Slashdot

More Bad News From The Hellmouth

Posted by JonKatz on Wednesday October 27, @09:18AM EST
from the geek-profiling-in-the-post-columbine-age dept.
Even though violence among the young is dropping sharply, a federal law enforcement agency and a private threat-evaluation security firm have teamed up to develop a software program that will be tested in 20 schools around the country in December. Mosaic-2000 will look for "troubled" kids. Geek students are sounding the alarm at this mind-boggling over-reaction and unthinking deployment of technology as a safety -- and profit-making --tool in education. The price of being different is going up again.

Within minutes of Sunday's announcement that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is working with a threat-evaluation company to develop a computer program that helps school administrators spot dangerous students near the brink of violence, the e-mail began.

Although the new program was widely described in the mainstream media as a valuable tool for defusing violence, plenty of geeks and nerds -- especially younger ones -- knew better, and saw it in a different, perhaps wiser, context.

"It worries me a great deal, wrote The Hollow Man. "Can you make us heard about this? Voice our concerns? This tool will be making diversity a wrong, [and will be used] for alienating and ostracizing those who are different." Hollow Man described himself as a "very, very worried geek."

But he's also a smart one, and history is on the side of his well-founded fears.

Geek Profiling, the Post-Columbine nationwide American war on the culture and lifestyles of the different, the alienated, and the non-Normal, has climbed to another Orwellian level, thanks to a federal law enforcement agency and a threat-evaluation computer program.

After the Columbine High massacre, American educators, politicians and journalists concluded that guns, values or a twisted educational system weren't the problem. It was, especially, those geeks who were online a lot, who gamed, listened to the wrong music, wore the wrong clothes, rejected sports and other reigning social conventions, engaged in rebellious, defiant or "inappropriate" speech or dress.

Even though violence -- and fear of violence -- among the young has been declining sharply for years, media and political ignorance of kids, technology and culture has only deepened. The only demonstrable links in the recent spate of horrific school shootings - still a very rare occurrence - suggest that trouble arises when emotionally-disturbed adolescent white males gain access to guns. In the months after Columbine, however, there is no federal or nationwide program to help emotionally disturbed kids or to keep them away from lethal weapons.

The answer, most schools seem to have concluded, isn't examining their own structures, values or curriculum, but in enforcing widespread conformity. Stop dressing strangely, behaving individualistically, engaging in non-traditional recreation, or speaking honestly.

Now there is Mosaic-2000, with its promised ability to confidentially (read secretly) vet and rate potentially violent students on a scale of 1 to 10. It is not yet clear where this information will be stored or who, precisely, will have access to it or for how long. But it seems plausible that anonymous complaints, aberrant behavior or teacher hostility could be stored digitally in a student file for the rest of their lives.

Some administrators can't wait to test Mosaic-2000. One Ohio principal whose school is getting Mosaic-2000 told a newspaper that Mosaic's "immediate virtue would be in producing detailed documentation of its evaluation of a troubled student so that doubting parents could no longer challenge an administrator's judgement as too subjective." Now parents defending their dangerous kids will have the ATF and Mosaic to contend with as well as school bureaucrats.

Mosaic's programs, according to The New York Times, rely on carefully - worded questions about student behavior based on case histories of people who have turned violent. They're designed by Gavin de Becker Inc., a private security and software company in California (de Becker came to prominence garnering tons of publicity protecting Hollywood celebrities), and are intended to help officials discern a real threat amid varied outbursts, threats and warning signs. For the past 10 years, the company has tailored risk-assessment programs for special law-enforcement programs dealing with problems from domestic violence to terrorism.

This is an astounding elevation of the unthinking deployment of computer technology as a social -- and profit-making tool to make intuitive judgements in educational environments that often confound experts with years of training.

The Mosaic school program promises questions carefully crafted from case histories by 200 experts in law enforcement, psychiatry and other areas. It will include a variety of concerns beyond alarming talk, ranging from the availability of guns to reported abuse of domestic pets.

"I think it's a wonderful tool that has a great deal of potential, and I hope it's properly used by the schools," said Andrew Vita, associate director of field operations for the ATF, which has used the Mosaic approach to investigate abortion-clinic bombings.

Mosaic is also used by Yale University and federal courthouses to evaluate the potential for violence of individuals who make threats. None of the many media stories about Mosaic in the past few days even raised the question of why such a Draconian security program -- do we really want schools to be run like federal courthouses? -- would be deployed against schoolchildren at a time when violence among the young has dropped to its lowest levels in nearly half a century.

Don't hold your breath about that. Since it's simpler and more expedient to blame the Net and harmless subcultures like the Goths or computer games like "Doom" or TV shows like "South Park" for violence, schools have been granted what amounts to hunting licenses with few restrictions. Kids like Hollow Man have every right to be worried that they'll be punished for what they think, wear, say or do on weekends.

In any other context, a government-sponsored computer program offered by a law enforcement agency and a private security firm to enter school systems and track down certain types of students in schools would trigger howls of protest. As long as we're deploying Mosaic-2000, why stop at "potentially violent" oddballs? Why not get to the really dangerous people loose in schools, maybe programming Mosaic to hunt down and identify religious fanatics such as those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible and reject Darwin and evolution? Aren't they a threat to school science programs?

Will Mosaic be used to identify bullies who exclude, ridicule, beat up and harass kids who choose to be different, driving them into the fringes of school life?

Might it prove helpful in identifying oppressive and unimaginative educators who cling to antiquated curriculums and passive teaching environments, even though many of their brightest students have vastly more creative and stimulating lives online than they do in school?

What about social cliques that believe the most important part of their school year centers around parties where they drink themselves into oblivion and, afterwards, are prone to elevated rates of sexual assault and automobile accidents?

Or school administrators and guidance counselors who know so little about some of their students or the nature of their own schools that they are shocked and uncomprehending when some kids become severely disturbed or enraged, even sometimes to the point of stockpiling and using guns and bombs?

Hollow Man and most geeks and other know better. Mosaic 2000 is out to vet them, and others who dares to define themselves differently from the normal as defined by unknown people working for private firms and government agencies.

Federal law enforcement agencies and private, for profit security companies have no legal mandate or business in schools, deploying computer programs to compile information on kids.

Federal agencies like the ATF and DEA haven't been able to put much of a dent in gun or drug traffic. Why would anybody cede them the duty of sifting through the complex sociocultural world of high school?

Programs like Mosaic-2000 are another nightmare from the Hellmouth that school is for so many kids. They are an abdication of responsibility and a lame excuse for schools to seek out the often creative, individualistic, idiosyncratic and rebellious students with whom they have battled for eons, and who cause them so many problems.

Violence is almost never one of them.

<  Biotech Makes the News | US House of Reps. Bans "Cybersquatting"  >

 

Slashdot Login

Nickname: Password: Don't have an account yet? Go Create One. A user account will allow you to customize all these nutty little boxes, tailor the stories you see, as well as remember your comment viewing preferences.

Related Links

Slashdot according to The New York Times Mosaic-2000 will look for "troubled" kids More on United States Also by JonKatz

Features

Slashdot's parent Andover.Net Files for IPO. The latest installment of Geeks in Space is up at The Sync. Listen to CmdrTaco, Hemos, and Nate talk about the latest events to happen - or not happen in the computer world. Perhaps you are seeking Jon Katz's series of articles related to recent events in Colorado. These articles include Voices from the Hellmouth, More Stories from the Hellmouth or The Price of Being Different, With all the hype about the recent MindCraft Linux/NT benchmarks, you might be interested in reading ESR's Response to the Mindcraft Fiasco For something different, try reading my little essay Thoughts from the Furnace about the internet, and flame. And for a bit of an amusing take on the Open Source world, check out Open Source as an Ant Farm Update: 08/26 01:48 by hemos: Past Features

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Overreaction? (Score:5, Informative) by Saige on Wednesday October 27, @09:25AM EST (#4) (User Info)

Is it me, or is this an overreaction to the Mosiac article we've already seen? We don't know how it works yet. We don't know what factors it considers important, and which it doesn't. It's a bit hasty to assume that it's going to single out the people who are different, the "geeks" as Katz likes to call anyone who's not a conformist. Perhaps they've actually done something GOOD with this program. Perhaps they've found more of the real issues that can influence violent and troubled kids. How do we know this tool isn't a good thing, finding people in danger before something happens? If it turns into just another geek profiling tool, then I'll gladly join in the chorus about how bad it is. But I'm not going to do that until I know that's how it's working. --- Celebrate Diversity!! -- Eradicate Bigotry.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by Steve B (steveb@NoPinkStuff.Radix.Net) on Wednesday October 27, @09:33AM EST (#16) (User Info) http://www.radix.net/~steveb

Perhaps they've actually done something GOOD with this program. Perhaps they've found more of the real issues that can influence violent and troubled kids. How do we know this tool isn't a good thing, finding people in danger before something happens? Your generosity is perhaps commendable in an abstract sense, but misplaced here. The government and its school system have perpetrated so many abuses and idiocies that the default has shifted: any prudent person assumes that they are in the wrong unless and until they prove otherwise. Extending a presumption of good faith and competence is as foolish as hiring somebody who just got out of prison for embezzlement as your accountant. /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by alizard (alizard[spam]@ecis.com) on Wednesday October 27, @03:16PM EST (#353) (User Info) http://www.ecis.com/~alizard

This is probably the most intelligent comment I've seen posted as of when I read the responses to Jon Katz's article. The most amazing thing I saw when reading many of the other responses is that so many people still have faith in public institutions and public officials despite abundant evidence to the contrary. I also noticed that there were actually people who believe in the ability of computer software (at least anything capable of running on a 486) to predict human behavior to any useful extent. The bottom line from my point of view is that I think it's time to get our people out from under the hands of the public school administrators most likely to misuse tools like Mosaic. This is why I support vouchers, charter schools, and homeschooling. y2k info - http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/y2k.html Littleton comments - http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/littleto.html

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by xTown on Wednesday October 27, @09:44AM EST (#44) (User Info)

No, it's not an overreaction. Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's for "detecting troubled youth" today. It's for tracking everyone tomorrow. This is the way bad things happen. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," as the saying goes. I don't particularly care if what they want to use it for right this very second is noble or not. It's potential future applications of the technology that I'd be worried about. It doesn't matter how it works. Remember, GIGO. All it can possibly look for is previously-identified indicators--in other words, for things we already know about. It doesn't matter what the selection factors are. The technology will be abused by the BATF. It's what they do. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But sometime.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by jsm2 on Wednesday October 27, @12:10PM EST (#234) (User Info)

Overreaction in the defence of liberty is perhaps not the worst of vices. jsm

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by GaspodeTheWonderDog (gaspode_@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @12:20PM EST (#245) (User Info)

Exactly, and to take this to the next logical step you can then have criminal profiling so that if somebody exhibits a certain behavioral traits you can just lock them up in jail before they do any 'real' damage. IIRC there was a Maxx Headrom (sp?) about this topic. A man was arrested for a crime that they didn't have evidence to convict him, but his 'profile' fit. He just happened to have certain knowledge that made it plausible for him to do the crime. With this sort of technology innocent until proven guilty goes out the door.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by Mock (kstenerud@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @07:47PM EST (#412) (User Info)

It doesn't matter how it works. Remember, GIGO. All it can possibly look for is previously-identified indicators--in other words, for things we already know about. It doesn't matter what the selection factors are. Quite correct. I can still remember when I was in highschool how they were so hopped up about this new program that would identify for the students what they were good at and what their future held. I got social worker. Needless to say I chose programming instead. If they can't even build a computer that can play chess intelligently, how can they expect to build a computer to root out "troubled kids"?

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by PurpleBob (e.clapjig@tosbeke.pybz) on Wednesday October 27, @09:32PM EST (#426) (User Info) http://jump.to/takeneggs

I can still remember when I was in highschool how they were so hopped up about this new program that would identify for the students what they were good at and what their future held. I got social worker. Whoa. That sounds like something out of Ayn Rand's Anthem. That's scary. (For the uninformed, in Anthem the main character is part of a completely communistic nation, where things are so tightly controlled that singular pronouns are banned. The character is a genius, but is assigned the job of "Street Sweeper".) Maybe by now your former highschool gives bonus credits to people who take classes pertaining to the career the computer chooses... be very afraid. -- Reverse the characters between the first 2 E's, remove the letters 'sticky', and rot13 it to e-mail me... if only to let me know that you've done it.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:3, Insightful) by ajm on Wednesday October 27, @09:53AM EST (#61) (User Info)

Yep, more overreaction. The people producing Mosiac are not idiots, they're not get rich quick merchants and they have actual experience producing software that is used to evaluate threads made to federal judges etc. The book "The Gift of Fear" written by the founder is most interesting. He certainly does not think that just because you are different you are dangerous. It is likely that the program will be able to successfully identify people who will act violently. And this is a very good thing. The two obvious problems are false positive results, and the way those "identified" are treated. Unfortunately that's going to be in the hands of the same sort of people who thing evolution is a bad idea. I think the program itself is a very good idea. It even probably works. What needs careful handling is who gets profiled and what happens to those that the program "identifies". That's where people's efforts need to be concentrated instead of on pointless venting against profiling.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by Smallest (smallest@smalleranimals.com) on Wednesday October 27, @12:54PM EST (#278) (User Info) http://www.smalleranimals.com

It is likely that the program will be able to successfully identify people who will act violently. And this is a very good thing. Try this phrase : "Innocent until proven guilty".

Then what? (Score:1) by jwhyche (jwhyche@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @01:04PM EST (#283) (User Info)

It is likely that the program will be able to successfully identify people who will act violently. And this is a very good thing. Okay, then what? The last time I looked just because you have the potential to act violently or the profile in this case, doesn't make it a crime. Okay, now that you've got the drop on the violente ones, then what? You watch them 24 hours a day? You race them in for therepy that is for thier own good? Not only is this kind of bullshit not needed but it is down right unconsititutional. I think its like presumed inoccent until proven guilty. Fuck that! We can profile the bastard and get him now. Last time I checked thinking evil thoughts isn't a crime. It's carrying them out that makes it a crime. Neon

Then what? (Score:1) by jwhyche (jwhyche@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @01:06PM EST (#286) (User Info)

It is likely that the program will be able to successfully identify people who will act violently. And this is a very good thing. Okay, then what? The last time I looked just because you have the potential to act violently or the profile in this case, doesn't make it a crime. Okay, now that you've got the drop on the violente ones, then what? You watch them 24 hours a day? You race them in for therepy that is for thier own good? Not only is this kind of bullshit not needed but it is down right unconsititutional. I think its like presumed inoccent until proven guilty. Fuck that! We can profile the bastard and get him now. Last time I checked thinking evil thoughts isn't a crime. It's carrying them out that makes it a crime. Neon

Re:Then what? (Score:1) by jwhyche (jwhyche@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @03:46PM EST (#370) (User Info)

Sorry about the double post.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by Helge Hafting on Thursday October 28, @03:58AM EST (#447) (User Info)

Yep, more overreaction. The people producing Mosiac are not idiots, they're not get rich quick merchants and they have actual experience producing software that is used to evaluate threads made to federal judges I guess it is mostly criminals who makes threats to judges, right? (Or why else would they be in a courtroom...) So this program can predict criminals to some extent. Now, how can anyone believe it will work on schoolkids too? They are younger than the usual criminal and have a very different mindset from an adult. Teenagers are in the (usually slow) process of breaking free from their parents, and is naturally opposed to adults in general. They are also immature. This natural kid attitude may clash with a program made for criminals, because adults, unlike kids, aren't supposed to be opposed to society. Criminals however are unusually (for an adult) opposed to society, and quite a few are unusually immature as well. See the problem?

Re:Overreaction? (Score:4, Insightful) by stephend (Stephen_Darlington @ Earthling . Net) on Wednesday October 27, @09:55AM EST (#65) (User Info) http://public.logica.com/~darlings/tps/

I think it's important that there's a response to the issue. Jon's article may be a 'worst case' but it's not unreasonable. My take on this is that it's a bad thing, but if we have to do it (calming the nerves of worried parents is a perfectly valid reason) then its better than many of the alternatives. I'd rather have a computer doing the initial finger pointing. A machine doesn't discriminate on anything other than what it 'sees.' People are far less objective.

And who informs the machine? (Score:4, Insightful) by Tau Zero (spherethis@youknownottoincludethis.yahoo.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:21AM EST (#101) (User Info)

A machine doesn't discriminate on anything other than what it 'sees.' People are far less objective. You forget that people are going to be deciding what to put into the machine. People, falliable, prejudiced people, will be its eyes and ears. If some All-American kid tortures animals and bullies classmates, that may get ignored. A Goth, a geek or a pagan is likely to be in the system as "suspicious" even if they treat everyone and everything with the respect they're due. This reminds me of the computer selection process used by a British university a while back. Because it was "computerized", it was believed it "couldn't discriminate"... until it was found that one of its rules was to mark down the scores of people with very long names. It was very non-discriminatorily weeding out people with names like Chandrasekhar and retaining people with names like Smith. Face it, Mosaic-2000 is just CyberSitter, only it will weed people. Far from calming the nerves of worried parents, this thing will just reinforce the prejudices of the authors. Any school that lets it in the door should be subjected to a blizzard of FOIA requests to see exactly what they're doing with it, and then sue the district and the company into oblivion as soon as discrimination can be proven (either in actions or in recommendations). This thing has to be shut down. -- Vegetarians eat vegetables.  I'm a humanitarian.

Re:And who informs the machine? (Score:1) by U3mancer on Wednesday October 27, @10:55AM EST (#149) (User Info) http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Bayou/8594

You forget that people are going to be deciding what to put into the machine. I think the real problem is that paranoid people will feed the machine. Thus the whole system will be couloured by their prejudices. And these prejudices will then be applied on the kids. The result will be called "objective", since it come from an object, not from a person. -- -- "Wherever you go, there you are." (Buckaroo Banzai)

Re:And who informs the machine? (Score:1) by Mock (kstenerud@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @11:52PM EST (#438) (User Info)

The worst part is the propaganda they have on the mosaic 2000 site. For example: Another system, MOSAIC-20, is used by police departments all over the country for identifying which domestic violence perpetrators are most likely to escalate their violence. It has been credited with major improvements in the safety of domestic violence victims. (See Los Angeles Times article, October 21st, 1996.) Oh, so it was in the LA Times was it? Wow! it MUST be true then! Of course since we don't have access to the newspaper (since it's 3 years old!) I guess we'll just have to take their word for it. It gets even better: Can the system brand a student as dangerous? Most often, MOSAIC-2000 will help establish that a student does not pose an elevated risk of violence. Give me a break! If they have to do this much spin-doctoring on their own site, what makes you think their system is all that it's cracked up to be? And now my personal favorite. They really like using very small and simple words and oversimplified concepts: Yes/No checklists do not work for assessments of human behavior. Imagine being asked to describe a movie you saw last night, but being required to answer by saying either: BEST MOVIE I EVER SAW, or WORST MOVIE I EVER SAW Those answers wouldn't produce a very fair appraisal of your opinion about the movie - and situations involving human beings are far more complex than movies. A range of answers is far more likely to stimulate accuracy fairness, and completeness. For example, if asking about firearms, a Yes/No question could not stimulate as fair or complete an exploration as a range: __No known possession of a firearm __Friends known to have ready access to a firearm __There are firearms in the home __There are firearms in a home frequented by the student __The student owns his own firearm __The student recently acquired a firearm Hmm.. I see... So since I am a member of a gun club in my local community and recently bought a colt for the cowboy shoots, play D&D (the occult! oh no!), listen to goth and heavy metal music, and really hate my teacher and write bad poetry about him, I'm in the high risk category. And since I'm behaving erratically (wearing dark clothes and all), I get sent so that MOSAIC can "guide" school officials in "establishing that I do not pose an elevated risk of violence." Have a look at their site http://www.gdbinc.com/mosaic2000.htm It's the most disgusting shit I've seen yet.

Open Source (Score:1) by Luke B. Bishop (nanosoft@nanosoft.hypermart.net) on Wednesday October 27, @11:31AM EST (#200) (User Info) http://nanosoft.hypermart.net/

This is exactly the point of what France (i think) is thinking of doing (making all government software require open source). To STOP these "closed" proprietary programs where nobody is quite sure how they work. I tend to trust a system I can think about more than one that is hidden from me. -- Luke B. Bishop, Senior Software Engineer, Nanosoft, Inc.

Re:And who informs the machine? (Score:1) by PurpleBob (e.clapjig@tosbeke.pybz) on Wednesday October 27, @08:49PM EST (#421) (User Info) http://jump.to/takeneggs

You forget that people are going to be deciding what to put into the machine. Yes, but geeks are going to be the ones who actually program the machine. Unless they're traitors to their own kind, they'll know what to do. :) -- Reverse the characters between the first 2 E's, remove the letters 'sticky', and rot13 it to e-mail me... if only to let me know that you've done it.

Re: Computer objectivity (Score:2, Interesting) by chialea (chialea@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:24AM EST (#109) (User Info) http://169.229.85.118/

> I'd rather have a computer doing the initial > finger pointing. A machine doesn't discriminate > on anything other than what it 'sees.' People > are far less objective. if it really worked like that, I'd be absolutely /floored/. reason: it doesn't see anything. the people who see things are the school administrators, who may or may not have biases against particular students. you think they won't know or won't figure out fairly quickly what makes a child "disturbed" to the program? and, as impartial as they will try to be, it's not hard to be swayed when you already think someone is disturbed, to push them a bit over the edge in the ratings, purposefully or no. I'm not quite sure about the program. It looks exactly like an old DOS program that I had where you ranked people 1-5 on things like intellegence, introvertedness, etc, and it came up with a profile. the technology in itself isn't bad -- and these people sound like they know what they're doing. however (and you knew that had to come in somewhere), it sounds like a pathetic substitute and surrogate for teachers, counselors, and administrators... and what this program does to a school is ultimately determined by them. Lea

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by lee (lkinkade@mailcity.com) on Wednesday October 27, @11:13AM EST (#179) (User Info)

It sounds like the people who designed this test looked at several incidences and then asked questions to see if the test takers show any of the same trends noted in the previous violent incidents. In other words they are looking to see if the answers kids give are what they would expect a violent persons to be given what they know of violent people. This is not a reliable way to design a test. It relies far too much on the designer's opinion and accurate self-reporting. The most accurate psychological tests, the best predictors, are tests that are given to several groups and then the answers that each give are correlated to their behavior–even if the answers have nothing to do with the behavior. If a large percentage of the target group answers in a certain way, then a person who answers in a similar way will be pegged as part of the group. One example is the Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Index. (By the way if someone wants you to take that test, don't take it and get a lawyer, fast.) So let say the question "Do you like pink flowers?" is on the test and 90% of the violent people answer yes, and fewer of the non-violent people answer no, then people who answer yes get a point towards being in the violent group. This kind of scoring makes for far more accurate tests and helps eliminate bias in testing. Because the results can be repeatedly be re-interpreted as you learn more about your test subjects actual tendencies. One downfall is that if it is really accurate, then you want to test those that are not now violent, but later get violent. A person's answers may well change after such an incident happens in their life. You want to base your answer profile on kids about to commit acts of violence. So you have to find a significant population like the one that you are looking for to hone the test scoring on. Properly done this means giving the tests to thousands and then waiting to see how their behavior actually is. I don't see how this test could have been done this way. It looks more like a sham, an excuse to isolate a group based stereotypes. As bogus and dangerous as racial profiling. It may well become something of a self fulfilling prophesy if applied improperly. --- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @02:28PM EST (#332)

Aren't you perpetuating a stereotype as well? Suppose instead of the question "Do you like pink flowers?" they asked: "Do you want to kill your teacher?" Surprisingly people often answer very truthfully.

Wrong. (Score:1) by ??? (pkobly@DONT.SPAM.calgary.crosswinds.net) on Wednesday October 27, @11:15AM EST (#181) (User Info)

"calming the nerves of worried parents" is absolutely NOT "a perfectly valid reason" to invade the privacy of kids with unproven technology. It is not a valid reason to spend time and money categorizing, separating and splitting kids into profile groups, rather than actually providing them with the support they need to be unique individuals. Now, lets talk about the science (or lack thereof), here. This software is developed from interviews with violent kids. This means that its use as a predictor is problematic. The statement "most violent kids exhibit characteristics a, b, and c - therefore most kids that exhibit characteristics a, b, and c are violent" is as much a logical fallacy as saying that "most rapists are male - therefore most males are rapists." -- Penguin Power!

Re:Wrong. (Score:1) by flesh99 (flesh99@nospam.io.com (remove nospam to e-mail)) on Wednesday October 27, @09:17PM EST (#424) (User Info) http://www.io.com/~flesh99

calming the nerves of worried parents" is absolutely NOT "a perfectly valid reason" to invade the privacy of kids with unproven technology You make the mistake of thinking that children have a "right to privacy". When someone other person or thing is respnsible for your actions then you have no right to privacy. Parents have a right to search their childrens rooms, schools have a right to search their lockers etc..etc. Simply put, their is no invansion when there is no right. It is not a valid reason to spend time and money categorizing, separating and splitting kids into profile groups, rather than actually providing them with the support they need to be unique individuals. You stop the children from categorizing each other on sight by requiring uniforms in schools, this has already been proven to lower gang violence in metropolitan schools. But you would probably disagree with me saying that children have a right to wear what they want to wear to school. Shocking how nothing shocks anymore The message read as it washed ashore...We'll inherit the earth, But we don't want it - The Replacements

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by Pablonius on Wednesday October 27, @11:57AM EST (#224) (User Info) http:/www.amteva.com/

Hows this for a solution... Instead of these warm and fuzzy non-solutions, why don't we as a society DEMAND that the law-enforcement enforce existing firearm laws on the books. As I understand there were at least 6-12 firearms laws broken and never enforced much less prosecuted in the Columbine shootings. If the law enforcement went after these firearm violations and tried to dry up the black market gun industry, the country would be a better place. I personally am a gun owner and am sick of all this call for new gun control laws and privacy invading laws. This Mosaic2000 is nothing more than same old non-solutions. Project Exile has drastically reduced the number of gun related crimes, and gotten a huge number of black market guns off the streets in Richmond. This initiative has been so successful that as I understand it's being rolled out statewide in Virginia.

Project Exile: Good Example! (Score:1) by laetus on Wednesday October 27, @02:44PM EST (#339) (User Info)

I agree wholeheartedly. Here are some links to Project Exile: Time Magazine and CNN on Project Exile Va. Governor's Comments on Project Exile Charlton Heston of the NRA on Project Exile NY Times Article about Project Exile Homepage on Project Exile Republicans in the Senate on Project Exile

Re:Overreaction? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @03:25PM EST (#360)

As I understand there were at least 6-12 firearms laws broken and never enforced much less prosecuted in the Columbine shootings. Well, as I understand it, they're not having much luck interrogating the two Columbine shooters, and they're not even agreeing that they understand they're Miranda rights.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by DonFarfisa (bisti(at)schulte.org) on Wednesday October 27, @09:59AM EST (#71) (User Info) http://bisti.schulte.org

It is not an overreaction, and anyone with any foresight ca frightfully see what is happening, here. Rather than individually talking to children that need help, or actually getting involved in a child's life, the people at these schools are choosing to label kids based on what a test computer said about them. And if the advocates say that it's to protect the children so that they can have a better future, think about how messed up you'd feel if you were labeled "wrong" or "troubled" by a computer, then presemably thrown in "special" classes or poked at like a guinea pig. If they are really worried about "geeks", then they'd spend more time with the children, or maybe even (god forbid) try to set a good example by behaving more by how you feel and less by what the neighbors will think. I hate to sound like an after-school special, but the real problem is with bad parents and unhealthy environments.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:2) by Hard_Code on Wednesday October 27, @11:02AM EST (#160) (User Info)

Yeah...I don't know if I buy the hypsterism either. Katz does seem to provoke some interesting conversation, but like the very media he scorns he is just as sensationalistic and hyped. Katz says that the people who make this product have already proven their legitimacy in many real world cases. He also goes on to ask if it will be used to pick out bullies, etc. Well, I hope it IS. I hope it IS used responsibly. No matter what the program says, it is up to the administrative staff and faculty to decide what to do. We have to hope /they/ have common sense and reason. Unfortunately it does seem that a program like this /might/ actually give an excuse to those who are already punishing people wrongfully to do it more so...so there may be legitimate fear in that.

Training Young Americans for Big Brother (Score:4, Insightful) by laetus on Wednesday October 27, @11:04AM EST (#166) (User Info)

MOSAIC is another step in a long, sad list of well-intentioned safety measures that in the future will have a very negative impact upon American freedoms. The list: armed guards at school entrances, hallways, etc., metal detectors, random locker searches, regulation of speech via speech codes, electronic ID cards for access to school areas, and now, psychological profiling and record keeping. This is really so sad. Maybe you don't see what I see, but I see a generation of young Americans becoming accustomed to and desensitized to the tools of a police state. When they graduate and enter the world at large, they will be coming from a heavily-restricted environment and perhaps will be less willing to question lawmakers and special-interest groups who would propose laws that restrict our freedoms in the name of safety. Some hope?

What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:3, Insightful) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @11:18AM EST (#186) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

The list: armed guards at school entrances, hallways, etc., metal detectors, ... Speaking as a parent who will be sending his daughter to a school district where kids have killed kids, I'm fine with metal detectors and armed guards. What freedoms do metal detectors restrict? The freedom to bring a crowbar to school in your backpack, just in case you need to pry open an air vent? I also had to pass through a metal detector when I did jury duty, and when I went to the airport. I don't feel particularly threatened or impinged, or even less free. What freedoms do armed guards restrict? I just hope they're better shots than the Columbine wusses. George

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by Sandor at the Zoo on Wednesday October 27, @12:29PM EST (#256) (User Info)

What freedoms do metal detectors restrict? The freedom to bring a crowbar to school in your backpack, just in case you need to pry open an air vent? So you have no problems with your kid setting off the metal detector because she has a house key in her pocket and having armed guards rummage thru her backpack, purse, pockets, etc.? Your daughter will probably grow up to be a good little sheep. Or a rebel, and who could blame her? What freedoms do armed guards restrict? It's not a question of freedoms in this case, it's a question of "learning environment". Why don't you have armed guards in your house, mandated by the government? You'd be much safer, and it wouldn't be impinging on your freedoms, would it?

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:2) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @01:34PM EST (#308) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

So you have no problems with your kid setting off the metal detector because she has a house key in her pocket and having armed guards rummage thru her backpack, purse, pockets, etc.? Your daughter will probably grow up to be a good little sheep. Or a rebel, and who could blame her? Don't I have the choice of telling my daughter how to get through a metal detector without setting one off? "Put your keys in the plastic bin, walk through the detector, pick up your keys." In a similar vein: "Drive just over the speed limit, don't drive erratically, don't run red lights, and you won't get pulled over, since you're white. You can even drive with 1/4 oz of marijuana and never be picked up." "Don't smoke a joint in front of a police office, unless you want to get arrested for a political statement." It's not a question of freedoms in this case, it's a question of "learning environment". Why don't you have armed guards in your house, mandated by the government? You'd be much safer, and it wouldn't be impinging on your freedoms, would it? If several times a week there were fights and violence in my house and a murder every few years, and I didn't want to get caught up in that, yeah, I might consider armed guards in my house. I'm thinking metal detectors with unarmed guards is silly, anybody wanting to do a Gotterdammerung on their school wouldn't be deterred by a stern glance and a warning beep. I suppose the proper solution is to chicken out and move to the suburbs, where student on student violence doesn't occur (I'm being sarcastic, I live in the city, and I think Columbine,etc showed that the cities don't have a monopolyon violence). George

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:2) by Kintanon (sleffer@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @01:39PM EST (#310) (User Info)

If several times a week there were fights and violence in my house and a murder every few years, and I didn't want to get caught up in that, yeah, I might consider armed guards in my house. Statistically your home is far more likely to be the site of a fight or murder than your childs school. IT hasn't happened yet, just as the people being tested have not YET done anything violent. But it MIGHT, so shouldn't you let the government put armed guards in your house JUST IN CASE? Kintanon Sign up for Alladvantage under EBS-939 and help me make money!! Sign up for UtopiAd under Valis and Help me make money! This Sig was Prematurely Ended.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:2) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @01:51PM EST (#317) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

Statistically your home is far more likely to be the site of a fight or murder than your childs school. IT hasn't happened yet, just as the people being tested have not YET done anything violent. But it MIGHT, so shouldn't you let the government put armed guards in your house JUST IN CASE? Really? Where did you get statistics comparing the rates of violence and murder in an inner city high school versus a white, middle class home with two parents and no guns? Or are you comparing all schools (including placid suburban schools) and all households (including those with single parents, guns, substance abuse, etc). George

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:2) by Kintanon (sleffer@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @02:12PM EST (#328) (User Info)

Really? Where did you get statistics comparing the rates of violence and murder in an inner city high school versus a white, middle class home with two parents and no guns? Or are you comparing all schools (including placid suburban schools) and all households (including those with single parents, guns, substance abuse, etc). 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? Kintanon Sign up for Alladvantage under EBS-939 and help me make money!! Sign up for UtopiAd under Valis and Help me make money! This Sig was Prematurely Ended.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by bakreule on Wednesday October 27, @02:46PM EST (#340) (User Info)

>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?

