I am glad your high school has money for a Photoshop license for each student and an IT stuff to fix and remove malware from all their Windows laptops. For most, it will be more realistic to have a lab with Photoshop and in the meantime focus on students being able to do some web research and type up a paper.
I can not imagine homework is very practical without keyboard or trackpad. Chromebooks are also easy to pass along to next kid or share without privacy issues, and if they break down, like things in kids' hands often do, replacement is exceptionally cheap. Tablets for web browsing, visual tasks like photo editing, and casual games, laptops for heavy duty typing and bigger screen/multi application workflows.
What country's first ammendment guarantees you the right to intimidate or harass people online?
What country equates complaining about rudeness with intimidation and harassment? Probably, not even North Korea...
"bitch"? really? there's no need to call anyone that.
Yes, there is, of course. As described in TFA, the woman certainly qualifies for the term. Anybody abusing their power over others is a bad person ("bitch", "asshole" — pick your gender-specific name). And, in addition, malicious prosecution — which she threatened to bring upon him — is a felony, you know...
and perhaps that is the reason: the flight crew considered the tweet intimidation or threatening.
If complaining on Tweeter about rudeness can be considered either "intimidating" or "threatening" — or, indeed, "interfering" — then the First Amendment is null and void. Is that, what you are telling us?
"No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft [emphasis mine -mi]] being operated under this part."
The gate-agent being talked about was not aboard the aircraft (nor part of the crew). In other words, your citation is invalid and inapplicable even if it were appropriate for a stewardess or a pilot on board.
the tweet identified someone by name.
Her name is publicly displayed. There is nothing "intimidating" about repeating it — or even taking pictures.
there are more reasonable ways to lodge a complaint, and that ain't one of them.
Whether the victim was "reasonable" or not is not being discussed. The agent threatened him with arrest over his accusing her of rudeness. What else would you blame a victim for? How about posting a negative review of a restaurant? Maybe, we "should be more like Europe" and punish people for that too?
NOT mean that the passenger doesn't have to follow crewmember instructions. if the passenger was being particularly difficult because he had his two snowflakes in tow and did not want to abide by Southwest's procedures, he should not be allowed on the plane.
But he did follow all instructions — and was allowed to board. What the bitch didn't like was him tweeting about the encounter afterwards.
Personally, I found out the hard way, what these assholes mean. I once pointed out to a New Jersey Transit conductor, that he is closing the doors one minute too early. He demanded, I leave the train in reply... I kid you not, he called police, who ordered me out and interrogated me on the platform (three uniformed bums plus one plain-clothed "detective"). They found nothing to arrest me for, but said (sternly): "You'll have to wait for the next train" (and left me on the empty platform as the train closed its doors — again — and left). It was all "legal": the rules, which you wish all of us to obey, are posted in every car. And they require passengers to "cooperate" with the conductors. Whether or not a particular passenger cooperates, is entirely up to each conductor. And, yes, he still works there — despite my complaining several times.
No flight-attendant — nor a train conductor, for that matter — should have the power to evict a passenger from a plane (or train). Other than for an offense, that's, indeed, subject to arrest.
given what's happened recently in aviation, one would think safety is important.
What has recently happened in aviation, that makes you think, safety is important?
A Minnesota man and his two sons were asked to leave a Southwest Airlines flight after the man sent a tweet complaining about being treated rudely by a gate agent... he agent told him that he would have to wait if he wanted to board with his children. Watson replied that he had boarded early with them before and then sent out a tweet that read "RUDEST AGENT IN DENVER. KIMBERLY S. GATE C39. NOT HAPPY @SWA."
After he boarded, an announcement came over the plane asking his family to exit the aircraft. Once at the gate, the agent said that unless the tweet was deleted, police would be called and the family would not be allowed back onboard."
He gave into the threat, deleted the Tweet, and was allowed to board a later flight (with his sons). Southwest, as one could have predicted, offered a boilerplate "apology" and vouchers for more terrible service.
As of this post, no word on the rude agent's current employment status.
A record-setting number of Americans weighed in with their thoughts on this matter. But there's one problem, according to George Washington University law professor Richard Pierce.
"The vast majority of the comments are utterly worthless," Pierce says.
Oh really? and precisely what makes a comment valuable?
The folks who do comment with the detail, data and analysis that can change minds? Deep-pocketed industries.
"Those comments that have some potential to influence are the very lengthy, very well-tailored comments that include a lot of discussion of legal issues, a lot of discussion of policy issues, lots of data, lots of analysis," Pierce says. "Those are submitted exclusively by firms that have a large amount of money at stake in the rule-making and the lawyers and trade associations that are represented by those firms."
The FCC's Gigi Sohn also cautions against using the high number of comments in this matter as a tea leaf, because of the unknown content in the comments.
"A lot of these comments are one paragraph, two paragraphs, they don't have much substance beyond, 'we want strong net neutrality, ' " she says.
It would appear that Gigi Sohn and GW law professor Richard Pierce are unclear as to who the FCC works for. The FCC works for the American people, if we want something, that should be sufficient reason to rule in our favor."
"Summit meetings tend to be like panda matings. The expectations are always high, and the results usually disappointing." -- Robert Orben