A maliciously written app has no requirement to use RIM's API subset. An app can abuse any vulnerability of the OS because no one ensure's it doens't. On the iPhone platform, use of those APIs is the only way to access such content and apps are explicitly sandboxed from each other. Custom code scans each submitted app, and ensures that calls to unpublished APIs don't happen. Custom code inside of an app is simply denied access to anything outside of its own boundary. Only apps distributed outside of Apple's ecosystem can perform malicios tasks, and even those are limited to API calls, so what can it do, steal your contacts? On RIM or Android one app can access content in a browser opened by another, read keyboard inputs to another app, access any files in the system, and do just about anything it wants, and if it uses the right hack, the user is never prompted.
The worst thing an app on an iPhone can do is steal your contacts. On an iPad it MIGHT be able to access the shared folder system and access files, though the OS controls seem to be tight there. An app on the iPhone for instance can not access content inside of Safari, not even for pages that app launched itself. Each app is in a memory walled garden, and the OS has explicit control over that, and auto-kills apps that try to do otherwise. Apple's tools for testing an app are very advanced (now, they were not initially), and their detection methods are sound, not to mention the process involved in getting an account is extensive, and any hacker introducing such an app would be a VERY easy target for law enforcement, so its a complex and risky business trying to post a malicious app, not to mention people are going to actually have to want to download it for it to be effective, and even if it CAN steal data, and call APIs to do so, making it pretty damned hard to write an app that should both have access to your contacts and a reason to have its own open Internet connections. Apple can also remotely disable any app ever released with the flip of a few bits.
On Android, it;s entirely possible for one app to sniff the data stream of another, steal your banking passwords, your facebook account, and more. With apple, you have more than a simple eye watching apps, you have custom code inspecting deep inside of submitted apps, and a kill switch if for some reason they get through otherwise. The thousand eyes on Android only watch apps AFTER they're in circulation, which is too late, and those thousand eyes don't have tools. I'd rather be watched by 1 man with 20/20 vision than a thousand blind men.
The iPhone OS also has significant local security. One app can simply not access the data or feed of another, period. Multitasking or not, unless there's a reason Apple determines your app should access shared APIs and content like your contact list, it is not permitted. An app can not see inside of a safari page, even if that page was opened BY that app.
WTF can a virus actually DO on the iPhone if all it can get are your contacts and files in the shared directory (on an iPad)? There is a massive layer of onboard security, just not traditional antivirus. Access to things like location data, files, etc, must be user enabled. Any app that tries to bypass that won;t pass the screening tests (anymore, they were not perfect initially, apple did not from day 1 develop such tools, but they have now).
a) there's no such thing as "top 40" music that is not copy-written. At least, not today. Simply by the existence of a category that could ONLY be copy-written material, and the existence of that category makes it easy for user to find those files, lime Wire "assisted" users in finding copy-written works, which obviously, they had the ability to identify by both title and artist to place in that category in the first place. A simple search by album or search by Genre could easily include non-copyright material, but dedicated categories for known published genres is against that theory directly.
b) no, it does not mean the government can ban them as a class of device, BUT, they can levy judgments against manufacturers that were shown to be fully aware of this rampant infringement, and it could be shown that by not taking specific action to stop that known infringement, by changing future devices or updating old ones where possible, they they were enabling continued infringement.
c) no, Limewire HAD filtering and chose not to USE it. You can't filter generic content from generic sources, Firefox is only a viewer to pre-rendered content. LimeWire however is a search and filtering engine, and HAS the full capability to filter un-obscured track information. No, this would not prevent pirates from compressing, encrypting, renaming, or in other ways bypassing the filters, but it would prevent people for making simple searches for known copy written materials, which obviously LimeWire either had a database themselves of, or accessed a database system to have validated search information for their genre's and categories. The proper analogy would be suing Symantec for their antivirus product not scanning certain content because "well, it might be a perfectly valid file, we don;t know its a virus, so we didn't filter it at all to be certain, though we do have the technology already built to do that".
No, we can't prevent people from continuing to trade. Yes a new system will arise. However, as COMPANIES continue to get sued, and lose, and file sharing systems stop being profitable, and coders and others contributing to those systems start going to jail, it will become a more obscured operation, and instead of 95% of people trading files, maybe in 5 years only 10 or 20% will be able to do so easily.
I DO NOT condone the RIAA's tactics and specific methods for going about suing individual downloaders, but going after LimeWire, Pirate Bay, Napster, etc, those ARE good business decisions. The result here: no company will now risk setting up their own for-profit sharing site or torrent tracker. It HAS to go underground now, this is pretty much clear. That will begin to limit users since even dowloading a tracker starts to become risky (can't trust the source of the tracker itself, might be a virus, a scam, or even a sting operation).
