It's not an obvious article. In many respects its a false article.
If the only consideration is "what is the cheapest media to put data on", then perhaps the article is valid. But there are few businesses, institutions or government agencies that would claim that as the single consideration.
Sure, a tape vendor is going to tell you that the delay to access the data on a tape is only going to be a few seconds if you buy their high capacity robotic changers. But that's going to assume that the data you want is at the beginning of 1 tape. In the real world that's rarely going to be true. When you need to correlate data from 100 different test scenarios or days or whatever, and the one piece of data you need is 1mb per test/day/etc., that 100mb could easily be at any place on 100 tapes. Now you're no longer talking about a load time for a tape. That's up to 100 load times, and then compounded by the forward to the sectors you need. A tape might load and be capable of streaming from the beginning of the tape in a 3-5 seconds, but you can forward through 100's of gigs in 3-5 seconds. And unless someone is going to suggest that you have 100 drives in the library, then only a handful of the 100s of mbs that you need are being retrieved concurrently. Now consider the impact of potentially dozens, or even hundreds of users attempting similair accesses concurrently.
And It's all well and good to spend $X to dump a petabyte of data onto tape. But if you intend to geographically seperate that live dataset from your backup copy, and you need to regularly access and search the data, then tapes kinda suck and the costs climb significantly.
Then you can start factoring in the impact of deduplication technology. if you can have a year's worth of daily iterative change of 1PB of data on 1.5PB of disk storage using dedup, then it's far cheaper than having 12PB of full backups on tapes (assuming you're only keeping the monthly fulls) and paying to courier them offsite , and pay to store them for that 1years retention period. With dedup/replication tech you can also keep a remote live copy sync'd with your local live copy with minor site-to-site traffic after the initial seeding, providing offsite protection and an alternate access location for the dataset and load-balancing possibilities that tapes cannot provide without enormous hardware investment and costs, even if you could push all the data over a WAN. You cant really dedup data on tapes without presenting the possibility of having to load several tapes to recompile/rehydrate/[enter your prefered tech jargon here] even a single file.
Lets not even broach the subject of litigation and court ordered holds on data, where the costs dictated from using tapes skyrocket.
So yeah, if you want to have one copy of the data, that cant be indexed or search easily, cannot remove duplication, and is wholly unprotected, then the article might be valid. If you want to use even the most basic of industry data management standards for a data set that has anything more than zero value, then things start getting foggy in a big hurry.
By a drill press, a metal lathe, and a few other mundane metal-working tools, and you dont have to wait. You could make all those things easily enough in your garage, without any form of licensing, registrations or certifications.
Oh, crap. I let the secret out. Quick, we need media hysteria and knee-jerk legislation, ASAP.
By definition every liberal is required to oppose the 2nd amendment to exactly the same degree as being a libertarian requires that they both own and expirement with firearms.
Next time I mean to point out the ignorance of stereotypical generalizations with a sarcastic stereotypical generalization of my own, I will include a disclaimer for the sarcastically challenged.
They may get their funding from members and donations, but their policy and leadership is set by the minority that side with gun manufacturers.
The purpose of the NRA precludes them being at odds with gun manufacturers you moron. The NRA is entirely about gun education, safety and freedom, and people that value those things pay dues to ensure that the NRA can do those things. There's no way to pursue that agenda without it directly benefiting gun manufacturers.
Telling people what they may own, use, make or design certainly doesnt screams "FREEDOM", does it? But obviously your point was never that people should actually be free. They need to STFU and be controlled.
Hell, I'm thinking I might be able to convince my wife I need a laser-scintering printer so that I can fix all her things more easily than convincing her I need an RC helicopter. I'll just print the copter.
This manufacturing process is more suitable for hobbyists that wants to toy around with novelty designs, and for random nutjobs.
The latter being able to create much more decisively destructive devices, without using any specialized tools, and from mundance materials at any Home Depot.
