While I agree that the title of the article was an exaggeration, there are a few notable points about this event:
1. The telescope recorded the impact on the very first night of observations. This suggests that meteors may hit the moon more often than we think, especially in between meteor showers, when no one is looking.
2. People are actually starting to worry about this. The fact that there is a dedicated telescope set up to watch the moon for meteor impacts suggests someone out there takes this problem seriously (without getting into the argument if it's a real problem or not).
I believe the book focuses on securing a Linux *server*, rather than a single-user machine. By server, I mean a machine with multiple accounts where not every user can be fully trusted (this includes web servers, where each request comes from an anonymous user). Security on a Windows server has also been the subject of countless books.
Furthermore, there are many Windows sysadmins out there who are fooled into a false sense of security by the appearant ease of use of Windows. Because Linux forces you to attend to every detail, you have a much better understanding of how every component of the system works and interacts. Therefore, you can make more informed decisions about system security.
From my experience they don't just dump every patch into the 2.6 tree. That's what the -mm tree is for; that's the real mass. Take a look at reiserfs4, for example; even after Namesys's own QA process, it still hasn't made it into the main tree.
There is a difference between new features which add functionality to the old ones, and major changes that break compatibility. Besides, for mission-critical systems you would never use something recently released, even if it was tested vigorously; you would wait until it worked in the real world for a while. That's why you run something like Debian stable, which uses two-year-old+ software with all the latest security fixes; very stable, very tested, very slow release cycles (several years).
Zombie computers -- PCs that have been compromised by hackers or virus writers -- are sending out over 40 percent of the world's spam, and many users who fall victim are unaware."
So the real solution is to educate users about security... nothing new here. Now if only people actually cared about things like security, maybe the ISPs could educate their users rather than just blocking ports (much good that does).
A more realistic solution would be to require licenses for internet access. Yes, I know all the privacy advocates are going to attack me for saying this, but there are way too many irresponsible people out there. A simple written test about security should be enough to make the average Joe aware of some of the issues out there. Then we can hold them at least partially responsible when someone hacks their computer and uses it to send spam, and getting them to use an alternate OS would be easier.
I know such a plan would carry risks, but if the licenses are distributed by a non-profit organization (in the form of a digital certificate / PGP key) and enforced by the ISPs, then it may just work. It's not like the ISPs can't track you already, so there isn't much of a privacy concern there. Besides the ISPs would be required to sign a privacy agreement. What I mean, is that the license would only be used for loging into the ISP, and would not be transmitted any further (but read more below).
Optionally these keys could also be used for online authentication. I for one would find it more convenient than standard passwords. Combined with a fingerprint reader, this technology can be useful (all based on open standards of course).
Oh, and back on the topic of spam: if these licenses become a standard (and I think ISPs would love the idea if it means less problem with spam, viruses, and other uneducated user problems), then the next step would be making digital signatures in e-mails a requirement. If making it a requirement it too much, then at least spam filters could mark unsigned messages as junk as long as signing becomes more common.
This is probably not the most sound plan, but it's a thought. Comments are welcome
You make a valid point. What would be nice to see is an option on the main page of the configuration dialog which says:
Show: - Common options - Intermediate options - All options
and have it set to "Common options" by default. That way the novice user and even an expert are happy when they just want to change the start page for the first time. If you set it to another level, it'll be remembered for next time.
This is the way the VLC player does it, IIRC, and it works very well.
Am I the only one finding it strange that you need an extension to resize a box? FireFox is suffering from feature underkill and extensions overkill.
Not really. I personally don't use the search box that much; I prefer the search keywords. And when I do use it, I find it to be perfect size. Therefore, I don't see the need for that extra code. On the other hand, I constantly use the "Live HTTP Headers" and "Web Developer" extentions; does that mean it should be part of the official distribution? I don't think so. First of all, it's not something everyone's going to use, and I like the ability to update the extention separately from the browser.
Can't wait for the day that you need the HTML-extension to browse the net.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Perhaps in 5-10 years most of the internet will be using various XML-based technologies, HTML being only one of them (for example, there is MathML, DocBook, RSS, etc.). In that case Firefox would simply be a network communication and XUL rendering platform. On top of it you can add the various input plugins (HTML, RSS, MathML, etc.) and user-interface plugins (the current extentions). Of course the HTML plugin would probably still ship as the default (along with XHTML and RSS), much like Thunderbird ships with the Enigmail extention now, IIRC.
