Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Freedom Is A Fundamental Starting Point (Score 1) 1117

Problem is however, that you are confusing freedom with privilege. This laptop is not a right, it is not a freedom, it is a privilege. Browsing the web on it is a privilege. Installing software on it is a privilege. It's the schools laptop, and they don't have the right to anything on it until they graduate and buy it.

Comment Re:Be Reasonable (Score 1) 1117

purchase the laptops for a nominal fee upon graduation.

That means that the laptops are not the students. That means that the school still owns the laptops. While the parents are responsible for stating what software can be installed on their personal computer, until the student graduates and purchases the laptop, it is not their personal computer.

Comment What I'd do... (Score 1) 1117

I'm of the view that it's the schools computer. If you want to put VNC or other remote access software, then go for it. Want to log everything that the kids do, then do it. Just check to ensure what you are liable for when you do so. If the kid is chatting online with a perv and gets raped, you don't want to be liable for logging the whole thing and not acting on it. But IANAL, so you'll want to check else wheres for the details.

As far as filtering websites and content, why not? You probably have filters in the library or any other PC that the kids have access to don't you? Set them up the same way.

Worried about them installing software, then don't give them permissions on the device to do so. Lock that down. Don't let them install anything. That means you don't have to worry about them getting trojans. You don't ahve to worry about unlicensed software that you may be liable for since the school owns the laptop. Again, IANAL so I don't know what can happen there, but the RIAA is sue happy so who knows.

Comment Re:Predictive power of evolution! (Score 1) 186

You completely missed what the original poster said and what I have said as well...

Nobody is saying that we have text books stating that the earth is flat, but that they have examples of items used to prove points, where the example is no longer relevant.

I've been out serious classes for about 10 years, so if you want specifics, sorry, I can't cite page numbers. But I do remember times where we were given handouts that had something different than the texts because later evidence made the example inaccurate. Whether it's deciding whether to call it brontosaurus or apatosaurus, or whether the Pachycephalosaurus rammed like a mountain goat or swung it's head like a club. And more recently and not dinosaur related, whether pluto is a planet.

Scientific theory may remain the same, however individual examples used to prove said theory may later be shown as hoaxes or incorrectly labeled.

Comment Re:But.... (Score 1) 204

Well, I'm guessing you can determine it from who they are friends with. You can check recent activity to see if it is indeed active. If the Wall is full of posts asking who the hell they are, then it may be fake, if it is full of posts from friends and family talking about the fun times that they had last night, then it is probably legit. If the person left an email address with the debtor and that email address is linked to the facebook, that would probably help out as well...

The real problem would be in how do you prove that they got the legal documents without getting a subpeona for the records from Facebook. With registered mail, a signature is required, but with facebook messages, there is no proof unless facebook releases the logs showing that it was read.

Comment Re:Predictive power of evolution! (Score 1) 186

So you are saying that old text books that have become outdated are never used in classes?

It happens. I'm not sure about in college classes where you generally have to buy your own books for every class, but some high schools may have some older books still in use.

Likewise, I have seen shows on the Discovery channel and it's networks, that would say one thing about scientific item, then the next show would say something else. Or one would talk about a hoax, and the next would cite the hoax as a source.

It happens. Doesn't mean that I'm a creationist looking to undermine something, I'm just saying that old books and shows may not have the right information, and they can still be in circulation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...