True. If only his product wasn't riding Windows' coattails. Similarily, WordPad is essentially the world's most popular word processor!
That wouldn't be correct, as most people DON'T use WordPad for their word processing. So actually your example proves that just because something is included in Windows doesn't automatically make it popular.
And to discount your "IE6 has just been around too long" argument, there's fewer and fewer holes in products like OpenBSD, which have been around far longer than all versions of IE combined.
To discount your argument, you're claiming that OpenBSD gets more secure with every release. However the point was that the most current version of IE sat aroud for a while, no longer being developed. Stop developing OpenBSD (and make the last version the most popular) and I'm sure that, over time, more and more security holes will be found.
Oh, and OpenBSD and its *nix kindred tend to run the things hackers are truly interested in. But because it's "hard", many just grab a few tens of thousands of windows boxes (easy!) and then try to take down those *nix sites via DDOS attacks.
They are interested in grabbing the most boxes as possible, with the least amount of effort. Unfortunatly there are security holes, but add to the fact that Windows boxes far outnumber Unix boxes, and you Windows being the most desireable. Think of it this way; 25% of Windows boxes have known unpatched holes, and there are 500,000 Windows boxes total. 25% of Unix boxes have known unpatched holes, and there are a total of 100,000. Going after windows will get you more boxes to carry out your DDOS attack. Its purely a numbers game. You can get 125,000 Windows boxes or only 25,000 Unix boxes.
Spoken like a person who is either not a parent or a parent in denial.
Spoken like one of the aforementioned lousy parents. Here's a hint: getting someone pregnant (or getting yourself pregnant, for the girls out there) does not make you an expert on raising children. How your children turn out is the indicator of how good a parent you were. Anyone can knock up someone else.
Even parents need to sleep sometime.
I'm sorry, where did I say you have to monitor your kids 24 / 7? I didn't. I DID say if they are sneaking off, its a sign you're not doing a good job.
I have a teenage boy at home, I'm fairly certain that because of the way my wife and I have raised him that he isn't sneaking out at night and he probably won't for at least another couple of years.
The fact that you believe he will sneak out ina few years shows that you don't think you've done a good job. Why? Because sneaking out isn't something that teens will inevitably do.
The one thing I am sure about is that no matter how good my and my wife's parenting skills are, he will push his limits.
Sounds like you set way too many limits. I never felt the need to do something just to see if I 'could get away with it.'
At some point he is either going to sneak out, break curfew or do something else just as stupid and I'm going to have to come down on him for it.
If he sneaks out its because he doesn't feel like he can do things he should ligitimately be allowed to do, and that you don't trust him. As far as curfew goes, I fail to understand why coming home at 12 instead of 10 is a huge deal. The main problem always seems to be the parent wants to control their child (note: raising your kid doesn't always mean you control them).
I did it, my siblings did it, my wife did it, her siblings did it, I think I may know 1 person who didn't.
Thats because both of your parents were overcontrolling, in all likely hood. People don't like to be controlled especially for no reason. When my parents told me something and gave good reason, I usually listened. I never listened when the reason was 'because I said so.' At any rate, you're doing the same thing to your kid that your parents did to you, thus he will likely sneak out. But because you set up an environment where he feels he is being unjustly controlled, much like your parents did to you.
It's part of growing up, it's part of being human. We test our limits to find out how far we can go before consequences set in.
People which are overrly controlled may do that, but people which had parents that setup an environment of trust and give rational explainations as to why the kid should or should not do something don't.
Heh.. I think part of the reason I never had an interest in drinking (until I was much older) was because my parents never made a huge deal out of it. The other part is probably that when I was VERY young, I remember my dad letting me have a sip of beer. I spit it out, and thought it was awful. My sister seemed to like it though, but even she didn't become a drunk or anything. It just wasn't a big deal.
It's easy for the kid to never feel forced to sneak behind their back if the kid already never wanted to do anything of the sort. Kids will never ask for permission to have sex or do drugs because they already know the answer. If they want to do these things, they'll just lie and sneak out to do it.
