I don't know what *caffeinated* soap is. Another TV show that hasn't been imported to Australia?

It isn't the 'singing' people can reasonably object to; it is the 'in public' that the problem lies. Of course, often once the latter occurs, the former becomes objectionable too.

And you contributed/rebutted the argument how? I suppose gp was supposed to google/bing/whoop it?

Actually, it is reasonable to assume that the past reoccurring actions is a fair indication of the likelihood that it has happened again. That is why prosecution love to show to the jury that the defendant has done bad thing before, so probably did it this time. Now, that isn't enough to make a conviction, but it swings the bias in that way. Other evidence is then easier to believe.

The only logical fallacy that is made is to exclude a student from making an abysmally unintelligent decision as well.

I do grunt IT work at a school* and any laptops that are returned are not even checked to see if there is an OS on the computer. They are just wiped and prepped for the next user, ad infinitum.

We have been instructed that unless we are told by judicial authorities (i.e., above the principal) we are not to browse the data on the computer. Anything that would warrant our examination of the data would be handed over to the police to do anyway. If it has been returned and the user comes back asking for data, we are to report the computer has already been wiped, and why didn't they have a backup? (Politely and professionally.) We should not ever put ourselves in a legal position where we could accidentally have come across suspicious data. Whether your organisation owns the laptop or you are performing services on someones personal laptop^, that is the only way to behave ethically and professionally unless you are undertaking the action under advised investigations.

We only look at the user data when requested by the user, using their login. Technically, we should only be guiding the user to do what they are requesting with their data, but of course that is too slow...

So ethically it still remains there is something dodgy about the schools side of the story if it was 'accidentally found'. It may be legal, but I wouldn't want to work at that school; it would make me dirty.

*Australian, so maybe there are caveats.
^On someone personal laptop, a professional would take an image of the hdd/s to restore in a pinch. I mostly meet that standard.

That would be the internets blocking the view.

So do it the other way.

Install OpenOffice demonstrate the files aren't necessarily in Word and uninstall OO.org

Nah, while some kids will follow right up to the goody two shoes path* , there is just as often children who will follow all the way down to the bad to the bone at the end of the character continuum.

Take a look at my very scientific behaviour scale.

Goody Two Shoes

^point of annoyance

^roughly middle
most people about here

^hard work from here on in.

Bad to the Bone.

It isn't that people are inherently evil. I believe that it is easier to be bad and/or difficult without reason, at the very least it is easier to be selfish; it takes effort for most people to be exceptional, well behaved and a pleasure to be around*.

Hence, most efforts to turn children into the metaphorical angels only results in fairly good people. Hardly anyone actively tries to turn (their own) children in to their own definition of evil, because it generally doesn't take much effort.

Of course this only relates to behaviour, not to intentions. The scale doesn't measure the evilness of excessive subservience or other alleged character defaults that may result in an evil outcome. It does assume that people can be 'too good'# just as people can be too happy**

* Would nominating myself as an example of an exception be evil?
** Just thinking of every aerobics instructor I ever knew... *shudder*
# It is scientifically doubtful that their intentions align with their actions

Please ignore the following.

Tested this theory and it doesn't work. (Tested on wife and girlfriends; none reciprocated in any appreciable manner. 'Treat them mean keep them keen' works much better on a universal basis.

Not at the cost per megabytes that is charged here.

I've used a Win Mobile (5) and it did everything I wanted a phone to do and more. I've anecdotally found the iphone to be more stable, quicker and easier to use. Why is it koolaid chugging to decide one product does what you want it to better than another?

Bring on the joysticks. Why are we still using a primitive (yet complex) mechanism to do when we have had other means are simpler, more reliable (we aren't talking gaming joysticks), and less intrusive for a reasonable amount of time?

There are plenty of very smart people that would agree that stupid people did see the potential of computers and the stupid people were geeks.

Potential to change is not always improvement, just different.

hmmm, no, still not finding any keepass app in itunes. I must be in a bad nation. (Okay, really I can't be bothered getting an account in another nation.)

I've been waiting for a few of the keepass compatible apps to be finished with 'coming soon' for a while...

Regarding the keeping of passwords on a computer via a manager; I agree that it is inherently less secure to have a db storing passwords. However, I decided it to be a acceptable risk. I also have a long random passphrase and a key file to enter the database. Sure it is possible to be cracked but it is not likely to be down easily.

I do believe that Mozilla is not the only one auditing and compiling Firefox. I'm pretty sure that at least Debian audits, compiles and cross-checks code. A similar situation occurs re Chrome and Chromium (SRWare Iron) So we have a situation where there are at least two manufacturers of the essentially same product, using different production methods and conditions. I'm pretty sure that RH and Novel would do the same, and I'm positive that there are privacy and security pedantic individuals out there that can, and do, do the same on a myriad of systems including the venerable Windows systems.

We could perhaps argue that the NSA and China do that wrt IE, but both of those aren't well known for sharing secrets, unlike the former groups.

Open Source isn't infallible, and it does require a critical mass+ to have the advantages often claimed. But when the conditions are right++, then it has a higher probability of being better *security wise* for the average user than comparable other software. And it often relies on subjective factors for defining security.

+ I've never heard of this factor being defined.
++ This is a huge caveat.