Exactly the same thing that would happen when a person gets a roll of duct tape , a spool of bailing twine, a box of thumbtacks and a donkey through the same checkpoint. They build a data scrambler that doubles as a remote control syncronized with the flight control tower, you realize that you're watching a stupid episode of 24 with McGuiver cameo, and you turn off the fucking television.
Considerably fewer than self-righteous liberals who are murdered because they refuse to defend themselves effectively, and refuse to do so out of deliberate ignorance.
Because there's no moral outrage to be leveraged against a political scarecrow that way. 3D printers have been used in untold ways to improve lives, but most people couldnt care less. They allow the media and hysteric nannies to portray a TOOL no different than a lathe or drill, as the most evil device ever concieved by man.
All one needs to build a functional firearm is a drill and some extraordinarily mundane materials from any local hardware store. Oh, and the ability to read. And that weapon is far more likely to kill the target rather than the shooter, when compared to anything coming out of a 3D printer.
If you actually think that 3D printers are what makes it possible for a larger group of people to get weapons, you have demonstrated your depth of ignorance on the topic of firearms. Which is really the whole problem; people who have no clue whatsoever about firearms, and foist that ignorance onto equally ignorant politicians who create ill-concieved knee-jerk laws.
Yes. And a 3D gun that's exponentially more viable is as easily created by a water jet cutter, or plasma cutter, or oxyfuel cutter, or a laser cutter. Any of which requires roughly the same level of training to utilize as a home 3D printer. Granted those technologies are much more expensive, but there are 1000's of them in use in machine shops in the US and Europe. All one needs is the file that defines the part, and the ability to access the machinery.
Now you may be able to argue that the ease of access to home 3D printers makes it possible for more whacko's to get their hands on printed guns. But they will have shitty little pea shooters that might work once without blowing up in their faces. Whereas the 10s of 1000s of machine shop owners/employees out there are just as likely to be whacko's, and capable of producing things much more dangerous than some idiot in his basement. You're worried about a 15 round magazine being printed? How about a vulcan cannon?
Hell, a marginally talented machinist with knowledge of firearms can make a damn effective weapon out of some pipe, using a lathe and a drill.
So where's the moral outrage against the people with machine shops? Cutters? Drills? Maybe laws should be passed to regulate the purchase of pipes?
The guy that fixes your uber eco bicycle as every tool he needs to kill you and everyone within 50 feet of you. But you are freaking out about a chunk of plastic.
I dont think that those kinds of things actually rot the brain. I just believe that people priorities and values are so far out of whack that they spend exponentially more time finding out what shoe brand Snookie is wearing instead of reading the bills being proposed in Congress. They spend more time sharing videos of cats falling into toilets than they do finding 3 opposing articles on the practices of the Federal Reserve, and are appauled at the notion that they doi a little research to see which article appears to be grounded in the most fact. They sign petitions supporting causes they've never heard of, they elect politicians based on the single piece of information they have (the party affiliation letter next to the name on the ballot), and they take as fact clever one-liners from hacks that label themselves journalists.
The fact that these mind-rot shows have high ratings isnt a cause-effect argument. It's a symptom of the level of intellectual strength and honesty of far too many Americans.
If it was unconstitutional at any point passing a law that says it's ok makes it no less unconstitutional. Any law professor worth a god damn could tell you that. But this particular law professor will sometimes pass a law as a token gesture or otherwise pass an executive order, and pretend that everything is on the up and up now because he knows there's no way in hell to pass a constitutional amendent making what is being done actually legal.
The point is that you assumed any significant number of people were paying attention. They werent. They were blissfully ignorant, and a damn notable percentage of them still are.
"There's no way our government would do that."
"There's no way we wouldnt already know if they were doing that."
And from the last several years,
"Obama is going to fix all the abuses of the warmongering Republicans. So whatever evils were there they will be going away."
In the end we have purchased what has befallen us, but not through informed consent. It's simply been done through willful ignorance and denial. It takes minimal awareness to recognize how clueless most Americans are, wholly consumed with the mind-rot like Jersey Shore or Facebook.
You did as soon as you suggested having parents enter a contract to which they are likely ignorant of the consequences.
