Ah, so the usual: educational weaknesses with a side order of shiny-suit apathy towards said education.
Well, it's a way to sell custom DB installations, I guess--whip up a glossy brochure with lots of FUD over DB insecurities, and offer a "locked down" version with an installer that asks for the SA password on installation, much like most current Linux distros.
Or, hell, just whip up a script that'll "secure against intrusion" and sell that off for a few thousand bucks per unit. Higher the price the better--if it's expensive, it -must- be worth it.
Presumably, the sysadmins at those companies are at least semi-competent, given that they've blocked SQL access from outside--but why is it that the various vulnerabilities have not been patched?
Is it perhaps because SQL is not something that is particularly high-profile patchwise, unlike operating systems and webservers? Or are unauthorized users running various SQL databases for internal department issues or whatnot, outside the official purview of the IT departments? Or perhaps is it a case that the administrators of the databases are simply unaware that they can be compromised in this fashion?
Just pointing out that in a legal sense--e.g. according to the current legislation--parents are entirely in control of their children.
I personally think that yes, children should have some privacy and privileges--but I recognize that in reality there is no provision made for this in legislation.
Which, really, is how it should be--all children are different, and legislating what level of privacy, what responsibilities and privileges, what activities are permitted for a child of $AGE years is really quite a stupid notion.
However, many people are not very good at parenting, and may be overly restrictive or overly permissive, and may hinder their child's development--we tend to read about these kids in the news eventually when they've done something really dumb.
Reading the responses for this thread's been rather interesting. It appears that many people are of the opinion that children should be able to keep their activities entirely private from their parents--which, in many cases (especially with older children) may not be entirely inappropriate.
However, there is always that one irrevocable argument against having -no- access to what the child is doing: under the present system, the parents are held accountable for the child's actions, and are also held accountable for the child's safety. So long as that continues to be the case, any parent is well within his or her rights to bypass or circumvent any privacy that the child has at any time that they feel that either the child's safety has been threatened or that the child may be acting in a manner that is unethical or illegal--that might get them in trouble.
That's the primary reason why I'm suspicious of the AC who submitted this piece: he is not the parent of the child in question, nor is he the legal guardian (I assume, at any rate, given that the parents were mentioned). It is unethical for him to provide a means to deny the parents their right to know what is going on with their daughter; in doing so, he is making them unable to fulfill their responsibilities as parents.
Any responsible parent, faced with such a system as the AC intends to set up, would confiscate the system or wipe and install something that they could get into--not out of malice, but out of practical safety and legal concerns. Sure, there's probably not a whole lot of mischief that a 7 year old will get up to--and this one sounds a lot more responsible than the usual 7-year-old--but the legalities of the situation are clear: the parents are responsible for the child, so they must be allowed access.
If the AC wants to hand the parents the root password, however, that's another story altogether.
It may be more efficient to make it all-electric, but it's a damn sight cheaper to make a compressed air tank than to make a pile of batteries.
If you want people to adopt renewable-energy-compatible vehicles, you have to ensure two things: that it's easy to refill (something that's rather technically difficult with the pure electrics, given that charge times are usually significantly larger than a few minutes) and it's affordable.
The fartmobile is obviously accomplishable in a practical sense with currently existing technology; electric vehicles still have problems.
I'd think that locking them out would be a decent indication for when they're ready to be less supervised--once they can crack the lockout, then it'd be time to sit down and talk about taking it off--and the responsibilities they would have to be aware of. Make 'em sign an AUP at that point, and then you can just keep hold of the root password for when you need to fix something.
Perhaps you may not agree with my terminology, but the parents are in charge, and there is no appeal to any decisions that they make--with the exception of actual rights violations.
There is no law anywhere that states that parents must give their children any privacy whatsoever.
Legally, it is a dictatorship--the parents are responsible for the actions of the children, after all, and (within certain basic restrictions) whatever they choose to do is allowed.
There is a middle ground, of course. One can allow certain privacies to the child in question without encryption and the like.
The concern of the parents is twofold: they are legally responsible for both the actions and the safety of the child in question--thus, hiding the actions of the child from the parents is awkward, to say the least, in that they're now forced to be responsible for something that they have no idea about.
The parents are, however, legally responsible for the child's actions. As such, it is entirely reasonable for them to have unfettered access to the child's person and effects.
