I remember being in school very well even though it has been a few years. I had several incidents with teachers that involved a principle or counsler telling me that I "had" to respect my teachers. I will tell you the same thing I told them. I will respect anyone that respects me! I was able to figure this out in sixth grade. I am quite confident that majority of today's youth have the same capability. I had a problem with a school teacher just a few months ago because she felt that everyone should automatically respect her, and that she had to be right about everything because she was a teacher, and that she didn't have an obligation to respect anyone else. That was how she treated her students, and she was unable to change her attitude when she had to deal with adults. If the teachers today can't even respect an adult not associated with the capacity as a teacher, and personal history reveals that the teachers that had problems with children respecting them were the ones that couldn't respect the children, why would I assume that that kids should automatically show respect for their teachers?
It appears that you are trying to install FOSS in order to get around over-burdening licensing requirements. Let me assure you that the new Microsoft Genuine Advantage will keep track of your software licenses for you so that you don't have to keep track of all the Product Keys and authentication hologram stickers, that the court has upheld doesn't prove you have a valid license anyway. In up and coming versions of Microsoft Genuine Advatage, we will also also scan your computer for any FOSS that you may have inadvertently installed so that you can pay for the proper "patent licenses" on those other programs.
The books of the bible are one of the few text around that just happen to be older than Mickey Mouse(tm-Disney). Most newer religions still have the protection of copyright. If you don't think that at least some Christians would like to keep people from quoting the bible except in preapproved context, then do a quick search in how long it took for the bible to be translated from Hebrew and Greek so that the masses were even able to read it.
And the big difference is.... da dum... a peace sign. Thank goodness that the university is protecting are wonderfull children from all those hippy pirates. And she was directing children to her website to, and as proof they have a post directly from her saying.. she thinks some of her students might be reading her post and that is OK because she has nothing to hide. I guess that using the same logic that drinking from a cup while 25 is promoting underage drinking, that actknowleging a suspicion that a student might be reading your website means that you "directed" them to it. Afterall, these are students, and no student has every been smart enough or curious enough to type their teachers name in google to see what might pop up, so she must have been the one to make them do it. I feel so safer knowing that they have protected all the innocent minds.
I don't have a link, and it has been a while, but when I saw the picture, there was nothing in the photo itself to indicate there was any alcohol. The picture was titled "Druken Pirate" and had a picture of her in a pirate costume drinking from a plastic tumbler. That is why this case is making the news. She was denied her credentials because of promoting "underage drinking" and she was of legal age, and no definitive proof as to wether the "drinking" was beer, root beer, or even water.
The entire discussion is about people having their phone shut off because emergency services will not be able to reach them in an emergency. That is the main reason I have a cell phone instead of a land line. A land line will only allow me to contact emergecy services if I am in the house withing a couple feet of the phone. I tend to be a loner, and do a lot of work around the house or travel alone. If I have an accident with a chainsaw, and am unable to walk into the house - I can still use a cell phone. If I am on the road and lose a water pump, I can still call a tow truck. If something happens that I am unconscious I am out of luck, but preparing for an emergency means looking at the odds, consequences, and cost of a resolution.
If there is an accident, I place the odds of not being able to get to a land line at a little over 50/50 from my own past experience, the effect of not being able to reach the phone range from being stuck in severe weather to bleeding to death, and the cost of a phone is about $20 more than a landline in my area. I place the odds of being knocked unconscious at about 1/99, the consequences are probably much more severe, but the cost of prevention is to hire someone to watch me and carry a cell phone when I am doing something that might warrent this. At homne, the low odds do not justify the extra cost, at work where I have extra people, that is exactly what I do.
I am not so self important that I need everyone to reach me, and dont' answer the phone 90% of the time, I am so self important that I need to be able to reach other people if I am the one that needs help.
I think you have missed the point about damages completely. I want ACTUAL damages. How else can I convey that this does not mean punishing someone for something they MIGHT have done. I am assuming that they did not go to illegal sites because they were not convicted of going to illegal sites. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Your whole point of damages is that they COULD have gone to a site that was illegal, had viruses, or bots installed. The whole point I have been trying to make from the begining is that they are not allowing kids to explore and experiment because they are being punished for what MIGHT have happened.