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:2) by Kintanon (sleffer@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @02:52PM EST (#343) (User Info)

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? 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 against some 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. Kintanon Sign up for Alladvantage under EBS-939 and help me make money!! Sign up for UtopiAd under Valis and Help me make money! This Sig was Prematurely Ended.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by bakreule on Wednesday October 27, @03:16PM EST (#352) (User Info)

>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.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:2) by Kintanon (sleffer@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @03:27PM EST (#362) (User Info)

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. 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? '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. Kintanon Police Yourself! Fight Back Against Militaristic School Regimes!! Sign up for Alladvantage under EBS-939 and help me make money!! Sign up for UtopiAd under Valis and Help me make money! This Sig was Prematurely Ended.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by bakreule on Wednesday October 27, @04:03PM EST (#381) (User Info)

>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.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @07:49PM EST (#413)

earlier, you asked how children would be prepared for a police state by having armed guards in schools. i think you oughta take a step back, find out where in your education you were taught that any of this bullshit was acceptable, and then extrapolate what that same kind of programming is doing to your precious kids. you are setting them up. hope you enjoy the world you make. -derek

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by Stephen "The Carp" C (sjc@delphi.com) on Wednesday October 27, @08:18PM EST (#418) (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc

> 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, tomorow when the gaurd first enters the school you can, sure. Have you not noticed that the most well defined "Line" today can easily be "Nudged" tomorow? The fear is this... today its armed gaurds at the door. They watch the metal detector and get called if there is a fight or gun. Tomorow...well since we already HAVE the armed gaurds and are paying them, lets expand their duties a bit! Why not have them search for drugs too. You know they have been doing such a splended job, and we have had no problems with the gaurds ...lets have them do all locker searches. hmmm... this is working out great. Lets just give them the power for random locker searches. The problem here is that each day the line moves a little farther. Its the nature of power, once you put someone in a position of power, they want more power. Look at the government and our police. Every day it seems the line between where they are allowed to search without concent and where they arn't seems to blur a little more. Under current law, police can sieze your property, money, car, etc without even charging you with a crime, or worst...after you have been aquitted of a crime! (its a civil case) Where does the money go after they have auctioned off your car? back to the police budget. Do you think this came over night? It was numerous years and differnt sucessive laws that made this possible. First forfeiture laws. Then drug laws, then finnally laws that let them forfeit more easily in drug cases, etc. Witha little research you will see that abuse of this system is so rampant that some police departments practiclly run themselves off intimidating drivers and "Forfeiting" their money once the officer "Sees marijuna residue" on the money (what that is exactly several people woulf like to know) Our society is slowly creeping towards a police state. More and more laws. More and more power to the police. Putting armed gaurds in schools serves ONLY to further that agenda by de-sensitising kids to it. Lets take a little history quiz: Name a program where little kids are "trained" by men in uniform. They are taught all forms of propaganda and lies about "The Enemy" and encouraged to turn in ANYONE who they see doing bad subersive things ESPECIALLY their own parents (so we can get them help of course)? A) Hitler Youth Program B) The Dare Program C) Both Ill give you a hint...the answer is C. But perhaps we think its right that the government use children as spys against their own parents. Maybe its good that we take children away from parents, no matter how loving and fair, just just because their kid caught them smoking a joint. (Its happend, I have personally talked to people who saw this happen first hand) I don't see why now is the time to impliment security in schools. As Mr Katz said, student violence has actually reached its lowest levels in many years. Obviously then something is being done right in the absence of "Security". Why not foster that? If you really want "Security" then its simple. Mandate mandatory firearms safty at a young age, then let every kid and every teacher carry guns to school. A psychotic gunslinger wouldn't make it 5 feet if people were armed. The simple fact people forget is that guns are to people what Atom Bombs are to nations. If everybody has them, then nobody can use one, without immediate and deadly retaliation (possibly from 3rd parties) This owuld also have the effect of teaching kids enough about guns in the safety course that they would know how to handle one (thus loweing the chance of gun related accidents) -- Steve

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by PurpleBob (e.clapjig@tosbeke.pybz) on Wednesday October 27, @09:09PM EST (#422) (User Info) http://jump.to/takeneggs

If you really want "Security" then its simple. Mandate mandatory firearms safty at a young age, then let every kid and every teacher carry guns to school. A psychotic gunslinger wouldn't make it 5 feet if people were armed. The simple fact people forget is that guns are to people what Atom Bombs are to nations. If everybody has them, then nobody can use one, without immediate and deadly retaliation (possibly from 3rd parties) I completely disagree. Kids should not be given guns. You're assuming that all kids are smart enough to think about the consequences of their actions. This is not even close to the truth. Also, Mutually Assured Destruction is not a good thing, it's just the way we accept the fact that several nations have the ability to destroy the Earth. Let's take a look at a school where nobody has guns. Bob says something really nasty about Joe's girlfriend. Joe pulls out his gun and points it at Bob as a warning. Bob pulls out his gun in response. Obviously neither wants to be the first to put down the gun. Joe is already emotionally unstable from some other event, and blows Bob away. Some of Bob's friends standing by shoot Joe in retaliation. One of them misses and hits Sue, an innocent bystander. Some of Sue's friends seek retaliation. Chaos ensues. Several people die. If only Joe had a gun (that he snuck into school, for example), the death count would be much lower. Also, Joe might find it more effective to simply beat the crap out of Bob, since Bob isn't defending himself, which is a favorable alternative to shooting him. Watch as this comment gets crammed against the right margin. -- Reverse the characters between the first 2 E's, remove the letters 'sticky', and rot13 it to e-mail me... if only to let me know that you've done it.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by Mock (kstenerud@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @08:48PM EST (#420) (User Info)

"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. You seem to have forgotten the hellmouth stories already. Don't you remember the student who was taken to the office by security guards (rather than simply sent by the teacher) because she was wearing (GASP) a TRENCHCOAT! You're basing your entire argument on the assumption that the system will work and will not be abused. Experience teaches otherwise. As far as metal detectors in the schools go, they're only a temporary solution to a serious problem. Unless you can deter the students from bringing weapons in the first place, you're simply going to have rule upon rule upon rule, further restricting the students' rights and their confidence. I used to carry a swiss army knife with me to school because it was just so handy to have around (and I still carry it with me). In today's school I'd probably be expelled and sent to heavy counselling. As you further spiral down this slippery slope, you add computer profiling to weed out the bad seeds before they sprout. Then mode of dress is added, then choice of recreational activities, then what you do in your spare time. At the end of this slope is a very rigid and inflexible school environment where everyone is paranoid of someone who says or does or appears to think that is different from the rest. This person, who is doing things differently, is at risk. The people who behave like everyone else would NEVER go to violence, so we're okay with them but WHOA watch out if you behave differently! Oh, and incidentally, I once buried a bunch of chickens as a child (Don't ask me why. I don't know). I also experimented with explosives. The amount of torment our cat went through before I reached the age of 15 I no longer care to think about. My "potential" for violence would probably have been off-the-scale, even though I had a very hard time bringing myself to hit my fellow man no matter how much he deserved it. One big problem I'm seeing here is that most of these arguments are heavily colored with American moral thinking, which is flawed to begin with.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:2) by Kintanon (sleffer@hotmail.com) on Thursday October 28, @07:45AM EST (#455) (User Info)

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. So, it's not the guards job to keep an eye on 'potentially dangerous' people, But they are supposed to somehow deter violence by standing in the hallway? Well, what if the Teacher goes to the administration and the follow scenario plays out... Teacher: Little Johnny has pierced his eyebrow and is wearing a Korn t-shirt, I think he may have dangerous tendencies, can we check him with Mosaic? Principal: Well, if you think he's dangerous I guess we can. Principal and Teacher go to terminal and fire up Mosaic. Question 1: Student engages in self mutilation: (yes/no) Principal: Well, an euyebrow ring is certainly self mutilation. Yes. Question 2: Student is exposed to excessive violence in the home. Principal: Well, Korn has very violent music, and I'm sure he listens to it at home. Yes. Question 3: Student is Anti-Social. Teacher: Well, he does tend to eat alone, and stay by himself a lot. And he doesn't talk to anyone in class. Principal: Ok, well, that's a yes. Mosaic: Student is at high risk for violent behavior. Principal: We'd better have the security guards keep an eye on him in case he brings a gun to school. Security Guard: Sorry sir, it's not my job to watch specific kids, I'm just here in case something happens. Principal: Right, well according to the computer program Little Johnny is the person it is most likely going to come from. So you should watch him when he's around to be sure you're prepared. Guard: Ok, well, that makes sense. I'll keep an eye on him. Everything makes sense, they are doing it from all the right reasons. But it's still WRONG, VERY WRONG. What if the student brings a screwdriver to school for his tech class, the guard is watching him, he pulls the screw driver out near at his locker to take it to class and gets arrested for trying to stab the kid next to him. The security guard 'Saw' him try it. Kids life is ruined because he has a weapons violation and expulsion on his permanent record. Stuff like that happens today without Mosaic, Mosaic will just make it easier to convince the Guards that it IS their job to be a nanny. Kintanon Sign up for Alladvantage under EBS-939 and help me make money!! Sign up for UtopiAd under Valis and Help me make money! This Sig was Prematurely Ended.

we have heard your views... (Score:1) by stealthbob (stealth@logoncafe.spamsucks.big.net) on Thursday October 28, @10:23AM EST (#461) (User Info)

Mosaic is bad, cops are bad, metal detectors are bad, etc. What do you think needs to be done to stop this growing trend of violence? Mosaic, cops, metal detectors, etc., may not be the solution, but at least the schools that use these are recognizing that there is a problem. I may be a little naive but I believe in the basic goodness of all people cops, teachers, & students. So of course some of your analogies seem a little far-fetched to me. Why would a security gaurd blame a kid for trying to stab someone with a screwdriver unless the student was doing something stupid (i.e. holding it in threatning manner). Thanks for reading my thoughts. Windex your heart!!

"Basic goodness" is the whole point. (Score:1) by bkosse (bkosse@thecreek.com) on Thursday October 28, @12:55PM EST (#465) (User Info) http://warewolf.webwizards.net

In his scenerio (not unlikely), *EVERYTHING* is being done out of what is likely genuine concern and goodness. Yet, it's completely messed up.

Re:Significant Nos of Poilice shot with own weapon (Score:1) by Oriental_Hero on Thursday October 28, @04:17AM EST (#449) (User Info)

Whilst I agree that there's no point having a security system that wouldn't stop an armed person (hence the need for armed guards) armed guards themselves are a source of firearms!! There are enough shootings of police by their own firearms that they have specific courses against this for "Firearm Retention". Now I have no idea what level of armed security guards you are putting in a school but will they be better than the police? And will the children at a school compare with the elements of society a police officer meets... To reiterate, unless security guards are well trained you are putting a source of firearms within the school. Oriental Hero

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:21PM EST (#425)

What's wrong with armed guards and metal detectors? 1. They make a potentially violent child think. Do you understand what would happen if a potentially violent child actually thought about killing everyone at school? 13 dead would be wishful thinking. 11 dead would wildly optimistic. Everyone dead would be probable. And it wouldn't even be necessary to give up your life or freedom to do it. 2. They make the students mad. I am serious. I have seen what I thought were average students enraged at the fact that, as usual, the actions of a few were damaging their education. 3. If you were not part of the problem, then you wouldn't say something like "What's wrong with metal detectors and guards?" If you were not part of the problem, you would drag your kids over to the computer, and have them read some of the horrible things violence at school brings about, instead of writing some lame post. (aside to my daughter: See, Jeanne, if someone says something stupid, it is your job to tell them so. Otherwise, they'll never learn.)

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by Datafage on Wednesday October 27, @02:42PM EST (#338) (User Info) http://www.angelfire.com/ct/datafage

There are not fights several times a week and a few murders a year in each school. Those statistics are for larger areas. There is about 1 fight a year in my school and never a murder. ----------------------- Eating info since 1982.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:2) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @03:08PM EST (#350) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

There are not fights several times a week and a few murders a year in each school. Those statistics are for larger areas. There is about 1 fight a year in my school and never a murder. I'm glad for you, but I'm talking about the Rochester, New York, City Schools. There are fights in the schools, there are murders every few years there, though mercifully it has been about 3 or 4 if I recall since the last one. George

You don't need a metal detector.... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @03:23PM EST (#359)

you need a moving van.

Re:You don't need a metal detector.... (Score:2) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @03:43PM EST (#367) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

you need a moving van. That's called white-flight, and leads to sprawl. I like the city, I like the older houses, I like living in the cities, I'd rather stay here and work to make the schools better. Anyhow, the point of Columbine and that school in Georgia was that "even nice, upper middle class white suburbs are not safe anymore." George

Re:You don't need a metal detector.... (Score:1) by Mornelithe (vanthus@msgto.com (Don't spam me)) on Thursday October 28, @12:03AM EST (#439) (User Info)

Being a student, I suppose I should give my interpretation on this issue (at least in this thread), since as far as I can see, it is only being discussed by people older than my age. I must agree with a poster I read that said that armed guards would make students mad. I must say that I would be very put off if I didn't think that my school trusted me enough not to come in and slaughter my friends. At the moment, I can put up with the "don't yell obscene things at the football games" speech over the PA every other Friday, but if I had to be monitored every time I came to school, it would be too much. I can't think of _anything_ I hate more than when a teacher punishes a whole class for the actions of a few. Secondly, as a poster farther down the thread (I believe) said, guards won't stop the problem. Much like gun control: even if you outlaw guns, kids who really want to kill people will either get them in some illegal way, or come up with another way to kill people. As the poster mentioned, if they think about it, it might lead to more... effective ways of killing people than guns, and much more tragic conditions. Don't get me wrong, I'm fairly conservative... for a teenager at least. I don't really see the point of having to dye your hair 3 different neon colors to 'express yourself,' and I have no problem that my school doesn't allow anything remotely like it (it's expected from Catholic schools after all). However, I have no tolerance for schools showing utter lack of common sense. Every time I hear about some student being suspended for having aspirin in their backpack, and the school having a zero tolerance drug policy, it just makes me want to go to the principal/school board/whoever is in charge, slap them on the back of the head with a rolled up newspaper, and say, "What the heck is wrong with you?" I don't mind students being expelled for having crack in their backpack, but people should use their brains once in a while. Going back to the school shooting issue, I'd like to ask anyone if they've every heard of a man named Cornelis Suijk. He spoke at my school today, and raises an interesting point. He is the director of the Anne Frank House, and is also a surviver of the Holocaust. The most relevant part of the story is when he first gets to the concentration camp, one of the SS soldiers standing there was one of his former classmates. He called him over for help, and the soldier said, "Bastard. Don't count on me." It turns out that this soldier, when he was in school, was the one that was always picked on and excluded from the group. In fact, he said that when he saw the SS soldiers rounding up the Jews to be taken to the concentration camps, they looked as if they were enjoying it. It was them taking their revenge for all those years of being beaten down by their peers. Then, when he heard about the Columbine shooting, he saw lots of parallels. Kids outside of the popular group, always made fun of, looked down upon. Finally they take their revenge by killing people. Of all the explanations (guns, the internet, violence in the media. Most of which, in my oppinion, are crap) of this phenomenon, I'm inclined to believe his. Armed police guards won't stop things if this is the case. Now, I, as a teenage male, often find that people (especially the females whose conversations I listen to on a regular basis) get too worked up over petty little insults. People make fun of me, and I make fun of them, but we all like each other, and are all friends. However, I imagine that if everyone consistantly tells someone that they hate them, and no one ever expresses the contrary, then it will have a significant effect. In short, instead of saying, "Please send armed guards to search studens for guns at my childrens' school," why not start teaching kids not to have more respect for each other. I go to a good school, where there isn't a lot of 'jocks versus geeks' emnity (and other things of that sort), but I am sure there are schools out there that do have a problem with this. Maybe if this problem were fixed we wouldn't need metal detectors and armed guards. Finally, I'd like to apologize for both the length of this post, and for any spelling/grammar/usage mistakes in it. It's late, and I ramble. Have a nice day.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by U3mancer on Wednesday October 27, @12:35PM EST (#258) (User Info) http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Bayou/8594

What freedoms do metal detectors restrict? How about the right to carry a pocket knife? I used to have a pocket knife with me since the age of eight (I still do now, 28 years later). I don´t see anything uncommon with that. Here in Europe it is even possible to attend a audience of the pope with a swiss army knife in the pocket. -- "Wherever you go, there you are." (Buckaroo Banzai)

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:2) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @01:19PM EST (#297) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

How about the right to carry a pocket knife? The kid killing kid that I referred to used a knife. If the 12 year old had known she had to walk through a metal detector to get to school, maybe she wouldn't have carried a knife. George

Shivs in Jail (Score:1) by PhilosopherKing on Wednesday October 27, @01:39PM EST (#311) (User Info)

And OH MY! Convicts in jail will actually steal spoons, sharpen them and stab other inmates with the spoon. Cups of slurry to them from now on so everyone will be safe. Couldn't it be that this girl was just bad, as in evil, and would have killed with something else if the pocket knife wasn't available? What is up with the recent object fixations? If she only didn't have a knife? If they only didn't have ready access to automatic firearms? Don't you think there is a deeper problem that you are glossing over by focussing on the method instead of the perpatrator? Some people are just EVIL, you either can lock them away or change them, anything else is just treating symptoms. "But why a spoon and not a knife?"-Sheriff of Knottingham "Becuase it would hurt more!"-False King John

Re:Shivs in Jail (Score:2) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @02:07PM EST (#326) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

You make a good point PhilosopherKing, can you give some links to occasions where people went berserk and killed people with clubs and shivs (and The Cryponomicon doesn't count). There are a lot of deeper problems, single family homes, poverty, lack of love (the murdering girl in question was afraid the victim was stealing her boyfriend). Even if people are just EVIL, how do you propose you find them and lock them up? Maybe someone somewhere can take a look at previously diagnosed EVIL people, right some profiling software to determine if a threatening person is EVIL, ... oops, never mind, Katz will get mad at me. George

Re:Shivs in Jail (Score:1) by PhilosopherKing on Wednesday October 27, @02:33PM EST (#335) (User Info)

Unfortunetly no, I can't give some internet links for where people go berserk and kill with clubs and shivs. The best I can do is point you at the local library and say look up Alcatraz, US prison history,and crimes comitted while in jail. Oh, and especially Jeffrey Dahmer's death. I am deeply offended that you consider a single family home a deeper problem. I am deeply offended that you consider a lack of love a deeper problem. I agree totally that poverty is a deeper problem. I agree totally that the perception of a lack of love is a deeper problem. The 3rd paragraph is an excellent rebutal. No, I do not think profiling software is the answer. Properly used, which is a large caveat, it is closer to the answer than metal detectors and security guards. Remember, I was committing purely on you assertation that the 12 years old girl would not have killed with a knife if she knew she would have had to pass through a metal detector. I'm saying that yes, she may not have brought a knife, but that she would have then used another means to kill, perhaps plastic cutlery or aquiring a knife or brick or sharpend stake from elsewhere in the school. Biology has some nice scapels. Stopping her from using the knife would not have stopped her from doing harm. "There is no way to stop an assasin if they care more for killing thier target than for thier own life. In that situation you can only hope for them to do something stupid." Secret Service member after attempt on Ronald Reagons life.

Re:Shivs in Jail (Score:1) by bakreule on Wednesday October 27, @03:05PM EST (#349) (User Info)

>........ >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.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by Head Louse on Wednesday October 27, @12:41PM EST (#264) (User Info)

First off I don't know if this Mosaic thing is good or bad since no one knows how it works and what criteria it uses. Ok granted metal detecters can be useful but what he is saying is that when our kids grow older they will no longer feel threatened by their loss of privacy. When they become adults and get a job they will see nothing wrong with having the company doing psychological and physical tests on them during the interview. They will no longer feel the threat of having everything they do be tracked by the smart ID card they use not only for purchases but for access to their work, home, car, etc. These systems that will make it easier for use to do teh things we do will also make it easier for anyone to know what we do. They will look at us as overreacting old fools when we refuse to take any job that requires a psychological or physical test. This is already happening by the way - companies that have no real reason to have such tests are making their employees take them. My moms company has recently started this. The new employees have to take a psychological test and a physical exam where they are given a normal health check up and are made to do jumping jacks and push ups. What are these companys doing with this information? What's stopping them from handing it out to insurance companys? I am married and we are planning children. I for one do not want my children to become mindless cows not aware of the killing hammer behing the next turn.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:2) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @01:43PM EST (#312) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

First off I don't know if this Mosaic thing is good or bad since no one knows how it works and what criteria it uses. You can get a good idea how it works by looking at the web page, http://www.mosaic2000.com, but that takes work. Ok granted metal detecters can be useful but what he is saying is that when our kids grow older they will no longer feel threatened by their loss of privacy. This is a valid point, don't I have the option of telling my daughter "metal detectors are a necessary evil, they infringe on your privacy but I think the deterrent affect they provide is more important"? I am married and we are planning children. I for one do not want my children to become mindless cows not aware of the killing hammer behing the next turn. Good for you, remember this conversation when your children go off to school, and think if you want your 12 year old to be a foot soldier in the war against metal detectors, or if you prefer him/her to grow up first and then decide his/her own fate. Well, I for one will teach my daughter not be a mindless cow. I'll tell her why her school has metal detectors and why I'm in favor of them, why we have a large dog, why someone took her pumpkin from the garden, etc. How does being in favor of metal detectors in schools make me a mindless cow? Is it the same as being in favor of DWI laws make me a humorless prude? George

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by Mock (kstenerud@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @11:14PM EST (#434) (User Info)

his is a valid point, don't I have the option of telling my daughter "metal detectors are a necessary evil, they infringe on your privacy but I think the deterrent affect they provide is more important"? They don't really provide that much of a deterrant. If someone has decided that they will attack someone else, but there is a metal detector, they won't simply say "Oh well. Guess I can't do that now". They will do it when the guy is walking home from school, or during lunch break. They will break into the equipment room and get a bat or a golf club. You may be bringing down the number of shootings that occur INSIDE of the school, but you certainly are not bringing down the number of shootings themselves. About the best you could do is stop the victims from bringing weapons to defend themselves. One thing that leaps to mind is the recent legislation in South Africa that makes it legal to shoot car thieves. Strangely enough, car theft dropped sharply after that. Remember: They prey on the weak.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by jagger on Wednesday October 27, @12:42PM EST (#265) (User Info) http://www.oznog.org/

The point that laetus is trying to make is that by adding such devices to schools kids are becoming desensitised to them. The next generation wont question why for example we need soldiers on every street corner to stop violence. Everytime we are subjected to random searches for contraband we are giving up a small amount of freedom. I have no problem with metal detectors in places where they are appropriate.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:2) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @01:47PM EST (#316) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

I have no problem with metal detectors in places where they are appropriate. This is my point! The city high schools my daughter will attend are unfortunately dangerous, a short term band aid is metal detectors, a longer term one is reducing the poverty in the city. Does laetus have kids? Where does he/she send the school if he/she does? George

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by RobSweeney (rjs@rsie.com) on Wednesday October 27, @12:47PM EST (#270) (User Info) http://www.rsie.com/

What freedoms do metal detectors restrict? Maybe the freedom to do basic things, like participate in your government, and travel, and be educated, without submitting to search? What freedoms do armed guards restrict? Maybe the freedom to not be under constant evaluation by said armed guard as a potential threat? (it's a bit disconcerting when an armed man is watching your every move) Of course it's ok just so long as those doing the metal detecting and armed guarding agree with you on what is and is not acceptable behavior. But if there's ever a difference of opinion, you're not in much of a position to do much of anything.

Metal detectors and guards, false security (Score:1) by PhilosopherKing on Wednesday October 27, @01:28PM EST (#303) (User Info)

As a thought experiment, lets suppose you have a school with metal detectors and guards. Lets further suppose you have decided to attempt to attack several students with automatic gun fire. THOUGHT EXPERIMENT!!! Chill! Now we assume you have access to automatic weapons and at least one accomplice. You now must get past metal detectors that are in a fixed location and are manned in a highly patterned way. How do you get through them? You don't, only an idiot would try to sneak a gun through a metal detector. Unless it is ceramic, which we will assume your weapons are not. Thus you use another entrance. Assuming they are locked in some form from the outside you have probly more than a dozen ways of sneaking them in. I of course can't list any as they would be very specific to the building and the usage patterns. Personally, from an attackers point of view, metal detectors actually make a masacre situation easier to carry out by creating more "patterns in usage" which all tacticians love to take advantage of. You spinkle a few false positives that weeks before which hieghtens sensitivity, then have a day or two of normal opperation to take the administration into the trough of responsiveness. This coupled with the already false security afforded by the detectors would put the adminstration firmly behind the eight ball in responsiveness. As for the security guards, this would also be highly dependant on patterns of usage. Do they walk the same predetermined patterns of the halls. What is the repsonse of calls for aid, fire alarms, etc. Do they carry guns? stun guns? billy clubs? pepper spray? Are they locally known in the community or hired thugs from outside? (This can highly effect the likelyhood of returning fire) For the security guards I would use smoke bombs and lady-finger firecrackers to sow confusion. If they are trigger happy, they may end up killing more students in smokey hallways than the actually perpetrators. Tactical combat says to turn a negative into a positive, use the guards to your advantage. As for all the other fire-code mandated exits that are possibly locked to prevent entrance, you now have multiple blind alleys to herd individuals into. Now that I'm done scaring myself let me say my opinion is that metal detectors are bad. They harass good students by making it a wrong to bring metal to school. And as for the future shootists, they will boil until they find a way around the problem. Whereas without metal detectors good students aren't harassed. Bad students will come to school with knives and crowbars, but then you can identify them before they move up to hand guns and pipe bombs. As for security guards it is much the same, good students WILL be harassed, there is nothing you can do to elimante that. And bad students will avoid them or use them to harass the good students. (Sneak a pound of Mary Jane into school and stuff it into lockers, bags, etc.) Pretty much all parents and adminstration is saying is we can't solve the problem, so we will "Duck and Cover". Tommy the Turtle says. "Duck, and cover."

Re:Metal detectors and guards, false security (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @02:08PM EST (#327)

Dude, you forgot the part about stealing the Harrier and strafing the school...

Re:Metal detectors and guards, false security (Score:1) by PhilosopherKing on Wednesday October 27, @02:50PM EST (#341) (User Info)

Too much Tom Clancy rots your brain, and all I did was read the back covers of three books.

Re:Metal detectors and guards, false security (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @03:18PM EST (#354)

In general, I'd agree with you - but for one problem. Most attacks are carried out by idiots, not by long-suffering intellectuals with a grudge. Scenario: The local dumbass pusher has decided that his bitch is too uppity, so he thinks to bring a gun. Two sub-scenarios progress from this: He remembers the guards and the metal detectors, and just skips school. He doesn't remember the guards and the metal detectors, and gets busted by Old Mr. McGregor. Maybe shoots the guard when the gun comes into contention. In either case, the guards and metal detectors have made a difference. That said, I agree with most of what's been said about a generation of kids being raised as sheep. What's the alternative? Restricting gun ownership? That'll just end up disarming the people that would have been (previously) able to defend their homes and persons; and there'd be a supply of illegal guns for years to come, for all those that didn't comply with the restrictions. I think it comes down to a cultural change - I enjoy violent games, television, etc. But I also recognize that I've become quite desensitized to violence along the way. Frankly, executing someone doesn't sound as bad as it might - and I do indeed attribute that to having seen such executions glorified every time I turned to an avenue of entertainment. How many mafia movies have you seen? Doesn't it look cool to kill someone? Look at the prestige that gained the killer. Welcome to impressionability, and the new dynamic Morality.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by Chandon Seldon (acorn@gis.net) on Wednesday October 27, @03:25PM EST (#361) (User Info) http://www.calug.net/

What freedoms do metal detectors restrict? I bring a laptop to school every day. I don't know what a metal detector would do to my laptop and I don't want to know. If my school had a metal detector and armed guards, and actually took it seriously, my school entry procedure would be as follows. Get to school Wait in line to go through metal detector Get to metal detector, take off backpack. Remove laptop case from backpack Hand laptop case to armed guard Watch armed guard search laptop case for weapons, as I don't trust the armed guard to not screw up my laptop. Find all keys/tools/loose coinage/etc I'm carrying. Place keys/tools/loose coinage/etc in plastic bin Answer questions about why I'm carrying a set of screwdrivers Walk through metal detector. Listen to alarm go off Walk back through metal detector to try to figure out what set off alarm Relize that belt buckle is partly metal. Remove belt Walk through metal detector again. Re-assemble myself (Actually 3-4 steps, but...) Get to class late Get assigned detention for being late to class. The only solution would be for me to get to school 20-30 minutes early every day, and if that's not restricting my freedoms.... -------- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. -Chandon Seldon

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by skepticphilosopher (jrbobdobs@spammers.will.be.crucified.hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @05:38PM EST (#393) (User Info)

in fifth grade i was a mamber of the boy scouts, one weekend we went on a camping trip which required a short hike in. since I was new to scouting the only think I had to carry all the things I needed for the weekend was my school backpack. one of the many things i took was a swiss army knife, a TOOL of much value in the wilderness. upon my return I unpacked my backpack and refilled it with school books and such. at this time I discovered that my knife was nowhere to be found. after searching my pack again i was still unable to locate it, so I chalked it up as lost in the woods. several days later while sitting in class I was digging around in my pack for a pencil when what should I find but my lost swiss army knife. knowing that having a weapon at school resulted in a severe penalty, and it might be interpreted as a weapon, I decided to approach my teacher with the knife and explain the situation to her, certinally I thought she would understand and simply take the knife and return it to my mother, WRONG!!! I was run out of that school faster than you can say ignorant, despite the advocation of my mother, my scoutmaster, and a lawyer. now despite the fact that it is almost impossible to actually hurt somebody who doesnt want to be with a basic swiss army knife, if I had any violent intention i would not have turned it in myself, but here I am in fifth grade facing possible criminal weapons charges for doing what I had always been taught was the right thing. My record as of my graduation still reflected a weapons charge and suspension, you know the same record they send people who are considering you for a schlorship in collage. so here I am today at 22 years old, in collage with god knows a swiss army knife, and two screwdrivers in my backpack and uncountable other tools and objects in the trunk of my car. all of these objects would be considered a weapon were I to be found with them in a high school today. Now the question I put to you is do you really want people with this mentality going through the personal belongings of your child, remember in at least all the public schools I attended possession of a watergun and possession of a nine mm beretta were the same offense. little paper whippersnappers, fireworks you can safely detonate in your mouth, are the same offense as pipe bombs just think about all the things you use on a regular basis that some overzealous principle might consider to be breaking some rule. screwdrivers, nailfiles, tire tools (hope you dont get a flat in the school parking lot), leatherman tools, swiss army knives, pliers, wrenches, all of these would have been considered weapons at schools I have attended. I shudder to think what my employment prospects would be like if my collage could get a computer file like mosaic, considering the event related above. probably involving the eternal question "would you like fries with that" Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by thopkins on Wednesday October 27, @07:09PM EST (#403) (User Info)

How will a metal detector stop anything? If the person has a gun what will stop them from walking right through it? -- ICQ: 15630316

Re:What's wrong with metal detectors and guards? (Score:1) by ronfar on Wednesday October 27, @10:55PM EST (#431) (User Info) http://members.tripod.com/gamesandpolitics/

Metal Detectors and guards are there to cover up a major flaw in America's school systems, that's what's wrong with them. Do you think we always needed these? The fact is, as schools become more locked down, they are starting to resemble juvenile halls or reform schools. Why? Are all students criminals? Potential criminals? No. I believe that the problem is that students who actually are criminals are not seperated from the general student population. Remember, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had commited actual crimes before they went on their killing spree. So why were they stuck in that cavernous school with law abiding students? So, we make Americas schools into forbidding, prison-like environments, because we plan to leave the criminally inclined student with the general population. It doesn't take what is likely to be this bad, buggy program called "Mosaic" to solve this problem. I think "Mosaic" is going to identify the wrong people, I have little faith in software miracles that are doing a job that should be handled by a school psychologist. Besides, I do believe in the notion that a person should not be convicted because of their desires but only their actions. Once a student is judged guilty of any serious crime, that student needs to be removed from the general population and placed in a seperate school system. Nothing else will protect the other students from violence effectively.

Re:Training Young Americans for Big Brother (Score:2, Interesting) by timon (timon@webgurus.com) on Wednesday October 27, @12:51PM EST (#273) (User Info) http://www.webgurus.com

When they graduate and enter the world at large, they will be coming from a heavily-restricted environment and perhaps will be less willing to question lawmakers and special-interest groups who would propose laws that restrict our freedoms in the name of safety. Isn't that the point of schools, after all? The American school system owes much more to Henry Ford's need to have well-disciplined factory workers than it does to any romantic notions of educational enlightenment. That's why so many high school grads are functionally illiterate these days. Will MOSIAC catch the winning football team captain who savagely beats his girlfriend? Only if the chances for winning State had already been lost... what about the out-of-control rich kid whose parents are quick with the lawsuit? Expensive legal action is a bigger threat to schools than mass violence, which makes the profiling choice baffling. -- Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence

Public school is turning into public prison (Score:1) by Owen Lynn on Wednesday October 27, @06:50PM EST (#402) (User Info) http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/fnord

We're not that far away from this dystopian ideal. We really aren't. This has been a trend for a while, only now has it gotten bad enough for people to sit up and take notice. If we were really honest we would just merge juvies with high schools, and be done with it. Perhaps someone will propose it as a money saving measure.

Definitely... (Score:2, Flamebait) by nano-second (fetid@swamp.bog) on Wednesday October 27, @11:15AM EST (#182) (User Info)

Katz's articles seem to be getting more incendiary and less informed every time... The program (which none of us has seen anyways) sounds like it is a lot more sophisticated than Katz suggests. It appears to have been utilised in reputable places, and has a lot of expertise behind it. I got the impression from the original article that this tool used a lot of factors and comparative information to judge what school administrators input about a student. It says that it differentiates between those who are just making threats and those who will carry through on threats. If that's true, it sounds like it might be useful. I certainly didn't get the idea that geeks would be singled out by this tool -if used correctly- and persecuted. I think clueless teachers/counselors might create a profile for a geek/non-coformist, but it sounds like this program is designed to judge such a person unharmful. Of course, all this is dependant on the fact that Mosaic 2000 works like it says it does and that administrators use it properly. And mistakes could still be made. And confidential profiles could be disclosed or not discarded or whatever... But I hardly think it's worth the uninformed FUD, that Katz is spreading. We all need to learn a little more about this program before we judge it. Sure I'm wary of it, but at this point, hardly panicking. --- Linux, the choice of a GNU generation

Too little, or too much. There's no in between. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @11:47AM EST (#212)

Honestly, looking at the profiles of the Columbine kids, either me and all of my friends would have been marked, or those two would have fallen through the cracks. My best friend was a morphine addict, we were from mixed income brackets, one of my friends burned down his garage with a home made flame thrower. We were angry, wrote questionable stories and poetry, and between us logged months in juvie hall and mental institutions. We were link them, from the loud music, to the black trench coats, to speaking in forien languages in the hall (from French to Russian.) I'm sure there are a lot of kids like us. Although only some of us didn't go on to college, and some are doing better than others, we all went on to lead productive lives with no serious jail time and relatively few addictions (mostly niccotine and alcohol.) My point is that if the computer would have caught the kids who shot up thier school, it would have caught a lot of other kids. If it didn't catch us, it wouldn't have caught those kids in Colorado. After all, it would have been an amazing program to distinguish us from them.

Re:Too little, or too much. There's no in between. (Score:1) by Optical_Delusion on Wednesday October 27, @07:18PM EST (#407) (User Info)

one of my friends burned down his garage with a home made flame thrower. I don't mean this to be flame bait or anytihng, but quite honestly, I would hope burning down your garage with a flame thrower does put someone into the 'watch a little closer' catergory. Besides, the only thing this will catch are the stupid violent types, anyone with half a brain will either go turn the thing off, or just limit what they do on school computers. If it is a poll thing, anyone with half a brain when asked "Have you ever considered bringing a gun to school" would hit the no button with out a second thought, despite what they actually have thought about. O.D.

Re:Definitely... (Score:1) by rico23 on Wednesday October 27, @12:13PM EST (#239) (User Info)

...to judge what school administrators input about a student Would you want the ability to buy a house, get a job, anything in your life to be in the hands of your worst enemy? That's a distinct possibility if you're gathering data on individuals based on other people's perceptions of that person. It's pretty useless at best, and DANGEROUS at worst. When I was in middle school, I had a teacher that hated me for some reason. Everyone caught on, and I could successfully get blamed for anything that happened in class. If that teacher had had control of someething like this, I would have been out on my ass. No future for you!! I'm not particularly paranoid, but boy, this really worries me. Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

Conspiracy theories or what??? (Score:2) by nano-second (fetid@swamp.bog) on Wednesday October 27, @12:35PM EST (#259) (User Info)

Would you want the ability to buy a house, get a job, anything in your life to be in the hands of your worst enemy? Um... whoah... buy a house?? get a job??? where did you get the impression that this program will affect those things?! This program is supposed to identify who among the students who make threats is likely to carry through! As I stated, there would be concerns about confidentiality and what was done with this information after you left the school. However, I think you've picked up on too much of Katz's FUD. A single teacher would likely have very little ability to change the output of such a program ... it's not going to rate you based on how much your teacher's dislike you! I imagine such a teacher would have to make up a lot of imaginary incidents before it could rate someone unharmful as dangerous. And besides, it's a program designed to help identify possible problems... if it's used properly (and isn't that the REAL issue here?) it will allow administrators to find out who isn't a threat and whose actions need to be taken seriously. Of course it could be abused, like EVERYTHING school officials control. The point is, that the program might be useful or at least harmless if used PROPERLY. That's always an issue though, and if they didn't have the program, they'd have soemthing else. Better to use a program that has a knowledge base behind it to judge a student, than an educator who doesn't know much about what indicates an actual threat, as opposed to a perceived one. This is a tool like any other. If abused it will cause harm, if used properly, it could help. If you're so worried, go find out more about how it's worked and been used in the federal court system and at Yale. Neither the original article nor Katz's feature offer much more than speculation and opinions. --- Linux, the choice of a GNU generation

Re:Conspiracy theories or what??? (Score:1, Insightful) by alizard (alizard[spam]@ecis.com) on Wednesday October 27, @02:50PM EST (#342) (User Info) http://www.ecis.com/~alizard

"Um... whoah... buy a house?? get a job??? where did you get the impression that this program will affect those things?! " The fact that a student even received a MOSAIC evaluation, i.e. was considered enough of a possible threat to require special security screening will be part of his student record. The results of that evaluation will be part of his student record. That student record will follow that person around for the rest of his life. Planning on getting a job requiring a security clearance? If you think that this software will be used only by sincere, knowledgable, and well-intentioned school administrators with only the best interests of the students at heart... and that the average school admin has any idea as to what those best interests are, you didn't learn a whole lot in public schools, did you? y2k info - http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/y2k.html Littleton comments - http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/littleto.html

Re:Conspiracy theories or what??? (Score:1) by rico23 on Thursday October 28, @07:13PM EST (#470) (User Info)

OK, I made an analogy that seemed to sail over people's heads. Computers are used to evaluate personality tests for jobs, acceptace for mortgage applications. You fill them out. Now, had that responsibility over to someone who hates you. You won't get that job, you won't get that mortgage. No house, no living. As for that teacher that hated me and how that couldn't affect the m-2k scenario: remember that the ADMINISTRATION, not the student, fills out the evaluation. That particular teacher almost got me suspended for 'participating' in a near-riot fight. Several students told him I was there, so he told the principal I was there. The only thing that stopped me from getting suspended was that another teacher told the principal that I was with her. Nothing happened to the teacher. On the other hand, in high school the vice principal in charge of discipline loved me because I never caused trouble, unlike my brother. He actually stopped me from getting suspended once. If he had been in charge of adminstering the test, I would have passed with flying colors no matter what. Sorry for the apparent confusion. Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

Reputable Places making Irreputable Decessions (Score:1) by PhilosopherKing on Wednesday October 27, @12:44PM EST (#267) (User Info)

I read a book around age thirteen on the effects of radiation. Such as how many rads a scorpion could take before dying, the dosage that would cause human sterility, etc. You get the idea. It was mostly composed from documents from the military about nuclear testing. In one chapter it talked about some of the extranious info that they compiled. One was a document from a general or admiral, a higher up, that green plastic trash bags offer protection against radiation. Not black, or white, or beige, or brown, but only GREEN platic trash bags. This nugget of information has been the seed for all my skepticism about Reputable People Making Irreputable Decessions. FYI & most definitely off topic.

