Placing fines on the parents is not a solution also. If parent drags the child to school in the morning and place that child in the classroom, what is stopping that child from leaving the school grounds? Some kids don't care about authority and their parents. If you fine the parent and they cannot paid it goes on their credit report. What good is that? Children that deems their parents to be unfit can petition court for emancipation. What parents should do that have children that won't listen should petition the court to have the child declared emancipated. After all isn't that what the child wants? To be declared an adult and do as he please?
An anonymous reader writes "Wondering where all that bloat comes from, causing even the classic 'Hello world' to weigh in at 11 KB? An MIT programmer decided to make a Linux C program so simple, she could explain every byte of the assembly. She found that gcc was including libc even when you don't ask for it. The blog shows how to compile a much simpler 'Hello world,' using no libraries at all. This takes me back to the days of programming bare-metal on DOS!"
nilloc writes: Anyone using the NEW AT&T as their internet service provider was down Monday night in the Southeastern part of the United States of American.
I thought the primary design feature criteria for TCP/IP was that the traffic is routable. Therefore if a nuclear attack occurred that took out part of the pipe, traffic would just get re-routed. So I am asking the Slashdot community, why is AT&T (a major Internet Service Provider) putting all of their DNS servers behind one faulty router? Where does the redundancy lies?
An anonymous reader writes: If you call customer support they can't access any records and "my.t-mobile.com", their self-help centre, is also down. Both have been down for the last 24 hours. Most of last night their main web site was offline and hanging at an upstream provider. No reason given by customer service folk and no word on when they will return to service.
Alberto G writes: As Jammie Thomas appeals the $222,000 copyright infringement verdict against her, the Department of Justice has weighed in on a central facet of her appeal: whether the $9,250-per-song damages were unconstitutionally excessive and violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The DoJ says that there's nothing wrong with the figure the jury arrived at: '[G]iven the findings of copyright infringement in this case, the damages awarded under the Copyright Act's statutory damages provision did not violate the Due Process Clause; they were not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable."' The DoJ also appears to be impressed with the RIAA's argument that making a file available on a P2P network constitutes copyright infringement. 'It's also impossible for the true damages to be calculated, according to the brief, because it's unknown how many other users accessed the files in the KaZaA share in question and committed further acts of copyright infringement.'
Chris Knight writes: "Long story short: I ran for school board where I live this past fall and created some TV commercials including this one with a "Star Wars" theme. A few months ago VH1 grabbed the commercial from YouTube and featured it in a segment of its show "Web Junk 2.0". Neither VH1 or its parent company Viacom told me they were doing this or asked my permission to use it, but I didn't mind it if they did. It was great to see the commercial was being enjoyed by a far wider audience than I'd expected. I was honored that they chose to use it and thought that Aries Spears's commentary about it was pretty hilarious, so I posted a clip of VH1's segment on YouTube so that I could put it on my blog. This morning I got an e-mail from YouTube saying that the video has been pulled because Viacom is claiming that I'm violating its copyright. Viacom used my video without permission on their commercial television show, and now says that I am infringing on THEIR copyright for showing the clip of the work that Viacom made in violation of my own copyright! Talk about chutzpah! Needless to say, I would like to fight this: not for any kind of monetary compensation, but just for the right to employ my own self-created material per Fair Use."
An anonymous reader writes: Coupons, Inc CEO Steven Boal states that it is impossible to submit form submissions automatically in response to a Ben Edelman's report on Coupons, Inc. He obviously has never seen the way spam bots actually work their way around the internet. Read the entire story on Wired
from the err-i-have-to-go-make-some-copies dept.
mjasay writes "ZDNet is reporting that Google has a potentially worrisome clause in its User Agreement for Google Apps. Namely, that any content put into the system and 'intended to be available to the members of the public' is free game for Google, reserving the right for Google 'to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service offered by Google.' Google may not be evil, but giving it these (and other) rights to one's data should be ringing alarm bells in the Google Apps user base."