That's what people don't get. When people think of 'home-schooled' children, they don't think of kids who can't read or write. They MAY think of some religious nut, but the expectation is that they are very well educated. When my son started reading at 2, I realized that he would need to be home schooled. Every single person that has tried to convince me that I should send him to public school has argued that he should go to learn to socialize. Not one has argued that a public school is a great way to learn the three Rs.
When you define reputable scientist as someone who agrees with your position, then sure they all are in agreement. Of course, I haven't met any 'scientist' that say the earth is doomed. I'm not saying they don't exists. I'm saying that I have not spoken to any. I have met a lot of people who try to brow beat me into believing in their story. Look at you. You too resort to insults to make your point. The fact is that both sides of the debate have politicized the issue to the point that it is impossible for anyone who has not personally done the climate research to come to a reasonable conclusion. Why would a rational person just take your word for it that 'every reputable scientist is practically screaming from the rooftops'.
Heck, even good advice like, telling them to distance themselves from obvious charlatans like Al Gore, gets accusations of destroying the world with your SUV. This kind of behavior smacks of people who have to argue the emotion rather than the facts.
Yes, I am a parent. I just realize that children being molested by strangers is extremely low. I realize that screwing my kid over when he becomes an adult in an attempt to protect him from an extremely unlikely event as a child, isn't in his best interest. Yes, things like Megan's Law are screwing adults over. Not just the ones who have done something seriously wrong. Every single one of us. They are specifically designed to encourage vigilante behavior. Vigilantes have this annoying habit of not getting all of the facts, and acting on emotion rather than reason.
Given that the kid has already been subject to the far more likely act of abuse by a family member, it makes no sense that you would be worried about the unlikely event of it happening by a stranger. I assume that you don't leave the child alone with any family members now right?
I assume that you also support public lists for every crime also, right? I mean, you don't want your kid to have to go through an assault, be murdered, or even be subject to fraud, do you?
Yes, you did say that you would lock a kid up. You said to physically drag them to their room. When the child refuses to stay there, the only way to keep them their is to lock the door, or even more abusively, hold them down. When that doesn't work the first time, you will do it again, and again. It is highly abusive.
As for your 14 year old, if 14 year olds could be reasoned with, and they would just obey the rules. This line of reasoning would also apply to 15, 17, 25, and 40 year olds. Given that, the only logical conclusion to your argument is that all police forces should be immediately disbanded. This whole idea that we can stop people from misbehaving by just asking them not to is what is pathetic. Never in history has any society successfully rid itself of people behaving badly without the threat of force, and that includes this one. It is really scary how many people think that just because they don't leave marks, their behavior is not abusing their kids.
"You should be able to teach a kid what is unacceptable by showing it that their actions have consequences."
That is exactly what a spanking (when appropriatly administered) is intended to do.
"If you are unable to eat like a normal human being, you may not be invited to sit at the table with the others. If you are unable to handle a item with care, you may not be allowed to borrow that item at all. It's not that hard."
And what do you do when the kid figures out that he can just get up to the table anyways? What do you do when the kid just takes the item whether you give them permission or not?
You have already condoned assault and battery of children. It seems that calling a spanking 'abuse' is simply saying that your shade of gray is better than someone else's.
"Punishment ain't the only way to get that across though. (though an acceptable one, and in some cases the best one, I just don't think the punishment needs to be physical pain)"
Punishment isn't the only way, but is often the safest and most effective way. My child has to date (3 years old, was 1 at the time) received a 'spanking' for only one offense. That was when he was trying to play with a light socket. This happened twice, and after a slap on the hand that was more bark than bite (think dog with a newspaper), and letting him cry it out after with no comforting, followed by a stern explanation on why it happened, he has never gone back to trying to play with outlets. We have no need to worry about child safety plugs, as it is now ingrained into him that the drawbacks of reaching for an outlet is not worth the benefits. Of course, I could have tried reasoning with him at one, and spent weeks or months, trying to convince him that he shouldn't play with outlets. Instead, I immediately associated electrical outlets with being uncomfortable, and protected him from a life threatening activity. I would say that any parents that would do less, and not protect their children from life threatening activities are abusive.
