Opposed to what, exactly? Every other operating system uses a similar approach, by grouping up applications in a specific place. It just so happens Windows puts it behind a button on the lower left hand part of the screen.
You'll want to take this up with the 1st and 4th amendment of the constitution.
The school doesn't have the authority and it never will. The ACLU isn't being foolhardy. They're entirely right here. If the school suspected something dangerous, they should have alerted the authorities and the parents with the information they had and been done with it. They had no rights to threaten a little girl into handing over her login details for things she has done off school property.
Every example you gave have procedures to deal with them. Defamation? That is a civil matter. Stalking, violence? That is a job for the police.
Schools should never have the right to discipline a child for something said off school property. That's why this whole cyber-bullying thing is such a joke. Parents expect the schools to be able to do something, but they can't do anything. Nor should they be able to. If it doesn't happen on school property, there is no reason for the school to be involved.
No, they can't, and they're going to get in trouble for this. It's just a shame it probably won't be the kind of trouble that requires their resignation. The problem is this was a 12 year old girl who was being intimidated by school staff (and apparently a police officer). Of course she's going to give up the info because she's too young to know any better.
That is the one circumstance I agree with using the phrase unlimited, since they're offering everything they have. It's not so much the asterisk that I have a problem with, but the conditions tied to that asterisk. "Unlimited bandwidth* *3GB cap, further bandwidth will be neigh unusable" is not unlimited. It's a bold faced lie.
I disagree. You're trying to rationalize away the definition of unlimited with a poor analogy. An all you can eat buffet is not advertised as "unlimited". Usually plainly just "all you can eat". It becomes obvious after a certain point you cannot eat anymore. That is your limit. They are not offering "all you can eat for the next week/month/year/lifetime", but for your current meal. So if you're sitting there after having pounded down several plates of food, they're perfectly within their rights to ask you to leave since they satisfied their end of the bargain.
AT&T once upon a time did offer completely unlimited bandwidth. It was of course at a time when there was very little to consume while mobile so if anything, it was little more than a marketing strategy. The problem came when there was a boom in mobile internet activity, where people had a reason to consume copious amounts of bandwidth. They realized they could get far more money by removing the unlimited plans and moving to tiered plans. Their "unlimited" plan outlived its usefulness and they've been trying to remove and cripple it as much as possible to get everyone grandfathered out of it.
It is, however, and always will be shady to still claim something is unlimited if it is inherently not. No amount of rationalization of "expected" or "obvious" limitations will ever change that. If you're offering a finite resource, do not claim it's unlimited with an asterisk explaining the limitations. Offer the service with a proper name. We should not be tolerating this sort of false advertising.
On top of that, the extreme challenges we need to meet while doing this sort of thing pushes us further in science with new technologies developed to meet those challenges. How many things do we take for granted today because of problems met by the space flights of yesteryear? Imagine if everyone thought this sort of thing was pointless back then. Where would we be now?
It's a little sad to see Yahoo so unable to innovate and adapt to the changes in the industry that they've apparently got no choice but to stab their friends in the back for a little loose change.
I use one on a daily basis. Sure some people have phased them out or use them little, but I would never own a machine without one form of optical media.
The problem with this is she wasn't scamming the Nigerians. She took money the Nigerians scammed from the victims. I welcome scams that part the scammer of their money, but stealing money from those defrauded by their scam is in pretty poor taste. Not only that but the article seems to indicate she didn't even know it was a scam, which means she thought she was stealing $33,000 from her employers.
Mixed with her history of theft before this even happened, this is one classy lady.
Slashdot Mirror
The name comes from the fact you get the device you "pwn". So you "pwn" the device in order to literally own it.
It's not a meme.
So why exactly did the past that in here?
Really is it that hard for you to find? It's literally right next to the save icon.
Opposed to what, exactly? Every other operating system uses a similar approach, by grouping up applications in a specific place. It just so happens Windows puts it behind a button on the lower left hand part of the screen.
Grammar nuance. It raises a question; it doesn't beg a question. http://begthequestion.info/
It doesn't beg a question at all.