Kids will want to do things they are forbidden to do. I was never told not to drink alocohol, and so I never thought that doing so was a big deal, and never had an interest in even trying it until my third year of college.
And really, parents are only part of the influence on a kid, what about their schools and friends where they spend their most engaging hours.
Parents have the largest impact of any of those other groups though, even into teen years. The influence my drop as the child gets older, but thats why its important to do a good job when they are younger.
As for friends, you're not there at school so you can't determine who your kid can play with. You can ask later on, but you'll only be told who the kid's "good" friends are, since the kid already knows you won't let them hang out with their bad friends.
If a child wants to hang out with 'bad' friends, thats again the parents fault. The kid doesn't see anything wrong with the 'bad' friend's behavior, because the parents never instilled that those behaviors are bad.
Raising a kid is complicated. Sometimes even good parents can have bad kids. Each kid is unique and has a different level of difficulty in raising.
It is complicated, but good parents cannot have bad kids, by definition of 'good parent.' A truely good parent will have raised a good child.
This can be chalked up to a lousy kid too. You pick your own friends when your young, and if you pick stupid peers and start doing stupid things against your parents wishes, that does not make them lousy.
A lousy kid is lousy because of lousy parenting. As a parent, you instill values on your child, whether you mean to or not. If a kid picks lousy friends, its because the lousy behaviors of the friend were not looked down upon by the parents. You usually have friends which share the same beliefs as you; if they are too different, you likely won't be friends to begin with.
I chose when I was very young not to be friends with a kid up the street, because he didn't have a problem with doing things which I had a problem with, such as setting fires, throwing rocks at other people's houses, and trying to hurt other kids on the street. If I didn't see anything wrong with those actions, I likely would have done those things with him.
Please, you expect us to believe you never once snuck out behind your parents back? Hell, im sure even the Pope and Mother Teresa did that.
No, I never had a need to. For one, when I was younger, there wasn't much to sneek off to. When I was a teenager, I had already past the point of thinking I had to lie to my parents. Not to say I never did anything wrong, or never lied to them. In 5th grade, my grades were horrid, and I tried to convience my mom that I was staying after school to work on a project, when in fact I had detention (due to my bad grades and not doing homework).
Anyway, no parent can 100% control every second of their kids time, EVERY teen does things behind their parents back.
They may not be able to control them, but they can build a relationship with them that precludes the need to lie and do things behind their back. By the time I was 14, I already had such a relationship; there wasn't really anything I felt I needed to lie about. My parents started treating me more fairly, and I responded by being honest with them. If parents don't have such a relationship with thier child, its their fault, period. Parents have a HUGE impact on their children, and if their relationship with thier child is crummy, its the parents fault. They made it that way.
Its just a matter of quantity and magnitude. If the teen sneaking out makes the parents lousy, then there have only ever been lousy parents in the history of the world. Well, except the ones that keep their kids in a cage right? Those sure wont be sneaking out.
Most parents throughout history have been lousy, I'm willing to bet on that. One just need look at the world around them for proof of that. More recently, it seems parents have been getting worse and worse; of course its the fault of THIER parents. The most likely child molester is one that was molested themselves. Being fat isn't genetic either; parents teach thier poor habits to their children, who go on to teach them to thier children. Most behaviors are passed down like this. There is a reason for the saying 'you grow up to be just like your father / mother.'
Your cage comment is silly. Caging a child will breed mistrust in the relationship, and that will express itself in the childs other relationships as well, not just relationships with the parent.
Don't fear, I'm absolutely not suggesting that. I've met my fair share of teenage kids who show a hell of a lot more wisdom than someone twice their age. I've had my rear legitimately handed to me enough times in online discussions by people who have turned out to be twelve to know not to underestimate the young ones.
Well, sorry for lumping you into that group. I tend to jump the gun sometimes, because when I was that age, I promised myself that I wouldn't underestimate kids, like adults were doing to me at the time.
But a good number of kids that age do have a degree of naivety, and some girls that age may not have caught onto the sheer number of people who will say and do whatever they can to get into someones pants.
