The landlord's friend's friend didn't own the laptop. He can no more authorize a search of it than your landlord can authorize a search of the apartment he rents to you.
You misunderstand the parent post. He's not saying, "it's only children, who cares," he's saying, "whether or not it's children has nothing to do with whether a suspect's constitutional rights should be violated."
The thing is that you don't have perfect knowledge of whether the suspect is a child pornographer or not. Lacking perfect knowledge, you should seek it out by following the appropriate channels.
If you are sure that someone is involved in any crime (whether or not it involves children), you should be sure enough that you can convince a judge to issue a search warrant. If you don't have enough evidence to convince a judge to set aside this person's rights, then you shouldn't just go ahead and set aside those rights even if you're really, really sure.
That's due process. That's how we protect the rights of innocent citizens from being abused by the power granted to police and other government agents. It completely doesn't matter what the nature of the crime you're investigating is. I'll say that again. It is wholly immaterial what crime you suspect someone has participated in; if you don't have enough evidence to convince a judge to issue a search warrant, you should not take the law into your own hands anyway.
The only time you might convince me otherwise is if there was an imminent threat - such as in the case of kidnappings or (since you're talking about child porn), a live feed of a child being abused, and the only as far as is necessary to secure the immediate safety of that child. This again has nothing to do with it being children though - this is just as true in my mind for securing the immediate safety of adults.
It used to work by exploiting a vulnerability in TIFF processing. The browser runs as root, and the earlier jailbreak app was a "visit this site, reboot, and you're done" sort of thing. As Free The Cowards said, this doesn't work this way not because they changed the permissions model, but because they closed the TIFF exploit.
Maybe it's changed, but I know a while back there was a stink about the fact that +1 Funny doesn't affect karma, but -1 Overrated did; so if you posted something which was controversially funny, you could end up losing a lot of karma as you got repeated karma hits from the overrated's, and no bonuses from the funny's which were being down-modded.
If it's the way you describe, you could get a lot of bonus karma by posting an insightful yet controversial opinion (lots of +1's boosting your karma, and lots of -1 Overrated's raising the cap of how many +1's you can get).
Actually it was recently demonstrated that you can positively identify a hidden volume exists within a TrueCrypt volume, defeating plausible deniability. In addition, it was also recently demonstrated that regardless of the encryption algorithm used, it's possible to get a silhouette of high contrast encrypted images.
So if they really wanted, they could identify the hidden volume exists, then apply this second technique to identify that images exist on it. To border agents, this is probably tantamount to admitting on the spot that you're smuggling kiddy porn across the border, and you may find that it's more than your laptop which is detained.
Your best protection is to transfer the images separately from your laptop. Store them on Amazon S3 with a tool such as JungleDisk, and download them when you get home (this is a good idea in case something damages your laptop while traveling too).
I thought I was pretty clear when I said there was not evidence either way. I even italicized it for you.
If there was evidence (which I'm not saying there was), it would have taken her ten minutes to delete it all. I'm only saying that the absence of none of those emails still being in her inbox really doesn't give us any more information than before he hacked the account.
There is no insinuation present in my post. The insinuation is brought forward by prosecutors who are pursuing this case. I'm only saying this neither confirms nor denies their accusations, and I'm not introducing any of my own. In fact, I made no judgment calls at all. I'm not really sure how in your world, "no evidence either way" equates to me saying "but she probably did it anyway."
Sarah Palin was clearly NOT conducting state business using her private e-mail account.
He only found no evidence that she was. It's highly likely that she would have deleted such incriminating evidence long before her account was compromised. Only Yahoo really has the ability to say whether she was or wasn't, and only under subpoena, which hasn't happened yet.
The fact that no evidence was found is not evidence that none existed. I don't mean this to promote nor denigrate Palin's campaign or credibility; only to state that we have no evidence either way.
Specifically the phone/tower have a hard time determining which tower is closest since your distance to each tower is smaller in relation to the distance to the next tower. So you end up with several towers each getting basically the same signal strength, and all of them trying to take the signal at the same time.