If I don't like the computer guidelines at work, I can go look for a new job. Schools are public and mandatory. If you have the money you can look into a private school, but that is not an option for most people. If I did something that was against the computer policies at work, I would be talked to by a supervisor, not fired on the spot. If I had gone to sites that were illegal, then I would be fired on the spot, but I am confident they will have evidence to back up their claim.
I have dealt with too many school officials that think whatever they say is the word of god. Most of the time it is to get them out of doing there job, and then passed off as being "for the children." I have had one school offical tell me that the Constitution does not apply on school grounds, because they have to do anything they can to protect the children, and this was a discussion about the parents rights when on school property. Rules can be a good thing, but blind obediance is not. Due to the severe and quick punishment, it looks like these children were punished for questioning authority and making the administration look bad, using the pretext of "look what COULD have happened to our computers" Maybe they should have just asked the kids how they got around it so they could patch the hole. There is a compromise between letting children explore, and this no-tolerance "you can't screw up so tow the line" BS that most schools have now. If the punishment would fit the offense, it could be educational, but every principle I have had to deal with in the last several years wants to make an example of anyone that questions his/her authority. Send the kids to a detention where they write out the computer policy. Then you haven't squashed any attempts to experiment or "buck the system", but at the same time you can reinforce that there are consequences for your action. Even your own first instinct was to label these kids as "terrorist" (I am pretty sure that hijacking a bus would qualify under the current definition). If instead we treat them as bright young kids that managed to outsmart the people that were in charge of protecting them from the bid bad internet, maybe the good qualities can be brought out, while also teaching them about when certain actions are appropriate
P.S. -- Thank you for a post that had some thought and logic behind it, It makes it much easier to see your points, and wether I agree or disagree, it gives room for further thought.
And how do the "experts" that train them learn. At some point education has to evolve from experimentation. There is no magical text that just has the information. I will consede that having a formal education can always teach you more, but most people that have the mindset to work with computers, this is not the optimal learning mode. It is a good way to expand your base of knowledge. I take offense in the fact that you imply no one can become an expert by being self taught. I tend to put myself around people that have done just that. Many of these people are considered experts in their fields, and not just computers. I have seen these people run circles around people with PHDs in their field because they had the experience instead of just the book knowledge. With your attitude then Microsoft and Apple would have never been because there was no one to learn from. There was no formal training on how to write a programming language for a low power computer at the time.
There are a lot of people that can learn on their own, there are a lot of people that can't. If you restrict learning to only the latter, you will have weakened the creative base for those fields. The people that will come up with the new ideas will definately be in the first group.
Buying beer with a fake ID would be the equivilent of going to an illegal site, if that was so, then why were they suspended for violating a firewall, and not suspended for going to an illegal or adult only site. Please explain by what logic the "bus was hijacked" Since the internet is designed to change its route to go anywhere it needs by design I feel that once again your are not making an anaolgy by comparing things that are similar, but are trying to argue a point by comparing it with something that is violent and illegal just to make it sound bad.
I have made the point several times that students should be punished for damages they actually do. If a student dissolves a table in chemistry lab, they should be punished. If the student leaves a chemical on the table that could dissolve the table if the bottle it was in broke or tipped over they should not. When you steal, you have relieved someone else of the use of there property, the damages are the cost of that property, if you bully someone, then you have caused damages to the person that was bullied (either physically or emotionally). If you wish to compare to those types of activities, please explain the actual damages that were created by going around the firewall
If you care to discuss this further, would you please use some logic in why you keep associating the act of going to a legal website with highjacking, threatening, stealing and all the other Bad Things(tm) that you would like to compare this to just to make it a Bad Thing also.
Who's laws are they violating? This would even be legal in the US. This is a state owned facility, and there are clauses in US law that make the goverment exempt from copyright and patent violations. That is why there was the big deal about all the blackberries, except for the ones used by goverment officials, would have been shut down. If Disney is going to milk the law for every penny it is worth and have the goverment make new laws when they deem necessary, why can't another country milk the laws in their own country? As a US citizen, I think that our IP laws have gone way overboard in protecting big bussiness. Why do most US citizens think we have the inherent right to tell the people in other countries what their laws should be? That doesn't make what China is doing right, but legal. If Disney wants to do what is legal instead of what is right (Not minipulating copyright law just to protect your bottom line) then they should expect the same from others.
