-----Quote----------------------------------Unlike these countries, in the USA we have fairly wide liberties (albeit threatened), because as a people we can be controlled and manipulated by passive consumption of television and whatever else passes for mass entertainment, like spectator sports. -----Quote----------------------------------
Unlike these countries? Have you ever seen a British football game? I think those fans would rather nuke a random country every day for a week than lose to a bitter rival. And don't forget the Colombian defenseman who was killed because he scored on his own goal. I think that the people around the whole world are just as controlled and manipulated by television, sports, etc, even more so. I don't think you give the general population of the US enough credit.
And I don't really see your connection. What exactly do you mean by your relating TV manipulation and personal liberties? Are you saying that we have freedoms but are being pushed and prodded by the consumer culture? That we are automatons who have the freedom to do what we want, as long as it is from Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger (sp)?? If that's the case, then again, I don't think you're giving us enough credit.
I really don't think that corporations have that much control. I admit that there are alot of people who pander to the corporate gods and obey their commands to wear the latest cologne, but I don't see this as an epidemic. And even if I'm wrong about this, who cares? Does it really matter that the people around you are wearing the latest Polo styles and drive C5s and Beamers? As long as you stay true to yourself.
Very, very true. The law does cover Andover's liability concerning this, unless Andover took it completely to court to challenge the law.
The next step is to see if M$ even decides to respond, or even if they care. I think it's very possible that M$ started preparing their lawsuit even before they got a response from Andover. It wouldn't surprise me if they just ignore the questions and just went ahead with attempting to legally get the posts off/. If that's the case then they intend to use/. as a guinea pig, one that needs to be squished harshly. There were a bunch of comments on the original M$ article that said that M$ is looking way into the future and using this (if successful) as a means of control over releasing code and still having power. I'm starting to see the merits in this conspiracy theory. I don't think much of M$'s response to this will surprise me, whatever it might be (it wouldn't even surprise me if they just drop it, though that seems unlikely).
It was a very well thought out response, but I'm not cheering yet. Many a web site has originally given the finger to big corporations only to turn around and comply when the screws were tightened. I must give credit where credit is due though, they didn't skirt around the issue. They said exactly what needed to be said to M$ to challenge these inane policies and requests.
Maybe this is old news to some, but I didn't realize that M$ used UNIX to make their CDs!!
---------- Quote from M$'s homepage --------- http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles /Q80/5/20.ASP Disks are duplicated on a variety of industrial strength, quality focused systems. Most of these systems are UNIX-based. ---------------------------------------------
Here M$ admits it: You don't want any viruses? DON'T USE OUR SOFTWARE!!!!
Very amusing... the banner ad for The Register's article that I read was a M$ banner. Ironic.
Anyway, I think everyone should take a closer look at the Register's article. It doesn't only give an account of what is going on, but it gives legal insight into what a possible legal battle between M$ and Andover could be.
--- Quote from The Register's article ---- Slashdot could alternatively argue that the reverse engineering for interoperability and security testing provisions of the DMCA justifies what has happened, because making it possible for developers to improve interoperability and for Microsoft's Kerberos security provisions to be tested. -------------------------------------------
I find this very interesting. This would make for a good argument. This holds true as long as no copyrights are infringed, as far as the DMCA is concerned (The article goes into more depth with this.) No copyrights were infringed in this case. The only thing that happened was information was made available. That isn't a copyright violation, is it?
I can see how censoring the articles on how to circumvent security would be a violation of free speech. But if someone posts code of M$'s, isn't that a copyright violation? Assuming it's this bullsh!t "trade secret" code, then no, that's not a violation. As said here before, once a trade secret is made public, it's public domain. A company must try to secure it's trade secret, which M$ did not do. But if it's copywritten code, and someone posts it, is that a copyright violation? Maybe a little off-topic, but something to think about. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe the answer to this is obvious.
Um, why do you think it's an abomination?? Don't just shot something down without giving a reason. What projects have you participated in using C++ that have failed so much or left such a sour taste? I'm assuming that you have used C++ for something and haven't just read the book and then burned it.
Some really, really interesting stuff. I'm going to forward this to everyone at work here.