Now, the fact that I have physically punished him, he knows it is not an empty threat. When I tell him not to run into the street, he knows and understands that he will not like the consequences of disobeying. It is a little like the conversation I had with him concerning his immunizations. I explained to him that he was going to go get a little owie now so that he wouldn't get a big owie later.
What the psychologically abusive parents don't seem to get is that causing psychological pain is not somehow more noble and kinder than making someone physically uncomfortable. This modern idea that if you don't leave physical marks, you are not doing harm is down right scary.
The psychologically abusive parents also don't seem to want to accept that different children respond to different things. There are some children that you could wale on all day long, and it would not modify their behavior at all. In fact it might make them more defiant, as they would know th
So, I have to wonder... Can this woman detect when a cordless phone is turned on? It seems that if one was going to worry about 2.4G radio waves in the home, one would look at all the 2.4GHz cordless phones that are held up to your head before you would worry about the wifi that is sitting several feet or yards away.
Well, that is the point of the sex offender lists. Whether you agree with them or not, it is plainly obvious that the lists were designed to help generate vigilante behavior.
Your comment amounts to an oxymoron. Given that the sole purpose of the police is to be the branch of government that commits violence on behalf of the people, by your definition, their very existence is a failure. And the police temporarily leaving a city for a week due to severe weather, which effectively limits other peoples movements, doesn't count as a city functioning without police.
Hmmm... Yet you don't feel that a parent using force. Even the kind that causes pain to make them comply, yet it is ok for the police. Besides, the police will try the 'drag you away without hurting you'. Only if they massively overpower you. As soon as you come even close to being able to defy their ability to just drag you off, they will shoot you. They will beat you down with sticks, and the public will support their behavior.
Of course your idea that locking a kid in a room for days on end is far more abusive than just giving them a spanking. You use the word abuse, but I don't think that you really know what the word means. A spanking when appropriately administered will often get the point across with far less harm than wrestling down your child on a daily basis.
What people don't seem to get is that there is one single valid purpose to punishing a child. That is to associate a particular activity with being uncomfortable. You can make your child physically uncomfortable, or you can make your child emotionally uncomfortable to punish them. Taken too far, you are either physically abusing your child, or emotionally abusing your child.
Fact is, parents do *NOT* hold all of the cards. The state increasingly gets involved in more and more of families business. Either way, if they are unable to make their child understand that something is unacceptable without resorting to emotional abuse, I pity them.
Of course there is the whole other group that doesn't punish at all. This is the most abusive thing you can do to a child.
I believe that physical abuse by the police department should be used only as a last resort when all other routes have failed, or when violence is used against them.
The only reason that force is not required EVERY time is that the people the police are dealing with know that the police can and will use force if you don't comply. We know this because the police have used force, and the courts have regularly ruled that this is acceptable. How many people do you think would pull over for a cop if they were limited to what the 'spanking is assault' crowd want parents limited to? How many people do you think would pull over if the worst the law had to dish out was a REQUEST that you do what they say? The debate isn't whether violence should be use all the time or not. The debate is whether violence should ever be used.
Ancient Rome
I was referring to a modern city, and really one in the US, but lets talk about Rome. I can't claim to be an expert on Rome, so I will ask you. What did a Roman family do when a group of ruffians broke into their home and proceeded to take all of their gold and rape the women? How did they stop this behavior without violence on their part, or on their behalf?
[sarcasm]Correct. Instead, we should do exactly like we do to adults when they won't obey the rules. We should call the police, and have them assault the child. Drag them off to jail, and let them be analy raped so that they can learn to never do those things again.[/sarcasm]
I don't know why people seem to think that 8 year olds are easier to reason with, and that they are somehow more likely to understand the consequences of their actions. The fact is, every city in the country hires people to be there to commit acts of violence against those who will not obey the rules. We like to hope that it wont come to that, and for most of us it never does, but in the end, the police forces are a necessary evil for keeping those who would refuse to obey the rules from running rampant. As a society, we have traditionally placed the responsibility of being police, judge, jury, and 'executioner' for children, on their parents.