All of the RIAAs suits involved the RIAA identifying a computer sharing music, and downloading known copy written tracks from that computer. In some cases, they idientified these computers by allowing it to download tracks from them, and then later identified those tracks were both present on the machine, and shared to other users, but the law is strictly "do not share" and not "do not download".
1: that's for Liquid H2, which has SERIOUS issues being stored in that state. Look at some of the low pressure metal infusion storage methods, which are the only real safe and viable methods for use in motor vehicles (without having to keep them plugged in for tank cooling when not driving, or using ridiculously dangerous, aka bobs, as storage tanks), and you'll see the original poster is right. Any of the safe H2 options no only still leak H@ slowly, they also take 6-8 hours to fill a tank as well. only Liquid H2 can refuel as fast as SCIB batteries, and it;s too dangerous to do that except for military and other security managed vehicles.
2: fuel cells are subsidized by millions of dollars per vehicle, and will not-in-your-lifetime be a viable system in a car, even if we can solve the size issue (ever seen a compact car with a fuel cell? No, because they can't make ti that small and have enough power to drive a car). Even best case, in 15 years, fuel cells will be $50K+ for the cell, and they have short lifespans. H2 in cars is realistically only a combustion method.
3: Fuel cells make H2O, sure, but electric motors make O3 which is both a biological and human hazard. CO2 can be scrubbed as a post process, or otherwise mitigated, and if the C in fuel comes from sequestration to begin with, then we're not adding any additional CO2 to the system, and its essentially a closed loop. Sequestration can come from facilities as well, run by excess wind and/or solar, instead of the inneficiency on doing it on-vehicle.
4: See Dotyenergy.com (no affiliation to me, my family or my company: disclaimed). H2 can be used to very effectively make very clean hydrocarbon fuels, which burn without sulfers or pollutants, and once full scale facilities are in place can be made for about $3-4 a gallon. This CO2 emitted from this will be CO2 sequestered from other sources, meaning cars will not add to the Climate issue any more, and we can eliminate all the other toxins in fules. This is a 30-50 year fix until full electric is a more viable and affordable option, and 75-100 years until we're weened completely from fuels. Its also an industry that can't be monopolized given Doty's stance on licensing and limited facility costs vs profits. (no more big-oil lobbys).
Free, as in: used or not, there is no change in whats in your wallet at the end of the day, except that not using school in this case means you must PAY for some alternative, that is not provided through a socialized system.
Do you thin the fireman is not "free," or the roads? or the park? or food stamps?
You pay TAXES. Some of that goes to a school come the end of the year, after taxes are filed, 42% of people GET IT ALL BACK (and many get more), meaning their net total taxes paid is $0 or less, meaning they got EVERYTHING offered for FREE. The other 60+ percent of the population pays for it.
it;s a social service, use it or not, it's there. It has no assignable direct cost to you (only as part of a larger pool of taxes, and back-office financing).
Anything EVERYONE paid INTO that is offered equally, without differentiation to the general pubic, as a service of the government, is "free" in THAT definition of the word (it has more than one definition, your refusal to accept that is defined as ignorance).
Trust me, give up on your vouchers issue. In every region that has implemented it, the cost of private school increased by essentially the same value as the voucher, making it no less difficult for ordinary kids to get into private school, depriving the public school of money, and profiting the private schools directly. It;s a crock. Look up some before/after numbers on private school costs in voucher areas and see for yourself.
I completely agree the school boards are morons. instead of punishing those school systems by removing money, at the expense of all the other kids who can't leave it, why not support a federal education standard and eliminate local and state based curriculum instead. Take the cumulative knowledge of dozens of research programs, and people who are really knowledge about the quality, methods, and practices in modern education, and start forcing the local schools to follow suit. Either that or follow Connecticut's model and privatize the school system (it took them from #36 to #6 in the country in 7 years).
I'm glad to see you are actively involved in the politics, but it unfortunately sounds like some FUD or propaganda got spread your way, and you've been denied factual information about vouchers. There are much more effective ways to improve the education your kids get without saccrificing the education of all the other kids in the process.
All our schools not only have a local nurse, and OTC medicine can be requested to be issued by a parent for virtually any reason, provided it's put in writing by the parent, and does not conflict with package dosage limits. The policy is not that hard to work with, you just have to drop your kid off in person and see the front desk secretary to give the nurse the note. As for prescriptions, giving that out to anyone without a doctors written order is against federal law is it not? (at the very least, I know for certain medical license can be revoked for doing so).