My only negative question is did he have to plug his books so much?? It seems like he never passed up a chance to "refer to my 3rd edition of C++PL", etc..... I tend not to trust people who plug themselves and their products too much.
This, of course, is a minor concern. Thanks to/. for getting this great interview!
It won't be that easy. The specs for this service say that only one person can listen to the songs at a time. While this doesn't prevent your own circle of friends from copying stuff (which the RIAA has accepted, grudgingly, since the days of cassettes), it does prevent the wholesale mass distribution that the RIAA is so scared of. I could put my entire collection online and post the acct/pass to the entire net, and it wouldn't make any difference. No mp3 lover is going to wait around while a single user gets off the account and then fight with a couple thousand other people to get in. I think the RIAA should take a closer look at it and see that it's not as bad as IRC or the newsgroups.
This is actually the future of music, or close to it. Music on demand, whenever and wherever I want. My CD collection will be history.... I might as well up load my entire collection to this service and then back the truck up to my local used CD place.
I'm trying to keep an open mind about your views but something inside me is just screaming that this is wrong. I understand how computers can become addictive (I left a party one time just so I wouldn't miss my clan game of TF Quake.), but to actively shun people in the "outside world" is so bad for your soul and your health. To not communicate with people just because they aren't in your m:tg group is blatently juding people. You assume that you won't like them just because they don't play m:tg. I don't care what anyone says, if you can't communicate face-to-face with someone, there's a problem. You say that you don't have to deal with "losers" anymore, yet you deal with stupid people and spammers on IRC, email, etc. You haven't gotten rid of contact with them, they've just taken on new form. Can you honestly tell me that everyone you contact on IRC (or however you get your social contact), or even here on/. doesn't have some kind of faults, just like the people in the "real" world??
Please don't take this as a flame, I don't mean it so. It just bugs me when people tune out the outside world around them. To me it shows a lack of confidence in your ability to present yourself. Then again, I'm juding you before I know you, which I apologize for.
There are things you will NEVER (yes, never is pretty strong word. Let's just say "never in our time") be able to do on the net. Smell roses, go up the eiffel tower, drink a German beer in a german pub, etc.
Here's a broader question. Lots of people are tuning out the "real" world and focusing online. Is this a real social trend, or is this just a few people who have gone "astray", for lack of a better term.
Re:Here goes Katz again
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
How do you think presidents are elected? By convincing these millions of mindless drones that they are the best person for the job. If you control these mindless masses you control how the majority of the country thinks. With control of the masses comes power.
OTOH, Maybe I'm ignorant on the scope of this issue, but I still have to have faith in the system. People are arguing that the very information we see, hear and read will be controlled and manipulated to suit the agendas of the mega-AOL-TW ceo. Have you ever seen a press conference given by the Pres of the US? You see how many mics there are? There are so many outlets for information I think it would be close to impossible to control them. Granted, %90 of people get their info from the big sources like CNN, TIME mag, CBS News, etc, but there still are hundreds of independent sources of information. How can mega-corp control all of these?
Another issue is the very size of the company. We're all assuming that everyone who works for ALL of the companies owned by TW and AOL will automatically do whatever nefarious bidding the CEO of mega-corp wants. But we're talking about independent companies who were happened to be bought out. They still have a sense of individualism. I'd have to trust that somewhere along the line, someone inside one of these companies owned by mega-corp will say something about how something was surpressed because the ceo of mega-corp didn't want it revealed. As soon as the ceo starts tightening up, more people will slip by. As Leia said "the tighter your grasp, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." (or something like that.)
And there IS always the justice dept. There still is anti-trust law they have to worry about. I think they've learned from Gates what happens when a large company ignores the gov't.
I don't think we're at the point of no return yet. This large company is worrisome, and I would love to see the deal struck down, but I don't think it's the end of corporate america.
I found the article on the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider very interesting, but they didn't go into very much detail on exactly how black holes could be formed by these collisions. I know black holes are formed by lots of matter getting packed into a small space (to put it very simply), but I don't see how a few particles could create something like a black hole. Here's the article, in case you're interested:
My question is, does anyone have any further articles I could read? I've done a few searches on the RHIC, but nothing came up with any fruit. Anyone have any more info on this? I love this kind of stuff.......