Since schools are in the business of education, not censorship, I would say that internet blocks are far from "reasonable". Hell, (according to TFA we're talking about high school here) half of them have phones with unrestricted internet access anyway. Who do they think they're "protecting"???
And if a parent chooses to purchase that phone for their kid, they obviously take any risks associated. That's their choice. It is not something pushed by the state. And not giving a kid access to anything they might choose to indulge in is not censorship. It is not the responsibility of any school to ensure that any kid can access any material. In fact I would argue that damn near any parent in the US would be able to cite several examples of material they better not ever find their kid's school providing.
Another very big issue is one that has been known for many years: any attempt to block "unsuitable" material will also block a lot of suitable and relevant material... often things that are useful for research of school assignments.
This is a bullshit argument and you know it. We're not talking about the launch codes for nukes, or the medical diagnosis for a disorder reported in 1 in 2 billion patients. If it's mundane information that's relevant to a kid's research it's probably printed in about 5000 different sources. Not to mention that if the research is part of the curriculum don't you think perhaps, just maybe, that the school already has exceptions for that research? Or maybe, just maybe, more than one kid will report they are being blocked from their assigned research?
Right. Some favor. Give poor kids access to devices that block them off from much of the culture their richer neighbors can access. Somehow I have a bit of trouble endorsing that idea.
By that reasoning you have a problem with the rich kids being able to watch paid cable channels. And go see the newest movies, in 3D. Or buying the hottest new albums, and having 5000 songs on their iTunes account. The state is obviously blocking all those underprivileged kids from all that culture.
It's not the responsibility of the state to grant access to Facebook any more so than it is to ensure that the kids have access to the latest Lil' Wayne album or Kim kardashian's sex tapes. You could attempt to argue that these are equally necessary "culture", but any rational person would laugh in your face just as quickly as when you argued they must have access to Facebook at taxpayer expense.
I don't know. Does it? I repeat: I don't think anything significant has changed
You just argued that it's oppressive censorship to block a kid from all the (undefined) things they cant get to for their research. And yet if a kid doesn't have an iPad they might have to *gasp* go to a library. And that is not significantly more oppressive?
If the parent refused, in writing, to let the child have one, what kind of suit do they have? Seriously. They might sue but if any court is halfway rational they won't win. It might even be tossed out before it even gets started.
Can you honestly argue that this would be the most stupid case to go to a jury, or that has actually succeeded? There are kids winning lawsuits stating their rights are violated because they are asked to learn the Pledge of Allegiance, and you don't think entering into signed contracts or risk unequal learning potential qualifies?
I'm only saying that their reasoning is stupid,...
Exactly.
You're saying that it's stupid to expect the child to use this free device strictly to further their education, and instead this device should be considered as suitable for schoolwork and for general amusement. By stating that it logically follows that the state then takes on the burden of repairing or replacing said device if from no other impact than substantially more wear and tear from extended use.
No matter how you cut it (asshole kids hacking the device, breaking the device, infecting the device, or just using it to the point of failure), you are stating that because so many kids are assholes (judging from the pure volume that hacked the devices in the first week) that it will break it anyway, so just give up and let them abuse this free tool for their education for whatever use they see fit, no matter how improper, and that I should pay more in taxes to maintain it.
Explain how getting to Facebook or Twitter or enables a student to further their education? Unless the lesson plan is covering narcissism or obsessive compulsive behavior I cant see how those would be relevant. Web filters have been in use in business for a couple of decades. They really aren't that hard to maintain, and there are companies that do it as their bread and butter. It's not at all hard to allow access to mundane materials one might use for research while blocking video game and porn sites. Its not rocket science, and claiming that doing so is a hindrance to the learning of a kid is either desperate or ignorant.
"We offered him one and you didn't want us to give it to him."
Which, combined with the earlier argument about contracts, could be considered coercing the parents into a contract.