A headache is one thing, but its the nurse's job to ask "why" the kid has one. A headache without symptoms of a cold in a child is a BAD THING, a VERY BAD THING. I have a good friend who's 7 year old died of an undiagnosed brain aneurysm for thinking "it's just a headache, he'll be fine". In most cases, it is not a big deal, and is just a cold, but if they HAVE a cold, they SHOULD miss school, or they'll spread that cold to other kids, and the policy is there to ensure you stay home if sick, period. A day of school missed is easily made up, thats why they're permitted to miss so many. Taking out a dozen teachers with a bad cold means entire classes of students are not learning, but are sitting with a sub watching videos or working on mind numbing repetitions work without learning new material.
A no pill policy is a bad policy, as is one that makes it especially difficult to meet with the nurse. However, a simple policy of providing a note (in person, or validated its a real note with a phone call by the parent), for OTC common pills, that's not excessively inconvenient, provides a measure of simple control, and absolves the school of significant legal liabiltiy.
In combination with any other medication that may have already been issued by parents, or by the school nurse, it can have adverse effects. In combination with large amounts of caffiene it may have other reactions. On an empty stomach, and in an overactive child on a hot day at recess (where this happened), especially if their digestive system is a bit weaker than others, it could be very bad indeed, leading to vomiting (which it did) and blood pressure issues (which were monitored as a just-in-case failsafe).
Any medication given to a child without explicitly consulting the packaging and at the order of a doctor can have harm, far more so in uncontrolled combinations of other medicines, and various foods (or lack there of). This is exacerbated when time release medicines are chewed and release rapidly.
No, I'm saying that when a school board, who has no concept of how to run a school, and in most cases not a single member on it has ever even been a teacher, CREATES an abusive and draconian policy; and after letters, debate, and protest from school officials the policy is not changed, then yes, exercise of the policy, as SOMEONE ELSE WROTE IT, to show the example as clearly wrong is the only remaining option.
Is it right to make a child suffer? When making one suffer once in place of the continual punishment of hordes of others is at stake, yes, it is actually the moral decision, when no other options remain....and I only suggested this is a possibility, not fact. I've seen similar things from schools before. Right or wrong, it has a history, and this could be a repeat. i at no point CONDONED the practice.
The "other" definition of free is "provided at no additional charge." Its still a valid definition of "free."
to your analogy, no, I'm saying the $6.99 soda is free because either you;re paying $6.99 ANYWAY, or you're paying $12.99 for someone ELSE soda. More over, the people that don;t GET any soda still pay $6.99 too.
I didn't say education doesn't cost anything. I'm saying you can send your kids there under their rules, or pay to send them somewhere else. that's your CHOICE, and CHOICE was the focus here.
If you;re choosing to undernourish your kids (and I'm not talking about sending candy, i'm talking about NOT sending food, in response to a troll's comment about "if I want to send crap, I'll send crap it;s my choice" and I'm saying, no, if you choose to not provide real food for your child, you;re also choosing to be in handcuffs, and for that child to be reased by a perfect stranger or the sate itself. You kid can;t choos what you put in their lunchbox, so the school GRUARANTEES the good meal, and if you don;t like it, take your kid elsewhere.
Restricting candy is a option many schools use as a positive reinforcement mechanism, which is clearly shown in test over test to be far superior a motivator to negative feedback and punishment, more so since the school scan no longer physically discipline children anymore. If you pollute the pool by allowing kids to EXCHANGE candy, which was the case here, the incentive goes away. One parent can ruin dozens of kids by sending a small bag of candy to school, so many schools mark it contraband, and confiscate it until the end of the week.
in this case, my guess is either the kid was a real looser, constantly punished, and this was an escalated suspension on other issues, and the parent went to the press to get "noticed," OR, its actually the school trying to get noticed by enforcing draconian policy to the extreme in order to get that policy changed by enraging parents and the press (you'd be surprised how often this happens).
The POINT was that home school, private school, etc, come at significant COST. If you want what you don't need to pay EXTRA for (the handout that your and everyone else's taxes paid for), then abide by their rules.
Oh, and EVERYONE pays property taxes. Either you pay directly on property you own, or you rent and a landlord pays MORE than you would pay if you owned it yourself. the only people that don;t pay property tax are people that live in government buildings (jails and assistance homes, and city/state owned hospitals). Other taxes, yes, 42% of people pay none (so they say), but everyone pays property taxes...
There's "free" and there's "provided at no additional charge." I used the latter definition of Free.
Ok, lets say then, a "cheaper" option is public school, or that "more expensive options are available."
Roads are not free. Police are not free. Traffic lights are not free. Parks are not free. wtf cares that public education is not "free." Its an option you do not have to incur additional cost to undertake, vs the alternative "choices" you have.
Don't like the policies? Either don't go to public school, move, or get political and do something about it.
If you don;t agree that someone needs to be involved in ensuring your child is eating right, then you are a sorry parent, or not one at all. If you;re sending candy with your kid, fine, I'm not against it, but a lot of schools have some extremely successful positive behavior reinforcement systems based on the idea that candy is limited, and not allowed to be shared between kids, and in general only permitted when goals are reached (which is often if your kid behaves).