Today's ECommerce relies heavily on encryption of some sort. Since Quantum computing will be handling the flow of money (banks) in the "near" future and then, presumedly, the internet, I'd say this makes quantum encryption very relevant in the field of quantum computing.
I've read through the article, (VERY interesting. I'm always amazed at what we think of next) but I think I see a flaw in the entire quantum encryption scheme. According to the article, there are two things preventing someone from intercepting the key: 1) photons change their polarization as they travel. 2) Eve cannot know which filter Bob is going to use to check the photon.
The answer to 2 is easy. If Eve captures a photon, all she has to do is somehow copy the photon (assuming this is possible, of which I'm not sure) and send it a few times to a 0 and a 45 degree filter of her own. The photons will not pass at all through one and randomly trickle through the other one. Thus Eve knows what Bob will know for every single photon. When Bob tells Alice which photons he got, Eve will be listening and therefore has the key.
This leads to number 1 though, in which Eve cannot be certain that she is correctly retransmitting the photon at the correct polarization. To which I answer with this, how much do we really know about Quantum Physics? If I understand correctly, it is a very dynamic field, full of changes. The article itself says "...because of the strange way that quantum particles work". I'm not sure if the scientists even know what is causing this shift in polarization (I'll admit I'm fairly ignorant on Quantum Physics, I'm just going on what I'm reading here.) What's to say that someone in the near future will not discover exactly how these polarities are shifting? If this happens, they will be able to faithfully retransmit the intercepted photons with Bob being none the wiser.
My point is this encryption is relying on unproven science. Since when has that stopped us though? Humans have been doing this for years. Back in ancient Rome, people drank from lead-line cups. Supposedly lead was good somehow for the cups, but they didn't know that lead killed people. A recent example is cell phones. Cell phones seem like a good technology, but recent research suggests that they are a cause of brain cancer and short-term memory loss.
I'll admit this argument is not based in today's science, but in the future possibility of something being discovered. The technology seems solid today though, if it will work exactly as described.
>So if the Parents and Teachers decide that having >a pierced eyebrow is indicitive of possible >violent tendencies, and instruct the security >guards to keep close scrutiny on those children >who do have pierced eyebrows, you would be ok >with that?
Of course not. I said my self that the guards would only be there the deter criminals, ie. those who would start fights, bring guns, threaten, rape, etc. There is a very well defined line between being a criminal and just being different and I'm saying that the guards would not be allowed to cross that line and police those who are just being different. So what if the parents and teachers decide that a pierced eyebrow is bad? That's up to the schools, it's a school policy. The guard is there to deter any violent or criminal act, nothing more. If a teacher asked a guard to watch a particular student or for a particular habit (such as an eyebrow ring), the guard should tell the teacher it's not the guard's job.
>'Moral Crusading' is by definition >ludicrous when applied to anything short of >Violence. Everyone can agree that attacking >someone is bad, threatening them is also bad, >rape is bad. But it never stops there, and if you >think it will then you are naive and idealistic.
I don't think I'm being naive or idealistic at all. I think I'm being very practical. I agree with you that if you start altering the role of guards to be nannies, then you start down a dark path of policing. But if you stick to the rules of just having guards be a deterent to violence, their role is very well defined. I can read your thoughts right now, "it's too easy for guards to become nannies! It's too easy for a guard to abuse the power and start cracking down on being different!" I don't think this will happen because, as I said before, of the very well defined line between being a criminal and just being different. And you can always punish a guard for abusing his/her power.
>Yes, I do think we are creeping towards a police >state where the cops have far too much freedom to >accuse and arrest anyone for any reason. Who >defines what is 'Naughty'? Is holding a rally >againstsome of the schools rules 'Naughty'? Is >Refusing to participate in a pep Rally 'Naughty'? >Refusing to say the pledge? Wearing black trench >coats and piercing your eyebrows? This is not the >business of the school or the security guards to >decide.
It sounds like you're suggesting these armed guards would be "moral crusaders". I'm not suggesting that at all. What I meant by "naughty" is violence, plain and simple. The guards would be there to stop fights, or in an absolute worst case scenario, react to a gun being drawn. They're not there to determine if a South Park shirt is appropriate, or, as you say, piercing your eyebrow is appropriate. In fact, if they start harrassing a student without provocation, I think the guard should be reprimanded. This moral crusading should be left with the teachers and, more appropriately, the parents.