Re:Reputable Places making Irreputable Decessions (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @01:06PM EST (#287)

Moderate this up, please. It is somewhat profound...

Must have built-in handle ties... (Score:1) by A Big Gnu Thrush on Wednesday October 27, @01:09PM EST (#289) (User Info)

...for the GREEN trash bage to be effective. Many a scorpion have died because of this oversight. Careful out there, kids! The General's oversight in this matter is disturbing.

Anybody else looked at the Mosaic 2000 site? (Score:1) by alizard (alizard[spam]@ecis.com) on Wednesday October 27, @03:46PM EST (#373) (User Info) http://www.ecis.com/~alizard

But I hardly think it's worth the uninformed FUD, that Katz is spreading. We all need to learn a little more about this program before we judge it. Sure I'm wary of it, but at this point, hardly panicking. ----------------- end quote The problem here is that by the time such a program becomes universally adopted by the public schools, it'll be way the hell too late for the victims, and from my look at the http://www.gdbinc.com/mosaic2000.htm site, I expect that there will be some. How many people here who are expressing faith in this unproved piece of software have even bothered to check out what its DEVELOPERS have to say about it? The thing of most concern here is that Mosaic 2000 was designed without substantial input from students... or teachers. I suppose that we should be happy that one token student and one token teacher were allowed to participate in the Mosaic 2000 advisory board. Due diligence in sanity-checking the initial assumptions on which an expert system is programmed is far more important here than it is in most cases, and I don't see this here. From the description provided by the developers, I think that the assumptions underlying Mosaic were an exercise in groupthink... from the kind of people who design the kinds of environments which make Littletons not only possible, but inevitable. y2k info - http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/y2k.html Littleton comments - http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/littleto.html

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by xmedar on Wednesday October 27, @11:18AM EST (#183) (User Info)

I agree, it "might" be an overreaction, it seems to me that we need some independent body to vet this product, just like they do for novel foods and drugs, as it has the potential to be very negative or very positive, why not a trial, see what the ratios of false positives and negatives is and have it published like real sceintific data?

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by xmedar on Wednesday October 27, @11:26AM EST (#192) (User Info)

Almost forgot, I was once rated by one computer psychometric test and I quote :- "This man is dangerous, he does not believe in law, only justice"

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by AndroSyn on Wednesday October 27, @11:18AM EST (#187) (User Info) http://www.ods.org/

Yes we may not know how it works, but in general my attitude is there is no subsititute for a real living breathing professional to make psychological evaluations. Of course the real problem is, most school administrators don't have the foggiest clue as to who is really in trouble and who is not. Why do you think the problems with alcohol abuse go basically unnoticed by school administrators? Because the ones who have it are "good kids" you know the ones who are popular and appear to have everything organized in their live. Never mind the fact that they are blowing Daddys money on cheap beer and sexually assulting teenage girls in the back seat of their parents SUV. Yes I know that some of us geeks have are share of problems to. But how many of us would even think about going apeshit and shooting up a school full of people. Most geeks are far to smart for that and will get their revenge in more subtle ways. All the while the school administrators are busy trying to think of ways to get rid of "problem students" as in students who just don't go with the flow of things. I know all about this from personal experience. I damn near didn't graduate because of a crackpot school administrator who was just looking for a reason to get me out of "his school". Conformity isn't really my thing and I made this fact well known. What schools really need to be doing is taking advantage of the nonconformists new ways of thinking. Just think if the founding fathers of U.S. were conformist. The U.S. wouldn't exist and we'd still be royal subjects. Rebellion is really the true nature of the American spirit. Its a shame that nobody ever stops to realize it.... I'm done ranting now :P Aaron "Everyone be cool or nobody gets to ride in the Bonneville"

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by hollow_man (forgotten@hollowman.org) on Wednesday October 27, @11:18AM EST (#188) (User Info) http://www.hollowman.org

I am very worried indeed. After Columbine it's obvious that they will target people who different. People in control are always afraid of diversity because that breaks up control they have over a group! Are you really willing to surrender basic rights for that little bit of extra security? "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin -- Full Time Idiot and Miserable Sod Nothing is real but the pain

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by elflord on Wednesday October 27, @11:28AM EST (#194) (User Info) http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord

You know, I couldn't agree more with you. The slashdot reaction disgusts and dissappoints me. We are hearing all of these people who fancy themselves as individuals blindly echoing the "slashdot party line". I am reminded of the "two minutes of hate" in 1984 -- where everyone gets together and screams their rage at their enemy ( in this case, the enemy is the "geek profiler" ). Thanks for adding something a little different to the debate (-; --Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Worst-case scenario (Score:2) by drox (drox@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @11:48AM EST (#215) (User Info)

Is Katz (and others who have "sounded the alarm" over Mosaic) overreacting? Maybe. But there is value in examining the worst possible outcome of any new tool. It helps to be prepared for the bad things that might emerge as unintended consequences of things like Mosaic, even if they never occur. It's a bit hasty to assume that it's going to single out the people who are different No it's not. That's what it's meant to do. The important part is to distinguish between the different-but-harmless person (the geek or goth who listens to loud music or dresses funny), and the different-and-dangerous person (the geek or goth who blows up abortion clinics or shoots up the school). Can Mosaic do that? I don't know. Mosaic is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. Please use only for good. Unintended consequences are inevitable. Unforseen consequences are not.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by Pertinax on Wednesday October 27, @12:00PM EST (#226) (User Info)

It sounds to me like they are trying to deal with the effect rather than the cause. A good portion of the times it is the "jocks teasing the nerds" to use a stereotypical cliché. Too often people see the fringe as being different and possibly violent as a result. It is analogous to saying that because "you are interested in shooting sports you are psychotic" or "Because you are black and live in the city, you are poor and probably a criminal". These kind of brash generalizations based on a few over publicized incidents are hurtful and destructive. When a large percentage of the class teases, torments, or shuns someone for being different and this kind of behavior continues on a similar scale for several years it does have the effect of making people angry and depressed. Teachers and administrators need to pay more attention to such actions and be more willing deal with it. When I was in schoolteachers were scared of angry phone calls from parents for punishing someone or simply brushed it aside as normal behavior to constantly tease the fringe. A computer can only tell you who might act out not why. This whole idea is a politically correct Band-Aid designed to give schools and parents a false sense of security. I can all but guarantee that this system will be abused and misused and will most likely be the cause of a plethora of highly amusing civil suits. One of the things that bother me the post is the way it was presented in the article. The constant use of the line: "…we don't ant to label kids….", "…this isn't designed to label kids…". The whole idea is to "label" potentially "dangerous" kids. I would like someone to explain to me how this is not going to label kids. Mosaic is simply a p.c., Orwellian fix for a declining problem. As for being on the fringe: 1. Why is it all the "computer nerds" I know all have $30.00+/hr. summer jobs and most others work at McDonalds or the local super market? 2. I am a wolf you they are the sheep, each group herded by a different shepherd. 3. I have two reasons why I am considered to be a "dangerous" individual: I am on the "fringe" and I shoot… Good then I won't be bothered by those with a holier-than-thou, I'm more popular, politically correct attitude. "He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the Future" -Orwell 1984 "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by Lanir (lanir@REMOVE_THISwildmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @01:34PM EST (#307) (User Info) http://members.xoom.com/Lanir

Ok, I'm going to give an example here pulled from my memory of history. I'm pretty sure this is right but not certain. It's the 'memory' part of that statement that scares me. ;) The first step Hitler took on the road to the Jewish Holocaust was a harmless one. They were all supposed to wear a Star of David to mark them as being Jewish. Different. You're smart. Think about it. Oh, and just for the record, no, I don't think this program means children will start being sent off to camps and slaughtered in droves. If you need to read that into it, go read "A Modest Proposal" by Swift and conveniently forget that it's satire. The whole point here is just that separating people out into groups tends to be an inherently dangerous thing. It's not the information that's bad. It's the -extreme- potential for abuse. Remember, the people who are going to be using this are the ones who're responsible for not having let it get this bad in the first place. Teachers and parents. The kids are just a prize in the middle for whoever wins this little corner of the information war. -Lanir P.S. Doubt the accuracy of any of this? Doubt something Katz said? Look up the statistics! Find out for yourself. Libraries make good resources and ironically enough, even a school library should be quite sufficient to the task. Don't be afraid to ask for help.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by Chandon Seldon (acorn@gis.net) on Wednesday October 27, @03:09PM EST (#351) (User Info) http://www.calug.net/

Any case of a wide spread, automated system to catigorize people into "acceptable" and "dangerous" is a Bad Thing(tm). I don't care how it works, or what it outputs, I just don't want people's answer to a set of questions to result in a psycological profile that will affect their lives and follow them for an indefinate length of time! -------- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. -Chandon Seldon

Permanent Records! Oh My! (Score:1) by PhilosopherKing on Wednesday October 27, @03:47PM EST (#374) (User Info)

Mr(s). Guidence Counselor - "Timmy, this program here, Mosaic, says you will become a homicidal maniac by age 17. Well mister, this is going in your permanent record."

Re:Overreaction? - Right reaction, wrong target (Score:3, Interesting) by Jeremy Lee (jeremyl@hrmc.com.au@antispam.net) on Wednesday October 27, @09:34PM EST (#427) (User Info) http://i.am/orinoco

Generally I like Jon's stuff. I can see why he's gone into incandescent rant mode here. He suffers from the curse of believing that people will act rationally, given a chance to reflect. What Mosaic does is irrelevant. It is just a technical justification do continue doing what the majority really want to do anyway, but can't justify otherwise. It's an artificial way to produce evidence. Drag any student in front of a 'psychological testing machine' and you'll likely get an angry reaction. He scored an 8! Great, now we can punish him, like we always wanted. US Culture is simply no longer capable of rational discourse or action. Jon has gone to fury because he doesn't want to admit this. Which is funny, because that's the problem. Somewhere, you guys picked up a massive superiority complex, and so you can't actually admit that there's anything wrong with America(TM). The taint is everywhere. It's part of your cultural doctrine. And since America is perfect, by axiom, then any yawning pit of hollowness inside your soul must be your problem, and anyone shouting "No! This is all wrong!" must be silenced. Because they might be right. And you don't want to think about that. At least, that's the majority view. And you can't change it, either. It's deep-seated, and reinforced every time they go through the daily American grind or shop at the strip-mall with their babyboomer friends. Something sucked all the life out of your country in the last few decades. I think it was rampant capitalism, or maybe the cold war. Russia seems to have suffered a similar, though more spectacular, fate. Russia is actually an interesting example. Now that their country has obviously collapsed, they're free to go into crisis-management fix-it mode, and make some of those hard choices. They may very well come out of this strong and vibrant. That would be irony. So, just do what the physicists do. Wait for the old generation to die, and a new one to take it's place. The kids are the future. Well educated and flexible, they'll rebuild your sagging culture. Oh, that's right... Jeremy Lee | Orinoco

Boy am i glad i live in sweden! (Score:1) by The Creator (root@internic.net) on Thursday October 28, @10:19AM EST (#460) (User Info) http://fmf.webprovider.com

All though when the fx of EU really kick in i'll probably have to move to norway or island or something!( LINUX stands for: Linux Inux Nux Ux X UNIX stands for: UNIversal eXperts operating system

Some Math (Score:1) by kiwifruit on Thursday October 28, @01:53AM EST (#446) (User Info)

Short answer: It looks like it probably will be either useless or a very bad thing. Long answer: For those of you who took probability and statistics, feel free to check/correct/laugh at my numbers here.... Something funny happens when you test for rare events in a large population, which I'll try to illustrate below: I don't know how accurate Mosaic-2000 is, so I'll talk about a ficticous test, called Mysaic-2000. Assumptions (based on very little): 1) Mysaic-2000 gives a false positive result 5% of the time. A false positive occurs when Mysaic-2000 predicts a dangerous person, when the person is in fact quite harmless. (I have grave doubts that any psyco-sociological profile is anywhere near this accurate). 2) Mysaic-2000 gives a false negative result 1% of the time. A false negative occurs when Mysaic-2000 predicts a safe person who is actually quite dangerous. 3) Genuinely dangerous people are about 1 in 1000. Seriously dangerous here - violent, nasty, willing to use hardware, not just their fists. Question: given that someone has been ranked "seriously dangerous" by Mysaic-2000, what are the odds that they actaully are? In a population of 100,000 people..... 100 seriously dangerous. 99,900 not seriously dangerous. Apply Mysaic-2000 to find out who they are, and here's what you'll get: Of the 100 seriously dangerous people, there will, on average, be 1 false negative (1% false negative rate). 99 of them will by "caught" by Mysaic-2000. OF the 99,900 safe people, there will, on average, be 4,995 false positives (5% false positive rate). So, in a population of 100,000, 100 of whom are genuinely dangerous, Mysaic-2000 will find 5,094 genuine baddies (4,995 + 99). The answer to the above question is this: Given that you have tested positive as a genuinely dangerous person by Mysaic-2000, the odds that you truly are such a person are 100 in 5094. About 1 in 50, or 2%. How the hell did we get such a meaningless result? We're testing for a rare event, that's how. A few false positives among a population of mostly-negatives adds up really quickly. I doubt Mosiac-2000 is actually so accurate it only gives a false positive 5% of the time. Profiling just isn't that accurate when applied to large populations. I don't know how rare really dangerous people are, but the simple fact is that, by and large, most people aren't dangerous. Really dangerous people are *rare*. What's being turned loose here will either be an electronic witch hunt, under the guise of rational, objective data analysis, or a flop. Hope (or pray, or do whatever it is you do to cope with dire potential consequences) that it turns out a flop. "A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five." -Groucho Marx

Re:Some Math (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28, @05:20AM EST (#451)

Kiwi's post is insightful and should be moderated up. The way profiling "works" is quite simple (and this is also the way this program works). You take your known criminals (or whatever specific group you're targeting). You study them by having them fill out questionnaires or whatever. And you make the assumption that whatever differences tend to show up between them and the general population are markers of criminality (or whatever characteristic you're targeting). Then when you look for criminals (or whatever specific group you're targeting) you can use these markers to weed out people that are unlikely to be in the target group. My guess is also that Kiwi's accuracy estimates are too generous and so the problem is probably worse. My guess (and it is a guess) is that more often than not it may even not even work so well to do what it is popularly thought to do best --catching killers by law enforcement (that is, I wonder what the hype to reality ratio is with this technique). I mean, sure, you may get an account of a retrofitted profile that seems to match the Unabomber described in the popular media after the arrest, but did the profiling do anything to catch him? Or you have the Olympic Park bombing and Richard Jewel. The guy got in trouble for one and only one reason, he fit a profile very well (like the pyromaniac who as a firefighter puts out the fires he sets he was supposed to be the mad bomber who likes to play the hero). Or take the killings in Yosemite Park. Law enforcement knew what type of person did those crimes so they had it pretty narrowed down to few suspects who, if I remember correctly, were in prison and therefore not a threat. Only as it happens they were wrong and the killer was on the loose and killed again.

Re:Overreaction? (Score:1) by Felinoid (i69i69i@zcentral.com) on Thursday October 28, @06:01AM EST (#452) (User Info) http://www.meowpawjects.com/

Just from what I have read so far I can tell it's a personality profile type program. Such programs have been around for personal use for a long time. They all come with a disclammer stating that the program isn't reliable. It'll be based on the preconseptions of the auther. If a psycologest feels his own basic personaly profile program isn't reliable then consider the reliablity of an indepth personality profile program writen by a security company.

Geek-American (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:25AM EST (#5)

Hey cool! We've got a new "minority group" to protect. The Geek-American Liberation League will be there when you need them, with placards and chanting. Soon we'll have Geek-American Cultural Centers on campuses across America, where the Geek-Americans can paint their placards, lay out their leaflets, and plot rebellion. Why do I think that this Katz guy is trying to apply his worn out Liberalism to a new "problem" mainly to breathe life into his aging dogma?

Re:Geek-American (Score:1) by Szoup (szoup@szo.com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:30AM EST (#12) (User Info)

The Geek-American Liberation League GALL? :) ------------------------------------------- I found eternal happiness! Whoops, I just lost it.

Re:Geek-American (Score:1) by jagger on Wednesday October 27, @12:49PM EST (#272) (User Info) http://www.oznog.org/

We could also have the Geek-American Liberation Army (GALA)

Re:Geek-American (Score:1) by Eric Berg on Wednesday October 27, @09:33AM EST (#19) (User Info)

Ah, it is so easy to paste a label like 'Liberal' or 'Conservative' on someone and then just dismiss them out of hand, isn't it? A marvelous short cut to thinking. Rather than wave your prejudices around, why don't you actually try addressing the points made by the article? Offering a critical rebuttal to someone's arguments is much harder than spouting bigotry.

Re:Geek-American (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:57AM EST (#151)

The points made in the article? What's the point? It's a Katz article. I didn't notice YOU raising any issues from the article.

Re:Geek-American (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @11:08AM EST (#173)

If there's anything tired and worn about the idea that individuals are valuable and that other's suffering is bad, I don't see it. And that's what being a liberal is about: giving a shit. -Dave Turner, AC of convinience... "Is it only a dream that there will be no more turning away?" -Pink Floyd

Re:Geek-American (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @11:54AM EST (#221)

Liberals are controlled by their emotions. This is why they make such good "useful idiots".

Re:Geek-American (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @01:21PM EST (#298)

at least liberals don't want to spend the surplus on gassing minorities and the poor

That's Silicon American to you! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @06:10PM EST (#398)

That's Silicon American to you thankyouverymuch! www.geekpride.org Now more important than ever!

MODERATION RDQ! (Score:1) by jsm2 on Wednesday October 27, @12:13PM EST (#238) (User Info)

Might I draw the attention of moderators to the fact that the above piece of Anti-Semitic bullshit has been up for twenty minutes now, and that this reflects rather badly on all of us? jsm

Re:MODERATION RDQ! (Score:1) by coreybrenner (coreybrenner@yahoo.com) on Wednesday October 27, @01:32PM EST (#306) (User Info)

Pardon me, but just what in the fuck are you talking about? Nowhere in his statment (which I thought was actually rather amusing) did he ONCE mention Jewish people. Not ONCE. You, sir, are full of shit. --Corey

thank you for your kind words (Score:1) by jsm2 on Wednesday October 27, @01:53PM EST (#318) (User Info)

I am undoubtedly full of shit, but I must protest that in this instance, you are in fact mistaken. The post to which mine is attached did indeed mention the Jewish people, and it has now been moderated to -1 (thanks). I would surmise that you have your threshold set to 0 or above, so to you it appears that my post is attached to an entirely different one. jsm

Re:thank you for your kind words (Score:1) by coreybrenner (coreybrenner@yahoo.com) on Wednesday October 27, @01:55PM EST (#322) (User Info)

Indeed you are correct. It is I who was mistaken. No doubt we are both full of shit. --Corey

sigh (Score:0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:25AM EST (#7)

Damnit Jon, no "geek students" are "sounding the alarm". You have absolutely no idea about us or about our thought process. Please, STOP TRYING TO EXPLOIT US FOR FINANCIAL GAIN. Let the whole Columbine thing rest already. Stop rehashing it. Haven't you made enough money off of those dead students and their families yet?

Re:sigh (Score:1) by Eric Berg on Wednesday October 27, @09:31AM EST (#14) (User Info)

Somehow a find it highly unlikely that he's making money off of writing these articles. Nice straw man.

Re:sigh (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:40AM EST (#36)

I suppose those banner advertisements are just there for show.. three ad impressions for someone to post a comment, multiply that by the 100 or 200 this story will get, and there's your money.

Re:sigh (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:37AM EST (#128)

The revenue from the banner ads go to Slashdot. Jon does not get payed by Slashdot - he is an independent journalist, who makes money by writing articles for published magazines, such as Wired. He does not post to Slashdot to make money. For you to say that he does not only degrades his journalistic integrity, it degrades Slashdot. I'd suggest you do a little more research before you make wild allegations regarding intent.

Re:sigh (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @11:00AM EST (#157)

Writing articles for Slashdot degrades his journalistic integrity. So what's the use worrying about it now? Has Katz copyrighted the phrase "Hellsmouth" yet? He should, since it's his creation. He's quite a creative writer.

Re:sigh (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:02AM EST (#74)

EXPLOIT US FOR FINANCIAL GAIN slashdot.org. Need I say more?

Re:sigh (Score:1) by frogstomper on Wednesday October 27, @10:41AM EST (#134) (User Info)

Yes, you do - Andover.net, for example.

Re:sigh (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @12:18PM EST (#243)

Good point, but this is still slasdot.org which means the site cannot be used for profit. Any money gained must be used for maintenance of the site, they could probably get away with reasonable living expenses too. But getting rich, no.

Re:sigh (Score:1) by Kaa (subdimensiondotcom!kaa) on Wednesday October 27, @01:30PM EST (#305) (User Info)

Good point, but this is still slasdot.org which means the site cannot be used for profit. And, pray tell, why not? I have not seen any legislation that limits the .org sites to officially registered non-profit organizations. AFAIK, to give an example, Microsoft can set up any number of .org sites and make money off all of them. Kaa Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.

Re:sigh (Score:1) by BoneFlower (tuxedomask19@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @03:32PM EST (#363) (User Info) http://members.xoom.com/docido/

The .org domain is intended for noncommercial ventures. If Slashdot was meant to be a profit making venture, the proper domain would be .com, or maybe .net. If there are no laws preventing a profit making site from .org, there should be. As for microsoft, its fine for them to set up .org sites, for purposes of Msoft sponsored charitys, research ventures shared by the community(propritary research should be .com) and other similar sites. The .org domain is meant for nonprofit use. If it is abused, that does not change its intended purpose.

Re:sigh (Score:1) by Kaa (subdimensiondotcom!kaa) on Wednesday October 27, @03:59PM EST (#380) (User Info)

To requote your original post: the site cannot be used for profit. My point was that there is a big difference between "cannot" and ".org domains were not intended to". Kaa Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.

Re:sigh (Score:1) by BoneFlower (tuxedomask19@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @04:54PM EST (#388) (User Info) http://members.xoom.com/docido/

You are right there. Next time I will be more careful exactly how I state things.

Re:sigh (Score:2) by Effugas (effugas@best.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:11AM EST (#89) (User Info) http://www.doxpara.com

Damnit Jon, no "geek students" are "sounding the alarm". Sure they've been. I'd put down $20 right now he's been getting a steady stream of emails on the topic. I was scared rather shitless myself, considering I spent many a lunch period literally just walking around campus for 50 minutes because I had nowhere to go. Who knows what they might have had the studies to prove if they had my complete psychographic profile by default. I'd have been kicked out for getting to school late. Yours Truly, Dan kaminsky DoxPara Research http://www.doxpara.com P.S. Those dead students? What's a bigger tragedy, dozens of students dead, or dozens of students being asked to leave their high school a year before they graduate because some yahoos shot up the school in their outfit, were weird, and made the cheerleaders nervous? P.P.S. Oh, you did hear that the Trenchcoat Mafia had nothing--zero--zilch to do with the Columbine events, didn't you? Yup, they didn't like the two kids either. Of course, don't expect to see that on ABC News. It was just in the police report that only Salon chose to cover. Debugging is anticipated with distaste, performed with reluctance, and bragged about forever.

WTF? (Score:1) by Ky'dishar on Wednesday October 27, @10:39AM EST (#133) (User Info)

P.S. Those dead students? What's a bigger tragedy, dozens of students dead, or dozens of students being asked to leave their high school a year before they graduate because some yahoos shot up the school in their outfit, were weird, and made the cheerleaders nervous? Are you completely insane?!? I don't care how many people they unjustifiably throw out of school, it's only a fraction of the tradgy of a dozen kids getting murdered! I'm speechless... doumbfounded... agast that you would think something like that...I'm going to just presume that you weren't thinking too well when you said it.

Re:WTF? (Score:2) by Effugas (effugas@best.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:56AM EST (#150) (User Info) http://www.doxpara.com

Are you completely insane?!? I don't care how many people they unjustifiably throw out of school, it's only a fraction of the tradgy of a dozen kids getting murdered! I'm speechless... doumbfounded... agast that you would think something like that...I'm going to just presume that you weren't thinking too well when you said it. Let me rephrase the question, then. Suppose it's fifty years ago, and a town is paralyzed in fear--there's a serial rapist. He's found, he's black, he's lynched. Only a truly cruel and crazed person would violate the town women in that manner--something must be done to make them feel secure--no, to make the town more secure. The remaining black families must be run out of town, or live in eternal fear. Most are run out. Some stay. None feel secure. What's more tragic, I ask you? The women who were raped by the insane, or the families that were exiled by the righteous victims? These aren't idle questions. Stuff like this happened. In some places, it still happens. There are no easy answers, Ky'dishar. That those victimized lash out and create victims anew is probably the most tragic flaw in human nature the world has ever known. It's awful to see innocent children die; it's more awful to see innocent children losing their innocence by culling their herds in an act of retribution. That intolerance and unjustified hate was both denounced and practiced by the same mob scares me more than the acts of two deluded students. Respond, if you read this. I've actually been thinking about this alot lately. Yours Truly, Dan Kaminsky Debugging is anticipated with distaste, performed with reluctance, and bragged about forever.

Re:WTF? (Score:1) by warpeightbot (technomage.no@spam.boortz.com) on Wednesday October 27, @12:28PM EST (#254) (User Info) http://www.babcom.com/~taliesin

Dan Kaminsky wrote: That those victimized lash out and create victims anew is probably the most tragic flaw in human nature the world has ever known. It's awful to see innocent children die; it's more awful to see innocent children losing their innocence by culling their herds in an act of retribution. That intolerance and unjustified hate was both denounced and practiced by the same mob scares me more than the acts of two deluded students. Spot on, sir. The very people who are being victimized, ignored, and abused by the idiots(*) that run the Imperial Federal School System are about to be victimized again, cast out of society altogether, by those same idiots running a computer. Garbage in, Garbage out. Let's take this a step further, and ask, Why? Why would fedgov and its minions want to ostracise the Smart People, remove them from society and cast them into some vast Down Below? (1) to make it easier to indoctrinate the sheeple that are left? (2) to remove the geeks' easy access to the Net, which is their source of power, their way to be heard? And no, I think the assumption that computer profiling is a Bad Thing in general is a safe one; just try to go buy an airline ticket with cash sometime. Particularly if your name is Rodriguez or Al-Shabaar. (*) As for my assertion that the school system is run by idiots, the latest stats out of Princeton, the folks who give the SAT and the GRE, indicated that folks who indicated they were going into Education scored at the bottom of the heap among majors, even below General Studies. (Engineers were at the top, followed by us CS geeks.) Maybe it doesn't fit the technical definition, but I gua-ron-tee your average Slashdotter could run logical circles around your run of the mill high school teacher... I'm sorry, for all the fun and profit we get from these silicon hearted beasts, it is a bad idea to let them be the judge of us, just on principle. Don't care how good it is, not only will somebody eventually fall thru the cracks, but it will lull parents into a false sense of security and make their abandonment of parental responsibility nearly complete. And those are the things that WILL happen even if not one single solitary soul gets mis-labelled by this thing. The Jews have a saying that was formed in the hell that was the Holocaust: Never Again. I suggest we join them in the spirit of that saying, and study up on our early 20th century history, lest we repeat it Real Soon Now. Like in about two months. And before you flame me as alarmist, anal retentive, or just plain out in left field, go study the material, and know whereof you speak. The truth will set you free. ObConstructiveIdea: Get your kids OUT of the public indoctrination facilities. Move to a place where you can afford to either teach them yourself or have them schooled privately. See to it that they have the best education you can get them... it's too late for us, our generation, to fix what ails the current American society. The best we can do is fight a holding action and allow the Old Guard to die off, and our children to carry the torch forward. Instill in them a love for Truth, Justice, and the old-fashioned American Way as Jefferson et al originally envisioned it, accepting those who are Different Than Us, and the importance of passing that heritage on, and eventually, gods willing, this country will survive. If we don't, I wouldn't give a fig for our future in fifty years. o/~ we won't wait any longer / we are stronger than before o/~

Re:WTF? (Score:1) by Ky'dishar on Wednesday October 27, @01:53PM EST (#319) (User Info)

Suppose it's fifty years ago, and a town is paralyzed in fear--there's a serial rapist. He's found, he's black, he's lynched. Only a truly cruel and crazed person would violate the town women in that manner--something must be done to make them feel secure--no, to make the town more secure. The remaining black families must be run out of town, or live in eternal fear. Most are run out. Some stay. None feel secure. What's more tragic, I ask you? The women who were raped by the insane, or the families that were exiled by the righteous victims? That's not a rephrase. When you take the same question and put it in a different context you get a different question. A geeky analogy would be like saying that 5 minus 3 is the same as 5 minus 2 just because they're both the same operation. My point being that even though I'm in strong support of my post (and would be a little appalled if you weren't as well), that doesn't preclude my agreement with you that the story you described is not nearly so black-and-white. Murder is worse then rape, and bieng kicked out of school is not nearly as bad as bieng kicked out of town. I don't really have a yes/no opinion (I gather you don't either) but I can offer some insight and food for though at the least. One of the things you have to be sure to distinguish between is 'actions' and 'attitudes'. In your analysis I think you're focusing on the 'intolerance of the authority' as the evil in question with which your comparing the rape or murder. That's not the same as comparing the results of the actual act of retribution with the act of murder/rape/whatever. Lets take a look at the example you described. Let's presume we agree that the attitude of the authority is a tradgy. So then I ask: why is it a tradgy? Answer: Because it results in an action that is unjust. In this light, the level of tradgy depends on the level of injustice of the action. Rape is also unjust, so the question is simply which is more unjust, which, in turn, requires explicitly defining "justice". That's the question to which there's no easy answer. But...I don't think that's what you're asking. I think you're considering the tradgy of an "attitude of intolerance" as directly related to the *potential* injustice that that attitude could produce. So what I think you're actually intending to ask is for a comparison between a real injustice and a potential injustice. Since we have a hard time defining justice itself, that becomes an extremly tough question. There's no real right answer, mainly because any answer would rely on assumptions and predictions of the future which would be subjective at best. My $0.02 anyway. :) Ky'dishar

Re:WTF? (Score:2) by Effugas (effugas@best.com) on Wednesday October 27, @03:54PM EST (#378) (User Info) http://www.doxpara.com

The circumstances of the relative evils are not what's at issue here. It doesn't matter that Rape is less evil than Murder, nor that losing one's school is somehow less painful than losing one's home. Have you considered that a GED doesn't let you get into many universities? While there is an aspect of the potential, bear in mind that there were immediate responses in both lynch mobs--otherwise innocents were scapegoated and exiled, on the will of those who were once innocents. The mob acted in revulsion and horror at the unthinking, inhuman way their brethren was treated; they proceded to treat Those Of The Enemy in the exact same unthinking and inhuman manner. Do not look at this in terms of travesties of Justice. Look at it in terms of the human tragedy--the transfer of evil from those who committed grevious acts out of isolation or insanity to those who had neither. Think of the kids growing up in Kosovo who want nothing else but to grow up and kill some Serbs. Purely potential, yes--but utterly tragic; possibly more tragic even than the murder of their parents. Again, there are no easy answers. Maybe that's what bothers me about M2K so much. Yours Truly, Dan Kaminsky DoxPara Research http://www.doxpara.com Debugging is anticipated with distaste, performed with reluctance, and bragged about forever.

Re:WTF? (Score:1) by neon_phnx (twmiller@holly.NO_SPAM.colostate.edu) on Wednesday October 27, @11:50AM EST (#218) (User Info) http://www.8thdimension.com/~twmiller/

P.S. Those dead students? What's a bigger tragedy, dozens of students dead, or dozens of students being asked to leave their high school a year before they graduate because some yahoos shot up the school in their outfit, were weird, and made the cheerleaders nervous? Are you completely insane?!? I don't care how many people they unjustifiably throw out of school, it's only a fraction of the tradgy of a dozen kids getting murdered! I'm speechless... doumbfounded... agast that you would think something like that...I'm going to just presume that you weren't thinking too well when you said it. I think that a dozen kids being killed is only a fraction of the tradgedy that our society could produce two kids who couldn't come up with a better way of dealing with the issues that motivated them other than to go on a shooting rampage... Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for the families, but I really think it's about time we (humanity) start working together as a team, or we're destined to fade cheerfully into obscurity. Part of working as a team means acknowledging the fact that we as a society are responsible for things like Columbine, instead of placing all the blame on the attackers and their families. I don't see a computer analyzing program as much of a solution. It strikes me as another means to avoid talking to kids (whether you're their parent, sibling, uncle, pastor, coach, teacher, whatever.) This reminds me of that program I heard on NPR about the hourly grading system where a school system in the midwest set up a voice-mail system so parents can call in and check their kids grades every hour. Whatever happened to asking your kids about their grades? Bah... Where is Chad C. Mulligan when you need him?

Re:WTF? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @02:06PM EST (#325)

Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for the families, but I really think it's about time we (humanity) start working together as a team, or we're destined to fade cheerfully into obscurity. Part of working as a team means acknowledging the fact that we as a society are responsible for things like Columbine, instead of placing all the blame on the attackers and their families. Whoa there. The crux of the problem is contained within this statement. The two nuts who pulled the triggers are the only people responsible for the Columbine tragedy. In a society where no one is expected to take personal responsibility for their own actions, what was to stop them? Hmmm. Vicious cycle, n'est pas?

Re:sigh (Score:1) by Wah (t h e w a h @ uswest . net) on Wednesday October 27, @10:47AM EST (#142) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

he's trying to help. If you read the article you'd see that it was he was contacted first. This is very venomous, have you taken your weekly Violence Aptitude Test yet? if your life passes before your eyes when you die, does that include the part where your life passes before your eyes?

Re:sigh (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @11:02AM EST (#159)

he's trying to help. "We're from the government. We're here to help."

Re:sigh (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @01:43PM EST (#313)

Absolutely right! And, because it says what needs so badly to be said, it gets moderated down. I guess slashdot gets the moderators it deserves. Let the blind lead the blind...

ahh.. paranoia (Score:1) by d_advocate on Wednesday October 27, @09:26AM EST (#8) (User Info)

The ignorant policymakers strike again.

first... (Score:3, Insightful) by Boolean (crap@dontemailme.com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:27AM EST (#9) (User Info)

...off you lie your ass off. I'm still in High School. I have had several suicide tests / depression tests already and the first term isn't over. When Mosiac comes around, I do 1) lie my ass off and say what they want to hear from a "normal" kid OR 2) Do what I did on all the other tests which is fill in every answer and stick a big ole MYOB on the bottom. When the teacher asks you what the hell you think you're doing and that this is serious you ask "Why, this was supposed to be an annonymous test, why are you looking at mine? If you didn't look at mine, how do you know this?" That gets them pretty mad, but eh, its funny to watch them try to come up with an answer >:) Why are you reading this?

Re:first... (Score:3, Insightful) by rde (rde(at)ireland(dot)com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:37AM EST (#27) (User Info) http://www.irelands-web.ie/rde

...off you lie your ass off. That's an excellent solution, but only if they ask you questions. Do you ever sit by yourself? Do you engage in subversive activities such as reading when you could be playing football? Do you point out that your teacher is occasionally wrong? But before we continue attacking the teachers, it's important to remember one thing: they're doing it for the good of the kids. The fact that they're clueless and making a bad situation worse is unfortunate, but ultimately they're on the side of the angels. Why do I mention this? Because the first reaction of angry /.ers is to blame the teachers, flame them, and otherwise convince them that computer nerds are dangerous. Rational argument is the only solution. Of course, you've still got to convince the teaches that an argument is worthwhile. I don't know the solution. But I do know it involves education.

