Hoskins

I think of Sanitaria Springs as it relates to my hometown, milford michigan. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milford,_Michigan Not a big village, has had it's ups and downs with industries coming and going, has a central business district - a downtown - some old mill ponds here and there, and lots and lots of people that all grew up together and have stuck around, so they know each other fairly well (it's facebook page has like 3,000 members, not bad since that's about half the population). I guess what I'm saying is that I've kind of applied the template of Milford to a fictional town.

When the author left GA, it was a "scorched earth" kind of thing. They've been completely scrubbed off the site like they never existed. Typically GA does that if there is an issue of authorship of the stories the author posted, or if there is a major disagreement with the site admins. I'd recommend checking with GA to see if they could vet the author, if they're being considered for posting here. The stories were good - I read all of them, until they disappeared so abruptly.

Dabeagle, regarding the truck driver - I think it's really a touchy subject to bring the truck driver into discussions regarding Leelah's suicide that involves her motives for killing herself. I think news organizations are deliberately trying to keep the truck driver out of the news (and there's probably a measure of giving the guy some privacy). I haven't seen much discussion within news articles about him, but I have seen a LOT of conversation about it in the comment sections of online newspapers and the like. For some, it gets very close to blaming Leelah for the impact her act will have on the truck driver. Which is exactly what you see in those comment sections. Lots of back and forth about whether or not suicide is a selfish act, whether or not Leelah would have been charged with a crime for attempting suicide in such a way, had she survived. Metafilter (an online site that I frequent) lost their collective minds over the issue. Metafilter operates by having people submit a post, and then users comment on the post. The posts are usually links to news articles. The posts and comments are moderated to keep people on topic, so that the post content is not derailed by the discussion. It is a strange place. In the post about Leelah's suicide and why she committed the act, people began the "what about the truck driver" conversation and it got pretty heated, so much so that the site moderators basically had to tell people commenting about the driver to wait a few days and submit their own post about it later, to separate the conversations. So: I think it's difficult to separate her suicide from the effect it will have on the driver, and news editors are cognizant of that, so you don't see a lot of his perspective, yet. I suspect we will see more from him (and hopefully his story) in a few days when things are more settled.

Here is what I think is going on: You know how you'll see a kid in a store, and he or she has something sneaky going in their brain, and grandma sees that they're about to go and start some shenanigans? When Nana grabs them by the ear and gives it a good pinch and says "Don't even think about it?" Yeah. This is what the US is doing to NK right now. It's not coming from China. NK is posturing about making things "a thousand times worse". We are simply grabbing their ear and making them reconsider their course of action.

Yeah, this was tough to read but worth every minute, I liked it, and I'll read it again soon. The ideas James brings forth are sometimes hard to work through on the first read, especially when you've lived a bit of the story. Thanks for sharing it, James.

This was fun, although getting to the fun was a bit of a ride. I only cried a little bit, but no one is home so,there's that. My strange sense of masculinity is still intact. A story well told and I really appreciate all the work you guys obviously put into this. Thank you.

Chris: I completely agree with you. I work in IT. I configure and install firewalls, participate in penetration testing (making sure those firewalls are set up properly by attempting to hack them, etc), and other security-related work. I can assure you that the Chinese (and the Russians) are actively engaged in a constant and relentless attack on the West's IT infrastructure. I have firewall logs that have thousands and thousands of attempts to penetrate our firewalls. The ip addresses of the machines attempting to breach the firewalls and retrieve passwords and open ports can usually be traced to Chinese and Russian Internet service providers. Microsoft's media campaign to get people to stop using windows XP and Internet explorer 6 are a big part of mitigating these attacks...because most of the malware and virus creators are from those countries, and the machines that are infected with a bot can be used to attack and deny service to companies and government agencies. And often are. The bad news is that Sony is one of the first open and publicized attacks. Publishing all the data is terrible, but it highlights the issue very well. People need to take passwords and their use, and keep in mind where and how their data is stored, very seriously. Not even your corporate network is safe (actually corporate networks are often LESS safe than home machines because your data is not considered private on a corporate network).

The company within Sony that suffered the hack is Sony Pictures Entertainment. Their CIO is Steve Andujar. He has been in that position since 2010. He does not play a financial role. He is a peer to the CFO and to the CTO, reporting directly to their CEO. The finance guy didn't wave off cyber security. The CIO did.