>........ >Stopping her from using the knife would not have >stopped her from doing harm.
This is very true, if someone really, really wants to do something, there is not much a person can do to stop them.
On the same point, I still see guards and/or detectors as a deterent to violence. Is it the best answer? I don't think so considering the controversy we're having. As you say, we're dealing with the symptoms, not the disease itself. But I think it is the best answer for right now. I really think a kid will think twice about pulling out a gun if there's an armed guard nearby with a weapon and the training to use it properly.
Kids are not born evil, some grow that way through their environment, society, school, etc. Until we learn how to stop the turning from "good" to "evil" (which is the disease in this instance) we can only concentrate on the symptoms. I can't cure my cold, but I can chug green death (aka Nyquil) until my body figures out how to get rid of the virus. I see the same with schools. Deter kids from violence until we can figure out how to encourage kids to be themselves and be different while still being able to recognize the warning signs of turning from good to bad.
>All of both. Because you can warp statistics to >justify anything, so just to be safe, you should >do whatever the government tells you is a good >idea, eh?
I think you're taking this vein a little too far.
Should I not drive to work because there's a chance I might get in an accident? If I prepare for every single bad thing that might happen, I'd never get out of my bed and I wouldn't eat anything because there's the chance that my food might have rat poison. Anyone with common sense takes what the government recommends with a grain of salt.
Getting back to the guards in schools thing, I don't see how guards impinge on freedom or "prepare students for a police state" as a previous poster said. Are the armed guards really as autonumous as you're suggesting? I'm sure the guards don't have enough power to do whatever they want to whomever they want, do they? Students would complain and then parents would complain if the guards went too far. I see guards in schools as a deterent to anyone thinking of trying something really naughty, not as a tool of big brother to bring the kids down. We have police all around our communities, do you think we live in a police state in our towns? What's wrong with expanding that protection to our schools?
Slashdot Mirror
-----Quote----------------------------------Unlike these countries, in the USA we have fairly wide liberties (albeit threatened), because as a people we can be controlled and manipulated by passive consumption of television and whatever else passes for mass entertainment, like spectator sports.
-----Quote----------------------------------
Unlike these countries? Have you ever seen a British football game? I think those fans would rather nuke a random country every day for a week than lose to a bitter rival. And don't forget the Colombian defenseman who was killed because he scored on his own goal. I think that the people around the whole world are just as controlled and manipulated by television, sports, etc, even more so. I don't think you give the general population of the US enough credit.
And I don't really see your connection. What exactly do you mean by your relating TV manipulation and personal liberties? Are you saying that we have freedoms but are being pushed and prodded by the consumer culture? That we are automatons who have the freedom to do what we want, as long as it is from Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger (sp)?? If that's the case, then again, I don't think you're giving us enough credit.
I really don't think that corporations have that much control. I admit that there are alot of people who pander to the corporate gods and obey their commands to wear the latest cologne, but I don't see this as an epidemic. And even if I'm wrong about this, who cares? Does it really matter that the people around you are wearing the latest Polo styles and drive C5s and Beamers? As long as you stay true to yourself.
Very, very true. The law does cover Andover's liability concerning this, unless Andover took it completely to court to challenge the law.
/. If that's the case then they intend to use /. as a guinea pig, one that needs to be squished harshly. There were a bunch of comments on the original M$ article that said that M$ is looking way into the future and using this (if successful) as a means of control over releasing code and still having power. I'm starting to see the merits in this conspiracy theory. I don't think much of M$'s response to this will surprise me, whatever it might be (it wouldn't even surprise me if they just drop it, though that seems unlikely).
The next step is to see if M$ even decides to respond, or even if they care. I think it's very possible that M$ started preparing their lawsuit even before they got a response from Andover. It wouldn't surprise me if they just ignore the questions and just went ahead with attempting to legally get the posts off
It was a very well thought out response, but I'm not cheering yet. Many a web site has originally given the finger to big corporations only to turn around and comply when the screws were tightened. I must give credit where credit is due though, they didn't skirt around the issue. They said exactly what needed to be said to M$ to challenge these inane policies and requests.