That is the power of Firefox. It's much easier to add new features or "fix" things you don't like. No need to go hacking the sourcecode or re-compiling it!
Too many options have been removed from the preferences window in FF/TB. The new design isn't very usable for the more complicated tabs (such as Advanced).
It was probably done to make it easier for new users. I know my parents, for example, are intimidated by the options dialogue in IE or Mozilla/Netscape.
Custom Styles [was Re: Here's Why I Run Mozilla]
on
Mozilla 1.7.5 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As of Mozilla 1.8a3 I can limit stylesheets to a specific web site which allows me to fix my google groups problem. The following code in my chrome/userContent.css file lets me show google groups messages in monospace:
Well, you can still edit the userContent.css file in Firefox, it just doesn't support specific websites. However the `class="mbody"' attribute is probably very unique, so you shouldn't notice a difference on other websites
And even if Firefox is behind in some core features, the ability to use extentions means that it has features the Mozilla Suit will probably never have, because they would look like bloat to most users. That's the power of extentions - everyone can have their cake.
Oh, and on the topic of the configuration files, there is a very nice (although currently incompatible) extention for Firefox that allows editting these files from withing the browser itself. It's called "ChromeEdit".
You can also double-click on an empty area of the tab bar to open a new blank tab (although this is not convinient when you have many tabs open already).
I still prefer the Ctrl-T combination to open a new tab.
I know there has been a post about privacy concerns in this discussion before, but this is on the opposite topic:
I think it's about time Google comes up with a personalized search tool that will remember my past queries and which results I clicked to bring me more relevant searches (and advertising). Optionally, it would also scan my GMails for more context (at least at the beginning). This would be a completely optional feature of course.
It is obvious that Google has the technology and computing power to create such a service. It would be a very small extention of their already complex algorithm. Sort of like giving pages an extra rank boost, like Karma bonus.
I think they are doing it for fear of privacy advocates, so if there are other people who want such a feature, we should let them know (I already did).
Re:Implementation details
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
Even cooler -- it looks like (from the js file) they are supporting multiple languages here, not just English. Anyone using want to test this out for me? I think even Chinese is supported (or maybe that's the one that isn't.. I don't want to take the time to parse this properly).
It works with Russian text, but a friend of mine tried Korean and it doesn't work. I wonder how they hand the encoding issue? Or do browsers always send information in UTF8? Must be really tricky on their end.
Anyways, kudos to Google for another MS-smashing feature!
This is way cool! I am so setting this as my homepage!
You would have to make the sims able to defend themselves, somehow, and I m sure that a lot of sims would get slaughtered on the first day, but it would be funny!
And imagine the film feature when your sims are cooking dinner as a raging maniac with a chaingun walks through the door and levels everything in the room.
All nice and funny until some group of morons decide that computer characters should have civil/social/political rights, organize a "society for abused game characters", get the constitution ammended, and throw thousands of gamers in jail on charges of murder.;)
Um, if you are replying to my post, then I was talking about Windows:
That's because they don't have a "Package Management System". They have an "Installer", which "installs" the program onto the system. From there on, you are on your own (good luck removing the program later).
I am talking about Windows there, and its lack of a true system-wide Package Manager system. I myself use Debian specifically for the apt-get tool and quality repositories, and have at times considered Gentoo for similar reasons.
Sorry if I didn't make it clear in my origional post.
I don't know if any other package systems support this "install locally" feature. I've never heard about it in dpkg/apt-get. Also, as many have pointed out, it's the actual programs that have install paths hardcoded (although Debian could make it part of their policies that programs shouldn't hard-code any paths, since Debian packages must modify certain paths already).
I think the "central repository" is the best thing about Linux packages, at least the Debian repositories. 95% of the time I can get the software I want without firing up a web browser. In any case, read my other post about making an OSX-like system on Linux:
Those install programs only pretend to give you control. There is still a bunch of files, especially, DLL and configuration files, that get scattered all across your filesystem. When have you specified "c:\windows\system" as an install dir? Yet it just keeps growing!
And considering the fact that uninstallers are an afterthought in the Windows world, you'll be lucky to find half of them. In my experience, the average uninstaller fails 2/3 times; good hunting!
Yes, we need a way to specify a specific install path for special cases, but Windows certainly does _not_ do package management right... it has no package management, only "installers".
What kind of control do you want over your filesystem? There are good reasons behind why Linux programs are installed the way they are. Read the FHS for more: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/.
apt-get when used with the "aptitude" front-end will do this beautifully. Not only will it show you a list of all the (inter-)dependencies, but also let you uninstall them right from the list (just hit the '-' key). It will also give you the option to remove unique dependancies if they are libraries (which is what you usually want).