A couple of years ago, Sony got hacked. I'm pretty sure it had something to do with playstation online services, including credit card data. The security guy at the time basically defended Sony's security practices by saying that the cost of being hacked would be less than the cost to implement proper security, so there were no plans to overhaul the security strategy as a result of the hack. He's the security guy they have now. I wonder if he's learned anything.

Steven: Well said. I always appreciate hearing perspectives outside my own typical American one. My perspective is usually generated by CNN or MSNBC or Fox News (sometimes the Daily Show because that Stewart guy really nails it sometimes), where I can get a quick, easy to digest (and then immediately forget because there's a sale on downtown) sound bite followed by two or three Americans just like me (usually they are older, white haired gentlemen with degrees from war colleges and stuff. They must know a lot because they are Professors or Members of the Board somewhere, so they must be smart). Then I compare what they all said, and since they mostly agree on the high points (in this story, those would be 1. Islam is uncivilized 2. Obama and/or Congress should do something about it and C. Islam is. ....what's that burning? Did someone burn the garlic bread again? Oh and 3. Thank God it's happening over THERE and not HERE. - I am free to parrot what they said, and not have to do any math at all. It's very freeing. I wish every American citizen was required to take a class in "Middle Eastern". I wish that class was two months long, three times a week, two hours a session. Covering all the major sects, how they relate to the civic governments and the countries they occupy. How many of those sects can equate to a Native American tribe in how their members relate to it, and to the governments of their respective countries (whose boundaries were created by Westerners, much like reservations were created in the us and Canada). It should cover how those civic, imposed governments are almost completely nonfunctional when a citizen has to choose between fighting for their sect/tribe and fighting for their "country" (there's a really great essay out there by an American who spent a lot of time trying to get the Iraqi military to function for the government, when all the soldiers were stealing the equipment and sending it home to the tribe, because their warlord said it was okay). It should cover the concepts that Islamic law, and by extension Sharia law, exists most strongly where there are very real vacuums where legislation and justice systems should be, but aren't, because the governments just...don't exist (or are seen as a joke by the residents). The only law in the land, as it were, is Islamic. And that runs through every facet of life there (very much how religion played a huge role in early American life - you got your justice from the congregation, in the absence of a judge). "Middle Eastern" is a complicated subject. We Americans don't have time to learn hard, tricky things like this, we have shopping to do, and TV to watch. It's full of gray areas, and hard things to think about. Sorry for the rant, but it's so frustrating to see (not just here) really simplified concepts applied to really complicated subjects, and everyone just nodding their heads because no one wants to see the tough stuff underneath. I mourn for those kids, and I mourn for their families. I really do believe the Taliban needs a good strong response to this - along the lines of wiping out the entire sect and erasing their names from history. Children as military targets. The mind reels.

"Boys are always up to something. It's axiomatic." -- Osmond (Nice call out, 10/10) As the sky turns BLACK and ugly white worms pop from Richard's exposed arm...

Over on reddit, there's a young man in trouble: http://www.reddit.com/r/gay/comments/2mvc75/i_got_kicked_out_of_my_hourse_for_coming_out/ As of right now the post is 7 hours old. His last comment was three hours ago. Say a prayer if you're of a mind, keep him in your thoughts. And if you're in Kentucky, maybe reach out if you can. We come so far and there is SO far to go.

In addition to antivirus scans it's also really helpful to run antimalware scans. AV software often won't detect malware that falls below a certain threshold. AD-insertion malware is sometimes not detected. You can get a good antimalware scanner at www.malwarebytes.org. Download it, and when asked if you want the free trial, say no. It's free after that. Once the software is installed, update it's definitions and run a full scan. Remove or quarantine anything it finds. Also check your browser add ons. There could be an add on in Firefox that's serving ads on pages you visit. And download and install Adblock Plus, a browser extension that blocks ads, obviously. I don't think Firefox is the issue. I think you have some malware running.

It's a technical preview/beta release, the final version is months away. It's really common to remove features during beta and put them back nearer to the release date (I ran the Win 8 preview for several months, it didn't have games either - and when I got the RTM version, they were back).

It sure seems like society wants people to conform to categories. We seem to want to box people into "what we understand" versus what people are. There are no boxes, in my world. You love the one you're with, and it doesn't really matter if there's a penis or a vagina or a bag of chips where the legs come together. Sex and sexuality are only one component of a relationship, and there are many pieces/parts that make up the whole thing. The best partners are those that don't seek out categories, but those that seek for what works for THEM.

