Partially, you can make it so that exe's can only be run from certain directories which can have write permissions denied for users. The NSW department of Education uses this on their school laptops. The exceptions being you can still run java (.jar) and flash executables if the run-time for them is installed or if a user-level program needs write permission to the Windows or Program Files directories, in which case exe's can be placed in these folders.
Not exactly the same, but windows live photo gallery does save backups of files you edit using, however it only saves one backup for each files (If you edit it twice you lose the original) and you have to 'restore' them using their interface as it puts them in a obscure folder with hashes for file names.
And is other news, 'scientists' found that people who socialise a lot are addicted to party's, etc. People who display the symptoms of this disorder are commonly referred to as extroverts, so scientist have named this 'Extrovert Social Addictive Disorder'.
Seriously the need to feel connected to people is part of human nature, the fact that people have found a new way to be connected which with our busy and anti social lives, allows them to at least partially fulfil this need easier should neither be surprising or bad.
Or do you want to sending people to 'rehab' for being to social?
that argument makes no sense. you are trying to use "slippery slope" but that isn't addressing the question. how is curing color blindness any different than curing other diseases? what you are talking about is enhancements that no one has. most people see in color, to tell someone that is colorblind that they can't get a treatment because the technology could POTENTIALLY be used for something "morally wrong" is bs and has nothing to do with curing colorblindess. its unfortunate the people with the ethical problem aren't the ones suffering from colorblindness. you argue we shouldn't cure disease X because it could lead to technology that allows Z, something that has nothing to do with treating disease.
?Curing Colour blindness is different because in involves the modification of our genetic code, which is then passed on to the next generation and because colour blindness is not necessarily a disease, as it dose not impair bodily functions (the person can still see, just differently and they can still live, in nature they would still be avail to survive and compete with others it is only in our society which is designed for so called 'normal people')
I would argue that as a genetic mutation it is in fact a natural proses of evaluation and should not be interfered with
No, there is an accept standard for what the majority of the human race view as normal sight, however if we extend this to all the animal kingdom or even just mammals the so called normal changes. Normal is an abstraction and a point of view, it is impossible for it to be objective.
By changing someone's colour-blindness to the norm you could be destroying a gene that in the future becomes necessary for the survival of the human race. Remember males pass their current genes on, not the ones they are born with and if the modification occurs in the womb, early on then females would also pass on this gene (see Gatica).
Genetic mutations or abnormalities are a natural part of evaluation and we defiantly don't understand our genes well enough to mess with them.
As for genetic engineering, the solution is similar. Provide public genetic engineering so everyone at least gets a basic foundation from which to leverage upward. It will be expensive and complex, but the public education system wasn't always around either. It won't be perfect, and neither is our public education system, because there are always the privileged few. I certainly wouldn't be where I am today if my parents weren't middle class. The roadblock for it in the future won't be economic, since given a long enough maturation period, we'll be able to do basic changes cheaply. It'll come down to politics in the end, since there are both strong pros and cons to consider.
So you are suggesting that we all get the same compulsory identical genetic engineering? This is certainly a bad idea, it would destroy individuality and would be very risky as you could be modifying the whole human race's genes in a way that will ultimately lead to our extinction.(The Asgard from Stargate, show this point very well)
Depending on what they filter, prehaps filtering should be used simply to not allow kids to waste their time "researching." If you're using a school computer for "research" then you should be researching your topic, not using facebook or whatever.
Totally unfiltering/uncensoring is basically like giving people the option of "go outside and play" or "stay inside and study." Most kids choose to play rather than study by nature. That's why if you leave a kid to do what he wants until he's 15, you probably won't end up with a well-rounded, educated, well-behaved member of society...
However I have found if remove 90% of the source available (as most schools do), then kids give up and play games anyway because it's to hard to get the information.
There is a time and place for everything, and random browsing of whatever you want is not something that you do at school.
If you think keeping students focused on school work and not dicking off reading slashdot, digg, or screwing with facebook is censorship then you are, in fact, a freaking moron.
Stop calling everything censorship just because you don't get your way.
You would be correct if the only thing schools filter is porn, but sadly it's not from my experience schools generally censor at least 60% of legitimate websites. At the school I currently attend the filter makes it basically impossible to get information from any source apart from Wikipedia or use any other search engine apart from Google.
