You're really ignorant, aren't you?
Hers is some advice, don't give stupid advice. Maybe in your world you want to micro manage your kids every move, but for those of us who live in the real world need solutions to help us run home networks.
Which, btw, the tools for Linux suck at.
Becasue no child will sneak back on after you turn the computer off, and certainly no household will have kids with different bed times~ Moron.
The fact that you parents were idiots that didn't care enough about you to manage a PC, doesn't mean other parents are irresponsible with their child.
ONly an idiot would think using a tool to manage a home network for kids is the only thing a parent is doing, or that they are nieve at what their kids are looking at. What it DOES MEAN is that they are looking for another tool to help them be a better parent.
I am so fucking sick of people on Slashdot thinking using a computer management tool equates to ignoring your children. Don't push you're parents bad parenting skills on to others.
Also: You''re momma's so fat, she's 12 bit.
Eiither you are the worst parent on the planet, or you don't raise kids of your own.
Yeah, sure. I didn't know that coaxial cable with BNC connectors was still considered "ethernet cable". When I was relatively new to IT, one of my early jobs involved yanking old network infrastructure and replacing it with new, and the language used by the boss and other guys on the job was, "we're replacing this old BNC stuff with Ethernet." I was also yanking some other kind of cable with different connectors for terminals, but I don't think anyone there knew what it was called. We were all pretty new to the stuff, and everyone got where they were by figuring stuff out more than any formal training.
So as a result, I guess my terminology was always confused. I always thought (until just now) that "Ethernet cable" referenced the combination of twisted pair copper and RJ45 connectors, whether it was cat3, cat5, or whatever, and that BNC was the combination of coaxial cable with a BNC connector.
I think my point still stands, though. Standards =/= lock-in. Settling on a standard doesn't need to prevent you from using something else when it's appropriate, it shouldn't stop others from trying to come up with better standards, and it doesn't need to keep you from upgrading to better standards when the time comes.
I have to say that's a pretty bad list. For instance, I've made good arguments here that heroin and alcohol are roughly equal in danger. Or at least, that there's no clear winner. Also, LSD being placed above Ecstacy and other stimulants. There's just no sense in that. LSD has never caused a death by overdose, and no neurotoxicity is known. That's not the case for stimulants.
I think I read this paper when it came out. IIRC one major flaw is that they included addiction potential into the quantification of danger. Addiction itself is not dangerous. That would explain why heroin is at the top of the list. I'm still scratching my head about LSD.
In any case, this just illustrates how hard it is to obectively measure danger on a linear scale. The only real killer is ignorance.
Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal