The focus should be on either eliminate the treat to society, or compensate the victim.
Allegedly, the threat is being eliminated. Though as a by-producted of punishment. But this goal would imply that a painless method would be the most appropriate.
(As pointed out by several
As for compensating victims, (1) very few criminals are actually capable of being sources of said compensation. (2) It would create an incentive to be a victim.
Asking questions and understanding basic concepts is great for science or engineering when you have time for it. But if I walk in with a medical condition, you need to fix me using the best practice that researchers have proved. So please have it memorized, or look it up if you aren't in the ER or surgery room and have time for it.
Medical doctors still need problem solving skills. Not all treatments/procedures work the same for all patients. Just because we both have condition A and treatment X works great for me, maybe even for 90% of patients, doesn't mean it will work for you. You might need treatment Y, instead. If your doctor can't figure that out, find a new one.
(Unfortunately, many insurance companies insist doctors do X first every time (unless the patient is allergic to X or otherwise X just isn't possible).)
This leads to them effectively having 0 memorized facts or baseline knowledge.
Understanding is the key. I didn't have to memorize, for example, multiplication tables. I learned to understand multiplication. And later I learned to understand geometry, trig and calculus. I can still figure out how to solve a problem with out needing to look up, let alone regurgitate, a formula. (Takes me longer than when I was in my 20s, but only because I don't have a need for that much math. I still use the underlying problem solving and derivation skills, so for things I do need to solve, I am very good.)
Some things are inherently boring.
For example, a good part of A-level maths is learning to apply trignometric identities and calculus. Please, try to make an exciting game about the cosine rule.
Would launching model rockets and tracking their performance be exciting enough? I did that. I learned basic trig long before school got around to teaching it. Damn glad I was lucky enough to earn a scholarship to a private school. The private school actually encouraged its students to learn on their own, even "advanced" subjects.
to see this, just look in any cafe. Several people around a table all checking their phones. Social interaction has definitely changed, in some ways for the worse. As for learning, other posters have mentioned engagement. The top students will not need to see "exciting" stuff to learn because they love learning and being challenged. The middle to low students will need to be entertained because that is what they are used to - TV, facebook, youtube, etc etc. Unfortunately this is the way of the new world. At the school where I work, the Phys Ed teachers tell me about children who have never climbed trees or chased/kicked a ball, and have terrible gross and fine motor skills - another symptom of technology not doing them a favour I suspect.
Today's parents are afraid to let their children do much beyond sit in front of entertainment device when they aren't in school. Even if that "device" is a book, it's still not good to just sit around.
(I did read a lot as a kid. Much more than other kids. I also got outside and did things, most often with friends.)
But climbing a tree is outright silly. The lowest branches of most trees are often out of reach and you can scatch yourself pretty badly on the way up. The small branches keep poking into your eyes or knocking on your glasses. And the foliage obscures the view so bad that the whole experience is pretty much a pain in the ass even if you finally do manage to get up. Also, how come everyone is so quick to point out that climbing trees is sooo much fun but no one mentions the fun involved in getting back down again? Exactly. Because it isn't.
I enjoyed climbing tress as a kid. Even the getting back down part. Yes, I did fall a few times, but I just got up and continued on. And I learned from both the falls and the successes. And by the time I was 10, I was big enough, strong enough and had learned enough, to be able to actually build my own treehouse - by myself. No help from my parents.
But it doesn't change the fact that this is simply bad parenting, and not a problem with technology per se.
Not simply. It is more complex than many experts seem to think.
My childhood was full of risks. My friends and I not only survived, we thrived. Today, our social environment demands parents protect children from nearly all risk. Example: A few years ago, a friend of our daughter was taken from her parents after she stumbled and bruised her arm while practicing cheerleading routines on her home's back lawn. Her parents were out there with her, so she was supervised. Child Protective Services declared that her parents were allowing her to practice in an unsafe area with out expert supervision. (Seems to me that a flat, grassy lawn would be safer than a crowded (and grassy) football field. And even at official practice under the cheer-coach's supervision, the cheerleaders still stumbled and still got bruised.)
Also, today's parents have less time to supervise their children than when I was a child. Besides cooking, keeping the home clean and other necessities, both parents have to work full time and frequently, one or both will have a second job.
How many parents are actually able to constantly supervise even 1 child? Some parents are able to enroll their kids in professionally supervised activities like Little League. Others can't afford it or are afraid to allow their children to participate in such activities. And even when the kids do participate, they are still not getting unstructured socialization time with their friends like my friends and I (and many of you
While there are some lazy/bad parents, the main problem is that, as a society, we have become afraid to let our children be children. Instead we protect our children from nearly everything, then blame the schools - and teachers, technology, etc - when they aren't ready to be adults at age 18.
But it doesn't change the fact that this is simply bad parenting, and not a problem with technology per se.
It is true that technology is not intrinsically bad. Even if the "device" is a book, only being allowed to sit in the relative safety of a chair (or on the floor) isn't good, either.
And while there is poor parenting, the situation is not as simple as many experts seem to think.
There are several things going on. Our current social environment demands that parents not allow children to be exposed to risk. My childhood was full of risks. My friends and I survived. Indeed, we thrived.
These days, children can get taken away from parents who allow their kids to do any of what my friends and I were allowed. Example, a few years ago, a friend of my daughter was taken from her parents because she stumbled, bruising her arm, while practicing cheerleading routines in the back yard of her home. Her parents were out there with her, so she was being supervised. Child Protective Services declared her parents were allowing her to practice in an unsafe location with out expert supervision. (It was a flat, grassy lawn, similar to the grassy football field at school. No idea what they (CPS) would have considered safer.)
