The school called the cops, and the cops called the DA. If the school didn't think it was that big of a deal, they could have just left the legal system out of it. Did the police and prosecutor overreact? Probably, but if the school didn't call them, they would have had nothing to do with it (unless, of course, angry parents went to the media and demanded action)
Yeah, I took Honors Chemistry in 10th grade, but I didn't really like it much. I'll leave my geek card on the table on my way out
It's only an apparent lack of consistency if you use the two items to create the context in which to judge the responses. Here's the more likely scenario:
* There was no punishment forthcoming in the accidental shooting case because, after determining that there was no intent involved, and that it was, in fact, accidental, no punishment was deserved. Since there was no possibility of the parents suing themselves for damages, or that affecting the greater population, it got left at that.
* The incident on school property was punished because A) There was clearly an intent to make the explosion and B) it was on school property. That means lots of children who could potentially have been harmed, and that means lots of parents who could potentially sue the school system. Even if no one got injured, the potential for injury might be enough to have a jury in a civil suit feel that the plaintiff is "entitled" to "damages."
In that second case, everyone suffers. If the school has to pay out money to one set of irate parents, other suits will likely follow as everyone thinks they need to "get theirs," too. But guess who is on the hook? The school district, funded by property taxes or whatever they use in Florida. Thus, the community is the ones putting up the money to pay out to some jack-ass members of the community who want to take advantage of the situation. Being able to say "Look, no one got hurt but we have dealt with the perpetrator to the fullest extent of the law" goes a long way in staving off civil complaints, or having them be validated by a jury if someone thinks of doing it anyway.
It's all a CYA move. Does it suck? Yes. is it fair? No. Is life fair? Hell no. But unfortunately, we live in a chicken-shit, overly litigious society where these things happen. My mother is a public school teacher and the district where she teaches has had to deal with things like this in the past. "Science" wasn't involved, but the schools have been sued in the past, and in one incident $5,000,000 was awarded for "negligence" by the administration because two guys were fighting over a girl and one went through a plate glass window. Public schools are strapped enough for cash as it is, and losing $5,000,000 when you're already in budget shortfalls due to declining real estate values (and thus property tax revenue) is tough.
I would wager anything that was what they were concerned with above anything else.
Additionally, having 5 web browsers installed and triple-booting operating systems might mean you get board easily and won't stick around at the job as long. I mean, still being on IE6 does show incredible staying power and loyalty, right?
Who wants to bet that the ultimate outcome of this talk becoming known to the public at large will be to close duty-free stores at international airports? Frankly, while I agree that airport security as it exists is basically theater which provides little-to-no meaningful increase in actual safety, I sort of feel like pointing out what you can do with items you're allowed to purchase on the "secure side of the fence" as it were, is akin to the people who point out that more murders are perpetrated with hand guns than assault rifles: they think they're making a logical point, but all they're doing is creating a causus belli for their opponents to expand their reach to target handguns, too -- NOT providing a rational argument for passing over banning assault weapons.
On the other hand, as a security industry professional, I'm naturally inclined to find things like this kind of cool. But seriously, I don't think anything good will come from this from a policy standpoint.
What good is universal literacy in a society where the written word is severely restricted? (Goes not only for Cuba)
Ab, vg'f n fghcvq Ncevy Sbbyf tvzzvpx.
secession maybe, succession not so much.
Fighter pilots aren't 16. They are college-educated military officers who have had several years of driving behind them to get used to operating a large death machine, followed by extensive classroom training and instructor-led seat time before they are allowed to operate the jet solo. Additionally, they have simulators with which to get used to monitoring all necessary instrumentation as well as keeping an eye out for enemy planes.
High school kids cannot be compared to fighter pilots in any meaningful way with regards to the ability to safely operate a large machine with multiple points of distraction, on public roads, surrounded by other drives of various skills and levels of distraction.
At that point, it almost sounds like kidnapping for ransom...
This is also not the first time Linus has had a publicized explosion at someone, and it probably won't be the last, either. This really is the sort of behavior that ultimately detracts from the open source community. Consider:
* Linus' track record of explosive, public comments against people whom he has some disagreement with
* Stallman's general Communist ramblings and presentation of himself as a disheveled bum
* type "Eric S Raymond" into Google, and the first suggestion is "Racist", not CatB, not How to be a Hacker, not any of his code.
Is Torvalds right? In this case, probably. There isn't a reason to include this functionality in the base kernel. If it is useful to RedHat, then RedHat can include it in their distribution. But publicly attacking someone, especially someone working for a company which is largely responsible for making Linux "respectable" isn't doing himself, the project, or the community at large any good, any more than Ballmer throwing chairs and screaming "Developers" or the "Howard Dean Scream" helped Microsoft or Howard Dean.
Take the majority of the stripping money, invest with a reputable wealth management firm, and get to the point where it doesn't matter because working at all isn't an issue anymore?
For the women who didn't make the career choice to go into the adult industry, ie, those who have been kidnapped/trafficked and forced to appear in films, they have bigger issues than the harm to their "civil rights" stemming from the film. Kidnapping and rape are, I assume, already illegal in Iceland. Filming it is then just creating documented evidence of that crime. Making ALL porn illegal because SOME porn is documentation of a REAL crime makes about as much sense as making guns illegal because criminal commit crimes with guns. Of course, Iceland's probably already done that too.
Or, to bring out a car analogy, it's like studying automotive and mechanical engineering, but then rather than applying to work at BMW or Porsche, you then go and sign up to work at Jiffy Lube. But some day, you might get to be assistant manager!
Ron Paul was a member of the House. Rand Paul, his son, is the Senator from Kentucky.