Is there anyone else on slashdot that thinks it is a lot easier to learn about computers by experimenting with computers instead of going to a specialized school to learn how to use computers "safely", or am I just a freak that picked up on computers by beating the odds?
As for the idea of them violating my idea of what a computer should be used for... I just think the computer should be used. Anything that gets someone to use a computer for more than checking email or posting on a journal is even better, and a good thing for teaching about a computer. If they have to actually learn how a network behaves to post on myspace, then myspace has actually done something usefull. What does suspending a kid from school for going around a poorly implimented network teach a kid other than to step in line and do exactly what he is told? If all you learn on a computer is what they teach in class, you will never be able to understand how a computer works, only how to do the exact thing they told you the way they told you.
In your analogy, who is the bus driver? And what manners were violated? I will assume that the "good behaviour" was not listening to the school principle. Lets instead compare your bus to the computer network, and the website visited to a bus stop. Now instead of pushing the bus driver out of the bus, we will compare the bus driver to the principle by telling you that you are only allowed to stop at certain bus stops for your own good. Now you find a way to sneak off of the bus to get at the stop that you really wanted to, but you are told that what you did was wrong, because there are Bad Things(tm) at the bus station you wanted to go to, and that you are not allowed to ride public transportation anymore.
And what was the purpose of those computers? If those computers were paid for with my tax dollars for the purpose of educating the younger generation, then they should be used as such. Learning about security is a very good use for those computers. If they were the computers bought for administration use, then they are the computer of the person doing the administration. If it was purchased for the students, then it is for the students. I am tired of hearing everone reply with, "...but it is not your (copyrighted material, data lines for the ISP, work at computer, etc)", some of the time they have a point. This is not one of those times, the school did not go out and work for these computers, they were paid for by the citizens, yet the school principle has the sole discretion to punish people for not using them in the maner that he deems best? I understand that going to some sites can break a computer system, but that is when you punish someone for breaking the computer system. With this current attitude of you can't do anything that might/could cause harm or worse a distraction, instead of causing harm. It will be amazing if anyone growning can solve problems on their own without having a cheat sheet and practice test on exactly what the problem was going to be before it happens.
In the spirit of Gitmo, I suggest that we redefine "thought crime" to mean: People we thought might have been able to commit the crime. Since it would put an undo burden on the legal system to attempt to prove that someone actual thought that about the enemy, we should forgo any requirement for evidence, and the tribunal should accept the word of any goverment enforcement officer when they state that they have had those thoughts about the enemy.
I would personally avoid electrician unless you are sure that is what you want to do with your life. My father was an electrician, and being into electronics I made sure to learn the electrical trade as a backup, and it saved me when things got tough, but no longer. Having a very strong electronic and physics background, I can run circles around a lot of the newer electrical engineers, but they have increased the license requirements in my state to levels where I can't work construction again. It is no longer up to the employer to determine your skill level, and your skill level is based solely on the number of DOCUMENTED hours that you have worked under a licensed electrician. Tracing back all the different companies I worked under proved impossible. A lot of construction is short term projects for electricians. Talking to other people, it is getting the same in a lot of states. I have factory certificates that let me completely rebuild 480V electronic motor controls, have wired 2300V gear and motors, and have 10 years of electrical experience, but I am legally not allowed to wire anything in my own house because of the new laws. If I got a job, it would have to be as a helper. I could make better money working a low level retail job with no experience and not being in the weather.
I know that the people working on septic systems in the area have the same problem, you have to have several years of documented work under someone elses license, or you can't even touch your own system. So, I would assume that plumbing is headed the same direction. I understand that it is a good idea to make people get licenses to make sure they know what they are doing, but I think it is a bad idea to assume that someone doesn't know anything, just because they didn't go through an official apprentice program. If you leave a licensed trade for a little while, there is a good chance that you will miss an update to the license requirement and the associated grandfather clause, and never catch back up. Stick with mechanic, welder, or anything that you can get certified but don't have to be licensed and you will have a lot more options in the future.
everything else is supose to be voluntary, but with the current method of doing things... it is not!