Re:first... (Score:1) by angelo (anrkngl@fubar_lm.com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:43AM EST (#43) (User Info) http://www.lm.com/~anrkngl

they're doing it for the good of the kids. That sounds familliar.. Like the "Nuclear non-test treaty" and other events where they get like 10 children to watch the president sign. Or when they tell you that the profiling is for your childs own good. When you argue with them about their terms, they simply tell you that "it's in the child's best interest and if you refuse, we'll have to assume you are against your child's best interest, and by the way, have you ever had to deal with Child/Youth services, and ya'know they can take your kids away.*" Children are a method of coersion like any other. Bureaucracy will use any leverage to contro you. They pick your children to twist your arm. * paraphrased from Rising Stars #1 by JMS Angelo

Re:first... (Score:1) by rde (rde(at)ireland(dot)com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:53AM EST (#60) (User Info) http://www.irelands-web.ie/rde

Children are a method of coersion like any other No argument. But it would be a mistake to assume that teachers are using profiling such as this as a method of coercion; most teachers honestly believe that this is best for the kids. While there's no doubt that "for the kids" is a rallying cry for assholes everywhere, it's so effective becuse people do care about kids; it's just that caring and doing something effective are two radically different things. The only answer is to educate these people. This is easy for me to say, as I'm neither an American nor a student, but I'd like to see geeks everywhere wear trenchcoats to school. Inside the coat pocket of this trenchcoat I'd like to see everyone keep a printout of the confirmation that the Columbine shooter weren't part of the Trenchcoat Mafia. Civil disobedience is a much-underused weapon.

Re:first... (Score:1) by vitaflo on Wednesday October 27, @09:59AM EST (#70) (User Info) http://www.vitaflo.com

But before we continue attacking the teachers, it's important to remember one thing: they're doing it for the good of the kids. Or better yet, they're doing it because it's their job to. A majority of my friends are teachers and I hear stories from the classroom all the time. The outlook I had on teaching when I was a kid and the outlook I have now are totally different. Most teachers look at teaching as an underappreciated job. When I make more in two years in computing than most teachers who have put in 20+ years in teaching, it's easy to understand why. Teachers aren't the moral do-gooders who don't understand the kids. They're in touch with them every day. However, when your school board tells you to do something in your class, it's thier way or the highway. Obviously they comply, since there aren't many quality teaching positions and too many teachers, and getting canned or bad reccomendations means the end of a career for good. So don't blame the teachers like it's thier fault that this is happening. They probably feel the same way about it as we do on /.

Re:first... (Score:1) by Twyst (twyst@twysted.net) on Wednesday October 27, @10:50AM EST (#145) (User Info)

they're doing it for the good of the kids. The fact that they're clueless and making a bad situation worse is unfortunate, but ultimately they're on the side of the angels. That is the single most encompassing excuse to do anything. "It's for their own good." If you keep saying that, where does it stop? "We sterilized these mentally defective people for their own good." "Sorry, Billy, we have to put you under guard for your own good" "We killed those people because they were different, and could never fit in. It was for their own good." Yes, I'm mostly exaggerating. I'm trying to make a point. It frightens me that a government can do anything they want, just by saying it's for the good of the people. If they can convince themselves "It's for their own good", or "it's for the good of the people", that's when I'd be watching my back. Ever read 1984? I hope so. This world is getting more Orwellian all the time. -- A Social Life? Where do I download that from?

Re:first... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @01:16PM EST (#293)

But before we continue attacking the teachers, it's important to remember one thing: they're doing it for the good of the kids. The fact that they're clueless and making a bad situation worse is unfortunate, but ultimately they're on the side of the angels. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Why High School? (Score:2) by Rabbins (robbins@rickjames.IEATSPAM.sapien.net) on Wednesday October 27, @09:40AM EST (#35) (User Info) http://k-swimming.org

I would have done the same thing in high school. While I have no problem with testing being done, this testing should be implemented at a much younger age than high school. Most kids have learned to lie way too well by high school age. And it is much more difficult to council a high schooler (not saying a waste of time mind you). But if there are problems, they can and should be identified WAY before high school. I just see much more value to counciling at a younger age, when a lot of habits are still being formed. *I am the bully who made gradeschool a living hell for you and all your geek friends... and now I've found you!

The value of falsehood (Score:1) by DrFardook (lycos@bway.net) on Wednesday October 27, @09:42AM EST (#40) (User Info) http://www.bway.net/~lycos

I got through high school by not saying anything. Then when I got to college I began to regret never saying anything. There's a certain value in speaking your mind regardless of the consequences. However there's the catch-22.... in high school you're a minor under the control of your parents and you suffer consequences that you won't suffer as a legal adult. I guess its a matter of deciding what you want more. To be honest and truthful, or to quietly make your way through and when you get your chance, then say something. Idealism demands that we say something but reality often tells us that being deceiptful is often the only way out. I lie to my clients all the fucking time because they make it necessary. I don't feel good about it but I try to remember that if I had it my way things would be clean, good and honest. Such is life on a degredaded universe. Dr. Fardook lycos@bway.net

Re:first... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:46AM EST (#46)

I have to agree to this response in part. Assuming the software comes in the form of a test taken by students, my guess is you can fake your way though it. I did this I don't know how many times in high school durring various social evaluation tests. The idea of such software seems flawed at a number of levels. My guess is they will implement the system, and violence will continue and the whole thing will get flushed.

Why are you reading this... (Score:1) by jqs on Wednesday October 27, @09:54AM EST (#64) (User Info) http://www.iridani.com

Beacuse we are watching you...

MYOB? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:01AM EST (#73)

What's a MYOB?

Re:MYOB? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:20AM EST (#100)

make your own beer! call me at 1-800-BEERKIT! i have all the ingredients you will ever need! why spend all of your money on commercially-brewed beer when you can get completely soused off of your own supply! make your own beer! call me today!

Re:MYOB? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:31AM EST (#120)

That would be Mind Your Own Business.

Re:MYOB? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:31AM EST (#121)

Marry Your Own Brother!

Re:MYOB? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:35AM EST (#124)

Mix Your Onions with Bananas!

Re:MYOB? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @06:08PM EST (#397)

Onions and Banana's. yum. Next time I make a peanut butter and bannana sandwich, I shall have to try it with onions..

theme of a great science fiction short story (Score:1) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @11:12AM EST (#176) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

I believe it's titled "And Then There Were None" about what happens when a coercive militaristic starship lands on a planet settled by followers of Ghandhi. Useful abbreviations from the story: myob: mind your own business fiw: freedom, I won't off topic, too. George

Re:first... (Score:2, Informative) by mrogers on Wednesday October 27, @10:43AM EST (#137) (User Info)

"When Mosiac comes around, I do 1) lie my ass off and say what they want to hear from a "normal" kid" Probably wouldn't work - tests of this kind are designed to pick up liars. For example, they will ask you two differently worded questions about the same topic. To use a grossly simplified example: Would you describe yourself as punctual? Yes/No Would you describe yourself as patient? Yes/No The two questions will be in separate parts of the questionnaire, to make it harder to remain consistent. There will be a lot of cross-referenced questions. The only way to appear "normal" is to put yourself into a "normal" state of mind... and if you can do that they aren't worried about you. =)

Unless... (Score:1) by acb on Wednesday October 27, @11:13AM EST (#178) (User Info)

Unless, of course, you're a sociopath with a gift for seamlessly lying and telling people what they want to hear, in which case you'll slip under the radar unnoticed.

Re:Unless...P.O. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @11:36AM EST (#205)

That and be a perfect candidate for political office.

Re:first... (Score:1) by mOdQuArK! on Wednesday October 27, @12:08PM EST (#230) (User Info)

Any test put together by a human being (or human being(s)) can be fooled by a sufficiently intelligent/perceptive human being. A fair number of adolescents, who are quite often hyper-sensitive to hypocrisy & being manipulated, are going to figure out the best "profile" to answer the questions on the test with. And they'll probably tell their friends. And the best liars are those people who can "become" someone else, or truly BELIEVE their lie; who can so completely act as if the lie were truth, that if the lie is anything about bald physical facts, there is no test in the world which will be able to figure out what that person REALLY feels.

Re:first... (Score:1) by jsm2 on Wednesday October 27, @12:20PM EST (#246) (User Info)

Any test put together by a human being (or human being(s)) can be fooled by a sufficiently intelligent/perceptive human being. Strikes me that what's needed is a set of model answers. If anyone wants to set up www.foolmosaic.com, I'm good for a couple of quid toward the phone bills. jsm

Re: cross-referenced questions (Score:3, Informative) by Tackhead on Wednesday October 27, @12:38PM EST (#261) (User Info)

> tests of this kind are designed to pick up liars. > For example, they will ask you two differently > worded questions about the same topic. > > Would you describe yourself as punctual? Yes/No > Would you describe yourself as patient? Yes/No ...which is probably the other reason why most of my high school teachers and university profs always reminded us to "read every question on the exam before you start writing down answers" :-) Personality Profiling 101: Knowing how to spot these kinds of questions is a very useful life skill, whether in a Geek Profiling situation or a job interview. For an excellent example of the "ask the same question different ways" techique in action, and for an opportunity get some practice, play with this version of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. First, answer with "the truth" - your honest answers to the questions. Then, when you've read your results and realized that the questionnaire is only measuring "yes/no" answers along four orthogonal axes, try to give the "right" answers for an "all-yes" or "all-no" score on the axis of your choice. Advanced class: Note that someone who scores "perfectly" - with zero inconsistent answers, less so on Kiersey, but probably more so on something more sophisticated, like Mosaic, is likely to be spotted as a liar. Humans are inherently fuzzy things, and some degree of internal inconsistency is to be expected. Doublethink is normal. If your answer to "Do you believe in non-violence" is "yes", and your response, 10 questions later, to "What if you saw your wife boinking the milkman" is "I'd ask them to please stop and put their clothes on before inviting them both out to dinner to rationally discuss our differences of opinion on marital fidelity", it could well be as much of a red flag as "I'd cut them into little chunks with my big mofo chainsaw and cook and eat them both, and then throw her goldfish in the microwave for dessert! Muhahahaha!". (In my obviously-contrived example, a "right" response to the wife question would be "umm, that'd totally such, uh, I dunno, I hope I wouldn't like, freak out completely or anything", particularly if your other answers "If some bozo cut me off in traffic, I'd just let him get up ahead and get busted for speeding, he's worth making a fuss over" are generally consistent with nonviolence.)

Re:first... (Score:1) by dave256 (spam@pakled.clubnet.org) on Wednesday October 27, @01:18PM EST (#296) (User Info) http://pakled.clubnet.org/~dave

The only way to appear "normal" is to put yourself in a "normal" state of mind... and if you can do that they aren't worried about you. =) I would be more worried about a potential "violent" student that could choose to act normally. Premeditation, after all, does play a significant portion of most of the school shootings, etc. that we hear about. It's not like some kid is in class, gets a test back with a F on it, pulls out the oozi that he'd been keeping in his bag and shriek, "THAT'S IT!" and kill everyone. Nononono, the person able to put themselves in a "normal" state of mind at choice is far more dangerous. And, frankly, it doesn't take that much to change the way you think for a bit.. I want a rock. -Dave

How can anyone resist? (Score:1) by anonymous cowerd (WKiernan@concentric.net) on Wednesday October 27, @06:34PM EST (#400) (User Info) http://www.concentric.net/~Wkiernan/index.html

If I were a student in a high school today, presented with this Mosaic 2000 rubbish, and if I were as itchy as I was when I really was in high school thirty years ago, I'd fake up such a pack of threatening answers that I suppose the administrators would take me for a combination of Klebold, Harris and Charles Manson, with a dash of Gavrilo Princip thrown in for variety's sake. I would not be able to restrain myself gigging those sociologist morons. No doubt the idiots grading my test would get all worked up and I might even end up in all kinds of trouble, but I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation. Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Re:How can anyone resist? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28, @07:22AM EST (#453)

Yeah, yeah yeah Give em hell, they really deserve. Evaluate people with computers!!! *snoort* I really hope for the americans that they get their gun laws and their highschools sorted out.

Eek. (Score:1) by Teferi (teferi@pfnet.org) on Wednesday October 27, @09:28AM EST (#10) (User Info) http://www.pfnet.org/~teferi

I'm worried now. I really am. My school wouldn't hesitate for an instant to deploy Mosaic-2000 - it's Conformist Heaven. Athletes and the like get exemptions from classes (excused due to "stress from games and practices"), and I get lectured for telneting home to check my mail. The "popular" people get away with outrageous dress code violations (yes, we have one, and I loathe it), whereas the "fringe" people get nailed for having untucked shirts. You get the idea. We can't let this get worse. This has to be stopped. -teferi. lord of the plane. or not.

Re:Eek. (Score:1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:46AM EST (#47)

Isn't ever school like this? I am a few years out of school and me and the close group of friends I had in high school still hang out a lot. We PRIDED ourselves on the fact that we DID NOT conform and in some cases that people were down right afraid of us. Me the computer geek who didn't look it, two of the largest "psychos" (granted they are a bit unstable, but arn't we all in our own little ways? ;-) ) in the school and a few others. None of us really fit in with the "in" crowd and we enjoyed it. This kind of thing scares me as, who knows what distinguishes someone from being on the verge of violence, and just not wanting to conform with the rest of the school "society"? I know I'd of wanted to give someone a good kick in the ass if they had tried to force me to conform to the way everyone else was. Life is about individuality and having a computer program to try to help determine who is and who isn't safe to have around doesn't seem like a good idea, especially if there is humans writing the program. No matter what anyone says humans can not be 100% objective all the time due to personal prefrence and experience.

My school... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @12:28PM EST (#253)

wouldn't hesitate either. I'm not even supposed to be posting this Slashdot comment; no "web forums". Telneting is 'disabled'. Kids are watched whatever they do. And our school doesn't even have that many problems. If our school deploys Mosaic, I'll be the first to score '11', and then edit the internal records :)

A good way to cause more shootings (Score:1) by Joikm on Wednesday October 27, @09:30AM EST (#11) (User Info)

This sounds like a great way to have yet another Columbine and another and another.... At one point in the past, wasn't there a program that used neural networks to make doctor type decisions (ie what's wrong with you) and other types, ie expert systems? Those seem to have gone nowhere, and for good reason. This type of system has proven time and again that humans are in the best position to make these calls, and by setting up a computer to do it, we're just asking for problems. If I wasn't mad as hell and feeling like an outcast before, being pegged by this thing would do it.

Making Threats -IS- a Crime (assault) (Score:1) by redelm (redelm@ev1.net) on Wednesday October 27, @09:30AM EST (#13) (User Info) http://users.ev1.net/~redelm

If Mosaic2000 is used as described in the NYTimes article, to separate the potentially dangerous threatmakers from the posers, I have no problem with it. It is rational police triage, or would you rather they use their "discretion"? IANAL, but assault is the crime of threatening violence. Battery is doing it. Now if Mosaic2000 is used otherwise, attempting to correlate non-criminal behaviour (wearing trenchcoats) with future criminal activity, it is almost certainly unconstitutional (1st and equal protection ammendments). All public schools are government bodies to which at least the state constitutions apply, if not the Federal. -- Robert

Re:Making Threats -IS- a Crime (assault) (Score:1) by Lonesmurf (lonesmurf@biteme.hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:25AM EST (#111) (User Info) http://w3.to/rjames/

It's been a few years since i dropped out of school, but i DISTINCTLY remember having to sign a quite large pamphlet the first week of each school year that pretty much revoked all 10 of the bill of rights. It was so enforced that if you didn't bring the pamphlet in the first week, you were automatically suspended until you did. Sound like horseshit?? Welcome to my highschool.. and MANY all around the country. -- A free society is a place where it is safe to be unpopular.

Re:Making Threats -IS- a Crime (assault) (Score:3, Interesting) by Kintanon (sleffer@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @11:30AM EST (#198) (User Info)

It's been a few years since i dropped out of school, but i DISTINCTLY remember having to sign a quite large pamphlet the first week of each school year that pretty much revoked all 10 of the bill of rights. It was so enforced that if you didn't bring the pamphlet in the first week, you were automatically suspended until you did. Sound like horseshit?? Welcome to my highschool.. and MANY all around the country. Aaahhh, the dreaded 'Student Handbook' did you remember to read the fine print on the last page where it says 'I swear to indemnify and release from all responsibility this establishment for any harm which may result of my presence on the premises of said establishment' ? I refused to sign the handbook, they threatened suspension, I laughed and brought in 3 lawyers (The wonders of having a mother in the legal business) bye bye freedom destroying student handbook clauses. This was only one of the many protests I engaged in throughout highschool, following a grand family tradition. My father protested the conduct of one of the principals so well that he (the principal) was fired. It IS possible to make a difference, provided you have more money and more lawyers than the school. Of course you then get harassed by the administration and any time someone beats you shitless in a 2v1 fight you get suspended and they don't.... but those are the breaks, eh? Kintanon Sign up for Alladvantage under EBS-939 and help me make money!! Sign up for UtopiAd under Valis and Help me make money! This Sig was Prematurely Ended.

Re:Making Threats -IS- a Crime (assault) (Score:1) by redelm (redelm@ev1.net) on Wednesday October 27, @12:53PM EST (#275) (User Info) http://users.ev1.net/~redelm

I fully believe that many high school administrators try to intimidate their pupils. They are deathly afraid. So they try anything. Very sad--two wrongs don't make a right. And a bad example, to boot, from those who are paid to be good examples. IANAL, but a lawyer could demolish these signed Handbooks in a few seconds: 1) A minor lacks the capacity to sign an enforcable contract. So the signature is unenforcable. Maybe if the parent signs ... 2) Suspension is a dubious punishment--how can you be suspended since you will then violate truancy laws? 3) Any contract signed under duress is unenforceable. The suspension-vs-truancy could be viewed as duress. 4) Some rights are inalienable. You can't sign them away. Free speech may not be, but equal protection probably is. Unfortunately, our society has become excessively adversarial. Everyone pushes for more than they know they deserve. In the end, no-one will have anything. -- Robert

Re:Making Threats -IS- a Crime (assault) (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @03:48PM EST (#376)

Schools aren't known for caring a whole lot about the constitution or the legality of what they're doing. For example, last spring I was 'indefinetly suspended' from school for allegedly threatening another student. What really happened, and this was verified by the other student and several other friends of mine and the other students was that we had a joke, where I would 'threaten' to "Gun you down like a Colorado schoolgirl" (I thought it was funny THEN.) and she would respond with something like 'I'll run you down like a deer in the headlights.' The adminstration found out about this, and I (the male agressor) was suspended. The other participant (susposedly a passive female) was not punished at all. If human beings can't tell, or refuse to acknowledge that we were joking, how could a computer program?

Hey, lets hack into Mosaic 2000's site... (Score:1) by BlueUnderwear on Wednesday October 27, @09:32AM EST (#15) (User Info)

... and doctor the sources of the tool in such a way that it flags jocks rather than geeks! Give them of their own medicine. And it will impress the chicks too.

Re:Hey, lets hack into Mosaic 2000's site... (Score:1) by shogun (shogunAToverhereDOTorg) on Wednesday October 27, @11:48AM EST (#216) (User Info) http://shogun.overhere.org/

Well since this is a computer program, it would presumably written by geeks if it actually works. Therefore you would think they may have coded it to make sure it does not flag geeks over jocks, despite what some unbalanced administrator feeds it. I would like to see what they think after their entire neanderathal (sp?) football team is marked as dangerous. 31337 is a prime number, go figure...

Re:Hey, lets hack into Mosaic 2000's site... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @06:01PM EST (#396)

Ah, yes...the whole "Geeks are more intelligent/compassionate/articulate/sensitive then the jocks" line. What a farce! Wake up, by buying into the slashdot mentality that somehow you are part of a group that is better/smarter than the other you are no better than what you claim to be against. Shame on you. *You* are part of the problem, not the solution.

Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:5, Interesting) by Rabbins (robbins@rickjames.IEATSPAM.sapien.net) on Wednesday October 27, @09:33AM EST (#17) (User Info) http://k-swimming.org

It was pointed out before that this is not "geek profiling". Christ, this makes it sound like the questions being asked are similar to: Do you like computers for more than the occasional game or internet and e-mail? Do you play any role playing games? Do you have acne? Are you skinny or over-weight? Do you play sports? It is not that simple! If you have ever taken an abnormal psych, or even a college level psych class you would know this. They are not looking for "geeks", they are looking for violently inclined kids. Most people realize that has little to do with geeks! There is something mentally wrong with violent students, and this profiling has, and does work in identifying them. It is not as simple as, "You are different or weird... therefore you must be violent and a danger to society". Gimem a break. That a universal method for testing kids may be implemented is not what I am concerned with. The real concern should be what do they do with these kids if they have been profiled as violent? When considering that, I believe we come to the real problem and potential for harm and abuse. *I am the bully who made gradeschool a living hell for you and all your geek friends... and now I've found you!

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by Saige on Wednesday October 27, @09:39AM EST (#32) (User Info)

They are not looking for "geeks", they are looking for violently inclined kids. Most people realize that has little to do with geeks! There is something mentally wrong with violent students, and this profiling has, and does work in identifying them. It is not as simple as, "You are different or weird... therefore you must be violent and a danger to society". Gimem a break. If it actually works like they say it does, then it is definately a good thing. It will help with safety, allow them to help the violent kinds, and REDUCE the geek profiling that is taking place in the schools. It'll show the administrators that being different is not what makes kids dangerous. Who knows... maybe we'll be lucky and they'll find out that the "spoiled, get away with anything" jocks are more dangerous than the geeks and other outcasts could ever be. --- Celebrate Diversity!! -- Eradicate Bigotry.

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by Rabbins (robbins@rickjames.IEATSPAM.sapien.net) on Wednesday October 27, @09:49AM EST (#54) (User Info) http://k-swimming.org

If it actually works like they say it does, then it is definately a good thing. It will help with safety, allow them to help the violent kinds, and REDUCE the geek profiling that is taking place in the schools. It'll show the administrators that being different is not what makes kids dangerous. Well spoken, and something I did not even think about. By demanding a "leave us kids alone" attitude, you only further the inclination of teachers to stereotype the weird and different ones. Instead of fearing these kids, teachers need to (and I believe that this testing might help take away that fear) learn to work with them, and promote the talents that they do have. *I am the bully who made gradeschool a living hell for you and all your geek friends... and now I've found you!

leave us kids alone (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @11:51AM EST (#219)

...more dark sarcasm in the classroom...

objectivity (Score:1) by chialea (chialea@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:32AM EST (#123) (User Info) http://169.229.85.118/

(see full version in reply to something else) objectivity is still, to a large degree, dependent on the school administrators who fill out the forms for this: rank gabe the geek 1-5: sociability introverted ... the point being that the administrator is going to be biased -- and so there is virtually no way to make the program apply equally: they are likely to overlook things that people they see as "normal" did, while the "weird ones" are likely to get slammed. so, basically, how the program works and what it does to a school is dependent on the school administrators/teachers/counselors -- the same people as before. if this helps alleviate their fears, then perhaps things will change for the better in those schools still dominated by fear. Lea

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by z@ph0d (zaphod@curztech.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:03AM EST (#75) (User Info) http://www.curztech.com

i've heard of this company and the software they develop. they did one for domestic abuse cases and it looks like it works great. they can pretty accurately predict from a questionaire how likely a spouse is to get beaten. they've been able to use it with battered women to convince them to leave their husband/boyfriend/other by saying, "according to the statistics, if you say he has [insert act] before then he would have no remorse to [insert even worse act], and a x% chance of killing you soon." The only questions is whether or not the schools will test everyone or just those with "violent tendencies", who usually are labelled as such because they're non-confirmists. I hope the schoolds will do the right thing, but i'm sure there will be lots of cases where decent kids will be tested while some violent jock/prep/whatever gets away with anything because he conforms....

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by sylvester (oosylvestSPAMeroo@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @03:36PM EST (#365) (User Info)

This really was something along the lines of what I was looking for someone to say. :-) The problem with this is that an abusive relationship is infinitely more predictable than the mind of a youth. I'm 18, just graduated, and I can very well see myself scoring a false-positive, not because I'm antisocial or harrassed, (though I was when I was much younger), but because I've read the anarchist's cookbook, I've diddled with smoke bombs and the like. I've fashioned various makeshift weapons. I've considered as a time-waster, how I *would* take over the school, given that I wanted to make a great big hostage situation, or something. Would I kill a person? I don't know. Certainly not out of anger. I am not an angry person. The other point that has only been touched on in what I've read is this: I have a hard time believing that it would pick out people that kill girls for believing that they were stealing a boyfriend, or even the columbine killers. Really, if they were being profiled, do you think that they would know how to answer the questions? Clearly their teachers didn't clue in very much, and their parents had no clue. So either (a) they are actively profiled ("Do you enjoy hurting animals?" "Well gee, no.") or passively profiled, in which case I find it very hard to believe that a software package can succeed where humans failed so miserably. And if some teachers did really believe that the columbine pair were a threat, why didn't they do anything about it? and would it really change if they had some software backing them up? Frankly, as a principal or teacher, I'd be *more* afraid to go to a parent saying "Your son/daughter was pegged as potential violent by our new software package." than saying "We believe your son/daughter is having some trouble in school, and has a lot of issues to deal with. What do you think?" Of course, nearly every parent thinks that their child is a lot "better" (definition left to the reader, or perhaps the reader's parents..:-) ) than they actually are, so they would be resistive in either case. I would be a lot more pissed off to an "objective" computer judgement than to a human judgement that came forward admitting that they were merely making judgements that were subjective. Either way is subjective and biased. At least one way admits that it is. "When people are free to do as they choose, they usually imitate each other."

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by Rabbins (robbins@rickjames.IEATSPAM.sapien.net) on Wednesday October 27, @04:15PM EST (#385) (User Info) http://k-swimming.org

This is why I would want this going on well before my child was ever in highschool. Christ, when I was in highschool I lied my ass off on every single test I could take: Q: How often do you freebase? A: Daily I would like these tendancies to be identified while they are still forming... I just see the chances of adequatly adressing them as being much higher. Would I kill a person? I don't know. Certainly not out of anger. I am not an angry person. Perhaps out of good humor? *I am the bully who made gradeschool a living hell for you and all your geek friends... and now I've found you!

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by cdmoyer (cdmoyer@starmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:11AM EST (#86) (User Info) http://www.buffnet.net/~cadex

The problem is this, How many violent/outsiders/bullies hang around with the staff and faculty enoguh for the faculty to make informed use of this program. I doubt that the boys at coulumbine hung out with guidance counselors. How could the guidance counselros then answer questions like, Does the student have acces to guns, what is their home situation, what is their mental state, etc. accurately. THEY WILL BE FORCED TO RELY ON SUPERFICIAL, EASILY OBSERVABLE THINGS. This really scares me. I'm just glad I'm not in high schoo anymore. Chris Moyer -- cdmoyer@starmail.com

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by penguinicide (I never liked myself anyway.) on Wednesday October 27, @11:43AM EST (#208) (User Info)

I agree, my personal concern comes from the potential for abuse. How long will it be before decisions and actions will be made for and on a particular person based upon the results of the tests? How long will it be before someone does these things, which would be normally considered baseless and wreckless, and holds up the test results as justification? How long will it be before people accept this behavior? (and want it) penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by 12dec0de on Wednesday October 27, @11:45AM EST (#210) (User Info)

Moasic-2000 may not ask such questions, nor make indications on 'fringness' or 'geeknes' But KnockOff0.2(tm) will do. And because it is cheaper, a lot of Schools will buy it. And all Schools will skimp on the Training that any such Programm would require in order to use it sensibly. This is a piece of software, that follows the same patterns as any other software. Does anybody learn netiquette when having training for their e-mail Software? (in case they do at all) I think that somebody should tell american legislators that nacism means separation of the unwanted and does not _start_ with the mass killing of inocent. - a 6' 220 lbs german who went to an american high school and told the quarterback to his face that he does not want the slot in the opening offensive lineup.

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by Wah (t h e w a h @ uswest . net) on Wednesday October 27, @03:00PM EST (#345) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

this is a good point. While this one company and their product may be useful and upstanding, the same can't be said for their inevitable competitors. When you pass the task of determining risk onto a machine you get a very cold, stark picture of reality. While this may be acceptable for insurance companies, I would rather not see such a system implemented in high school, ever. if your life passes before your eyes when you die, does that include the part where your life passes before your eyes?

These tests are worthless (Score:1) by SingleTracker (tfcngu@vpfn.arg (rot13'd)) on Wednesday October 27, @12:37PM EST (#260) (User Info) http://freefall.penguinpowered.com

It's the smart ones you have to watch out for. And a violent smart kid would lie on the tests. They are worthless. Then again, I told the truth on such tests when in the service, and they tried to tell me I was suicidal. Yeah, ok, whatever!

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by Caradoc on Wednesday October 27, @12:44PM EST (#266) (User Info) http://www.neta.com/~caradoc

The problem that I can see with this is that we don't know who is defining "disturbed" or "violently inclined," and we don't know what their definition will be. Certainly, the inclination to show up at school with a propane-based fuel-air explosive device would be "violent." What about stuffing the freshman geek into a locker? The infamous "screaming wedgie?" The "jocks" have what are commonly called "harmless" methods of blowing off steam. When a jock perpetrates violence on fellow students (i.e., the "screaming wedgie" and/or locker-stuffing) it's usually laughed off. Even in college, the "jocks" are granted privileges that even the "normal" students don't get. (How many Arizona State University football players does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one, but he gets four credit hours for it.) Which one is more "violently inclined": the student who daily gives more than two wedgies, and weekly stuffs more than three students into lockers, or the hapless geek who's been stuffed into the locker three times a week for several months and brings a gun to school to make sure it doesn't happen again because the administration laughs at him every time he brings the problem to them? Where is the line drawn?

Psych 101 (Score:1) by PhilosopherKing on Wednesday October 27, @01:54PM EST (#321) (User Info)

In psych 101 they show a video of a random person off the street that is mentally healthy. They then tell you of the study performed where this video was shown to psych undergrads, psych grads, psychologists and two other levels of psych training. They were asked what this filmed individuals problems were and if they should be committed. There was a very clear correlation between years of learning/practicing psychology and they number of mental ailments attributed to the filmed man. With the psych undergrads less than 10% thought the man had problems and only a few thought he needed committed. While the psychiatrists rated over 75% thought he had multiple problems with over 50% saying he needed committed. Years of experience != infalibility, it only equals effeciency at what you've done in the past.

Re:Psych 101 (Score:1) by Rabbins (robbins@rickjames.IEATSPAM.sapien.net) on Wednesday October 27, @03:34PM EST (#364) (User Info) http://k-swimming.org

Years of experience != infalibility, it only equals effeciency at what you've done in the past. I am not sure if you are trying to prove or disprove my point, but I feel that whatever your intentions... it supports me. This system will hopefully help eradicate the situation you talk about: Making uninformed assumptions solely based on appearances. *I am the bully who made gradeschool a living hell for you and all your geek friends... and now I've found you!

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by superape23 (lcreilly@bigfootdizotcom) on Wednesday October 27, @02:16PM EST (#330) (User Info) http://superape.dreamhost.com

If the test is written by even a halfway decent pysch then it certainly won't just flag "geeks", however it will tend to pigeon hole people based on certain categories (ie. potentially violent, poor impulse control, violent fantacies, etc.) so working from a statistical view many people who don't fit in the non-violent category, but who are not a threat are going to get flagged (ie. a person with a bad temper who none the less will not ever act in a violent manner) there is no computer based test for this and if most administrators are like mr.cover my ass from the article: "immediate virtue would be in producing detailed documentation of its evaluation of a troubled student so that doubting parents could no longer challenge an administrator's judgement as too subjective." Look angry parent look the computer says your kid is crazy too, if the parents are angry it probably means they care and if they care then the kid is not in trouble. You can't tell me that the columbine boys had a decent homelife. if anything you want more subjectivity responsible administrator: Hmmmm this kid seems to identify with violent cultural images and he is agressive in his speech,but he's just insecure, he's ok. computer: subject is violent, extreminate, exterminate. and of course all this leads to the greatest pitfall of all: "it's a computer it can't be wrong" and lastly I've always wanted to know this: what person with any kind of sense would find a goth violent? or scary or a threat? No disrespect my goth brothers and sisters, but you guys are really not scary nor do you seem that non-conformist (everyone in black fishnets and eyeliner, ooh individual) and by the way I was consumed by image and subculture in highschool so I'm not saying I was any different. Also can we just put the blame the media stamp on this. School violence sharply down in the last sevreal years etc. more kids killed choking on lego pieces every year. Parents: do your kids seem weird and alienated? they are! all teenagers are. DO they dress funny? good, trench coats are cheaper than abercrombie and fitch (jockware). Do they like computers? great then you can retire rather than work for the rest of your life. noodle soup

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by kaphka (matthew.s.keitz@bigfoot.com) on Wednesday October 27, @02:41PM EST (#337) (User Info)

It was pointed out before that this is not "geek profiling". A year or so ago, some public official on Long Island was forced out of office after he referred to a group of rowdy, mostly black teenagers as "those monkeys". Activists complained that he had called them monkeys because they were black, but he claimed that he had called them monkeys because they were acting like monkeys. Now, I don't mean to defend this guy, since I don't remember the story too well anyway. But I always felt that it was the activists who were racist, not the official. Because they apparently believe themselves that black people are monkeys, when they saw someone call a bunch of black people "monkeys", they assumed it was because they were black. So Mr. Katz, do you believe that being "violent" is equivalent to being a "geek"? Apparently you do, because although the MOSAIC folks have only said that the program is intended to detect violence, you assume that they're looking for "geeks". If, in fact, a test which is designed to detect violent students happens to flag a lot of geeks, then frankly, maybe geeks are violent. But I don't think this is the case, so it is unfair to imply that this is "geek profiling". You know, I don't mean to flame, but I have found all of Katz's recent articles to be fundamentally flawed, and apprently many /. readers have agreed. Is it time to take this guy off the payroll? (If in fact he is on the payroll?) (Disclaimer: I think MOSAIC-2000 is a very, very, bad idea. I just disagree with this particular objection. For the real problem here, see Jerf's comment and my response to it. MSK

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by Pyrrus on Wednesday October 27, @04:16PM EST (#386) (User Info)

I'm wondering what questions it actually asks you, all I can think of is "if so-and-so did x to you, would you hit them?" but there has to be more than that, so what is it? I think that I'll grow out my hair now just to piss them off ;-) Did you mean 'hacker' or 'cracker'? Do you know the diffrence? I don't think you do. And the Wintel you rode in on.

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:4, Insightful) by Trepidity (delirium4u@theoffspring.net) on Wednesday October 27, @05:37PM EST (#391) (User Info) telnet://127.0.0.1/

The problems are: 1) This is a politicized issue. Thus, it is unlikely that the test will be completely objective. A school in Dallas already considers wearing Marilyn Manson shirts to be a "warning sign," and I wouldn't be surprised if more things along those lines started happening. 2) Psychology is not 100% correct. If you violate the rights of even one person because of your psychological analysis, it's not worth it. In fact, it's possible that your labeling a non-violent person as "violent" and constantly reinforcing that they're sick and need to get help (when, in fact, they're not) could do more harm than good. I personally listen to Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson, KMFDM (in fact, the two songs the Columbine kids quoted on their webpage are among my favorite KMFDM songs), Bad Religion, Ministry, and a host of other "bad influences." I enjoy playing Doom2 quite a bit, and Quake or Vigilante occasionally. I am fond of explosives (though I don't get much opportunity to experiment with them). I wouldn't be surprised if one of these profiling tests (provided I answered it truthfully) considered me "violently inclined," even though that's about the furthest possible thing from my personality.

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (Score:1) by alizard (alizard[spam]@ecis.com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:55PM EST (#428) (User Info) http://www.ecis.com/~alizard

From a look at the Mosaic2000 site, I'd say that the people whose assumptions are being written into software are the same people, the administrators and law enforcement people who are ultimately responsible for the kind of high school environments who turn kids into killers. The people who by and large are the problem are not the first people I'd turn to a solution for, computerizing their mindset merely cranks out garbage more efficiently. What are they going to be looking for in this context? "Does this student play violent computer games?" sounds like a good start. WHO are they going to be looking at in this context? The captain of the football team who occasionally slaps his girl friend around or that "hacker" kid who got sent home because he was wearing a Marilyn Manson T-shirt? Given the record of public institutions, it is smarter to assume the worst and let the people who believe that tax money should be spent on Mosaic prove their case to we the taxpayers. Further, the supporters of Mosaic 2000 who are citing previous success of similar programs in analyzing threats made towards judges and victims of domestic violence have made the gross error of thinking that students who have committed no crime should be treated the same way as Mosaic software handles people who have committed actual crimes. (threatening a judge is illegal, committing domestic violence is illegal) y2k info - http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/y2k.html Littleton comments - http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/littleto.html

The Arguement goes beyond High School (Score:1) by ronfar on Wednesday October 27, @11:17PM EST (#436) (User Info) http://members.tripod.com/gamesandpolitics/

Computers just aren't ready to do some of the jobs they are being asked to do. I'm sorry, but I don't believe in computers when you ask them to do a job that an actual person should be doing. It's happening throughout society, but interestingly it stops at the point that people will experience financial loss if something goes wrong. That's why they haven't yet replaced cashiers with a couple of armed guards and "scan yourself" groceries. After the string of school shootings that ended at Columbine, school systems decided that we needed to do something. I agree. I believe that that something is to train and hire personnel that will solve the problem of school violence. Generally speaking, when a computer program is created to do something that is supposed to be done by a person it is because the people want to do something on the cheap. If we need profilers working at the school, so be it. But let them be people and not "Mosaic."