"You don't have to sign the permission slip, but if your kid fails, well, that'd be a real shame wouldn't it... "
First, you cant enforce a contract that relinquishes your rights. If the school board fails to impliment policies that give "reasonable" protection to the child, then the contract is unenforcable. The trick is defining what "reasonable" is. Also, you cannot assume that parents understand the technology or the risks associated. You cannot ask them to enter into a contract without fully disclosing those risks, or the possible punishments. This is particularly important when you propose to use these devices in largely low education, low income populations like L.A., where providing these devices is meant to be a boost to kids who would not otherwise be able to obtain them.
Second, lets say I refuse to sign the petition slip because I dont want to risk me taking the heat for what my kid does, or maybe because I dont want my kid to have access to a device that allows him or her to do things I do not approve of. Does that mean that the school must have a different curriculum that is paper-based? Or a different set of systems that can only be accessed from school? Does my kid have to do homework differently, turn in homework differently, or take tests differently? Can the school ensure that my child is not at a disadvantage because of these differences?
How long do you think it would take for a parent of a failing student who didnt have an iPad/laptop to sue the school for unfair treatment. How does the school defend against that?
So your reaction to this is not irritation that kids are hacking free devices that were intended to be solely for their education. It's irritation that school system is even trying to issolate the use of the devices to only education.
WTF is wrong with you?
Essentially you're saying that kids will be kids, and lets just give them free shit to do whatever it is they want to do with it.
How about the cost to repair all the damage that the users do to the devices after cracking them? How about all the aps with malware they can install? Or the viruses (although limiited on IPads)? It doesnt take any skill at all to follow a YouTube video to crack the security. It takes even less to do shit that you should never do because of pure ignorance that makes the device unstable at best, or a doorstop at worst.
If you want to buy your kid something they choose to fuck up, that's your problem. When you want the state to buy it with tax payer funding, and then fix it because you think your kid should have the freedom to fuck it up, then it's my problem.
This is all before you even discuss the value of them having the device to further their education to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not an obvious article. In many respects its a false article.
If the only consideration is "what is the cheapest media to put data on", then perhaps the article is valid. But there are few businesses, institutions or government agencies that would claim that as the single consideration.
Sure, a tape vendor is going to tell you that the delay to access the data on a tape is only going to be a few seconds if you buy their high capacity robotic changers. But that's going to assume that the data you want is at the beginning of 1 tape. In the real world that's rarely going to be true. When you need to correlate data from 100 different test scenarios or days or whatever, and the one piece of data you need is 1mb per test/day/etc., that 100mb could easily be at any place on 100 tapes. Now you're no longer talking about a load time for a tape. That's up to 100 load times, and then compounded by the forward to the sectors you need. A tape might load and be capable of streaming from the beginning of the tape in a 3-5 seconds, but you can forward through 100's of gigs in 3-5 seconds. And unless someone is going to suggest that you have 100 drives in the library, then only a handful of the 100s of mbs that you need are being retrieved concurrently. Now consider the impact of potentially dozens, or even hundreds of users attempting similair accesses concurrently.
And It's all well and good to spend $X to dump a petabyte of data onto tape. But if you intend to geographically seperate that live dataset from your backup copy, and you need to regularly access and search the data, then tapes kinda suck and the costs climb significantly.
Then you can start factoring in the impact of deduplication technology. if you can have a year's worth of daily iterative change of 1PB of data on 1.5PB of disk storage using dedup, then it's far cheaper than having 12PB of full backups on tapes (assuming you're only keeping the monthly fulls) and paying to courier them offsite , and pay to store them for that 1years retention period. With dedup/replication tech you can also keep a remote live copy sync'd with your local live copy with minor site-to-site traffic after the initial seeding, providing offsite protection and an alternate access location for the dataset and load-balancing possibilities that tapes cannot provide without enormous hardware investment and costs, even if you could push all the data over a WAN. You cant really dedup data on tapes without presenting the possibility of having to load several tapes to recompile/rehydrate/[enter your prefered tech jargon here] even a single file.
Lets not even broach the subject of litigation and court ordered holds on data, where the costs dictated from using tapes skyrocket.