Until 1972 SS cards specifically stated "Not for Identification", While the law does not prohibit using it for ID by non-goverment agencies, the law does specify when a social security number is required.
That is what I meant by "and set provisions where someone can request a new card and private key if it is compromised." What do you do if you lose your drivers license... you go get a new one. Just make sure that people are issued a new private key if the old one is lost or compromised.
One of my points was to make it an ID number NOT a tracking number. Enforce the existing laws so that they can't use the SSN by linking back to it. Part of making the plan work is that you have a different number for each company, so that they can't create a central database, which makes the data less valuable to people that would consider stealing it.
One of the biggest problems with identity theft is that SSN were not intened to be used for identification purposes. My Social Security card clearly states that it is for Tax and social security purposes only - not for identification. Yet every organization out there wants to use your SSN for an ID. It use to be my student number, my health care number, and I can't recall the last time I needed to access banking information that I wasn't asked for the last 4 digit to "VERIFY MY ID" The people that set up Social security numbers knew that using it for ID would be bad. Try refusing to give your SSN. Unless you are independently wealthy, that means no job, no bank account, no phone, no Drviers license, no house, no car, and no insurance. What I want is for them to enforce the laws that we have. If we must have a new law, make it a criminal offense to ask someone for their social security number unless they must file a tax in that person's name, and also make it a criminal offense to use the social security number for any purpose other than filing that tax form. The main problem is that since the Social security office doesn't recognize that a social security number is an ID, having your ID stolen is not a valid reason to get a new number. The social security office recomends that you move to a new country and start over, and other countries actually have fleeing the US for identity theft as one of the reasons to seek relocation into their country
If they absolutly need a national means of identifying people, then it needs to be in a secure manor. My suggestion is to issue everyone an electronic ID card. With all the extra "security" that goes into an id they can afford a small dedicated computer the size of a credit card calculator that only gives a secure ID number. When someone needs to verify your ID, they must request a key from the goverment, similar to a tax ID, but it is the public key for an encryption. They give you their public key, you enter it into your computer wich has your private key, it generates a number, the company sends that number to a goverment computer, it returns the critical information for the person involved. Name and Birthday. If they require more information, they must fill out the goverment forms explaining what information they need, and why; which becomes public record. Set it up so that your computer tells you what the company is, and what information they will be given. Now they have a secure means of identifing you, and you can verify who is requesting the information, and the ID number you give them is only good for that company. They can't use the data to request a new credit card, because the credit card company would be given a different number based on their public key. Set a password on the computer so that it can't be used if stolen, and set provisions where someone can request a new card and private key if it is compromised.
though tap water or natural bodies of water are more suited to potentially hazardous, from my experience distilled or demineralized is more common in industrial uses. I was attempting to list "common chemicals" that were heavily used in industry.
"Long-used but potentially dangerous industrial chemicals" could also apply to distilled or demineralized water, Nitrogen, Oxygen, soap, concrete, plastics, metal, etc...
Almost all chemicals are created or have industrial uses, and all chemicals are dangerous if not used correctly.
Please let me take a moment of your time to explain the difference between expressing how one feels, and putting someone in jail. Emailing someone to complain about the way that they have handled a problem is considered the proper way to handle things in a democracy. A principle of a public school is a represenative of the school and its policies. The principle is given an extrodinary amount of power over the turnout of the next generation. That is why their emails are made public. If the person feels that they have done nothing wrong, the can ignore the emails. If they care to defend themselves, they can hit reply.
If however you are put in jail for a crime that you did not commit based on "evidence" that was not fully investigated, and denied your right of innocent until proven guilty, it violates your constitutional rights. While sending emails could be considered harrassment if done excessively, by giving false information as to the origin of the email, or including threats. Putting someone in jail just does not compare. People in public offices can be convicted if they bread the law, but more importantly, can be removed from office if they go against public wishes. These wishes need to be known, and I think that sending an email is a good means to that end.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember being in school very well even though it has been a few years. I had several incidents with teachers that involved a principle or counsler telling me that I "had" to respect my teachers. I will tell you the same thing I told them. I will respect anyone that respects me! I was able to figure this out in sixth grade. I am quite confident that majority of today's youth have the same capability. I had a problem with a school teacher just a few months ago because she felt that everyone should automatically respect her, and that she had to be right about everything because she was a teacher, and that she didn't have an obligation to respect anyone else. That was how she treated her students, and she was unable to change her attitude when she had to deal with adults. If the teachers today can't even respect an adult not associated with the capacity as a teacher, and personal history reveals that the teachers that had problems with children respecting them were the ones that couldn't respect the children, why would I assume that that kids should automatically show respect for their teachers?