A few unintentionally left on doing this is one thing. Every one left on with people talking on them (where tower routing is done more aggressively) is something completely different.
As GP said, this is an FCC rule, not an FAA rule - the airplanes are shielded against this sort of interference. The turning off of electronic devices during takeoff is an FAA rule, again, not because of interference, but because they need people to be alert to instructions particularly if there is an emergency.
No, he said the market acts irrationally, and this is perpetuated by rational people acting in a manner which superficially appears irrational, but is actually rational given the inevitability of irrational behavior on the part of others. He didn't say the market was rational but rather observed (albeit in a round about way) that it's possible for a group of rational decisions to on the whole be irrational, and it's possible given the inevitability of irrational behavior for the most rational response to be the "irrational" one.
Before the FDIC, if there was a run on your bank, it became rational to also run on the bank, because if they ran out of money before you got there you were screwed. It doesn't matter that collectively it's irrational, individually it's rational. This is in fact exactly the tragedy of the commons. Acting in the individual best interest is often separate from the collective best interest.
GP wasn't saying that the majority of sellers necessarily believed Jobs had died, but rather they believed others would believe it. If the market drops, the accuracy of the data behind the drop is irrelevant.
Some of the sellers may have sold at the start of the drop, then bought again at the end of the drop - netting a tidy profit. They might very well have believed the news was false, but realized it would cause a brief plummet of the stock price, and cashed in on the fluctuation to take advantage of people with outstanding buy/sell orders for whom no rational decision was even involved, except a badly configured attempt to auto-capitalize on market fluctuations.
A rational person could easily reach the conclusion to sell on news of Jobs' death, regardless of its accuracy, then buy on news of its inaccuracy. Further if they timed it well, they would be fully justified and it would work out well for them.
If you have line of sight, couldn't you use a laser? It would be harder to snoop on, much more bandwidth (heck, run a bunch of them side by side) and if sufficiently covered, it should be worry free from things like snow accumulation, and shouldn't have nearly as much to worry about in terms of interference. Plus using sufficient quality lasers, you could get way more distance out of it too.
I completely agree about the moving goal posts; in fact what the "goalie" is participating in is sacrificing their original premise to maintain an air of plausibility. I had thought of and was ready to defend against the invisible elephant idea by asserting that this would in fact make it not an elephant since elephants can not be invisible.
Of course then you would accuse me of asserting a universal negative (wrt elephants cannot be invisible), and we chase off after that tangent for a while =)
You're right, I over-generalized philosophers at large; specifically I meant to highlight the most extreme case, which I could only attribute to philosophers. In that case if one were to take it this far, you can neither prove nor disprove anything should you accept these assumptions about what it means to prove; in which case we're having the wrong conversation.
Some philosophers will go as far as necessary to disprove a point, even if they don't really believe that; when you're involved in that sort of conjecture it becomes a sort of arms race of absurdity and counter-absurdity. Most do not need to win the argument that badly though =)
Scientifically speaking, there are many times you can prove a negative; philosophically/mathematically speaking this is not true.
It is similarly impossible, philosophically speaking, to prove existence as to prove inexistence. I look in my yard and see an elephant, thus I declare there is an elephant in my yard. But I could have been mistaken, it could have been a giraffe and I had my nomenclature wrong, or it could have been an animatronic elephant, or it could have been entirely a delusion. Perhaps by all available objective measures it really is a living breathing elephant; but it turns out to not actually be an elephant, except we do not yet possess the knowledge required to distinguish it from an elephant.
So I suppose the question is where you define the threshold of proof. Philosophers will argue that all evidence, either for or against, and no matter how concrete or arguably irrefutable, is suspect and may not be absolutely trusted; human error and similar conditions alone provide all the support they need to make this case.
Mathematicians place their mark just on the other side of this line, and say that positive proof is possible, but negative proof is not fundamentally possible except to demonstrate that it would be absurd to accept otherwise (and indeed, you may yet some day be proven wrong), as you pointed out.