I have to agree, Internet censorship rarely works in practise. One place where it has become extremely stupid is at public schools in NSW, Australia which block everything apart from Wikipedia, Google and a few websites they haven't got round to blocking yet (but if you go to them, it is almost guaranteed to be blocked with in the week). Blocked sites include yahoo, bing, AOL, askjeves, altavista and any Google website that is not www.google.com.au (the au and the www are required).
This basically makes it impossible to do research on a topic unless Wikipedia has detailed information on in, or unless no one else in the state has researched it recently (it's a black list not a white list). Also interestingly all of slashdot apart from the politics sub-domain is unblocked.
Yes, but year 9 and 10 students are required to use the issued laptops at school (the network is locked down and they won't just connect any laptop). Also the software on the laptops is worth a lot more (in the area of thousands of $s) then any that would come with an asus netbook making it unreasonable to buy for school use (including homework in some cases).
Which still leaves the problem that students are being taught to only use google as most students won't have the technical knowledge to transfer the Onenote books back and fourth between computers and that is where most of the homework will need to be done.
The problem with that is students are taught that google is the only option and will refuse to use over search engines, which may or may not be better.
Especially at high school, students frequently have to use the web and it is my understanding that the same filter will be applied at school and at home w/ the release of the laptops for all yr9 students.
The filter is supposed to stop inappropriate use of the internet. About 85% of the sites that I use for research are blocked, leaving wikipedia a few government sites and a few that no one else has been to (It's a black list but if a student goes to a site it soon gets blocked as uncategorised for an unspecified period of time).
Also I fail to see how bing, yahoo or Altavista are inappropriate (bing is blocked as teachers only, the others as search engines/portal sites).
This is especially worrying when you realise how corrupt the government in Australia is, I recently came to realised this when I found out that the Department of Education in NSW block access to ALL search engines accept google for students at public primary and high schools. (apart from yahoo which you can get one page of results from if you go to search.yahoo.com)
What's more you are incorrect, most of the people I know are opposed to this invasion of our rights and I live it Australia. The rest do not actually understand what it is.
Either my phone, or my cheap digital watch keep better time than any "fine Rolex or Omega" mechanical watch.
Saddly most phones I have used seem to be 2-3mins out within one week of me setting them, my watch however keeps very accurate for many months, also I can look at it without being really obvious, and I could if I needed to use it in places like military bases and research labs where allot of modern phones are not allowed
As someone posting from Australia and born in England I can say that in my personal experience most people use the word American to refer to someone who is a citizen of the USA, and the word America to refer to the USA. This is called a colloquialism, look it up.
This is from the oxford dictionary:
American
adjective relating to the United States or to the continents of America.
noun a person from the United States or any of the countries of North, South, or Central America.
This is currently begining to hapen in Australia (to a small extent) w/ alot of new technologies being purchased and used by public schools by the Goverment, called DER(not sure whever this is just NSW).
Also teachers are being shown how to use them. These technologies include smart boards and laptops (the laptops being given to each yr9 class from now on in NSW). Whilst this is not perfect it is a step in the right direction. I do however think that teaching touch typing is not going to be helpfull as it makes computing seem like a choer, and most people are better off figuring out their own way of touch typing (from experience) then being told they have to do it the oficial way.
For more info on D.E.R:
That's not how it works for the phone system, which is very similar to the internet (connections of wires for transferring communications over many miles). The phone system is controlled by the U.S. FCC but *only* if the company in question is interstate. If the company exists wholly and completely within a state (say, California) then the U.S. has no authority to regulate that company. Only the CA legislature has jurisdiction per the Communications Act of 1934.
The trouble is, when you're talking about a network attack (rather than, say, what a company charges its customers), a local response (and in this discussion, the state level is essentially "local", for our purposes) means nothing. An Internet attack is, by its very nature, international. You can't have hundreds of thousands of computers in one nation run one way, and hundreds of thousands in each other nation run some other way during a crisis. And even local ISPs have to, by their very nature, have international connections. Without international authority over those connections, what good is national-level control going to do?
I just don't see how you're going to stop an Internet attack by working on the local level and handing off responsibility at national lines. It's got to be coordinated at a higher level than that.
Fixed that for you corrections in bold
The same arguments applies for and against this.