HI! I'm Clippy;
It appears that you are trying to install FOSS in order to get around over-burdening licensing requirements. Let me assure you that the new Microsoft Genuine Advantage will keep track of your software licenses for you so that you don't have to keep track of all the Product Keys and authentication hologram stickers, that the court has upheld doesn't prove you have a valid license anyway. In up and coming versions of Microsoft Genuine Advatage, we will also also scan your computer for any FOSS that you may have inadvertently installed so that you can pay for the proper "patent licenses" on those other programs.
Do you accept these terms and conditions
[YES] [YES]
The books of the bible are one of the few text around that just happen to be older than Mickey Mouse(tm-Disney). Most newer religions still have the protection of copyright. If you don't think that at least some Christians would like to keep people from quoting the bible except in preapproved context, then do a quick search in how long it took for the bible to be translated from Hebrew and Greek so that the masses were even able to read it.
No one in the administration was smart enough to spell Gestapo correctly.
And the big difference is .... da dum ... a peace sign. Thank goodness that the university is protecting are wonderfull children from all those hippy pirates. And she was directing children to her website to, and as proof they have a post directly from her saying .. she thinks some of her students might be reading her post and that is OK because she has nothing to hide. I guess that using the same logic that drinking from a cup while 25 is promoting underage drinking, that actknowleging a suspicion that a student might be reading your website means that you "directed" them to it. Afterall, these are students, and no student has every been smart enough or curious enough to type their teachers name in google to see what might pop up, so she must have been the one to make them do it. I feel so safer knowing that they have protected all the innocent minds.
I don't have a link, and it has been a while, but when I saw the picture, there was nothing in the photo itself to indicate there was any alcohol. The picture was titled "Druken Pirate" and had a picture of her in a pirate costume drinking from a plastic tumbler. That is why this case is making the news. She was denied her credentials because of promoting "underage drinking" and she was of legal age, and no definitive proof as to wether the "drinking" was beer, root beer, or even water.
The entire discussion is about people having their phone shut off because emergency services will not be able to reach them in an emergency. That is the main reason I have a cell phone instead of a land line. A land line will only allow me to contact emergecy services if I am in the house withing a couple feet of the phone. I tend to be a loner, and do a lot of work around the house or travel alone. If I have an accident with a chainsaw, and am unable to walk into the house - I can still use a cell phone. If I am on the road and lose a water pump, I can still call a tow truck. If something happens that I am unconscious I am out of luck, but preparing for an emergency means looking at the odds, consequences, and cost of a resolution.
If there is an accident, I place the odds of not being able to get to a land line at a little over 50/50 from my own past experience, the effect of not being able to reach the phone range from being stuck in severe weather to bleeding to death, and the cost of a phone is about $20 more than a landline in my area. I place the odds of being knocked unconscious at about 1/99, the consequences are probably much more severe, but the cost of prevention is to hire someone to watch me and carry a cell phone when I am doing something that might warrent this. At homne, the low odds do not justify the extra cost, at work where I have extra people, that is exactly what I do.
I am not so self important that I need everyone to reach me, and dont' answer the phone 90% of the time, I am so self important that I need to be able to reach other people if I am the one that needs help.
I think you have missed the point about damages completely. I want ACTUAL damages. How else can I convey that this does not mean punishing someone for something they MIGHT have done. I am assuming that they did not go to illegal sites because they were not convicted of going to illegal sites. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Your whole point of damages is that they COULD have gone to a site that was illegal, had viruses, or bots installed. The whole point I have been trying to make from the begining is that they are not allowing kids to explore and experiment because they are being punished for what MIGHT have happened.
