that the children can develop properly.
I'm not saying that harassment and violence should go unpunished, that would indeed be a Bad Thing. But, a "reprimand" can take several forms - which should vary in severity based on the individual case (there should never, ever, be mandatory sentencing for children). A child's reprimand could be as simple as telling him what he did wrong, and explain to him why it was wrong. It's important to explain the 'why', even though the child's brain is unfinished, he needs to be at least told why he shouldn't do it anymore - he probably won't learn now, but if he's never told he'll never learn.
The point is, children do not, repeat: do not, fully understand the difference between right and wrong. They don't understand the consequences of their actions. They are unable to make informed decisions on their own. Their brains are undeveloped. And they need as much help as they can get.
*Sigh* I'm not going to argue with you. FACT: children don't have fully developed brains. FACT: those with undeveloped brains cannot be held fully responsible for their actions.
Wow, you read at an adult level before they taught you division? Me too! Wow, that must mean we also could accurately differentiate between right and wrong and all the consequences of our actions, right? Oh, wait, no. Our brains were physically incapable of that.
"Tolerance" is not "acceptance". There's a very important distinction there. To 'tolerate' something, you don't have to enjoy it, or endorse it - Hell, you can openly oppose it - but you must recognise it as a fact of living, and work around it for the betterment of everyone. We shouldn't "accept" children harassing and beating each other - but we must 'tolerate' it, at least a little bit, so that the children can develop properly.
I'm not saying that harassment and violence should go unpunished, that would indeed be a Bad Thing. But, a "reprimand" can take several forms - which should vary in severity based on the individual case (there should never, ever, be mandatory sentencing for children). A child's reprimand could be as simple as telling him what he did wrong, and explain to him why it was wrong. It's important to explain the 'why', even though the child's brain is unfinished, he needs to be at least told why he shouldn't do it anymore - he probably won't learn now, but if he's never told he'll never learn.
Maybe I should put this in perspective a bit more. I am, to understate it humorously, a nerd. In my junior and senior high schools there were very, very few students who were not athletically inclined, and even fewer that fit the generic 'withdrawn, mopey, introverted' outcast. Now, even *I* wasn't in that group, but I had friends who were (which in many school circles would mean I was in that group). Anyway, there was much *teasing* and *harassment* at my school, but the school's "zero tolerance" policy only extended to violence (and cutting class, oddly enough). So when one, much 'larger' student began to harass me, for three solid weeks, there's was no authoritarian intervention. None. So, I was forced to take matters into my own hands and knock the bitch's teeth in (yeah, I hit a girl - that's another story entirely). We were immediately suspended (a week and a half). Now, I had done everything in my power to avoid such violence - I acted like the lover of authority and honour student I was - and I was treated the same as a bully (yes, a verifiable bully). Without a 'zero tolerance policy' there might've been room to deal with the harassment before it escalated to fisticuffs.
"So just extend the policy to include harassment too" you say. No, kids are undeveloped, not stupid. If a bully wants to torment another child they will do it without falling under the guidelines of the policy. In my case, I was harassed because harassment wasn't included in the policy. Whatever is included in the policy (which would have to be very specific terms), the aggravating students will act just below those terms. Kids aren't stupid, they'll find a way around regulations.
Because there are somethings that are 'absolutely not tolerable' all other actions are considered 'tolerable'. But the way the word 'tolerate' is used now, and the way these policies are enforced, means that unless you commit an act laid out in the policy you don't get punished - that's what these policies do, they take judgement away from the teachers and place it in legislation. If a school doesn't rely on these 'zero tolerance policies' and instead let teachers and parents deal with each incident on a case-0by-case basis, we would see smaller punishments and more effective reprimands more often, instead of these largely ineffective severe punishments.
Oh, and for a great explanation on the difference between tolerance and acceptance just watch South Park episode 14, season 6.
See, that's the problem - children don't understand anything fully. This is key now: they are not fully developed. Their brains cannot process high level abstract though. I'm not saying children shouldn't be reprimanded when they do something wrong - I'm saying that a zero-tolerance policy on ANYTHING is stupid, and will only harm more than it helps.
What? Oh, man. Even *I* would beat you up for that.
psychophysically tortured
Oh man. "Psychophysically"? They were physically torturing you with their minds? They were *teasing you*. Grow a fuckin' spine.
