Linworth's epidemic and Stanford v.s. V

As I have said, I have been having difficulty coming up with enough stuff to write about for two posts. So, because Jen was so nice as to give us discussion topics for this chapter, I will do two of each in each of the posts. Woohoo for lack of imagingation!
1.
The broken window theory seemed truly inventive and thoughtful to me. I love the idea that one tiny detail can sway someone so strongly. I think that it is really true. I was trying to come up with examples and I think that I found one that may be pretty true. Lets say that there is nobody at Linworth that breaks the "no internet except for school stuff" rule. One day Joe decides that he is going to check his email. This may or may not have been school related but Mary sees him and decides to check hers as well. Mary's email has nothing to do with school, in fact it is just full of facebook notices and other junk mail. Then Billy walks in and sees her doing stuff related to facebook he decides that its ok to update his status and everything snowballs out of control. I have no idea if that is a good example or not but I think that it fits pretty well because the whole thing just started as one person doing one thing. One small glance at another person's screen could start an epidemic of improper computer usage. (This is probably true, quite to my dissatisfaction)
2.
The whole fake prison thing made me think of V for Vendetta. Thats pretty much all I could think about while I was reading this section. The two seem really similar at first but then the stories become truly opposite but also quite the same. The people who were doing the study said that the situation made the people change and be something that they weren't. The guards became authoritarian and the prisoners became depressed. The setting made them change from their normal cheery selves. In V for Vendetta Evey, the girl, is captured by V and is taken to a fake prison just like the one in the study. She is tortured and left alone but when she is released she is not the same person. She is stronger and as V puts it, she found out who she truly is and what she is willing to die for. I think that the two situations are the same. The people in the study weren't changed at all by their enviornment, it just showed them sides of themselves that not even they had seen before. The conclusions that the two studies come to are different. The Stanfordians believe that it is all to do with the enviornment and that once that the situation is gone, so is that side of the person but V believes that a person is who he is and just shows different sides of himself at different times and that that new knowledge can be useful. I don't know which is right but I relly like V for Vendetta so that is who I declare the winner.