Well, that's partly their parents fault, after all.
Yes, and it's sad that she had to learn this way.
Its unfortunate, but I also see no other way of learning such life experiences.
Also note this little quote from that article: "The National Cancer Institute says studies of people living in communities with fluoridated water 'did not find an association between fluoride and cancer risk.'"
The parent should be telling the kid that doing certain things (like, I dunno, meeting up with people online) are bad ideas.
Meeting people online is not a bad thing in and of itself. I've met quite a few friends this way. Meeting people from online someplace that isn't public is the bad idea.
Here's a fly-in-the-ointment of the entire lawsuit - did the 19-year-old lie about his age? If he is 19, and his MySpace page said he was 19, what would age verification do to prevent any of this?
Its irrelevent whether he lied on his profile or not. The 14 year old KNEW MySpace doesn't verify ages. How did she know? She went through the signup process as well and I'm sure she noticed that they didn't verify HER age.
Part of me *hopes* this is a setup by the parents, in light of the "Palestinian runaway" and with MySpace being in the news an awful lot lately. It would make me feel better to think that her parents were trying to perpetrate a fraud than being just that hideously stupid. If your daughter is 14, you meet the people she goes out with, whether platonic or romantic. No exceptions.
I'm sure its about the fraud; something awful happened to their daughter (although she shares a large part of the blame) and they're trying to make money off of it. How exactly will the $30 million help their daughter get over this? It won't.
This is what the 'protect the children' crap gets you; stupid adults that will have a very rude awaking when they go into the real world.
It is quite possible the teen snuck out without her parents knowledge- not hard to do, teens have lied about where they are going since the dawn of time. But even this is an assumption; she may just have terrible parents. And greedy ones too, apparently, given their choice of Myspace as a target.
The fact that teens sneak out does not mean that the parents aren't lousy. They're still responsible, and they're still lousy for letting their teen sneak out in the first place. More to the point they are lousy parents for forcing their kid to feel like they have to lie and / or sneak out to do the things they want. I didn't sneak out, because I knew I could go to my parents and tell them exactly where I was going.
But bear in mind this is a 14-year old, and they don't always have the life experience to avoid making such a poor decision.
Believe it or not, 14 year olds can think, life experience or not. At 14 I certainly knew that people lied and that its not a good idea to off with a stranger who's face I never even saw.
In this particular case the girl was pretty stupid and there's no law against that. MySpace isn't liable because her parents (in all likelyhood) overprotected her to the point where she thinks the world is nothing but rose petals and puppy dogs.
Its amazing that when AOL was hot they were not responsible, even though I'm sure a lot of 14 year olds met others through IM and chat rooms.
Finally, I guess she does now have a 'life experience' from which she can learn, doesn't she?
We just had a debate here if the water company should stop adding to the flouride. There was no mention of that for the people that wanted to get rid of it. All they could come up with was 'it might have a very small chance of causing some easily defeated form of cancer.'
The post to which I replied. 'Its the same principal as drug dealers' bit. Except that software is not addicting, so that analogy falls apart.
They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.
That's correct. Bill Gates, about Microsoft's software.
I'll assume the first sentence is a quote which you're attributing to Bill Gates. You seem to be confused about fact and fantasy. What Bill said is what he would like to happen. That doesn't mean its what will happen. Unfortunatly he also fails to reconize that software is not an adictive substance. And lucky for him, because if Windows was as addictive as cocain, it would be declared a controlled substance.
OK that's what we try to do, but when you start having a whole generation of teachers breastfed by microsoft, they already dunno the difference
The blame still falls on the teachers. No one is forced to use MS software. I'm willing to bet the teachers that can teach more than one spreadsheet or word processor also wanted more money, which is why your district chose them and not the other.
I'm starting to get the feeling you'd blame MS for a swarm of locus too.
Microsoft offered $30 Million in *SOFTWARE* license. That's not money. That's advertising. It's the same principle as drug dealers on the corner of the street offering free shots. Once the kids are hooked, they have nowhere else to go.