Seriously? I got marked troll on that simply for bashing Adobe or backing Apple (which i really didn't think that post was "pro-Apple" very much, just anti-adobe...
Someone please tell me how this was not a logical argument?
It's not about banning the "safe" as well as dangerous drugs, it's about "unless you doctor has explicitly approved, your child should not be around others while on ANY medication, OTA or otherwise, and certainly not without the nurse being informed."
In middle and elementary school this is especially important as the kids WILL trade the pills, especailly kids that don't like taking them. In high school, I don;t know what the policy is, and it may very well be approved. I mentioned 15 as that is the legal age of consent in this state, and thus how DSS and the police views this issue. (whether or not I agree with that age as a benchmark).
If you kid is sick, or in pain, but needs to go to school anyway, and is well enough to do so, simply send a note with them, and the NURSE will issue medication as required. This is simple. They can GET cough drops, they can get asprin, they can not CARRY IT AROUND without permission.
I did clearly state "with a doctors note, and pills given to a nurse not the kid personally" its OK. This rule is to prevent UNDIAGNOSED kids from going to school with common cold symptoms, a pill, and a kick in the ass because a parent doesn't want to deal with the kid staying home as they should. An inconvenience to encourage the proper parental bahavior.
it;s a SYSTEM, and it has rules. The nurse must be involved, that's the only real rule.
Two Tylenol in a 3rd grader can be very bad. In this case they were Advil, and only 1 pill each several kids got sick.
15 is a "ballpark" age for most people, but is the age of legal consent in this state, and thus why I used it. I've met 30 year olds that can't be trusted with a few tylenol, and 8 year old that support dying parents. Only a fucktard troll takes a statement like that in absolutes (that or a Sith).
yup. So, you're school, or local government, has never once gone overboard on a "mandated" punishment simply to draw media attention to an internal policy with the explicit goal of having that policy overturned?
Also, there's NO comments in the article about patterns of behavior, previous communication to parents, or this kids overall behavior, etc. Who knows, this simply could have been a "method available" to enact a punishment otherwise due.
Our local schools don't punish kids for their parents sending them in with candy. If they try to give it or trade it to someone, or if a teacher sees them with it, it's taken away and they get it back when they meet their behavior goals for the week. They also get candy from teachers for certain good deeds (like not getting in a fight with a kid who starts one with them).
This particular school policy is a crock, but the argument i was making was in response to someone else's comments on "you can't tell me what food to send my kid to school with" bullshit statement. Hell yes, they CAN make sure you not only include candy, but an actual MEAL to eat first...
Whether you choose the "free" system or not, you still pay for it. Home schooling or sending a kid to a private school (with the exception of government run or funded "charter" schools), is an ADDED cost. Everyone, whether or not they have kids pays the taxes for public schools, so to be exact, its simply an earmark on your basic taxes, collected regionally.
and did you considder that this punishment, like most others in this extreme under "no tolerance" legislation is quite often a plea by the school for media attention to guarantee an argument happens to CHANGE that law?
in our schools, candy and soda are not "banned" they're simply not permitted except as rewards. It;s a positive reinforcement, and it works AMAZINGLY, so long as candy is not in general circulation between the kids...
Give your OWN kid a treat, that's fine. When they start trading those treats, they undermine the system, and it's either stop that practice, or revert to an alternate discipline system... Providing positive rewards that are actually appreciated (candy, soda, etc) the reward system works. providing homework passes to kids that don't do homework anyway doesn't work...
They tax EVERYONE based on that, whether or not they have kids, and whether or not they go to private or public school. It;s an earmark, no different that 1% of your tax going to roads. They're still free to drive on, with exception for tolls...
and wether or not you have kids, you pay those taxes, so it;s just a tax earmarked for schools, not to put your kid in school, and you still pay it if you home school or go to private school...
...built into your taxes or not, even if you choose to send your kid to private school, you still pay those taxes (with limited exception for vouchers or grants), and if you home school, you still pay those taxes, and if you HAVE NO KIDS you still pay those taxes...
You are taxed. Is that to say all roads are not free to drive on, that they're the equivalent of Toll roads?
I did not agree that the kid should be punished so for having candy, but in many districts common practice has become a positive reinforcement program involving the REWARD of contraband like candy or soda, and if they can bring their own, they have no positive reinforcement to behave.
Do i think the district did the right thing? perhaps, because likely this action is to GET media attention to get the law (or local policy) CHANGED. Our schools do this all the time... It;s called propaganda, and it works.