Science accepts that observations are dependable when not misinterpreted; and closed fixed scope systems with members whose observability we are sufficiently familiar with to be certain of observing them when attempting to do so. In such situations the scientist can hold up an empty test tube and positively declare that it contains no marbles.
Paraphrasing Richard Carrier: Difficulty in disproving a negative is not the negativity of it, it is the breadth of the assertion which makes it difficult ("There are no martians" means we have to search the entire universe quickly enough that a martian could not move into a previously observed area during the span of the observation).
I wasn't applying my analogy to Apple's situation, I was responding to the inability to prove a negative, and was asserting that there are some situations where you can affirmatively assert a negative. You're right, I can't claim there were never any elephants in my yard, but I can claim this for specific time periods - namely those which I have been able to use observation to completely eliminate the possibility.
I made and make no claims toward toxic fumes come off of Apples, nor that company's response to the accusation.
Some people may be advocating trying to automate parenting. I'm certainly not, and in fact I don't think most people are. What's being sought is a parental aid. Something that gives you an extra layer of protection should you for example be sitting with your child on the Internet, and need to take a phone call.
The problem I was attempting to solve is keeping even messages marked as SPAM from ever appearing in the child's mailbox - it's just an extra layer of protection. Filter them out and make them entirely inaccessible to your child so that when you look away for 30 seconds s/he's not CLKCING HERE FOR FREE SPYWEAR PORTECTION or installing LOLZ TEH BEST GAEM.
You want to keep all the environments your child is entering as safe as possible, even if you'll normally be there to hold their hand. As they get older, they are going to want - and require for normal emotional growth - more independence, and this is a way you can provide that while still safeguarding your child. If some day you feel your child is savvy enough to avoid the common pitfalls which take in many adults, you can strip layers away.
Also, yes, there's a Sender header, and the envelope from is probably the original address (don't personally have a great way to verify, but it would make sense), but email headers are not a common source of spam harvesting (certainly not the envelope from, which is discarded once the message is delivered). They're acquired via signups, tell-a-friends, and most notably good old fashioned web crawling. Your sons might not get any spam, but the address only needs to be compromised one time and it will begin to be sold and resold on lists.
Even if you can completely trust your children to never betray their email address in a way that gets it added to spam lists, can you trust their friends who might decide to sign them up for something either because it seems innocent (tell-a-friend) or because they're playing a prank?
With the proxy and secret account, even should the secret account get compromised (in this case, added to a spam list), you can relocate it - open a new account and change the forwarding rules to this new account, then close the old account. It's not the public identity, so it can be changed at will.
You can provide absolute denial of existence when you are able to make a complete simultaneous observation of the system you're excluding a presence in, and if you can assert that such observation would positively identify the searched-for subject.
For example, I can't say for sure there are no purple unicorns in my back yard (since I don't know enough about them to say that they are necessarily visible to the naked eye), but I can say that there are no elephants since my yard is small enough to be observed completely simultaneously, and with the known properties of an elephant (always visible in the presence of light, which presumably there is in my yard).
You can strengthen 'found no evidence' by providing details on the steps you too to look for it. Finding no evidence with a trivial search is completely different from finding no evidence after careful and exhaustive examination.
That's true. We have massive project management software at work, and people whose whole job is to run that software and schedule work for people to do. My work schedule tends to be about 250%+ (eg, in a 40 hour week, I have 100 hours worth of assignments assigned to me to accomplish that week). Other guys (one in particular) rarely are assigned more than 50-60%.
The reason: I produce better quality work, faster than he does, and he ends up spending lots and lots of time going back and fixing stuff he was supposed to have fixed before. Our project management office knows it and assigns more workload on me. They know what an average developer from my team can accomplish in 40 hours, I can accomplish in 15.
