As someone who,in my college days, had a job chauffeuring children between the university daycare and the local elementary school every weekday, I am in a position to positively affirm from personal observation over an extended period, that some 11-year old kids are noticeably more mature than some 30-something year old parents.
(I'm sure that many an elementary-school teacher could say the same -- but they need to be more careful about actually saying so in public.)
The schools proper response would have been a dressing-down, requiring a (convincing) apology to the teacher concern, and perhaps a retraction/clarification in the same venue as the problematic comment (but it might be better to "let sleeping dogs lie" rather than revivify the matter).
In addition, all this should have included an explanation to the student why this was a potentially serious matter -- and that repeating such behaviour would carry more serious consequences.
A Five Day suspension was almost certainly massive over-kill, but the over-reaction _could_ have been excused as merely due to concern that a potentially serious matter, brought to the school's attention by a member of the community, be seen to be treated seriously -- IF it had not been followed by the official strategy of outrageous escalation as its knee-jerk response to any objection.
The Sagehorn parents were likely motivated by some quite reasonable concern as to the likely effects of a relatively major suspension (especially over a matter of alleged "sexual misconduct") would have on their son's admissibility to a good college (and even more so, if any scholarships would be involved). So they wouldn't have felt they could afford to let the matter lie. And actually, this possibility should have been of some concern to a responsible school administration as well.
The issue isn't whether the student, Sagehorn, merited some sort of discipline -- that's a red herring; the issues are (i) how severe that discipline should reasonably be, and (ii) the draconian, abusively authoritarian response of the local officialdom to any question being raised over whether they were applying their authority appropriately.
It's not the reporters (at least, not all of them)
"If you talk to the reporters who work for various big media companies, they insist that they have true editorial independence from the business side of their companies. They insist that the news coverage isn't designed to reflect the business interests of their owners."
This has nothing to do with the reporters (aside from those who work for outfits like FOX/NewsCorp, who really, really, really should know better). It's the editors who decide what to print, who gets assigned to stories, and what resources might be made available. Of course, the editors aren't necessarily "taking orders" (some would even, in fact resign, if they ever were) but the ones who tend to lean/decide the "wrong" way, don't get hired, or don't get renewed or promoted, etc...
It's one of the relatively more subtle consequences of media conglomeration / media concentration -- an ever narrower range of opinions are represented. The final nails in the coffin of American journalistic independence might arguably have been the sales of the New York Times, and the Knight-Ridder corporation.
So of course, when there's a change of standard format (such as, say, from vinyl to tape, or tape to CD) or even when your original purchase becomes a "worn" LP or cassette in need of replacement with a fresh, clean media -- the distributors are perfectly happy to exchange your old copies for new copies, for the cost of the media itself, and perhaps a small handling/service fee... Right?
What!? No, they aren't amenable to simply replacing the media, itself, for a suitable service charge?
Gosh! Why not? Isn't that kind of... you know... inconsistent? I mean... in that case... the public might naturally conclude that, you know... the music industry has been lying to them, all along! (Then what???)
Well, you know... I don't know if that's such a bad idea...
... after all, an "intelligent" computer (at least, one we expect to interact in a meaningful manner with human beings) is going to have to be able to cope with improper grammar, poor sentence construction, and other misuse of language, including bad jokes and worse puns, not to mention misleading analogies, rhetorical gimmicks, contrary "facts" and illogical arguments. The Daily Fail sounds like just the thing for an AI to cut it's teeth on.
When they think it's ready (if they dare) then they can point it at Wikipedia, for a real test of its discernment and actual intelligence.
A year from now, we'll hear from her (Ms Turke, the elder) again, blaming modern technology and the internet for the fact that her daughter doesn't talk to her mother about anything she's doing, any more.
Let me introduce you to a fellow I learned about in school. He was a Russian scientist, who happened to use dogs in his physiology research. His name was Ivan Pavlov, and in 1904 he won the Nobel Prize for Physiology & Medicine.
"Classical conditioning (also Pavlovian or respondent conditioning) is a process of behavior modification in which an innate response to a potent biological stimulus becomes expressed in response to a previously neutral stimulus; this is achieved by repeated pairings of the neutral stimulus and the potent biological stimulus that elicits the desired response. Classical conditioning was made famous by Ivan Pavlov and his experiments conducted with dogs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
I was going to "report" you.
But fortunately, I quickly realized that this would actually be, in fact, quite counter-productive, and that it would be both easier and more effective to leave your blathering unhindered, for all to see and to judge for themselves.
Seriously -- the basic theory is well over a century old. Even the first rough calculations are well over a century ago (and they have since proven to be well in the ballpark).
And since then, no countervailing phenomena have been found, that would provide a sustainable reason to believe that the otherwise straight-forward, entirely predictable consequences of some very basic physical chemistry would somehow fail to (is somehow failing to) produce the straight-forward, entirely predictable consequence.
More CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat retained, hence global warming, and climate change, sea-level rise, etc, as a result of that warming.
The observed data (what a coincidence! Who would'a thunk!) is that this has in fact been happening, and is continuing to happen at an accelerating rate -- a rate that hasn't been observed in the history of the human species, let alone human civilization. And the last time the planet saw similar changes, it came with one of the greatest ecosystem upheavals in the paleological record (and paleontologists, for some reason, refer to these events as "great extinctions").
Appealing to things like some magical "Solar Mysteries" is at this point either rank ignorance or the most cynical deception.
But some people still want us to dismiss this all as "just a 'theory'" (Hint: in science, a "theory" is not just some idle speculation).
So yeah -- at this point, "AGW Skeptiks" are pretty much on par with "Scientific Creationists" and anti-vaxxers. The evidence is overwhelmingly against them, and there's a lot of it. The big holdouts are known ideologues, religious cranks, and well-paid PR professional bamboozlers (gosh... guess who's paying those guys -- or better, don't guess; it's on record).
So yeah: "not another one", please. Pretty please? Pretty please... with a cherry on top?
Look, it's really quite simple, even if you don't understand the science:
1) the conclusions of the world's scientists (climatologists, physical chemists, oceanographers, paleontologists, etc, etc.) based on many, many decades of scientific inquiry, which when is all said and done essentially confirms that the naturally expected consequences of physics and chemistry first identified (and even roughly calculated) back in the mid and late 1800's, do in fact hold up when investigated in greater detail and with superior technological resources,
2) the world's scientific community is utterly dominated and completely run by a bunch of fools who can't reliably do basic math -- but yet manage to thoroughly hoodwink national governments and international research institutions in order to maintain an uncertain trickle of departmental funding
3) there's a vast global conspiracy of the world's scientists, acting on behalf of political cabals and all the world's governments, to promulgate a phony "Global Warming" scare for Nefarious Purposes (that all those vastly differing national governments can not merely agree on, but actively co-operate on (efficiently and effectively, yet!) and successfully keep secret, and against which aforesaid evil machinations the word's brave, embattled, badly disadvantaged coal and petroleum industries are our only hope.
Go ahead; take your pick.
If you still find this issue at all difficult to discern, perhaps you could try to properly acquaint yourself with the actual, "real deal" genuine, scientific basis underlying this matter -- but I'm not sure you'll find that approach productive, either.