What the hell are they doing? Masturbating over the keyboard?
Great! I'm sure Microsoft would be pleased to have another user!
They once said if someone pirates software, they want it to be their software that is pirated. You're just furthering their control.
who really shives a git about Microsoft?
Most of the business work. The PC gaming world.
A lot of people.
This sums up pretty well my thoughts on the matter.
I'm sure they're crying about losing your respect all the way to the bank.
The only thing that has made me lose respect for them is the drama over the DOTA trademark.
You'll want to take this up with the 1st and 4th amendment of the constitution.
The school doesn't have the authority and it never will. The ACLU isn't being foolhardy. They're entirely right here. If the school suspected something dangerous, they should have alerted the authorities and the parents with the information they had and been done with it. They had no rights to threaten a little girl into handing over her login details for things she has done off school property.
Every example you gave have procedures to deal with them. Defamation? That is a civil matter. Stalking, violence? That is a job for the police.
Schools should never have the right to discipline a child for something said off school property. That's why this whole cyber-bullying thing is such a joke. Parents expect the schools to be able to do something, but they can't do anything. Nor should they be able to. If it doesn't happen on school property, there is no reason for the school to be involved.
No, they can't, and they're going to get in trouble for this. It's just a shame it probably won't be the kind of trouble that requires their resignation. The problem is this was a 12 year old girl who was being intimidated by school staff (and apparently a police officer). Of course she's going to give up the info because she's too young to know any better.
That is the one circumstance I agree with using the phrase unlimited, since they're offering everything they have. It's not so much the asterisk that I have a problem with, but the conditions tied to that asterisk. "Unlimited bandwidth* *3GB cap, further bandwidth will be neigh unusable" is not unlimited. It's a bold faced lie.
I disagree. You're trying to rationalize away the definition of unlimited with a poor analogy. An all you can eat buffet is not advertised as "unlimited". Usually plainly just "all you can eat". It becomes obvious after a certain point you cannot eat anymore. That is your limit. They are not offering "all you can eat for the next week/month/year/lifetime", but for your current meal. So if you're sitting there after having pounded down several plates of food, they're perfectly within their rights to ask you to leave since they satisfied their end of the bargain.
AT&T once upon a time did offer completely unlimited bandwidth. It was of course at a time when there was very little to consume while mobile so if anything, it was little more than a marketing strategy. The problem came when there was a boom in mobile internet activity, where people had a reason to consume copious amounts of bandwidth. They realized they could get far more money by removing the unlimited plans and moving to tiered plans. Their "unlimited" plan outlived its usefulness and they've been trying to remove and cripple it as much as possible to get everyone grandfathered out of it.
It is, however, and always will be shady to still claim something is unlimited if it is inherently not. No amount of rationalization of "expected" or "obvious" limitations will ever change that. If you're offering a finite resource, do not claim it's unlimited with an asterisk explaining the limitations. Offer the service with a proper name. We should not be tolerating this sort of false advertising.
I wish I had mod points for you. I got a good laugh.
Yeah, but most regular joes don't know that.
On top of that, the extreme challenges we need to meet while doing this sort of thing pushes us further in science with new technologies developed to meet those challenges. How many things do we take for granted today because of problems met by the space flights of yesteryear? Imagine if everyone thought this sort of thing was pointless back then. Where would we be now?
It's a little sad to see Yahoo so unable to innovate and adapt to the changes in the industry that they've apparently got no choice but to stab their friends in the back for a little loose change.
Burglars?
It's more likely people like you will doom our species.
...when they're still relevant, no.
I use one on a daily basis. Sure some people have phased them out or use them little, but I would never own a machine without one form of optical media.
The problem with this is she wasn't scamming the Nigerians. She took money the Nigerians scammed from the victims. I welcome scams that part the scammer of their money, but stealing money from those defrauded by their scam is in pretty poor taste. Not only that but the article seems to indicate she didn't even know it was a scam, which means she thought she was stealing $33,000 from her employers.
Mixed with her history of theft before this even happened, this is one classy lady.