That's neither hubris nor hyperbole, it's how it runs there. My pay reflects it, and I don't mind at all because I do contract work, and there is a purchase order and statement of work based around me contributing 40 hours a week. When my 40 hours is up, there is not only just no expectation that I continue working (since they would have to pay me for it if they asked me to do it, and it would cause me to go over my PO), they actively discourage me from deciding to donate an extra hour or two here and there to keep on top of my work (since that would make me a salary employee, and suddenly they would be on the line for a lot of back benefits).
So I do exactly 40 hours, they do not want me working 40 hours and 1 minute, and they pile me up with as much work as I can churn through. I stay ultra busy (which I strongly prefer), and I get all the best projects.
That other guy - he is usually doing maintenance work on stuff I've produced, such as text changes or copying & extending some existing report.
Give them a good taste of the real world as soon as they are ready for it
(emphasis mine) - I think that's the point.
Infants are not ready for the real world, they need time to develop emotionally, physically, psychologically, and intellectually. Actually the same might be said of most 20-year-olds, except that long before this point they should have developed enough that they can handle their mistakes.
Somewhere between infant and adult, human beings become ready for each new thing. Each thing has a different requirement, a different stage of development, and a different requisite strength. As a parent, it's your responsibility to know when these arrive to the best of your ability, and to shelter your child from each thing until they're ready for that thing, but to stop sheltering them when they're ready for it.
There is definitely such a thing as over protecting your child. But there's also definitely such a thing as under protecting your child. I think the original poster is probably only trying to have control over this so that they can adjust and provide just the right amount of protection for the developmental stage their child is in.
Having no control at all over Internet / email usage for a 5-year-old - this is too little. Heck, if for no other reason than that he should be protected against clicking on the new FreeCandyScreensaver.scr attachment he just received by email, or from typing out the numbers from the canceled check he found to the nice Nigerian guy who has been talking with him on email.
Re:What the problem with Gmail?
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I know it's convoluted, but you could set up two accounts: one as a proxy account which forwards non-spam to the kid's actual account. Set the kid's actual account in Gmail to use the from address of the proxy account. The proxy account is his public email address.
jimmysSecretAccount@gmail.com From address: littleJimmy@gmail.com
As an added bonus, if someone ever hacked littleJimmy@gmail.com, they wouldn't be in his real email account (and you could use rules at littleJimmy@gmail.com to auto-trash all messages, so only his last 30 days would be accessible in there).
I had a physics course like that in college. 25% was a C. Then the prof could be pretty aggressive about marking points off for things.
I can't imagine how much time it must have taken to grade those tests. Most problems were 12-15 steps. Entire tests were a single question (I remember one was only like 3 lines long, came with 3 additional sheets of blank paper, and we took it during a period normally reserved for lab work since he wanted us to have 2 hours to work it out). If you screwed up step 1, he worked through with your screwed up answer so you didn't lose points on the next steps.
I loved that guy's philosophy toward class. He didn't care if you came to class, he didn't care if you wanted to show your work. If you didn't come to class though, you couldn't ask any questions from material he covered in the class you missed (unless you spoke to him about some extenuating circumstances, in which case he was always happy to spend time with you one-on-one, even outside of office hours). He never formally took attendance, but he always knew who had missed what lecture even weeks later, and was very aggressive about not answering a question he felt you should know the answer to if you had not been absent.
You didn't have to show your work, but if you didn't and got something wrong, he couldn't give partial credit (eg, if you only put "42.1" as the answer, but the real answer was 42.0, you got no credit, though if you showed your work and he saw it was just a rounding or significant figures error, he might only take a single point off).
On tests, each student got the same question, but each had different core values, so if you were going to cheat, the best you could do is snag a formula off another student - except he actually passed out a sheet of formulas with the test, so that was silly anyway.
Simultaneously one of the hardest classes I had in college, and one of the best college experiences.
Slashdot Mirror
The landlord's friend's friend didn't own the laptop. He can no more authorize a search of it than your landlord can authorize a search of the apartment he rents to you.
