Unless you mean the time when typical bottles were glass - which was quite a long time ago - I don't see how an empty plastic bottle thrown around could hurt anyone, so that excuse wouldn't fly today.
They'll sell you plastic bottles of frozen water at football games on hot days here. The right arcing throw and it could be as deadly as a Lawn Dart.
I'm guessing you meant "vicious." Unless you're claiming that the Olympics have a high internal friction which resists defamation through fear or existential stresses.
I don't mind getting zero karma for it. Unfortunately, there are people (including personal friends) who use their settings to treat Funny mods as a -1 or less and thus won't read it.
A screen capture would be more of a challenge (not impossible, just more difficult) for the school to get - and doesn't fit the description in the linked article in which the student was described as being engaged in improper behavior, and the proof was in the form of an image captured by the built in camera. Unless that still image shows a discernible reflection on the kid's glasses revealing unauthorized material your screen capture theory fails.
A screen capture of the teacher's computer viewing the streaming video from the student's computer would show the student's physical activity.
Beside the point, also monitoring what is on a student's computer desktop is pretty easy: every laptop may automatically connect to GoToMyPC.com and share whatever is happening on the computer with a computer back at the school. I haven't used that service, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't also stream webcam video of the user simultaneously.
Part of the point of anyone doing streaming video (or audio) is that the data doesn't touch the hard drive thus preventing (casual) recording, only screen captures of single frames. That's why it is preferred by those wanting to have TV shows viewable to people on the Internet while preventing them from making a copy.
It isn't the first time a school has punished a kid for something that happens outside of school grounds and hours.
Re:"BONG HiTS 4 JESUS", the Supreme Court ruled "It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," even though the banner was on a public sidewalk off of school property but adjacent to a school event.
But the school probably considers the laptop to be school grounds much like an embassy is considered foreign soil. Anything done on it is done on school property, including reflecting photons onto its webcam's lens and vibrating particles of air against its microphone.
Yeah, I'm not going to read that PDF on my work system where I have no control over what reader it will open in. Especially with the local SWAT running an "exercise" in this building tonight.
But to be charged of child pornography, that one image would have to be child pornography. Without evidence of any other recorded imagery that contains child pornography, it is just speculation. They can get a warrant to seize every computer in the school and the home computers of every faculty member to search for some, but until they find any, the ability to see children nude without producing a record of it ever happening doesn't rise to a charge of producing child pornography.
Oh yes, please let us speculate about the "improper behavior in the home" in a fact-free vacuum!
Oh, I have one: they caught the student smiling and doing his homework on the laptop at home during school hours looking perfectly well when he had claimed to be sick, thus being truant!
They clearly DID record it. They used a picture of the child in the case engaging in "improper behavior in the home" then confirmed to the child's father that this is true.
One still image of alleged "improper behavior" does not equate to a device recording all the time. It could just be a screen capture of the streaming video that was otherwise only viewed live. And the nature of the behavior is not disclosed, but had it been of a sexual nature involving the child, the district would have already been charged with creating child pornography, which it has not.
Capability to record a single frame doesn't equate to proof that actual recording all the time took place.
And the school will produce their Acceptable Computer Use Policy where all of the above is authorized by the parent or other legal guardian of each student, and transferring the responsibility of any illegal acts upon the student or upon their parent or other legal guardian (including prevention of anyone being in the presence of the laptop in any state of partial or complete undress or engaging in any form of sexual or excretory activity, real or pantomimed, in the presence of the laptop).
I think they'd have to record it for it to be child pornography. Streaming would be sexual exploitation of a child and whatever the legal term for peeping-tom is.
But then I knew of some teachers in my high school who had no problem watching students have sex in a car in the school parking lot. Not via cameras; live viewing through a window overlooking the parking lot. (They just wouldn't let me have a look.)
If the coax was installed when the house was built, then the coax is probably stapled to the wall studs.
Don't we have little bots that will traverse the length of the cable and cut through any staples they find yet? Sounds like something that should be able to be built with a LEGO Mindstorms kit. Include a camera to track its progress.
Build it right and not only will it cut the cable free, it will also simultaneously string the cat5/5e/6 cable, be remotely controlled through that data cable, and send the video of its progress back through the coax!
Or just tear out the walls where you'll be working and patch it up with some drywall afterward.
Players cannot be killed, but they can be reduced to a pile of unassembled bricks. The idea is to play the game and collect bricks, which will allow users to build more interesting models.
Well, until Maj. Carter develops a weapon which disrupts the communications between the individual bricks, rendering them inert and harmless.
