Judging by your comments, it sounds like you work in a pretty good school system. Many school systems are good. In my area, they are generally terrible. Granted, it's been 20 years since I was in high school, but my school experience was very different. I had to re-teach myself math because of the New-math craze, and my grandmother taught me how to read phonetically because my school was on a Whole-Language program. I had a grade school teacher tell the class that she didn't like math. When I brought a Tolkien novel to grade school another teacher told me that she couldn't understand Tolkien. In 5th grade my teacher discouraged me from testing up to higher level reading material because it was not work-book based and it would have been more work for her to grade. In middle school, when I was placed in the "gifted" program, I was taken out of English grammar class to make time for the gifted program. When my mother complained about that, the gifted program's teacher told her that I was so smart that I'd get a job with a secretary and wouldn't need to know how to spell. In high school I had gym teacher who would watch his student aids physically abuse underclassmen. My psych teacher would subtly ridicule the dimmer students in her class. Another teacher would openly allow teen girls to sit on his lap. One administrator forced programming classes to turn off their computers because of a computer virus outbreak, but the school had no Internet connection and no evidence of the virus in the school. I had a few good teachers who obviously wanted the best for us. Some were just jerks, but tolerable. Most seemed indifferent. A few of them I'd like to run into just so that I can give them a piece of my mind.

My baby-boomer parents, on the other hand, wax poetic about the wonderful times they had in school. I can't say how many movies I've seen or books I've read that refer to high-school as "the best times of our lives". From my experience, that status had ended by the early 90's. So when flyneye wrote "public schools were ruined long before people began fleeing to private schools.", yeah, I have to agree with that.

On yet another hand, I worked for the past 15 years for a private school. While there were some pretty ugly warts from time to time, with very few exceptions, the teaching staff was amazingly competent and dedicated, and they did it for about 25% less pay than their public school counterparts.

I'm not blaming any one factor for the low quality of so many of our public schools. It's been culmination of decades of well-intentioned but wrong-headed polices combined with incestuous protectionism from the teachers unions and lackluster leadership from administrators promoted to the point of incompetence. Going to a school board meeting won't help much in regions like mine where the single thing that school systems can't sacrifice is the football program. If any parent happens to live in a school system that is good, then by all means they should use it and get involved to try to iron out the wrinkles. But if not, I can't blame any parent for taking any means necessary to get their kids out.

It is better than the previous default behavior when people would poke their heads into my office to ask me what a site's address was. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked "Do you know the address for [Insert well known company name]?". A) What do I look like, fucking Yahoo? B) Did you try [Well known company name].com?

Doesn't matter. IT is still on the hook. Who recommended, evaluated, configured, specced out, configured, managed, the storage vendor? If IT was involved we still are on the hook for fixing the problem. Except with everything in the cloud we have no control and no access. All we can do is cajole or abuse the provider until it is fixed.

A quick web search shows that Ariel Castro's home was built in 1890 and remodeled in 1950. It is likely to be sheathed in half inch thick planks of wood, 20 feet long, and nailed down every 18 inches. This women, girls when they were taken, were thin and malnourished. I doubt they would have been able to kick through. As for the windows, they were reinforced with chicken wire and thick plexiglass and guarded by barbed wire. You also have to consider the fear of reprisal if they tried and failed to escape.

Here's a video where one of the Cleveland news anchors describe the house: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CFMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Foutfront.blogs.cnn.com%2F2013%2F05%2F30%2Fnew-video-of-ariel-castros-house-of-horrors%2F&ei=9VrpUdfRK8fi4AONvYCQBA&usg=AFQjCNHKlciQmml1R7eg6zPGOrn_8LM6Jw&sig2=cw8YO5dFw20vv2Kali6jGQ&bvm=bv.49478099,d.dmg

We have an Inter-Tel VOIP-based phone system at work. Each phone has two Ethernet ports on the back, one for the network and one for connecting a computer, in case you need the ports. That's all well and good, but the bastards don't forward spanning-tree probes. Once or twice a year someone decides to move things around, plugs both ports into the network, and causes a broadcast storm.

Stand your ground did not apply because Zimmerman was pinned to the ground when he shot Martin. The medical examiner's report shows that was the case. Since he could not escape, the duty to escape, or attempt to escape, is satisfied.

As I recall, one witness testified that Zimmerman was on top when the gun was fired, but the other witnesses could not say who was on top. The medical examiner's report contradicted that witness as well. The wound angle was consistent with a shot being fired at an upward angle, and the tear in Martin's sweatshirt indicated that he was leaning forward with 4 to 5 inches of space between the cloth and his skin.