Re:The Arguement goes beyond High School (Score:1) by Caradoc on Thursday October 28, @10:46AM EST (#462) (User Info) http://www.neta.com/~caradoc

Idea: test Mosaic *first* by using it within the United States Postal Service. See how many "unbalanced" or "violently inclined" people are working there.

I'm impressed! (Score:3, Informative) by jd on Wednesday October 27, @09:33AM EST (#18) (User Info)

This is the first time I've seen a recycled story (last week, wasn't it?) that was longer than the original. However, he obviously wants feedback, so here it is: I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by Jon Katz take on this. "Troubled" kids can be identified, and often fall into one or more of the following: Alchoholic or substance-abusing parents Emotionally absent parents Controlling parents ADHD Depressive Manic Depressive Gifted (Above-average ability/intelligence) Physically or socially "different" In the first 3 categories, the parents need help. It's not the child's fault that their parents are messed-up, but what good does it do anyone, least of all the kid, if everyone else says "it's none of my business"? And how can do you anything, if you blind yourself to there being a problem? In the next 4 categories (and there are probably a great many more like them), the kid needs help. Not counselling - ADHD isn't "bad behaviour" - but help as in appropriate teaching style & pace and a check-up by a COMPETENT pdoc. In short, the kid STILL doesn't need to be changed, it's their environment that's the problem. In the last case, the OTHER kids might need some kind of treatment, to be more tolerent, as might some of the staff. As above, it's not the kid's fault, but it does NOBODY any good to neglect the fact that SOMETHING isn't working. IMHO, this program approaches the problem with an Anti-Katz attitude - it blinds itself to the reality of the dynamics involved, as much as Katz has a tendancy to blind himself to the fact that sometimes action needs to be taken.

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:1) by Eric Berg on Wednesday October 27, @09:47AM EST (#48) (User Info)

So, basically, what this amounts to is that depressed, 'different', or gifted students should be put into counselling programs as potentially violent psychopaths? This does seem to support what Katz is saying rather than refute it. Also, it glosses over the fact that most schools are underbudgeted and unresponsive to the needs of the students. Targetting of 'problems students' like this is just as likely to lead to ostracizing and further humiliation than to any 'help', even if such is needed. As any student can tell you, promises of anonymity are fairly hollow from an institution who feels it has the authority to search your private possessions against your will, control how you use your free time (through homework and detentions), and dictate your appearance. The real danger with this policy is that same as the danger of all 'pro-active' policies, in that they inevitably end up punishing someone for a crime that they /might/ commit rather than for one they have. This is an inversion of the legal principles of this country which, granted, have never traditionally been applied to citizens below the age of 18 anyway. Still, I'm a stickler for principle. :)

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:3, Insightful) by jd on Wednesday October 27, @10:07AM EST (#82) (User Info)

Abosolutely NOT! The one thing kids DON'T need is any kind of "counselling". I'd thought I'd said that in my previous post, but maybe I didn't emphasise it enough. "Different" kids -MAY- need a mild chemical imbalance fixed. That's IT. And I repeat - any such imballance is MILD. However, if it exists, it'll often need correcting. This requires nothing more complex, intrusive or controlling than a visit to a doctor, and the taking of a pill in the mornings. That's IT. MUCH, MUCH MORE OFTEN, the problem is with the teachers, NOT the kids. Gifted, ADHD, depressed, bipolar, etc, kids become bored easily, each for their own reasons. If the teacher doesn't (or won't) make some kind of allowance for that, and adjust the material accordingly, the kid is likely to vent their frustration by being disruptive. (If I speak as someone who knows what they're talking about, I do. I was a voluntary teacher for a gifted program, and learned from many of the parents that the kids were "uncontrollable" at school. In the 6 months I taught them, I had not one problem requiring more than a "please don't do that" from any of them. That's because I made damn sure that the kids were free to speak their minds and were -active-, rather than bored, mindless parrots. Any time I hear of a teacher having a "problem pupil", I'd lay good odds on it not being the kid that has a problem.) ANY "pro-active" policy has to address the REAL problem, not the "make-believe, back-covering" problem that often gets reported. If there's a problem with a classroom, see what that says about the TEACHER, and what the TEACHER should do different. If there's a potential problem brewing, find out if the STAFF, or other kids, are responsible for the powder keg, so that it can be safely dealt with and the REAL, UNDERLYING ISSUES can be resolved. This is the problem with both Katz' view, and the "traditional" view. Neither think that "their side" could have any part in the underlying issues. I'm sorry to burst the illusion, but reality says that someone is, and it's not the Loch Ness Monster. IMHO, NEVER, EVER, EVER tackle surface stuff -BEFORE- addressing the underlying cause. If a house is subsiding, what's more important to fix - the foundations or a loose tile on the roof?

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:1) by mrogers on Wednesday October 27, @10:26AM EST (#113) (User Info)

Please take your KEYBOARD to see a DOCTOR. It MAY have a *MILD* chemical imbalance in its CAPS LOCK KEY. ;p

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:2, Interesting) by kmcardle (mcardlekATmed-lifeDOTcom) on Wednesday October 27, @09:59AM EST (#69) (User Info)

As the parent of three "gifted" (highly intelligent) children, I agree. Gifted kids can be more trouble than "troubled" kids. I know that my youngest is going to be pushed towards ridalin (sp?) by some know it all teacher when he gets to first grade. If he's engaged in an activity, he's fine. When he's bored, get starts to get into trouble. At the tender age of four, he likes to build my Technic Lego sets. He can sit for hours and build. Or play games on the computer. When the batteries of tests come his way, I hope that they find what he needs to reach his potential, and not stifle his free spirit and creativity. At a glance, it sounds like the test has some merit behind it. It's the double edged sword -it can be used for good and evil. ObHumor - we used to get the career guidance tests once a year in high school. The goal was to see what weird career you could get the computer to spit out for you. I got a Toastmaster Botanist one year.

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:2) by jd on Wednesday October 27, @10:16AM EST (#95) (User Info)

Gifted kids are often "pushed" around by teachers who can't tell the difference between boredom and vandalism (they both end in "m", so they must be the same. Honest!) As a kid, I enjoyed trying some of the experiments a TV scientist (Professor Heinz Wolff) came up with. My favourite has to be his first, the Great Egg Race. (Build a machine, out of nothing more than household items and powered by nothing more than a single rubber band, that can carry an egg safely, as fast & as far as possible.)

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:1) by kmcardle (mcardlekATmed-lifeDOTcom) on Wednesday October 27, @10:46AM EST (#140) (User Info)

Exactly. We made sure we got the kids into a school that has a gifted program, and have already introduced our youngest to the gifted coordinator. The school keeps the kids in normal classes, but sends them to the gifted room for one period a day for more challenging work, not just more work. The best thing is to be actively involved with the child and teacher and make sure that everybody is working together to do the best for the child.

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:2) by jsm2 on Wednesday October 27, @12:26PM EST (#252) (User Info)

Gifted kids are often "pushed" around by teachers who can't tell the difference between boredom and vandalism That's absolutely outrageous. There's a very clear dividing line between "boredom" and "vandalism", just as there is between having a child which is "gifted" and one which is "troubled". It's about US$75K per year, I think. jsm

My Focus: Social Group/ Peers and Community (Score:1) by zi0n on Wednesday October 27, @10:18AM EST (#97) (User Info)

A persons behavior has many roots to under lying past/present situations. Part if the NAZI/WITCH HUNT like attitude that the "SO CALLED" normal people adapt when addressing those who are different in a social group is do the THAT group or persons lack of understanding and TRUE empathy for others around them. I like to see it as a mask that we wear to shield our selves from reality if we choose to do so. How can a person accept me if they can not understand my past experiences?? Is this not WHO we are, for without a past we have no experience to base a reaction to NEW(present) situations?! U are right to say that treatment is not always a counsler or therapist, rather a normal person like U and I that can take the time to help include those who want to be accepted. If we just single the needy(Geeks.. whoever) out and send them off to be "HELPED" by some one else, then all we do is reinforce thier belief that they do not fit in. I agree ACTION needs to be taken by those involved and not to be pawned off on someone else.

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:1) by J05H (gigantin@shore.net) on Wednesday October 27, @10:23AM EST (#107) (User Info) http://www.shore.net/~gigantin/

I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by Jon Katz take on this. "Troubled" kids can be identified, and often fall into one or more of the following: Alchoholic or substance-abusing parents Emotionally absent parents Controlling parents ADHD Depressive Manic Depressive Gifted (Above-average ability/intelligence) Physically or socially "different" Hmm. I know I fit into 6 of the listed categories. Strangely, I never went pSyCh0 and killed anyone. This isn't to say that counselling and a change of environment won't help, it's just not the type of solution that solves the whole problem. Think about it for a moment. What drives kids who are normally disinclined toward violence to do these drastic things? Getting your face smashed into a locker every day by someone bigger and meaner than you really CAN have an impact on behavior. Same goes for endless teasing, food fights, etc. Dennis Hastert, the House Majority leader, dumbshit that he is, was on TV after Columbine, railing about the evils of the Net and Marilyn Manson. He said that he wrestled in school, and that kids should do that instead of "violent" things!! His implication was, of course, that sports are good, and D+D and Doom are bad. Hastert was the kind of person in school, I bet, that knocked books out of "geeks" hands. This Mosaic-2000 software is going to do nothing but repress different kids. It might be designed to spot potentially violent students, but with attitudes like Hastert's and every guidance counselor I've encountered, do you really think it'll only be used for that? It's not a question of wearing a trenchcoat, but when you check that little box that says "get angry sometimes?", they'll earmark you for further observation... I spent to many hours discussing this last April, I've gotta get back to work... J05H PS: Katz. For the last time: ACCESS TO GUNS IS NOT THE PROBLEM. GET OVER IT, OR REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT. DISCIPLINE AND TRAINING WITH FIREARMS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, SO ENCOURAGE FIREARMS TRAINING.

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:1) by minkyboodle (vbottom@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @11:11AM EST (#175) (User Info)

dude, you are the most intellegent person I have ever ment, KUDOS to you. The angle of the Dangle is equaly proportional to the heat of the beat. ---Beavis

This test should have (correctly) picked up me. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @11:33AM EST (#202)

I fell into a number of these categories. Abusive parents (emotionally and physically). Chronic clinical depression (suicidal). Gifted intelligence. Weak physical strength. Socially outcast. The depression caused a mental retardation effect, limiting my ability to think and remember. Ironically, my base intelligence was sufficiently high that I was still judged "gifted". Nobody noticed the retardation effect. Eventually, after I failed out of college, my parents had me tested. Far more involved and thorough testing than what this software crap they're currently shoveling will do. Those tests picked up my depression. In much the same way a person with an "I microsoft" T-shirt stands out at a linux convention. I was treated. I spent over 12 years in therapy. And I have to tell you, psychopharmaceuticals are great stuff. What concerns me is not this test. Properly arranged, it could very easily pick up problem cases like my own. What concerns me is the band-aid fixes that school administrators will apply to these cases. School guidance counselors, and school administrators, are not equipped to deal with kids that have been psychologically tortured to the point of breaking. THEIR BAND-AID SLAP-AND-DASH QUICK-FIXES ARE MORE LIKELY TO PUSH KIDS OVER THE EDGE THAN TO HELP THEM. As for guns: You guys are far to focused on them. Poisons are available over the counter everywhere. Explosives are trivial to create. Cars make excellent weapons. Knives. Glass in a pinch. Rope. They are all options. If someone truly means to do some damage, you are not going to be able to prevent them from arming themselves. As I said: I was suicidal. Right on the edge for far, Far, FAR too long a time. And if I had killed myself, I have to wonder, would I have let the people who tortured me live?

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:1) by mochaone on Wednesday October 27, @12:10PM EST (#233) (User Info)

PS: Katz. For the last time: ACCESS TO GUNS IS NOT THE PROBLEM. GET OVER IT, OR REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT. DISCIPLINE AND TRAINING WITH FIREARMS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, SO ENCOURAGE FIREARMS TRAINING. Indeed, the problem of violence in the American culture cannot be blamed on one factor, guns in this case, but I think most rational people would agree that the ease with which one can attain a gun today contributes to the problem. Anyone suggesting otherwise is not serious about tackling in the problem and is only contributing to the status quo. Until people make a good faith effort to put all the issue on the table we will all collectively be victims of gun violence as a society. We are at a critical point in this ongoing social debate, however. Some of us have seemingly become too inured to violence in our country to fight for change. Hates people who have stupid little sigs

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @03:53PM EST (#377)

Indeed, the problem of violence in the American culture cannot be blamed on one factor, guns in this case, but I think most rational people would agree that the ease with which one can attain a gun today contributes to the problem. If this is what "most rational people" would agree with, then they are agreeing to complete, utter, and unmitigated horseshit. Relative to thirty years ago, there is no "ease with which one can [sic] attain a gun today". In 1967 you could pay cash for a firearm and get it through mail order, no questions asked. In 1999 you have to endure the 20,000 local, state, and federal laws regulating the possession, sale, and transfer of firearms: age restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, licensing, and so forth. In short, firearms have never been more difficult to obtain than they are today. This is not opinion; it is verifiable, objective fact. Anyone suggesting otherwise is not serious about tackling in the problem and is only contributing to the status quo. So by daring to point out that the emporer has no clothes, that the claims of "easy access to guns" are a farce and a fabrication, I'm "not serious about tackling the problem"? You are a moron.

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:0, Flamebait) by mochaone on Wednesday October 27, @04:11PM EST (#382) (User Info)

Correction my maladjusted misanthrope. You are the moron. You can try to obfuscate the issue any way you want. Rehashing the old argument that there are more laws on the books, therefore it's harder to get a gun is the usual garbage spewed by you right wing militia types. If NY state passes 70,000 laws prohibiting or rendering more difficult the purchasing of guns, and NJ has no laws on the books, how effective do you think the NY law is? There isn't a clear concerted national effort to make the purchase and dissemination of guns more difficult. Gun shows are completely unregulated. Any redneck loser (you might fit that category) can set up a trailer home and declare it to be a gunshow. This needs to be stopped. When declaring that you are presenting "verifiable,objective facts", make sure that you are not under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. You only wind up making yourself look like the stupid hillbillie that you probably are. And oh yeah, pussies like you are usually too afraid to take ownership of your comments. Now go bang your sister bitch. Hates people who have stupid little sigs

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:1) by ollamh on Wednesday October 27, @06:14PM EST (#399) (User Info)

Correction my maladjusted misanthrope. You are the moron. You can try to obfuscate the issue any way you want. I obfuscated nothing, son. I merely posted cold hard facts. Evidently you can't cope with facts, and have therefore been reduced to foaming-at-the-mouth verbal masturbation. But to entertain your various arguments... Rehashing the old argument that there are more laws on the books, therefore it's harder to get a gun is the usual garbage spewed by you right wing militia types. Hit a nerve there, did I? Look, snookums: there are literally thousands of laws regulating the manufacture, possession, sale, and transfer of firearms. These laws make it more difficult than it has ever been to obtain a firearm through legal channels. You can call me a "right wing militia type" until you're blue in the face (it may surprise you to learn that I'm a libertarian, not a Republican, and there's not a stitch of camouflage in my closet), but there is no argument you can make that dilutes that essential fact. If you're talking about guns available through illegal channels, I would point out that firearms trafficking is already against the law. It's sort of hard to legislate any further against something that's already illegal. If NY state passes 70,000 laws prohibiting or rendering more difficult the purchasing of guns, and NJ has no laws on the books, how effective do you think the NY law is? Just as effective as federal law, which is the minimum (and I use that word guardedly, because there's nothing minimal about the way Uncle Sam regulates guns) level of firearms regulation nationwide. Brady background checks? Implemented at the federal level. Age restrictions? Federal law. Dealer licensure? Federal. Bans on "assault weapons", "cop-killer bullets", machineguns, and so forth? Federal. But let's play a fun game. Name the state that has the lowest crime rates, per capita, in the entire United States. Hint: it's the same state that has the loosest firearms laws. There isn't a clear concerted national effort to make the purchase and dissemination of guns more difficult. Unmitigated nonsense. Stricter firearms regulation has been a priority of the Clinton administration for the last seven years. One of the major reasons there's a (slender) Republican majority in Congress nowadays is exactly because the administration pushed its gun control agenda too far back in 1993. Don't take my word for it: good old Billy-Jeff said as much. Gun shows are completely unregulated. Any redneck loser (you might fit that category) can set up a trailer home and declare it to be a gunshow. This needs to be stopped. Gun shows are completely unregulated? That's certainly news to the sellers who operate at shows, and must comply, at minimum, with federal requirements (in many cases they must comply with state law as well). That's certainly news to the promoters of shows, who have to comply with exacting state and local ordinances about when and where shows can be conducted, how much and what kind of security needs to be there, and so forth. And here's an interesting question for you to ponder: how many actual crimes -- violations of federal, state, and local laws covering possession, sale, and transfer -- are actually committed by people at gun shows? Given our hoplophobic (sorry, that might be too big a word; it means 'frightened of guns') media, don't you think that such events would be big news? Don't you think that gun-grabber politicians would have an easier time making a case against gun shows if they were such wretched hives of scum and villainy? Is it possible that we "redneck losers" are overwhelmingly law-abiding, and as such there's no purpose to regulating gun shows outside of naked political posturing? (I realize this might be a tough one for you to wrap your little statist brain around -- just because something's unregulated by Nanny Government doesn't mean there's anything inherently evil about it.) Why would overwhelmingly law-abiding activity "need to be stopped" in order for us to catch the few crooks? While we're on the subject, have you ever even actually been to a gun show, snookums -- do you actually know what you're talking about, and have you actually studied the issue -- or are you just cutting and pasting what you managed to find on Handgun Control, Inc.'s website, and otherwise talking directly out your ass? When declaring that you are presenting "verifiable,objective facts", make sure that you are not under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. You only wind up making yourself look like the stupid hillbillie that you probably are. Yeah, and when you get all bent out of shape because someone calls you on the carpet for spreading misinformation, try not to step on your dick so hard. You only wind up making us stupid hillbillies (I come from New England, shit-for-brains) look like Ph.D candidates by comparison. And oh yeah, pussies like you are usually too afraid to take ownership of your comments. Now go bang your sister bitch. Happy to take ownership of my comments, "bitch". I'd love nothing more than to shine the bright flashlight of knowledge into the dark, dank recesses of your empty skull. Ignorance is (usually) curable.

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:1) by mochaone on Wednesday October 27, @08:14PM EST (#416) (User Info)

Hah! You almost made me do a spit take while reading your comment! Snookums...I love that! My girlfriend is laughing her ass off at hoplophobic as I type. She wants me to let you know that she wasn't aware that rednecks could use words with more letters than they have teeth! I hope I haven't offended you by calling you redneck and hillbillie. You seem intent upon distancing yourself from these characterizations. I do appreciate the fact that you are from New England, but being a redneck is a state of mind. That state of mind may exist in greater numbers in the deep south, but rednecks are everywhere. Kinda like roaches. I really don't feel like pursuing this thread much further, but I will indulge you a bit. Here's what I hear from you: 1) Tons of gun laws...no need for any more 2) Gun ownership promotes civility. Guns for everyone ! (law abiding, that is) Let me explore your first argument. I will concede that there are more guns laws on the books than there were 30 years ago. But when you examine the "verifiable, objective facts", your argument is exposed as disengenous at best, dishonest and cynical at worst. Federal gun legislation was passed several years ago that purported to ban the sale and possesion of assault weapons. The problem with the legislation was that rather than define the guns based on how they worked, the legislation was based on how the guns looked! This was all done under the stewardship of the NRA and its lackeys on Capitol Hill. You see, they realized they could curry public favor by pointing to gun legislation that they passed and they also realized that they would rack up right-winger brownie points with their base by passing innocous legislation! Gun manufacturers modified their gun designs so that their new guns would not look like the guns defined in legislation. This allowed them to continue to sell assault guns unbidened. This same tactic was applied when state and local govt's attempted to outlaw the sale and possesion of "saturday night special" type guns that criminals were fond of using. Once again, the laws were based on how the guns looked. Some cities found that after the guns had been redesigned, 99% of the guns were deemed to look sufficiently different as to be sellable under the law. You see my little misanthropic friend [sorry, I couldn't come up with anything cuter than snookems :>( ], your argument has a few holes in it. You can't judge the merit of a laws by numbers alone. If you want to be honest, what you need to do is actually examine what the law is really doing. I suggest that when you have finished reading your NRA pamphlets that you do the same. You might learn something. Ok. Let's examine your second argument. You use the NRA staple argument that widespread gun ownership has the ancillary effect of lowering crime rates. The implication being that criminals are reluctant to operate in areas where they are uncertain whether their intended victims will be packing heat. The state of Texas is always used as an example. This type of argument is what is known as sophistry. Upon face value it appears that your logic may actually make sense. However, the simplistic and deceptive nature of your argument is always disproven after careful analysis. To insinuate that the crime rate can ever be attributed to one single factor is sheer lunacy. But this is what you NRAphytes have been trained to do. If we were to suspend reality for a second and assume that you actually believed your own argument, we should then be able to extrapolate your argument to further prove its conclusiveness. Unfortunately, when we look around the world, we find very few cases to support your argument. Europe and Asia have very low rates of gun ownership, and yet they have remarkably low rates of violence and crime. Is there some phenomenom that makes America special? If so, I would appreciate it if you could explain it to me. I could go on for hours but I'm actually bored with you now so I'm going to call it quits. I do want to thank you for the laugh though, as does my girl! Have fun cleaning your guns tonight! Hates people who have stupid little sigs

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:2) by ollamh on Thursday October 28, @04:03PM EST (#469) (User Info)

I really don't feel like pursuing this thread much further, but I will indulge you a bit. This is the usual lazy statement of individuals who can't come up with a compelling argument but want to try and get in the last word anyways: "I have so many *better* things to do with my time than argue with you." 1) Tons of gun laws...no need for any more You evidently haven't been paying attention to your own arguments, much less mine. Your original claim was that "easy access to guns" is a contributing factor to school shootings. You sought to end debate there with the ad hominem that anyone who disagrees with your premise "isn't serious about tackling the problem." Unfortunately, the premise is objectively and verifiably false. School shootings such as Paducah and Columbine are almost exclusively a phenomenon of the 1990s, but firearms were far more widely and freely available thirty years ago -- because they were orders of magnitude less regulated by all levels of government -- than they are today. For example, in 1967 I could purchase a brand new select-fire (id est, fully-automatic) military-style rifle through mail order, with no waiting period or verification of my age, criminal history, or mental/emotional suitability to own such a weapon. Today, assuming ownership of such a weapon was not prohibited by the laws of my state (which, in my case, it is) and assuming I could even find such a weapon for sale, I could only effect a transfer through a federally-licensed firearms dealer after enduring a thorough background check and paying a hefty tax on top of the many thousands of dollars the gun would cost. I would have to continue paying this tax annually for as long as I owned the firearm. Moreover, the newest firearm I could possibly obtain would be over fifteen years old, and if the background check determined that I was ineligible to own a firearm, I would earn myself, at minimum, a five-year vacation in Club Fed. If "easy access to guns" is indeed part of the problem, then you should have absolutely no trouble finding example after example of maladjusted 1960's teens using the rifles they brought to school and kept in coat closets or lockers for ROTC classes or rifle team practices shooting up their classmates. The fact that neither you nor other gun control advocates can do so simply underscores the false assumptions and faulty logic behind the "easy access to guns" argument. 2) Gun ownership promotes civility. Guns for everyone ! (law abiding, that is) I have not made this argument. There is no basis for believing that gun ownership promotes civility any more than there is for believing that gun ownership causes crime. (Well. I take that back: there's slightly more. A study conducted from 1993-1995 by the USDOJ's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention concluded that children who get guns legally from their parents and are taught to use them responsibly are substantially less likely to commit crimes of any sort.) However, it is true that private ownership of firearms has a powerful deterrent effect on crime. This has been demonstrated in criminological research (see More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott, Jr.) and by polls of criminals (a study conducted in the early 1980s by UMass Amherst researchers James Wright and Peter Rossi), but if you're still not convinced, perhaps you'd be willing to erect a sign on your front lawn reading, "ATTENTION CRIMINALS: THIS IS A GUN-FREE HOME". Federal gun legislation was passed several years ago that purported to ban the sale and possesion of assault weapons. The problem with the legislation was that rather than define the guns based on how they worked, the legislation was based on how the guns looked! The reason for this is simple: there is no fundamental difference between those fearsome military-look "assault weapons" and ordinary civilian-look firearms except appearance. Long demonized by gun control advocates and the media, "assault weapons" are simply semi-automatic (id est, one shot per trigger pull) firearms that share the cosmetic characteristics of military weapons: pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash supressors, thumbhole stocks, and so forth. None of these features have ever been shown to have any correlation to crime rates -- when was the last drive-by bayonetting you heard about? -- and an ordinary .30-06 bolt-action deer rifle is substantially more accurate and lethal than, say, an AR-15 (the civilian, semi-automatic version of the M-16A2). But since you brought it up, let's pretend you're king for a day. First, propose a logically-consistent rationale that holds up to real-world scrutiny for outlawing the manufacture and sale of "assault weapons". ("They're scary-looking" is not adequate.) Second, define what an "assault weapon" is on the basis of operation rather than appearance, with the definition neither too broad (thereby including civilian-look firearms) nor too narrow (thereby excluding some "assault weapons"). Do both these things satisfactorily and you can have all the bans you want. This was all done under the stewardship of the NRA and its lackeys on Capitol Hill. You see, they realized they could curry public favor by pointing to gun legislation that they passed and they also realized that they would rack up right-winger brownie points with their base by passing innocous legislation! This is hilarious historical revisionism. The NRA and other gun rights groups fought tooth and nail against the Clinton administration's 1993 "assault weapons" ban, and have been lobbying for its repeal ever since. A major reason the Republicans now enjoy a slender majority in both houses of Congress is precisely because of gun owners' outrage at the Democrats passage of the legislation; a major reason the Republicans will likely lose their majority in both houses of Congress next election year is because they've pushed nearly as much gun control legislation as the Democrats, and renegged on their 1994 "Contract With America" promise to repeal the "assault weapons" ban. You really need to stop believing everything HCI tells you. Gun manufacturers modified their gun designs so that their new guns would not look like the guns defined in legislation. This allowed them to continue to sell assault guns unbidened. I'm not sure I understand your problem with this. The 1993 law bans the manufacture or sale of weapons that carry two or more of the offending features. How have gun manufactures violated either the spirit or the letter of the law by manufacturing and selling guns that only carry one of the offending features? This same tactic was applied when state and local govt's attempted to outlaw the sale and possesion of "saturday night special" type guns that criminals were fond of using. Once again, the laws were based on how the guns looked. Some cities found that after the guns had been redesigned, 99% of the guns were deemed to look sufficiently different as to be sellable under the law. Again, you're combining a thorough ignorance of the facts surrounding "Saturday Night Specials" (it might suprise you to learn that the term is a derivation of the racist phrase "Niggertown Saturday Night", used to describe usually-violent black neighborhoods in the 1960s) with historical revisionism on a grand scale. Put simply, the criteria for what is and isn't a "Saturday Night Special" are a moving target. Everyone agrees that gun manufacturers should be held liable if the guns they produce harm someone as the result of a malfunction or defect. However, nobody can demonstrate that guns classified as "Saturday Night Specials" are used in crime to any greater percentage than they make up retail purchase (id est, "Saturday Night Specials" make up X percent of crime guns seized, but also X percent of legitimate retail purchases, so there's no disproportionate criminal use). Furthermore, time and again throughout history, when artificial scarcities have been imposed on products with the intention of controlling bad behavior, bad guys have invariably managed to find workable substitutes, which leaves only the law-abiding consumers of the products adversely affected. Think of the Volstead Act. Le's examine California's recent high-profile ban of "junk guns" (let's use that term, since it's interchangeable with "Saturday Night Specials", and does not have racist origins) to get an idea of what such laws actually accomplish. As of January 1 of next year, California bans the manufacture and sale of any semi-automatic handgun that lacks a positive manual safety and/or fails certain drop tests and other bureaucratically-imposed safety requirements. This outlaws many inexpensive handguns, most of which chamber small calibers of ammunition and have small magazines. The primary consumers of these guns are lower-income people -- the folks at the greatest risk of becoming victims of crime. Ergo, they'll be priced out of firearms market and largely unable to obtain guns for self-protection unless they turn to the black market and make themselves criminals. Meanwhile "real" criminals will merely find workable substitutes for the artificially-scarce products -- higher quality firearms that chamber larger (and therefore more deadly) calibers of ammunition and have larger magazines. Does this sound like an advantageous plan to you? But it doesn't stop there: firearms made by Glock and SigSauer, some of the highest quality and most reliable handguns in the world, lack positive manual safeties, and so will be "junk guns". Inexplicably, law enforcement is exempted from the law; if a Glock 22 isn't safe enough for me because it lacks a positive manual safety, why is it safe enough for it to be the standard-issue duty sidearm for the Santa Clara County Sherrif's Department? You see my little misanthropic friend [sorry, I couldn't come up with anything cuter than snookems :>( ], your argument has a few holes in it. You can't judge the merit of a laws by numbers alone. If you want to be honest, what you need to do is actually examine what the law is really doing. You're attempting to worm your way out of a losing argument by changing the subject, friend: you started with "easy access to guns contributes to school shootings"; I debunked that myth, and now you're railing against the idea that quantity of laws equals quality of laws -- an argument that I've never made. That's called a straw man. It is not my view that, simply because we have N laws on the books, we therefore need no more laws. It is my view that virtually every form of gun control is irrational (read: doesn't make any real-world sense), counterproductive (read: does far more harm than good as a crime-reduction or crime-prevention measure), unprincipled (read: contrary to the fundamental principles of a free society), and unconstitutional (read: contrary to the plain language and historical context of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution). I would be happy to defend this position if you're interested, but let's do it through email. Ok. Let's examine your second argument. You use the NRA staple argument that widespread gun ownership has the ancillary effect of lowering crime rates. The implication being that criminals are reluctant to operate in areas where they are uncertain whether their intended victims will be packing heat. The state of Texas is always used as an example. This type of argument is what is known as sophistry. Upon face value it appears that your logic may actually make sense. However, the simplistic and deceptive nature of your argument is always disproven after careful analysis. To insinuate that the crime rate can ever be attributed to one single factor is sheer lunacy. But this is what you NRAphytes have been trained to do. If we were to suspend reality for a second and assume that you actually believed your own argument, we should then be able to extrapolate your argument to further prove its conclusiveness. Unfortunately, when we look around the world, we find very few cases to support your argument. Europe and Asia have very low rates of gun ownership, and yet they have remarkably low rates of violence and crime. Is there some phenomenom that makes America special? If so, I would appreciate it if you could explain it to me. As before, you're knocking down a straw man of your own manufacture. At no point have I said that there is a causal relationship between rates of gun ownership and rates of violent crime, anyplace in the world. In fact, globally, there is virtually no relationship that can consistently be found between nations' crime rates and laxity of gun laws. Gun rights advocates often hold up Switzerland and Isreal as examples of countries with lax gun control and very little crime without mentioning that both countries have national firearms licensure, which is something we abhor. Meanwhile, gun control advocates often hold up Japan and the United Kingdom as examples of countries with tight gun control and very little crime without mentioning that the UK's crime rate has been steadily increasing since the imposition of a tough gun ban, and that the Japanese both have a suicide rate that eclipses American gun deaths of all kinds, and do not place the same emphasis on certain civil liberties central to the American ethos. Put simply, global differences in crime rates are more attributable to cultural differences between countries than they are differences in gun laws, as observed in The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies, an award-winning book by criminologist David Kopel. I have noted, as other intelligent people have, the profound correlative relationship that manifests itself over and over again in the United States: here, in this country, private ownership of firearms and civilians' ability to carry concealed firearms appears to have a powerful deterrent effect to crime. Obviously there are other factors that can account for deltas in crime rates, but it is the business of criminologists to control for these factors to the satisfaction of peer review. Researchers such as John Lott and Gary Kleck have done this. They have won awards from their professional organizations and acclaim from their peers and critics alike. Their findings vindicate civilian ownership of firearms and liberalized concealed carry in this country, and offer a compelling argument that in the cost-benefit analysis over firearms, even using estimates most advantageous to gun control advocates, the benefits are greater than the costs. I invite you to look up their research -- it's all over the web -- and inform yourself. You might be surprised at how your views change after you actually learn about the issue. I could go on for hours but I'm actually bored with you now so I'm going to call it quits. I do want to thank you for the laugh though, as does my girl! I'm happy I could be a source of amusement. I apologize for calling you a moron initially; it's become apparent that your problem isn't congenital stupidity, but rather simple (and hopefully curable) ignorance. Have fun cleaning your guns tonight! Cheers.

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:1) by Dr_Axoo on Wednesday October 27, @07:28PM EST (#408) (User Info)

in short, firearms have never been more difficult to obtain than they are today. This is not opinion; it is verifiable, objective fact. So by daring to point out that the emporer has no clothes, that the claims of "easy access to guns" are a farce and a fabrication, I'm "not serious about tackling the problem"? In my country (Sweden) you can´t (as a private person) buy a handsized firearm. Only hunting rifles are availible to the public and even for them you have to obtain a liscense through government approved "hunting schools" Alas we have no school shootings in sweden. Sure we are a small country, but we have an entire subculture based on copying the lifestyle described in rap albums, but kids can´t get the weapons, therefore no gunfights. Also don't forget, USA´s crimerates are on level with the rest of the world and decreasing in every field except murder with firearm where USA exceed the world average by far. Access to guns do have an impact on the level of shootings don't think anything else. I personally would never ever feel safe if I knew that every person I meet could be carrying a gun.

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:1) by ollamh on Wednesday October 27, @07:53PM EST (#414) (User Info)

In Switzerland, across the Baltic from you in Sweden, every adult male between the ages of 18 and 50 maintains a fully-functional machine gun along with several thousand rounds of ammunition in his home. Other pistols and rifles are readily available, and licensure requirements are more or less perfunctory: anyone who isn't a criminal or a nutcase can obtain the firearm of their choosing. Sport shooting is essentially the Swiss national passtime, practiced by young and old, male and female, to the point where the Swiss government requires that every town larger than a certain population threshold must maintain a 300-meter shooting range. If the availability of firearms in a particular nation has any correlation whatsoever to the rate of mass shootings, then why aren't Swiss streets running red with blood? Isreal also has has liberal laws concerning firearms ownership; why aren't Isreali children being gunned down by the dozens and hundreds? Why hasn't the rate of mass shootings in the United States steadily decreased over the last thirty years as we've passed progressively more restrictive sale and possession laws, rather than increasing dramatically over the last decade? Why isn't Mexico, with some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, a crime-free paradise? If you would never feel safe knowing that every person you met might be carrying a gun, then I invite you to place a large sign in the middle of your front lawn, one which reads, "ATTENTION CRIMINALS: THIS IS A GUN-FREE HOME".

Re:I'm impressed! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @02:15PM EST (#329)

The concern is not one of test accuracy, solely. Even if the testing is perfectly accurate, its not the results themselves that are the problem. It is the very likely misinterpretation and misuse of them. You have list three categories, which I suspect are quite correct. I also suspect that that, at best, only two and more likely only one will be truly recognized. BUT all three will get the same treatment. And this will likely cause far more problems than it will ever solve. So, it is a Good Idea but only if The Right Thing is done. Schools are run by pointy-hairs. Chances of The Right Thing getting done? Appoximately Zero.

Unconstitutional? (Score:1) by rkms on Wednesday October 27, @09:34AM EST (#20) (User Info)

Forgive me, but I thought that the US constitution acts to protect against this sort of discrimination. It does apply to all citizens, adult and 'child', does it not?

Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:1) by the Epopt (uce@ftc.gov) on Wednesday October 27, @09:39AM EST (#30) (User Info)

Try reading it. --  Most people who need to be shot need to be shot soon and a lot. Very few people need to be shot later or just a little.

Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:1) by morzeke on Wednesday October 27, @09:46AM EST (#45) (User Info) http://members.aol.com/morzeke/

Actually, student rights are severely limited. There were a series of Supreme Court cases in the early 80s that, when put together, effectively say that first amendment rights don't apply to speech in schools. The argument went that schools are in loco parentis and thus have the right to "protect" their student bodies from dangers, including dangerous speech. My own high school's newspaper in 1983 published a scathing review of a particular teacher, but that issue was kept from distribution by the administration. In reaction, the students held a rally, garnering a mention in USA Today, but the issue never was released.

Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:22AM EST (#105)

Right about that. I was at a High School journalism conference once and there was discussion about dealing with the administration and contreversial stories. My school was lucky though. Unless it constitute slander, the students had full reign over what to print. We criticized the administration EVERY ISSUE.

Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:1) by Orgasmatron on Wednesday October 27, @10:06AM EST (#80) (User Info)

Now we have the question of Constitutionality thrown in here. In theory the Constitution applies to everyone, in practice don't count on it ever helping you. Next consider what schools really are, schools are voluntary. You don't want to be in school? Stop going. Now you have just placed some legal burdens on your parents as the government requires them to ensure that you are educated until you are 16 or 18. They can 1) get in legal trouble, 2) home school you, or 3) find a helpful local person, probably at the courthose, who will cheerfully try to get a judge to send you away to juvenile detention, or whatever your state does. Note that option three isn't strictly Legal, but these days, what is? If you are gifted and are on good terms with your parents, drop out. it's the best thing you can ever do for yourself. The only issue is that it becomes difficult to get a diploma after you do this, and we all know how important that little piece of paper is, don't we? X=Y;X^2=XY;X^2-Y^2=XY-Y^2;(X+Y)(X-Y)=Y(X-Y);X+Y=Y;2Y=Y;2=1

Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:1) by mwood on Wednesday October 27, @10:32AM EST (#122) (User Info)

"If you are gifted and on good terms with your parents, drop out." Oh, I disagree most strenuously. Don't drop out. Milk the system for all the *real* education you can get out of it. Get the piece of paper and cash in. You can always throw out the useless conformity skills later on, and keep the useful ones to be employed as appropriate. Resistance *is* futile, but parasitism works. :-)

Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:1) by Trebonius on Wednesday October 27, @10:12AM EST (#91) (User Info) http://marvin.smoothness.org

No, It only applies to adults, as in, over 18. Them youngin's have almost no rights it seems.

No Overreaction (Score:1) by BlueLines on Wednesday October 27, @09:34AM EST (#22) (User Info) www.divisionbyzero.com

This is truly scary, and (for the first time) I actually enjoyed reading a Katz piece. What scares me the most is the possible legal precedent here. Does having an "unfavorable" profile on Mosaic (NCSA should really sue over copyright infringement, but that's another rant) give the school administrators the right to constantly monitor/track/watch certain students? Is the innocence of students not being presumed? Katz also brings up a good point about the "socially acceptable" clique. I've seen more people fall off of the cliffs of sanity because of alcohol-related accidents/deaths/pregnancies/etc than I've ever seen due to Doom or wearing all black or d&d. Will the alcoholic-suv driving-future frat boy get a "questionable" score because of his weekend partying habits? Probably not. Will the shy gothic kid that likes to read alot and play duke nukem? Most likely. Who's the _real_ threat here? "The cost of living hasn't affected it's popularity." -anonymous

Re:No Overreaction (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @12:01PM EST (#227)

NCSA should sue Netscape over IP theft, and the Open Source(tm) community should commemerate the theft and closing of the Mosaic source by boycotting Netscape. (but that's another rant)

good points (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:35AM EST (#23)

Comlumbine will serve as an tool to get people (parents) very afraid of all the wrong things. About christians and violent jocks: good points - they'll never use this software for that. Think about all the bias built into this crap; it makes me sick The situation is getting scarier by the month. We are excusing all manner of nonsense. People need to remember to protect their liberties. You can't trade them for safety.

Test bed for future expansion. (Score:1) by Feral Wylde I (feral@dev.null.com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:35AM EST (#24) (User Info)

I had read about this before and the only thing that comes to mind is: If they condition an entire generation to accept this nonsense then later on they wont question it when applying for jobs, apartments, and so on. This society is reaching the point that the conspiracy nuts began to seem more sane than the government and other "authority" figures. It smacks to me as desparately trying to control what you cannot control anymore. After all, we have managed to lose the war on Drugs, we are winning the war on Poverty by making more poor people. :) And now the War of the Different! Certified Geezer Geek - been there, done that, lived to regret, it but LIVED thru it!

"Geek" Profiling? (Score:1) by greenfly on Wednesday October 27, @09:36AM EST (#25) (User Info)

I don't know, it sounds more like Goth profiling to me, if you want to put a label on it. I doubt they are going to place someone in counseling for writing a kernel device driver at home. Geeks are sometimes outcasts, true, but not all outcasts are geeks. Just because someone plays Doom or Quake doesn't categorize them as a geek. When did wearing black trenchcoats and all black in general start becoming a geek fashion statement? I understand that Katz wants to appeal to the slashdot crowd and make the story seem to apply to them, but it just seems that he is making a big stretch to call this "Geek profiling". I am afraid it is the Goth community that will end up getting the worst treatment from software like this, not geeks. It is still, in my opinion a bad thing to do, and will probably end up backlashing and causing more problems, but I doubt most geeks in school will see the effects of it, unless they are goth. Gee, who woulda thought wearing black would put you in counseling.

Re:"Geek" Profiling? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @12:05PM EST (#229)

Ah yes. Now we're defending the rights of "Goth-Americans", and anybody else who chooses to adopt a fashion and flaunt it. Soon people who glare unkindly at the fellow who sits at the front of the bus and picks his nose will be jailed for discriminating against "Nosepicker-Americans." Lifestyles, lifestyles. We've gotta celebrate diversity. Etc.

What is Geek About Making Threats? (Score:2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:37AM EST (#26)

Careful reading of the NYTimes article suggests that the Mosaic 2000 program is used to vet whether individuals who make threats have potential for violence. Nothing suggests that this tool will be used for random evaluation (like random drug testing) or targeted evaluation of individuals perceived to be weird, odd, or different. If making threats (i.e., telling a teacher "I'm gonna get you for this") is an essential part of being Geek, then maybe we do have something to fear here.

moderate up please, (s)he read the article (Score:2) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @09:58AM EST (#68) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

Hey, this AC read the article, and maybe it's not an anti-geek tool, but an anti-violence tool. George

Re:What is Geek About Making Threats? (Score:2) by Kaa (subdimensiondotcom!kaa) on Wednesday October 27, @01:54PM EST (#320) (User Info)

Careful reading of the NYTimes article suggests that the Mosaic 2000 program is used to vet whether individuals who make threats have potential for violence. Nothing suggests that this tool will be used for random evaluation (like random drug testing) or targeted evaluation of individuals perceived to be weird, odd, or different. OK. Scenario. A school principal (or counselor, etc.) sits in his office thinking about a kid in his school. The kid is disrespectful to teachers, wears strange clothes, talks abour strange things, and is in generally weird. True, he hasn't threatened anybody (yet), but there is that useful program on the computer that was installed last month. Now, it's just evaluation, right? Evaluation never hurt anybody... Willing to evaluate the percentage of principals who will say to themself: "That's not right. The program is only for those who made threats. I am not going to do this"? Something approaching zero will be my guess. Kaa Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.

Yep, exactly. (Score:2) by fable2112 (fable@servtech.spam-me-not.com) on Wednesday October 27, @07:18PM EST (#406) (User Info) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7723/

And considering what constitutes a "threat" to some teachers, we do have something to be worried about. A family friend's son got suspended for two weeks when he was in fifth grade for telling the teacher "I want a blow job out of town!" when he didn't even really know what the phrase meant. I can see explaining to the kid that you shouldn't repeat what's on bathroom walls, but TWO WEEKS OF SUSPENSION?! There's also the whole issue of my SCA group's heavy fighters and fencers losing their practice site because the idiot suburban school district we were supposed to use decided that legal adults engaging in a martial art in a safe and supervised fashion after school hours is still a violation of their zero-tolerance for weapons policy. If an unbroken epee is a "weapon," I'd hate to see what a "threat" is to these folks. Hell, I had a bad day at work and was joking about wanting to burn everything on my desk. I'd never actually DO it, but had I said that in a school, it'd have been a threat, probably ... even though I was honestly just blowing off steam. "The bats are doing just fine. There are hundreds of them. I have a terrible feeling we're in trouble." -Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See

Help then. (Score:1) by schporto on Wednesday October 27, @09:38AM EST (#28) (User Info) http://me.udel.edu/~donohue

Katz says: there is no federal or nationwide program to help emotionally disturbed kids or to keep them away from lethal weapons But my understanding (and I could be wrong) is that this Mosaic program will be helping school administrators figure out who could be emotionally disturbed. You don't know that it will only pick Goths, or kids who are online too often, or anything like that. By what they've said it will try to determine people who are depressed and have access to guns. The very things you said are leading to problems. More importantly though. Stop shooting everything down. There will always be something wrong with anything done if you look for it. The world is not perfect. There is no perfect solution to the "gun problem". The 1st amendment says US citizens can have them, but they kill people, but ... It can go on forever. The question is what are you willing to trade for what. There is a problem with violence in school. Even one shooting incident is too many (in my opinion). But there is also a problem with privacy. In order to protect one you must lose the grip on the other. No real method will prove a school 100% safe. No effective method will allow people 100% privacy. The question is how much privacy can you give up to improve you safety. If you keep saying no to all the suggestions made, then you must have a better idea. What is it? Stop being negative and do something positive for a change. If you know kids so well suggest a method for keeping them safe from others. -cpd

Re:Help then. (Score:1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:24AM EST (#110)

Finding out which kids are emotionally disturbed isn't nearly the problem people make it out to be. Usually, someone knows. Shortly after my then 14-year old daughter attempted suicide two years ago, the state insurance covering her refused to pay for residential treatment. The hospital wanted to release her after 2 days with no follow-up plan at all. One social worker suggested to me that I quit work and stay home with her if I was worried - given that I'm a single mother whom doesn't receive child support, this was a pretty stupid suggestion - as if being homeless and ahving a depressed child was better than just having a depressed child. In addition to being very depressed, engaging in self-mutilation and suicide attempts, she was very hostile at the time as well and acted out violently sometimes. In order to get treatment for her, I had to turn over custody to the state. I have been a member of a number of parental groups and am sorry to report that this is not at all uncommon. Many of us have kids whom we're seriously worried about. Many of us have put in scores of hours calling agencies and participating in family therapy, IEP meetings, and insurance team meetings, and still can't get help for our kids. Most private insurance has severe limitations on psychiatric help, and qualifying for state insurance in most states is very difficult. I am nowhere near the first parent who's had to turn over custody of her child to get help - and it's unlikely that I'll be the last. I don't know why we have to go on a search for troubled kids when we don't help the ones we've already know about.

Re:Help then. (Score:2, Interesting) by Big Boss (bigboss@xmission.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:26AM EST (#115) (User Info)

BTW: It's the 2nd Ammendment that provides the right to bear arms. :) It doesn't effect the rest of your statement, but for everyone else's accuracy.... As for sugestions, I have a few. ;) First off, nobody can guarantee 100% saftey. Anyone who says they can is selling something. There will always be problems unless you know how to achieve utopia. As for the question you state, how much freedom am I willing to give up for saftey? None. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty nor saftey." - Ben Franklin It's often quoted, but do you really understand the point? Since nobody can provide a guarantee of saftey giving up liberty for it is stupid. It may work for a short time, but the criminals WILL find a way arround it. Then the price you paid becomes worthless. And then we go for another round where the government asks us to give up yet more freedom for saftey. Round and round we go... where does it end? For me, it ends here. Now that I have been negative, I will offer potential soultions. I don't guarantee they will work, But you asked. ;) 1) Remove the government monopoly on schooling. In order for this to be effective you must also remove the tax burden for the people that is used to pay for it. The government schools can still exist, and they can be paid for by the people that use them just like the 'private' schools. For the needy, there are charitable organizations that can help there. This would allow for competition in schooling. People could choose where they wanted thier kids to go to school. Kids that have special needs could go to a school that caters to those needs. "Gifted" kids can go to a school that has accelerated learning programs. etc.. 2) End the failed War on Drugs. It's a war we can't win. And we have only made the problem worse in fighting it. See the statistics for crime durring prohibition. Crime skyrockted, and fell back down after it was repealed. People also said that repaling it would mean we would have drunks running all over the place. Everyone would be wasted all the time, they said... it didn't happen. Alcoholism dropped. The Drug War is exactly the same thing as prohibition, it's just a different class of substance. How would it help to end this for the school violence problem? In some areas there is a big problem with drug 'turf wars' and gangs. This extends into the schools at times. It also helps get the guns into the hands of children since there are so many kids with them allready. Ending the war would reduce crime across the board, and cut away the proffit from drugs. Gangs would have nothing to fight over, and most would not be able to afford the illegal guns and ammunition anymore. If you declare a war, is it any wonder there is shooting? 3) Lower the tax burden. High taxes are a large part of the reason people have to have 2 incomes. If one parent could stay home with the children it would help restore the traditional "family unit" that everyone is so sad to see going the way of the dinosaur. The loss of family values is also blamed for the increase in school and kid violence/crime. So fix the problem. Lower taxes back to the point a single income will let people get by. They will have to decide for themselves, but I know a LOT of people that say one parrent would be home, if they could afford it. In most familys I know, the second income basicly pays the taxes. There is no excuse for this in a free nation. The colonies rebelled over far lower taxes then we now face to create this country. That should tell everyone something. It should also be noted that school violence is dropping. I agree, one is too many. But if the trend is a decline, why mess with it? You acknowledge that nobody can guarentee saftey. We should keep a close eye one it, and make sure it stays that way. But if it's going down and government gets involved it will probably go back up. That's the track record government has throughout history. The stuff I mentioned above would help a ton. In the mean time, we should be educating the people. Teach them to keep thier guns locked up so that kids can't steal them. Trigger/Action locks at a minimum. Get them to be parents and teach thier kids. There is no pancea, no quick fix. But maybe we can all get involved a little and make a long-term soultion to the problem. Without having to lose any freedoms either. It can be done, but are people willing to work at it? Time will tell. As you said, what price are you willing to pay? Is a little work worth it? Travis

Re:Help then. (Score:1) by schporto on Wednesday October 27, @10:44AM EST (#138) (User Info) http://me.udel.edu/~donohue

Thank you. You made some very good arguments. And I agree with some of your thoughts. But this is more of what we need. Not hysterical damning of an idea before it come to fruition. But again that is my opinion. Return nitpick. I said how much privacy are you willing to give up. Not liberty. In my view they are different things. -cpd

Re:He has in past articles... (Score:1) by LRJ on Wednesday October 27, @10:28AM EST (#117) (User Info) http://www.pcguys.com

teach ALL kids to respect others and don't give certain ones special privilages just because they make the school look good.

Like hell he has... (Score:2) by Chris Johnson (chrisj@airwindows.com) on Wednesday October 27, @11:12AM EST (#177) (User Info) http://www.airwindows.com

He's better known for calling for adults to sneak underage kids into R rated movies :P as for your suggestion, it's unrealistic. Adults do not establish the high school pecking order! Teenagers do that ALL BY THEMSELVES. I could see establishing 'havens' for subgroups that are picked on, the Chess Club or Computer Club etc. (and you'd damn well better be ready to include the Football Team in that, or you're a hypocrite- anyone thinking those jock kids are immune from insecurity is just stupid... they are human too, and they too are suffering adolescence) However, I've not seen Jon Katz implying any such thing- he seems to insist that you have to get all the teenagers to appreciate and celebrate each other, and that is ludicrous. The obvious counterexample was Haight-Ashbury, which I don't think Jon dares to bring up- it is a powerful mystique that seems to give credence to his simplistic calls for unity, but what people overlook is that the heyday of Haight-Ashbury was predominantly tourist teenagers from suburbia, that the movers and shakers of it were manipulative hustlers, and that by 1970 it had disintegrated into streetfights and drug killings- something the modern teenager would find more comprehensible. Not unity: diplomacy is what is needed today, the ability to negotiate between the various interests of the people involved in the war zone that is America. Jon is absolutely the worst person imaginable to be put into this role, because he is incapable of seeing past his illusory evil authority figures. What you're seeing, Jon, is badly frightened people, on both sides. If you understood that even for a second you might have a broader mind and be more capable of aiding the people you so dearly want to represent...

Thankyou Defender of the Geeks! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:39AM EST (#29)

This may be flamebait but... I used to like some of what Jon Katz had to say. I would see his posts and see all of the anti-Katz posts and think that these people need to get over it and leave him alone. Lately though he seems stuck on his role as the self designated defender of the geek minority to the rest of the world. Perhaps the persecution of the geek minority is actually an evolutionary advantage. Those who are popular and not prone to being picked on and alienated grow up being weak and unused to the harsh reality that his world can be. These geeks go through a trial by fire and in most instance become better people for it. I suffered my fair share of abuse and ridicule and so I developed a tough skin. I learned to take the ridicule, laugh at it, and get on with my life. I think that this "save the geeks" crusade that Katz is on was interesting initially but has gone on far too long and has evolved into a waste of bandwidth, occasional christian bashing and some other fun. Jon, get over it and start doing some realy writing!

Amen! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @12:25PM EST (#250)

I'm not sure what planet Katz is on, but sure as hell ain't this one.

What to do with false positives (Score:1) by Stephen (sret1@cam.ac.uk) on Wednesday October 27, @09:39AM EST (#31) (User Info) http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/

I guess the problem with a program like this is what one would do with the false positives. Suppose you could identify a set of personal characteristics and say "90% of killers are in this category." This is unlikely: but even then it still wouldn't follow that most people in that category are killers. So what do you do? Unless a reasonable proportion of the positives are true positives, the program isn't really very useful. The danger would be that the school would target all the positives to avoid litigation, even though most positive kids were quite safe.

can you blame me though? (Score:2, Funny) by Ken Williams (ken.williams@ey.com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:39AM EST (#33) (User Info) http://www.ey.com/security

ok, so maybe i regularly packed semi-automatic weapons at the Chess Club and Debate Team meetings. the only bastard who ever took one from me though was the bully in the Computer Club who hogged the 2400 (we only had a half dozen Apple ][e's and one modem). -- ken williams

Re:can you blame me though? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:07AM EST (#83)

ha ha. (which is like a hoho but smaller.)

Really mosaic 2000 is just psychology (Score:1) by Error27 (error27[at]email.com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:40AM EST (#34) (User Info)

My high school had a school psychologist and I think most schools do. Really this program is just another tool. Psychologist like to give people tests I guess. There's no reason why you shouldn't have a test that's given on the computer. This is the way of the future. It's futile to say that psychologists can't give tests. And it's futile to say that people can't give tests on the computer. That said, I must confess that psychologists give me the creeps also. They are the dentists of the mind. Who knows what they are really asking when they show you a blurry picture of a nekkid woman and ask you, "what do you see?" I always lie on tests coz, dang it, my mind is private property. stay out. error 27 "if i've seen anything at all it's because i'm standing on a bunch of famous dead peoples' shoulders."--unknown

Take the log out of thy own eye first!! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:41AM EST (#37)

Jon, the other day you were quick to stereo-type Christians into your own pigeon holes. Now you want to criticize others for doing the same within an indecently short period of time. Give an apology first for the Christians before I'm even going to bother reading the full text of your posting. I never could understand the people who criticised you, but I'm coming very close now to blocking your postings myself.

The NYTimes article costs $2.50 (Score:2) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @09:41AM EST (#38) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

I'm not going to pay it, so I can't read Jon's linked source first hand. Oh well, there's no sense in trying to evaluate something firsthand, let's just give in to the hysteria. George

Re:The NYTimes article costs $2.50 (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:15AM EST (#93)

It does??? I don't know whats up on your end but I linked to it quickly and freely.

Re:The NYTimes article costs $2.50 (Score:2) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @10:26AM EST (#112) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

I found a working lijnk, and saved $2.50! Thanks AC. George

Violation of Constitutional Rights? (Score:2, Insightful) by RenQuanta on Wednesday October 27, @09:42AM EST (#39) (User Info) http://udel.edu/~earnoth/

Might this program be a violation of a few items from the Bill of Rights? From the fifth amendment: ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;... From the sixth amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Or, just maybe, the sacred first: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. What's everyone else's thoughts on this? Any lawyers out there care to comment? I've just gotta get me one of them neato sigs...let's see, where'd I put my copy of Bartletts? Hmm... RenQuanta http://udel.edu/~earnoth/

Re:Violation of Constitutional Rights? (Score:1) by Baka on Wednesday October 27, @09:55AM EST (#66) (User Info) http://127.0.0.1

Maybe a better question is, do minors get all the rights that someone who is over 18 (i.e. someone who can vote) get Touch The Puppet Head

Re:Violation of Constitutional Rights? (Score:1) by minkyboodle (vbottom@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:15AM EST (#94) (User Info)

well being somebody who is almost 23 its kinda hard for me to remember that long ago. but I would say, yes the constitution is for everybody... regardless of age sex or creed. I mean an 12 year old should have some restrictions but about the bill of rights to deny rights to somebody based on age is just plane wrong nomatter how you cut it The angle of the Dangle is equaly proportional to the heat of the beat. ---Beavis

Re:Violation of Constitutional Rights? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @11:03AM EST (#162)

IANAL, Well... The first two specifically say "criminal [case, prosecution]" since there's no legal proceedings before a recognized court, these will pretty much get swept under the carpet. I suppose you could try and make the argument that the school administration has assumed some aspects of a judicial system. But as someone pointed out, attending school is voluntary. Don't like it? Don't go. Get a GED and go to a junior college. You'll get a better education, and have more fun. Consider this... A "full time" HS education has you in class from 8am until 3pm, followed by compulsory homework until you have just a few hours of your life left. A "full time" college education has you in class from say 9am until lunch, followed by maybe a afternoon lab two days a week. Don't like listening to your old man rant at dinner? Sign up for that evening programming class. :-) This obviously isn't for everybody. You need a certain amount of maturity and dicipline. There's still homework... a "D" is a failing grade, and college transcripts (report cards), unlike high school, tend to follow you for life. College professors don't like to listen to excuses, and most often don't. Make them mad, and they just toss you out of class. Don't bother whining, nobody's listening. You're there because you want to be. I might add, that fact makes college a bit of a rush. FREEDOM! Of course if everybody dropped out of high school at 16 and went to JC, the teacher's unions would lobby to get the law changed so you couldn't. :-( As for the first amendment, you'd need to prove that they were interfering with free speech, or the establishment of a religion, etc..., etc... Good luck. AC

Re:Violation of Constitutional Rights? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @02:53PM EST (#344)

Unfortuanately children are not afford the same rights or responsibilities as other citizens. Also remember the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..." and the this is transfered (can't remember the term) to the states, and perhaps some other Federal bodies. I am not sure though doubt it applies to schools. As far as items like due process: detention is essentially being incarcerated agaisnt one's will on the whim of a teacher. Certainly no "due process." Additionally, not bearing witness agaisnt oneself is a crime in school - that is you can be punished for it. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has not upheld the rights of students (see opinions on dress codes for instance) and why would Congress or State Legislator's care - after all children do not have the right to vote. The right to public assembly has been a joke for a long time, as has freedom of speech. Try hanging out in the hallways between classes or publishing an "Anit-American" viewpoint in the school paper. Of course, this doesn't get to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem lies in our societies lack of ability to take personal responsibility for anything. In this mad rush to blame someone, we end up making a large number of mistakes. There are of course many many other problems with our society but I will not rant here. Rather I will cut to my point: Hold "children" fully legally responsible for their actions. The problem with not holding them fully responsible is that you end up with reactionary laws. Example: curfews. Essentially that means that the innocent get punished and the guilty probably continue to break the law. Another example, applying to society in general: gun control. Plus crypto, etc. Criminals will find these things without regard for the law, making them difficult to get will not solve the crime problem. (Note that there may be actual benefits of some of these laws, though I doubt it.) "Citizens" under the age of 18 have lived in a police state in the United States for a considerable time, but the worse idea was presented by a very very insightful poster who indicated that the current state of schools will desensitize upcoming citizens to the stepping on of their rights. And American's are apathetic enough!

What does Yale have to do with high school? (Score:1) by delirium_9 (delirium@innocent.com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:43AM EST (#41) (User Info)

What relevance is there that the software is being used at Yale? For the most part university students don't get to know their profs very well, and it is a rare (or upper year) class where the prof knows more than five students names. IMO this is totally different from what high school is like (or at least was for me) where both students and teachers have the opportunity to interact with each other in a variety of areas, be it academic or otherwise. The majority of teachers in my high school were involved in some sort of school related extra curricular activity, and for the most part so were the students. This seems to me more like another way for school administrations to cover their backsides in case something does go wrong. I can see it now. "If mosaic couldn't realize johnny was a psycho what chance did we have?"

The Weekly World News on Slashdot.. (Score:1) by ScrappyTheObscure on Wednesday October 27, @09:43AM EST (#42) (User Info)

Jon, you are too much. I can only compare you to that apalling "How to turn off geeks" column in WWN we all ranted about last week. Your article in summary: October 27, 1999, cyberspace. Frightened Geeks deluge Slahsdot with cries for protection from the ATF and its mind sucking death profiler. Reports one geek "we know we haven't seen the weapon yet, but we're sure it's meant to discriminate against us!" Another "I don't need a white paper on its effectiveness to know something will hurt me and my kind." Scrappy

Okay. (Score:3, Insightful) by Amphigory (patrick at extremehope dot organization) on Wednesday October 27, @09:47AM EST (#49) (User Info) http://www.extremehope.org

<sarcasm> Y'know, I bet its those Christians again. If the "self-proclaimed guardians of morality" would just stop harrassing the poor little geeks, then we wouldn't need these computer profiling tools. We could have our freedom! Freedom to be different, to indulge our base instincts without any niggling voices telling us that we are humans, not animals! We could live, free from the cruel repressions of those who want us to love each other. We could have world peace, or at least whirlled peas. We could stand up, hand in pasty hand, and share our victimization. </sarcasm> Jon: we are all victims sometimes. Do you know when we become victimized? When we define ourselves in terms of how we've been oppressed. It's time to get over it. Yeah, school sucks. So you do better for your kids than your parents did for you. IMNSHO, Homeschool. But you don't spend your whole life dwelling on a sucky circumstance that you can't do anything about. Given your lack of identifiable geekiness, all I can figure is that you are trying for demagoguery with these "hellmouth" articles. The first one was good. The second half as good. The progression is geometric, or worse. -- Sometimes, the best applause lies in knowing you have offended a fool. -- Anonymous

Thank you Jon (Score:1) by Mina (mina_girl@(nospam)yahoo.com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:47AM EST (#50) (User Info) http://mulaosmanovic.virtualave.net

I wonder often whether this world would exist in its state without the few, the intelligent, the brave, the exceptional. If it were by the people who listen to what Mosaic 2000 has to say.. I guess not. Do they really think that conformity is excellence? ~mina

Hand me the barf bag... (Score:1) by frogstomper on Wednesday October 27, @09:48AM EST (#51) (User Info)

This is one of the most sickening things I've ever seen. The only bright point in it is that it's happening in the country which bores the rest of us to tears telling us about their "superior personal freedoms" and their status as the self-proclaimed "greatest nation on earth." Drifting back towards the point... that anyone even considering that sort of thing in a nominally democratic country is ludicrous. I seriously doubt that this is in the best interest of the people, or that the majority of the people agree with it. If Orwell were alive today, he'd turn in his grave. (The same goes for Karl Marx, mind you.)

Re:Hand me the barf bag... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:37AM EST (#129)

If Orwell were alive today, he'd turn in his grave. This has "most humorous faux pas of the day" written all over it.. Come on, folx, use the preview button! Open mouth, insert foot.

Re:Hand me the barf bag... (Score:1) by superape23 (lcreilly@bigfootdizotcom) on Wednesday October 27, @03:03PM EST (#347) (User Info) http://superape.dreamhost.com

is there a point out logical cotradictions preview button that I'm not getting? fsucking crashscape. noodle soup

Re:Hand me the barf bag... (Score:1) by frogstomper on Thursday October 28, @12:38PM EST (#464) (User Info)

Actually, it's a quote, generally attributed to Samuel Goldwyn (a.k.a. Goldfish).

Open Source Mosaic? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:48AM EST (#52)

Predicition is dificult, especially about the future! I would personally feel comforted if we could see the source of this future behavior predicting software. Without the source, how can anyone trust or properly interpret the results? The Mosaic 8-ball says, "The future is uncertain." Afterall, Garbage In - Garbage Out.

More bad news from John Katz... (Score:1) by sarkeizen on Wednesday October 27, @09:49AM EST (#53) (User Info)

Hmmm...What have we here. John Katz going alarmist on us again. Well at least there are some constants in the Universe. Funny how he makes the logical leap between a program that may help people to identify the potentially violent and schools "enforcing widespread conformity". Who says that if even if a student is identified as "potentially violent" that this neccesitates the school to exert pressure to change their behaviour. As usual it isn't the tool that's a problem. What also royaly ticks me off is that Katz makes himself out to be "spokesperson for the different". I suspect most of us were persecuted in one way or another for "being different". Most of us survived without resorting to violence or having a spokesperson.

Another attempt to to explain the unexplainable (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:49AM EST (#55)

Three out of five of the voices in my head say it won't work.

Fight the Violence (Score:4, Insightful) by Wah (t h e w a h @ uswest . net) on Wednesday October 27, @09:50AM EST (#56) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

There is only one way to beat back the violence that is destroying our children. We must attack it it's very root, destroy any of the underlying factors that make violence possible. It is only through a complete eradication of violence that, uh, well, schools will be, um, safe. Everyone chant together now "Kill the Violence, kill the violence, kill the violence." ----- "I think it's a wonderful tool that has a great deal of potential, and I hope it's properly used by the schools," said Andrew Vita, associate director of field operations for the ATF, which has used the Mosaic approach to investigate abortion-clinic bombings. "I hope it's properly used by the schools" Yes, I'm sure most will have the extra time and funding to get counselors extensive training with a black box that spits out your violence quotient. Wow all the way from 1 to 10, I'd hate to be on the line of 7 (angry, but safe) and 8 (will blow up school if left unmodified). Nothing like getting an institution like ALCHOHOL, TOBACCO and FIREARMS, involved with the kids. I can't wait to see how they deal with a standoff with some high schoolers... Jon, it looks like you've become the voice of the disenfranchised geek. Congrats, represent them well, maybe a voice will be heard above the braying of Britney, LFO, and Insane Clown Posse. Luckily most of the social disruption sorts itself out by college, y'know, that part of education without metal detectors, violence aptitude tests, and orange jumpsuits (or whatever your school colors may be) if your life passes before your eyes when you die, does that include the part where your life passes before your eyes?

Ack! (Score:2) by Chris Johnson (chrisj@airwindows.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:59AM EST (#154) (User Info) http://www.airwindows.com

Good God, don't encourage him like that! This man speaks for nobody. He's not known for much besides half-baked philosophy and stealing ideas from previous Slashdot articles. He trivialises everything he touches by turning it into mindless hippie rebellion. The real world is a lot more complicated than Katz is willing to admit... this is a guy desperate to fight and weaken authority figures, but what he really wants is to replace them with himself. Even by _suggesting_, "Gee, Jon, looks like you're the voice of the disenfranchised geek!" you're empowering him in a seriously unhelpful way. HE IS NOT. He's just spouting off. If you want to hear the voices of disenfranchised geeks, TALK TO THEM. Not to Katz.

Re:Ack! (Score:2) by Wah (t h e w a h @ uswest . net) on Wednesday October 27, @03:22PM EST (#358) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

If you want to hear the voices of disenfranchised geeks, TALK TO THEM. why do you think I hang on /.? For the media at large, it helps to have a spokesman, that term may turn a thorn in your side, but that's what NBC would think of him. Besides most, if not all, of this applies only to high school geeks, the ones in extremely repressive environments. The ones accused of diabolical schemes because of their choice of dress. Us older ones have usually demonstated our value and others recognize that. If Jon wants to try and help, and I think help (or at least spreading the word) is needed, all the better for him. if your life passes before your eyes when you die, does that include the part where your life passes before your eyes?

Re:Fight the Violence (Score:1) by Heatherj on Wednesday October 27, @11:08PM EST (#433) (User Info)

"Properly used by the schools". Isn't that like "government efficiency"? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Has anybody ever read the short story "Harrison Bergeron" (I think it's by Robert Silverberg)? First, we start by testing kids for potential violence (this sounds like a good thing), then we test them for some other potential nonconformity (geek tendencies, perhaps?) Eventually, as in the story, everybody is forced to be just like everyone else, whether they're naturally able to be so or not. Our public school system does not want an informed society or individuals-uninformed sheep are far more useful and make more jobs for teachers-do a little reading and you'll run into this idea pretty quickly.

Re:Fight the Violence (Score:2) by Wah (t h e w a h @ uswest . net) on Thursday October 28, @09:18AM EST (#458) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

Harrison Bergeron Is that the one where they strap scrap metal to the guy to make him weaker, and interrupt his thought process with loud music every few seconds to make him dumber? I could never remember the name of that one. if your life passes before your eyes when you die, does that include the part where your life passes before your eyes?

Re:Fight the Violence (Score:1) by Heatherj on Thursday October 28, @01:33PM EST (#466) (User Info)

Yep, that's the story.

Re:Fight the Violence (Score:1) by look (fran0382 -(a)- tc.umn.edu) on Thursday October 28, @03:33PM EST (#467) (User Info)

That story is by Kurt Vonegut, Jr. And yes, it's really cool.

(yr == 1999) && (yr != 1984) (Score:1) by Sneakums (Paul Collins) on Wednesday October 27, @09:50AM EST (#57) (User Info)

RESIST! RESIST!

Re:(yr == 1999) && (yr != 1984) (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @12:33PM EST (#257)

Resistance is futile.

What should we do now? (Score:1) by Baka on Wednesday October 27, @09:51AM EST (#58) (User Info) http://127.0.0.1

This Mosaic program could be a nightmare or it could be a tool used to get help to the kids who need it most. The problem is that we don't know which it will be - has anyone tried to find out? Maybe with a few phone calls and emails, Slashdot could ask more than the standard questions a New York Times reporter would ask, and get the answers we want. If this thing is gonna be used for good, not evil, then good for them. And if it does turn out to be a nightmare, what then? So far, people haven't really talked about what the average /. reader can do - is there anything we can do, or are we just the quake playing zombies with itchy trigger fingers the media seems to think are infesting the schools? Touch The Puppet Head

Man... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:51AM EST (#59)

If Jon keeps up his whining, the Holocaust survivors will be pitying us next.

is it possible... (Score:2, Insightful) by kwashiorkor (kwashiorkor@DONTSPAMME.real.com) on Wednesday October 27, @09:54AM EST (#62) (User Info)

...to simply avoid taking the test? I mean, are they planning to f o r c e kids to take this profile? CAN they force kids to take the test? I'm not sure if it's even legal to get them to take the test without their knowledge about the test's purpose. As long as the options are clearly presented to the people that are to be subjected to the test, then this isn't as bad as it seems, I'd think. Either avoid it, or lie repeatedly so that it dosn't make any sense, just like we do with anonymous email accounts at uhmmmm Hotmail or someplace. For all Hotmail knows I could be a 93 year old widow with 15 kids and 200 grandchildren living in the Ozarks. I'd take it that it's somewhat more difficult to skew the answers on one of these tests, but geeks are smart, no? -- kwashiorkor -- Me, procrastinate? I'll let you know tomorrow.

only proactive measures will solve (Score:1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @09:54AM EST (#63)

As a recent high school student I can attest to the fact that profiling (of all kinds, not just geek) is an enormous problem in our nations public schools. However, the real problem with the Mosaic software to me is that it is another panacea created by frightened adults in an over-reaction to a few tragic events. If I'm not mistaken, there was a software package called mosaic that was used at my school which asked students questions to help them pick a career. As any student who has used this software can attest, it is completely worthless. I don't care how many technological advances or collaborations with psychologists a software package contains. The bottom line is that there will always be messed up kids who are beyond help. As for the kids who are troubled and can be helped, even if they are identified by software, I find it difficult to believe that a system that actively promotes the alienation of students who don't fall into a certain category can do much to help these students. If schools want to help troubled students, they need to start at ground level. While they can't do a whole lot with the fact that some teens have troubled home lives and suffer the effecs of other societal ills, they can offer support to ALL students. That is, even students with alternative views, interestes and talkents. Furthermore, school administrations need to take a stand against intolerance within the student body. What administrators may dismiss as simple teasing is actually disgusting harrasment which could escalate to tragic levels. In short, the existence of this software package will only give schools a false sense of security and avert scrutiny to the root causes which, of course, will still be festering. Only through additudinal changes and pro-active measures can we hope to effectively eliminate not only violence in schools, but many of the other problems that face young people.

