Because teenagers are notoriously mean spirited and badly adjusted. That's why you don't let them buy booze, guns and all the rest; and why we realise they aren't adults.
Your idea would give them the chance to say "my teacher is a douche, he put me in detention once".
Maybe there needs to be a change in the balance of pay and conditions. Teachers seem to get very good conditions and poor pay. Does anyone have any actual evidence that increasing pay will get better results? How do we know that being motivated by money makes you a likely to be a teacher?
So in a Capitalist system Johnny gets his jumprope, and a new playground set besides, and we all get 100MB service to our homes.
Do you actually believe what you just said?
We all get 100MB service to our homes.
How do we all get it? Because the companies will price their services so that anyone can afford it? Presumably because "we" are all 6 figure salaried people, and live in gated communities?
You seem to think that everyone will become affluent as soon as we sprinkle enough Ayn Rand-magical-market fairy dust on everything
There is a difference between an enemy who is in control of your entire country (apart from an underground resistance), and one man who has a gun. Especially if you live in a country with an armed and for the most part reliable police force.
However, re: armed man running around an institution shooting people.
The first person to run towards the madman holding 2 guns has a very high probability of death (or serious permanent injury if they are "lucky").
Maybe persons 2, 3 and 4 will be ok and overpower the gunman. But someone has to be first.
Soldiers (who you presumably worship, or perhaps you are one) would, I presume, be pretty careful about attacking armed opponents if they were unarmed.
Or even if they were armed, what if the opponent's gun was drawn, but theirs wasn't?
I believe that people in armed conflicts make sensible use of cover, and other defensive measures. I don't imagine there would be much gung ho running into the line of fire without a very good reason.
I doubt that you would have run straight towards the guy with 2 guns without a thought for your own safety.
Furthermore, if someone has dependents it would be pretty irresponsible of them to sacrifice their life if they think there is a chance that armed police might be on their way. Perhaps some of the people at the immigrant centre had dependents to stay alive for? Maybe they thought it would end up being a hostage situation?
(I will be really disappointed if you suggest that all people in Universities need to be routinely armed.)
(Who the hell modded the above post insightful?)
AC hasn't thought this through. The reason that we have locks on doors is that we know some people will steal stuff. Those police officers who delberately (or perhaps through negligence) released the pics into are responsible for their actions. The AC has not thought this through first or is hopelessly naive. We have rules for pics like this because we know that some people are ghoulish, and some of those ghoulish people are extremely cruel. We will never stop "harassment", so we need to keep pictures like this out of the public domain.
I agree that giving your admin password to obviously untrustworthy software is stupid, and will get you infected. You could, not unreasonably, say those users got what they deserved.
But I think there is a false sense of security among certain macOS users.
I bet a lot of the people who got the infected copies thought they would "probably be alright because it's a mac", even as they typed in their admin password.
i have a mac and i think this is embarassing denialism......
people did not purposefully install malware.
No one says, "I know! I'll install some malware to make my computer a zombie."
They installed a downloaded copy of an application and it had malware hidden in it.
That malware was able to run on their computer without their knowledge. This is not a very different vector from most windows malware.
Telchine is right; macs are not invulnerable, they are less vulnerable than windows.
the problem is that non power users are afraid of the command line. (maybe with good reason, mistakes can be v damaging). They are very, very unfamiliar with it, certainly. So it's better for them to click on a link than risk "breaking their computer".
has anyone read the star locke proposal linked to in the news story?
totally loony and riddled with typos in what they propose as a piece of legislation.
any texans heard of these people? how mad are we talking?
Slashdot Mirror
Because teenagers are notoriously mean spirited and badly adjusted. That's why you don't let them buy booze, guns and all the rest; and why we realise they aren't adults. Your idea would give them the chance to say "my teacher is a douche, he put me in detention once".
Maybe there needs to be a change in the balance of pay and conditions. Teachers seem to get very good conditions and poor pay. Does anyone have any actual evidence that increasing pay will get better results? How do we know that being motivated by money makes you a likely to be a teacher?
Do you actually believe what you just said?
We all get 100MB service to our homes. How do we all get it? Because the companies will price their services so that anyone can afford it? Presumably because "we" are all 6 figure salaried people, and live in gated communities?
You seem to think that everyone will become affluent as soon as we sprinkle enough Ayn Rand-magical-market fairy dust on everything
As for your 2nd point:
Oh
my
godwin.
There is a difference between an enemy who is in control of your entire country (apart from an underground resistance), and one man who has a gun. Especially if you live in a country with an armed and for the most part reliable police force.
I think you have got fairly offtopic.
However, re: armed man running around an institution shooting people. The first person to run towards the madman holding 2 guns has a very high probability of death (or serious permanent injury if they are "lucky"). Maybe persons 2, 3 and 4 will be ok and overpower the gunman. But someone has to be first.
Soldiers (who you presumably worship, or perhaps you are one) would, I presume, be pretty careful about attacking armed opponents if they were unarmed. Or even if they were armed, what if the opponent's gun was drawn, but theirs wasn't? I believe that people in armed conflicts make sensible use of cover, and other defensive measures. I don't imagine there would be much gung ho running into the line of fire without a very good reason.
I doubt that you would have run straight towards the guy with 2 guns without a thought for your own safety.
Furthermore, if someone has dependents it would be pretty irresponsible of them to sacrifice their life if they think there is a chance that armed police might be on their way. Perhaps some of the people at the immigrant centre had dependents to stay alive for? Maybe they thought it would end up being a hostage situation?
(I will be really disappointed if you suggest that all people in Universities need to be routinely armed.)
(Who the hell modded the above post insightful?) AC hasn't thought this through. The reason that we have locks on doors is that we know some people will steal stuff. Those police officers who delberately (or perhaps through negligence) released the pics into are responsible for their actions. The AC has not thought this through first or is hopelessly naive. We have rules for pics like this because we know that some people are ghoulish, and some of those ghoulish people are extremely cruel. We will never stop "harassment", so we need to keep pictures like this out of the public domain.
I agree that giving your admin password to obviously untrustworthy software is stupid, and will get you infected. You could, not unreasonably, say those users got what they deserved. But I think there is a false sense of security among certain macOS users. I bet a lot of the people who got the infected copies thought they would "probably be alright because it's a mac", even as they typed in their admin password.
i have a mac and i think this is embarassing denialism...... people did not purposefully install malware. No one says, "I know! I'll install some malware to make my computer a zombie." They installed a downloaded copy of an application and it had malware hidden in it. That malware was able to run on their computer without their knowledge. This is not a very different vector from most windows malware. Telchine is right; macs are not invulnerable, they are less vulnerable than windows.
the problem is that non power users are afraid of the command line. (maybe with good reason, mistakes can be v damaging). They are very, very unfamiliar with it, certainly. So it's better for them to click on a link than risk "breaking their computer".
has anyone read the star locke proposal linked to in the news story? totally loony and riddled with typos in what they propose as a piece of legislation. any texans heard of these people? how mad are we talking?