All of a sudden, my harassment stopped! Literally that very same day! I was called into the Principle's office a full three times. The reason? I met a lot of the characteristics of the massacrists; sans a close friend (at that time I had none). All of a sudden, people would actually come up to me and spontaneously *apologize* for how they treated me; even 8 years later people are still *apologizing* to me as I sporadically meet them in town:O
Yeah, your school's full of pussies. They see a couple of psychos go ape-shit and they're scared it'll happen there too.
I used to go to the Principle's office to report being punched in the face, jumped in the parking lot or being spat on by groups of girls (seriously:(, just to be told to "fight back" or "suck it up" or something.
Didn't *I* just tell you to do that?
Now, my 15 yr-old nephew got guys *expelled* or transferred to other schools merely because they made fun of him and the school now has a zero harassment policy!
I really hope you're not happy about that...
After nearly 2 decades of near persistent parent-teacher meetings, moving to different schools, etc, to try to assuage the torture my peers inflicted upon the obvious physical grunt of the pack (but i have an IQ of 150), schools are finally taking things seriously
Oh, you ARE happy about it. Great. Do you know how bad a 'zero tolerance policy' is? These are children. Children. They don't have adult brains, they can't be held to adult consequences.
Kids fight with each other - it's normal. Parents (and in their absence: teachers, sport coaches, and other guardians) should be teaching their children that violence is wrong - but straying from that ideal is something an adolescent brain will do. Thus we do not punish children to the same extent we would punish adults. Kicking a kid out of school just because he said he'd beat up some other kid is absurd.
These policies are put in place, not to help kids, but to protect them. There's a difference there. You should be teaching kids not to fight with each other at all - not restraining all aggression to non-supervised areas. Teachers should be acting as 'teachers', not 'police'.
Truly, children need guidance, not punishment. I repeat: children need guidance, not punishment.
No, you can't hurt them - you just piss them off. They'll come at you with their electro-batons and give you a couple of good whacks. Though, until you have your HEV suit, I don't think they'll kill you.
The point of the 'pick up the can' scene is the games' way of teaching you how to pick things up and throw them with some accuracy, and in a non-lethal setting. You can keep trying over and over until you get it right. HL2 does this with almost every new item or character in the game (as mentioned in the HL2-ep1 commentary), they'll show you a new tool, or item, or character, or monster and show you what it does in a way that won't kill you. But that's also your cue to watch out for them in the next scene where they will kill you.
The game is the gameplay. It isn't the graphics, or the hype, or the characters, or the style, or the studio, or the music. These are only minor parts of the core that is the game.
Really? I'm pretty sure that the story, characters, music, and yes even the games graphics are integral to the game.
Not to say that the actual gameplay isn't important, but these other parts are what differentiate one game of button mashing from another. All video games, when stripped to the lowest level, are reaction tests, mazes, or puzzles. Story, characters, and music are what set 'Metroid' apart from 'Custer's Revenge'
Well, such is true, but that example is different. Personal sacrifice is different from sacrificing others, or lying. Sacrificing myself for scientific research is one thing, but choosing another person to be harmed instead is wrong. We are allowed to make decisions regarding our own life, and not other's lives.
That's all very easy to understand for things where the 'means' would involve pain or suffering or death, but what about more subtle 'means'?
Like, here, where people are saying (and trying to make others believe) that getting women to work in these certain areas is more important than men working in these areas. They do this because they believe that enough people will agree with them so that, over all, women will be treated equally. But this is not right. This is not ethical. This method is working towards a goal that is not the same as the means being used.
Remember: it's wrong to do anything that harms others - either specific people, or society as a whole. Inducing pain in others is just as bad as perpetuating lies - lies that enter the social consciousness degrade the evolution of society.
Very simply, it's wrong to try for a certain outcome through disingenuous means. If you want women to be treated the same as men: then treat women the same as men - don't treat them better.
Slashdot Mirror
And John White is a convicted Irishman - he's been found guilty of murder, and found to be Irish. Yeah, that makes a lot of fuckin' sense.
And it's not as simple as a monopoly being held to "higher standards", they're held to "completely different standards". This is a prime example, bundled security applications. Apple can bundle whatever they want with their OS - Microsoft can't. Microsoft can't even improve the damned search function without an investigation.