I'm really getting tired of this.... (Score:4, Insightful) by John Fulmer on Wednesday October 27, @09:57AM EST (#67) (User Info)

From the article.... >Why not get to the really dangerous people loose >in schools, maybe programming Mosaic to hunt down >and identify religious fanatics such as those who >believe in the literal truth of the Bible and >reject Darwin and evolution? Aren't they a threat >to school science programs? First off, just because you have a religious faith (of any sort) and may not believe in Darwinism, does not instantly make you a fanatic OR dangerous. And doesn't mean do you necessarily object to the teaching of the theory of evolution. And teachers and school administration staff tend to be more liberal, not members of the religous right. And the one teacher I had in high school who WAS a dyed in the wool, born-again, Bible-thumping Christian, was my science teacher for 3 years, and we covered quite a lot of Darwin, and no Creationism, except in a few personal editiorials in private. Second, this is nothing but bait. Due to the large reaction over the Kansas evolution, I get the idea that this is an attempt to influence readers using an already popular reference completely out of context. The school/evolution debate has NOTHING to do with Mosaic2000, and the idea that they are somehow related is wrong. There is a lot of 'content free' information here. In this article we see the statement "The level of teen violence is at it's lowest point in years" (sic), yet we see no references or research. I'm not arguing the point, but it is NOT an accepted fact. We have one anonymous e-mailer that Jon mentions, quoted several times. What about the rest of the e-mails? Nothing quotable? I once liked some of Jon's articles, but now I'm starting to view them as attempts at pandering to the ./ community, who really doesn't want it. I don't like the idea of Mosaic2000 ('Lies, damn lies, and psychological exams') any more than the next geek, but let's talk about it honestly; good, bad, 'warts and all', and not just try to stroke the geek community. jf --- Linux, Security, Paranoia.....Ahhhhh!

uhhhhhhhhhhh (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:04AM EST (#79)

First off, just because you have a religious faith (of any sort) and may not believe in Darwinism, does not instantly make you a fanatic OR dangerous. And doesn't mean do you necessarily object to the teaching of the theory of evolution. Okay, here goes: 1. Obtain dictionary 2. Look at definition of "sarcasm" 3. Read definition 4. Repeat as often as necessary All better now?

Re:uhhhhhhhhhhh (Score:2) by John Fulmer on Wednesday October 27, @10:28AM EST (#118) (User Info)

Yes, thank you, I know the meaning of sarcasm. Been doing it for years.. :) The point is that the use of this particular bit of sarcasm didn't really make much sense, since it is not same groups pushing anti-evolution and pro-Mosaic2000 ideas. The ONLY reason I can see is to try to stroke the ./ community, which I find somewhat offensive. Just because it's sarcasm, doesn't mean that I can't take issue with it. It's like the guy who thinks he can say anything he likes to anyone....as long as he smiles and says 'Just kidding!' afterward. jf --- Linux, Security, Paranoia.....Ahhhhh!

Re:uhhhhhhhhhhh (Score:1) by minkyboodle (vbottom@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @11:18AM EST (#185) (User Info)

uhhh, think a little harder The angle of the Dangle is equaly proportional to the heat of the beat. ---Beavis

Re:uhhhhhhhhhhh (Score:1) by Heatherj on Wednesday October 27, @11:16PM EST (#435) (User Info)

Both you and minkyboodle are missing the point entirely. You got going on the example Katz used, instead of hearing what he was trying to say. Right now, the threat is "potential violence". Next year, the "problem" that needs to be eradicated from our schools might be "religious fanaticism" or "geekiness" or "purple underwear". Katz was trying to make the point that, considering the way our school system has historically worked and the fact that they have to come up with reasons to draw attention from the fact that our school system spends more money every year to do a worse job every year, from "potential violence testing" to "potential anything else testing" is a very short step.

Re:uhhhhhhhhhhh (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28, @12:29AM EST (#442)

"What he was trying to say"? The guy's a "professional" writer, for Christ's sake!! Doesn't this tell us something, this "trying"? Hmm??

Let's all miss the point together.... (Score:1) by Alanzilla (afrazier@geocities.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:57AM EST (#152) (User Info)

From the article... >Why not get to the really dangerous people loose >in schools, maybe programming Mosaic to hunt down >and identify religious fanatics such as those who >believe in the literal truth of the Bible and >reject Darwin and evolution? Aren't they a threat >to school science programs? First off, just because you have a religious faith (of any sort) and may not believe in Darwinism, does not instantly make you a fanatic OR dangerous. And doesn't mean do you necessarily object to the teaching of the theory of evolution. If you pay attention to the contextual clues, I think you'll find that he was being faecetious.

A practical proposal (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @11:29AM EST (#196)

Tired of Katz? Then run, do not walk, away from slashdot. We, the posters, are what's keeping this leech alive. It is quite obvious that Rob and co. don't give two fucks if he pisses people off. Why? slashdot is owned by a corporation now: hits and click-throughs are what matter. Use technocrat instead: it's quiet over there, but only because everyone is here.

Re:I'm really getting tired of this.... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28, @05:13AM EST (#450)

The decrease is documented. Try locating the FBI Umiform crime report. I would say start at the DOJ or FBI website, but they don't seem to be available. Hmmm, I wonder what they're hiding....

The bigger picture ... (Score:1) by charlie (charlie.NOSPAM@antipope.org) on Wednesday October 27, @10:03AM EST (#76) (User Info) http://www.antipope.org/charlie/

This isn't a unique move; it's part of a larger picture, which is the use of surveillance technology to enforce the law. Which wouldn't be so bad, except that there are a lot of bad laws out there. Part of the problem is that we pay legislators to legislate. It's easier for a lawmaker to pass a new law than strike an old one off the books, and they need to be seen to be active to justify our votes. So they're always seeking new causes to legislate on. Another part of the problem is that we're living through an era of rapid social and technological change. Most non-geeks don't like change; it disturbs and worries them. In times of change, societies are prone to waves of mass hysteria: and the hysteria usually focusses on some "out" group who can be blamed (conveniently) for society's ills. "If only they'd go away/behave/conform everything would be alright!" (Do I need to explain this point in more depth?) The mixture of surveillance technology with a public witch hunt driven by a moral panic is terrifying and without precedent. Over here -- in the UK -- it's being manifested in the shape of half a million surveillance cameras a year going up in public places, in police authorities installing camera systems with neural network based face-recognition software (to spot suspected offenders whenever they go out in public), in a Home Office obsessed with the idea of eliminating, not minimizing, obstacles to obtaining speedy convictions through the court process (such as jury trials, double jeopardy, the right to silence, and so on). Sound familiar? It's the same mind set at work ...

Think Different? Then You Can't Think Private (Score:5, Insightful) by Effugas (effugas@best.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:03AM EST (#77) (User Info) http://www.doxpara.com

I've been trying to bounce Mosaic-2000 around in my head for a while. After all, we're all screaming that Doom Does Not A Serial Killer Make, and neither does a penchant for trenchcoats. What if Katz is overreacting--what if this software program is really a way for knee-jerk bureaucrats to get their suspicions laughed at by an impartial analyzer? We know that expert systems used to diagnose heart attack systems can, in some circumstances, be even more effective than trained physicians at cross-referencing indications, contraindications, and other tasks necessary to come up--quickly--with an accurate solution. So, if heart attacks can be diagnosed accurately, why not violent behavior? After all, I may not be normal, but what do I have to hide? I'm not going to kill anyone. Us good people don't have anything to fear. Oh. I've heard that before, haven't I. Framing Mosiac 2000 as anti-geek is myopic. A psychographic dragnet such as this is quite possibly the most disturbing concept I've heard in quite some time, and should be on the top ten lists of every privacy advocate in the country. Suppose the data compiled was absolutely accurate--a fallacy I will address later--suddenly, a complete profile of your identity has been compiled automatically. Your character type, your likely reactions to various forms of coercion, your fears, your dreams, an invaluable pantheon of knowledge about how to control you and how to react to you--all sitting in a file, based upon answers you were compelled to supply. And that's if the data's accurate! It's tough to not see Orwell when people keep using 1984 as a study guide. Of course, the chances that such information might actually be accurate isn't exactly high. Yes, it's true that expert systems do wonderfully for heart attack victims. Heart Attack Victims don't usually intentionally lie about their symptoms--students do. What's so beautiful about it all is how natural it is: A close friend of mine grew up ill, and because of the pain she saw her parents experience from her illness, she learned to mask that pain from them and the people around her. Children learn very quickly--there are expectations of you, you are to meet them not in terms of reality but in terms of perception. Testers like Mosiac 2000, which cannot be written without an implicit bias towards a given desired social identity(non-violent passive, Mr. Orwell?), will quickly be seen as another overbearing set of expectations to fulfill. And children, masters of the art from birth, will learn to adapt to the tests, and "pass them" like any other standardized centrifuge of a test. Not that this is easy, or without consequence. Shoving your self into a corner has a way of making you even more isolated, even more wrong. Or, of course, it's just another way to fuck the system that's trying to do the same to you. Either way, useless data. But what of this semi-mythical test? How do we know that it doesn't really know what to ask? The fact that it was apparently designed using Grade A Felon Material probably isn't a good thing. Reminds me alot of the controversy when some serious yahoos took feminism way too far and posted fliers across their university containing the photo of one guy with the words underneath: POTENTIAL RAPIST. They picked the poor schmuck at random. In a world where every student is a potential assassin, where the mob demands the right to psychoanalyze on penalty of exclusion, where everyone and everything must be open and analyzed and identical and conformant and not too much and not too little and nothing in between...is there any room for childhood? For finding oneself? How can you find yourself when the test already knows who you are? What do you say to the kid who the test claims will kill his family? Technology is a wonderful thing. Kids don't even need to grow up anymore; computers will do it for them. Of course, it won't work, at first. There will be problems. There would be gnashing of teeth. But with time, the psychographic profiles of the kindergartners will be compared with their profiles when they finally grow up to their violent and sexual destinies, and the next generation of kindergartners will be more correctly controlled. Who needs privacy. The babies are dying. You don't have privacy anyway, Mcnealy told me so, the babies are dying. You don't want the babies to die, do you? Are you a baby killer too? No. I guess I grew up in time. Yours Truly, Dan Kaminsky DoxPara Research http://www.doxpara.com Debugging is anticipated with distaste, performed with reluctance, and bragged about forever.

Re:Think Different? Then You Can't Think Private (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:44AM EST (#139)

Moderate this one up, boys. He's got a lot of good points. It is worth noting that this is more of a Brave New World kind of thing, rather than 1984. You've got people being pidgeonholed (Alpha, Beta, Delta Gamma/Gifted, 'Normal', Troubled), you got psychological and chemical treatments (Soma, Prozac) Etc. I'm sure many people have made similar comparisons.

Re:Think Different? Then You Can't Think Private (Score:2) by Rabbins (robbins@rickjames.IEATSPAM.sapien.net) on Wednesday October 27, @01:02PM EST (#281) (User Info) http://k-swimming.org

I really do not believe this is the first step towards a Brave New World or a 1984 society. The tests are meant to merely serve as an aid. This is not the "end all means" here. This is not going to lead to them filing our kids into lines, feeding their responses into a computer and shipping them off to their designated groups. There is not some "master mind" behind all this... people really are trying to do the right thing. It is my hope that this will help teachers actually break down stereotypes... enabling them to make more informed decisions, not solely based on whether the kid is social or unsocial. *I am the bully who made gradeschool a living hell for you and all your geek friends... and now I've found you!

Re:Think Different? Then You Can't Think Private (Score:2) by Effugas (effugas@best.com) on Wednesday October 27, @01:15PM EST (#292) (User Info) http://www.doxpara.com

There is a tangible difference between teachers being taught the psychologies of youth and mentorship and a test being used to single out The Different as A Threat. Filtering out the human touch in the name of increased efficiency is not the solution. One does not sooth psychic damage through machinery. If you think about it, teachers don't exactly get much respect either. In some respects, they're even more tragic than the outcasts that get left unprotected. Interesting how pretty much everyone in certain institutions is dehumanized to some degree... Yours Truly, Dan Kaminsky DoxPara Research http://www.doxpara.com Debugging is anticipated with distaste, performed with reluctance, and bragged about forever.

Re:Think Different? Then You Can't Think Private (Score:2) by Rabbins (robbins@rickjames.IEATSPAM.sapien.net) on Wednesday October 27, @03:47PM EST (#375) (User Info) http://k-swimming.org

Filtering out the human touch in the name of increased efficiency is not the solution. One does not sooth psychic damage through machinery. Agreed. This system is intended to do the opposite. It sets a universal standard (and like it or not... you are not as unique as you think) that will aid councilors when dealing with children. It will encourage councilors, teachers and administrators to become more involved. This is the intention. As a parent, I would want school staff to become more involved in my child. And I want that to be based on more than just my child's appearance. If my child is anti-social then I want them to realize that, and to hopefully be able to work with him, WITHOUT assuming he is some kind of a threat. If my child does turn out to have warning signs of a violent nature, I want that to be identified as early as possible and adressed. Sometimes parents can not see that, no matter how involved they are (Columbine is an example of this). If there is a universal method used to aid councilors in determining these warning signs, I want it done... *I am the bully who made gradeschool a living hell for you and all your geek friends... and now I've found you!

Re:Think Different? Then You Can't Think Private (Score:1) by Tranzboy on Wednesday October 27, @01:10PM EST (#290) (User Info)

Maybe the last question on Mosaic-2000 should be, "Tell me about your mother." That should clear out the violent different people in no time. Columbine and its aftermath have reminded me of how glad I am to be out of the public school system, where one is regimented in many bizarre ways, and how glad I am to be working, where I am regimented in many bizarre ways but get paid for it. Plus, here no one cares what I think as long as I do my job and don't threaten people with anything but my personality. I wouldn't be a high school student again for all the tea in China, to use a cliche.

hmmm (Score:1) by Bastian on Wednesday October 27, @10:04AM EST (#78) (User Info)

Of course, they never did this with the group of kids who cause the biggest problem in schools: perfectly well adjusted boys and girls who mercilessly harass other students, or minorly troubled students who beat up other students. really, people, the solution is to teach kids to play nice, not to alienate them. Who knows what effect growing up in a police state will have on America's future?

What are they trying to profile? (Score:3, Interesting) by Rob the Roadie (rob@pcresource.net) on Wednesday October 27, @10:06AM EST (#81) (User Info) http://www.pcresource.net/

Geeks Of the 'geek' types that I know they are not remotely depressed/opressed to the point that they wish to take up arms for their cause.Sure these people are pissed off that their inteligence and ability causes them to be outcasts but they are okay with it. These people have the intelligence to transend this sort of discrimation. Goths Of the 'goth' types that I know I see a common thread of 'Oh my god, everybody hates me, nobody loves, so I'm going off to school to kill everyone when high on drink and drugs that alter my perception of reality'. These people feel opressed. They feel descriminated against. They are prepared to 'fight the power/system' that causes the pain the percieve. But by focusing in on sterotypes -- Geek/Goth/Jock/Nerd/Brain etc etc --we are no better than the powers that be who authorise and endorse the deployment of this sort of personality profilling. Is personality profilling ever going to give us accurate results? I could kill my lover and get off with a few years in jail by claiming a crime of passion. I could storm in to the office of my 'pointy haired boss' and stab him and claim tempory insanity and get let off! If I have no history of violent behaviour and I do not fit into any 'profile' this could happen and frequently does! So what am I saying? This sort of profiling does not work. We live in a diverse cultured socitity. We live in an age of information. Who can say what makes people commit these actions? No one can. Everyone can suggest actions that can contribute to actioning of violence but sometimes people just see red. Reason goes out of the window and violent acts just happen. Fact. What can be done? I suppose that the only thing that can be done is generate a socitity that allows us to act individually without fear of oppression. But we are a long way from this while software such as this is permitted into our lives. As a little a side - at sometime I will learn to spell! Rob Dyke, MD, PC Resource.Net Ltd

Some profiling characteristics, from the web site (Score:3, Interesting) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @10:50AM EST (#147) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

Novel concept, I went to Gavin De Becker's web site and from this article> I found a list of profiling characteristics. Dr. McGee had over 60 categories of information on classroom shooters and about 80 inclusionary and exclusionary criteria, arrayed in spreadsheets and tables. And here was where he caught me. As the slides displaying this information commenced flashing on the big screen at the front of the darkened auditorium, I began noticing an eerie congruence between his profile of the school shooter type, and the actual traits of the boy who had murdered my son... member of alienated group; appearance of normality to adults; negative self-image and unstable self esteem; average to above average IQ; covert vandalism and dishonesty; distrustful and secretive with adults in authority; interest in real and fictional violence in the media; motive vengeance and achievement of power; mixed personality disorder with paranoid, antisocial and narcissistic features... the list went on. The fit was uncanny. McGee told us, for example, how in their fantasies, school shooters pre-select victims, witnesses, time, place, location, means and course of action. I recalled testimony from the criminal trial to the effect that my son’s killer had repeatedly and publicly rehearsed his fantasy of shooting up the dining hall at the evening meal. And this interesting characteristic: These kids were middle class male Caucasians averaging 16 years of age, who felt socially isolated and who had ready access to guns. Other kinds of information were surprising. These kids were NOT drug addicts or alcohol abusers, and they had no documented history of severe mental illness. Aside from an occasional preference for dark or camouflage clothing, they presented a normal appearance to adults. They were not pierced, tattooed scary looking kids, and they were not high-profile trouble makers. They were, generally, of above average intelligence. Hmmm, can we categorize these as geek or goth characteristics? characteristic geek goth alienated group maybe maybe appearance of normality to adults maybe no negative self-image and unstable self esteem* maybe maybe average to above average IQ presumable maybe covert vandalism and dishonesty** maybe maybe distrustful and secretive with adults in authority maybe maybe interest in real and fictional violence in the media *** maybe maybe motive vengeance and achievement of power no no mixed personality disorder with paranoid no no ready access to guns no no * this sounds like a typical adolescent, GH ** does cracking count? *** does AP history count? You can make almost any adolescent fit these characteristics, but maybe in summation they mean something. You'll notice a lack of computers in the mix, too. I had to fudge some of the Goth stuff, not really knowing any Goths anymore. George

I'm a hasty dipshit (Score:1) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @11:06AM EST (#169) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

and I really should use the preview button, sorry. George

Re:What are they trying to profile? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @04:11PM EST (#383)

Is personality profilling ever going to give us accurate results? I could kill my lover and get off with a few years in jail by claiming a crime of passion. I could storm in to the office of my 'pointy haired boss' and stab him and claim tempory insanity and get let off! If I have no history of violent behaviour and I do not fit into any 'profile' this could happen and frequently does! So what am I saying? This sort of profiling does not work. We live in a diverse cultured socitity. We live in an age of information. Who can say what makes people commit these actions? No one can. Everyone can suggest actions that can contribute to actioning of violence but sometimes people just see red. Reason goes out of the window and violent acts just happen. Fact. Myth. Violent acts never "just happen." Violent acts are committed. They are committed by people who make the decision to commit them. You seem to suggest that the person is an irrelevant factor in the equation, that Mother Teresa and Bernard Goetz have equal chances of going on a shooting spree when subjected to the same stress. It's a myth, and a dangerous one. There are differences between the person who finds his wife in bed with another man, and goes off to a bar to cry about it, and the person who gets cut off on the highway, chases the other driver for a hundred miles, drags him out of his car, and beats him to death. To place blame instead on what happens to people, and ignore the choices they make on how to deal with what happens to them, is wrong and dangerous.

Re:What are they trying to profile? (Score:1) by gothwalk (lohikaarme@starflung.com) on Thursday October 28, @04:11AM EST (#448) (User Info) http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~anvar/

>Goths >Of the 'goth' types that I know I see a common >thread of 'Oh my god, everybody hates me, nobody >loves, so I'm going off to school >to kill everyone when high on drink and drugs >that alter my perception of reality'. There's something odd here. I'm a goth, and the symptoms you're describing there sound like abject depression, not a subculture. Most of (if not all of) the goths I know are well-adjusted people, who would not be inclined toward violence. You're perpetrating a stereotype here, which is fundamentally flawed. Take a look in on the alt.gothic.* hierarchy at some point, or check out uk.people.gothic. We're reasonable people, same as the rest of ye.

Nothing new here, Jon. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:08AM EST (#84)

There always have been (and always will be, most likely) kids who are "different". Different isn't better or worse than the rest, it's just different. Judging Geeks to be morally superior to jocks (or vice versa) is just an application of one of many possible value systems. Creation of psych evaluations for high school systems was an almost inevitable consequence of the recent acts of violence in public schools. I haven't seen you mentioning that little of the violence has been committed by "Geeks", "Nerds" or whatever label you might want to use. Are you trying to milk that connection as part of some private agenda? Because I don't get it. Psych evaluations aren't designed to isolate the Geek freeks, they are intended to isolate the potentially violent, which is another thing altogether, I would hope. Not that it has much of a chance of succeeding.

"Pass the buck" as a one player game (Score:3, Insightful) by net-fu on Wednesday October 27, @10:09AM EST (#85) (User Info) http://netfu.dhs.org

There's an awful trend in this country to give computers responsiblity for things that we cannot or won't do ourselves. I guess the idea is to dis-empower teachers and principals over the course of several decades, and then make up for that by providing a means of arbitrary decision-making (the computer). It's a great strategy, and I've seen it work very well at Universities. It has a tendency to leave the victim in a helpless state-- you have no person to complain to-- no one to blame. Would you let a net-nanny watch your kids? Would you let a computer drive your car? (And if you were in an accident, would you sue the software company?) The real Problem is that people have unrealistic and unjustified fears about school shootings. Some facts: 1. The crime rate in America has been going down for the last 30 years or so. Don't look at the overall numbers like they report on the news! Look at the per capita rate. (i.e. crime/population) 2. You're more likely to get killed on your busride home than shot at your desk. (btw.. missing children is the same story. By the time you weed out the kids who ran away, kidnapped by a parent, etc. it's only a handful that go missing each year.) People need to face their fears and take responsibility for their actions, and not make computers do their dirty work for them. The media needs to stop pretending to be objective and start offering real solutions.

processing ... GUILTY (Score:3, Insightful) by FreeUser on Wednesday October 27, @11:00AM EST (#158) (User Info) http://jean.nu/

Acessing Defense Data, Defendent 000000. Accessing Prosecution Data, Defendent 000000. Processing, Defendent 000000 ... GUILTY Pupil: "I know my rights! I have a right to an attourney, and a real court of law!" Administration: "You're a problem child. You don't have any rights." This is a paraphrase of a scene from a Max Headroom episode ("Blanks"). I always considered this to be one of the less realistic, and less prophetic episodes of the show (many of the other themes, such as organ theft, pervasive monitoring and security, and economic crimes carrying heavier punishments than violent crimes, have come true a scant 10-15 years later to varying degrees). Funny, how that which we least expect to _ever_ be tolerated, has now become accepted, even defended, in a forum where one would expect people to be more acutely aware of just how destructive this kind of thing can be. It isn't about geeks, it's about all of us (and this includes geeks). Geeks may be marginally more vulnerable, being slightly outside of the mythical, homoginized average, but everyone is a potential victim of the misuse of this kind of thing, and if history is any indication, misuse is exactly what we can expect. Labelling children as "troubled" or not, with or without the adjective "potential", is destructive. People have a tendency to live up (or down) to the expectations society has for them. Even a potentially troubled child can end up being a positive influence in their school and community with the right support and expectations. I fear, however, that the label this screening will place on many children will make that kind of positive outcome much more difficult, if not impossible. In many cases it will probably insure a negative outcome where such would not have been the case otherwise. Then, of course, there are the inevitable false positives ... and the young lives they will harm, possibly even destroy. If the overreaction on the part of school and government beaurocrats after the Colombine incident (not to mention numerous other witch hunts in recent history) is any indication, I think it is absurdly naive and optomistic to expect this sort of test to be applied in anything even remotely resembling an approprate use. Frankly, I find this sort of institutionalized stamping and labelling of children to be a far bigger threat to their ability to grow up and become productive members of society (whatever disadvantages they may start out with) than an entire army of drug dealers combing the hallways for new customers would be.

Re:processing ... GUILTY (Score:2) by FreeUser on Wednesday October 27, @11:05AM EST (#168) (User Info) http://jean.nu/

ARGH! I should have reread my previous post one more time before submitting it! It reads like I'm disagreeing with the post I followed up to, when in fact I agree with and merely wanted to expand upon one of the author's points ...

Re:"Pass the buck" as a one player game (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @12:18PM EST (#244)

There's an awful trend in this country to give computers responsiblity for things that we cannot or won't do ourselves. Ummm, you guys ever heard of an expert system? Expert systems take the knowledge of experts in a field and sort of combine their knowledge into a computer program. If executed properly, the expert system will perform on par with the experts, and considerably better than non-experts who are in the field. Why would you believe that for some reason a psychologist can ask a child questions and determine whether the child is violent, and a computer cannot? Computers cannot replace psychologists, but they can be a tool, recreating the actions of a trained mental health-care professional in a well-defined task. Furthermore, everyone has taken all sorts of standardized tests, to determine everything from intelligence to personality types. Do we somehow have an intrinsic distrust of IQ tests? Mosaic appears to be exactly the same sort of thing, applied to a different domain.

Re:"Pass the buck" as a one player game (Score:1) by net-fu on Wednesday October 27, @03:21PM EST (#357) (User Info) http://netfu.dhs.org

I think that you are missing the point. Yes, we can probe the child, prod the child, test the child, but in the end, what does that get us? Millions of kids go to school every day and don't get shot. Statistically speaking, they're more likely to die on the bus ride home. And this stuff isn't new either-- the biggest school massacre in U.S. history was a bombing in the 20s. What's the solution? Well, metal detectors, and locker searches, and psyche test, etc.. Remember the kids who pulled the fire alarm to get everyone outside? They used the school's own security infrastructure to increase the odds of killing someone. Do you think that you can deal with such a truely pervasive threat by increasing paranoia? The media has taken the school bully and elevated him to mythic proportions. Reality does not mesh with this view. The soution is to just let it go. Keep your wits about you and your eyes open. The last thing that we need is a false sense of security provided by (gasp!!) software. It's like the old "how do you stop a bull from charging?" joke. ------ Since you brought it up, Expert systems? I think that Dell's 24 hour support line is a pretty good example of one: "Please jiggle the wire to the monitor. When your are finished press 1. Did that fix your problem press 1..." geez.. expert systems? bah!

Why would anyone want to be diffrent anyway? (tm) (Score:1) by Coutal (Coutal@(tear-here)makif.omer.k12.il) on Wednesday October 27, @10:11AM EST (#87) (User Info) http://www.nullrouted.com/~coutal

the US government is proud to present... SNMP module for humans (tm). let the US government manage those pesky thoughts, attitudes and behaviour of yours directly, without having to bother the least of bit about it! check your word transfer stats and make shiny MRTG graphs out of it! bothered about getting a job, getting a date, or getting rich? let the US government deal with those bothers for you! yours now for only 19.95$. soon to be bundled with every microsoft product to replace the old model :)

John, please respond. (Score:1) by lythander on Wednesday October 27, @10:11AM EST (#88) (User Info)

Mr. Katz: OK, M-2K sounds like a bad idea for use outside of threat evaluation by law enforcement in very specific situations. While geeks are no doubt affected by this nonsense, everyone affected by this is not a geek, and not all geeks are. The old-fashioned, stereotypical pocket protector-wearing geeks are probably still safe. There are lots of Goth-type people and other groups who wouldn't know a mouse from a hole in the ground who ARE affected. You play this up to make it seem more topical for /. and I think that's wrong. Even more to the point, by calling for "geek unity" (for lack of a better term). By uniting together to form a group to protect themselves, you form nothing but a NEW clique, and you water down the driving force of geekdom (and for many of these other groups) -- individuality. Once this new clique forms, groupthink begins to emerge, and geekdom flounders. You're basically advocating a group to protect itself by divesting itself of it's quintessence. Geeks won't get picked on if they just stop doing what it is that gets them picked on. Great solution. Further, you nitpick every attempt made by the world at large to prevent violence. I understand that you have legitimate issues with curtailing free speech and freedom of expression for youth (or anyone), and these are always issues for society to deal with. At what price freedom? But in your polemics about "the man" you rail against the injustice heaped upon youth by well-meaning, if misguided adults. So I ask -- what positive do you have to contribute to the debate? Put yourself in the position of an educator or parent. List 10 practical steps that a school could take to guard against this violence. That's all. Be constructive, contribute. >Something pithy this way comes.

John, please respond. (Score:4, Insightful) by lythander on Wednesday October 27, @10:12AM EST (#90) (User Info)

Mr. Katz: OK, M-2K sounds like a bad idea for use outside of threat evaluation by law enforcement in very specific situations. While geeks are no doubt affected by this nonsense, everyone affected by this is not a geek, and not all geeks are. The old-fashioned, stereotypical pocket protector-wearing geeks are probably still safe. There are lots of Goth-type people and other groups who wouldn't know a mouse from a hole in the ground who ARE affected. You play this up to make it seem more topical for /. and I think that's wrong. Even more to the point, by calling for "geek unity" (for lack of a better term). By uniting together to form a group to protect themselves, you form nothing but a NEW clique, and you water down the driving force of geekdom (and for many of these other groups) -- individuality. Once this new clique forms, groupthink begins to emerge, and geekdom flounders. You're basically advocating a group to protect itself by divesting itself of it's quintessence. Geeks won't get picked on if they just stop doing what it is that gets them picked on. Great solution. Further, you nitpick every attempt made by the world at large to prevent violence. I understand that you have legitimate issues with curtailing free speech and freedom of expression for youth (or anyone), and these are always issues for society to deal with. At what price freedom? But in your polemics about "the man" you rail against the injustice heaped upon youth by well-meaning, if misguided adults. So I ask -- what positive do you have to contribute to the debate? Put yourself in the position of an educator or parent. List 10 practical steps that a school could take to guard against this violence. That's all. Be constructive, contribute. >Something pithy this way comes.

Re:John, please respond. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:47AM EST (#143)

Remember, it's a lot easier to view the holes in a badly- designed system than to design a good system. If Mr. Katz coul come up with a good system, would he be here, or out earning a Nobel?

Re:John, please respond. (Score:4, Interesting) by Kintanon (sleffer@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:50AM EST (#146) (User Info)

List 10 practical steps that a school could take to guard against this violence. 1. Teachers and Administrators must listen to complaints from harassed children and ACT ON THEM. 2. Teachers and Administrators must realize that not all students learn the same way and allow for intellectual differences, preferably by seperate, merit based classes. 3. No Dress Code. No stupid pointless meaningless rules about not chewing gum in class. 4. Pay the teachers 2x what they are getting now. 5. In order to perform #2, remove the football program from the school and instead funnel all of that money to the teachers. 6. Do not give special treatment to students based on sports. 7. Return to a institution of LEARNING instead of socializing and playing football. 8. Allow free discussion of relevant topics in the classroom. Less lecture, more learning. 9. Allow Teachers to have more personal contact with the students. Stop making the students switch teachers every class period, the subjects covered in high school are not so in depth that 1 person can not become profficient at all of them. 10. Evaluate disciplinary issues on a case by case bases. Do not suspend all parties involved in a fight if 5 guys attack 1 guy and hospitalize him. Only suspend the 5 that deserve it. Instigate police proceedings against violent offenders such as the above example. I think these 10 points would EASILY reduce violence in school as well as raising the quality of our schools. But they MUST be instituted from kindergarten up to 12th grade. Not just in high school. We need to go back to educating our children instead of feeding them crap so they can regurgitate it for a test and forget it immediately afterwards. Kintanon Sign up for Alladvantage under EBS-939 and help me make money!! Sign up for UtopiAd under Valis and Help me make money! This Sig was Prematurely Ended.

I am sensing a bit of a bias here... (Score:2, Insightful) by Rabbins (robbins@rickjames.IEATSPAM.sapien.net) on Wednesday October 27, @11:28AM EST (#195) (User Info) http://k-swimming.org

5. In order to perform #2, remove the football program from the school and instead funnel all of that money to the teachers. 6. Do not give special treatment to students based on sports. 7. Return to a institution of LEARNING instead of socializing and playing football. I agree with most of your points, but think you need to forego a little of your animosity... did someone lose a girlfriend, or get beaten up a few times? :) Sports is not the antichrist here... and yes, football IS a sport. As little as I personally value it, that sport brings in a lot of money for the highschool... money that is also funneled into educational projects and clubs. Playing a sport in highschool is just as valuable to a student as joining an academic club, national honors society or any other extra-curricular activity. You learn a lot of things while involved in a sport... including, but not limited to: Organizational skills Teamwork Strategy Elation and Disapointment Interaction on Many Different Levels Discipline These experiences and skills prove highly valuable in college and when entering the work force... no matter what field your interest lies with. Sorry to bring back unpleasant memories. *I am the bully who made gradeschool a living hell for you and all your geek friends... and now I've found you!

Re:I am sensing a bit of a bias here... (Score:2) by Kintanon (sleffer@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @12:29PM EST (#255) (User Info)

I agree with most of your points, but think you need to forego a little of your animosity... did someone lose a girlfriend, or get beaten up a few times? :) Sports is not the antichrist here... and yes, football IS a sport. As little as I personally value it, that sport brings in a lot of money for the highschool... money that is also funneled into educational projects and clubs. Playing a sport in highschool is just as valuable to a student as joining an academic club, national honors society or any other extra-curricular activity. You learn a lot of things while involved in a sport... including, but not limited to: Organizational skills Teamwork Strategy Elation and Disapointment Interaction on Many Different Levels Discipline These experiences and skills prove highly valuable in college and when entering the work force... no matter what field your interest lies with. Sorry to bring back unpleasant memories. I have nothing against sports, I wrestled in high school, I enjoy watching football and baseball, I like playing soccer, I hold a first degree Black Belt in Taekwondo. HOWEVER none of that should be state sponsored school administered activity. It should be a seperate thing, ie the REC Department that most counties have. In my high school the football team was allowed to have as many fund raising events as it chose, as well as getting money from ticket sales and directly from the school. Every year the team got new uniforms, new pads, new shoes, new helmets, new everything. The wrestling team, the baseball team, and the volleyball team got nothing. We brought in money from ticket sales, bu were only allowed to have 1 fund raising event per year. Other sports got shafted for football. NONE of these sports should be school sponsored activities. They should all be overseen by the Recreational department which is funded by the parents of the kids playing the sports and the ticket sales for the games. Kintanon Sign up for Alladvantage under EBS-939 and help me make money!! Sign up for UtopiAd under Valis and Help me make money! This Sig was Prematurely Ended.

Re:I am sensing a bit of a bias here... (Score:1) by Rabbins (robbins@rickjames.IEATSPAM.sapien.net) on Wednesday October 27, @12:44PM EST (#268) (User Info) http://k-swimming.org

HOWEVER none of that should be state sponsored school administered activity. It should be a seperate thing, ie the REC Department that most counties have. I believe it should be a scool's responsibility to sponser extra-curricular activities. This includes sports. Would you suggest the schools also stop supporting theatre and putting on school plays? A lot of money goes into this extra-curricular activity as well. I bitched and moaned in high school and college about how the football and basketball teams got the royal treatment as well. But I am now able to see around that. Football and basketball are simply the nation's most popular sports. By fostering good teams, schools increase more than just ticket sales. The whole school benefits from this notoriety. I wish to peanuts that other sports were more popular however... but that is the way it is right now. *I am the bully who made gradeschool a living hell for you and all your geek friends... and now I've found you!