Well done, but the storm is just coming.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
s /Q80/5/20.ASP
Maybe this is old news to some, but I didn't
realize that M$ used UNIX to make their CDs!!
---------- Quote from M$'s homepage ---------
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
Disks are duplicated on a variety of industrial strength, quality focused systems. Most of these systems are UNIX-based.
---------------------------------------------
Here M$ admits it:
You don't want any viruses? DON'T USE OUR SOFTWARE!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Chumps....
Very amusing... the banner ad for The Register's article that I read was a M$ banner. Ironic.
Anyway, I think everyone should take a closer look at the Register's article. It doesn't only give an account of what is going on, but it gives legal insight into what a possible legal battle between M$ and Andover could be.
--- Quote from The Register's article ----
Slashdot could alternatively argue that the reverse engineering for interoperability and security testing provisions of the DMCA justifies what has happened, because making it possible for developers to improve interoperability and for Microsoft's Kerberos security provisions to be tested.
-------------------------------------------
I find this very interesting. This would make for a good argument. This holds true as long as no copyrights are infringed, as far as the DMCA is concerned (The article goes into more depth with this.) No copyrights were infringed in this case. The only thing that happened was information was made available. That isn't a copyright violation, is it?
I can see how censoring the articles on how to circumvent security would be a violation of free speech. But if someone posts code of M$'s, isn't that a copyright violation? Assuming it's this bullsh!t "trade secret" code, then no, that's not a violation. As said here before, once a trade secret is made public, it's public domain. A company must try to secure it's trade secret, which M$ did not do. But if it's copywritten code, and someone posts it, is that a copyright violation? Maybe a little off-topic, but something to think about. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe the answer to this is obvious.
Um, why do you think it's an abomination?? Don't just shot something down without giving a reason. What projects have you participated in using C++ that have failed so much or left such a sour taste? I'm assuming that you have used C++ for something and haven't just read the book and then burned it.
Some really, really interesting stuff. I'm going to forward this to everyone at work here.
/. for getting this great interview!
My only negative question is did he have to plug his books so much?? It seems like he never passed up a chance to "refer to my 3rd edition of C++PL", etc..... I tend not to trust people who plug themselves and their products too much.
This, of course, is a minor concern. Thanks to
It won't be that easy. The specs for this service say that only one person can listen to the songs at a time. While this doesn't prevent your own circle of friends from copying stuff (which the RIAA has accepted, grudgingly, since the days of cassettes), it does prevent the wholesale mass distribution that the RIAA is so scared of. I could put my entire collection online and post the acct/pass to the entire net, and it wouldn't make any difference. No mp3 lover is going to wait around while a single user gets off the account and then fight with a couple thousand other people to get in. I think the RIAA should take a closer look at it and see that it's not as bad as IRC or the newsgroups.
This is actually the future of music, or close to it. Music on demand, whenever and wherever I want. My CD collection will be history.... I might as well up load my entire collection to this service and then back the truck up to my local used CD place.
I'm trying to keep an open mind about your views but something inside me is just screaming that this is wrong. I understand how computers can become addictive (I left a party one time just so I wouldn't miss my clan game of TF Quake.), but to actively shun people in the "outside world" is so bad for your soul and your health. To not communicate with people just because they aren't in your m:tg group is blatently juding people. You assume that you won't like them just because they don't play m:tg. I don't care what anyone says, if you can't communicate face-to-face with someone, there's a problem. You say that you don't have to deal with "losers" anymore, yet you deal with stupid people and spammers on IRC, email, etc. You haven't gotten rid of contact with them, they've just taken on new form. Can you honestly tell me that everyone you contact on IRC (or however you get your social contact), or even here on /. doesn't have some kind of faults, just like the people in the "real" world??
Please don't take this as a flame, I don't mean it so. It just bugs me when people tune out the outside world around them. To me it shows a lack of confidence in your ability to present yourself. Then again, I'm juding you before I know you, which I apologize for.
There are things you will NEVER (yes, never is pretty strong word. Let's just say "never in our time") be able to do on the net. Smell roses, go up the eiffel tower, drink a German beer in a german pub, etc.