Yes, because we all know that MS software is as addictive as cocain. Wait, its not, and you can learn how to use non-MS software even after you've used MS software.
Also, lets ignore the fact that its $30 million the school doesn't have to spend now, and that MS Office, for better or worse, is likely what these kids will be using at a real job.
The schools can keep their $30 Million in the pocket when they use Open Source software just as well. The difference being that in a year from now they can get the next version for free too...
And they'll have no support options either. Who will they call when the software needs maintence? Or when they want to apply the next version? Also, lets show the kids something they'll never see at an actual job or even at home, if they aren't running Linux there.
And having kids with the knowledge that nothing exists in this world except M$ products
Ya, ok, no one can possibly learn of an alterntive if thats whats used in schools. Please, give me a break.
it's this way all over the world, here in Egypt M$ subsidizes school software to the extent that it offers windows+office packages in the equivalent of less than $3 to students, and in the end we get students who don't know what's a spreadsheet or word processor, they only know Excel and Word etc..
That's a failing of your school. It takes one, 30 seconds to explain what a spreedsheet in general is? That Word is just one of many word processors?
Yet even in the US I recently read on a republican blogger's page someone comparing emacs (she called it emac) with M$ Word and dubbing emacs of being a word processor of lesser quality.
Whats your point? Emacs IS of lesser quality, if you're doing word processing. Word processing != editing a text file.
Well, our CIO's a gamer, and thinks it's amusing that his home rig and our department servrs are the same; so yes, our Windows business systems are indeed running a bunch of crap that you should only find on home computers. Yes, some of our desktops are media centers, and yes, I expect him to be installing Premium on at least his and his buddies's machines.
Well, your CIO is an idiot. Your company is not the norm though.
We might be a bit extreme in this; but I bet there are a lot of Windows shops that have stuff like Solitare and Minesweeper and Media Player on allegedly "business" computers. IMHO they shouldn't be allowed to bundle this crap that has no place in a business anyway; but they do, so yes, indeed all our "business windows" computers really are running a bunch of non-business software thanks to Microsoft.
There's a pretty big leap between Solitary and Aero Glass. Media player can't just be dismissed as a non-business app. When I did web applications, we did have requirements that some of the sites would feature streaming and / or downloadable video. So making sure the movies played was an important part of that. Four games and a media player does not consititute loading the OS with 'a bunch of non-business software.' Oh, and you can un-install the games, its not though. So if your company has PCs with games, well, that's your companies fault.
More logically, business servers shouldn't even have a graphics card and sound system at all
No graphics card? Bull. Lets try to see you figure out what's wrong with a server if you can't connect via remote desktop. It happens.
As for sound; I don't think i've ever had any computer where the sound system was the culprate. There's also an easy solution; disable the on-board sound in the BIOS. Problem solved.
I think it's very fair to say that *ALL* Windows computers are really home-gaming boxes (not just Vista Premium) and it's only marketing spin that gets them anywhere in teh server room; and games that get them anywhere in the workplace past the secretary's machine.
I see, you just hate Microsoft. Its funny, because many large businesses use nothing but Microsoft, and they seem to be chugging along quite fine. Stop blaming MS because you have an unjustified hatred of them, and / or don't want to, or are too lazy to, learn how to properly administer them.
You do realize that Premium is targeted SOLEY at home users, and there's a seperate line of Vista OSes for business, right?
The features and technical merits were *never* the reason any business uses Microsoft products.
Wow, what a load of bullshit. My previous employer picked MS products for exactly that reason when they were planning if they should get the lastest Novell network servers. They chose MS instead.
Slashdot Mirror
True. If only his product wasn't riding Windows' coattails. Similarily, WordPad is essentially the world's most popular word processor!
That wouldn't be correct, as most people DON'T use WordPad for their word processing. So actually your example proves that just because something is included in Windows doesn't automatically make it popular.
And to discount your "IE6 has just been around too long" argument, there's fewer and fewer holes in products like OpenBSD, which have been around far longer than all versions of IE combined.
