What do you mean? An African or European swallow?

Hell hath no fury like a pollen scorned.

You mean 'scorched'.

They should lose their contracts for failing to wipe the data off the hard drives.

What's so ridiculous is how easy it is to destroy data without investing in ultra-super-duper-mil-spec data destruction software. When I destroyed hard drives for my old company, I'd pull out the drive, take it down to the shop floor, and watch as one of our fabricators put a 1/2-inch hole through the platters with a drill press. It's theoretically possible that an expert who really, really wanted our data could have read something from the partial platters, but I guarantee that none of our drives ever showed up in use anywhere else.

And with the old IBM death stars, pretty much any possibility of data recovery was eliminated when those glass platters shattered inside the case as the drill went through.

Of course, this technique requires you to have a drill press or a good, sturdy hand drill somewhere on your site, but I think Northrop Grumman could afford one of those.

I stare at Excel just about all damn day.

The last thing that I want to do when I get home is stare at a screen for the 40 minute it takes to read an article that is as long as this one.

Of course not. And there's no way you'll stare at Slashdot long enough to read through the deep investigative long form reporting we get here...

The Government does not grant rights! The government is granted rights by the people...

I think it's a semantic difference, but for all practical purposes, the freedom to exercise rights depends on who has the power to decide whether or not rights can be exercised.

In a western democracy, the people have a great deal of power. Even the most powerful, corrupt government can only do so much to erode those rights, as we're seeing in the USA right now. In a totalitarian society, whether or not certain rights can be exercised is controlled by the rulers - as long as their rule remains stable.

And the rulers don't have to be selected by the people of that country. If a stronger country invades a weaker country, the rights of the conquered people are determined by the outside force that invaded them.

Since we in the west tend to believe that free speech is a right that cannot/shouldn't every be given away, many are willing to help the Iranians that are not willing to accept Iranian control over speech.

Exactly. At the moment, Iranians don't have that right, for all practical purposes. But there are many people inside and outside the country who believe they should, and they are doing everything they can to support that perceived right.

Whether or not that right is granted depends on how much pressure comes to bear on Iran's leadership. Of course, pressure can have different effects. It can be released in a controlled manner if the leadership accedes to the will of a sufficiently large number of people, or it can explode if the leaders order a harsh crackdown.

That's what the world is watching for right now. If Iran's leadership perceives that the majority of the pressure is internal, it is somewhat more likely to accede to change. If it perceives that it's a western plot, a crackdown is more likely.

But until the situation changes, Iranians only have the rights their government permits them to exercise.

Notice I'm not saying they shouldn't have the same rights we enjoy in the west, but that they do not currently have them.

...obviously no one has a right to anything in terms of it not being taken away from you (incl. your life), but it is a right in the sense that any modern legal framework should support it and concerned citizens have an obligation to support those rights for other citizens when they are clearly being infringed.

Of course, the problem is that many countries do not have what we would consider a modern legal framework. And within those 'backward' legal frameworks, our concept of rights does not exist.

It's like a serf in medieval Europe saying that he has the right to criticize his lord. The ruler could say "Sure, say what you want; what do I care what a peasant thinks?" or he could say "No you don't; off with your head!"

As long as his subjects have their meat and mead, and they're not being killed in their sleep by nightly bandit raids - and they're treated to the periodic entertainment of the public beheading of anyone silly enough to question his power - he doesn't need to grant them any more rights than he feels like giving them.

And if he doesn't grant those rights, for all practical purposes, the people don't have them.

Next question for the class: In our modern, western society, do you have the right to a certain quality of life?

On the contrary, my argument says that you have to keep asserting your rights en masse or they'll gradually disappear.

Look at the constant Slashdot stories about warrantless searches, unlawful search & seizure, oppression of free speech, and other denials of rights that are codified, but not respected by those in power. If it weren't for citizens fighting to protect these rights, and bring such infringements to court, they would disappear.

The Constitution is not a magic wand. It won't ensure the perpetual existence of your rights if you don't defend them.

But in countries that don't have such documents, those rights simply don't exist, and they won't until the people are able to convince the government to grant them.

If a supreme ruler can ensure that those selected for the police, the courts, and the army share his beliefs, and maintain the right balance of fear and contentment among the people, it doesn't really matter what rights the powerless believe they have. If that balance is destabilized, however, as may currently be happening in Iran, that's when things change.

I thought Google's motto was 'Be Not Evil'?

Actually it's "Do no evil." So you can be as evil as you want, as long as you don't act on it. Even Dick Cheney could work for Google if he stopped... um, well... breathing.

And the teacher gets fired for using non-approved curricular materials.

Mod up. Unfortunately, school boards are often more poorly educated than teachers or students.

We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities.

By that logic, would the East be morally justified in destroying American nuclear weapons facilities?

Communication is a fundamental human right.

Rights are not something that exist in nature. They exist only because a large number of people believe they should, and are willing to assert their belief strongly enough to ensure the continued existence of those rights.

In the USA and some other countries, rights are spelled out in a constitutional document, which makes many people believe that they are permanent and unenfringeable. But even in countries with the most democratic political systems, a strong body of people in power are able to erode those rights.

In countries that do not have democratic political systems or constitutional guarantees of equality, people do not have any rights other than what the government decides to give them. In many countries, for example, we support gender equality. In an Islamic theocracy like Iran, however, women are not given equal rights. We may believe they should have these rights, but they do not actually have them.

Whether we like it or not, might is right, whether that might comes from an authoritarian system with a small number of people deciding everything, or a democratic system that is influenced by a larger number of people.

Fool!!! You gave up the crazy mad teacher money?

Worse: I gave up the crazy mad teacher holidays. How am I supposed to do anything with only three weeks a year?!

When I took my teacher training (around 1990), a course called "Contemporary Math" was introduced as compulsory for all Education students. Why?

The year before, an elementary school teacher in that city (who was 'educated' at my university) was teaching division to her students. As a response to some number divided by zero, one student wrote [phi], the symbol for an empty set. The teacher informed the student that she didn't need to put a stroke through the zero, and the answer was simply zero. The student unsuccessfully argued with the teacher, then went home and told her parents - who were both mathematicians.

The pair of them had a few choice words for the faculty that produced a math teacher who didn't understand fundamental math concepts. The result was Contemporary Math.

The year after, I took a course called "Grammar for Teachers". The marking scheme for that course showed the appallingly low expectations the faculty had of the English skills of the students. Fully half the mark was based on the difference between pre-test and post-test scores. Fortunately, that half of the mark was waived for a couple of us who didn't "get the memo" and scored over 95% on the pre-test.