That's a bit harsh. What kind of math are we talking about? I only ever studied math as far as algebra and geometry, so am I a subhuman?
Depends. Do you need a calculator or a cash register to tell you how much change you should get back when you pay for a total of $9.78 with a $10 bill? Do you need a calculator to figure out how many pennies you should add to that $10 bill so that you get a single quarter ($0.25 for those not accustomed to American coins) back as change? Are you amazed when a customer gives you the $10 bill and pennies and ends up with a single quarter and you don't understand how they could do that without the register telling them their change?
If your answer to any or all of those questions is "yes", then probably fall under Heinlein's definition of "subhuman".
Seriously, I've had cashiers look at me like I'm some sort of magician because I can hand them a certain amount of bills and coins to ensure that I get the least number of coins back as change. No, I don't think they are subhuman, but their inability to do simple math without a calculator boggles my mind just as much as my ability to do so boggles theirs. YMMV.:-/
I must say that I disagrea with your interpritation of the quote, some people simply can't do caculations in there head (not just from lack of trying but becouse they can't). Personaly It would take me a noticable amount of time to work that out in my head, that dosn't mean I don't understand mathmatics or that I can't do maths, but simply that I can't do caculations in my head(quickly).
I do how every agrea with the parents post.
Foldershare(Live sync) handles conflicts terribly it pops up a dialog (e.g 'This file foo.doc was deleted but the version on your computer is different, do you want to: |Keep| |Delete| |Cancel'(shuts down folder share)'|')
and you most chose immediately which to keep or foldershare(Live sync) will shutdown, if you want the same features (even same login (live ID)) with a product that handles conflicts more efficiently use live mesh .
I know Microsoft has a bad rep on here but Live mesh is a very usfull product you can store u[ to the 2GB online (which it then syncs with) or sync P2P if you whant.
It handels conflicts by showing an error icon on the side of the screen(it adds a small pane to the side of synced folders in explorer) in folder view and lets you chose which file to keep, it suports windows, mac (no P2P) and windows mobile.
Slashdot Mirror
Partially, you can make it so that exe's can only be run from certain directories which can have write permissions denied for users. The NSW department of Education uses this on their school laptops. The exceptions being you can still run java (.jar) and flash executables if the run-time for them is installed or if a user-level program needs write permission to the Windows or Program Files directories, in which case exe's can be placed in these folders.
Where's the ADSL part. The article is asking for an 'n' router with ADSL.
Not exactly the same, but windows live photo gallery does save backups of files you edit using, however it only saves one backup for each files (If you edit it twice you lose the original) and you have to 'restore' them using their interface as it puts them in a obscure folder with hashes for file names.
And is other news, 'scientists' found that people who socialise a lot are addicted to party's, etc. People who display the symptoms of this disorder are commonly referred to as extroverts, so scientist have named this 'Extrovert Social Addictive Disorder'.
Seriously the need to feel connected to people is part of human nature, the fact that people have found a new way to be connected which with our busy and anti social lives, allows them to at least partially fulfil this need easier should neither be surprising or bad.
Or do you want to sending people to 'rehab' for being to social?
that argument makes no sense. you are trying to use "slippery slope" but that isn't addressing the question. how is curing color blindness any different than curing other diseases? what you are talking about is enhancements that no one has. most people see in color, to tell someone that is colorblind that they can't get a treatment because the technology could POTENTIALLY be used for something "morally wrong" is bs and has nothing to do with curing colorblindess. its unfortunate the people with the ethical problem aren't the ones suffering from colorblindness. you argue we shouldn't cure disease X because it could lead to technology that allows Z, something that has nothing to do with treating disease.
?Curing Colour blindness is different because in involves the modification of our genetic code, which is then passed on to the next generation and because colour blindness is not necessarily a disease, as it dose not impair bodily functions (the person can still see, just differently and they can still live, in nature they would still be avail to survive and compete with others it is only in our society which is designed for so called 'normal people')
I would argue that as a genetic mutation it is in fact a natural proses of evaluation and should not be interfered with
No, there is an accept standard for what the majority of the human race view as normal sight, however if we extend this to all the animal kingdom or even just mammals the so called normal changes. Normal is an abstraction and a point of view, it is impossible for it to be objective.
