I remember buying a tape drive to save my programs onto audio cassettes. Ah, the heady days of learning to program BASIC.

Agreed.

Then there is this: "the iPhone was not a new invention - it was just a much better telephone than any we'd seen before." Hogwash. Sure, we call it a telephone, but it is as different as shouting is from a landline, and it uses a crap-ton of new materials, software, imaging and wireless innovations - many of which did not exist 15 years ago.

He is not a civilian. He is a sworn member of the military. Civilian laws only apply under very limited situations. He violated his oath. He committed espionage while on active duty. And while I agree that there has been a slow, dangerous process of reducing our civil liberties, this has nothing to do with the Manning case. It is a red herring that ignores the fact that Manning is a traitor who performed his crimes while a sworn, active member of the military. He is lucky that the military no longer pushes for capital punishment for these cases.

Found the term I was looking for: in loco parentis

In the US an elementary school has some serious legal powers and obligations as a surrogate parent. The best example of this is that in quite a few states corporal punishment is still permitted in public schools.

Given that reality, I find it humorous that the /. crowd that is always arguing that it is the job of the parent (not the government) to control a child's internet access (a sentiment I agree with), now argues that schools, which are obligated to act as the parent during the school day, should not meet these obligations when it comes to the internet.

They are obligated to stop bullying in the schoolyard, but some here want them to ignore bullying in social media (often done while using school resources, mind you). Apparently the tubez on the interwebz are immune from their responsibilities now?

Those of us who are parents send our kids to school with the knowledge that the school is empowered to act as our agent. This protects our kids. This protection should not stop when kids sit down at a keyboard.

And who would pay such a fee? I would not pay a fee for services that I had not agreed to, and no court would force me to. And if you force me to, then it is called a TAX. But we're against taxes, right?

More detail including the fact that one of the founders, Ibi Kopimi Botany, has passed away. (Original in Norwegian)

My personal Dr D fave

I'm looking over my dead dog Rover
Who I overlooked before
One leg is missing, the other is gone,
A third leg is scattered all over the lawn.
No need explaining, the one leg remaining
Is spinning on the carport floor,
I'm looking over my dead dog Rover
Who I overlooked before.

At least we'll still have the online show.

I do IT consulting for small businesses. There are costs and benefits to both. Basically you need to weigh them as they apply to your business.
IT On Site:
Benefits -
Closer supervision/peace of mind Able to fix some things that require a physical presence
Costs -
Higher charge for on-site visits Lost time for anyone who is watching the admin. You are paying double or more, and losing productivity. Aggravated admin. Nobody likes someone watching over their shoulder. Fire fighting support depends on unscheduled availability. If you call and the company has no free technicians for 8-12 hours you experience downtime. Misplaced increased belief that your data is safe
Other issues -
Even if you watch everything done would you recognize malevolent behavior?

Off site:
Benefits -
Lower charge for remote support. Often much lower due to minimum charges for on-site visits. Quicker response to emergencies 24/7 monitoring. The remote monitoring will notify you and the support company that the server/application is down.
Costs -
Personal supervision/peace of mind lower Some issues are nearly impossible to fix off-site

I am sure this list can be greatly expanded, as well as customized to your environment. I think the question is a valid question, but I'm pretty sure the answer isn't what the poster hoped for.

No, it is illegal for states to *make* paper money, not *take* paper money.

It isn't stated explicitly, but it appears that the city used part of the grant already to install the first few cameras.

It isn't that the physical removal will cost money, but that they may have to reimburse the feds for the grant money now that they have opted out of the program.

Also, this is not certain -- which is why it "may" cost thousands.