At the same time, parents, today, have less time to supervise their children than my - and my friends' - parents did.
So, what are parents to do? We were lucky enough to be able to stagger our work schedules so that when our daughter wasn't in school, at least one of us was with her. Very few parents have (or had) that option. And there is still cooking, cleaning, etc, at home. So, the safest things for today's parents to do is to put their children in front of entertainment devices while they do everything they have to do to keep the family fed and housed.
Some people might say that those people shouldn't be parents. If that's the case, then who can be parents?
I think that most parents are afraid to let their children do anything besides school, professionally organized activities (like Little League) and sit in front of an entertainment device. And often, parents either can't afford, or are afraid of, the professionally organized activities.
Personally, I think they were doing it for the fun factor
Given that they can just run around on the ground (or whatever), this makes sense.
No.
Are digest messages considered forgery?
Nor am I suggesting a back door for spammers. I do think it is likely that list servers will not be trusted to do proper Sender Authentication. Both the list message and the original message would have to pass sender authentication.
If the list server acted exactly as a proper MTA would, then the message would only be subject to a single level of sender authentication. My idea would subject the forwarded message to double authentication: Once for the original sender and the second for the list server.
such action would be a direct violation of the section of the RFC I quoted. The "robot" is not the author; its mailbox does not appear in the header field intended for the mailbox of the author. The "robot" is also not the agent that introduced the message for transmission, it is retransmitting a message already in the system.
If I had a secretary and I instructed him to forward messages related to certain topics to designated recipients, he would be the author of the new messages that contain the original messages. The section I quoted allows this. How is this different from having a list server perform the same task?
A multi-post digest is reasonably consided a new message. One that is "authored" by the list server. With the list owner as the responsible agent. As best I can decern, the people at IETF do not think this is a violation. So, why not a digest with just one post?
I think you and I are viewing this from two different perspectives. You seem to view the list server as part of the mail transport and delivery infrastructure. I view the list server as an "electronic secretary" interacting with, but outside of the mail infrastructure.
Granted, proper use of Resent-From and Resent-Sender would be the best solution. How likely do you think it would be for all the Sender Authentication systems to be updated to use these fields? I think very unlikely. So, that leaves it to the list server admins (and, possibly, developers) to implement a work around.
Forwarded email breaks all these kinds of "sender authentication" systems, and that's unlikely to change in the near future. Mailing lists are one type of forwarded email, but not the only type.
Properly used, the Resent-From and Resent-Sender fields could help with this. Of course, this would require the Sender Authentication systems to properly handle these fields.
Another option occurred to me since I made my previous post. The original message could be made an attachment to the message sent by the list server. This way, both the list message and the original message would be available for DMARC/SPF/whatever sender authentication.
RFC5322 also says this:
Note: Reintroducing a message into the transport system and using
resent fields is a different operation from "forwarding".
"Forwarding" has two meanings: One sense of forwarding is that a
mail reading program can be told by a user to forward a copy of a
message to another person, making the forwarded message the body
of the new message. A forwarded message in this sense does not
appear to have come from the original sender, but is an entirely
new message from the forwarder of the message. Forwarding may
also mean that a mail transport program gets a message and
forwards it on to a different destination for final delivery.
So, one could make the case that a list server is a robot reading and forwarding messages, therefor it is technically not wrong for the list server to put its own address in the From field and a contact address for the list owner in the Sender field. Note that list servers that batch posts in to messages containing several posts already do this.
(Replies to the author and/or list could be directed by the Reply-To and Cc fields. Suggest author in Reply-To and list in Cc.)
Of course, best solution would be for DMARC and SPF (and the list servers) to be configured to properly use the Resent-From and Resent-Sender fields. Unfortunately, I think that DMARC and SPF will be left as they are, thus forcing the list servers to bare burden of a work around.
I think often it is a desire to help by someone who misjudges the ability, desire to learn, and time someone is prepared
And perception.
Example: A friend of mine was still using MS Office 2003 because he hated MS Office 2007. Then, one day, he received an Office 2007 document that Office 2003 could not handle. I asked him to give me a copy of the file, then opened it in Open Office. He happily did what he needed to do, saved his changes, copied the file back to his PC and emailed it to whomever needed it. Then he asked me what version of Office I was running. When I showed him, he said "That's not acceptable. No one will be able to use the document I just sent." Even after everyone he sent the updated document to had no problem, he still didn't believe Open Office an acceptable alternative. He still hates the "new" MS Office, but is using it because "there is no alternative."
As long as you don't hide it from your customers I don't see a problem with providing IPv6 addresses to your customers and perform NAT for accessing IPv4 hosts.
For that matter, could NAT IPv4 to IPv4. Many businesses, including huge multi nationals, do this for their internal networks. In some cases they even NAT between major segments of their networks, so are not limited to just 16 million addresses (Not claiming any of them have that many, but a merger between 2 large companies can result in address collisions. One of my former clients, a multi national, merged with another multi national. Within a few hours of the closing, the respective IT departments had the 2 networks linked together. Client PCs were able to access shared (non-Microsoft based) services through NAT. The few cases where peer-to-peer connectivity was required were also handled very quickly. All without modifying the existing DHCP configurations, and only a very few changes to the internal DNS.
Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.