Perhaps not a drag-n-drop in the literal sense of copying all the program files as a single folder. There are many advantages to having executables, libraries, and architecture-independant files in separate places. However, the OSX drag-n-drop system can be used as a metaphor:
Create a plugin for Konqueror or Nautilus which, when the user drags a package into the special (possibly virtual) folder automatically executes a 'dpkg -i', 'rpm -i', or whatever other system. If there are dependancies missing, prompt the user to automatically download the missing packages if possible. Optionally use "alien" to convert the packages to the distribution-native format (works like a charm). Finally, create a.desktop file in the virtual folder that the user can drag onto his/her kmenu, panel, desktop, whatever (.desktop is already a standard).
To uninstall the program, the user simply drags the.desktop file to the trashcan. The package manager is invoked and uninstalls the program.
If you don't like the idea of a GNOME- or KDE-specific plugin, create a deamon which will use FAM or something to monitor a special folder, and perform the actions I described above. Clean, simple for the "average joe" and yet fully manageable using existing package tools so if something goes wrong, a more Linux-savy user could fix it.
That's because they don't have a "Package Management System". They have an "Installer", which "installs" the program onto the system. From there on, you are on your own (good luck removing the program later).
Oh, and what do you think a "Missing xxxx.dll. Aborting." message is? It's a lack of dependancies!
Why can't we just agree on a standard or two (such as putting everything in the same place, and using the same format for the "installed packages" list) so that I could start with RPM, delete it and install Apt, and keep going (or vice versa)?
Unfortunately it isn't specific enough. We need a second set of guidlines to deal with specific classes of software (KDE-based, GNOME-based, pytho n programs, Java programs, etc.). They have some special requirements (CLASS PATHS, ksycoca system, gconf, etc.) that probably need to be addressed. Until then it's up to the distros to decide these issues.
Debian, for example, has a set of "policies" to deal with Java programs, Perl programs, etc: http://www.debian.org/devel/. I think these should be used as a basis for an FHS-like standard.
Ability to install software, with all the benefits of dependancy checking, without typing in a root password. Users should be able to get their own up-to-date version of Perl and whatever it depends on, and installing it in their home directory, WITHOUT messing up other users by changing the default perl.
I totally agree with that point. Allow the user to specify a directory to install "local" software and have the package manager intall to this directory when it doesn't have root access! Excellent.
Isn't smbfs supposed to be the module used to _access_ a smb mount. How can an attacker use a module that is designed to connect _to another_ computer. It's not like smbfs opens a port or anything?? Or is there a counterpart vulnerability in the SAMBA server (contrary to above comments)? I always thought the server is what gets attacked.
I would appreciate it if someone who actually knows the code can clerify this.
Why can't we do cool experiments, and find some things out on our own, instead of just reading a textbook?
Because they don't trust students with a magnifying glass, much less a particle accelerator. They (sometimes correctly) assume that we will try to steal, destroy, hurt ourselves, hurt others, and attempt to disrupt the class in an attempt to avoid the lesson. Knowledge is something to be shoved down our throats rather than to be sought out and enjoyed. And the sad truth, is that many students share this view.
Especially here in Ontario, Canada, with our "liberal" government and education system, we don't even touch a microscope till grade 9, a beaker of acid until grade 11, and we certainly never get to _build_ our own experiments, at least nothing more than a single day's work. Physics is even more theoretical; not even a laser to play around with... (well, maybe that's a good thing).
My point is, that until there are more people like Tim Koeth around, who are willing to do something unusual, high school will always be a boring place. That's why I look forward to University so much. Too many people are content to stay within the system, and they get rewarded for it too. Even "leadership" activities are pre-arranged. I mean, how can you learn to be a "leader" if you are working from a pre-determined schedule??
I think some of the bureaucratic asses in education (starting with the minister, head of school board, and others), need to be replaced with people who actually _like_ to study/learn things and care for knowledge/education, rather than their own asses and political careers. And if it wasn't for the teacher union, maybe we could get more real teachers too...
Maybe it's just my school, but it seems like there just wouldn't be enough interest for any large-scale projects. Maybe the ministry of education needs to fund some special-interest clubs: physics, computers, mechanics, mathematics, etc. That way a project like a Beowulf cluster could be a collaboration between several schools, and the members of the computer club, for instance, would decide how it gets used (along with the supervising teachers of course).
