The most closed minded people I know are Open Minded Liberals.
This is an obvious misuse of authority. The punishment is far far more severe than the crime. If the school administrators are unwilling to use judgment and discretion in their enforcement of the rules then they don't deserve my support as a parent. If you are going to give my kid detention for bringing a Jolly Rancher to school or receiving one from a friend you should expect me as a parent to sick and army of lawyers on the school district and not let up until the case gets to the Supreme Court. Why? Because the law you are enforcing is stupid if it doesn't allow you the discretion to inflict a punishment that fits the situation.
And, for sure, if you were willing to take the issue that far, it could be productive. You could get the stupid rule changed - which is often (and, specifically, in this case) beyond the power of the teacher or principal, and a much more worthwhile end than simply negating the immediate consequences of one violation of the rule.
Specifically what I do not approve of is people responding to things like this by going to the teacher or principal and verbally abusing them, threatening them, etc. First off, it's just flat-out rude to do so. Second, it undermines their authority, giving your child the sense that any time the teacher does something they don't like, they can just come running to you to overrule the teacher's authority. That, to me, is absolutely the wrong lesson. It's not always right to yield to unjust rules, but most of the time rebelling against authority isn't the right decision either. What happens when you get a speeding ticket? Do you yell at the police officer, threaten him with lawsuits, etc.? Most people would say that's a bad idea because of the possibility that this will just get you in more trouble. Beyond that I contend that this is simply wrong. Contradict the officer if he is wrong, but show respect, because he has a position that commands respect. If you want to fight the charge, there's a process to follow, and yelling at the guy who enforces the rule is not part of it.
In one sense, that's a pretty ugly idea - resigning oneself to the fact that there are powers in the world to which one must submit. But that's a reality in this world. Authorities exist, and rebellion against them is something you reserve for desperate situations.
You *certainly* use your own router. You have no proof that these other people are doing it (and it's not "likely" that large numbers of people are using your router anyway). In the most likely case, it was *you* who did the downloading. If you want to propose that it's someone else, you will need to provide evidence for that.
You certainly use your own baseball bat. You have no proof other people use it. And its not "likely" that large numbers of people are using your baseball bat. In the most likely case, it was *you* who used the bat to bludgeon that homeless person to death.
So far so good.
If you want to propose its someone else, you will need to provided evidence for that.
er no. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The fact that I have evidence your baseball was used makes you a legitimate suspect, but I'll have to do better than that to tie you to the scene of the crime to get a conviction. You don't have to provide evidence someone else used it. I have to provide evidence it was you.
You do realize that 98% of web users have Flash, right? Going through all the trouble of an HTML only version of his site only adds 2% to his potential viewership, and it's much harder to make it look nice. He didn't exclude all that many customers by using Flash, or he would not have used it.
Where is the return on investment? HTML5 isn't even an option yet, what do you propose? Remember, if he has to spend more money to get his site looking the way he wants without Flash than the added 2% of potential users could generate, it's not worth the effort.
There really aren't a whole lot of cases where that kind of effort would be justified, when his site works fine right now and hits 98% of his customer base.
The Discovery channels are full of sensationalist garbage.
As is Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles about non-scholarly subjects are supposed to represent the consensus of the mainstream media, and a lot of times, this consensus is "sensationalist garbage".
It actually probably protects him quite a bit, assuming this wasn't a marketing ploy to begin with.
Think about it, they know which phone it was because they wiped it the day after it was lost. More than likely the employee himself reported it missing (again, assuming it wasn't a marketing ploy) in order to protect what little chance he had to keep his job. Obviously they've known since day one who lost it, either way.
By publicly outing the guy, he is going to have a lot of people who think he should keep his job in spite of the mistake. That's what they call "public pressure". Now Apple could harm their public image by firing the guy, or they could improve it by keeping him on. That's a lot more support than a nameless employee is going to get.
You won't be able to tell if it is a marketing ploy, by the way, unless they fire the guy. If they fire him, it almost certainly is not a marketing ploy. If he keeps his job, it could have been a ploy all along, or it could just be Apple deciding it would be worth more than this guy's job for them to look merciful to their subjects... I mean employees.
Because Apple cares about harming their public image?
Yeah right, this is a company that sued rumor blogs out of existence.
More importantly, this will hurt this guy in the future. It is an invasion of his privacy, It was not necessary for the story. It was done in a childish and unethical manner.
Gizmodo doesn't have journalists, it has children who don't know ethics. It's like a news version of script kiddies.
Watch that next action thriller with a critical eye. The good guy never takes cover, standing in plain sight of everyone with a weapon, and no one can hit him. The bad guys actually make good use of cover, but the bad guy picks them off by the dozen, using two machine guns ambidextrously. Ass hat stupid, I say.
Perseus was born inside a bronze prison, cast into the sea (inside a wooden chest) and subsequently raised by a fisherman. To answer a challenge from his mother's suitor, he vowed to return with the head of the only mortal Gorgon. He outsmarted three oracles and received magical gifts to use on his quest. He somehow managed to sneak up on the lair of the Gorgons and chop off Medusa's head without looking at it while he did it, and without challenge from the other (non-mortal) Gorgons living there. Where did he get the training necessary to resist looking at Medusa? How did he know how to sever her head? Did the fisherman teach him those skills?
Samson once defeated an entire army with nothing but a jawbone from a donkey. It boggles the mind how one person would even be able to do this with modern weaponry, let alone an improvised piece of bone.
Bilbo went from being a hobbit with zero adventuring skill to a renown hero, with absolutely no reason for his survival, let alone success. By all logical accounts, Gandalf sent him to his doom, but he winds up saving the day several times over.
Ass hat stupid, I say.
Are you beginning to see the problem here? It isn't exactly the movies, but suspension of disbelief in general, that seems to be eluding you.
Has anyone figured out how to turn of that stupid page flip gesture and animation? I mean, it's cute and all for the first forty pages of Winnie the Pooh, but for fuck's sake, I just want to hit a button and see the the next page.
I have always said, that psychology and nowadays even neurology, suffer massively from the Rube-Goldberg-machine syndrome. The brain is an extremely emergent. Perhaps the most emergent system known to man. Compared to the results, the basic rules are extremely simple. But they seem to try to analyze all those resulting effects, as if they were additional specific rules, instead of just results of the basic rules.
I am absolutely certain, that if you create a set of simulated life-forms based on “blank“ neural nets of a sufficient size, including hormones / neurotransmitters, and let them evolve trough natural selection so they modify themselves, that it is only a matter of time, until you will come up with a working life-form of the same or higher intelligence than a human. Of course this life-form will have a different base layout if it has different priorities. But there is no need for any additional rules, other than those.
And I am also certain, that I will be proven right in my lifetime.
That's a nice diatribe, wrong, but nice.
Perhaps what you're describing is how many people use Facebook, and perhaps that's just how you envision all users using Facebook.
My family uses it somewhat differently. It's an excellent way to share pictures, stay involved with each others lives by sharing highlights (and lowlights) of what's happening, and just generally be social with each other. I also communicate with my brother who is stationed in Iraq. The soccer team my son plays on uses it much the same way. It's an ad-hoc way to share pictures, distribute information on when the next practice is, where everyone is staying for the next tournament, etc.
Just because you're angry at the kids on your lawn with bicycles doesn't mean us whippersnappers, I'm 38, haven't figured out a thing or two about convenient communications.
Pohl's law: Nothing is so good that somebody, somewhere, will not hate it.