Relevant saturday morning breakfast cereal.
Relevant saturday morning breakfast cereal.
Serious point: that's a bit simplistic. People do threaten to sue the pants off people for saying things about them that are clearly true, and there may be a reason the holders have not sued yet. For example, perhaps the mayor is waiting until gawker actually buys it and shows it, at which point he can sue gawker for a ton of money in damages rather than suing whoever shot the video for all of the thousand dollars in his bank account. If the person with the video has even been identified.
But the reason no one could have faked the moon landing has to do with the state of video technology in 1969. Essentially, the hoaxers claim the video footage was faked by just slowing down people walking in normal Earth gravity. However according to Collins, the camera required to do that didn’t exist at the time.
Similar reasons for this video you say? I... what?
"Unfortunately, what she did falls into our code of conduct," Leah Lauderdale, a spokeswoman for the district, tells Riptide. "It's grounds for immediate expulsion."
More specifically, Wilmot's mini-explosion -- which came after she mixed "common household chemicals" in a plastic bottle -- violates Section 7.05 of the school's conduct code, Lauderdale says, which mandates expulsion for any "student in possession of a bomb (or) explosive device... while at a school (or) a school-sponsored activity... unless the material or device is being used as part of a legitimate school-related activity or science project conducted under the supervision of an instructor."
They undoubtedly maintained that since a teacher wasn't present at the time, that violated the letter of the law and, obviously, "NO EXCEPTIONS TO RULES EVER" is the most important message schools can teach to kids. (sarcasm)
There's also obviously a bit of "I'm just following orders, it's not me who is doing this clearly stupid and unethical thing even though I am the actual one expelling you."
I think there are two big roots to the problem. The first is zero tolerance policies. Schools love them deep down because it makes fretful parents think their children are safer, and also probably dealing with kids all day makes you really want to clamp down hard with rules for your own sanity. And obviously in this case, the school was more interested in showing that students are not going to be blown up by science-loving terrorist children than they were in the student. Even if the schools didn't want zero tolerance, all the other idiots involved want them, legislators and parents.
The second is personal liability. No one wants to stand up and say "Fuck that rule, it's a stupid fucking rule" and then potentially lose their job. I have no idea how likely that would have been in this case. Evidently, no one even wanted to say "She DID have permission, so she's not really violating the rules." Maybe the teacher who gave her permission chickened out and said "Well, I didn't give her permission to do THAT, so please don't fire me.
TLDR: it would be nice if someone had the power to use their own judgement and intelligence here, but there are plenty of mechanisms in place to ensure that can't happen. Preventing this type of idiotic heavy-handed action will require bigger changes than one administrator growing a brain and/or balls.
GMO is a good example though, I'll give you that. Aside from making some "no true scotsman" arguments, I can't really counter that.
Preferably some example where the vast majority of peer-reviewed studies support the opposite side. Like climate change, where 97% of studies conclude that climate change is real. Or evolution. As opposed to some other issue where there is much more support for either side.
I know it was the Koch brothers probably talking to each other, but Mr. Burns is who I picture.
Flickr can, in fact, get rid of the high-power users in exchange for more of the instagram crowd and gain marketshare and profits. The changes seem to be aimed squarely at that. Yahoo undoubtedly has far more data on their users than we do. Whether the decision is based on a reasonable interpretation of that data or whether they're all braindead idiots (or some combination) only time will tell, but I don't think it's certain that insulting a small part of their user base in a press conference will doom them.