Anyone that believes spanking is inherently wrong, and yet supports having a police department is simply a hypocrite. When a city successfully runs with no law enforcement, I will consider reevaluating this stance.
Do YOU believe a city can run with no law enforcement?
"Does this strike anyone as ever so slightly childish?"
Not at all. You see, the Novell/MS deal is technically legal under the GPLv2. It is entirely against the intent of the GPLv2. The GPL3 also does not prevent Novell from distributing GLPv2 software under this deal. Here is the child anecdote for this:
You tell your child that they are not allowed to have any candy before dinner. When you come down stairs 10 minutes later, they are sitting on the couch gorged with cookies, and a big grin on their face. You ask them what the heck they think they are doing, and they point break out a government report that, through convoluteled language shows that 'technically' the government doesn't consider a cookie to be candy. You grudgingly let them get away with this, as they obviously went through a lot of research to find this loophole, and, well, technically they are right. So, the next time you tell them, no candy or cookies.
The difference is that MS is no child when it comes to licensing. They have been trying to beat the world down with it for many years. They no doubt have many very well paid people who spend a lot of time making sure that the company knows how software licensing works. They themselves have been known to alter their license with new terms when they issue a patch, or upgrade. This is no different than MS's stance of, if you want to upgrade to ie7, you have to agree to WGA. If MS wants to license patents to companies that will distribute GPL3 software, then they have to agree to GPL3.
Actually with your example of the RIAA, the problem IS because the government is involved, but only protects one side. If the government was not involved at all, then the P2P networks would drive the price of music distribution down dramatically. Remember, copyright is a government mandated monopoly. So, I would agree that 'free market' is an abused term, but the biggest abuse I see is that people only count government involvement that supports their view.
Hmmm... Thanks for the link. It does appear that windows update does NOT authenticate. Per the link provided:
"This issue occurs because the Windows Update client authenticates with null credentials to the proxy server. If the proxy server does not allow null client requests, the request may be denied."
The way I read that was that the error occurred because the proxy would not allow a null value for the credentials, and that windows update does in fact use null as the value for it's credentials. From what I see, it is a huge security hole, but I have a hard time believing that I would have been the only one to think of this after all of these years. This leads me to think that there is something I am missing. Maybe I will set up a server and redirect the windows update site to it, and see if I can install some other program through it.
Uh, I must be confused about what 'prevailing wage' means. I thought that it meant the market rate. If companies are already required to pay that, and the companies are abusing the system by using old data, they yes, that is where the problem needs to be fixed. I still believe that they should be requried to pay a lot more than the market rate. Not just 'more'.
That is another fine suggestions. My only point is that the excuse for hiring H1Bs is that the company cannot get locals that are qualified. To prevent companies from abusing the system in an attempt to lower wages, we need a way to make H1Bs more expensive than local workers. I would guess that there are many right answers on how to do that.
No, all you would need to do is set up an open wifi access point. You would in essence be the ISP, and you would control the DNS for any system that was getting their DNS server via DHCP. This wouldn't be a way to hack into someones home PC. It would be a way to compromise a system that attached to your open wifi.
Getting users to go through your router and use your DNS isn't the hard part. The only question would be is, does windows update do any kind of authentication that would prevent me impersonating Microsoft's site.
I've always been curious (not enough to do the research I guess) what kind of security the windows update does to prevent someone from using control of DNS and or routers to get windows update to install malware. Given that people often use DNS and routers that the cannot really trust, is there something that prevents a bad guy from just redirecting all traffic that is attempting to hit MS's update site to their their own server that is set up to look like it is MS's update site? Given how many people have their laptops set up to do automatic updates, I would think that it would be easy to just take a loptop to a coffee shop, and watch as other patrons 'update' from your access point.
How about we just require that H1Bs get paid 1.5 to 2 times the prevailing wage. This would stop companies from hiring them to save money over local workers. It would mean that if a company hired them, they really needed them.
Personally, I want to see an all electric vehicle that has a plug in the trunk for plugging in whatever electric generating system I want to use. Whether that be extra batteries because I only drive short distances in the city, a hydrogen internal combustion engine because I know that there are two hydrogen filling station between my house and work, or plain old gasoline because I am driving across country, and want to know I can refuel anywhere.
