Its been my experience that people should be in authoritative positions tend to naturally gravitate toward being a leader. Whether or not they would be a leader in a school setting they may be a leader somewhere else. Of course this isn't always the case but forcing leadership positions on people often doesn't work out that well anyway especially if there is resistance.
If it's inappropriate, you let the "section leader" give his orders, then you discipline the "section leader" for failing to act properly in that role. Kids have to try and fail at leadership some too. To prevent all these god-awful half-adults that have no idea what the hell to do when they are suddenly given a position of authority.
Oh, of course, that goes without saying. The main problem is way too many adults in charge fail to discipline the kids in charge when those kids start abusing their power.
This wasn't kids out of line. Push-ups and such as punishment was standard/official operating protocol.
Well, then that band must've sucked.
If a section leader abused their authority at all, they were basically fucked. They'd get an "F" for that time period in the band class, and probably lose their position.
Now, also, exercise was a part of the class. Marching band members had to maintain physical strength and stamina. There were mandatory exercise drills most days (every day at camps). Running laps was something everyone had to do generally (not just in they were in "trouble").
Pushups weren't unheard of for the bearers of large instruments either.
It's a sport. Anyone who tried to join the marching band and balked at the exercise elements would have had about as much luck if they tried to join the football team and balked at the training.
Certainly from the standpoint of what it was like to be in said band. However, and granted this is a few years before Scott started high school, his band was highly competitive in both regional and national competitions when my band was going up against them. Of course, they may have been so good despite the crazy push-up crap and not because of it.
If a section leader abused their authority at all, they were basically fucked. They'd get an "F" for that time period in the band class, and probably lose their position.
I assume that's how your band worked, right? Mine worked similarly. The band directors got even more strict about it when they found out about some extreme hazing crap that went on with one of the sections my freshman year. They tolerated minor, good-natured stuff (there was a tradition where a new member of the band, and that included new staff, would have to stand on a chair and sing "Little Bunny Foo-foo" during the end of competition season dinner), but if they got word of anything much more severe than this, there was serious discipline handed out.
Now, also, exercise was a part of the class. Marching band members had to maintain physical strength and stamina. There were mandatory exercise drills most days (every day at camps). Running laps was something everyone had to do generally (not just in they were in "trouble").
Pushups weren't unheard of for the bearers of large instruments either.
It's a sport. Anyone who tried to join the marching band and balked at the exercise elements would have had about as much luck if they tried to join the football team and balked at the training.
We weren't so strict about the exercise elements as yours, but we did have to do jumping jacks at the beginning of every practice. We also often were told to run to our positions when restarting drill routines.
Its been my experience that people should be in authoritative positions tend to naturally gravitate toward being a leader. Whether or not they would be a leader in a school setting they may be a leader somewhere else. Of course this isn't always the case but forcing leadership positions on people often doesn't work out that well anyway especially if there is resistance.
Oh boy. There are a lot more real-life applications to leadership skills than just being in a position of authority. Sometimes it will be forced, sometimes it will be volunteer based, and sometimes it'll just be doing what needs to be done when you have to do it. Shit's applicable to just about everything. And having that responsibility, even if you fail miserably, should help you understand what it's like for other people to be in charge. It's like a 101 life skill. Along with conflict resolution and bargaining.
I don't think everyone will get the same experience out of it or be as introspective given an authoritative role, especially shitty high school kids who don't realize that there is a world outside of high school.
Highly controversial results form that, as several of the kids said later that the professor running made it very clear (though not quite explicit) that he wanted them to get out of hand. It's hard to say how they would have acted without any pressure from the professor.
From what I've read about the experiment, the advert for volunteers pretty much said "Want to be part of an experiment involving prisons and punishment? Sign up here!" so the selection process didn't exactly narrow down to peace loving hippies or those who would mind things getting out of hand.
EDIT: from that wikipedia page...
"Also, it has been argued that selection bias may have played a role in the results. Researchers from Western Kentucky University recruited students for a study using an advertisement similar to the one used in the Stanford Prison Experiment, with some ads saying "a psychological study" (the control group), and some with the words "prison life" as originally worded in Dr. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. It was found that students who responded to the classified advertisement for the "prison study" were higher in traits such as social dominance, aggression, authoritarianism, etc. and were lower in traits related to empathy and altruism when statistically compared to the control group participants. When attempting to recruit students using a 3rd classified advertisement geared towards "helping behaviors", not enough participants volunteered for the study to show any statistical significance.[13]"
Epic fail. Old people who don't know technology should not have such power over technology policy. At least they got the ruling right on phone searches.
I think the Supreme Court got this one right - their interpretation of the law is correct.
The issue is that the laws themselves are bullshit, as indeed is most of intellectual property law worldwide. The laws need to be changed, but it isn't the Supreme Court's job to do that.