To discount your argument, you're claiming that OpenBSD gets more secure with every release. However the point was that the most current version of IE sat aroud for a while, no longer being developed. Stop developing OpenBSD (and make the last version the most popular) and I'm sure that, over time, more and more security holes will be found.
Oh, and OpenBSD and its *nix kindred tend to run the things hackers are truly interested in. But because it's "hard", many just grab a few tens of thousands of windows boxes (easy!) and then try to take down those *nix sites via DDOS attacks.
They are interested in grabbing the most boxes as possible, with the least amount of effort. Unfortunatly there are security holes, but add to the fact that Windows boxes far outnumber Unix boxes, and you Windows being the most desireable. Think of it this way; 25% of Windows boxes have known unpatched holes, and there are 500,000 Windows boxes total. 25% of Unix boxes have known unpatched holes, and there are a total of 100,000. Going after windows will get you more boxes to carry out your DDOS attack. Its purely a numbers game. You can get 125,000 Windows boxes or only 25,000 Unix boxes.
Because apple isn't as significant as you think?
Spoken like a person who is either not a parent or a parent in denial.
Spoken like one of the aforementioned lousy parents. Here's a hint: getting someone pregnant (or getting yourself pregnant, for the girls out there) does not make you an expert on raising children. How your children turn out is the indicator of how good a parent you were. Anyone can knock up someone else.
Even parents need to sleep sometime.
I'm sorry, where did I say you have to monitor your kids 24 / 7? I didn't. I DID say if they are sneaking off, its a sign you're not doing a good job.
I have a teenage boy at home, I'm fairly certain that because of the way my wife and I have raised him that he isn't sneaking out at night and he probably won't for at least another couple of years.
The fact that you believe he will sneak out ina few years shows that you don't think you've done a good job. Why? Because sneaking out isn't something that teens will inevitably do.
The one thing I am sure about is that no matter how good my and my wife's parenting skills are, he will push his limits.
Sounds like you set way too many limits. I never felt the need to do something just to see if I 'could get away with it.'
At some point he is either going to sneak out, break curfew or do something else just as stupid and I'm going to have to come down on him for it.
If he sneaks out its because he doesn't feel like he can do things he should ligitimately be allowed to do, and that you don't trust him. As far as curfew goes, I fail to understand why coming home at 12 instead of 10 is a huge deal. The main problem always seems to be the parent wants to control their child (note: raising your kid doesn't always mean you control them).
I did it, my siblings did it, my wife did it, her siblings did it, I think I may know 1 person who didn't.
Thats because both of your parents were overcontrolling, in all likely hood. People don't like to be controlled especially for no reason. When my parents told me something and gave good reason, I usually listened. I never listened when the reason was 'because I said so.' At any rate, you're doing the same thing to your kid that your parents did to you, thus he will likely sneak out. But because you set up an environment where he feels he is being unjustly controlled, much like your parents did to you.
It's part of growing up, it's part of being human. We test our limits to find out how far we can go before consequences set in.
People which are overrly controlled may do that, but people which had parents that setup an environment of trust and give rational explainations as to why the kid should or should not do something don't.
Heh.. I think part of the reason I never had an interest in drinking (until I was much older) was because my parents never made a huge deal out of it. The other part is probably that when I was VERY young, I remember my dad letting me have a sip of beer. I spit it out, and thought it was awful. My sister seemed to like it though, but even she didn't become a drunk or anything. It just wasn't a big deal.
It's easy for the kid to never feel forced to sneak behind their back if the kid already never wanted to do anything of the sort. Kids will never ask for permission to have sex or do drugs because they already know the answer. If they want to do these things, they'll just lie and sneak out to do it.
Kids will want to do things they are forbidden to do. I was never told not to drink alocohol, and so I never thought that doing so was a big deal, and never had an interest in even trying it until my third year of college.
And really, parents are only part of the influence on a kid, what about their schools and friends where they spend their most engaging hours.
Parents have the largest impact of any of those other groups though, even into teen years. The influence my drop as the child gets older, but thats why its important to do a good job when they are younger.