So yeah, if you want to have one copy of the data, that cant be indexed or search easily, cannot remove duplication, and is wholly unprotected, then the article might be valid. If you want to use even the most basic of industry data management standards for a data set that has anything more than zero value, then things start getting foggy in a big hurry.
By a drill press, a metal lathe, and a few other mundane metal-working tools, and you dont have to wait. You could make all those things easily enough in your garage, without any form of licensing, registrations or certifications.
Oh, crap. I let the secret out. Quick, we need media hysteria and knee-jerk legislation, ASAP.
Or print one!
By definition every liberal is required to oppose the 2nd amendment to exactly the same degree as being a libertarian requires that they both own and expirement with firearms.
Next time I mean to point out the ignorance of stereotypical generalizations with a sarcastic stereotypical generalization of my own, I will include a disclaimer for the sarcastically challenged.
They may get their funding from members and donations, but their policy and leadership is set by the minority that side with gun manufacturers.
The purpose of the NRA precludes them being at odds with gun manufacturers you moron. The NRA is entirely about gun education, safety and freedom, and people that value those things pay dues to ensure that the NRA can do those things. There's no way to pursue that agenda without it directly benefiting gun manufacturers.
Telling people what they may own, use, make or design certainly doesnt screams "FREEDOM", does it? But obviously your point was never that people should actually be free. They need to STFU and be controlled.
Hell, I'm thinking I might be able to convince my wife I need a laser-scintering printer so that I can fix all her things more easily than convincing her I need an RC helicopter. I'll just print the copter.
Correct. Because it's not calculated as a crime when the government uses guns to "punishes" the citizens.
Do you honestly believe that Venezuala banned guns to prevent the citizens shooting each other?
This manufacturing process is more suitable for hobbyists that wants to toy around with novelty designs, and for random nutjobs.
The latter being able to create much more decisively destructive devices, without using any specialized tools, and from mundance materials at any Home Depot.
How did you pack so much ignorance into so few words?
Exactly the same thing that would happen when a person gets a roll of duct tape , a spool of bailing twine, a box of thumbtacks and a donkey through the same checkpoint. They build a data scrambler that doubles as a remote control syncronized with the flight control tower, you realize that you're watching a stupid episode of 24 with McGuiver cameo, and you turn off the fucking television.
Considerably fewer than self-righteous liberals who are murdered because they refuse to defend themselves effectively, and refuse to do so out of deliberate ignorance.
Because there's no moral outrage to be leveraged against a political scarecrow that way. 3D printers have been used in untold ways to improve lives, but most people couldnt care less. They allow the media and hysteric nannies to portray a TOOL no different than a lathe or drill, as the most evil device ever concieved by man.
Show me a person that though in 1997 that cell phones would have more power than the Best PCs of the time.
I'll do one better and show you a person that believed that in 1965: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
All one needs to build a functional firearm is a drill and some extraordinarily mundane materials from any local hardware store. Oh, and the ability to read. And that weapon is far more likely to kill the target rather than the shooter, when compared to anything coming out of a 3D printer.
If you actually think that 3D printers are what makes it possible for a larger group of people to get weapons, you have demonstrated your depth of ignorance on the topic of firearms. Which is really the whole problem; people who have no clue whatsoever about firearms, and foist that ignorance onto equally ignorant politicians who create ill-concieved knee-jerk laws.
Yes. And a 3D gun that's exponentially more viable is as easily created by a water jet cutter, or plasma cutter, or oxyfuel cutter, or a laser cutter. Any of which requires roughly the same level of training to utilize as a home 3D printer. Granted those technologies are much more expensive, but there are 1000's of them in use in machine shops in the US and Europe. All one needs is the file that defines the part, and the ability to access the machinery.
Now you may be able to argue that the ease of access to home 3D printers makes it possible for more whacko's to get their hands on printed guns. But they will have shitty little pea shooters that might work once without blowing up in their faces. Whereas the 10s of 1000s of machine shop owners/employees out there are just as likely to be whacko's, and capable of producing things much more dangerous than some idiot in his basement. You're worried about a 15 round magazine being printed? How about a vulcan cannon?