Slashdot Mirror
A maliciously written app has no requirement to use RIM's API subset. An app can abuse any vulnerability of the OS because no one ensure's it doens't. On the iPhone platform, use of those APIs is the only way to access such content and apps are explicitly sandboxed from each other. Custom code scans each submitted app, and ensures that calls to unpublished APIs don't happen. Custom code inside of an app is simply denied access to anything outside of its own boundary. Only apps distributed outside of Apple's ecosystem can perform malicios tasks, and even those are limited to API calls, so what can it do, steal your contacts? On RIM or Android one app can access content in a browser opened by another, read keyboard inputs to another app, access any files in the system, and do just about anything it wants, and if it uses the right hack, the user is never prompted.
The worst thing an app on an iPhone can do is steal your contacts. On an iPad it MIGHT be able to access the shared folder system and access files, though the OS controls seem to be tight there. An app on the iPhone for instance can not access content inside of Safari, not even for pages that app launched itself. Each app is in a memory walled garden, and the OS has explicit control over that, and auto-kills apps that try to do otherwise. Apple's tools for testing an app are very advanced (now, they were not initially), and their detection methods are sound, not to mention the process involved in getting an account is extensive, and any hacker introducing such an app would be a VERY easy target for law enforcement, so its a complex and risky business trying to post a malicious app, not to mention people are going to actually have to want to download it for it to be effective, and even if it CAN steal data, and call APIs to do so, making it pretty damned hard to write an app that should both have access to your contacts and a reason to have its own open Internet connections. Apple can also remotely disable any app ever released with the flip of a few bits.
On Android, it;s entirely possible for one app to sniff the data stream of another, steal your banking passwords, your facebook account, and more. With apple, you have more than a simple eye watching apps, you have custom code inspecting deep inside of submitted apps, and a kill switch if for some reason they get through otherwise. The thousand eyes on Android only watch apps AFTER they're in circulation, which is too late, and those thousand eyes don't have tools. I'd rather be watched by 1 man with 20/20 vision than a thousand blind men.
The iPhone OS also has significant local security. One app can simply not access the data or feed of another, period. Multitasking or not, unless there's a reason Apple determines your app should access shared APIs and content like your contact list, it is not permitted. An app can not see inside of a safari page, even if that page was opened BY that app.
WTF can a virus actually DO on the iPhone if all it can get are your contacts and files in the shared directory (on an iPad)? There is a massive layer of onboard security, just not traditional antivirus. Access to things like location data, files, etc, must be user enabled. Any app that tries to bypass that won;t pass the screening tests (anymore, they were not perfect initially, apple did not from day 1 develop such tools, but they have now).
a) there's no such thing as "top 40" music that is not copy-written. At least, not today. Simply by the existence of a category that could ONLY be copy-written material, and the existence of that category makes it easy for user to find those files, lime Wire "assisted" users in finding copy-written works, which obviously, they had the ability to identify by both title and artist to place in that category in the first place. A simple search by album or search by Genre could easily include non-copyright material, but dedicated categories for known published genres is against that theory directly.
b) no, it does not mean the government can ban them as a class of device, BUT, they can levy judgments against manufacturers that were shown to be fully aware of this rampant infringement, and it could be shown that by not taking specific action to stop that known infringement, by changing future devices or updating old ones where possible, they they were enabling continued infringement.
c) no, Limewire HAD filtering and chose not to USE it. You can't filter generic content from generic sources, Firefox is only a viewer to pre-rendered content. LimeWire however is a search and filtering engine, and HAS the full capability to filter un-obscured track information. No, this would not prevent pirates from compressing, encrypting, renaming, or in other ways bypassing the filters, but it would prevent people for making simple searches for known copy written materials, which obviously LimeWire either had a database themselves of, or accessed a database system to have validated search information for their genre's and categories. The proper analogy would be suing Symantec for their antivirus product not scanning certain content because "well, it might be a perfectly valid file, we don;t know its a virus, so we didn't filter it at all to be certain, though we do have the technology already built to do that".
No, we can't prevent people from continuing to trade. Yes a new system will arise. However, as COMPANIES continue to get sued, and lose, and file sharing systems stop being profitable, and coders and others contributing to those systems start going to jail, it will become a more obscured operation, and instead of 95% of people trading files, maybe in 5 years only 10 or 20% will be able to do so easily.
I DO NOT condone the RIAA's tactics and specific methods for going about suing individual downloaders, but going after LimeWire, Pirate Bay, Napster, etc, those ARE good business decisions. The result here: no company will now risk setting up their own for-profit sharing site or torrent tracker. It HAS to go underground now, this is pretty much clear. That will begin to limit users since even dowloading a tracker starts to become risky (can't trust the source of the tracker itself, might be a virus, a scam, or even a sting operation).
All of the RIAAs suits involved the RIAA identifying a computer sharing music, and downloading known copy written tracks from that computer. In some cases, they idientified these computers by allowing it to download tracks from them, and then later identified those tracks were both present on the machine, and shared to other users, but the law is strictly "do not share" and not "do not download".