Children don't -get- privacy from their parents, unless the parents should choose to give it to them. A family is not a democracy--it is a dictatorship.
Reminds me a bit of Sid Meier's "Alpha Centauri"--some folks may remember it. Terribly addicting game. The 'currency' in the game was energy--one of the win conditions (oriented towards the Morgan faction, IIRC) was to corner the energy market.
In a way, energy is an ideal currency. It has an intrinsic value, it's easy to keep track of, and it's both easy to produce and easy to use.
In a way, that's pretty much the same as a password, except using pictures instead of letters.
I do question, though, what 'strict parental control' works under debian--and whether the parents will allow the computer to be used at all, or whether they'll just install windows and the parental control.
I think it may be adviseable to discuss with the parents why the parental control software was necessary for the other child, and whether this child would be required to have special conditions for the use of said computer.
Or exactly how 'custom' we're talking--is it just a high-capacity air compressor with a special connector, or is this something other than what you could get from the usual compressed-air suppliers?
That being said, I -really- like this idea, and I'm hoping that it pans out in a practical manner. $2/fillup is a very attractive notion. I'm sick of having to pay for gas.
If you use cooking oils for lubricants, you can just park your compressor next to the local Burger Lord. Do it like lawnmower fuel, and have the fuel and lubricant pre-mixed before you put it in the tank.
A bit different than the usual 'hybrid' gas/electric design.
I'd like to know how the air tank would be refilled, though. I mean, gas stations already have air compressors for your tires, but would that put out enough pressure to fill the tank in your car?
Or will this strictly be an 'around town' sort of car, and you'd have to rent something for long trips?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, so the usual: educational weaknesses with a side order of shiny-suit apathy towards said education.
Well, it's a way to sell custom DB installations, I guess--whip up a glossy brochure with lots of FUD over DB insecurities, and offer a "locked down" version with an installer that asks for the SA password on installation, much like most current Linux distros.
Or, hell, just whip up a script that'll "secure against intrusion" and sell that off for a few thousand bucks per unit. Higher the price the better--if it's expensive, it -must- be worth it.
Presumably, the sysadmins at those companies are at least semi-competent, given that they've blocked SQL access from outside--but why is it that the various vulnerabilities have not been patched?
Is it perhaps because SQL is not something that is particularly high-profile patchwise, unlike operating systems and webservers? Or are unauthorized users running various SQL databases for internal department issues or whatnot, outside the official purview of the IT departments? Or perhaps is it a case that the administrators of the databases are simply unaware that they can be compromised in this fashion?
Yes, the insensitive clods.
But they're insensitive by definition.
Oh, certainly--I agree entirely.
Just pointing out that in a legal sense--e.g. according to the current legislation--parents are entirely in control of their children.
I personally think that yes, children should have some privacy and privileges--but I recognize that in reality there is no provision made for this in legislation.
Which, really, is how it should be--all children are different, and legislating what level of privacy, what responsibilities and privileges, what activities are permitted for a child of $AGE years is really quite a stupid notion.
However, many people are not very good at parenting, and may be overly restrictive or overly permissive, and may hinder their child's development--we tend to read about these kids in the news eventually when they've done something really dumb.
Reading the responses for this thread's been rather interesting. It appears that many people are of the opinion that children should be able to keep their activities entirely private from their parents--which, in many cases (especially with older children) may not be entirely inappropriate.
However, there is always that one irrevocable argument against having -no- access to what the child is doing: under the present system, the parents are held accountable for the child's actions, and are also held accountable for the child's safety. So long as that continues to be the case, any parent is well within his or her rights to bypass or circumvent any privacy that the child has at any time that they feel that either the child's safety has been threatened or that the child may be acting in a manner that is unethical or illegal--that might get them in trouble.
That's the primary reason why I'm suspicious of the AC who submitted this piece: he is not the parent of the child in question, nor is he the legal guardian (I assume, at any rate, given that the parents were mentioned). It is unethical for him to provide a means to deny the parents their right to know what is going on with their daughter; in doing so, he is making them unable to fulfill their responsibilities as parents.
Any responsible parent, faced with such a system as the AC intends to set up, would confiscate the system or wipe and install something that they could get into--not out of malice, but out of practical safety and legal concerns. Sure, there's probably not a whole lot of mischief that a 7 year old will get up to--and this one sounds a lot more responsible than the usual 7-year-old--but the legalities of the situation are clear: the parents are responsible for the child, so they must be allowed access.