You misunderstand the parent post. He's not saying, "it's only children, who cares," he's saying, "whether or not it's children has nothing to do with whether a suspect's constitutional rights should be violated."
The thing is that you don't have perfect knowledge of whether the suspect is a child pornographer or not. Lacking perfect knowledge, you should seek it out by following the appropriate channels.
If you are sure that someone is involved in any crime (whether or not it involves children), you should be sure enough that you can convince a judge to issue a search warrant. If you don't have enough evidence to convince a judge to set aside this person's rights, then you shouldn't just go ahead and set aside those rights even if you're really, really sure.
That's due process. That's how we protect the rights of innocent citizens from being abused by the power granted to police and other government agents. It completely doesn't matter what the nature of the crime you're investigating is. I'll say that again. It is wholly immaterial what crime you suspect someone has participated in; if you don't have enough evidence to convince a judge to issue a search warrant, you should not take the law into your own hands anyway.
The only time you might convince me otherwise is if there was an imminent threat - such as in the case of kidnappings or (since you're talking about child porn), a live feed of a child being abused, and the only as far as is necessary to secure the immediate safety of that child. This again has nothing to do with it being children though - this is just as true in my mind for securing the immediate safety of adults.
Except that in your corollary, the goods aren't stolen: they're indistinguishably perfect counterfeits which you are giving away for free.
It used to work by exploiting a vulnerability in TIFF processing. The browser runs as root, and the earlier jailbreak app was a "visit this site, reboot, and you're done" sort of thing. As Free The Cowards said, this doesn't work this way not because they changed the permissions model, but because they closed the TIFF exploit.
Maybe it's changed, but I know a while back there was a stink about the fact that +1 Funny doesn't affect karma, but -1 Overrated did; so if you posted something which was controversially funny, you could end up losing a lot of karma as you got repeated karma hits from the overrated's, and no bonuses from the funny's which were being down-modded.
If it's the way you describe, you could get a lot of bonus karma by posting an insightful yet controversial opinion (lots of +1's boosting your karma, and lots of -1 Overrated's raising the cap of how many +1's you can get).
Actually it was recently demonstrated that you can positively identify a hidden volume exists within a TrueCrypt volume, defeating plausible deniability. In addition, it was also recently demonstrated that regardless of the encryption algorithm used, it's possible to get a silhouette of high contrast encrypted images.
So if they really wanted, they could identify the hidden volume exists, then apply this second technique to identify that images exist on it. To border agents, this is probably tantamount to admitting on the spot that you're smuggling kiddy porn across the border, and you may find that it's more than your laptop which is detained.
Your best protection is to transfer the images separately from your laptop. Store them on Amazon S3 with a tool such as JungleDisk, and download them when you get home (this is a good idea in case something damages your laptop while traveling too).
I thought I was pretty clear when I said there was not evidence either way. I even italicized it for you.
If there was evidence (which I'm not saying there was), it would have taken her ten minutes to delete it all. I'm only saying that the absence of none of those emails still being in her inbox really doesn't give us any more information than before he hacked the account.
There is no insinuation present in my post. The insinuation is brought forward by prosecutors who are pursuing this case. I'm only saying this neither confirms nor denies their accusations, and I'm not introducing any of my own. In fact, I made no judgment calls at all. I'm not really sure how in your world, "no evidence either way" equates to me saying "but she probably did it anyway."
He only found no evidence that she was. It's highly likely that she would have deleted such incriminating evidence long before her account was compromised. Only Yahoo really has the ability to say whether she was or wasn't, and only under subpoena, which hasn't happened yet.
The fact that no evidence was found is not evidence that none existed. I don't mean this to promote nor denigrate Palin's campaign or credibility; only to state that we have no evidence either way.
Let's see, based on nearby access points, I'd say you're on Linksys Avenue, Linksysburgh, Linksys County, LI.
Specifically the phone/tower have a hard time determining which tower is closest since your distance to each tower is smaller in relation to the distance to the next tower. So you end up with several towers each getting basically the same signal strength, and all of them trying to take the signal at the same time.
