You did worse than a spelling mistake, you misunderstood a common colloquialism as actually being a rule. But no, using a shorthand other than your preferred system is not an "innacuracy." Or an inaccuracy either. Perhaps freedom of speech is too American a concept, but I think choosing your own neutral colloquialism would be a recognized liberty anywhere.
Nobody is a criminal until convicted in a court of law for committing a crime.
False. You become a criminal when you behave as a criminal. Being convicted of a crime is when you become known as a convict.
That it is not proven yet makes the criminality an accusation, not a fact. However the basic property of being related to crime, as the word "criminal" describes, is based more in truth than in formal acceptance. Nobody knows if you're factually a criminal until you are convicted, but if you are actually a criminal or not only depends on if you "did it." You can absolutely be convicted as a criminal and not actually be a criminal. Or a real criminal who is declared innocent.
Any high profile criminal who is in a known hiding place, totally pinned down, and giving interviews on the internet is going to be worth 24/7 surveillance until apprehended. Count on it.
Don't expect the police to care how big or small the crime is. If it is an important enough situation to make the news, then it is important for Law and Order to Prevail.
You don't need to agree with them to understand that this is their perspective, and it is actually part of their job to have this perspective.
If it is still news, they're still going to be trying to enforce the law. These aren't even "three letter agencies," these are regular cops, trying to catch somebody who fled bail and is thumbing his nose at them. Now Harrods is probably going to be giving them free lunch as an apology for the leak.
Generally speaking, if you are a fugitive from justice then the court infers that you guilty of something. You're still presumed innocent of the accused charges; you might be hiding something even worse. But you're presumed to be a criminal, yes. There are all sorts of consequences and restrictions that fall into place. In many cases it is even possible to conduct the trial without your presence if it can be proved that you knowingly fled to avoid trial.
One way to prove that is if you had had a bail hearing, and had told the Court you understood the situation and promised to return. Then, if you skipped bail, and hid some place that the cops couldn't physically access you, but flooded the internet with interviews making clear that you were alive and capable of returning if you wished, it would become obvious to the Court that you were fleeing Justice.
If you want to be presumed innocent you need to show up and indicate that you are not guilty.
It would create a lot of low-level but "family wage" jobs, it would be awesome for the British economy. If I was British I would support hiring 100 people to watch each brick in that embassy. Robots are replacing the factory workers. This is a chance for the little guy to get one back.
In this case, there is a mystery condition that includes skin rashes, and the doctor is the quack who decided it is wifi. The symptoms are probably not psychosomatic at all, and are unlikely to go away in the short term. The goal is to come up with responses for the school that will accommodate real conditions and not spend too much money on fake conditions, without the school having to try to second-guess a student's doctor. So if their doctor says it is something that is a known psychosomatic condition, then the school should take reasonable steps to minimize triggering the student. The same way that if they have an agoraphobia diagnosis, which in the past was controversial, you can take reasoned steps to minimize the situations that would be most problematic, and adopt special considerations for the student to be excused if having an attack. And a student with severe allergies might require that all the teachers for their classes get special training from the school district in administering emergency medication. In this case, it is not a controversial condition, but a known and well-understood one: Quackdoctoritis.
I don't believe in alien or government mind control stuff that can be blocked by foil, but it being impervious to visible light is well known to night workers trying to sleep during the day.
And pot growers, trying to hide their crop at night. "No, no, that's to keep the aliens out. heh heh"
You just move them into non-wifi classes. As long as the access point is hidden, and they're not in the classes where students are using it, then they don't know when to have symptoms.
I like your open-minded quest for more reasoned reasons than advertised.
I suspect the goals are even simpler; social contacts seen as being important people explained the dangers of wifi, and now they're stuck in a corner; if they don't put up the appearance of fighting to the death over it, they won't be cool.
So the question is: Can the parents prove - via a medically recognized procedure - that their child is actually allergic to WiFi? If so, not only will they win the right to ban all WiFi in the school
Nope. They would not get to ban wifi. They would get a few rooms in some district owned facility turned into a new school that is wifi-free to accommodate the affected students. They would probably only need 1 teacher. They could do it like an old farm school, with one teacher for all the grades.
Banning nuts isn't just based on the seriousness of the allergy. It is the combination of that, and the fact that nuts are not required for education and so banning them has no effect on education at all, and only a small effect on other students because they're not a staple food, and not something that any major religion requires followers to eat with lunch. If one of the major religions required followers to carry bags of nuts around, those allergic students would be in a different building than the regular students, and nuts wouldn't be banned in normal schools.