This would eliminate the need to replace entire cars to upgrade the power source. I would also allow people to change power sources bases on short term changes in fuel supplies and costs.
I would say that the year of Linux has already happened. In March my wife was hosting a play date here for our 3 year old, and when I went out to get coffee from the living room, I walked into a room filled with stay at home moms discussing which ones were running Windows, which ones were running Linux, and which of the two was the best choice for their small children.
The answers that they came up with are totally irrelevant. The very fact that groups of stay at home moms are sitting around even talking about it means that it is officially main stream. A minority no doubt, but mainstream non the less.
Exactly. If AMD can make a faster/cooler processor at 65nm than Intel can at 45nm, AMD is the better processor. This is particularly true for the long run, as Intel is closer to hitting the size wall than AMD is.
The school is lying. It is right their in their own report.
"The children went to sleep and did not discuss it the following morning."
The absurdity of that statement is staggering. They are trying to convince people that in a class of over 60 students, after teachers pulled a 'prank', that not one of these ~60 students said anything about it the next day? Not one of them teased another one about falling for the 'joke'? Really? Not one?
This should send out as much of a warning to parents about the safety of their children as the original incident. This shows pretty clearly that the faculty of this school is more than willing to conspire to cover up criminal acts committed by members of the faculty. That's right. An honest to goodness conspiracy. Reporting a fake shooting threat is no different than reporting a fake bomb threat. Faculty members from this school committed a crime, and they have now committed another crime by trying to cover it up.
When I was just out of high school, there was a Scientology office in my town. They always had a sign out front offering a 'Free Personality Test'. On a lark, a pal and me went in and had our personalities 'tested' just to see what they were hawking. When I was done, they compared the multiple choice questionare to their chart, and drew some lines through it. They explained to me that I was doing fine, and that I was already highly Dyanetic, or whatever they called it. They then thanked me for coming in, and told me to have a nice day.
I have never been quite sure how to take that. Maybe I should have sang them the leader song...Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Leader! Leader! Batman!
Slashdot Mirror
That's what people don't get. When people think of 'home-schooled' children, they don't think of kids who can't read or write. They MAY think of some religious nut, but the expectation is that they are very well educated. When my son started reading at 2, I realized that he would need to be home schooled. Every single person that has tried to convince me that I should send him to public school has argued that he should go to learn to socialize. Not one has argued that a public school is a great way to learn the three Rs.
When you define reputable scientist as someone who agrees with your position, then sure they all are in agreement. Of course, I haven't met any 'scientist' that say the earth is doomed. I'm not saying they don't exists. I'm saying that I have not spoken to any. I have met a lot of people who try to brow beat me into believing in their story. Look at you. You too resort to insults to make your point. The fact is that both sides of the debate have politicized the issue to the point that it is impossible for anyone who has not personally done the climate research to come to a reasonable conclusion. Why would a rational person just take your word for it that 'every reputable scientist is practically screaming from the rooftops'.
Heck, even good advice like, telling them to distance themselves from obvious charlatans like Al Gore, gets accusations of destroying the world with your SUV. This kind of behavior smacks of people who have to argue the emotion rather than the facts.
Yes, I am a parent. I just realize that children being molested by strangers is extremely low. I realize that screwing my kid over when he becomes an adult in an attempt to protect him from an extremely unlikely event as a child, isn't in his best interest. Yes, things like Megan's Law are screwing adults over. Not just the ones who have done something seriously wrong. Every single one of us. They are specifically designed to encourage vigilante behavior. Vigilantes have this annoying habit of not getting all of the facts, and acting on emotion rather than reason.
Given that the kid has already been subject to the far more likely act of abuse by a family member, it makes no sense that you would be worried about the unlikely event of it happening by a stranger. I assume that you don't leave the child alone with any family members now right?
I assume that you also support public lists for every crime also, right? I mean, you don't want your kid to have to go through an assault, be murdered, or even be subject to fraud, do you?
Yes, you did say that you would lock a kid up. You said to physically drag them to their room. When the child refuses to stay there, the only way to keep them their is to lock the door, or even more abusively, hold them down. When that doesn't work the first time, you will do it again, and again. It is highly abusive.