Hell, a marginally talented machinist with knowledge of firearms can make a damn effective weapon out of some pipe, using a lathe and a drill.
So where's the moral outrage against the people with machine shops? Cutters? Drills? Maybe laws should be passed to regulate the purchase of pipes?
The guy that fixes your uber eco bicycle as every tool he needs to kill you and everyone within 50 feet of you. But you are freaking out about a chunk of plastic.
I dont think that those kinds of things actually rot the brain. I just believe that people priorities and values are so far out of whack that they spend exponentially more time finding out what shoe brand Snookie is wearing instead of reading the bills being proposed in Congress. They spend more time sharing videos of cats falling into toilets than they do finding 3 opposing articles on the practices of the Federal Reserve, and are appauled at the notion that they doi a little research to see which article appears to be grounded in the most fact. They sign petitions supporting causes they've never heard of, they elect politicians based on the single piece of information they have (the party affiliation letter next to the name on the ballot), and they take as fact clever one-liners from hacks that label themselves journalists.
The fact that these mind-rot shows have high ratings isnt a cause-effect argument. It's a symptom of the level of intellectual strength and honesty of far too many Americans.
If it was unconstitutional at any point passing a law that says it's ok makes it no less unconstitutional. Any law professor worth a god damn could tell you that. But this particular law professor will sometimes pass a law as a token gesture or otherwise pass an executive order, and pretend that everything is on the up and up now because he knows there's no way in hell to pass a constitutional amendent making what is being done actually legal.
The point is that you assumed any significant number of people were paying attention. They werent. They were blissfully ignorant, and a damn notable percentage of them still are.
"There's no way our government would do that."
"There's no way we wouldnt already know if they were doing that."
And from the last several years,
"Obama is going to fix all the abuses of the warmongering Republicans. So whatever evils were there they will be going away."
In the end we have purchased what has befallen us, but not through informed consent. It's simply been done through willful ignorance and denial. It takes minimal awareness to recognize how clueless most Americans are, wholly consumed with the mind-rot like Jersey Shore or Facebook.
So yes, most are/were surprised.
Who said anything about rights?
You did as soon as you suggested having parents enter a contract to which they are likely ignorant of the consequences.
Since schools are in the business of education, not censorship, I would say that internet blocks are far from "reasonable". Hell, (according to TFA we're talking about high school here) half of them have phones with unrestricted internet access anyway. Who do they think they're "protecting"???
And if a parent chooses to purchase that phone for their kid, they obviously take any risks associated. That's their choice. It is not something pushed by the state. And not giving a kid access to anything they might choose to indulge in is not censorship. It is not the responsibility of any school to ensure that any kid can access any material. In fact I would argue that damn near any parent in the US would be able to cite several examples of material they better not ever find their kid's school providing.
Another very big issue is one that has been known for many years: any attempt to block "unsuitable" material will also block a lot of suitable and relevant material... often things that are useful for research of school assignments.
This is a bullshit argument and you know it. We're not talking about the launch codes for nukes, or the medical diagnosis for a disorder reported in 1 in 2 billion patients. If it's mundane information that's relevant to a kid's research it's probably printed in about 5000 different sources. Not to mention that if the research is part of the curriculum don't you think perhaps, just maybe, that the school already has exceptions for that research? Or maybe, just maybe, more than one kid will report they are being blocked from their assigned research?
Right. Some favor. Give poor kids access to devices that block them off from much of the culture their richer neighbors can access. Somehow I have a bit of trouble endorsing that idea.
By that reasoning you have a problem with the rich kids being able to watch paid cable channels. And go see the newest movies, in 3D. Or buying the hottest new albums, and having 5000 songs on their iTunes account. The state is obviously blocking all those underprivileged kids from all that culture.
It's not the responsibility of the state to grant access to Facebook any more so than it is to ensure that the kids have access to the latest Lil' Wayne album or Kim kardashian's sex tapes. You could attempt to argue that these are equally necessary "culture", but any rational person would laugh in your face just as quickly as when you argued they must have access to Facebook at taxpayer expense.