Somehow I doubt you got the full story on that one... lol
If you understood the Social Security Disability process you'd realize how insane the implications of your claim are. Even if you roll in in a wheelchair, you will get denied and it will take years of legal process to eventually get into the program. Almost everybody is denied. If somebody is on Social Security Disability and they were diagnosed as an adult, you can know already they were denied and had to "win" their status with a lawyer using the appeals process.
Also, guess what, when people tell you stories about their personal life or disabilities, you aren't usually getting the complete story. For example, if your neighbor has brain damage from having her head smashed in by some freak, she might not phrase it that way; she might use language more sympathetic to her current condition, and just give the relevant parts; that she can't hold a job, and that it is because of a bad relationship. You not respecting her situation doesn't change it any. And her giving her insensitive asshole neighbor her medical details wouldn't likely make him much better a neighbor.
It doesn't have to be in the curriculum; it is enough if they have promoted wifi access as being something that assists in students' education. Then you can't just deny other students access to it in order to accommodate one student.
OTOH, if it is just for the teacher to do (whatever school-related thing) then that most likely can be replaced with ethernet.
The real accommodation is just hiding the wifi devices. It is effective, and doesn't impact other students. It is a minor headache for school maintenance staff, but shouldn't actually cost anything directly.
Sure, but imagine a kid as agoraphobia and can't stand being in the open air. Is it reasonable for the parents to expect the school to put the football field inside of a building so the kid can be on the team?
Accommodation is for required basic education, not for any elective activity. They're required to provide equal access to all the services provided; it doesn't mean they have to modify each service so that it would benefit each student. A student with agoraphobia would be expected to have access to sports, and to counseling services. The sort of accommodation they would be expected to receive would to be excused without penalty to go sit in the locker room (or nurse's office) if they started freaking out. And to have access to indoor sports, since there are lots of those that are commonly also offered. They might have to, for example, make room for that student in the "table tennis" class, even though enrollment had filled up. If the activity permits, such as table tennis, they might even need to roll one of the tables into a small adjacent room. Most of these things can and are worked out by the school nurse working together with the head of physical education. But moving the ping-pong table is based on it being an easy and reasonable thing to do. That is what makes it something they might "have" to do.
in law, public schools are required to do whatever is necessary
Gonna call bullshit right at the start, sorry. This is a common layperson's misunderstanding of law and administration. It seems to mostly come from AM radio, and the idea that because hippies like schools, and school boards often have a majority of Democrats, that therefore any rules relating to schools must be insane and irrational and follow the right-wing-AM-radio prescription for what libraals must think.
Public schools are required to... provide reasonable access to a basic education. And follow other laws, generally the same ones as everybody else.
Being required to "provide reasonable accommodation" is not at all the same thing as being required to do "whatever is necessary." (necessary what is left undefined) They have to provide the amount of accommodation that is required for the student to have access to basic education; that is all. They do not have to, and do not, guarantee results, which is implied by "whatever is necessary." It may be that little Johnny is just going to sit there and drool, and cannot be accommodated in a way that will provide the same education as little Jill, who only needed a ramp installed to get into the room. They're not required to do "whatever is necessary" for little Johnny. They're only required to do what is reasonable in order to give him the opportunity to sit there and try. (or drool)
Just dump the word "necessary" off the side of the ship, and anywhere you wanted to use it, say "reasonable" instead.
They are not, for example, required to build a school inside a bubble for bubble-boy to have the same quality of experience as other children. They may only provide written materials, and access to an internet-based tutor. Or maybe the student is too sensitive to (whatever) to use electronics. It won't mean the end of the world, just one step lower on how much access will be "reasonable."
I'll give you another hint: the school board generally offers vastly more accommodation than is required by law, because it is demanded by local voters.
It seems to me that covering up the LEDs is a rather easy, reasonable, and affordable accommodation. What is actually gained by not offering them this treatment? Do students making use of wifi actually need to see the LED to know it is on, or can they can just consult the wifi interface on their device?
Funny that you conflate using low quality anti-bacterial agents, and... anti-vaxers.
Killing bacteria around you for no reason will decrease the quality of your immune response and can cause illness. Mystery symptoms are more likely caused by persistent lack of suitable bacteria levels in the home, rather than a lack of disinfectant. The things you want to clean up to prevent respiratory irritation are the particulates, like mold spores and insect feces. Killing bacteria is generally counter-productive. You seem very confused on these issues. You would never be less immune to common illnesses because of killing bacteria. Yet you equate lack of vaccination to lack of anti-bacterials. You're moving in both directions at once. If it is this hard for people on slashdot to understand this stuff, how can the anti-vaxxers be expected to understand?