A few unintentionally left on doing this is one thing. Every one left on with people talking on them (where tower routing is done more aggressively) is something completely different.
As GP said, this is an FCC rule, not an FAA rule - the airplanes are shielded against this sort of interference. The turning off of electronic devices during takeoff is an FAA rule, again, not because of interference, but because they need people to be alert to instructions particularly if there is an emergency.
No, he said the market acts irrationally, and this is perpetuated by rational people acting in a manner which superficially appears irrational, but is actually rational given the inevitability of irrational behavior on the part of others. He didn't say the market was rational but rather observed (albeit in a round about way) that it's possible for a group of rational decisions to on the whole be irrational, and it's possible given the inevitability of irrational behavior for the most rational response to be the "irrational" one.
Before the FDIC, if there was a run on your bank, it became rational to also run on the bank, because if they ran out of money before you got there you were screwed. It doesn't matter that collectively it's irrational, individually it's rational. This is in fact exactly the tragedy of the commons. Acting in the individual best interest is often separate from the collective best interest.
GP wasn't saying that the majority of sellers necessarily believed Jobs had died, but rather they believed others would believe it. If the market drops, the accuracy of the data behind the drop is irrelevant.
Some of the sellers may have sold at the start of the drop, then bought again at the end of the drop - netting a tidy profit. They might very well have believed the news was false, but realized it would cause a brief plummet of the stock price, and cashed in on the fluctuation to take advantage of people with outstanding buy/sell orders for whom no rational decision was even involved, except a badly configured attempt to auto-capitalize on market fluctuations.
A rational person could easily reach the conclusion to sell on news of Jobs' death, regardless of its accuracy, then buy on news of its inaccuracy. Further if they timed it well, they would be fully justified and it would work out well for them.
We'll need an army of super virile whales scoring around the clock!
Sort of wound down to the natural conclusion of the conversation. Thanks for the discussion =)
If you have line of sight, couldn't you use a laser? It would be harder to snoop on, much more bandwidth (heck, run a bunch of them side by side) and if sufficiently covered, it should be worry free from things like snow accumulation, and shouldn't have nearly as much to worry about in terms of interference. Plus using sufficient quality lasers, you could get way more distance out of it too.
I completely agree about the moving goal posts; in fact what the "goalie" is participating in is sacrificing their original premise to maintain an air of plausibility. I had thought of and was ready to defend against the invisible elephant idea by asserting that this would in fact make it not an elephant since elephants can not be invisible.
Of course then you would accuse me of asserting a universal negative (wrt elephants cannot be invisible), and we chase off after that tangent for a while =)
You're right, I over-generalized philosophers at large; specifically I meant to highlight the most extreme case, which I could only attribute to philosophers. In that case if one were to take it this far, you can neither prove nor disprove anything should you accept these assumptions about what it means to prove; in which case we're having the wrong conversation.
Some philosophers will go as far as necessary to disprove a point, even if they don't really believe that; when you're involved in that sort of conjecture it becomes a sort of arms race of absurdity and counter-absurdity. Most do not need to win the argument that badly though =)
I'm enjoying this =)
Scientifically speaking, there are many times you can prove a negative; philosophically/mathematically speaking this is not true.
It is similarly impossible, philosophically speaking, to prove existence as to prove inexistence. I look in my yard and see an elephant, thus I declare there is an elephant in my yard. But I could have been mistaken, it could have been a giraffe and I had my nomenclature wrong, or it could have been an animatronic elephant, or it could have been entirely a delusion. Perhaps by all available objective measures it really is a living breathing elephant; but it turns out to not actually be an elephant, except we do not yet possess the knowledge required to distinguish it from an elephant.
So I suppose the question is where you define the threshold of proof. Philosophers will argue that all evidence, either for or against, and no matter how concrete or arguably irrefutable, is suspect and may not be absolutely trusted; human error and similar conditions alone provide all the support they need to make this case.