By changing someone's colour-blindness to the norm you could be destroying a gene that in the future becomes necessary for the survival of the human race. Remember males pass their current genes on, not the ones they are born with and if the modification occurs in the womb, early on then females would also pass on this gene (see Gatica).
Genetic mutations or abnormalities are a natural part of evaluation and we defiantly don't understand our genes well enough to mess with them.
As for genetic engineering, the solution is similar. Provide public genetic engineering so everyone at least gets a basic foundation from which to leverage upward. It will be expensive and complex, but the public education system wasn't always around either. It won't be perfect, and neither is our public education system, because there are always the privileged few. I certainly wouldn't be where I am today if my parents weren't middle class. The roadblock for it in the future won't be economic, since given a long enough maturation period, we'll be able to do basic changes cheaply. It'll come down to politics in the end, since there are both strong pros and cons to consider.
So you are suggesting that we all get the same compulsory identical genetic engineering? This is certainly a bad idea, it would destroy individuality and would be very risky as you could be modifying the whole human race's genes in a way that will ultimately lead to our extinction.(The Asgard from Stargate, show this point very well)
Depending on what they filter, prehaps filtering should be used simply to not allow kids to waste their time "researching." If you're using a school computer for "research" then you should be researching your topic, not using facebook or whatever.
Totally unfiltering/uncensoring is basically like giving people the option of "go outside and play" or "stay inside and study." Most kids choose to play rather than study by nature. That's why if you leave a kid to do what he wants until he's 15, you probably won't end up with a well-rounded, educated, well-behaved member of society...
However I have found if remove 90% of the source available (as most schools do), then kids give up and play games anyway because it's to hard to get the information.
Stop fucking calling it that.
There is a time and place for everything, and random browsing of whatever you want is not something that you do at school.
If you think keeping students focused on school work and not dicking off reading slashdot, digg, or screwing with facebook is censorship then you are, in fact, a freaking moron.
Stop calling everything censorship just because you don't get your way.
You would be correct if the only thing schools filter is porn, but sadly it's not from my experience schools generally censor at least 60% of legitimate websites. At the school I currently attend the filter makes it basically impossible to get information from any source apart from Wikipedia or use any other search engine apart from Google.
I have to agree, Internet censorship rarely works in practise. One place where it has become extremely stupid is at public schools in NSW, Australia which block everything apart from Wikipedia, Google and a few websites they haven't got round to blocking yet (but if you go to them, it is almost guaranteed to be blocked with in the week). Blocked sites include yahoo, bing, AOL, askjeves, altavista and any Google website that is not www.google.com.au (the au and the www are required).
This basically makes it impossible to do research on a topic unless Wikipedia has detailed information on in, or unless no one else in the state has researched it recently (it's a black list not a white list). Also interestingly all of slashdot apart from the politics sub-domain is unblocked.
Yes, but year 9 and 10 students are required to use the issued laptops at school (the network is locked down and they won't just connect any laptop). Also the software on the laptops is worth a lot more (in the area of thousands of $s) then any that would come with an asus netbook making it unreasonable to buy for school use (including homework in some cases).
Which still leaves the problem that students are being taught to only use google as most students won't have the technical knowledge to transfer the Onenote books back and fourth between computers and that is where most of the homework will need to be done.
The problem with that is students are taught that google is the only option and will refuse to use over search engines, which may or may not be better.
Especially at high school, students frequently have to use the web and it is my understanding that the same filter will be applied at school and at home w/ the release of the laptops for all yr9 students.
The filter is supposed to stop inappropriate use of the internet. About 85% of the sites that I use for research are blocked, leaving wikipedia a few government sites and a few that no one else has been to (It's a black list but if a student goes to a site it soon gets blocked as uncategorised for an unspecified period of time).
Also I fail to see how bing, yahoo or Altavista are inappropriate (bing is blocked as teachers only, the others as search engines/portal sites).
This is especially worrying when you realise how corrupt the government in Australia is, I recently came to realised this when I found out that the Department of Education in NSW block access to ALL search engines accept google for students at public primary and high schools. (apart from yahoo which you can get one page of results from if you go to search.yahoo.com)
What's more you are incorrect, most of the people I know are opposed to this invasion of our rights and I live it Australia. The rest do not actually understand what it is.
Either my phone, or my cheap digital watch keep better time than any "fine Rolex or Omega" mechanical watch.