Why don't ISPs providing service to home users require outgoing SMTP to pass through the ISP mailserver (firewalling port 25) and flag/block extreme usage so that their customers' virus infected machines don't spew further garbage into the Internet?
I refer you again to number 2. I think you underestimate how many machines are in a given botnet and therefore overestimate how much spam one machine in that botnet sends. They could easily slide under an ISP's per-user e-mail volume limit and still participate in a million-strong spam.
Why can't ISP's detect large numbers of messages suddenly going to a vast array of e-mail address and shut it down?
The messages aren't identical
The messages don't originate from just one machine but from botnet zombies scattered all over the net with distributed command and control with multiple contingencies for regaining control
The messages don't end up at just one mail host
By the time it's detected the damage is already done
Anyone who does detect it isn't in a position to stop it from happening again
Basically what you're suggesting boils down to throttling the entire Internet so that it can't handle the capacity of spamming, which will make it useless for any e-mail delivery. You might as well just kill e-mail.
"Welcome, stranger." "Oh, hi." "What are ya buyin'?" "Nothin'." "What are ya sellin'?" "Nothin'." "Come back anytime." "Oh, OK." "Welcome, stranger." "Aaah!"
Dr. Michael Anthony Brace: Take the house... take the kids... take the whole goddamn thing! I can't live like this anymore, Karen. You're strangling me! Karen Brace: What are you talking about? I never wanted the house! I never wanted any of that. It was you! Dr. Michael Anthony Brace: No! It's you! That's not me you're looking at! It's you! Dr. Lillian Reynolds: What was that? Dr. Michael Anthony Brace: I don't know. I got mad. [gesturing to Karen] At you. [He rewinds the tape and takes the reel with him as he exits] Dr. Lillian Reynolds: What happened? Karen Brace: I was showing him my latest design. But he always ignores me, I don't know, it just made me furious. Dr. Lillian Reynolds: Feelings.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you mean the time when typical bottles were glass - which was quite a long time ago - I don't see how an empty plastic bottle thrown around could hurt anyone, so that excuse wouldn't fly today.
They'll sell you plastic bottles of frozen water at football games on hot days here. The right arcing throw and it could be as deadly as a Lawn Dart.
I'm guessing you meant "vicious." Unless you're claiming that the Olympics have a high internal friction which resists defamation through fear or existential stresses.
More like that I think.
I don't mind getting zero karma for it. Unfortunately, there are people (including personal friends) who use their settings to treat Funny mods as a -1 or less and thus won't read it.
A screen capture would be more of a challenge (not impossible, just more difficult) for the school to get - and doesn't fit the description in the linked article in which the student was described as being engaged in improper behavior, and the proof was in the form of an image captured by the built in camera. Unless that still image shows a discernible reflection on the kid's glasses revealing unauthorized material your screen capture theory fails.
A screen capture of the teacher's computer viewing the streaming video from the student's computer would show the student's physical activity.
Beside the point, also monitoring what is on a student's computer desktop is pretty easy: every laptop may automatically connect to GoToMyPC.com and share whatever is happening on the computer with a computer back at the school. I haven't used that service, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't also stream webcam video of the user simultaneously.
Part of the point of anyone doing streaming video (or audio) is that the data doesn't touch the hard drive thus preventing (casual) recording, only screen captures of single frames. That's why it is preferred by those wanting to have TV shows viewable to people on the Internet while preventing them from making a copy.
So is Microsoft rushing out an update to their Malicious Software Removal Tool to clean up this rootkit?
It isn't the first time a school has punished a kid for something that happens outside of school grounds and hours.
Re:"BONG HiTS 4 JESUS", the Supreme Court ruled "It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," even though the banner was on a public sidewalk off of school property but adjacent to a school event.
But the school probably considers the laptop to be school grounds much like an embassy is considered foreign soil. Anything done on it is done on school property, including reflecting photons onto its webcam's lens and vibrating particles of air against its microphone.
Yeah, I'm not going to read that PDF on my work system where I have no control over what reader it will open in. Especially with the local SWAT running an "exercise" in this building tonight.
It would appear that being Vice Principal qualifies one as sufficiently boneheaded.
Or a whistleblower walking the line between disclosure and doing his job.
But to be charged of child pornography, that one image would have to be child pornography. Without evidence of any other recorded imagery that contains child pornography, it is just speculation. They can get a warrant to seize every computer in the school and the home computers of every faculty member to search for some, but until they find any, the ability to see children nude without producing a record of it ever happening doesn't rise to a charge of producing child pornography.
So put down the torches and pitchforks for now.
Oh yes, please let us speculate about the "improper behavior in the home" in a fact-free vacuum!