1: that's for Liquid H2, which has SERIOUS issues being stored in that state. Look at some of the low pressure metal infusion storage methods, which are the only real safe and viable methods for use in motor vehicles (without having to keep them plugged in for tank cooling when not driving, or using ridiculously dangerous, aka bobs, as storage tanks), and you'll see the original poster is right. Any of the safe H2 options no only still leak H@ slowly, they also take 6-8 hours to fill a tank as well. only Liquid H2 can refuel as fast as SCIB batteries, and it;s too dangerous to do that except for military and other security managed vehicles.
2: fuel cells are subsidized by millions of dollars per vehicle, and will not-in-your-lifetime be a viable system in a car, even if we can solve the size issue (ever seen a compact car with a fuel cell? No, because they can't make ti that small and have enough power to drive a car). Even best case, in 15 years, fuel cells will be $50K+ for the cell, and they have short lifespans. H2 in cars is realistically only a combustion method.
3: Fuel cells make H2O, sure, but electric motors make O3 which is both a biological and human hazard. CO2 can be scrubbed as a post process, or otherwise mitigated, and if the C in fuel comes from sequestration to begin with, then we're not adding any additional CO2 to the system, and its essentially a closed loop. Sequestration can come from facilities as well, run by excess wind and/or solar, instead of the inneficiency on doing it on-vehicle.
4: See Dotyenergy.com (no affiliation to me, my family or my company: disclaimed). H2 can be used to very effectively make very clean hydrocarbon fuels, which burn without sulfers or pollutants, and once full scale facilities are in place can be made for about $3-4 a gallon. This CO2 emitted from this will be CO2 sequestered from other sources, meaning cars will not add to the Climate issue any more, and we can eliminate all the other toxins in fules. This is a 30-50 year fix until full electric is a more viable and affordable option, and 75-100 years until we're weened completely from fuels. Its also an industry that can't be monopolized given Doty's stance on licensing and limited facility costs vs profits. (no more big-oil lobbys).
Free, as in: used or not, there is no change in whats in your wallet at the end of the day, except that not using school in this case means you must PAY for some alternative, that is not provided through a socialized system.
Do you thin the fireman is not "free," or the roads? or the park? or food stamps?
You pay TAXES. Some of that goes to a school come the end of the year, after taxes are filed, 42% of people GET IT ALL BACK (and many get more), meaning their net total taxes paid is $0 or less, meaning they got EVERYTHING offered for FREE. The other 60+ percent of the population pays for it.
it;s a social service, use it or not, it's there. It has no assignable direct cost to you (only as part of a larger pool of taxes, and back-office financing).
Anything EVERYONE paid INTO that is offered equally, without differentiation to the general pubic, as a service of the government, is "free" in THAT definition of the word (it has more than one definition, your refusal to accept that is defined as ignorance).
Trust me, give up on your vouchers issue. In every region that has implemented it, the cost of private school increased by essentially the same value as the voucher, making it no less difficult for ordinary kids to get into private school, depriving the public school of money, and profiting the private schools directly. It;s a crock. Look up some before/after numbers on private school costs in voucher areas and see for yourself.
I completely agree the school boards are morons. instead of punishing those school systems by removing money, at the expense of all the other kids who can't leave it, why not support a federal education standard and eliminate local and state based curriculum instead. Take the cumulative knowledge of dozens of research programs, and people who are really knowledge about the quality, methods, and practices in modern education, and start forcing the local schools to follow suit. Either that or follow Connecticut's model and privatize the school system (it took them from #36 to #6 in the country in 7 years).
I'm glad to see you are actively involved in the politics, but it unfortunately sounds like some FUD or propaganda got spread your way, and you've been denied factual information about vouchers. There are much more effective ways to improve the education your kids get without saccrificing the education of all the other kids in the process.
Actually, I'm in IT...
All our schools not only have a local nurse, and OTC medicine can be requested to be issued by a parent for virtually any reason, provided it's put in writing by the parent, and does not conflict with package dosage limits. The policy is not that hard to work with, you just have to drop your kid off in person and see the front desk secretary to give the nurse the note. As for prescriptions, giving that out to anyone without a doctors written order is against federal law is it not? (at the very least, I know for certain medical license can be revoked for doing so).
A headache is one thing, but its the nurse's job to ask "why" the kid has one. A headache without symptoms of a cold in a child is a BAD THING, a VERY BAD THING. I have a good friend who's 7 year old died of an undiagnosed brain aneurysm for thinking "it's just a headache, he'll be fine". In most cases, it is not a big deal, and is just a cold, but if they HAVE a cold, they SHOULD miss school, or they'll spread that cold to other kids, and the policy is there to ensure you stay home if sick, period. A day of school missed is easily made up, thats why they're permitted to miss so many. Taking out a dozen teachers with a bad cold means entire classes of students are not learning, but are sitting with a sub watching videos or working on mind numbing repetitions work without learning new material.