As for your 14 year old, if 14 year olds could be reasoned with, and they would just obey the rules. This line of reasoning would also apply to 15, 17, 25, and 40 year olds. Given that, the only logical conclusion to your argument is that all police forces should be immediately disbanded. This whole idea that we can stop people from misbehaving by just asking them not to is what is pathetic. Never in history has any society successfully rid itself of people behaving badly without the threat of force, and that includes this one. It is really scary how many people think that just because they don't leave marks, their behavior is not abusing their kids.
"You should be able to teach a kid what is unacceptable by showing it that their actions have consequences."
That is exactly what a spanking (when appropriatly administered) is intended to do.
"If you are unable to eat like a normal human being, you may not be invited to sit at the table with the others. If you are unable to handle a item with care, you may not be allowed to borrow that item at all. It's not that hard."
And what do you do when the kid figures out that he can just get up to the table anyways? What do you do when the kid just takes the item whether you give them permission or not?
You have already condoned assault and battery of children. It seems that calling a spanking 'abuse' is simply saying that your shade of gray is better than someone else's.
"Punishment ain't the only way to get that across though. (though an acceptable one, and in some cases the best one, I just don't think the punishment needs to be physical pain)"
Punishment isn't the only way, but is often the safest and most effective way. My child has to date (3 years old, was 1 at the time) received a 'spanking' for only one offense. That was when he was trying to play with a light socket. This happened twice, and after a slap on the hand that was more bark than bite (think dog with a newspaper), and letting him cry it out after with no comforting, followed by a stern explanation on why it happened, he has never gone back to trying to play with outlets. We have no need to worry about child safety plugs, as it is now ingrained into him that the drawbacks of reaching for an outlet is not worth the benefits. Of course, I could have tried reasoning with him at one, and spent weeks or months, trying to convince him that he shouldn't play with outlets. Instead, I immediately associated electrical outlets with being uncomfortable, and protected him from a life threatening activity. I would say that any parents that would do less, and not protect their children from life threatening activities are abusive.
Now, the fact that I have physically punished him, he knows it is not an empty threat. When I tell him not to run into the street, he knows and understands that he will not like the consequences of disobeying. It is a little like the conversation I had with him concerning his immunizations. I explained to him that he was going to go get a little owie now so that he wouldn't get a big owie later.
What the psychologically abusive parents don't seem to get is that causing psychological pain is not somehow more noble and kinder than making someone physically uncomfortable. This modern idea that if you don't leave physical marks, you are not doing harm is down right scary.
The psychologically abusive parents also don't seem to want to accept that different children respond to different things. There are some children that you could wale on all day long, and it would not modify their behavior at all. In fact it might make them more defiant, as they would know th
So, I have to wonder... Can this woman detect when a cordless phone is turned on? It seems that if one was going to worry about 2.4G radio waves in the home, one would look at all the 2.4GHz cordless phones that are held up to your head before you would worry about the wifi that is sitting several feet or yards away.
Well, that is the point of the sex offender lists. Whether you agree with them or not, it is plainly obvious that the lists were designed to help generate vigilante behavior.
Your comment amounts to an oxymoron. Given that the sole purpose of the police is to be the branch of government that commits violence on behalf of the people, by your definition, their very existence is a failure. And the police temporarily leaving a city for a week due to severe weather, which effectively limits other peoples movements, doesn't count as a city functioning without police.
Hmmm... Yet you don't feel that a parent using force. Even the kind that causes pain to make them comply, yet it is ok for the police. Besides, the police will try the 'drag you away without hurting you'. Only if they massively overpower you. As soon as you come even close to being able to defy their ability to just drag you off, they will shoot you. They will beat you down with sticks, and the public will support their behavior.
Of course your idea that locking a kid in a room for days on end is far more abusive than just giving them a spanking. You use the word abuse, but I don't think that you really know what the word means. A spanking when appropriately administered will often get the point across with far less harm than wrestling down your child on a daily basis.
What people don't seem to get is that there is one single valid purpose to punishing a child. That is to associate a particular activity with being uncomfortable. You can make your child physically uncomfortable, or you can make your child emotionally uncomfortable to punish them. Taken too far, you are either physically abusing your child, or emotionally abusing your child.