Here's a broader question. Lots of people are tuning out the "real" world and focusing online. Is this a real social trend, or is this just a few people who have gone "astray", for lack of a better term.
How do you think presidents are elected? By convincing these millions of mindless drones that they are the best person for the job. If you control these mindless masses you control how the majority of the country thinks. With control of the masses comes power.
OTOH, Maybe I'm ignorant on the scope of this issue, but I still have to have faith in the system. People are arguing that the very information we see, hear and read will be controlled and manipulated to suit the agendas of the mega-AOL-TW ceo. Have you ever seen a press conference given by the Pres of the US? You see how many mics there are? There are so many outlets for information I think it would be close to impossible to control them. Granted, %90 of people get their info from the big sources like CNN, TIME mag, CBS News, etc, but there still are hundreds of independent sources of information. How can mega-corp control all of these?
Another issue is the very size of the company. We're all assuming that everyone who works for ALL of the companies owned by TW and AOL will automatically do whatever nefarious bidding the CEO of mega-corp wants. But we're talking about independent companies who were happened to be bought out. They still have a sense of individualism. I'd have to trust that somewhere along the line, someone inside one of these companies owned by mega-corp will say something about how something was surpressed because the ceo of mega-corp didn't want it revealed. As soon as the ceo starts tightening up, more people will slip by. As Leia said "the tighter your grasp, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." (or something like that.)
And there IS always the justice dept. There still is anti-trust law they have to worry about. I think they've learned from Gates what happens when a large company ignores the gov't.
I don't think we're at the point of no return yet. This large company is worrisome, and I would love to see the deal struck down, but I don't think it's the end of corporate america.
I found the article on the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider very interesting, but they didn't go into very much detail on exactly how black holes could be formed by these collisions. I know black holes are formed by lots of matter getting packed into a small space (to put it very simply), but I don't see how a few particles could create something like a black hole. Here's the article, in case you're interested:
5 .htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/8_7_99/note
My question is, does anyone have any further articles I could read? I've done a few searches on the RHIC, but nothing came up with any fruit. Anyone have any more info on this? I love this kind of stuff.......
Today's ECommerce relies heavily on encryption of some sort. Since Quantum computing will be handling the flow of money (banks) in the "near" future and then, presumedly, the internet, I'd say this makes quantum encryption very relevant in the field of quantum computing.
I've read through the article, (VERY interesting. I'm always amazed at what we think of next) but I think I see a flaw in the entire quantum encryption scheme. According to the article, there are two things preventing someone from intercepting the key: 1) photons change their polarization as they travel. 2) Eve cannot know which filter Bob is going to use to check the photon.
The answer to 2 is easy. If Eve captures a photon, all she has to do is somehow copy the photon (assuming this is possible, of which I'm not sure) and send it a few times to a 0 and a 45 degree filter of her own. The photons will not pass at all through one and randomly trickle through the other one. Thus Eve knows what Bob will know for every single photon. When Bob tells Alice which photons he got, Eve will be listening and therefore has the key.
This leads to number 1 though, in which Eve cannot be certain that she is correctly retransmitting the photon at the correct polarization. To which I answer with this, how much do we really know about Quantum Physics? If I understand correctly, it is a very dynamic field, full of changes. The article itself says "...because of the strange way that quantum particles work". I'm not sure if the scientists even know what is causing this shift in polarization (I'll admit I'm fairly ignorant on Quantum Physics, I'm just going on what I'm reading here.) What's to say that someone in the near future will not discover exactly how these polarities are shifting? If this happens, they will be able to faithfully retransmit the intercepted photons with Bob being none the wiser.
My point is this encryption is relying on unproven science. Since when has that stopped us though? Humans have been doing this for years. Back in ancient Rome, people drank from lead-line cups. Supposedly lead was good somehow for the cups, but they didn't know that lead killed people. A recent example is cell phones. Cell phones seem like a good technology, but recent research suggests that they are a cause of brain cancer and short-term memory loss.
I'll admit this argument is not based in today's science, but in the future possibility of something being discovered. The technology seems solid today though, if it will work exactly as described.