Re:I am sensing a bit of a bias here... (Score:2) by Kintanon (sleffer@hotmail.com) on Wednesday October 27, @01:13PM EST (#291) (User Info)

I believe it should be a scool's responsibility to sponser extra-curricular activities. This includes sports. Would you suggest the schools also stop supporting theatre and putting on school plays? A lot of money goes into this extra-curricular activity as well. I bitched and moaned in high school and college about how the football and basketball teams got the royal treatment as well. But I am now able to see around that. Football and basketball are simply the nation's most popular sports. By fostering good teams, schools increase more than just ticket sales. The whole school benefits from this notoriety. I wish to peanuts that other sports were more popular however... but that is the way it is right now. yes, I do think they should not be putting on plays. An elective theatre class would acceptable, which was a regular class and where everyone brought their own materials for set design and such. And if they wanted to have a play, free of charge, then that would be fine too. I don't mind Phys Ed as a class. If we have Phys Ed, why do we need football?? Oh, and many counties in Georgia have seperate Arts programs like ARTS Oglethorpe (my county) which put on plays and are funded by the community. Kintanon Sign up for Alladvantage under EBS-939 and help me make money!! Sign up for UtopiAd under Valis and Help me make money! This Sig was Prematurely Ended.

Re:I am sensing a bit of a bias here... (Score:1) by G27 Radio on Wednesday October 27, @01:23PM EST (#300) (User Info) http://g27.org/numb/pics

I can relate to this also--being from that type of school. As much money as possible went towards sports--especially football--and our football team sucked (IIRC they didn't win one game my senior year.) My friends from other schools were using Apple II's, Mac's, and PS/2's yet our school was using TRS-80's and Commodore PET's. (We finally got some PS/2's my senior year--it was a real big deal that they finally put some money into computers.) When our Spanish class wanted to go on a field trip the administration said they couldn't afford to pay for the bus driver (our Spanish teacher offered take us without pay so that part wasn't an issue.) So the class got together and decided we'd pay for it ourselves (it was just a trip to see Man of La Mancha at a local theatre in a nearby town so it would have been pretty cheap.) This time the administration came back and said that wouldn't be fair to students in other classes that couldn't afford to do the same--yet the sports teams were given all sorts of assistance with fundraisers. Finally we decided we'd arrange to do it without any help from the school. The next day our teacher came back and said "I'm sorry but I am not allowed to participate in this in any way. We are not allowed to discuss or arrange anything in this class." Yeah, I'm biased too. numb ?syntax error ]

Re:I am sensing a bit of a bias here... (Score:4, Interesting) by jflynn on Wednesday October 27, @01:02PM EST (#282) (User Info)

"Sports is not the antichrist here... and yes, football IS a sport. As little as I personally value it, that sport brings in a lot of money for the highschool... money that is also funneled into educational projects and clubs." Yup, there is truth in what you say. Physical education is part of a balanced curriculum. But surely you understand that football (and I enjoy watching football occasionally myself) has been elevated to a position of artificial importance? If the school football team wins a victory, it's a big deal. Time is even taken from classes to rally spirit prior to the game and celebrate victory afterwards. Team heroes often get laid. Buses are provided to transport the team. There is even an officially endorsed team of attractive females to encourage the male football players and spectators by shouting and wearing skimpy outfits. This sport is valued so highly that regular occurrences of paralysis and maiming in children do not derail it. Where exactly is the social value in paying so kids can act violently with the full approval of their peers and parents? And they think DOOM is desensitizing? When the school's debating team or chess team (assuming they still have one) wins, where is the recognition or encouragement? Why do they have to provide their own transportation to the match? Why do students laugh at their victories (at least until some team hits the state or national finals -- then suddenly they're "our geeks")? Seems this kind of rivalry would benefit commercial sponsors much more in the long run, but as you say, there is *no* money in it at all. Testing students for violent thinking thru a test, then sending them out to actually break bones on the gridiron, or cheer such mayhem on, seems a little contradictory to me. If it were up to me, I'd can the test and keep football. But I'd also get the money completely out of all kinds of football but professional. *Especially* high school football -- because engaging in a dangerous sport for *any* reason other than the love of it is the wrong reason. Money to fund sports and other competitions needs to come from somewhere. Why do I have the feeling that most of it goes to adminstrators with fat salaries and corrupt vendors of materials with sweetheart deals? Maybe because throwing more at the problem does absolutely nothing for students? I think it's time we consider a federal standard for education with individual schools only responsible to themselves and that standard. That eliminates untold bureaucrats, promotes choice in education, and keeps deals for materials very small and hard to control or corrupt.

Re:I am sensing a bit of a bias here... (Score:1) by Rabbins (robbins@rickjames.IEATSPAM.sapien.net) on Wednesday October 27, @01:29PM EST (#304) (User Info) http://k-swimming.org

To be honest, I do not even enjoy watching football in the slightest... and I laughed pretty hard at the interpretation of the school providing teams with scantily clad girls :) I watch the Super Bowl for the commercials, and I go to my school's homecoming football game every year because I enjoy drinking beer outside with my friends. I might glance at the game once or twice. But, I am definitely in the minority on that... the fact is that football drives schools... money and attention from football drives schools. I am for football scholarships because I like the idea that (hopefully) some of those lugs will actually get an education... and in the meantime, they are helping pay for the education of numerous others (football = revenues = more scholarships). I am however, a huge advocate of Division III athletics. At this level, athletic scholarships are illegal... and the kids that decide to play sports do for the pure love and enjoyment of the sport. That is great, and I do wish things were more like that across the board... but I do not think that is very realistic. *I am the bully who made gradeschool a living hell for you and all your geek friends... and now I've found you!

Re:John, please respond. (Score:2, Informative) by lythander on Wednesday October 27, @12:10PM EST (#235) (User Info)

That teachers and administrators must be more sensitive (and less judgemental) to students' issues is a great start. Paying them more might help (it's certainly one of the reasons I quit teaching and won't go back), and disallowing preferential treatment of any class of students is important. But singling out a class of students doesn't help, and while dress codes are annoying (I think they're stupid myself) unless they are specifically tailored to discriminate against a particular student population they are harmless. When I went to high school, it was a huge deal when they changed the dress code to allow boys to wear shorts! A school where learning was the only focus is probably impossible. School is supposed to nurture social skills, too. Those who chafe against the notion that you shouldn't be forced to socialize in school only serve to identify themselves as less than socially skilled. That's OK, but those people need to find a way to live in society, and that's part of what one goes to school for. (Please, no home schooling flames, it's a different thing entirely.) As for having teachers be more involved with students, and for dealing with all students case-by-case, there are practical considerations. Liability issues raise their head. Teachers get a little TOO involved with their students (rare, but less so than school shootings), and when making judgement calls on discipline problems and such, administrators get harassed for treating students unequally, hence the tendency to have strict codes of conduct and following them to the letter. Blame the lawyers. The trend is toward hiring more people who are MORE specialized, not less, so they can provide better instruction. This seems to be another socialization issue, but fo those who think being a teacher is easy, please keep in mind that any decent teacher has to be much more than just smarter than her students. Teaching is a craft whose subtleties should not be underestimated. I would place with them (not administrators, not astronauts, not anyone else)my highest respect and esteem because they are craftsmen of the highest calibre. No, they aren't all perfect, some aren't even that good. But those who are good, are a kind of good we need more of in this country. I know in asking for positive suggestions I open a big can of worms, and Kaatz won't answer because he has even fewer constructive things to add to the debate than most. The problem lies with each of us. Parents need to pay more attention to their kids than their careers, and instill in them values and respect for others, even others undeserving of it. Administrators need to take less programmatical approaches to students. The educational community (places that teach people to be teachers) need to do a MUCH better job. Administrators and teachers are filled with theories of learning, theories of development, and a vast array of really useless information, but seldom deal with simple things like classroom management, or, How to keep most of the people in your class in the room at the same time. And the media just need to get its collective head out of its collective ass. >Something pithy this way comes.

Moderate that up.... (Score:2) by Rabbins (robbins@rickjames.IEATSPAM.sapien.net) on Wednesday October 27, @11:57AM EST (#223) (User Info) http://k-swimming.org

It would be nice to get a response. While I actually enjoy most of Katz's posts, I have found myself vehemently disagreeing with him when the subject of highschool is brought up... ever since the end of the original Hellmouth series (those had merit). But this idea that parents/teachers/councilors/adminatrators are just trying to keep kids down is simply ludicrous. The one that made me laugh probably the hardest was "Go to the movie theatre and take a kid to see South Park day". I trully believe that the vast majority of parents and teachers really do have kids' best interestes in mind, and that they do know better than most teenagers. When I was in highschool, Katz would have been a hero to me... I knew it all, and everything was so unfair and no one understood me blah blah blah. But now I am a little older, and I continually suprise myself when I think "Yah know, my parents actually did know what they were talking about". While Katz may have the teenage anthem down well, he fails to rally those of us that have gotten over that phase. *I am the bully who made gradeschool a living hell for you and all your geek friends... and now I've found you!

1. Let teachers fight back (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @01:39PM EST (#309)

"List 10 practical steps that a school could take to guard against this violence." 1. If a teacher chooses to be discretely armed, let him/her. If some thug - violating a whole host of laws and morals - enters school and starts killing then only immediate solution to the immediate problem is for a teacher, exercising the _right_ to be responsibly armed in the interest of protecting innocent life, to shoot the attacker and immediately stop him from killing more. This whole "gun-free zone" nonsense has created a building full of potential targets, and murderous thugs know that _nobody_ will stop them. Other countries, facing similar problems, armed the teachers and promptly stopped all attacks. And no, an otherwise normal teacher is not going to suddenly become seized by demons and start slaying everyone in sight just because there's a handgun under his/her jacket. M-2K is about as useful as "restraining orders" for domestic abouse (i.e. virtually worthless). There always has and always will be some people who will turn violent and have means to act violently; responsible innocents MUST have the option of fighting back to promptly stop the violence.

Steps... (Score:1) by Stephen "The Carp" C (sjc@delphi.com) on Wednesday October 27, @08:35PM EST (#419) (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc

1) Allow Faculty to conceal and carry. Yes normal faculty should be able to carry concealed weapons if they wish. Think about it...if you and a friend were going to "Go in" and shoot up a school...the first target is any armed gaurds (if there are any). If even 1 or 2 teachers in Columbine had a gun with them, it could have been ended alot faster. (not that there were many casualties considering that it WAS a completly unarmed population... deathtoll should have been, by all rights, more on the order of 50 or 80, given the firepower of the 2) 2) require psychiatric training of all teachers I am not saying make them all psychologists...just some basic training. Not too much more then it should take to give the DSM IV a glance. The reasoning for this is so that teachers can learn to recognize dangerous patterns. Perhaps this wont aid security too much, but it may help them get help for some disturbed individuals who slipped under normal "Radar" be gotten help.It should also help advance those students who cause trouble because they are bored and ready for higher level of learning (under the current system they are labeled "Troublemakers" and sent off to slower classes) hmmm ok so I have 2 steps so far... -- Steve

Re:John, please respond. (Score:1) by alizard (alizard[spam]@ecis.com) on Thursday October 28, @03:56PM EST (#468) (User Info) http://www.ecis.com/~alizard

Within the constraints of the public school game, I don't see ANY affordable solution. Even a prison with armed guards and video surveillance has semi-regular outbreaks of lethal violence. In an ideal world, the school administrators, teachers, and students who have created the climate of violence would reexamine their beliefs and practices and resolve to do something else. If their heads were that together, the problem would never have been allowed to happen in the first place. What's really going on is an escalation of the climate of repression. There are many forces which make constructive change in public education extremely improbable in the current political climate. The only solution I see is to allow students and parents to opt out of the present system via homeschooling, charter schools, and ultimately voucher programs which will allow new kinds of schools to be not only set up, but to be affordable to those who want them. Some kids like the current system. Under a voucher system, they could take their vouchers to their current schools. Others would like to see money which goes to the football program at an ordinary public school go to something useful, like new technology. Vouchers let people select environments that fit them best. One size fits all public education is obsolete. Mosaic 2000 isn't a fix. http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/voucher.html y2k info - http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/y2k.html Littleton comments - http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/littleto.html

Mosiac 2000 - what a crock (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:14AM EST (#92)

Is this made by Microsoft? Anyway - this is the dumbest thing I have EVER heard of... Let's see... "Yes the 17yr old will be perfectly honest while filling in the questionnaire" Yeah right. Since they can't force you to answer correctly (since there shouldn't be a 'correct' answer) - I can't see what is to prevent a kid from just checking all the "A" answers or just filling in jibberish. I would have a ball with this... :) Seems like yet another waste of $$ and time for school administrators who need to get off their ass and start teaching... Anyone see the report a few nights ago about the school teachers having to buy school supplies out of their own pockets - America the Beautiful!!

Fight Back (Score:1) by bowood (bowood@faradic.net) on Wednesday October 27, @10:18AM EST (#96) (User Info) http://www.faradic.net/

A friend of mine tried to fight these kinds of things all through high school. He put together his own publication and despite many confiscations, threats, and discipline attempts he distributed it, led protests, and made students heard. He runs a webpage called http://www.youthpower.net where he currently helps students at other schools, collects and distributes stories, and continues to fight for youth power.

Hate to point this out... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:19AM EST (#98)

... but weren't most teachers/instructors geeks? I mean, really. They care about knowledge and education, don't they? Isn't that a geek, more or less? Sure, I suppose the Phys Ed guys are geek-jocks, or somesuch... but the core academia in a high school cares about knowledge. I know that teachers aren't in it for the money! Of course, give an adolescent geek ten years and they'll become a cog in the machine just like everyone else. You can't escape the fact that money rules the world. -syn

Re:Hate to point this out... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @07:36PM EST (#409)

Actually, that isn't true at all. A geek is more likely to become a comp. sci., science, or math major (or something similar), not an education major. This is easy to show because education almost all education majors score in the bottom third of SAT and ACT scores. Since when do the teachers in high school care about knowledge?

As usual with Katz... (Score:4, Insightful) by Mendax Veritas (mendaxveritas@yahoo.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:20AM EST (#99) (User Info)

Katz, as is his wont, has flown into a paranoid frenzy, his mind full of hysterical visions of every kid with a Marilyn Manson t-shirt being subjected to Orwell's Room 101 treatment. This doesn't really help me to understand the situation, since it reduces the article's signal-to-noise ratio drastically. I had to look elsewhere to even get a basic idea of what Mosaic-2000 really is, since Katz tells us next to nothing about it other than that his teenaged sources (in whose perspective he displays an amazing degree of confidence, considering how oversimplified and us-vs-them the average teenager's worldview is) don't like it. Not surprisingly, there is a website, www.mosaic2000.com, promoting Gavin de Becker Inc. and its products. The site describes Mosaic-2000 as follows: "a method for evaluating students who make threats" This sounds good; they're not suggesting you run all the kids in the school through it to magically find all the killers. Instead, when threats are made, you use the system as an aid in trying to figure out how serious the situation is. "not a computer program, but rather an evaluation method that is computer-assisted" This is even better; they're not just asking the machine to evaluate people. Instead, they're using it as one part of a process primarily conducted by humans (trained ones, one hopes). "MOSAIC suggests to the user which questions are most likely to produce a quality evaluation." "MOSAIC-2000 does not make decisions; it is a tool that helps school administrators by identifying the areas of inquiry that experts feel will produce the best evaluation of the situation." It sounds like Mosaic is really just an expert system intended to be used as a guide in a counselor's evaluation. In summary: typical Katz paranoia.

MODERATE THIS UP (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:38AM EST (#131)

this is the most informative response I've seen. He actually did some research about what he was talking about, unlike Mr. Katz. Funny thing is, Mr. Katz gets to post his knee jerk don't know what the hell he's talking about didn't research the subject articles here...

Orwellian Treatment (Score:1) by Alanzilla (afrazier@geocities.com) on Wednesday October 27, @11:07AM EST (#172) (User Info)

Katz, as is his wont, has flown into a paranoid frenzy, his mind full of hysterical visions of every kid with a Marilyn Manson t-shirt being subjected to Orwell's Room 101 treatment. The problem will not be that every kid with a Marilyn Manson t-shirt is subjected to this. The problem will be that any kid with a Marilyn Manson t-shirt could be subjected to it. Paranoia is a conditioned response. Too bad we've been conditioned so much.

Re:Orwellian Treatment (Score:1) by Mendax Veritas (mendaxveritas@yahoo.com) on Wednesday October 27, @11:36AM EST (#203) (User Info)

You're missing the point. If some kid is heard threatening to kill people in school, he'll be sent to a counselor for an evaluation. That's true already, and has been true for a long time. Mosaic doesn't change that. It's just an expert system that suggests further questions to ask based on the answers to previous questions. It does not categorize kids as being "good" or "bad"; it poses no inherent risk to the student's privacy or civil rights. If you think otherwise, please outline your concerns clearly and rationally, without recourse to Jon Katz's paranoid frothing-at-the-mouth or empty rhetoric such as your own final paragraph. Exactly how do you think Mosaic threatens anyone?

Re:Orwellian Treatment (Score:1) by Alanzilla (afrazier@geocities.com) on Thursday October 28, @11:15AM EST (#463) (User Info)

Some hard reasoning for you, since you're not convinced (not that you ever will be, necessarily): 1. Expert systems are only as good as the people developing them. Expert systems have been around to analyze weather for much longer than they've been around to analyze human emotions and motivations, and they're not terribly accurate. What makes you think this one will be any better? 2. Who decides when and why the student must be evaluated by Mosaic? Are you naive enough to believe they'll only use it after someone threatens to kill someone? 3. There's a possibility that this profiling software doesn't involve having the student take a test. If so, will the student or the student's parents be notified if the student is profiled using this software? Who will be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information fed to the machine? Will the student or the student's parents be given a chance to contest the validity of the information given to the system? 3. What happens if you get a false positive? Who decides if the positive result was true or false? Will the student or the student's parents be given a chance to contest the results? 4. What will be done to the kid if the software DOES determine he or she has violent tendencies? What privileges or rights will he or she have stripped or curtailed based on a prediction of what he or she MIGHT do? The problem isn't with the software itself. It very well might be extremely useful under the right set of circumstances. Who will make sure it's only used under the right circumstances?

Re:As usual with Katz... (Score:1) by egoebel on Wednesday October 27, @11:36AM EST (#204) (User Info)

You assume that the software will be used the way that GDB says it should be used. I read that Katz does not. I don't think that his fears are unfounded. For one thing, how many schools are going to spend the money on the software and the training? How many schools will defer the "decisions" that GDB refers to completely to the software? When the hype says it's "a method for evaluating students who make threats," what do they mean by threat? Can the combination of being a Doom player, Anthrax fan and losing your temper in Social Studies class lead to a recommendation for therapy? Katz may be assuming the worst, but I don't think the answer is to assume the best. This sort of tool will be abused by bureaucrats that are just as paranoid as Katz.

Re:As usual with Katz... (Score:1) by Mendax Veritas (mendaxveritas@yahoo.com) on Wednesday October 27, @12:10PM EST (#232) (User Info)

For one thing, how many schools are going to spend the money on the software and the training? When I referred to "trained" humans, I just meant someone trained to perform counseling; I wasn't assuming that any Mosaic-specific training was needed beyond skimming the user manual. How many schools will defer the "decisions" that GDB refers to completely to the software? Well, let's consider what they use in the absence of Mosaic. Right now there's a counselor, and s/he probably has some written guides (a book or published article) about conducting evaluations of this sort. Now they'll have some software too. Maybe the book will be left on the shelf. The final responsibility for any conclusions reached, and actions taken, will still rest with the counselor and the school, not GDB. All in all, not much difference. Can the combination of being a Doom player, Anthrax fan and losing your temper in Social Studies class lead to a recommendation for therapy? Losing your temper in class, all by itself, might be enough, depending what you do. If you attack someone physically or yell something like, "I oughta kill you!", then, sure, you ought to be sent to the school counselor for an evaluation. The presence or absence of Mosaic has no effect on that. Katz may be assuming the worst [...] No, I don't think he's just "assuming the worst". I think he's totally out of touch with reality, drifting in a paranoid fantasy world where everything that any authority figure does, good or bad, is tantamount to an Orwellian nightmare. If products like Mosaic were already a standard feature of school counselors' offices, and they decided to stop using them, I seriously suspect that Jon Katz would write a hysterical article about how the fate of non-conformist kids was now going to be left to the individual judgment of biased, unsympathetic counselors, and claiming that expert systems served as a moderating influence on the counselors' determinations. In fact, I think that's probably more true that what he actually wrote.

Go Katz Go!! (Score:1) by SolaRJetmaN on Wednesday October 27, @11:04PM EST (#432) (User Info) http://members.xoom.com/edutrocity

Katz adds a lot to this site. If his opinions seem nutty, and extreme, that's because for the most part they are. But look at the comments! Every Katz posting that has popped up in the last several months has had hundreds of comments in the first day up! Even if a third of the comments are "Jon Katz sucks, and here's why he's dead wrong." He promotes discussion, he stimulates critical thought. Look at most political discussion today. Two major parties, arguing endlessly on the same issues. Abortion, gun control. People seem to think that politics is two-sided, that you're either right or left wing. It's not. The reason people at large don't realize it is because there aren't enough "nuts" like Katz, who transcend the wing system with "radical" opinions. We need more nuts, I say. Not just "geeks are oppressed by American society" nuts, but all kinds of nuts. We need all kinds of nuts: anarchists, syndicalists, communists, and anything else you can think of, named or not. Maybe then, people will see more possible solutions to problems than what the Demicans and Republicrats propose. Maybe then, when I tell people I'm a libertarian, they won't confuse "libertarian" with "very liberal" and call me a communist. In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan

OK, Rob. Time to "sell out" and hire a pro (Score:1) by Sebbo (sebbo@sebbo.org) on Wednesday October 27, @10:21AM EST (#102) (User Info) http://world.std.com/~sebbo

(then my book reviews wouldn't have so many spelling errors) Quoth the Katz: ...have teamed up to develop a software program that will be tested in 20 schools around the country in December. Ooh, good thing he clarified, I wouldn't want /.ers thinking it was a software bicycle or a software grilled cheese sandwich. How about replacing "a software program" with "software"?

Re:OK, Rob. Time to "sell out" and hire a (Score:1) by Darchmare (jeff@axismutatis.net) on Wednesday October 27, @03:55PM EST (#379) (User Info) http://www.axismutatis.net

I don't think it was much of a mistake (certainly not worthy of bitching about). It could be said that a software 'program' is different than a driver or something. When I think of 'program' or 'application' I think of a tool, versus stuff like drivers or underlying OS code that is never interacted with. But guess what? It doesn't matter. Katz isn't critiquing the latest OS releases or pondering the best executable format. - Darchmare - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net

Re:OK, Rob. Time to "sell out" and hire a (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @04:13PM EST (#384)

Well if it wasn't worth bitching about, then it certainly wasn't worth bitching about bitching about it. Which makes me wonder if it was worth bitching about bitching about bitching about it.

Thought Police (Score:1) by pendragn on Wednesday October 27, @10:21AM EST (#103) (User Info)

Okay, I have to agree with most everyone else that this does seem a little bit like over-reaction, we don't know exactly what this program does, and how it "profiles" Kids in HS. What bothers me though is that this software really seems to be desinged to Identify dangerous thought, and that scares me far more than any "geek profiling" program (software or otherwise) would. This comes dangerously close to policing people for things that they haven't done and have no intention of ever doing, and weather your a geek or a jock or a prep, or a socialite, or a Streight-A student without much time for socilising outside of other Streight-A students, that should scare you. There's another thing that bothers me as well, and that is that this software is desinged to warn of possible "Dangerous" behaviour. Who the fuck decides whats dangerous. Some of Katz's Ideas of danger scare the hell out of me, and I don't think that I trust many other people to define danger for me. And thats the crux of my objection, "Danger" is a word like "Indecent," poorly defined, and variable. Another issue that troubles me is one that Katz pointed out, there has been a steady decline in violence over the last decade, not only among youth, but among almost every sector of American society. Yet all this attention, is being payed to the so called "youth violence epidemic." This is the most clear case of the government and the media feeding off of the publics fears and steriotypes to turn a profit and crack down on more of people's essential freedoms. I know its been said time and time again, but if we allow to this to happen who know where it could lead. If this happening in High school doesn't scare you just think that you may have to submit to a mental screening test like this the next time you take an interview at one of those nice high paying silicon vally jobs that everyone on slashdot but myself seems to have. Thought profiling on a widespread level is scary man.

Great! Another Tool to be misunderstood! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:22AM EST (#104)

I have a suspicion that this Mosaic 2000 tool will end up being remarkably similar to the Minnesota Multiphasic test that was used before. It will consist of several questions that when taken out of context and bunched with other questions will lead to alarming results. All the Minnesota Multiphasic did was to tell you how much like a Minnesota farmer you are (do you like mannish women?). All the mosaic 2000 test is going to do is (if you answer truthfully) how much like their idea of a dangerous person you are (Do you neighbors think of you a quiet person?). What they probably don't realize is that the people who would be the biggest threat are also those who are smart enough to blend in with the crowd. Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Re:Great! Another Tool to be misunderstood! (Score:1) by U3mancer on Wednesday October 27, @12:22PM EST (#248) (User Info) http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Bayou/8594

AC makes a good point: ...how much like their idea of a dangerous person you are... (emphasis by me) This is the main problem that I have with the whole system. Remember, the purpose of mosaic2k is to filter out the people who fit to a certain profile. How this profile looks, is defined by analyzing the habits of "proven" violent people. As many contributors have written, there is much "unproven" violence in US schools, unproven in the sense that the administration doesn´t notice it. Here in Germany we had what the government called Rasterfahndung ("raster screenings") for terrorists in the late 70ies. They analyzed the habits of terrorists (lives in anomyous building blocks without facing building, pays rent and electricity/heating bill in cash, rents cars etc.) and did a computerized search for such people. the result was that several hundreds of innocent people got spied for months, only because some of their habits matched with those of the terrorists. Not one single terrorist was found due to Rasterfahndung. I expect similar results with mosaic2k. What will be worse then is the public pressure to pass these tests (Rasterfahndung happened secretly). -- "Wherever you go, there you are." (Buckaroo Banzai)

But geeks hate ppl different than "geeks" (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:22AM EST (#106)

Geeks are just as bad about folks "different" from the norm. See yesterday's post about Phish to see a whole bunch of geeks jumping to conclusions about "dirty hippies", what cars they drive, and how the only thing on their mind is their next hit of acid. Really open-minded posts there (*sarcasm*) Before you start slamming the powers that be, take a look at yourself and ask why you can justify slamming them when you're just as bad. The answer is actually painfully simple: you're just not in power. Hack at the root, not at the leaves

Katz is doing the same thing (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:23AM EST (#108)

Why is it that =Mosaic= is said to be trying to profit from this mess but Katz isn't? Katz has got so much journalistic mileage - if he can be said to be a journalist and not a babbler or scribbler - out of this that his bona fides are suspect when he shouts `Profiteering off geeks'. In any case, anyone bright enough to be a geek knows enough to lie on tests like these. It's much the same as throwing the results of your IQ test to make sure you're seen as an overachiever.

WARNING controversial view WARNING (Score:1) by Orgasmatron on Wednesday October 27, @10:26AM EST (#114) (User Info)

I find Jon's writings informative and insightful, but I wonder about one thing. Why is there always an implied correspondance of "geek" with "goth" in his writings? I know a few goths who are very intellegent and antisocial, in other words, stereotype geeks. The vast, vast majority are as dumb as toast. they usually aren't even non-conformist, they've just imprinted differently than "normal" people. they're "Daring to be different" just like everyone else, and they are doing it by finding the largest group of people who all 1) look similar, and 2) look nothing like the other large quasi-coherent group of people. P.S. check this website. X=Y;X^2=XY;X^2-Y^2=XY-Y^2;(X+Y)(X-Y)=Y(X-Y);X+Y=Y;2Y=Y;2=1

Re:WARNING controversial view WARNING (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @11:57AM EST (#222)

> Why is there always an implied correspondance of "geek" > with "goth" in his writings? Because he doesn't know shit?

Re:WARNING controversial view WARNING (Score:1) by U3mancer on Wednesday October 27, @12:45PM EST (#269) (User Info) http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Bayou/8594

>... implied correspondance of "geek" with "goth" in his writings? Because he doesn't know shit? Probably because you don´t know shit. The Columbine shooters were alleged to be goth. They weren´t. -- "Wherever you go, there you are." (Buckaroo Banzai)

A few thoughts... (Score:1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:26AM EST (#116)

I'm Theo, my login isn't working right now, so I'm in on AC, this might get kinda toasty, but these are my honest thoughts on the matter. First off, for everyone who's complaining about constitutional rights, How many times have we seen very bad things implemented by some corporation or another, in lieu of some worse form of regulation? I get the feeling that it may be about the same thing here. And let's face it, just try to exercise your constitutional rights, and they've got you as a violent dangerous person right there. Second, before you go blaming us Christians, look at all the people who are involved in putting this kind of thing in place. Yes, there are some screaming for it, but there are probably just as many who aren't part of a "moral majority" type group (secular humanists, postmodernists, and left wing control freaks come to mind, but there are others, I'm not just picking on you) who want this kind of thing, either for malicious or misguided reasons. Just get them thinking it's a big step towards their big "mark of the beast" thing, and you can get some of the more extreme christians on your side. Third, an idea for how to deal with all these people who want monitoring of all these kids, filters in the public library PC's, v-chips, movie ratings, and this mosaic bull... These people who with one mouth say people need to be responsible for their own actions, but with the other scream don't make us responsible for our own. I say we go on the offensive and sue to have their children taken away; that they are abdicating their parental responsibility by their constant cries of "take care of our children!". If they don't want to do the job of parenting, then they shouldn't be allowed to. parting humorous shot: maybe some people hated the south park movie not for the violence and swearing, as much as it was a condemnation of their actions as morality cops. (truthfully, without saddam waving around a phallus, and satan being a whiney co-dependant, I could see some pro-family group endorsing that movie.)

Big govt. & big biz know what's good for ya (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:28AM EST (#119)

Obey, conform, and respect authority. No just kidding. By obeying ridiculous regulations you are agreeing to them as well as agreeing to their legitimacy as authority. Widespread disobedience will allow the community to be shaped to a more inhabitable place. If someone tells you that you have to take a Mosaic 2000 test tell them to fuck off. My personal guiding rules that deal with interaction in society are: 1. When with a crowd or someone else, bother no one. 2. If someone bothers you ask him to stop. 3. If he does not stop, take physical action. Simple and logical.

lesse here (Score:1) by psychophil.com on Wednesday October 27, @10:35AM EST (#125) (User Info) http://psychophil.com/

Ok Jon, let me see if I get this straight: It is NOT ok to blame access to the internet or quake or anything 'geek' for people going nuts. It IS ok to blame access to guns for people going nuts. Nope, doesn't make send to me.

Sensationalism(?) (Score:1) by net_shade (netshade@brainrazor.com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:35AM EST (#126) (User Info)

It seems that once again, issue must be taken with Katz's [sic] article. Though the primary focus of it one can find no actual fault with, there seems to be an underlying current of fanaticism ( possibly idealism ) that permeates all of his articles, and this one is no different. Beginning with his initial argument and defense of the geek 'Hollow Man', I can find nothing to actually disagree with ( read: am I looking for something to disagree with in the first place? ), and heartily agree that an evaluation system to be used in schools does indeed mirror such "dark future" societies as portrayed in 1984, or more appropriately, Brave New World. What I do find overreactive, and almost insulting, is the quick method by which Katz jumps to conclusions, finding fault with the media/American public who he claims to be overreacting to the Columbine incident. Follow me, if you will, with this line of reasoning: Katz writes an article that attempts to cause an immediate ( read: overreactive ) opinion in the reader to assault a situation which he believes is the product of overreaction. Fighting fire with fire, perhaps? Or is he simply following the guidelines of "sensationalistic journalism" as applied to the geek culture? Further on, I again feel as if my intelligence is being insulted by the way in which he asks if the Mosaic 2000 program will be used to scout out members of other groups that he takes offense with. Yes, I do indeed have no love of school bullies or [literal] religious fundamentalists. However, this section seems to almost depart from the message of the article and attempt to be a "rallying cry" against the various "persona non grata" of the geek community. To be more clear: His fingering of school bullies and religious fundamentalists ( I wonder, does this include Buddhists, Islamics, Native Americans, Shinto[ists(?)], Gaians, Wiccans, etc. who might not follow the precepts set by science, or is it only Christians that he finds distasteful? ) only seems to again use sensationalism as a means of raising your (ire or interest). I sincerely hope that, as any geek should, persons who read this article step back and think for themselves before formulating an opinion. One must remember that in an opinion article, the opinion stems from the fact that it is the author's opinion only, and one which does not necessarily inherit wisdom or truth based on the sheer merit of publication. net_shade "I could float off the floor if I wished to. But I do not wish to because the Party does not wish me to." - Abridged, George Orwell's '1984'

we use this at Yale? (Score:1) by eries (eries(AT)CatalystRecruiting(DOT)com) on Wednesday October 27, @10:36AM EST (#127) (User Info) http://www.CatalystRecruiting.com

Mosaic is also used by Yale University and federal courthouses to evaluate the potential for violence of individuals who make threats. None of the many media stories about Mosaic in the past few days even raised the question of why such a Draconian security program -- do we really want schools to be run like federal courthouses? -- would be deployed against schoolchildren at a time when violence among the young has dropped to its lowest levels in nearly half a century. Anyone know what this is used for here? I'm a student here, and AFAIK there haven't been any terrorist threats lately. Of course, maybe that's just what "they" want us to believe... Catalyst Recruiting | What are you worth?

It depends what they do with this information (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, @10:38AM EST (#130)

Well when I was in highschool I wore a long black trenchcoat, listened to industrial and was generally pissed off at the world. I've settled down since then, take a more relaxed view. I think the key point is what they do with this information.. At my school they had the school shrink interview the 'odd' ones, fairly harmless. I think if they just used this software to perhaps 'help' the individual in question. Of course one key question is if the person needs helping.. While there are plenty of weird harmless geeks, there are also many I've met who do hate the world, themselves, carry all sorts of weapons and tend to be general bad-asses just so no one will bother them.. A few of them could use a helping hand..

Even More Bad News from the Hellmouth: (Score:1, Offtopic) by Wakko Warner (wakko@qwerty.bitey.net) on Wednesday October 27, @10:39AM EST (#132) (User Info) http://bitey.net

They changed the ingredients in "Mountain Dew". It now really *does* make your testicles shrink. - A.P. -- "One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler

Don't be too quick to judge, yet... (Score:3, Interesting) by Ledge Kindred on Wednesday October 27, @10:42AM EST (#135) (User Info)

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. If this "Mosaic" software asks questions like "Do you spend more than 15 minutes a day on the Internet?", "Do you use IRC, MUDs, or chat rooms on a daily basis?" and uses the answers to those questions to judge whether or not a kid could be potential "trouble", that's a Very Bad Thing. However, I've heard a little bit about these sorts of software before and from everything I've heard, they're the end result of years and years of reasonably well-designed and well-executed research and instead they ask questions like "Do you express your anger or frustration by torturing or killing small animals?", "Have you ever been physically abused by parents or family members?", "Do you feel more comfortable expressing your anger and frustration with violent acts?" These are questions that might legitimately be used to determine whether or not someone might "need help." Even so, I'm still not convinced of the scientific validity of these tests because anyone of average intelligence can pretty well skew the results of the test by guessing what sorts of answers the test "wants to hear" since they are invariably of the "answer on a scale of one to ten whether you agree with this statement, with one being completely no and ten being completely yes." The "scoring" on these tests are simply average scores for the various answers from control groups and psychotic mass murderers (or whatever) and your tendency towards either "normalcy" or "psychotic mass murder" is simply based on who's scores yours most resembles. (I've been forced to take these sorts of "Personality Assessment Tests" by annoying employers and potential employers in the past and at the very get-go make sure I inform them that I don't believe they are valid tests of ethics, morals or personality and that I *will* "fail" it and then proceed to answer in the most outrageous way possible. Employers who know me well then ignore the test; those who don't and rely on the test to judge me I don't want to work for anyway. Some good skeptical analysis on these sorts of tests and links to more of same can be found here.) Further, there is still the troublesome point that these "survey" answers are going to go into some Permanent Record someplace, which just emphasizes the fact that I feel this is a horrible invasion of privacy to begin with. -=-=-=-=- I remember when Sun really was about open computing

Re:Don't be too quick to judge, yet... (Score:3, Informative) by georgeha on Wednesday October 27, @11:04AM EST (#164) (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm

If this "Mosaic" software asks questions like "Do you spend more than 15 minutes a day on the Internet?", "Do you use IRC, MUDs, or chat rooms on a daily basis?" and uses the answers to those questions to judge whether or not a kid could be potential "trouble", that's a Very Bad