A no pill policy is a bad policy, as is one that makes it especially difficult to meet with the nurse. However, a simple policy of providing a note (in person, or validated its a real note with a phone call by the parent), for OTC common pills, that's not excessively inconvenient, provides a measure of simple control, and absolves the school of significant legal liabiltiy.
In combination with any other medication that may have already been issued by parents, or by the school nurse, it can have adverse effects. In combination with large amounts of caffiene it may have other reactions. On an empty stomach, and in an overactive child on a hot day at recess (where this happened), especially if their digestive system is a bit weaker than others, it could be very bad indeed, leading to vomiting (which it did) and blood pressure issues (which were monitored as a just-in-case failsafe).
Any medication given to a child without explicitly consulting the packaging and at the order of a doctor can have harm, far more so in uncontrolled combinations of other medicines, and various foods (or lack there of). This is exacerbated when time release medicines are chewed and release rapidly.
No, I'm saying that when a school board, who has no concept of how to run a school, and in most cases not a single member on it has ever even been a teacher, CREATES an abusive and draconian policy; and after letters, debate, and protest from school officials the policy is not changed, then yes, exercise of the policy, as SOMEONE ELSE WROTE IT, to show the example as clearly wrong is the only remaining option.
Is it right to make a child suffer? When making one suffer once in place of the continual punishment of hordes of others is at stake, yes, it is actually the moral decision, when no other options remain. ...and I only suggested this is a possibility, not fact. I've seen similar things from schools before. Right or wrong, it has a history, and this could be a repeat. i at no point CONDONED the practice.
yea, i know... I get a bit worked up, and I'm too lazy to add markup for other text options... Thanks for the polite reminder.
The "other" definition of free is "provided at no additional charge." Its still a valid definition of "free."
to your analogy, no, I'm saying the $6.99 soda is free because either you;re paying $6.99 ANYWAY, or you're paying $12.99 for someone ELSE soda. More over, the people that don;t GET any soda still pay $6.99 too.
I didn't say education doesn't cost anything. I'm saying you can send your kids there under their rules, or pay to send them somewhere else. that's your CHOICE, and CHOICE was the focus here.
If you;re choosing to undernourish your kids (and I'm not talking about sending candy, i'm talking about NOT sending food, in response to a troll's comment about "if I want to send crap, I'll send crap it;s my choice" and I'm saying, no, if you choose to not provide real food for your child, you;re also choosing to be in handcuffs, and for that child to be reased by a perfect stranger or the sate itself. You kid can;t choos what you put in their lunchbox, so the school GRUARANTEES the good meal, and if you don;t like it, take your kid elsewhere.
Restricting candy is a option many schools use as a positive reinforcement mechanism, which is clearly shown in test over test to be far superior a motivator to negative feedback and punishment, more so since the school scan no longer physically discipline children anymore. If you pollute the pool by allowing kids to EXCHANGE candy, which was the case here, the incentive goes away. One parent can ruin dozens of kids by sending a small bag of candy to school, so many schools mark it contraband, and confiscate it until the end of the week.
in this case, my guess is either the kid was a real looser, constantly punished, and this was an escalated suspension on other issues, and the parent went to the press to get "noticed," OR, its actually the school trying to get noticed by enforcing draconian policy to the extreme in order to get that policy changed by enraging parents and the press (you'd be surprised how often this happens).
The POINT was that home school, private school, etc, come at significant COST. If you want what you don't need to pay EXTRA for (the handout that your and everyone else's taxes paid for), then abide by their rules.
Oh, and EVERYONE pays property taxes. Either you pay directly on property you own, or you rent and a landlord pays MORE than you would pay if you owned it yourself. the only people that don;t pay property tax are people that live in government buildings (jails and assistance homes, and city/state owned hospitals). Other taxes, yes, 42% of people pay none (so they say), but everyone pays property taxes...
There's "free" and there's "provided at no additional charge." I used the latter definition of Free.
Ok, lets say then, a "cheaper" option is public school, or that "more expensive options are available."
Roads are not free. Police are not free. Traffic lights are not free. Parks are not free. wtf cares that public education is not "free." Its an option you do not have to incur additional cost to undertake, vs the alternative "choices" you have.
Don't like the policies? Either don't go to public school, move, or get political and do something about it.
If you don;t agree that someone needs to be involved in ensuring your child is eating right, then you are a sorry parent, or not one at all. If you;re sending candy with your kid, fine, I'm not against it, but a lot of schools have some extremely successful positive behavior reinforcement systems based on the idea that candy is limited, and not allowed to be shared between kids, and in general only permitted when goals are reached (which is often if your kid behaves).