Mathematicians place their mark just on the other side of this line, and say that positive proof is possible, but negative proof is not fundamentally possible except to demonstrate that it would be absurd to accept otherwise (and indeed, you may yet some day be proven wrong), as you pointed out.
Science accepts that observations are dependable when not misinterpreted; and closed fixed scope systems with members whose observability we are sufficiently familiar with to be certain of observing them when attempting to do so. In such situations the scientist can hold up an empty test tube and positively declare that it contains no marbles.
Paraphrasing Richard Carrier: Difficulty in disproving a negative is not the negativity of it, it is the breadth of the assertion which makes it difficult ("There are no martians" means we have to search the entire universe quickly enough that a martian could not move into a previously observed area during the span of the observation).
I wasn't applying my analogy to Apple's situation, I was responding to the inability to prove a negative, and was asserting that there are some situations where you can affirmatively assert a negative. You're right, I can't claim there were never any elephants in my yard, but I can claim this for specific time periods - namely those which I have been able to use observation to completely eliminate the possibility.
I made and make no claims toward toxic fumes come off of Apples, nor that company's response to the accusation.
Some people may be advocating trying to automate parenting. I'm certainly not, and in fact I don't think most people are. What's being sought is a parental aid. Something that gives you an extra layer of protection should you for example be sitting with your child on the Internet, and need to take a phone call.
The problem I was attempting to solve is keeping even messages marked as SPAM from ever appearing in the child's mailbox - it's just an extra layer of protection. Filter them out and make them entirely inaccessible to your child so that when you look away for 30 seconds s/he's not CLKCING HERE FOR FREE SPYWEAR PORTECTION or installing LOLZ TEH BEST GAEM.
You want to keep all the environments your child is entering as safe as possible, even if you'll normally be there to hold their hand. As they get older, they are going to want - and require for normal emotional growth - more independence, and this is a way you can provide that while still safeguarding your child. If some day you feel your child is savvy enough to avoid the common pitfalls which take in many adults, you can strip layers away.
Also, yes, there's a Sender header, and the envelope from is probably the original address (don't personally have a great way to verify, but it would make sense), but email headers are not a common source of spam harvesting (certainly not the envelope from, which is discarded once the message is delivered). They're acquired via signups, tell-a-friends, and most notably good old fashioned web crawling. Your sons might not get any spam, but the address only needs to be compromised one time and it will begin to be sold and resold on lists.
Even if you can completely trust your children to never betray their email address in a way that gets it added to spam lists, can you trust their friends who might decide to sign them up for something either because it seems innocent (tell-a-friend) or because they're playing a prank?
With the proxy and secret account, even should the secret account get compromised (in this case, added to a spam list), you can relocate it - open a new account and change the forwarding rules to this new account, then close the old account. It's not the public identity, so it can be changed at will.
You can provide absolute denial of existence when you are able to make a complete simultaneous observation of the system you're excluding a presence in, and if you can assert that such observation would positively identify the searched-for subject.
For example, I can't say for sure there are no purple unicorns in my back yard (since I don't know enough about them to say that they are necessarily visible to the naked eye), but I can say that there are no elephants since my yard is small enough to be observed completely simultaneously, and with the known properties of an elephant (always visible in the presence of light, which presumably there is in my yard).
You can strengthen 'found no evidence' by providing details on the steps you too to look for it. Finding no evidence with a trivial search is completely different from finding no evidence after careful and exhaustive examination.
That's true. We have massive project management software at work, and people whose whole job is to run that software and schedule work for people to do. My work schedule tends to be about 250%+ (eg, in a 40 hour week, I have 100 hours worth of assignments assigned to me to accomplish that week). Other guys (one in particular) rarely are assigned more than 50-60%.
The reason: I produce better quality work, faster than he does, and he ends up spending lots and lots of time going back and fixing stuff he was supposed to have fixed before. Our project management office knows it and assigns more workload on me. They know what an average developer from my team can accomplish in 40 hours, I can accomplish in 15.