If the AC wants to hand the parents the root password, however, that's another story altogether.
Imagine a blade server full of those things...you could build one hell of a processor farm that way.
Would a particle that gives other particles mass have mass itself?
Sort of a meta-particle, as it were.
It may be more efficient to make it all-electric, but it's a damn sight cheaper to make a compressed air tank than to make a pile of batteries.
If you want people to adopt renewable-energy-compatible vehicles, you have to ensure two things: that it's easy to refill (something that's rather technically difficult with the pure electrics, given that charge times are usually significantly larger than a few minutes) and it's affordable.
The fartmobile is obviously accomplishable in a practical sense with currently existing technology; electric vehicles still have problems.
They wouldn't be able to get -in-, probably, but they'd be able to perform a very simple DOS attack:
"I'm taking away your computer."
I'd think that locking them out would be a decent indication for when they're ready to be less supervised--once they can crack the lockout, then it'd be time to sit down and talk about taking it off--and the responsibilities they would have to be aware of. Make 'em sign an AUP at that point, and then you can just keep hold of the root password for when you need to fix something.
No, they'd just grow up with Republicans. ;-p
Perhaps you may not agree with my terminology, but the parents are in charge, and there is no appeal to any decisions that they make--with the exception of actual rights violations.
There is no law anywhere that states that parents must give their children any privacy whatsoever.
Legally, it is a dictatorship--the parents are responsible for the actions of the children, after all, and (within certain basic restrictions) whatever they choose to do is allowed.
Privacy is not a guaranteed right for children.
There is a middle ground, of course. One can allow certain privacies to the child in question without encryption and the like.
The concern of the parents is twofold: they are legally responsible for both the actions and the safety of the child in question--thus, hiding the actions of the child from the parents is awkward, to say the least, in that they're now forced to be responsible for something that they have no idea about.
The parents are, however, legally responsible for the child's actions. As such, it is entirely reasonable for them to have unfettered access to the child's person and effects.
Children don't -get- privacy from their parents, unless the parents should choose to give it to them. A family is not a democracy--it is a dictatorship.
Diaries aren't connected to the internet.
Yes, and I'm questioning two aspects of that:
Why the parents need to be kept out, and why the AC thinks that any password will keep out parents who presumably have physical access to the system.
If the parents are taking an interest in keeping young children safe, then by all means let 'em.
Reminds me a bit of Sid Meier's "Alpha Centauri"--some folks may remember it. Terribly addicting game. The 'currency' in the game was energy--one of the win conditions (oriented towards the Morgan faction, IIRC) was to corner the energy market.
In a way, energy is an ideal currency. It has an intrinsic value, it's easy to keep track of, and it's both easy to produce and easy to use.
It's also absolutely necessary.
In a way, that's pretty much the same as a password, except using pictures instead of letters.
I do question, though, what 'strict parental control' works under debian--and whether the parents will allow the computer to be used at all, or whether they'll just install windows and the parental control.
I think it may be adviseable to discuss with the parents why the parental control software was necessary for the other child, and whether this child would be required to have special conditions for the use of said computer.
Not necessarily--and given that most air compressors run off of electricity, this allows the use of renewable sources without much difficulty.
It's essentially, if you think about it, an electric car without having the electricity onboard.
Or exactly how 'custom' we're talking--is it just a high-capacity air compressor with a special connector, or is this something other than what you could get from the usual compressed-air suppliers?
That being said, I -really- like this idea, and I'm hoping that it pans out in a practical manner. $2/fillup is a very attractive notion. I'm sick of having to pay for gas.
I was referring more to the aerosol of grease that surrounds chain burger joints... ;-p
If you use cooking oils for lubricants, you can just park your compressor next to the local Burger Lord. Do it like lawnmower fuel, and have the fuel and lubricant pre-mixed before you put it in the tank.
A bit different than the usual 'hybrid' gas/electric design.
I'd like to know how the air tank would be refilled, though. I mean, gas stations already have air compressors for your tires, but would that put out enough pressure to fill the tank in your car?
Or will this strictly be an 'around town' sort of car, and you'd have to rent something for long trips?
Well, we do prosecute attempted murder...though in the case of suicide, perhaps a psychiatric evaluation would be more appropriate.
Just a bit far to go on a LARC, ain't it?
/british >
<