I think the Supreme Court got this one right - their interpretation of the law is correct.
The issue is that the laws themselves are bullshit, as indeed is most of intellectual property law worldwide. The laws need to be changed, but it isn't the Supreme Court's job to do that.
There was already a ruling that says it was OK for cable companies to have DVRs in "the cloud" and rent remote usage of those DVRs to customers. Aereo was doing exactly the same thing, only it was also renting the customers the antennas. The antennas only picked up broadcasts that were already available legally and free over the airwaves. There was one antenna per customer. If what you say is true, then it is directly contradictory with the previous ruling.
Exactly. This ruling looks like it overturns the Cablevision case dealing with remote DVRs.
Aereo engineered their service to be legal under the existing law and the existing case law. I expected a ruling where Aereo losses but I was not expecting the extra ruling declaring that what they are doing is a public rather than private performance. The Justices can sit back and claim that this case will not impact cloud services but as written it will.
So, is Sling box still legal? If rather than rent the equipment Aereo sold it and charged only a colocation fee would it still be legal?
There was already a ruling that says it was OK for cable companies to have DVRs in "the cloud" and rent remote usage of those DVRs to customers. Aereo was doing exactly the same thing, only it was also renting the customers the antennas. The antennas only picked up broadcasts that were already available legally and free over the airwaves. There was one antenna per customer. If what you say is true, then it is directly contradictory with the previous ruling.
The main difference with the cable DVR ruling and this Aereo ruling is that the cable companies are paying the broadcast networks to redistribute their content whereas Aereo isn't. The issue the court claimed is that, despite Aereo's antenna thing, they basically are just another cable company and should be subject to the same rules.
Which is why Aereo claimed to only be a renter of equipment. They offer no channel lineup packages the way a cable company does.
Essentially Aereo's business consisted of renting people DVRs that picked up legal content that Is freely transmitted over the air. So because the networks are broadcasting their content publicly there is no license that should be paid.
Think of Aereo as a room full of slingboxes connected to the Internet.
Think of Aereo as a room full of slingboxes connected to the Internet.
That's how I think of it. However, that's not how the court thought of it. I'm just trying to portray the court's point of view, even though I don't personally agree with it.
Heck, I think it's also bullshit that cable companies need to pay to rebroadcast OTA transmissions within the OTA broadcast areas.
The Networks are the problem. Their business is built on the local affiliate model even though that model is no longer technically necessary.
Aside from local news coverage there is nothing different between one ABC affiliate and another.
The other problem is all that spectrum that they get to use for free. If they want retransmission fees then they should have to pay for the transmission spectrum they use.
Japan is called the "land of the rising sun", and boy does it deliver. The sun rises before 5am (instead of the 6:30 I'm used to), and my body has started to think that it's normal.
Comments
If a section leader abused their authority at all, they were basically fucked. They'd get an "F" for that time period in the band class, and probably lose their position.
Pushups weren't unheard of for the bearers of large instruments either.
It's a sport. Anyone who tried to join the marching band and balked at the exercise elements would have had about as much luck if they tried to join the football team and balked at the training.
EDIT: from that wikipedia page...
"Also, it has been argued that selection bias may have played a role in the results. Researchers from Western Kentucky University recruited students for a study using an advertisement similar to the one used in the Stanford Prison Experiment, with some ads saying "a psychological study" (the control group), and some with the words "prison life" as originally worded in Dr. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. It was found that students who responded to the classified advertisement for the "prison study" were higher in traits such as social dominance, aggression, authoritarianism, etc. and were lower in traits related to empathy and altruism when statistically compared to the control group participants. When attempting to recruit students using a 3rd classified advertisement geared towards "helping behaviors", not enough participants volunteered for the study to show any statistical significance.[13]"
I've decided all jokes should be graph jokes.
The issue is that the laws themselves are bullshit, as indeed is most of intellectual property law worldwide. The laws need to be changed, but it isn't the Supreme Court's job to do that.
Aereo engineered their service to be legal under the existing law and the existing case law. I expected a ruling where Aereo losses but I was not expecting the extra ruling declaring that what they are doing is a public rather than private performance. The Justices can sit back and claim that this case will not impact cloud services but as written it will.
So, is Sling box still legal? If rather than rent the equipment Aereo sold it and charged only a colocation fee would it still be legal?
Essentially Aereo's business consisted of renting people DVRs that picked up legal content that Is freely transmitted over the air. So because the networks are broadcasting their content publicly there is no license that should be paid.
Think of Aereo as a room full of slingboxes connected to the Internet.
Heck, I think it's also bullshit that cable companies need to pay to rebroadcast OTA transmissions within the OTA broadcast areas.
Aside from local news coverage there is nothing different between one ABC affiliate and another.
The other problem is all that spectrum that they get to use for free. If they want retransmission fees then they should have to pay for the transmission spectrum they use.