That's neither hubris nor hyperbole, it's how it runs there. My pay reflects it, and I don't mind at all because I do contract work, and there is a purchase order and statement of work based around me contributing 40 hours a week. When my 40 hours is up, there is not only just no expectation that I continue working (since they would have to pay me for it if they asked me to do it, and it would cause me to go over my PO), they actively discourage me from deciding to donate an extra hour or two here and there to keep on top of my work (since that would make me a salary employee, and suddenly they would be on the line for a lot of back benefits).
So I do exactly 40 hours, they do not want me working 40 hours and 1 minute, and they pile me up with as much work as I can churn through. I stay ultra busy (which I strongly prefer), and I get all the best projects.
That other guy - he is usually doing maintenance work on stuff I've produced, such as text changes or copying & extending some existing report.
(emphasis mine) - I think that's the point.
Infants are not ready for the real world, they need time to develop emotionally, physically, psychologically, and intellectually. Actually the same might be said of most 20-year-olds, except that long before this point they should have developed enough that they can handle their mistakes.
Somewhere between infant and adult, human beings become ready for each new thing. Each thing has a different requirement, a different stage of development, and a different requisite strength. As a parent, it's your responsibility to know when these arrive to the best of your ability, and to shelter your child from each thing until they're ready for that thing, but to stop sheltering them when they're ready for it.
There is definitely such a thing as over protecting your child. But there's also definitely such a thing as under protecting your child. I think the original poster is probably only trying to have control over this so that they can adjust and provide just the right amount of protection for the developmental stage their child is in.
Having no control at all over Internet / email usage for a 5-year-old - this is too little. Heck, if for no other reason than that he should be protected against clicking on the new FreeCandyScreensaver.scr attachment he just received by email, or from typing out the numbers from the canceled check he found to the nice Nigerian guy who has been talking with him on email.
I know it's convoluted, but you could set up two accounts: one as a proxy account which forwards non-spam to the kid's actual account. Set the kid's actual account in Gmail to use the from address of the proxy account. The proxy account is his public email address.
littleJimmy@gmail.com
Rule: !is:spam
Forward: jimmysSecretAccount@gmail.com
jimmysSecretAccount@gmail.com
From address: littleJimmy@gmail.com
As an added bonus, if someone ever hacked littleJimmy@gmail.com, they wouldn't be in his real email account (and you could use rules at littleJimmy@gmail.com to auto-trash all messages, so only his last 30 days would be accessible in there).
I had a physics course like that in college. 25% was a C. Then the prof could be pretty aggressive about marking points off for things.
I can't imagine how much time it must have taken to grade those tests. Most problems were 12-15 steps. Entire tests were a single question (I remember one was only like 3 lines long, came with 3 additional sheets of blank paper, and we took it during a period normally reserved for lab work since he wanted us to have 2 hours to work it out). If you screwed up step 1, he worked through with your screwed up answer so you didn't lose points on the next steps.
I loved that guy's philosophy toward class. He didn't care if you came to class, he didn't care if you wanted to show your work. If you didn't come to class though, you couldn't ask any questions from material he covered in the class you missed (unless you spoke to him about some extenuating circumstances, in which case he was always happy to spend time with you one-on-one, even outside of office hours). He never formally took attendance, but he always knew who had missed what lecture even weeks later, and was very aggressive about not answering a question he felt you should know the answer to if you had not been absent.
You didn't have to show your work, but if you didn't and got something wrong, he couldn't give partial credit (eg, if you only put "42.1" as the answer, but the real answer was 42.0, you got no credit, though if you showed your work and he saw it was just a rounding or significant figures error, he might only take a single point off).
On tests, each student got the same question, but each had different core values, so if you were going to cheat, the best you could do is snag a formula off another student - except he actually passed out a sheet of formulas with the test, so that was silly anyway.
Simultaneously one of the hardest classes I had in college, and one of the best college experiences.