Bisexuality is not about greed. It's about being attracted to, falling in love with, or just having sex with other people regardless of the equipment. If you like Mike, then you go have a relationship/whatever with Mike. If, after your thing with Mike ends, you then hook up with Tina, that's cool too. It is a distinct sexual identity, like being gay or straight. Nothing to be confused about: gay men like men. Straight men like women. Bisexual men like men OR women. Flip the genders if you're female... The perception that bisexuals are somehow "greedy" because they are able to carry on relationships with either sex is a pretty offensive one. It's really about not caring about the sex of the person you're with.

I think Dude's picks does this, but I wouldn't mind a "Best of Awesomedude" to bring some of the great stories to the surface for new readers. Of course, how you pick what goes there could be contentious.

Well, there's the slurring, which is just really a lazy, lazy mouth "I'm" becomes "ahma", etc, but along with that, action during the conversation needs to reflect what's going on, right? So in my experience, drunk people tend to - forget what they're talking about, sometimes mid sentence - change the subject frequently - get overly emotional, tipping to the ridiculously sentimental about friendships "you're my best friend - i loove youuu..." to flying off the handle for the silliest reasons - like thinking someone stole their drink when they just can't find it, or, in the middle of a conversation accuse you of TALKING - knock into things, slop their drink around, knock things over and just generally get really uncoordinated - lean into you when they're talking to you, lean ON you a lot. I dug around YouTube a bit, and while this is a bit dated I've seen my friend Jimmy get like this a few times... - that's a funny clip and Foster Brooks nails "drunk" pretty darn well. Anyway a YouTube search on "drunk in a bar" brought up a few hits.

Cole, doesn't "Dominos" carry elements of this event, albeit with a completely different outcome?

In many school districts, and even more so in some districts where there is a prevalence of lower income families, schools and districts are taking advantage of programs that put tablets in the classrooms and in some cases are issued to the students to carry with them everywhere. The tablets have the requisite software to allow kids to manage their homework, assignments, and schedules, as well as allow them to participate in interactive experiments and assignments with their classmates. The devices don't supplant a phone, but they do allow kids that wouldn't have the ability to "keep up" to do so, at least during the school day. I suppose part of the concept is to level the playing field between kids that can afford their own devices and those that can't. These tablets are managed by the school and are usually docked to a mobile cart when the kids aren't using them. The management software allows the devices to be very specifically configured - anything from "wide open access" to being restricted to only certain programs, right down to yes, disabling device functions like integrated cameras and enabling/disabling messaging between the devices. They can be remotely wiped if stolen, and fully restored to a default state at the end of a school day or, if needed, at any time by the teachers or IT staff. They represent a really neat way to get kids (and teachers) thinking about how these things can break down the "digital divide" and let the kids innovate (sometimes by allowing the kids to hack them successfully - in some tech curriculums this is rewarded). This is what I was talking about - staff-managed access and control. By providing a school-issued device, the need for a personal device is removed or diminished to a "social" device, not one that's necessary to carry with them. I think, as Des and Pecman and Cole do, that it's critical to teach kids how to use technology properly. I believe the country is coming around, very slowly, to the concept that we must teach kids how to use it, how to create with it, and how to be really great users of new stuff. A huge part of this education is teaching kids the very real threat that online access can be to themselves and to others. In the event that cellphones are banned in a school or classroom, if a student NEEDS to use their cellphone to call a parent or something during the school day, there's no reason they wouldn't be allowed to in a controlled way. Or be allowed to use it for a short period occasionally through the day to check their messages or texts or missed calls. I'm not blind to the idea that Being Connected Is Really Important these days. It's important to me, too. As Cole said, the idea is to control access and keep the focus on education. Sure kids are going to sneak a phone or "forget it" at home or whatever. But that behavior can and should be discouraged through consequences. It's all a bit of a rosy view of the future and we're a bit far from it at the moment, but I think the country is getting close to possibly coming near the corner that needs to be turned on some of these ideas. I really would like to hear our resident teacher's views on this stuff, too.

Note: I acknowledge that I was hyperbolic in the beginning of that post, there. Please read the whole thing before you flame me, thanks.