Apple holds more power over their products than Microsoft has over theirs. Apple sells their software with their hardware. Microsoft just sells software. No one says anything bad about Apple forcing its customers to have their proprietary security software bundled withe the OS. Microsoft, on the other hand, is forced by the EU to provide versions of Windows without IE and Media Player. Apple puts in Spotlight, and people laud it. Microsoft tries to put the same function into Vista, and they get investigated.
The bottom line is this: If you laud Apple for including more and more useful apps in System Software, then you can't turn around and troll Microsoft for doing the same thing. You can't complain about Windows being worse than OSX and then complain when they try to make it better than OSX.
Yeah... that's exactly the same thing [/sarcasm]
Apple isn't including third-party software with their Macs, they're putting their own programs into System Software.
Microsoft can't put good security into Windows. They aren't allowed. They would be "investigated" and sued... again. Every time Microsoft puts some new, useful app into Windows someone cries "monopoly".
I can translate to:
"It looks too hard for the damn kids to probounce it right, so let's bastardize it and not even give them a chance to screw it up!"
"Maybe they aren't the only store, but they can sure reduce the number of local businesses a lot."
What? You mean people choose to shop at Wal*Mart and not the other stores, and that has some kind of economic effect? That's crazy talk!
I think we've seen the peak of controller complexity.
The devil's gamepad.
Indeed. I had my doubts about how "revolutionary" this controler would be. I always thought I'd never really like it - and everyone else, while thinking the idea novel, would quickly show disdain for the device and be critically panned and fall behind Sony and Microsoft in sales.
Of course, that's what I said about the 'Gameboy DS' - and I was completely wrong about that.
Actually, I assumed they meant the old adage "Get what you pay for".
The term "Microsoft Killer" should refer to something that "kills" Microsoft, just like the "iPod killers" we hear so much about.
There've been some terrible titles as of late. Today I saw something from the "Pay what you get for" department. Someone loves to garble English.
Even that seems confusing, think of it like this: a child "doesn't have" the ability to discern right from wrong is like saying he "doesn't have" a dollar. He might have 70 cents, but he still "doesn't have" a dollar.
Most 'right and wrong' thoughts a child has (indeed, many adults rely on this as well) are not 'thoughts' but 'learn behavior'. The child has not 'decided' that "this is right and that is wrong", he has simply been told enough to have remembered it. While it's possible for an individual case to show a child actually deciding what is and isn't immoral it would be an extremely rare case of increased development. Saying children understand 'right and wrong' because they act properly is like saying dogs understand English because they do what you tell them.
I assumed that the phrase "grow a spine" was fairly well known. It's a good example of metonymy, where the 'spine' is symbolic of 'courage' or 'self esteem'. I wanted the child to stick up for himself. He had, apparently for years, been simply accepting the harassment dealt to him - feeling more and more depressed. I'm not saying he shouldn't have reported such activities to his teacher or principal, but he should at least learn to defend himself. Even if 'defending himself' means simply ignoring them, it's a step in, well, any direction - previously he'd been doing nothing.
A bit more on-topic, the children that murdered their schoolmates at Columbine High also did nothing for years. They did not stick up for themselves, they made no progress - they became more and more depressed - until one day they snapped and started killing people. You want to stop kids from shooting each other because of schoolyard pranks? Teach them social skills - like how to deal with other children. Trying to shelter kids from any kind of confrontation is bad. Letting 'no tolerance' policies raise children takes away a lot of opportunities to learn and grow as social animals. If kids get into a tiff, use this as a way to teach them about right and wrong, about how their actions effect other people, about how to defend themselves against insults and attacks. Don't simply punish them - you learn nothing from punishment.
My point is, raising children is not easy. What works for one child may not work for another. Every child has to be given personalized instruction and rearing. The worst thing to do is institute legislation to raise children. People should be raising children, not regulations.
"from the pay-what-you-get-for dept."
Pay what you get for? What the fuck does that mean?
*Sigh* No, it's not my 'opinion' it's a very simple fact. A child's brain is not fully developed. The specific parts of the brain that are underdeveloped are those that deal with interpersonal skills, reasoning, and higher level abstraction.