As for friends, you're not there at school so you can't determine who your kid can play with. You can ask later on, but you'll only be told who the kid's "good" friends are, since the kid already knows you won't let them hang out with their bad friends.
If a child wants to hang out with 'bad' friends, thats again the parents fault. The kid doesn't see anything wrong with the 'bad' friend's behavior, because the parents never instilled that those behaviors are bad.
Raising a kid is complicated. Sometimes even good parents can have bad kids. Each kid is unique and has a different level of difficulty in raising.
It is complicated, but good parents cannot have bad kids, by definition of 'good parent.' A truely good parent will have raised a good child.
This can be chalked up to a lousy kid too. You pick your own friends when your young, and if you pick stupid peers and start doing stupid things against your parents wishes, that does not make them lousy.
A lousy kid is lousy because of lousy parenting. As a parent, you instill values on your child, whether you mean to or not. If a kid picks lousy friends, its because the lousy behaviors of the friend were not looked down upon by the parents. You usually have friends which share the same beliefs as you; if they are too different, you likely won't be friends to begin with.
I chose when I was very young not to be friends with a kid up the street, because he didn't have a problem with doing things which I had a problem with, such as setting fires, throwing rocks at other people's houses, and trying to hurt other kids on the street. If I didn't see anything wrong with those actions, I likely would have done those things with him.
Please, you expect us to believe you never once snuck out behind your parents back? Hell, im sure even the Pope and Mother Teresa did that.
No, I never had a need to. For one, when I was younger, there wasn't much to sneek off to. When I was a teenager, I had already past the point of thinking I had to lie to my parents. Not to say I never did anything wrong, or never lied to them. In 5th grade, my grades were horrid, and I tried to convience my mom that I was staying after school to work on a project, when in fact I had detention (due to my bad grades and not doing homework).
Anyway, no parent can 100% control every second of their kids time, EVERY teen does things behind their parents back.
They may not be able to control them, but they can build a relationship with them that precludes the need to lie and do things behind their back. By the time I was 14, I already had such a relationship; there wasn't really anything I felt I needed to lie about. My parents started treating me more fairly, and I responded by being honest with them. If parents don't have such a relationship with thier child, its their fault, period. Parents have a HUGE impact on their children, and if their relationship with thier child is crummy, its the parents fault. They made it that way.
Its just a matter of quantity and magnitude. If the teen sneaking out makes the parents lousy, then there have only ever been lousy parents in the history of the world. Well, except the ones that keep their kids in a cage right? Those sure wont be sneaking out.
Most parents throughout history have been lousy, I'm willing to bet on that. One just need look at the world around them for proof of that. More recently, it seems parents have been getting worse and worse; of course its the fault of THIER parents. The most likely child molester is one that was molested themselves. Being fat isn't genetic either; parents teach thier poor habits to their children, who go on to teach them to thier children. Most behaviors are passed down like this. There is a reason for the saying 'you grow up to be just like your father / mother.'
Your cage comment is silly. Caging a child will breed mistrust in the relationship, and that will express itself in the childs other relationships as well, not just relationships with the parent.
Don't fear, I'm absolutely not suggesting that. I've met my fair share of teenage kids who show a hell of a lot more wisdom than someone twice their age. I've had my rear legitimately handed to me enough times in online discussions by people who have turned out to be twelve to know not to underestimate the young ones.
Well, sorry for lumping you into that group. I tend to jump the gun sometimes, because when I was that age, I promised myself that I wouldn't underestimate kids, like adults were doing to me at the time.
But a good number of kids that age do have a degree of naivety, and some girls that age may not have caught onto the sheer number of people who will say and do whatever they can to get into someones pants.
Well, that's partly their parents fault, after all.
Yes, and it's sad that she had to learn this way.
Its unfortunate, but I also see no other way of learning such life experiences.
Sounds like a bunch of quacks to me. Ever place I've ever lived, there's been floride in the water.
If it was such a serious health problem the entire population of my city (600,000 people) should have the problems you describe. Yet they don't.
Note that on the insulin front, there will naturally be futher implications if someone already has insulin problems, such as diabetes.