Fact is, parents do *NOT* hold all of the cards. The state increasingly gets involved in more and more of families business. Either way, if they are unable to make their child understand that something is unacceptable without resorting to emotional abuse, I pity them.
Of course there is the whole other group that doesn't punish at all. This is the most abusive thing you can do to a child.
The only reason that force is not required EVERY time is that the people the police are dealing with know that the police can and will use force if you don't comply. We know this because the police have used force, and the courts have regularly ruled that this is acceptable. How many people do you think would pull over for a cop if they were limited to what the 'spanking is assault' crowd want parents limited to? How many people do you think would pull over if the worst the law had to dish out was a REQUEST that you do what they say? The debate isn't whether violence should be use all the time or not. The debate is whether violence should ever be used.
Ancient Rome
I was referring to a modern city, and really one in the US, but lets talk about Rome. I can't claim to be an expert on Rome, so I will ask you. What did a Roman family do when a group of ruffians broke into their home and proceeded to take all of their gold and rape the women? How did they stop this behavior without violence on their part, or on their behalf?
[sarcasm]Correct. Instead, we should do exactly like we do to adults when they won't obey the rules. We should call the police, and have them assault the child. Drag them off to jail, and let them be analy raped so that they can learn to never do those things again.[/sarcasm]
I don't know why people seem to think that 8 year olds are easier to reason with, and that they are somehow more likely to understand the consequences of their actions. The fact is, every city in the country hires people to be there to commit acts of violence against those who will not obey the rules. We like to hope that it wont come to that, and for most of us it never does, but in the end, the police forces are a necessary evil for keeping those who would refuse to obey the rules from running rampant. As a society, we have traditionally placed the responsibility of being police, judge, jury, and 'executioner' for children, on their parents.
Anyone that believes spanking is inherently wrong, and yet supports having a police department is simply a hypocrite. When a city successfully runs with no law enforcement, I will consider reevaluating this stance.
Do YOU believe a city can run with no law enforcement?
"Does this strike anyone as ever so slightly childish?"
Not at all. You see, the Novell/MS deal is technically legal under the GPLv2. It is entirely against the intent of the GPLv2. The GPL3 also does not prevent Novell from distributing GLPv2 software under this deal. Here is the child anecdote for this:
You tell your child that they are not allowed to have any candy before dinner. When you come down stairs 10 minutes later, they are sitting on the couch gorged with cookies, and a big grin on their face. You ask them what the heck they think they are doing, and they point break out a government report that, through convoluteled language shows that 'technically' the government doesn't consider a cookie to be candy. You grudgingly let them get away with this, as they obviously went through a lot of research to find this loophole, and, well, technically they are right. So, the next time you tell them, no candy or cookies.
The difference is that MS is no child when it comes to licensing. They have been trying to beat the world down with it for many years. They no doubt have many very well paid people who spend a lot of time making sure that the company knows how software licensing works. They themselves have been known to alter their license with new terms when they issue a patch, or upgrade. This is no different than MS's stance of, if you want to upgrade to ie7, you have to agree to WGA. If MS wants to license patents to companies that will distribute GPL3 software, then they have to agree to GPL3.
Actually with your example of the RIAA, the problem IS because the government is involved, but only protects one side. If the government was not involved at all, then the P2P networks would drive the price of music distribution down dramatically. Remember, copyright is a government mandated monopoly. So, I would agree that 'free market' is an abused term, but the biggest abuse I see is that people only count government involvement that supports their view.
Hmmm... Thanks for the link. It does appear that windows update does NOT authenticate. Per the link provided:
"This issue occurs because the Windows Update client authenticates with null credentials to the proxy server. If the proxy server does not allow null client requests, the request may be denied."
The way I read that was that the error occurred because the proxy would not allow a null value for the credentials, and that windows update does in fact use null as the value for it's credentials. From what I see, it is a huge security hole, but I have a hard time believing that I would have been the only one to think of this after all of these years. This leads me to think that there is something I am missing. Maybe I will set up a server and redirect the windows update site to it, and see if I can install some other program through it.