So, in some school districts, having prescribed pharmaceutical drugs on school grounds will get you expelled or suspended. Diabetic kids go to the school nurse for insulin. Can't carry an inhaler without specific authorization. Kids have died because of these rules. But I guess that's okay? If it is, then it's okay to have a device that can be used to bully, and humiliate, and cause the death of a student, but it's not okay to have life saving drugs. Zero tolerance, they call it, and lots and lots of parents advocate that there will be no drugs in school. Got it. Back to the point, and so far people seem to have been missing my point: Control cellphone use during school hours. Not after, not before. Not at home, not at work. At school, during school hours, only. That's all I'm addressing here. "Here is a gun, son. Take to school, that's fine, I know you want to show it to your friends. I know everyone has one, so here's yours. I know you've had classes about it, so just don't fire it and everything will be fine". Really? The asshole bully that filmed this kid and sent the video to his friends used that phone as a weapon. That's what he did. Full stop. Well it's good to know I'm sane, then, because I'm not "blaming the technology" at all, unless you consider that I don't consider the technology mature enough to be handled by immature children. I blame the assholes that use it to bully others and I define that bully as an immature child.. And I'm saying that the technology available to children should be controlled during school hours. That's all. Do we ban laptops? No. Why not? Because you can control how a laptop is used in a school. It's controlled by the school network and firewall and user accounts and other software. If an unauthorized device attempts to connect to a school network, the connection is refused by the network itself. I work on school networks. I do have subject matter expertise, here. They're very tightly controlled (or should be if they're worth a crap). Heck, if you want a website to be made accessible by the students that's currently blocked, you usually have to go to the school board to request access. It would be very difficult to bully someone using a laptop in a school environment and that is by design. It is becoming more and more common for schools to issue tablets and laptops to students for their use? Why is that? Because the devices can be controlled and managed by the school staff. The software to do this is readily available and ubiquitous. The ability to control a personal cellphone using a school resource is not there yet, for legal and technical reasons. But, go to a school, whip out a cell phone on a 4G network that's not connected to the school, and you can go nuts. Post anything you want anywhere, because a cell phone is not controlled by the school network. So, ALL that I'm saying is that the use of cellphones should be controlled, if not by using technical means as above (which would be very difficult and probably illegal - you can't just jam a 4G network for a given physical area and get away with it), then by controlling access to the device. I 100% agree that teaching kids to use these devices responsibly and properly is the solution to the problem. But I don't think, based on what I know about how kids use these devices, that you can get there from here, not yet. Teachers don't understand these devices well. Neither do parents. And again, based on what I know, I think the proper solution for the short term is to take the device away at 8 AM and give it back at 3 PM. Note that I have never, ever advocated taking away their phones forever, or that kids shouldn't have cellphones. I've never said anything about how these kids use the devices while not at school. I'm talking about controlling them at a specific location (in school) and during specific times (during school hours). Nothing about taking a phone to a game, or a dance, or anything else. During this period of time, in this location, you can't have a cellphone. Note that I strongly believe, as I think most reasonable people do, that the staff that runs a school should be in full and complete control of the school and the activities that happen there. Cellphones by their very nature remove this control. I think that's wrong.

Well, I stuck a Google Alert out there a few days ago to alert me about stories re: Matthew Burdette, because I want to know what that asshole kid is going to be charged with. I may or may not be on a watchlist now. No black helicopters yet, and Chris Hansen hasn't shown up. I may get through this. But this Google Alert has revealed to me that the people who participate in the comment sections of American news outlets on the Internet represent "that part of the American public that should be sterilized or sent to FEMA concentration camps (which, apparently, these people also believe exist)". Because, wow. Everything from "ban cellphones" (yay) to "the kid was gay for beating off in school" (ew) to "we need better Christian based sex education in schools" to "good for him - that kid deserved it" to "glad he's dead". It's good to see reasoned debate here. A breath of fresh air, etc.

Sure kids can lie,they can hide the phones, they can cover for each other - same as it always was. But a school wide ban on phones makes having one an actionable offense with consequences - in school suspensions, etc. And kids being disconnected from texting, etc during a school day - I just don't see a downside, not in school.

"But how could you enforce this in a school? Gather up all the cellphones in first period, then give them back to the kids at the end of the day? What if they have an emergency? Taking their phones away infringes on their freedoms, too." Having a cell phone is not a right. If a kid has an emergency, i.e. The parents need to contact them, they can call the school. If the kid needs to talk to a parent, they can do that through the office. That's what it's there for. I strongly believe that kids don't need or have the right to have a cell phone with them during school hours. As is shown in this situation: a cell phone was used as a weapon against a fellow student. If schools can ban guns and knives and prescription drugs and god knows what else, they can ban phones. And they should.