Saddly most phones I have used seem to be 2-3mins out within one week of me setting them, my watch however keeps very accurate for many months, also I can look at it without being really obvious, and I could if I needed to use it in places like military bases and research labs where allot of modern phones are not allowed
As someone posting from Australia and born in England I can say that in my personal experience most people use the word American to refer to someone who is a citizen of the USA, and the word America to refer to the USA.
This is called a colloquialism, look it up.
This is from the oxford dictionary:
American
adjective relating to the United States or to the continents of America.
noun a person from the United States or any of the countries of North, South, or Central America.
Also teachers are being shown how to use them.
These technologies include smart boards and laptops (the laptops being given to each yr9 class from now on in NSW).
Whilst this is not perfect it is a step in the right direction.
I do however think that teaching touch typing is not going to be helpfull as it makes computing seem like a choer, and most people are better off figuring out their own way of touch typing (from experience) then being told they have to do it the oficial way.
For more info on D.E.R:
That's not how it works for the phone system, which is very similar to the internet (connections of wires for transferring communications over many miles). The phone system is controlled by the U.S. FCC but *only* if the company in question is interstate. If the company exists wholly and completely within a state (say, California) then the U.S. has no authority to regulate that company. Only the CA legislature has jurisdiction per the Communications Act of 1934.
The trouble is, when you're talking about a network attack (rather than, say, what a company charges its customers), a local response (and in this discussion, the state level is essentially "local", for our purposes) means nothing. An Internet attack is, by its very nature, international. You can't have hundreds of thousands of computers in one nation run one way, and hundreds of thousands in each other nation run some other way during a crisis. And even local ISPs have to, by their very nature, have international connections. Without international authority over those connections, what good is national-level control going to do?
I just don't see how you're going to stop an Internet attack by working on the local level and handing off responsibility at national lines. It's got to be coordinated at a higher level than that.
Fixed that for you corrections in bold
The same arguments applies for and against this.
X only gets update about Y(who he doesn't knows) photos if one of the first two is selected (must people chose the first).
That's a bit harsh. What kind of math are we talking about? I only ever studied math as far as algebra and geometry, so am I a subhuman?
Depends. Do you need a calculator or a cash register to tell you how much change you should get back when you pay for a total of $9.78 with a $10 bill? Do you need a calculator to figure out how many pennies you should add to that $10 bill so that you get a single quarter ($0.25 for those not accustomed to American coins) back as change? Are you amazed when a customer gives you the $10 bill and pennies and ends up with a single quarter and you don't understand how they could do that without the register telling them their change?
If your answer to any or all of those questions is "yes", then probably fall under Heinlein's definition of "subhuman".
Seriously, I've had cashiers look at me like I'm some sort of magician because I can hand them a certain amount of bills and coins to ensure that I get the least number of coins back as change. No, I don't think they are subhuman, but their inability to do simple math without a calculator boggles my mind just as much as my ability to do so boggles theirs. YMMV. :-/
I must say that I disagrea with your interpritation of the quote, some people simply can't do caculations in there head (not just from lack of trying but becouse they can't).
Personaly It would take me a noticable amount of time to work that out in my head, that dosn't mean I don't understand mathmatics or that I can't do maths, but simply that I can't do caculations in my head(quickly).
I do how every agrea with the parents post.
Foldershare(Live sync) handles conflicts terribly it pops up a dialog (e.g 'This file foo.doc was deleted but the version on your computer is different, do you want to: |Keep| |Delete| |Cancel'(shuts down folder share)'|') and you most chose immediately which to keep or foldershare(Live sync) will shutdown, if you want the same features (even same login (live ID)) with a product that handles conflicts more efficiently use live mesh .
I know Microsoft has a bad rep on here but Live mesh is a very usfull product you can store u[ to the 2GB online (which it then syncs with) or sync P2P if you whant.
It handels conflicts by showing an error icon on the side of the screen(it adds a small pane to the side of synced folders in explorer) in folder view and lets you chose which file to keep, it suports windows, mac (no P2P) and windows mobile.
Just install Firefox 3b4, the add on is not compatible :-), although Firefox 3 is really slow
And of-course this is a short-term solution.
Well then I will have to start that....
I think that is just as bad.
you missed Australia which also has reasonable converge