My grandmother had diabetes just about all of her life. No one single doctor told her to avoid floride.
Oh, from the SAME site you quote, you may want to check this out (FWI, I DO live in Burlington). http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2468.html
Also note this little quote from that article: "The National Cancer Institute says studies of people living in communities with fluoridated water 'did not find an association between fluoride and cancer risk.'"
Opps.
The parent should be telling the kid that doing certain things (like, I dunno, meeting up with people online) are bad ideas.
Meeting people online is not a bad thing in and of itself. I've met quite a few friends this way. Meeting people from online someplace that isn't public is the bad idea.
Here's a fly-in-the-ointment of the entire lawsuit - did the 19-year-old lie about his age? If he is 19, and his MySpace page said he was 19, what would age verification do to prevent any of this?
Its irrelevent whether he lied on his profile or not. The 14 year old KNEW MySpace doesn't verify ages. How did she know? She went through the signup process as well and I'm sure she noticed that they didn't verify HER age.
Part of me *hopes* this is a setup by the parents, in light of the "Palestinian runaway" and with MySpace being in the news an awful lot lately. It would make me feel better to think that her parents were trying to perpetrate a fraud than being just that hideously stupid. If your daughter is 14, you meet the people she goes out with, whether platonic or romantic. No exceptions.
I'm sure its about the fraud; something awful happened to their daughter (although she shares a large part of the blame) and they're trying to make money off of it. How exactly will the $30 million help their daughter get over this? It won't.
This is what the 'protect the children' crap gets you; stupid adults that will have a very rude awaking when they go into the real world.
It is quite possible the teen snuck out without her parents knowledge- not hard to do, teens have lied about where they are going since the dawn of time. But even this is an assumption; she may just have terrible parents. And greedy ones too, apparently, given their choice of Myspace as a target.
The fact that teens sneak out does not mean that the parents aren't lousy. They're still responsible, and they're still lousy for letting their teen sneak out in the first place. More to the point they are lousy parents for forcing their kid to feel like they have to lie and / or sneak out to do the things they want. I didn't sneak out, because I knew I could go to my parents and tell them exactly where I was going.
But bear in mind this is a 14-year old, and they don't always have the life experience to avoid making such a poor decision.
Believe it or not, 14 year olds can think, life experience or not. At 14 I certainly knew that people lied and that its not a good idea to off with a stranger who's face I never even saw.
In this particular case the girl was pretty stupid and there's no law against that. MySpace isn't liable because her parents (in all likelyhood) overprotected her to the point where she thinks the world is nothing but rose petals and puppy dogs.
Its amazing that when AOL was hot they were not responsible, even though I'm sure a lot of 14 year olds met others through IM and chat rooms.
Finally, I guess she does now have a 'life experience' from which she can learn, doesn't she?
Care to site a source?
We just had a debate here if the water company should stop adding to the flouride. There was no mention of that for the people that wanted to get rid of it. All they could come up with was 'it might have a very small chance of causing some easily defeated form of cancer.'
Ya, I knew there was one more, but couldn't remember it. Oh well.
And as everyone knows, the snakes will die out when winter sets in. Problem solved.
Who said?
The post to which I replied. 'Its the same principal as drug dealers' bit. Except that software is not addicting, so that analogy falls apart.
They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.
That's correct. Bill Gates, about Microsoft's software.
I'll assume the first sentence is a quote which you're attributing to Bill Gates. You seem to be confused about fact and fantasy. What Bill said is what he would like to happen. That doesn't mean its what will happen. Unfortunatly he also fails to reconize that software is not an adictive substance. And lucky for him, because if Windows was as addictive as cocain, it would be declared a controlled substance.
OK that's what we try to do, but when you start having a whole generation of teachers breastfed by microsoft, they already dunno the difference
The blame still falls on the teachers. No one is forced to use MS software. I'm willing to bet the teachers that can teach more than one spreadsheet or word processor also wanted more money, which is why your district chose them and not the other.
I'm starting to get the feeling you'd blame MS for a swarm of locus too.