If I don't like the computer guidelines at work, I can go look for a new job. Schools are public and mandatory. If you have the money you can look into a private school, but that is not an option for most people. If I did something that was against the computer policies at work, I would be talked to by a supervisor, not fired on the spot. If I had gone to sites that were illegal, then I would be fired on the spot, but I am confident they will have evidence to back up their claim.
I have dealt with too many school officials that think whatever they say is the word of god. Most of the time it is to get them out of doing there job, and then passed off as being "for the children." I have had one school offical tell me that the Constitution does not apply on school grounds, because they have to do anything they can to protect the children, and this was a discussion about the parents rights when on school property. Rules can be a good thing, but blind obediance is not. Due to the severe and quick punishment, it looks like these children were punished for questioning authority and making the administration look bad, using the pretext of "look what COULD have happened to our computers" Maybe they should have just asked the kids how they got around it so they could patch the hole. There is a compromise between letting children explore, and this no-tolerance "you can't screw up so tow the line" BS that most schools have now. If the punishment would fit the offense, it could be educational, but every principle I have had to deal with in the last several years wants to make an example of anyone that questions his/her authority. Send the kids to a detention where they write out the computer policy. Then you haven't squashed any attempts to experiment or "buck the system", but at the same time you can reinforce that there are consequences for your action. Even your own first instinct was to label these kids as "terrorist" (I am pretty sure that hijacking a bus would qualify under the current definition). If instead we treat them as bright young kids that managed to outsmart the people that were in charge of protecting them from the bid bad internet, maybe the good qualities can be brought out, while also teaching them about when certain actions are appropriate
P.S. -- Thank you for a post that had some thought and logic behind it, It makes it much easier to see your points, and wether I agree or disagree, it gives room for further thought.
And how do the "experts" that train them learn. At some point education has to evolve from experimentation. There is no magical text that just has the information. I will consede that having a formal education can always teach you more, but most people that have the mindset to work with computers, this is not the optimal learning mode. It is a good way to expand your base of knowledge. I take offense in the fact that you imply no one can become an expert by being self taught. I tend to put myself around people that have done just that. Many of these people are considered experts in their fields, and not just computers. I have seen these people run circles around people with PHDs in their field because they had the experience instead of just the book knowledge. With your attitude then Microsoft and Apple would have never been because there was no one to learn from. There was no formal training on how to write a programming language for a low power computer at the time.
There are a lot of people that can learn on their own, there are a lot of people that can't. If you restrict learning to only the latter, you will have weakened the creative base for those fields. The people that will come up with the new ideas will definately be in the first group.
Buying beer with a fake ID would be the equivilent of going to an illegal site, if that was so, then why were they suspended for violating a firewall, and not suspended for going to an illegal or adult only site. Please explain by what logic the "bus was hijacked" Since the internet is designed to change its route to go anywhere it needs by design I feel that once again your are not making an anaolgy by comparing things that are similar, but are trying to argue a point by comparing it with something that is violent and illegal just to make it sound bad.
I have made the point several times that students should be punished for damages they actually do. If a student dissolves a table in chemistry lab, they should be punished. If the student leaves a chemical on the table that could dissolve the table if the bottle it was in broke or tipped over they should not. When you steal, you have relieved someone else of the use of there property, the damages are the cost of that property, if you bully someone, then you have caused damages to the person that was bullied (either physically or emotionally). If you wish to compare to those types of activities, please explain the actual damages that were created by going around the firewall
If you care to discuss this further, would you please use some logic in why you keep associating the act of going to a legal website with highjacking, threatening, stealing and all the other Bad Things(tm) that you would like to compare this to just to make it a Bad Thing also.
Who's laws are they violating? This would even be legal in the US. This is a state owned facility, and there are clauses in US law that make the goverment exempt from copyright and patent violations. That is why there was the big deal about all the blackberries, except for the ones used by goverment officials, would have been shut down. If Disney is going to milk the law for every penny it is worth and have the goverment make new laws when they deem necessary, why can't another country milk the laws in their own country? As a US citizen, I think that our IP laws have gone way overboard in protecting big bussiness. Why do most US citizens think we have the inherent right to tell the people in other countries what their laws should be? That doesn't make what China is doing right, but legal. If Disney wants to do what is legal instead of what is right (Not minipulating copyright law just to protect your bottom line) then they should expect the same from others.