Another high school I went to at least had a computer programming club, and (I think) a science fare; my new one has nothing of that sort. There are no region-wide programs for specific interests. Perhaps the same Universities which organize all the various contests, should also organize general programs on the subjects.
I'd like to hear if anyone else's high-school curriculum is more exciting. Maybe you folks down in the US still do real science? (Just to be clear, no sarcasm intended).
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that the title of the article was an exaggeration, there are a few notable points about this event:
1. The telescope recorded the impact on the very first night of observations. This suggests that meteors may hit the moon more often than we think, especially in between meteor showers, when no one is looking.
2. People are actually starting to worry about this. The fact that there is a dedicated telescope set up to watch the moon for meteor impacts suggests someone out there takes this problem seriously (without getting into the argument if it's a real problem or not).
I believe the book focuses on securing a Linux *server*, rather than a single-user machine. By server, I mean a machine with multiple accounts where not every user can be fully trusted (this includes web servers, where each request comes from an anonymous user). Security on a Windows server has also been the subject of countless books.
Furthermore, there are many Windows sysadmins out there who are fooled into a false sense of security by the appearant ease of use of Windows. Because Linux forces you to attend to every detail, you have a much better understanding of how every component of the system works and interacts. Therefore, you can make more informed decisions about system security.
From my experience they don't just dump every patch into the 2.6 tree. That's what the -mm tree is for; that's the real mass. Take a look at reiserfs4, for example; even after Namesys's own QA process, it still hasn't made it into the main tree.
There is a difference between new features which add functionality to the old ones, and major changes that break compatibility. Besides, for mission-critical systems you would never use something recently released, even if it was tested vigorously; you would wait until it worked in the real world for a while. That's why you run something like Debian stable, which uses two-year-old+ software with all the latest security fixes; very stable, very tested, very slow release cycles (several years).
So the real solution is to educate users about security... nothing new here. Now if only people actually cared about things like security, maybe the ISPs could educate their users rather than just blocking ports (much good that does).
A more realistic solution would be to require licenses for internet access. Yes, I know all the privacy advocates are going to attack me for saying this, but there are way too many irresponsible people out there. A simple written test about security should be enough to make the average Joe aware of some of the issues out there. Then we can hold them at least partially responsible when someone hacks their computer and uses it to send spam, and getting them to use an alternate OS would be easier.
I know such a plan would carry risks, but if the licenses are distributed by a non-profit organization (in the form of a digital certificate / PGP key) and enforced by the ISPs, then it may just work. It's not like the ISPs can't track you already, so there isn't much of a privacy concern there. Besides the ISPs would be required to sign a privacy agreement. What I mean, is that the license would only be used for loging into the ISP, and would not be transmitted any further (but read more below).
Optionally these keys could also be used for online authentication. I for one would find it more convenient than standard passwords. Combined with a fingerprint reader, this technology can be useful (all based on open standards of course).
Oh, and back on the topic of spam: if these licenses become a standard (and I think ISPs would love the idea if it means less problem with spam, viruses, and other uneducated user problems), then the next step would be making digital signatures in e-mails a requirement. If making it a requirement it too much, then at least spam filters could mark unsigned messages as junk as long as signing becomes more common.
This is probably not the most sound plan, but it's a thought. Comments are welcome
You make a valid point. What would be nice to see is an option on the main page of the configuration dialog which says:
Show:
- Common options
- Intermediate options
- All options
and have it set to "Common options" by default. That way the novice user and even an expert are happy when they just want to change the start page for the first time. If you set it to another level, it'll be remembered for next time.
This is the way the VLC player does it, IIRC, and it works very well.
Not really. I personally don't use the search box that much; I prefer the search keywords. And when I do use it, I find it to be perfect size. Therefore, I don't see the need for that extra code. On the other hand, I constantly use the "Live HTTP Headers" and "Web Developer" extentions; does that mean it should be part of the official distribution? I don't think so. First of all, it's not something everyone's going to use, and I like the ability to update the extention separately from the browser.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Perhaps in 5-10 years most of the internet will be using various XML-based technologies, HTML being only one of them (for example, there is MathML, DocBook, RSS, etc.). In that case Firefox would simply be a network communication and XUL rendering platform. On top of it you can add the various input plugins (HTML, RSS, MathML, etc.) and user-interface plugins (the current extentions). Of course the HTML plugin would probably still ship as the default (along with XHTML and RSS), much like Thunderbird ships with the Enigmail extention now, IIRC.