No, I implied (if by 'imply' you mean 'wrote it out very carefully') that children need to be repremanded on a case-by-case basis. Children need to be taught what's right and wrong - not simply be punished.
Well, it's true that it has nothing to do with mathematical abilities - distinguishing between right and wrong, long term/short term action consequences - a child's brain doesn't have that part yet. It's still being developed.
I agree sir, your post was obviously much more informative.
Some one's repressing a lot of homosexual urges, aren't they?
Bullies shouldn't be coddled, but they shouldn't be demonized either. They're children too - they just need more guidance than most.
- Children do not have fully developed brains. They cannot fully understand their actions, the difference between right and wrong, or the consequences their actions entail.
- If someone doesn't fully understand the difference between right and wrong, it's improper to punish them as if they did. This holds true for adults with undeveloped brains as well.
- 'Tolerating' something doesn't mean 'to endorse' it. You can tolerate something yet actively oppose it.
Remember, children need 'guidance' not 'punishment'."You should be teaching kids not to fight with each other at all"
I can't see how you could misinterpret that as 'punsih the victums and praise the attackers'...
Reading over your post I see that you simply misunderstand the word "tolerance". Heh, I just wrote this out a minute ago...
"Tolerance" is not "acceptance". There's a very important distinction there. To 'tolerate' something, you don't have to enjoy it, or endorse it - Hell, you can openly oppose it - but you must recognise it as a fact of living, and work around it for the betterment of everyone. We shouldn't "accept" children harassing and beating each other - but we must 'tolerate' it, at least a little bit, so that the children can develop properly.
I'm not saying that harassment and violence should go unpunished, that would indeed be a Bad Thing. But, a "reprimand" can take several forms - which should vary in severity based on the individual case (there should never, ever, be mandatory sentencing for children). A child's reprimand could be as simple as telling him what he did wrong, and explain to him why it was wrong. It's important to explain the 'why', even though the child's brain is unfinished, he needs to be at least told why he shouldn't do it anymore - he probably won't learn now, but if he's never told he'll never learn.
The point is, children do not, repeat: do not, fully understand the difference between right and wrong. They don't understand the consequences of their actions. They are unable to make informed decisions on their own. Their brains are undeveloped. And they need as much help as they can get.
*Sigh* I'm not going to argue with you. FACT: children don't have fully developed brains. FACT: those with undeveloped brains cannot be held fully responsible for their actions.
Wow, you read at an adult level before they taught you division? Me too! Wow, that must mean we also could accurately differentiate between right and wrong and all the consequences of our actions, right? Oh, wait, no. Our brains were physically incapable of that.
Perhaps your's still is.
"Tolerance" is not "acceptance". There's a very important distinction there. To 'tolerate' something, you don't have to enjoy it, or endorse it - Hell, you can openly oppose it - but you must recognise it as a fact of living, and work around it for the betterment of everyone. We shouldn't "accept" children harassing and beating each other - but we must 'tolerate' it, at least a little bit, so that the children can develop properly.
I'm not saying that harassment and violence should go unpunished, that would indeed be a Bad Thing. But, a "reprimand" can take several forms - which should vary in severity based on the individual case (there should never, ever, be mandatory sentencing for children). A child's reprimand could be as simple as telling him what he did wrong, and explain to him why it was wrong. It's important to explain the 'why', even though the child's brain is unfinished, he needs to be at least told why he shouldn't do it anymore - he probably won't learn now, but if he's never told he'll never learn.
Maybe I should put this in perspective a bit more. I am, to understate it humorously, a nerd. In my junior and senior high schools there were very, very few students who were not athletically inclined, and even fewer that fit the generic 'withdrawn, mopey, introverted' outcast. Now, even *I* wasn't in that group, but I had friends who were (which in many school circles would mean I was in that group). Anyway, there was much *teasing* and *harassment* at my school, but the school's "zero tolerance" policy only extended to violence (and cutting class, oddly enough). So when one, much 'larger' student began to harass me, for three solid weeks, there's was no authoritarian intervention. None. So, I was forced to take matters into my own hands and knock the bitch's teeth in (yeah, I hit a girl - that's another story entirely). We were immediately suspended (a week and a half). Now, I had done everything in my power to avoid such violence - I acted like the lover of authority and honour student I was - and I was treated the same as a bully (yes, a verifiable bully). Without a 'zero tolerance policy' there might've been room to deal with the harassment before it escalated to fisticuffs.