Is there anyone else on slashdot that thinks it is a lot easier to learn about computers by experimenting with computers instead of going to a specialized school to learn how to use computers "safely", or am I just a freak that picked up on computers by beating the odds?
... I just think the computer should be used. Anything that gets someone to use a computer for more than checking email or posting on a journal is even better, and a good thing for teaching about a computer. If they have to actually learn how a network behaves to post on myspace, then myspace has actually done something usefull. What does suspending a kid from school for going around a poorly implimented network teach a kid other than to step in line and do exactly what he is told? If all you learn on a computer is what they teach in class, you will never be able to understand how a computer works, only how to do the exact thing they told you the way they told you.
As for the idea of them violating my idea of what a computer should be used for
In your analogy, who is the bus driver? And what manners were violated? I will assume that the "good behaviour" was not listening to the school principle. Lets instead compare your bus to the computer network, and the website visited to a bus stop. Now instead of pushing the bus driver out of the bus, we will compare the bus driver to the principle by telling you that you are only allowed to stop at certain bus stops for your own good. Now you find a way to sneak off of the bus to get at the stop that you really wanted to, but you are told that what you did was wrong, because there are Bad Things(tm) at the bus station you wanted to go to, and that you are not allowed to ride public transportation anymore.
And what was the purpose of those computers? If those computers were paid for with my tax dollars for the purpose of educating the younger generation, then they should be used as such. Learning about security is a very good use for those computers. If they were the computers bought for administration use, then they are the computer of the person doing the administration. If it was purchased for the students, then it is for the students. I am tired of hearing everone reply with, "...but it is not your (copyrighted material, data lines for the ISP, work at computer, etc)", some of the time they have a point. This is not one of those times, the school did not go out and work for these computers, they were paid for by the citizens, yet the school principle has the sole discretion to punish people for not using them in the maner that he deems best? I understand that going to some sites can break a computer system, but that is when you punish someone for breaking the computer system. With this current attitude of you can't do anything that might/could cause harm or worse a distraction, instead of causing harm. It will be amazing if anyone growning can solve problems on their own without having a cheat sheet and practice test on exactly what the problem was going to be before it happens.
In the spirit of Gitmo, I suggest that we redefine "thought crime" to mean: People we thought might have been able to commit the crime. Since it would put an undo burden on the legal system to attempt to prove that someone actual thought that about the enemy, we should forgo any requirement for evidence, and the tribunal should accept the word of any goverment enforcement officer when they state that they have had those thoughts about the enemy.
I would personally avoid electrician unless you are sure that is what you want to do with your life. My father was an electrician, and being into electronics I made sure to learn the electrical trade as a backup, and it saved me when things got tough, but no longer. Having a very strong electronic and physics background, I can run circles around a lot of the newer electrical engineers, but they have increased the license requirements in my state to levels where I can't work construction again. It is no longer up to the employer to determine your skill level, and your skill level is based solely on the number of DOCUMENTED hours that you have worked under a licensed electrician. Tracing back all the different companies I worked under proved impossible. A lot of construction is short term projects for electricians. Talking to other people, it is getting the same in a lot of states. I have factory certificates that let me completely rebuild 480V electronic motor controls, have wired 2300V gear and motors, and have 10 years of electrical experience, but I am legally not allowed to wire anything in my own house because of the new laws. If I got a job, it would have to be as a helper. I could make better money working a low level retail job with no experience and not being in the weather.
I know that the people working on septic systems in the area have the same problem, you have to have several years of documented work under someone elses license, or you can't even touch your own system. So, I would assume that plumbing is headed the same direction. I understand that it is a good idea to make people get licenses to make sure they know what they are doing, but I think it is a bad idea to assume that someone doesn't know anything, just because they didn't go through an official apprentice program. If you leave a licensed trade for a little while, there is a good chance that you will miss an update to the license requirement and the associated grandfather clause, and never catch back up. Stick with mechanic, welder, or anything that you can get certified but don't have to be licensed and you will have a lot more options in the future.
If Bush wins the French Presidency, don't even bother trying to get a recount.
The only word processor they could find that didn't have tabs, and would have portrayed them as supporting willful infringement by using it was vi.
