"What the task force did find is that "bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most salient threats that minors face, both online and offline." Partially because researchers can't agree on a definition of bullying and harassment, the actual risk is hard to quantify"
Your link talks about the danger from sexual predators it does not suggest that cyberbullying is on the decline.
Actually his ratio was way off for every interesting comment there are 7 that are simply name calling. When I read the article my thought was "Wow, what a great coverup for not monitoring your comments"
Do you know anything in which people who do not know the rules are not screwed? The most the legal system can do is impose rules that give the lower classes a chance. The powerful never worried about rules they did what they wanted. At least the current system tries to use rules to even things out.
So you don't know how it works but you feel controlled or victimized. So why don't you find out how it works? There are books in libraries, sites on the web, classes you can attend. If you wait to be told all you will get is being good at taking orders.
Mike are you basically upset that the flow of opinion was against yours or just want to see how we would apply ours?
From reading your post and not the actual court decision, I would say the appellate court simply looked at the fact that judges determine whether evidence is admissible or not and the the effect of his going to check out the hats was the same as asking the attorneys for the information. Judges get to determine whether or not evidence is presented juries do not. Also the court said that the level of evidence that is applied in this type of hearing is not the same as that in an original trial. Real trials are a lot more boring than the ones in fiction.
Actually, you are not saying the jury is ignoring one side, they are giving more weight to one side than the other. As an example one side presents and expert with 1 year of experience and the other side presents an expert with 10 years of experience. The jury decides which opinion it gives more weight to.
This site also gets fewer comments than newspaper sites. Anything approching 100 is unusual here whereas something controversial in a paper gets several hundred or a couple of thousand; most of which seem to wind up as name calling rather than discussions. I am ok with anonymous comments, but I think some moderation by the site is ok.
Blockbuster used to talk about how they were going to burn DVD's so you could always get the movies you wanted and they would never be out of stock. I wonder what would happen if independant sellers had a server that would allow them to download and print books in their shop?
Once upon a time when I was taking a class in law it was stated that lawyers were officiers of the courts and were under an ethical obligation to not accept or file baseless lawsuits or ones that had no chance of winning. Wouldn't it be nice if that were true?
and this camera phone would be able to take a picture send it to a printer in an office nearby fast enough to get large cognizable copies back to the security officers in time for him to see the pictures.
Why would they have printers at the entry areas? They probably would not be configured to have printers at the areas were the image was to appear. I think this needs a lot more proof.
On the post: Should We Allow Consumers To Sell Their Souls?
Re: Prosecute the users for fraud...
On the post: Steve Ballmer Tasked With Fixing The Deficit -- With A Video Game
Re: Re:
On the post: As Cyberbullying Moral Panics Heat Up, Actual Rates Of Cyberbullying Decreasing
Not the right link
Your link talks about the danger from sexual predators it does not suggest that cyberbullying is on the decline.
On the post: Another Lawsuit Over Costume Copyrights: Gorilla Holding A Cage
Re: Oh My God
On the post: Washington Post Ombud: Anonymous Comments Have Their Place
Post Comments
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Judge Chin using Google - irony
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Matter of Opinion
From reading your post and not the actual court decision, I would say the appellate court simply looked at the fact that judges determine whether evidence is admissible or not and the the effect of his going to check out the hats was the same as asking the attorneys for the information. Judges get to determine whether or not evidence is presented juries do not. Also the court said that the level of evidence that is applied in this type of hearing is not the same as that in an original trial. Real trials are a lot more boring than the ones in fiction.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Are Anonymous Comments Evil?
Number of Comments
On the post: Forget The Doom & Gloom; Look How Good Things Are In The Book Business
Re: This is not a simple subject
On the post: Society Doesn't Know How To Deal With Abundance
Re: Division by Zero = Infinity
On the post: Former Sun CEO: Tech Companies Suing Over Patents Is An Act Of Desperation
Re: Give it a rest
On the post: Indiana Prosecutor Threatens Redbox With Criminal Charges If It Doesn't Remove R-Rated Movies
Re:
On the post: Dear Macmillan, You Don't Embrace The New By Trying To Protect The Old
Re: Oh come on now.
On the post: Academic Author Sues Journal Editor For Criminal Defamation Over Negative Book Review
Baseless Lawsuits
On the post: Movie Star Claims Heathrow Airport Staff Printed Out, Circulated, His Naked Body Images
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Movie Star Claims Heathrow Airport Staff Printed Out, Circulated, His Naked Body Images
Re:
On the post: Leaving Your WiFi Open Decreases Your Fourth Amendment Rights To Privacy?
Re: UM does having an unlocked house door mean that?
Next >>