I don't know. Does it? I repeat: I don't think anything significant has changed
You just argued that it's oppressive censorship to block a kid from all the (undefined) things they cant get to for their research. And yet if a kid doesn't have an iPad they might have to *gasp* go to a library. And that is not significantly more oppressive?
If the parent refused, in writing, to let the child have one, what kind of suit do they have? Seriously. They might sue but if any court is halfway rational they won't win. It might even be tossed out before it even gets started.
Can you honestly argue that this would be the most stupid case to go to a jury, or that has actually succeeded? There are kids winning lawsuits stating their rights are violated because they are asked to learn the Pledge of Allegiance, and you don't think entering into signed contracts or risk unequal learning potential qualifies?
I'm only saying that their reasoning is stupid, ...
Exactly.
You're saying that it's stupid to expect the child to use this free device strictly to further their education, and instead this device should be considered as suitable for schoolwork and for general amusement. By stating that it logically follows that the state then takes on the burden of repairing or replacing said device if from no other impact than substantially more wear and tear from extended use.
No matter how you cut it (asshole kids hacking the device, breaking the device, infecting the device, or just using it to the point of failure), you are stating that because so many kids are assholes (judging from the pure volume that hacked the devices in the first week) that it will break it anyway, so just give up and let them abuse this free tool for their education for whatever use they see fit, no matter how improper, and that I should pay more in taxes to maintain it.
Explain how getting to Facebook or Twitter or enables a student to further their education? Unless the lesson plan is covering narcissism or obsessive compulsive behavior I cant see how those would be relevant. Web filters have been in use in business for a couple of decades. They really aren't that hard to maintain, and there are companies that do it as their bread and butter. It's not at all hard to allow access to mundane materials one might use for research while blocking video game and porn sites. Its not rocket science, and claiming that doing so is a hindrance to the learning of a kid is either desperate or ignorant.
"We offered him one and you didn't want us to give it to him."
Which, combined with the earlier argument about contracts, could be considered coercing the parents into a contract.
"You don't have to sign the permission slip, but if your kid fails, well, that'd be a real shame wouldn't it... "
Contract void.
First, you cant enforce a contract that relinquishes your rights. If the school board fails to impliment policies that give "reasonable" protection to the child, then the contract is unenforcable. The trick is defining what "reasonable" is. Also, you cannot assume that parents understand the technology or the risks associated. You cannot ask them to enter into a contract without fully disclosing those risks, or the possible punishments. This is particularly important when you propose to use these devices in largely low education, low income populations like L.A., where providing these devices is meant to be a boost to kids who would not otherwise be able to obtain them.
Second, lets say I refuse to sign the petition slip because I dont want to risk me taking the heat for what my kid does, or maybe because I dont want my kid to have access to a device that allows him or her to do things I do not approve of. Does that mean that the school must have a different curriculum that is paper-based? Or a different set of systems that can only be accessed from school? Does my kid have to do homework differently, turn in homework differently, or take tests differently? Can the school ensure that my child is not at a disadvantage because of these differences?
How long do you think it would take for a parent of a failing student who didnt have an iPad/laptop to sue the school for unfair treatment. How does the school defend against that?
So your reaction to this is not irritation that kids are hacking free devices that were intended to be solely for their education. It's irritation that school system is even trying to issolate the use of the devices to only education.
WTF is wrong with you?
Essentially you're saying that kids will be kids, and lets just give them free shit to do whatever it is they want to do with it.
How about the cost to repair all the damage that the users do to the devices after cracking them? How about all the aps with malware they can install? Or the viruses (although limiited on IPads)? It doesnt take any skill at all to follow a YouTube video to crack the security. It takes even less to do shit that you should never do because of pure ignorance that makes the device unstable at best, or a doorstop at worst.
If you want to buy your kid something they choose to fuck up, that's your problem. When you want the state to buy it with tax payer funding, and then fix it because you think your kid should have the freedom to fuck it up, then it's my problem.
This is all before you even discuss the value of them having the device to further their education to begin with.