The law states what the goverment can use your social security for:
n duser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=78&p_created=955482891&p _sid=jw34mSzi&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcm NoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9 OSZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9MTYsMzUmcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0yLj M1JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9w YWdlPTE*&p_li=&p_topview=1
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/e
everything else is supose to be voluntary, but with the current method of doing things... it is not!
Until 1972 SS cards specifically stated "Not for Identification", While the law does not prohibit using it for ID by non-goverment agencies, the law does specify when a social security number is required.
That is what I meant by "and set provisions where someone can request a new card and private key if it is compromised." What do you do if you lose your drivers license ... you go get a new one. Just make sure that people are issued a new private key if the old one is lost or compromised.
One of my points was to make it an ID number NOT a tracking number. Enforce the existing laws so that they can't use the SSN by linking back to it. Part of making the plan work is that you have a different number for each company, so that they can't create a central database, which makes the data less valuable to people that would consider stealing it.
One of the biggest problems with identity theft is that SSN were not intened to be used for identification purposes. My Social Security card clearly states that it is for Tax and social security purposes only - not for identification. Yet every organization out there wants to use your SSN for an ID. It use to be my student number, my health care number, and I can't recall the last time I needed to access banking information that I wasn't asked for the last 4 digit to "VERIFY MY ID" The people that set up Social security numbers knew that using it for ID would be bad. Try refusing to give your SSN. Unless you are independently wealthy, that means no job, no bank account, no phone, no Drviers license, no house, no car, and no insurance. What I want is for them to enforce the laws that we have. If we must have a new law, make it a criminal offense to ask someone for their social security number unless they must file a tax in that person's name, and also make it a criminal offense to use the social security number for any purpose other than filing that tax form. The main problem is that since the Social security office doesn't recognize that a social security number is an ID, having your ID stolen is not a valid reason to get a new number. The social security office recomends that you move to a new country and start over, and other countries actually have fleeing the US for identity theft as one of the reasons to seek relocation into their country
If they absolutly need a national means of identifying people, then it needs to be in a secure manor. My suggestion is to issue everyone an electronic ID card. With all the extra "security" that goes into an id they can afford a small dedicated computer the size of a credit card calculator that only gives a secure ID number. When someone needs to verify your ID, they must request a key from the goverment, similar to a tax ID, but it is the public key for an encryption. They give you their public key, you enter it into your computer wich has your private key, it generates a number, the company sends that number to a goverment computer, it returns the critical information for the person involved. Name and Birthday. If they require more information, they must fill out the goverment forms explaining what information they need, and why; which becomes public record. Set it up so that your computer tells you what the company is, and what information they will be given. Now they have a secure means of identifing you, and you can verify who is requesting the information, and the ID number you give them is only good for that company. They can't use the data to request a new credit card, because the credit card company would be given a different number based on their public key. Set a password on the computer so that it can't be used if stolen, and set provisions where someone can request a new card and private key if it is compromised.
though tap water or natural bodies of water are more suited to potentially hazardous, from my experience distilled or demineralized is more common in industrial uses. I was attempting to list "common chemicals" that were heavily used in industry.
"Long-used but potentially dangerous industrial chemicals" could also apply to distilled or demineralized water, Nitrogen, Oxygen, soap, concrete, plastics, metal, etc ...
Almost all chemicals are created or have industrial uses, and all chemicals are dangerous if not used correctly.
Please let me take a moment of your time to explain the difference between expressing how one feels, and putting someone in jail. Emailing someone to complain about the way that they have handled a problem is considered the proper way to handle things in a democracy. A principle of a public school is a represenative of the school and its policies. The principle is given an extrodinary amount of power over the turnout of the next generation. That is why their emails are made public. If the person feels that they have done nothing wrong, the can ignore the emails. If they care to defend themselves, they can hit reply.
If however you are put in jail for a crime that you did not commit based on "evidence" that was not fully investigated, and denied your right of innocent until proven guilty, it violates your constitutional rights. While sending emails could be considered harrassment if done excessively, by giving false information as to the origin of the email, or including threats. Putting someone in jail just does not compare. People in public offices can be convicted if they bread the law, but more importantly, can be removed from office if they go against public wishes. These wishes need to be known, and I think that sending an email is a good means to that end.