When I was in preschool, I got a "cold" and had to stay home so I didn't make the other kids sick. That part was explained to me at the time. But they didn't also explain that my runny nose and sore throat were themselves the "cold." So those symptoms went away, and I had no idea that I no longer had a "cold." They asked if I wanted to go back to preschool, I said "no." I mean, I didn't like it for other reasons and back then in the stone age "preschool" was daycare with no education at all, and no concept of appropriate supervision either. So it was no loss. But they just respected my wishes, and it was many years later when they found out the reason I said "no" was that I didn't want to make the other kids get a "cold," whatever that was. It sure sounded bad by the tone of voice adults used when they said I had it.
It is the natural trajectory for making decisions from ignorance.
It is also the new tinfoil, and can protect you from wifi radiation! lmao
Cardboard can also filter the radiation. Just put the wifi into a cardboard box, make sure it is completely sealed so you can't see it from any angle, and visitors experiencing wifi exposure symptoms can receive substantial relief. Just don't tell them that the radiation it is filtering is the visible light from the LEDs; they won't have any moment of understanding, their symptoms will just return.
"Double blind" in this experiment would mean neither the subjects nor the observers would know whether the radio was on or off. Clearly everyone would know whether the lights were on or not. And yeah, one one level it's trying to mislead people to see whether it's the radio or their perception of the radio which is causing the problem. I doubt anyone is suggesting blinking LEDs actually cause the problem (dear God, I hope not).
There is not enough consensus on the philosophical meaning of "cause" to really answer the question so broadly stated.
It may be they were "born that way" and it "isn't their fault" and you can't differentiate between the LEDs "causing" the problem in these subjects, or the subjects "causing" the problem in the presence of the LED.
Luckily, science doesn't care and doesn't try. The two views are considered the same.
Slashdot Mirror
You did worse than a spelling mistake, you misunderstood a common colloquialism as actually being a rule. But no, using a shorthand other than your preferred system is not an "innacuracy." Or an inaccuracy either. Perhaps freedom of speech is too American a concept, but I think choosing your own neutral colloquialism would be a recognized liberty anywhere.
It isn't exactly Finnegan's Wake.
Nobody is a criminal until convicted in a court of law for committing a crime.
False. You become a criminal when you behave as a criminal. Being convicted of a crime is when you become known as a convict.
That it is not proven yet makes the criminality an accusation, not a fact. However the basic property of being related to crime, as the word "criminal" describes, is based more in truth than in formal acceptance. Nobody knows if you're factually a criminal until you are convicted, but if you are actually a criminal or not only depends on if you "did it." You can absolutely be convicted as a criminal and not actually be a criminal. Or a real criminal who is declared innocent.
Any high profile criminal who is in a known hiding place, totally pinned down, and giving interviews on the internet is going to be worth 24/7 surveillance until apprehended. Count on it.
Don't expect the police to care how big or small the crime is. If it is an important enough situation to make the news, then it is important for Law and Order to Prevail.
You don't need to agree with them to understand that this is their perspective, and it is actually part of their job to have this perspective.
If it is still news, they're still going to be trying to enforce the law. These aren't even "three letter agencies," these are regular cops, trying to catch somebody who fled bail and is thumbing his nose at them. Now Harrods is probably going to be giving them free lunch as an apology for the leak.
No, he's facing PROSECUTION for RAPE.
There's a big difference.
No, he's facing QUESTIONING for RAPE.
There's a big difference.
Generally speaking, if you are a fugitive from justice then the court infers that you guilty of something. You're still presumed innocent of the accused charges; you might be hiding something even worse. But you're presumed to be a criminal, yes. There are all sorts of consequences and restrictions that fall into place. In many cases it is even possible to conduct the trial without your presence if it can be proved that you knowingly fled to avoid trial.
One way to prove that is if you had had a bail hearing, and had told the Court you understood the situation and promised to return. Then, if you skipped bail, and hid some place that the cops couldn't physically access you, but flooded the internet with interviews making clear that you were alive and capable of returning if you wished, it would become obvious to the Court that you were fleeing Justice.
If you want to be presumed innocent you need to show up and indicate that you are not guilty.
It would create a lot of low-level but "family wage" jobs, it would be awesome for the British economy. If I was British I would support hiring 100 people to watch each brick in that embassy. Robots are replacing the factory workers. This is a chance for the little guy to get one back.
For the record, IE runs normally under wine. If somebody is really pining for it.
Gnome 3 drove me back to xfce. I'd used it briefly over a decade ago. The other guys made me sorry I ever left!
