Bess used to have a system like that, but they discontinued it for reasons unknown. It's not like it was ever particularly useful; I used it once and it took about two weeks for them to approve the site.
Blocking images probably wouldn't be too helpful. I recall having several assignments, even in the high school level, that required illustrations and/or photos in them. Cutting off access to them would certainly hinder any in-school lab work.
When I was in high school we had the (in)famous Bess filtering system and it had a nasty tendency of letting kids go to hardcore porn sites while blocking the rest of us from researching.
After graduating I spent some time doing IT work for a different district and ran into the same problem. Doing any research was highly annoying because blogs (even ones from MSFT and the like) were blocked and we'd have to constantly authenticate ourselves to get to a benign web site.
I haven't worked there for a few years now, but I've kept in touch with the system administrator from there. Guess what? Their response to their filters being inherently ineffective was to tighten them up even more. Way to go, guys. Way to go.
Um...see that's why you pay attention to what you are installing. I can install any app I want on my phone, but that doesn't mean I'm going to install any and every program I can think of. I have a number of third party programs on my phone and it still runs great.
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic...
To the iPhone users here...Can you use RDP with your iPhone? How about remote controlling your phone from your PC? I don't know if there are apps for that on the iPhone.
You can use both RDP and VNC with the iPhone. Both are also very usable, surprisingly, even over a cellular connection. The lack of a keyboard can prove to be a pain if you have a lot to type, but for most administrative tasks it works well.
I don't believe there is any way to control the phone from the PC. Strangely, all of the cheap Motorola phones that I've owned offered that ability, as well as full tethering support. It all seems kind of backwards to me.
My G1 is a phone as well yet I don't have a problem installing my own software on it. I also don't need to buy a Mac in order to develop for it. The same goes for any J2ME-based phone, Windows Mobile phone (though you probably do have to have Windows to develop on that you can freely install applications), or many of the new smartphones that are coming out. The iPhone is essentially bringing many of the restrictions that carriers put on their cheap phones into the smartphone market.
Don't get me wrong, I do like the iPhone (it's the standard business phone where I work), but saying that it should be a closed platform because it's a phone is kind of a weak argument, especially since you generally can load your applications on a typical cell phone.
I used to administer a decently sized (20-30k members) web forum and I had people try to pull that first amendment crap on me. It feels great telling them that it doesn't mean what they think it means.
However, I've never had anyone threaten to sue me over it. The fact that somebody is actually suing a company over something like that made me laugh. The fact that he was given several warnings -- which he clearly ignored -- before being banned makes it even better.
True, but wouldn't that mean that I would be held guilty until proven innocent? And besides, by the time I would get the ticket in the mail what are the odds are that I'd remember even driving through a given intersection. If a patrol officer were to pull me over I would at least know right away that I did something wrong. With a delay like that, coupled with the fact that the cameras give little to no indication that they've triggered, the odds of remembering enough details to fight a charge like that are extremely low.
On another note, how would anyone go about fighting a false positive in a case like that? Either the court would have to rely on the testimony of the accused or uphold a citation for someone who could very well be innocent. Neither option is good -- the former could easily allow the guilty to go free while the latter could punish the innocent.
The problem isn't the cameras themselves. The problem is that the people running them can have a tendency to get greedy (decreasing yellow light times, etc) and the fact that motorists can't be sure of what exactly triggers the cameras.
I lived in Maryland about a year ago and they put a couple red light cameras near where I lived. The biggest problem, and the main source of complaints from the netizens here, is that rather than safely, and legally breezing through a light that just turned yellow, many people panicked and slammed on their brakes. Regardless of how close you're following, seeing someone in front of you come to a sudden stop is very jarring.
Another issue is that there's no telling how the cameras are going to react to other driving oddities. With the right turn issue, for instance, you can go on all you like about how you have to stop for four seconds for it to be a complete stop, but what if the person is driving stick? Some people, when they stop on hills, prefer to use the clutch to keep the car steady. You're always going to get a little bit of jitter when you do this but it's far safer than letting your car roll into the person behind you. If I were to do that with my car would I get a ticket for not coming to a "complete stop?"
Let's not forget about the right to face your accuser. This Constitutional right is offered by the sixth amendment. I don't know about you, but having a conversation with a computer-controlled camera doesn't seem very possible to me.
There are plenty of reasons why, despite enforcing laws, red light cameras can be bad. Again, the problem isn't that they are enforcing laws, it's the way that it's being done.