Slashdot Mirror
Dutch to Open Electronic Files on Children
Del writes "The Dutch government plans to open an electronic file on every child at birth as a tool to spot and protect the troubled kids of the future. All citizens will be tracked from cradle to grave in a single database - including health, education, family and police records."
Like tags on pidgeons!
----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
Well, there goes Big Brother... again.
THC in the blood stream...
The funny thing is, in Belgium, our main ISP is indeed called Skynet.
I can imagine that if someone starts with bad behavior, it might build over time. This system would allow authorities to detect it.
E.g. Little Ballmer pushes around chairs in pre-school. Says bad words like "poopy" and "butt".
Teenage Ballmer: rips flies apart, but also throws chairs, says "pussy" and "fuck".
CEO Ballmer: scares the bejeezus out of a nice employee, calls Eric Schmidt a "pussy" and says he'll kill him. Throws chairs for effect.
If they had a database like that showing that from age 4 or so he engaged in violent, aggressive and just plain nasty behavior, it would help to build a case against him.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
...that each child will have to carry their own information in a frisbee glued to their backs.
One stop Identity-theft shopping!
Weee!
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
If you don't like having choices made for you, you should start making your own. - Neal Stephenson
Is that what they call a pedofile? /rimshot
Dutch Citizen Tracking Programme ..
Powered by Google
I can feel the glove up my ass already :(.
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
...they threatened "this will go on your permanent record" and it terrified your young, naive soul? Now they mean it...
Yes, thank God they didn't have this in LA in 1984, the Terminator could have killed the right Sarah Connor and we'd all be fucked.
>So your point is... what?
:)
Actually you're right.. after reading it again I think I should have been a little more obvious about what I was trying to say.
>but you seem extremely short on the compassion and tolerance part.
Really? I think you need to read the post again.
>Then what right do you have (other than an interfering, homophobic, predjudiced one) to deny them the right to a civil ceremony?
I don't. It's not about me. It's about what God already said; he said no gay marriages (or gay unions for that matter). Don't ask me.. ask Him.
>"I think the USA is better than Canada because it's more homophobic and less liberal."
More like less bad. But I meant in the sense of their laws; I don't agree with the whole loudly pointing out that gays ought to burn in hell thing. Because that is what you said was one of my problems; the lack of compassion.
Yes, I do believe that gays deserve to burn in hell. I also believe that every other person who was ever born deserves the same thing. But that's not where it stops; which I already said.
It's not like "yeah, we all deserve to die, the end." which is how such demonstrations make it sound. They make it sound like, if you're gay, it's already too late; there's no hope or chance of anything better. But there's always a second chance as long as you're alive.
>"I'm not homophobic, but I don't think gay couples should be granted any protection or recognition in law."
No, it should be illegal to be gay, just like it's illegal to steal or murder or whatever else.
Why? Because God said so, period. If you don't believe in God, or don't believe that he said so, then I understand your position (not caring if it's legal); but you ought to be able to understand my point of view if you realize that I *do* believe in God and I *do* believe that he said it's wrong to be gay. So, if I believe it's okay as long as the government says it is, then what am I?
Yeah, that's right, a hypocrite.
>"I appear to be edging towards fundamentalism."
I think the right place to be is somewhere in between a fundamentalist and tolerationist.
I believe there are absolutes. I believe there are fundamental truths, and until you can show that something I though was a fundamental truth isn't, I'll stick to it. I believe in God, I believe the Bible is his word, and the Bible says no gays.
So, if you can convince me there is no God, or that the Bible is not his word, or that it doesn't actually say "no gays", I'm ready to accept gays. Until then I consider it to be sinful and something which should be illegal.
If I was the President of the US/Prime Minister of Canada, I would be doing everything in my power to make it illegal.
In fact I am doing everything in my power to make it so, but unfortunately my power is limited to signing petitions, and those don't seem to be helping much here in Canada (wanna guess why they refuse to have a referendum on the question of gay marriage in Canada? Because they're afraid the vote would be "no".)
>That was competely incoherent, and did nothing but make you look like a fundamentalist gay-basher.
Oh I dunno, I thought the first sentence or so was pretty coherent...
Seriously though, I should have read that over again before posting it because, even besides the fact that it's rather poorly formatted, that didn't exactly come out the way I wanted it to.
So, again, sorry for rambling.
I hope this post makes more sense.
Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.