That's really not what the law says.

The two key terms here are "reasonably believes" and "duty to retreat". You still have to show some reason, and one that a jury will buy into, to believe that an attacker is going to kill or grievously injure you. The only thing that changes with stand your ground laws is removing the duty to retreat.

One of my local radio talk shows was talking about the manslaughter charge. Apparently, In Florida every murder charge automatically carries a manslaughter charge with it. In murder trials, juries can always be instructed to consider the lesser charge, in case the prosecutors can not prove malice.

you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

As an IT administrator, I'd rather have a ticket. Any decent ticketing system will have a priority setting, so an issue is not urgent can be marked as such. It also allows me to catalog minor problems and to see problems before they become an emergency. If 1 person reports a minor issue it will get addressed as time permits. If 10 people report the same minor issue, it may reveal a pattern indicating a priority problem. Stop me in the hall on the way to the restroom and, "I'm sorry, you really need to fill out a request ticket. It creates a record of your and enforces accountability on us. So really, making out a ticket is in your best interest."

Vague is OK as long as the person is willing to answer questions and to respond to answers. I don't expect people to diagnose problems, just to give me their observations. I have some users who get pissed if I ask for any clarification at all. It's like if they go to the doctor and say, "I'm injured, but I won't tell you where it hurts."

For the curious, the AC is referring to Rep. Diana DeGette's statements at a forum, where she said

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

The Denver Post has an article and video. http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-house-on-gun-legislation-rep-diana-degette-appears-to-not-understand-how-they-work/93506/

What really get's my goat is that in Dianne Feinstein's most recent attempt at an assault weapon ban, she specified barrel shrouds as a prohibited feature of assult weapons. A barrel shroud's primary function is to protect the user from getting burnt by a hot barrel or gas tube. It would take a semi-competent weapon designer about 20 minutes to draw up a design to circumvent that restriction. It's just embarrassing that our legislators trying to ban guns don't know how the hell guns work and are too cheap to hire consultants who do.

Sub-machine guns have shoulder stocks for stability and recoil management. Most SMG-styled weapons that can not fire fully automatically are carbines, and fall under the "rifle" classification. Something like the Micro-Uzi, lacking a shoulder stock, is called a "machine pistol". If modified for semi-automatic operation it would just be a pistol.

Another factor with SMG's is that they are, by definition, capable of fully automatic fire. As such, they are not available to the majority of the US public without special licensing. You would be hard pressed to find a recent use of a SMG by a civilian in a violent crime. I doubt they even register a blip in the FBI crime statistics.

Here is the Verizon TOS: http://my.verizon.com/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_policies&id=TOS Below are sections where, judging by TFS, he may have been in violation. In my layman's opinion, they had him dead to rights.

"Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not .... use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). ....You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.

"You represent that when you transmit, upload, download, post or submit any content, images or data using the Service you have the legal right to do so and that your use of such content, images or data does not violate the copyright or trademark laws or any other third party rights."

ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY

"General Policy: Verizon reserves the sole discretion to deny or restrict your Service, or immediately to suspend or terminate your Service, if the use of your Service by you or anyone using it, in our sole discretion, violates the Agreement or other Verizon policies, is objectionable or unlawful, interferes with the functioning or use of the Internet or the Verizon network by Verizon or other users, or violates the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy ("AUP")."

"Specific Examples of AUP Violations. The following are examples of conduct which may lead to termination of your Service. Without limiting the general policy in Section 1, it is a violation of the Agreement and this AUP to: ... (g) violate Verizon's or any third party's copyright, trademark, proprietary or other intellectual property rights; (h) engage in any conduct harmful to the Verizon network, the Internet generally or other Internet users; (i) generate excessive amounts of email or other Internet traffic; (j) use the Service to violate any rule, policy or guideline of Verizon; ....

"Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy. Verizon respects the intellectual property rights of third parties. Accordingly, you may not store any material or use Verizon's systems or servers in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including under US copyright law. .... it is the policy of Verizon to suspend or terminate, in appropriate circumstances, the Service provided to any subscriber or account holder who is deemed to infringe third party intellectual property rights, including repeat infringers of copyrights. In addition, Verizon expressly reserves the right to suspend, terminate or take other interim action regarding the Service of any Subscriber or account holder if Verizon, in its sole judgment, believes that circumstances relating to an infringement of third party intellectual property rights warrant such action."