Microsoft offered $30 Million in *SOFTWARE* license. That's not money. That's advertising. It's the same principle as drug dealers on the corner of the street offering free shots. Once the kids are hooked, they have nowhere else to go.
Yes, because we all know that MS software is as addictive as cocain. Wait, its not, and you can learn how to use non-MS software even after you've used MS software.
Also, lets ignore the fact that its $30 million the school doesn't have to spend now, and that MS Office, for better or worse, is likely what these kids will be using at a real job.
The schools can keep their $30 Million in the pocket when they use Open Source software just as well. The difference being that in a year from now they can get the next version for free too...
And they'll have no support options either. Who will they call when the software needs maintence? Or when they want to apply the next version? Also, lets show the kids something they'll never see at an actual job or even at home, if they aren't running Linux there.
And having kids with the knowledge that nothing exists in this world except M$ products
Ya, ok, no one can possibly learn of an alterntive if thats whats used in schools. Please, give me a break.
it's this way all over the world, here in Egypt M$ subsidizes school software to the extent that it offers windows+office packages in the equivalent of less than $3 to students, and in the end we get students who don't know what's a spreadsheet or word processor, they only know Excel and Word etc..
That's a failing of your school. It takes one, 30 seconds to explain what a spreedsheet in general is? That Word is just one of many word processors?
Yet even in the US I recently read on a republican blogger's page someone comparing emacs (she called it emac) with M$ Word and dubbing emacs of being a word processor of lesser quality.
Whats your point? Emacs IS of lesser quality, if you're doing word processing. Word processing != editing a text file.
Well, our CIO's a gamer, and thinks it's amusing that his home rig and our department servrs are the same; so yes, our Windows business systems are indeed running a bunch of crap that you should only find on home computers. Yes, some of our desktops are media centers, and yes, I expect him to be installing Premium on at least his and his buddies's machines.
Well, your CIO is an idiot. Your company is not the norm though.
We might be a bit extreme in this; but I bet there are a lot of Windows shops that have stuff like Solitare and Minesweeper and Media Player on allegedly "business" computers. IMHO they shouldn't be allowed to bundle this crap that has no place in a business anyway; but they do, so yes, indeed all our "business windows" computers really are running a bunch of non-business software thanks to Microsoft.
There's a pretty big leap between Solitary and Aero Glass. Media player can't just be dismissed as a non-business app. When I did web applications, we did have requirements that some of the sites would feature streaming and / or downloadable video. So making sure the movies played was an important part of that. Four games and a media player does not consititute loading the OS with 'a bunch of non-business software.' Oh, and you can un-install the games, its not though. So if your company has PCs with games, well, that's your companies fault.
More logically, business servers shouldn't even have a graphics card and sound system at all
No graphics card? Bull. Lets try to see you figure out what's wrong with a server if you can't connect via remote desktop. It happens.
As for sound; I don't think i've ever had any computer where the sound system was the culprate. There's also an easy solution; disable the on-board sound in the BIOS. Problem solved.
I think it's very fair to say that *ALL* Windows computers are really home-gaming boxes (not just Vista Premium) and it's only marketing spin that gets them anywhere in teh server room; and games that get them anywhere in the workplace past the secretary's machine.
I see, you just hate Microsoft. Its funny, because many large businesses use nothing but Microsoft, and they seem to be chugging along quite fine. Stop blaming MS because you have an unjustified hatred of them, and / or don't want to, or are too lazy to, learn how to properly administer them.
You do realize that Premium is targeted SOLEY at home users, and there's a seperate line of Vista OSes for business, right?
The features and technical merits were *never* the reason any business uses Microsoft products.
Wow, what a load of bullshit. My previous employer picked MS products for exactly that reason when they were planning if they should get the lastest Novell network servers. They chose MS instead.
Because Microsoft is offering free tech support and a nice discount if we get 1 in 5 PCs on Vista within 6 months of its release.
That still doesn't answer the question of why Vista Premium. From what you've said, the business versions would qualify as well.
Since Premium is targeted at home users, there is no reason for a business to need it.