>So if the Parents and Teachers decide that having >a pierced eyebrow is indicitive of possible >violent tendencies, and instruct the security >guards to keep close scrutiny on those children >who do have pierced eyebrows, you would be ok >with that?
Of course not. I said my self that the guards would only be there the deter criminals, ie. those who would start fights, bring guns, threaten, rape, etc. There is a very well defined line between being a criminal and just being different and I'm saying that the guards would not be allowed to cross that line and police those who are just being different. So what if the parents and teachers decide that a pierced eyebrow is bad? That's up to the schools, it's a school policy. The guard is there to deter any violent or criminal act, nothing more. If a teacher asked a guard to watch a particular student or for a particular habit (such as an eyebrow ring), the guard should tell the teacher it's not the guard's job.
>'Moral Crusading' is by definition
>ludicrous when applied to anything short of >Violence. Everyone can agree that attacking >someone is bad, threatening them is also bad, >rape is bad. But it never stops there, and if you >think it will then you are naive and idealistic.
I don't think I'm being naive or idealistic at all. I think I'm being very practical. I agree with you that if you start altering the role of guards to be nannies, then you start down a dark path of policing. But if you stick to the rules of just having guards be a deterent to violence, their role is very well defined. I can read your thoughts right now, "it's too easy for guards to become nannies! It's too easy for a guard to abuse the power and start cracking down on being different!" I don't think this will happen because, as I said before, of the very well defined line between being a criminal and just being different. And you can always punish a guard for abusing his/her power.
>Yes, I do think we are creeping towards a police >state where the cops have far too much freedom to >accuse and arrest anyone for any reason. Who >defines what is 'Naughty'? Is holding a rally >againstsome of the schools rules 'Naughty'? Is >Refusing to participate in a pep Rally 'Naughty'? >Refusing to say the pledge? Wearing black trench >coats and piercing your eyebrows? This is not the >business of the school or the security guards to >decide.
It sounds like you're suggesting these armed guards would be "moral crusaders". I'm not suggesting that at all. What I meant by "naughty" is violence, plain and simple. The guards would be there to stop fights, or in an absolute worst case scenario, react to a gun being drawn. They're not there to determine if a South Park shirt is appropriate, or, as you say, piercing your eyebrow is appropriate. In fact, if they start harrassing a student without provocation, I think the guard should be reprimanded. This moral crusading should be left with the teachers and, more appropriately, the parents.
>........
>Stopping her from using the knife would not have >stopped her from doing harm.
This is very true, if someone really, really wants to do something, there is not much a person can do to stop them.
On the same point, I still see guards and/or detectors as a deterent to violence. Is it the best answer? I don't think so considering the controversy we're having. As you say, we're dealing with the symptoms, not the disease itself. But I think it is the best answer for right now. I really think a kid will think twice about pulling out a gun if there's an armed guard nearby with a weapon and the training to use it properly.
Kids are not born evil, some grow that way through their environment, society, school, etc. Until we learn how to stop the turning from "good" to "evil" (which is the disease in this instance) we can only concentrate on the symptoms. I can't cure my cold, but I can chug green death (aka Nyquil) until my body figures out how to get rid of the virus. I see the same with schools. Deter kids from violence until we can figure out how to encourage kids to be themselves and be different while still being able to recognize the warning signs of turning from good to bad.
>All of both. Because you can warp statistics to
>justify anything, so just to be safe, you should
>do whatever the government tells you is a good
>idea, eh?
I think you're taking this vein a little too far.
Should I not drive to work because there's a chance I might get in an accident? If I prepare for every single bad thing that might happen, I'd never get out of my bed and I wouldn't eat anything because there's the chance that my food might have rat poison. Anyone with common sense takes what the government recommends with a grain of salt.
Getting back to the guards in schools thing, I don't see how guards impinge on freedom or "prepare students for a police state" as a previous poster said. Are the armed guards really as autonumous as you're suggesting? I'm sure the guards don't have enough power to do whatever they want to whomever they want, do they? Students would complain and then parents would complain if the guards went too far. I see guards in schools as a deterent to anyone thinking of trying something really naughty, not as a tool of big brother to bring the kids down. We have police all around our communities, do you think we live in a police state in our towns? What's wrong with expanding that protection to our schools?