Seriously? I got marked troll on that simply for bashing Adobe or backing Apple (which i really didn't think that post was "pro-Apple" very much, just anti-adobe...
Someone please tell me how this was not a logical argument?
It's not about banning the "safe" as well as dangerous drugs, it's about "unless you doctor has explicitly approved, your child should not be around others while on ANY medication, OTA or otherwise, and certainly not without the nurse being informed."
In middle and elementary school this is especially important as the kids WILL trade the pills, especailly kids that don't like taking them. In high school, I don;t know what the policy is, and it may very well be approved. I mentioned 15 as that is the legal age of consent in this state, and thus how DSS and the police views this issue. (whether or not I agree with that age as a benchmark).
If you kid is sick, or in pain, but needs to go to school anyway, and is well enough to do so, simply send a note with them, and the NURSE will issue medication as required. This is simple. They can GET cough drops, they can get asprin, they can not CARRY IT AROUND without permission.
Allright troll:
I did clearly state "with a doctors note, and pills given to a nurse not the kid personally" its OK. This rule is to prevent UNDIAGNOSED kids from going to school with common cold symptoms, a pill, and a kick in the ass because a parent doesn't want to deal with the kid staying home as they should. An inconvenience to encourage the proper parental bahavior.
it;s a SYSTEM, and it has rules. The nurse must be involved, that's the only real rule.
Two Tylenol in a 3rd grader can be very bad. In this case they were Advil, and only 1 pill each several kids got sick.
15 is a "ballpark" age for most people, but is the age of legal consent in this state, and thus why I used it. I've met 30 year olds that can't be trusted with a few tylenol, and 8 year old that support dying parents. Only a fucktard troll takes a statement like that in absolutes (that or a Sith).
yup. So, you're school, or local government, has never once gone overboard on a "mandated" punishment simply to draw media attention to an internal policy with the explicit goal of having that policy overturned?
Also, there's NO comments in the article about patterns of behavior, previous communication to parents, or this kids overall behavior, etc. Who knows, this simply could have been a "method available" to enact a punishment otherwise due.
Our local schools don't punish kids for their parents sending them in with candy. If they try to give it or trade it to someone, or if a teacher sees them with it, it's taken away and they get it back when they meet their behavior goals for the week. They also get candy from teachers for certain good deeds (like not getting in a fight with a kid who starts one with them).
This particular school policy is a crock, but the argument i was making was in response to someone else's comments on "you can't tell me what food to send my kid to school with" bullshit statement. Hell yes, they CAN make sure you not only include candy, but an actual MEAL to eat first...
The choice being home school, private school, etc, which are generally not free...
"free" as in you don;t pay MORE for it other than the same taxes everyone else pays regardless of whether or not they have kids.
Whether you choose the "free" system or not, you still pay for it. Home schooling or sending a kid to a private school (with the exception of government run or funded "charter" schools), is an ADDED cost. Everyone, whether or not they have kids pays the taxes for public schools, so to be exact, its simply an earmark on your basic taxes, collected regionally.
and did you considder that this punishment, like most others in this extreme under "no tolerance" legislation is quite often a plea by the school for media attention to guarantee an argument happens to CHANGE that law?
in our schools, candy and soda are not "banned" they're simply not permitted except as rewards. It;s a positive reinforcement, and it works AMAZINGLY, so long as candy is not in general circulation between the kids...
Give your OWN kid a treat, that's fine. When they start trading those treats, they undermine the system, and it's either stop that practice, or revert to an alternate discipline system... Providing positive rewards that are actually appreciated (candy, soda, etc) the reward system works. providing homework passes to kids that don't do homework anyway doesn't work...
They tax EVERYONE based on that, whether or not they have kids, and whether or not they go to private or public school. It;s an earmark, no different that 1% of your tax going to roads. They're still free to drive on, with exception for tolls...
and wether or not you have kids, you pay those taxes, so it;s just a tax earmarked for schools, not to put your kid in school, and you still pay it if you home school or go to private school...
...built into your taxes or not, even if you choose to send your kid to private school, you still pay those taxes (with limited exception for vouchers or grants), and if you home school, you still pay those taxes, and if you HAVE NO KIDS you still pay those taxes...
You are taxed. Is that to say all roads are not free to drive on, that they're the equivalent of Toll roads?
I did not agree that the kid should be punished so for having candy, but in many districts common practice has become a positive reinforcement program involving the REWARD of contraband like candy or soda, and if they can bring their own, they have no positive reinforcement to behave.
Do i think the district did the right thing? perhaps, because likely this action is to GET media attention to get the law (or local policy) CHANGED. Our schools do this all the time... It;s called propaganda, and it works.