Uh, I must be confused about what 'prevailing wage' means. I thought that it meant the market rate. If companies are already required to pay that, and the companies are abusing the system by using old data, they yes, that is where the problem needs to be fixed. I still believe that they should be requried to pay a lot more than the market rate. Not just 'more'.
That is another fine suggestions. My only point is that the excuse for hiring H1Bs is that the company cannot get locals that are qualified. To prevent companies from abusing the system in an attempt to lower wages, we need a way to make H1Bs more expensive than local workers. I would guess that there are many right answers on how to do that.
No, all you would need to do is set up an open wifi access point. You would in essence be the ISP, and you would control the DNS for any system that was getting their DNS server via DHCP. This wouldn't be a way to hack into someones home PC. It would be a way to compromise a system that attached to your open wifi.
Getting users to go through your router and use your DNS isn't the hard part. The only question would be is, does windows update do any kind of authentication that would prevent me impersonating Microsoft's site.
Uh... Did you just tell someone that they would do well to stop attributing human traits to a... Human?
I've always been curious (not enough to do the research I guess) what kind of security the windows update does to prevent someone from using control of DNS and or routers to get windows update to install malware. Given that people often use DNS and routers that the cannot really trust, is there something that prevents a bad guy from just redirecting all traffic that is attempting to hit MS's update site to their their own server that is set up to look like it is MS's update site? Given how many people have their laptops set up to do automatic updates, I would think that it would be easy to just take a loptop to a coffee shop, and watch as other patrons 'update' from your access point.
How about we just require that H1Bs get paid 1.5 to 2 times the prevailing wage. This would stop companies from hiring them to save money over local workers. It would mean that if a company hired them, they really needed them.
Personally, I want to see an all electric vehicle that has a plug in the trunk for plugging in whatever electric generating system I want to use. Whether that be extra batteries because I only drive short distances in the city, a hydrogen internal combustion engine because I know that there are two hydrogen filling station between my house and work, or plain old gasoline because I am driving across country, and want to know I can refuel anywhere.
This would eliminate the need to replace entire cars to upgrade the power source. I would also allow people to change power sources bases on short term changes in fuel supplies and costs.
I would say that the year of Linux has already happened. In March my wife was hosting a play date here for our 3 year old, and when I went out to get coffee from the living room, I walked into a room filled with stay at home moms discussing which ones were running Windows, which ones were running Linux, and which of the two was the best choice for their small children.
The answers that they came up with are totally irrelevant. The very fact that groups of stay at home moms are sitting around even talking about it means that it is officially main stream. A minority no doubt, but mainstream non the less.
Exactly. If AMD can make a faster/cooler processor at 65nm than Intel can at 45nm, AMD is the better processor. This is particularly true for the long run, as Intel is closer to hitting the size wall than AMD is.
The school is lying. It is right their in their own report.
"The children went to sleep and did not discuss it the following morning."
The absurdity of that statement is staggering. They are trying to convince people that in a class of over 60 students, after teachers pulled a 'prank', that not one of these ~60 students said anything about it the next day? Not one of them teased another one about falling for the 'joke'? Really? Not one?
This should send out as much of a warning to parents about the safety of their children as the original incident. This shows pretty clearly that the faculty of this school is more than willing to conspire to cover up criminal acts committed by members of the faculty. That's right. An honest to goodness conspiracy. Reporting a fake shooting threat is no different than reporting a fake bomb threat. Faculty members from this school committed a crime, and they have now committed another crime by trying to cover it up.
"or a teacher with a concealed carry permit"
Are you suggesting that the same people who decided to pull this stunt should be armed in schools?
When I was just out of high school, there was a Scientology office in my town. They always had a sign out front offering a 'Free Personality Test'. On a lark, a pal and me went in and had our personalities 'tested' just to see what they were hawking. When I was done, they compared the multiple choice questionare to their chart, and drew some lines through it. They explained to me that I was doing fine, and that I was already highly Dyanetic, or whatever they called it. They then thanked me for coming in, and told me to have a nice day.
I have never been quite sure how to take that. Maybe I should have sang them the leader song...Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Leader! Leader! Batman!