"So just extend the policy to include harassment too" you say. No, kids are undeveloped, not stupid. If a bully wants to torment another child they will do it without falling under the guidelines of the policy. In my case, I was harassed because harassment wasn't included in the policy. Whatever is included in the policy (which would have to be very specific terms), the aggravating students will act just below those terms. Kids aren't stupid, they'll find a way around regulations.
Because there are somethings that are 'absolutely not tolerable' all other actions are considered 'tolerable'. But the way the word 'tolerate' is used now, and the way these policies are enforced, means that unless you commit an act laid out in the policy you don't get punished - that's what these policies do, they take judgement away from the teachers and place it in legislation. If a school doesn't rely on these 'zero tolerance policies' and instead let teachers and parents deal with each incident on a case-0by-case basis, we would see smaller punishments and more effective reprimands more often, instead of these largely ineffective severe punishments.
Oh, and for a great explanation on the difference between tolerance and acceptance just watch South Park episode 14, season 6.
See, that's the problem - children don't understand anything fully. This is key now: they are not fully developed. Their brains cannot process high level abstract though. I'm not saying children shouldn't be reprimanded when they do something wrong - I'm saying that a zero-tolerance policy on ANYTHING is stupid, and will only harm more than it helps.
Oh man. "Psychophysically"? They were physically torturing you with their minds? They were *teasing you*. Grow a fuckin' spine.
Yeah, your school's full of pussies. They see a couple of psychos go ape-shit and they're scared it'll happen there too.
Didn't *I* just tell you to do that?
I really hope you're not happy about that...
Oh, you ARE happy about it. Great. Do you know how bad a 'zero tolerance policy' is? These are children. Children. They don't have adult brains, they can't be held to adult consequences.
Kids fight with each other - it's normal. Parents (and in their absence: teachers, sport coaches, and other guardians) should be teaching their children that violence is wrong - but straying from that ideal is something an adolescent brain will do. Thus we do not punish children to the same extent we would punish adults. Kicking a kid out of school just because he said he'd beat up some other kid is absurd.
These policies are put in place, not to help kids, but to protect them. There's a difference there. You should be teaching kids not to fight with each other at all - not restraining all aggression to non-supervised areas. Teachers should be acting as 'teachers', not 'police'.
Truly, children need guidance, not punishment. I repeat: children need guidance, not punishment.
No, you can't hurt them - you just piss them off. They'll come at you with their electro-batons and give you a couple of good whacks. Though, until you have your HEV suit, I don't think they'll kill you.
The point of the 'pick up the can' scene is the games' way of teaching you how to pick things up and throw them with some accuracy, and in a non-lethal setting. You can keep trying over and over until you get it right. HL2 does this with almost every new item or character in the game (as mentioned in the HL2-ep1 commentary), they'll show you a new tool, or item, or character, or monster and show you what it does in a way that won't kill you. But that's also your cue to watch out for them in the next scene where they will kill you.
Not to say that the actual gameplay isn't important, but these other parts are what differentiate one game of button mashing from another. All video games, when stripped to the lowest level, are reaction tests, mazes, or puzzles. Story, characters, and music are what set 'Metroid' apart from 'Custer's Revenge'
Well, such is true, but that example is different. Personal sacrifice is different from sacrificing others, or lying. Sacrificing myself for scientific research is one thing, but choosing another person to be harmed instead is wrong. We are allowed to make decisions regarding our own life, and not other's lives.
That's all very easy to understand for things where the 'means' would involve pain or suffering or death, but what about more subtle 'means'?
Like, here, where people are saying (and trying to make others believe) that getting women to work in these certain areas is more important than men working in these areas. They do this because they believe that enough people will agree with them so that, over all, women will be treated equally. But this is not right. This is not ethical. This method is working towards a goal that is not the same as the means being used.
Remember: it's wrong to do anything that harms others - either specific people, or society as a whole. Inducing pain in others is just as bad as perpetuating lies - lies that enter the social consciousness degrade the evolution of society.
Very simply, it's wrong to try for a certain outcome through disingenuous means. If you want women to be treated the same as men: then treat women the same as men - don't treat them better.