Oh, I have one: they caught the student smiling and doing his homework on the laptop at home during school hours looking perfectly well when he had claimed to be sick, thus being truant!
It's easier to throw books at them than to read and apply what it says in them sensibly?
BTW, nice cropping of the subject there to fit the "Re:", Slashdot.
they set up a situation almost CERTAIN TO PRODUCE IT!
Nice use of caps to emphasize "CERTAIN TO PRODUCE IT" and deemphasize the "almost". You have a future in politics my friend.
They clearly DID record it. They used a picture of the child in the case engaging in "improper behavior in the home" then confirmed to the child's father that this is true.
One still image of alleged "improper behavior" does not equate to a device recording all the time. It could just be a screen capture of the streaming video that was otherwise only viewed live. And the nature of the behavior is not disclosed, but had it been of a sexual nature involving the child, the district would have already been charged with creating child pornography, which it has not.
Capability to record a single frame doesn't equate to proof that actual recording all the time took place.
And the school will produce their Acceptable Computer Use Policy where all of the above is authorized by the parent or other legal guardian of each student, and transferring the responsibility of any illegal acts upon the student or upon their parent or other legal guardian (including prevention of anyone being in the presence of the laptop in any state of partial or complete undress or engaging in any form of sexual or excretory activity, real or pantomimed, in the presence of the laptop).
I think they'd have to record it for it to be child pornography. Streaming would be sexual exploitation of a child and whatever the legal term for peeping-tom is.
But then I knew of some teachers in my high school who had no problem watching students have sex in a car in the school parking lot. Not via cameras; live viewing through a window overlooking the parking lot. (They just wouldn't let me have a look.)
If the coax was installed when the house was built, then the coax is probably stapled to the wall studs.
Don't we have little bots that will traverse the length of the cable and cut through any staples they find yet? Sounds like something that should be able to be built with a LEGO Mindstorms kit. Include a camera to track its progress.
Build it right and not only will it cut the cable free, it will also simultaneously string the cat5/5e/6 cable, be remotely controlled through that data cable, and send the video of its progress back through the coax!
Or just tear out the walls where you'll be working and patch it up with some drywall afterward.
Players cannot be killed, but they can be reduced to a pile of unassembled bricks. The idea is to play the game and collect bricks, which will allow users to build more interesting models.
Well, until Maj. Carter develops a weapon which disrupts the communications between the individual bricks, rendering them inert and harmless.
Original poster here, maybe I should elaborate.
Why don't ISPs providing service to home users require outgoing SMTP to pass through the ISP mailserver (firewalling port 25) and flag/block extreme usage so that their customers' virus infected machines don't spew further garbage into the Internet?
I refer you again to number 2. I think you underestimate how many machines are in a given botnet and therefore overestimate how much spam one machine in that botnet sends. They could easily slide under an ISP's per-user e-mail volume limit and still participate in a million-strong spam.
"Unlimited" as in they won't cut you off when you exceed 5 GB a month so you can run up an unlimited bill.
Which is also why they want your social security number to check your credit rating.
Why can't ISP's detect large numbers of messages suddenly going to a vast array of e-mail address and shut it down?
Basically what you're suggesting boils down to throttling the entire Internet so that it can't handle the capacity of spamming, which will make it useless for any e-mail delivery. You might as well just kill e-mail.
You don't wanna mess with the Yu-Gi-Oh! Card-Gaming Gang.
"Welcome, stranger."
"Oh, hi."
"What are ya buyin'?"
"Nothin'."
"What are ya sellin'?"
"Nothin'."
"Come back anytime."
"Oh, OK."
"Welcome, stranger."
"Aaah!"
Ten-finity?
Send more Chuck Berry!
And of course when I read that, it was in the voice of a zombie.
"Come in dispatch. Send... more... paramedics." -- Zombie ordering delivery; Return of the Living Dead
Dr. Michael Anthony Brace: Take the house... take the kids... take the whole goddamn thing! I can't live like this anymore, Karen. You're strangling me!
Karen Brace: What are you talking about? I never wanted the house! I never wanted any of that. It was you!
Dr. Michael Anthony Brace: No! It's you! That's not me you're looking at! It's you!
Dr. Lillian Reynolds: What was that?
Dr. Michael Anthony Brace: I don't know. I got mad. [gesturing to Karen] At you.
[He rewinds the tape and takes the reel with him as he exits]
Dr. Lillian Reynolds: What happened?
Karen Brace: I was showing him my latest design. But he always ignores me, I don't know, it just made me furious.
Dr. Lillian Reynolds: Feelings.