It is always amazing how much further down this place can sink.
If they brought back Slashdot Radio, it would be 100% product placement.
In this case, there is a mystery condition that includes skin rashes, and the doctor is the quack who decided it is wifi. The symptoms are probably not psychosomatic at all, and are unlikely to go away in the short term. The goal is to come up with responses for the school that will accommodate real conditions and not spend too much money on fake conditions, without the school having to try to second-guess a student's doctor. So if their doctor says it is something that is a known psychosomatic condition, then the school should take reasonable steps to minimize triggering the student. The same way that if they have an agoraphobia diagnosis, which in the past was controversial, you can take reasoned steps to minimize the situations that would be most problematic, and adopt special considerations for the student to be excused if having an attack. And a student with severe allergies might require that all the teachers for their classes get special training from the school district in administering emergency medication. In this case, it is not a controversial condition, but a known and well-understood one: Quackdoctoritis.
I don't believe in alien or government mind control stuff that can be blocked by foil, but it being impervious to visible light is well known to night workers trying to sleep during the day.
And pot growers, trying to hide their crop at night. "No, no, that's to keep the aliens out. heh heh"
You just move them into non-wifi classes. As long as the access point is hidden, and they're not in the classes where students are using it, then they don't know when to have symptoms.
I like your open-minded quest for more reasoned reasons than advertised.
I suspect the goals are even simpler; social contacts seen as being important people explained the dangers of wifi, and now they're stuck in a corner; if they don't put up the appearance of fighting to the death over it, they won't be cool.
So the question is: Can the parents prove - via a medically recognized procedure - that their child is actually allergic to WiFi? If so, not only will they win the right to ban all WiFi in the school
Nope. They would not get to ban wifi. They would get a few rooms in some district owned facility turned into a new school that is wifi-free to accommodate the affected students. They would probably only need 1 teacher. They could do it like an old farm school, with one teacher for all the grades.
Banning nuts isn't just based on the seriousness of the allergy. It is the combination of that, and the fact that nuts are not required for education and so banning them has no effect on education at all, and only a small effect on other students because they're not a staple food, and not something that any major religion requires followers to eat with lunch. If one of the major religions required followers to carry bags of nuts around, those allergic students would be in a different building than the regular students, and nuts wouldn't be banned in normal schools.
Somehow I doubt you got the full story on that one... lol
If you understood the Social Security Disability process you'd realize how insane the implications of your claim are. Even if you roll in in a wheelchair, you will get denied and it will take years of legal process to eventually get into the program. Almost everybody is denied. If somebody is on Social Security Disability and they were diagnosed as an adult, you can know already they were denied and had to "win" their status with a lawyer using the appeals process.
Also, guess what, when people tell you stories about their personal life or disabilities, you aren't usually getting the complete story. For example, if your neighbor has brain damage from having her head smashed in by some freak, she might not phrase it that way; she might use language more sympathetic to her current condition, and just give the relevant parts; that she can't hold a job, and that it is because of a bad relationship. You not respecting her situation doesn't change it any. And her giving her insensitive asshole neighbor her medical details wouldn't likely make him much better a neighbor.
It doesn't have to be in the curriculum; it is enough if they have promoted wifi access as being something that assists in students' education. Then you can't just deny other students access to it in order to accommodate one student.
OTOH, if it is just for the teacher to do (whatever school-related thing) then that most likely can be replaced with ethernet.
The real accommodation is just hiding the wifi devices. It is effective, and doesn't impact other students. It is a minor headache for school maintenance staff, but shouldn't actually cost anything directly.
Sure, but imagine a kid as agoraphobia and can't stand being in the open air. Is it reasonable for the parents to expect the school to put the football field inside of a building so the kid can be on the team?
Accommodation is for required basic education, not for any elective activity. They're required to provide equal access to all the services provided; it doesn't mean they have to modify each service so that it would benefit each student. A student with agoraphobia would be expected to have access to sports, and to counseling services. The sort of accommodation they would be expected to receive would to be excused without penalty to go sit in the locker room (or nurse's office) if they started freaking out. And to have access to indoor sports, since there are lots of those that are commonly also offered. They might have to, for example, make room for that student in the "table tennis" class, even though enrollment had filled up. If the activity permits, such as table tennis, they might even need to roll one of the tables into a small adjacent room. Most of these things can and are worked out by the school nurse working together with the head of physical education. But moving the ping-pong table is based on it being an easy and reasonable thing to do. That is what makes it something they might "have" to do.
The courthouse already has that, but you're not allowed to use it inside the court-room.