I haven't tried it myself, but there is an extention for Firefox which claims to let you resize the searchbox: https://addons.update.mozilla.org/extensions/morei nfo.php?application=firefox&id=349&vid=1245
That is the power of Firefox. It's much easier to add new features or "fix" things you don't like. No need to go hacking the sourcecode or re-compiling it!
It was probably done to make it easier for new users. I know my parents, for example, are intimidated by the options dialogue in IE or Mozilla/Netscape.
For us advanced users, there is always the about:config URL and some other extentions such as Tweak Network: https://addons.update.mozilla.org/extensions/morei nfo.php?application=firefox&id=327&vid=989 and others I can't find now.
Well, you can still edit the userContent.css file in Firefox, it just doesn't support specific websites. However the `class="mbody"' attribute is probably very unique, so you shouldn't notice a difference on other websites
And even if Firefox is behind in some core features, the ability to use extentions means that it has features the Mozilla Suit will probably never have, because they would look like bloat to most users. That's the power of extentions - everyone can have their cake.
Oh, and on the topic of the configuration files, there is a very nice (although currently incompatible) extention for Firefox that allows editting these files from withing the browser itself. It's called "ChromeEdit".
You can also double-click on an empty area of the tab bar to open a new blank tab (although this is not convinient when you have many tabs open already).
I still prefer the Ctrl-T combination to open a new tab.
I know there has been a post about privacy concerns in this discussion before, but this is on the opposite topic:
I think it's about time Google comes up with a personalized search tool that will remember my past queries and which results I clicked to bring me more relevant searches (and advertising). Optionally, it would also scan my GMails for more context (at least at the beginning). This would be a completely optional feature of course.
It is obvious that Google has the technology and computing power to create such a service. It would be a very small extention of their already complex algorithm. Sort of like giving pages an extra rank boost, like Karma bonus.
I think they are doing it for fear of privacy advocates, so if there are other people who want such a feature, we should let them know (I already did).
It works with Russian text, but a friend of mine tried Korean and it doesn't work. I wonder how they hand the encoding issue? Or do browsers always send information in UTF8? Must be really tricky on their end.
Anyways, kudos to Google for another MS-smashing feature!
This is way cool! I am so setting this as my homepage!
Does this Portable Firefox run off of read-only media (i.e. can you run it right off a CD-ROM, not CD-RW)?
(Some people mentioned read-only USB memory above, but I didn't get whether or not it actually worked).
Also, is there a Linux or OSX build somewhere that runs from read-only media?
Thanks in advance.
All nice and funny until some group of morons decide that computer characters should have civil/social/political rights, organize a "society for abused game characters", get the constitution ammended, and throw thousands of gamers in jail on charges of murder. ;)
I am talking about Windows there, and its lack of a true system-wide Package Manager system. I myself use Debian specifically for the apt-get tool and quality repositories, and have at times considered Gentoo for similar reasons.
Sorry if I didn't make it clear in my origional post.
I don't know if any other package systems support this "install locally" feature. I've never heard about it in dpkg/apt-get. Also, as many have pointed out, it's the actual programs that have install paths hardcoded (although Debian could make it part of their policies that programs shouldn't hard-code any paths, since Debian packages must modify certain paths already).
I think the "central repository" is the best thing about Linux packages, at least the Debian repositories. 95% of the time I can get the software I want without firing up a web browser. In any case, read my other post about making an OSX-like system on Linux:
9 02336
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130629&cid=10
Those install programs only pretend to give you control. There is still a bunch of files, especially, DLL and configuration files, that get scattered all across your filesystem. When have you specified "c:\windows\system" as an install dir? Yet it just keeps growing!
And considering the fact that uninstallers are an afterthought in the Windows world, you'll be lucky to find half of them. In my experience, the average uninstaller fails 2/3 times; good hunting!
Yes, we need a way to specify a specific install path for special cases, but Windows certainly does _not_ do package management right... it has no package management, only "installers".
What kind of control do you want over your filesystem? There are good reasons behind why Linux programs are installed the way they are. Read the FHS for more: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/.
apt-get when used with the "aptitude" front-end will do this beautifully. Not only will it show you a list of all the (inter-)dependencies, but also let you uninstall them right from the list (just hit the '-' key). It will also give you the option to remove unique dependancies if they are libraries (which is what you usually want).
