I've talked to an accountant about this and we're both convinced this was an RCMP sting. They announced there was a vulnerability on their website about six hours before they patched it. That's either totally stupid and insane, or it was a police sting and they were just waiting to see who would be stupid enough to try and break in through the open door. Please have a seat.
I don't really have a specific argument about the numbers. Truthfully I couldn't pay attention long enough to really find a flaw in the argument. That said, my gut is telling me author is wrong.
Damn, why didn't I think of this?
People, is it true? Would the market bear a "Republican Technology News" site?
I can't speak for the detective, but I'd have approved.
Oh yes, please send the poor little bully into counceling, the poor little misguided soul should be shown just how much pain he caused his victim so he learns just how much better it would be not to hurt someone. But we shouldn't make him apologize, it would probably humiliate him too much and shatter his precious little soul.
Why so complicated? Hold schools responsible for bullying, including any and all costs for medical bills, psychological and otherwise, that can be linked to it, payable by the school's budget. Unless they can show that they did their best to get rid of the bullies instead of the usual tactics of turning a blind eye to it so the bully doesn't find other targets (like school property or faculty) they are responsible, fully. In public schools you can also fire anyone who could have responded and didn't. Private schools should be sufficiently motivated by the fact that the fines can make up a multiple of the tuition fee they lose by throwing the bully out.
The main mistake the parents made was assuming the school had any interest in the bully being stopped. Far from it. The school has an interest in the bully having an easy target. It means that a potential troublemaker (i.e. the bully) has an outlet for his aggression and won't take it out on school property, faculty or outside the school where they don't have such an easy way to contain it. Bullies seem to understand that "unspoken contract" between the school and them and play along those rules: You get to beat up your victims as long as you don't cause any trouble to the school itself.
Once the victim of bullying starts to report it or (worse even) fight back, the school has a problem. As perverted as it may sound, from the school's point of view the victim is the troublemaker when he doesn't want to be a victim anymore. Because as long as he's "willingly" the victim there's no problem the school would have to take care of.
So yes, the school sides with the bully. And as long as there is no responsibility for the school not to, this will continue.
This. Ask them if they have taken care of things like this. The answer to this alone will tell you whether there is some kind of deep consideration behind it or whether some PHB had a consultant toss the cool buzzword "change advisory board" in his direction.
If it's the latter, run. Run like the wind.
Ok, I bite. What's your suggestion?
What started out as an experiment in Progressive Rock turned into Jazz-Rock Fusion. If soft machines are the future, then the future is Out-Bloody-Rageous.
Hey, I'm as extroverted as the next guy, I look at your shoes when I'm talking with you!
Here in Norway I have the impression that it's only two main groups. One is Romani that arrive through the EU agreement, basically the kind who come with no rights, no education, no work history, no nothing and the only thing they're here for is to beg, steal and live off various programs that provide shelter and food for the homeless while leaving a trail of littering and vandalism in their wake. And yes, I don't mind stigmatizing the whole group because 68 of 69 beggars in a random sweep of beggars had a criminal record. And despite a million attempts to integrate them, they have no intention of ever becoming productive members of society and raise their children just like them to embrace their nomadic and parasitic lifestyle. Many of the children aren't enrolled in primary/secondary education at all and the few who are absent more than 1/3rd of the time. They also have more than a few cultural issues with suckers who work all day for an honest wage, why anyone would give them money is incomprehensible to me.
The other big, big group is drug/alcohol addicts, but there are hospices and such that will give them shelter and food if they don't show up high as a kite. The truly homeless are the ones who can't keep their drug use outside the shelter, but even those get winter sleeping bags so they don't freeze to death on the streets. They're not trying to hustle you for money in order to eat or drink or put clothes on their backs or a roof over their heads, it's to feed their habit. It's almost a protection racket, we're addicts and we will find the money to get our kick so you can either throw a few bucks in our cup or we'll get desperate and you really don't want us to get desperate. If you give them anything nice they'll probably sell it for the money anyway, you can give them money but it's not going to lead to anything positive. The rest are mostly taken care of, if you just have mental or money problems you won't be the streets and you won't have to beg for a living.
"And just for fun, he says 'Get a job'"
That's just the way it is, some things will never change.
[cranky rant warning]
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics." It's coming up again with depressing frequency, being used as an argument instead of a snide observation.
Says the Internet Tough Guy who'd apparently like to shoot up a school to prove something, yeah. Fuck off.
Threats have to be followed through. One of the reasons why I don't use threats. Mostly because a threat always also includes the option to avoid it if the other party changes its behaviour.
By the time I ponder what to do to someone, he already did enough to have forfeited the chance for a choice.