Help, I'm giving off radiation even at night and the doctor says if I ever stop, I'll die!
Actually, I suspect parts of my body will continue radiating for many, many years after my death.
in law, public schools are required to do whatever is necessary
Gonna call bullshit right at the start, sorry. This is a common layperson's misunderstanding of law and administration. It seems to mostly come from AM radio, and the idea that because hippies like schools, and school boards often have a majority of Democrats, that therefore any rules relating to schools must be insane and irrational and follow the right-wing-AM-radio prescription for what libraals must think.
Public schools are required to... provide reasonable access to a basic education. And follow other laws, generally the same ones as everybody else.
Being required to "provide reasonable accommodation" is not at all the same thing as being required to do "whatever is necessary." (necessary what is left undefined) They have to provide the amount of accommodation that is required for the student to have access to basic education; that is all. They do not have to, and do not, guarantee results, which is implied by "whatever is necessary." It may be that little Johnny is just going to sit there and drool, and cannot be accommodated in a way that will provide the same education as little Jill, who only needed a ramp installed to get into the room. They're not required to do "whatever is necessary" for little Johnny. They're only required to do what is reasonable in order to give him the opportunity to sit there and try. (or drool)
Just dump the word "necessary" off the side of the ship, and anywhere you wanted to use it, say "reasonable" instead.
They are not, for example, required to build a school inside a bubble for bubble-boy to have the same quality of experience as other children. They may only provide written materials, and access to an internet-based tutor. Or maybe the student is too sensitive to (whatever) to use electronics. It won't mean the end of the world, just one step lower on how much access will be "reasonable."
I'll give you another hint: the school board generally offers vastly more accommodation than is required by law, because it is demanded by local voters.
It seems to me that covering up the LEDs is a rather easy, reasonable, and affordable accommodation. What is actually gained by not offering them this treatment? Do students making use of wifi actually need to see the LED to know it is on, or can they can just consult the wifi interface on their device?
Funny that you conflate using low quality anti-bacterial agents, and... anti-vaxers.
Killing bacteria around you for no reason will decrease the quality of your immune response and can cause illness. Mystery symptoms are more likely caused by persistent lack of suitable bacteria levels in the home, rather than a lack of disinfectant. The things you want to clean up to prevent respiratory irritation are the particulates, like mold spores and insect feces. Killing bacteria is generally counter-productive. You seem very confused on these issues. You would never be less immune to common illnesses because of killing bacteria. Yet you equate lack of vaccination to lack of anti-bacterials. You're moving in both directions at once. If it is this hard for people on slashdot to understand this stuff, how can the anti-vaxxers be expected to understand?
When I was in preschool, I got a "cold" and had to stay home so I didn't make the other kids sick. That part was explained to me at the time. But they didn't also explain that my runny nose and sore throat were themselves the "cold." So those symptoms went away, and I had no idea that I no longer had a "cold." They asked if I wanted to go back to preschool, I said "no." I mean, I didn't like it for other reasons and back then in the stone age "preschool" was daycare with no education at all, and no concept of appropriate supervision either. So it was no loss. But they just respected my wishes, and it was many years later when they found out the reason I said "no" was that I didn't want to make the other kids get a "cold," whatever that was. It sure sounded bad by the tone of voice adults used when they said I had it.
It is the natural trajectory for making decisions from ignorance.
I've found that liquid electrical tape works pretty good as well. I've even used foil a couple times.
I was waiting for the tinfoil set to weigh in on this thread, thank you.
Electrical tape is not just to cover your data and protect it from prying eyes anymore.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/0...
It is also the new tinfoil, and can protect you from wifi radiation! lmao
Cardboard can also filter the radiation. Just put the wifi into a cardboard box, make sure it is completely sealed so you can't see it from any angle, and visitors experiencing wifi exposure symptoms can receive substantial relief. Just don't tell them that the radiation it is filtering is the visible light from the LEDs; they won't have any moment of understanding, their symptoms will just return.
"Double blind" in this experiment would mean neither the subjects nor the observers would know whether the radio was on or off. Clearly everyone would know whether the lights were on or not. And yeah, one one level it's trying to mislead people to see whether it's the radio or their perception of the radio which is causing the problem. I doubt anyone is suggesting blinking LEDs actually cause the problem (dear God, I hope not).
There is not enough consensus on the philosophical meaning of "cause" to really answer the question so broadly stated.
It may be they were "born that way" and it "isn't their fault" and you can't differentiate between the LEDs "causing" the problem in these subjects, or the subjects "causing" the problem in the presence of the LED.
Luckily, science doesn't care and doesn't try. The two views are considered the same.