Perhaps not a drag-n-drop in the literal sense of copying all the program files as a single folder. There are many advantages to having executables, libraries, and architecture-independant files in separate places. However, the OSX drag-n-drop system can be used as a metaphor:
.desktop file in the virtual folder that the user can drag onto his/her kmenu, panel, desktop, whatever (.desktop is already a standard).
.desktop file to the trashcan. The package manager is invoked and uninstalls the program.
Create a plugin for Konqueror or Nautilus which, when the user drags a package into the special (possibly virtual) folder automatically executes a 'dpkg -i', 'rpm -i', or whatever other system. If there are dependancies missing, prompt the user to automatically download the missing packages if possible. Optionally use "alien" to convert the packages to the distribution-native format (works like a charm). Finally, create a
To uninstall the program, the user simply drags the
If you don't like the idea of a GNOME- or KDE-specific plugin, create a deamon which will use FAM or something to monitor a special folder, and perform the actions I described above. Clean, simple for the "average joe" and yet fully manageable using existing package tools so if something goes wrong, a more Linux-savy user could fix it.
That's because they don't have a "Package Management System". They have an "Installer", which "installs" the program onto the system. From there on, you are on your own (good luck removing the program later).
Oh, and what do you think a "Missing xxxx.dll. Aborting." message is? It's a lack of dependancies!
The FHS (Filesystem Hierchy Standard) is designed to address this very issue: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
Unfortunately it isn't specific enough. We need a second set of guidlines to deal with specific classes of software (KDE-based, GNOME-based, pytho n programs, Java programs, etc.). They have some special requirements (CLASS PATHS, ksycoca system, gconf, etc.) that probably need to be addressed. Until then it's up to the distros to decide these issues.
Debian, for example, has a set of "policies" to deal with Java programs, Perl programs, etc: http://www.debian.org/devel/. I think these should be used as a basis for an FHS-like standard.
Ability to install software, with all the benefits of dependancy checking, without typing in a root password. Users should be able to get their own up-to-date version of Perl and whatever it depends on, and installing it in their home directory, WITHOUT messing up other users by changing the default perl.
I totally agree with that point. Allow the user to specify a directory to install "local" software and have the package manager intall to this directory when it doesn't have root access! Excellent.
Isn't smbfs supposed to be the module used to _access_ a smb mount. How can an attacker use a module that is designed to connect _to another_ computer. It's not like smbfs opens a port or anything?? Or is there a counterpart vulnerability in the SAMBA server (contrary to above comments)? I always thought the server is what gets attacked.
I would appreciate it if someone who actually knows the code can clerify this.
Why can't we do cool experiments, and find some things out on our own, instead of just reading a textbook?
Because they don't trust students with a magnifying glass, much less a particle accelerator. They (sometimes correctly) assume that we will try to steal, destroy, hurt ourselves, hurt others, and attempt to disrupt the class in an attempt to avoid the lesson. Knowledge is something to be shoved down our throats rather than to be sought out and enjoyed. And the sad truth, is that many students share this view.
Especially here in Ontario, Canada, with our "liberal" government and education system, we don't even touch a microscope till grade 9, a beaker of acid until grade 11, and we certainly never get to _build_ our own experiments, at least nothing more than a single day's work. Physics is even more theoretical; not even a laser to play around with... (well, maybe that's a good thing).
My point is, that until there are more people like Tim Koeth around, who are willing to do something unusual, high school will always be a boring place. That's why I look forward to University so much. Too many people are content to stay within the system, and they get rewarded for it too. Even "leadership" activities are pre-arranged. I mean, how can you learn to be a "leader" if you are working from a pre-determined schedule??
I think some of the bureaucratic asses in education (starting with the minister, head of school board, and others), need to be replaced with people who actually _like_ to study/learn things and care for knowledge/education, rather than their own asses and political careers. And if it wasn't for the teacher union, maybe we could get more real teachers too...
Maybe it's just my school, but it seems like there just wouldn't be enough interest for any large-scale projects. Maybe the ministry of education needs to fund some special-interest clubs: physics, computers, mechanics, mathematics, etc. That way a project like a Beowulf cluster could be a collaboration between several schools, and the members of the computer club, for instance, would decide how it gets used (along with the supervising teachers of course).
Another high school I went to at least had a computer programming club, and (I think) a science fare; my new one has nothing of that sort. There are no region-wide programs for specific interests. Perhaps the same Universities which organize all the various contests, should also organize general programs on the subjects.
I'd like to hear if anyone else's high-school curriculum is more exciting. Maybe you folks down in the US still do real science? (Just to be clear, no sarcasm intended).